Sitting of 4 February 1988

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

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 11 February.
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CENTRE FROM BUCKINGHAM BILL (By Order)
  NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Sheepmeat
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations within the European Council of Ministers with regard to the sheepmeat regime.
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on European Community proposals for the reform of the sheepmeat regime; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The current focus of discussions in the Council is on the need for budgetary stabilisers—in the sheep as well as in other sectors. Discussions on the Commission's proposals for longer-term reform of the regime have as yet barely started.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all of us in the House—and, indeed, on a far wider basis—on the successful outcome of his litigation in the European Court, which will be to the benefit of the British sheep farmer? Will he seek to ensure that those farmers who lost premium will be recompensed by the Commission? In the broader context of his negotiations, will he seek to achieve an outcome which will reflect the vital interest of the farmers in the upland areas of the west of England and Wales, who are entirely dependent on the sheepmeat industry and who have very little opportunity for alternative enterprise?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend has said, the European Court found in our favour in three cases taken up by the British Government this week on the imposition of clawback on sheepmeat not eligible for variable premium. The Court found that that was illegal, and it will not now be imposed. The Court also found that calculations of ewe premium for British producers in 1984 and 1985 were unfair and must be redone.
    My hon. Friend asked about repayments to sheep producers. We calculate that the amount is approximately £11 million, and we shall now have to engage in discussions on how to repay British farmers. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this is yet another sign that British persistence can pay off, and that we fight for our legitimate interests.
    In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, I have spent a good deal of time recently in the west country. I am well aware of the importance of sheep to west country farmers, and will bear that in mind in the review of the regime which we shall undertake later this year.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for brief questions, please?
    Mr. Wigley: While welcoming the fact that one hurdle has been overcome, will the Minister do all that he can to speed up the payment of that money? Will he look ahead to circumstances in which there is longer-term negotiation? Can he ensure that areas which are totally dependent on sheepmeat and have no alternative products are safeguarded by an income guarantee; or, alternatively,

    1141
    that sheep production is identified with that land and will not be sucked into the richer parts, to the detriment of the hill areas?
    Mr. MacGregor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we shall have to study the judgment and discuss the matter with the Commission. I can, however, assure him that I shall be anxious to sort the matter out as quickly as possible—[Interruption.]
    The hon. Gentleman's second point goes rather wider than the review of the sheepmeat regime. However, although these matters are complex, I am aware of the importance of any changes in the agricultural sector for hill farmers who are dependent on sheep. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) remains patient, he may be called, but he will not be called from a sedentary position.
    Sir Hector Monro: Let me add my congratulations on my right hon. Friend's undoubted success in Europe—and, of course, the congratulations of the National Farmers Union in Scotland.
    Will my right hon. Friend maintain — indeed, redouble — his outstanding efforts on behalf of the uplands? There is no profitable alternative there to sheep and cattle farming. Will my right hon. Friend therefore do all that he can to keep the highlands profitable?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The review of the regime generally will involve complex, long and hard negotiations. Details on most aspects of the Commission's plans are still lacking, and the attitudes of other member states are not known. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that my general approach will be to resist changes which would discriminate against the United Kingdom's interest, to secure arrangements which will allow fair competition, and to enable the United Kingdom, which very much includes Scottish farmers, to capitalise on our natural production advantages.
    Dr. David Clark: In his review of last week, did the Minister note that many upland sheep farmers are on perilously low incomes? Will he give the House a categorical guarantee that he will not bargain away any concessions in the sheepmeat regime in order to obtain advantages elsewhere? What proposals has he to improve the incomes of those farmers who rely on sheep?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the whole, farmers in the livestock sector and in the uplands did not experience the same drop in their incomes as those in the cereal areas, who were heavily affected by weather last year. Obviously we are entering into complex negotiations here. Because of the rising costs of the sheepmeat sector we must accept stabilisers in sheepmeat, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with that. I cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I have clearly said, I shall be fighting to enable all our sheep farmers to capitalise on their natural advantages.
    Mr. Key: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of all the breeds of sheep on this island, the only one that is particularly useful and has tremendous potential for export to hot developing countries, is the Wiltshire horned sheep? Will he do all that he can to promote it? Is he aware that, like so much else in Wiltshire, it is good to eat and is not woolly?
    Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says. I cannot speak precisely on that breed of sheep, but this year
    1142
    we have managed to secure the renewal to January 1989 of clawback exemption for exports to non-EEC countries, and that will be helpful to our sheep exporters.

    North Sea Cod and Saithe
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the approximate dates at which reviews may be undertaken of the total allowable catches for the current year of North sea cod and saithe.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Scientific advice on these stocks is given by the advisory committee on fisheries management of the International Council of the Exploration of the Sea, which next meets on 16 to 26 May. Should the report of this meeting provide a basis for reviewing the current year's TACs, the first step would be to have consultations between the European Community and Norway, as these are both joint stocks, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Ross: The Minister must accept that in a very real sense inshore fishermen run small businesses and that, if they are to do so successfully, they must be given some stability. Therefore, can we have TACs based on two or three years?
    Mr. Gummer: I wish that we could. The problem is that fish do not obey the natural rules that we would like them to do. Therefore, we have to watch, because we are concerned that the next generation should have fish to fish. I should like to give fishermen that stability, but I put conservation first and last, so I always fight for the conservation answer.
    Mr. John Greenway: When my right hon. Friend looks at the review dates for North sea cod quota, will he take note of the problems affecting the fishermen of Filey? Will he bear in mind that those fishermen can only fish for cod from October onwards, and if our United Kingdom quota expires they will be in terrible financial peril?
    Mr. Gummer: I see my hon. Friend's point, but we try to share out the quota fairly among fishermen in the United Kingdom. One problem is that sometimes individual fishermen's groups do not share out their quota to enable it to last a whole year. It would be unfair to take quota away from areas which have dealt with the matter properly in order to hand it to people who may not have been so sensible.
    Dr. Godman: Total allowable catches and quotas are an important element in fisheries management. Has the Minister received representations proposing a mesh size increase to 125 mm for cod stock? As the northern North sea demersal fisheries are made up of cod, whiting and haddock — they are mixed fisheries — and such an increase would have a disastrous effect upon our fishermen, will he assure the House that he is not contemplating such a change vis-à-vis the North sea cod fisheries?
    Mr. Gummer: When the hon. Gentleman began his question I did not know which of the various groups he was going to support. My problem is that I have received applications and been subject to pressures from all of them —those who want larger mesh to avoid the problems of strict control over TACs and quotas, and those who want

    1143
    smaller mesh because they want to catch whiting. I try to find the best possible answer in all the circumstances and in response to the pressures, but, above all, I put conservation first.

    Tree Planting
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he plans to take to encourage tree planting.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): There are existing grants available for tree planting and we shall also be introducing a farm woodland scheme later this year following the passage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill. In addition, the Community set-aside scheme, on which discussions are continuing in the Council of Ministers, is expected to include provision for woodlands on arable land.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time of very large surpluses, it is ironic and regrettable that such a large percentage of our timber requirements are still imported? I welcome the new schemes, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative to examine ways of improving the management of the existing 270,000 hectares of farm woodland? What measures does he propose to increase farm woodland management schemes of existing woodlands?
    Mr. Thompson: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do all that we can to grow more trees, and the schemes that I outlined in my initial reply will largely cover that. Advice from ADAS is always available on all aspects of management, and I am sure that that will be taken up more and more as the importance of trees becomes known to farmers.
    Ms. Quin: In view of the concern that has been expressed about tree planting in the wrong places—for example, the large numbers of conifer plantations in many of our beautiful upland areas—will the Minister consult his hon. Friend the Chancellor and urge that the tax concessions made available for this activity be reduced or eliminated?
    Mr. Thompson: Taxation is strictly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not intend to wander down that path. Forestry, such as that described by the hon. Lady, is the province of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), may I ask the Minister to look carefully at the scheme being put forward by Dartington Trust to help farmers manage existing small woodlands more effectively for commercial purposes?
    Mr. Thompson: I will do as my hon. Friend asks.

    Farming Methods
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is conducting into the environmental consequences of less intensive farming methods.
    Mr. Gummer: The Ministery is studying the environmental effects of various forms of less intensive farming in
    1144
    a wide range of research projects, and we shall be closely monitoring the effects of supporting traditional farming practices in the environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that the de-intensification of farming practices will help this nation and the people by reducing the pollution of the air? It will mean a massive reduction in these wicked and terrible chemicals that are planted on our land, in our environment and in the air that we breathe. Is the Minister aware that I believe in the birds and the bees, the squirrels and the rabbits? It will help the environment of our nation if the Minister travels the right road. What sort of options are open? What is he going to encourage the farmers to do?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's vigour and enthusiasm come from the fact that he can enjoy the most varied diet that people have been able to enjoy for generations. That is because of the sensible use of modern farming techniques. I would not want to do anything to denigrate the important advances in farming techniques over the past 100 years, many of which have been made possible by benign chemicals. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that, for the first time, we have made major advances in encouraging organic farming and in research into various forms of de-intensification. I cannot say, however, that I have any specific research programme on either squirrels or rabbits.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer to that rather robust question from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). Will he bear in mind that real advantages will be apparent in East Anglia, for example, not merely for the birds, bees and butterflies, but for cuckoo spit and the general enhancement of the countryside, if we do something about the hedgerows?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it was sensible that three of the environmentally sensitive areas that were recently designated included the Suffolk river valleys, the Brecklands and the Broads. We are going to great trouble 1.0 ensure that the farming practices carried out in those areas will encourage all that my hon. Friend would want, including cuckoo spit.
    Mr. Ron Davies: If the Minister seriously favours less-intensive farming, can he explain to the House why the Ministry is currently considering proposals to pay farmers more than £100 an acre to do nothing?
    Mr. Gummer: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not read our proposals. We are not going to pay farmers to do nothing. We are going to pay some farmers to look after the land in a way that is environmentally satisfactory, but will not produce extra crops which we cannot sell and which are an additional cost to the taxpayer. We believe that to be a sensible policy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose Government policy, he should first read that policy.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the level of the green pound.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless there is a substantial devaluation of the green pound in the

    1145
    near future, farmers in Suffolk and elsewhere in Britain face the prospect of trading at a substantial competitive disadvantage in relation to farmers in other EEC member states? That is a particularly grave prospect in the light of the difficult year that many experienced in 1987.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be aware that the devaluations are normally best made as part of the price fixing, when a balance can be struck in the light of all considerations. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the devaluation in the 1987 price fixing, which reduced United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts by seven points for beef and by 5·5 points in every other sector, improved our competitive position in relation to all our main EEC partners. We have not yet had the Commission's proposals for the coming year. Therefore, it would be premature to say what the position might be, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Livsey: I am sure the Minister will have noted that his Department's figures show that farm incomes in real terms are now 35 per cent. of what they were 10 years ago. Does he agree that a substantial devaluation now of the green pound, approximately 19 per cent. negative, would be of extreme advantage to British producers, who are suffering greatly because of low farm incomes?
    Mr. MacGregor: I believe that the position varies between the different sectors. I have yet to see the Commission's proposals, and we shall make our judgment in the light of them. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has said, I believe that British farmers could compete very well in a common market, but they find it extremely difficult to compete in the uncommon market in which they find themselves. As well as doing away with the green currencies as soon as possible, have the Government any plans to join the European monetary system, which would also help?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the question of the European monetary system is a matter for Ministers other than myself. My hon. Friend asks about getting rid of the monetary compensatory amount system, but he will know that that is one of the most complex areas of the common agricultural policy. The Commission has set the objective of abolishing the monetary compensatory amount system by 1992, when the single European market comes into effect. I strongly support that policy and have already made that clear in the Community.
    Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that MCAs are causing particular difficulty in the United Kingdom pig industry at the present time? What steps do the Government intend to take to stop many pig farmers going bankrupt before MCAs on pigmeat are withdrawn?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear to our pig farmers that I accept the objective of removing MCAs from the pigmeat sector, and I shall be actively pursuing that in future negotiations. The House should be under no illusions. This is one of the most contested areas in any Council discussion, with varying points of view taken by different member states. I have made it clear that it is my
    1146
    intention to press hard in the price-fixing negotiations to secure further improvements for the pigmeat sector, because I understand the position that it faces.
    Mr. Lord: May I underline the point that has just been made to my right hon. Friend? He will know that Suffolk has a tremendous number of pig farmers and producers, who are among the most efficient in the world and who do not normally expect help because they understand that the industry is cyclical. However, they are now in real danger, and, unless there is some real, urgent, direct and positive help, most of the pig farmers will go under. I beg my right hon. Friend to examine the issue with great urgency.
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend, who represents the constituency adjoining mine, in which there are large numbers of pig producers, that I have been well aware for some time of the situation in the industry. I have already made clear my position on MCAs. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to note that last Friday, as a result of United Kingdom pressure, backed by some other member states, a scheme for the reintroduction of private storage aids has now been accepted and will come into place on 15 February. I believe that that will be of some help.
    As my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, there is a pig cycle, and all around the world there is now surplus pig production.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the effects of the introduction of the community charge on farmers and farm workers.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: I have received a number of representations about the effects on farmers and farm workers of the proposed introduction of the community charge.
    Mr. Pike: Is it not true that many farm workers who are poorly paid have their rates paid for them with the provision of the property in which they live? Once they have to pay the new poll tax, will they not be heavily penalised? If the farmers pay it for them, will not the farm workers have to pay income tax on that payment?
    Mr. Thompson: The National Farmers Union and the farm workers' unions are seeking clarification from the Inland Revenue on that precise point.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend share the surprise of many Conservative Members to hear Opposition Members criticising the community charge, when their policy is to rate agricultural property, which would put up food prices and devastate farm incomes?
    Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is correct. Agriculture receives about £450 million by not being rated. That increases every year as some authorities, such as my own, put rates up by 40 per cent.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that rural depopulation will be significantly increased if the poll tax is imposed on agricultural workers without full compensation being taken into account in agricultural wages board settlements? Does he also accept that it is an absurdity that the poorest farm labourer, on a wage

    1147
    counted in tens rather than hundreds of pounds, will pay exactly the same poll tax as the richest landowner and the wealthiest farmer?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If the poll tax— the community charge — [HON. MEMBERS: "The poll tax."] If the community charge — [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be here in a minute, and Opposition Members can tell her that.
    If and when the community charge is introduced, moving will make little difference, because the charge will be equal and level throughout the country.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent a constituency of 2,000 square miles, most of them agricultural? Is he further aware that the chairman of my constituency party is a farmer and that he and other farmers have examined carefully the effect of the community charge on their workers? They have calculated that it will be a matter of swings and roundabouts. What workers are being paid now in the way of rates will be offset in their pay. Farmers will end up paying no more, and the workers will be no worse and no better off.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. Every aspect is considered when a farmer discusses wages with his men. The community charge will be part of that.

    Agricultural Workers (Wages)
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet trade union representatives to discuss agricultural workers' wages; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: No, Sir. Such matters are for the independent Agricultural Wages Board.
    Mr. Grocott: Given the chronic problem of low pay among agricultural workers, where the average wage is about 73 per cent. of comparable jobs in industry, and where excessively long hours are worked, does the Minister agree that in this year's pay round there should be a substantial pay increase for agricultural workers and, most important of all, they should establish a 35-hour week?
    Mr. Thompson: The average wage for agricultural workers is about £146, including overtime. The matters of detail are for the Agricultural Wages Board and the unions to negotiate.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that it is not the Government's policy to introduce a prices and incomes policy for farm workers?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister aware that over 11,000 farm workers' families receive family income supplement, and that if the scheme were fully implemented the figure would double? Does this not prove that agricultural wages are far too low?
    Mr. Thompson: It proves the effectiveness of family income supplement. The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman include people who are self-employed and a large number of people in the fishing industry.

    Conservation Headlands
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on conservation headlands, as pioneered by the cereals and gamebirds research project.
    Mr. Gummer: The work of the cereals and gamebirds research project is a useful development in the management of cereals land and has made a valuable contribution to our thinking on environmentally sensitive areas. I am delighted that we have been able to incorporate the project's techniques in the management prescription for the Brecklands environmentally sensitive area.
    Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, not least because the chairman of the cereals and gamebirds research project is a constituent of mine. I am glad that his work is duly acknowledged. I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the proposition that the most positive role should be found for conservation headlands within the extensification regulations, Community schemes and any other set-aside programme that may be envisaged.
    Mr. Gummer: Yes, I am keen to support what has already been pioneered by Mr. Oliver-Bellasis. I hope that we can consider some of the proposals,, as we are considering those put forward by the Nature Conservancy Council in the Brecklands scheme. I hope that we can show how the headlands can make a real contribution to the improvement of the environment.
    Sir Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend's interest in conservation headlands is very much appreciated, but does he agree that, on the basis of existing knowledge, there is no other known system in respect of arable fields which has more beneficial results for wild flowers, insect s, birds and other forms of wildlife? Will he therefore continue to encourage the introduction of conservation headlands?
    Mr. Gummer: Yes, there is no doubt that the Game Conservancy Council does much more research into this than anyone else. We welcome its proposals and hope that the experiement in the Brecklands will be successful. If it is, we can consider its extension elsewhere. I hope that we shall also consider the other proposals, because they might provide an additional armoury and another way of implementing my hon. Friend's proposal to bring wildlife back to parts of the country which have long been denuded of it.

    Set-aside Scheme
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions in the Agriculture Council on the European Community's proposed set-aside scheme.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Council has recently considered proposals for an enlarged set-aside scheme for arable land. Certain issues remain to be settled, but the German presidency has now accepted, as we insisted, that a set-aside scheme should be complementary to stabilisers, and not a substitute for them.
    Mr. Davies: What arguments will the Minister use to the Prime Minister to endorse the Commission's proposals to pay farmers to do nothing?
    Mr. MacGregor: I must repeat what was said to the hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend earlier. The hon. Gentleman is doing the interest of the countryside no good by pursuing this line. It is not a question of paying farmers for doing nothing. In set-aside proposals there will be arrangements, through codes of practice with the Countryside Commission and others, particularly in the wider set-aside which we are discussing in the Community, for considering the conservation and environmental aspects of any set-aside proposal. It is important that everyone should recognise that there is a cost to a farmer for managing his land, even if it is not growing crops. The set-aside payments acknowledge that.
    Mr. Curry: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is important to resist the pressure to weaken the set-aside programme by allowing what is known as green fallowing, because if that happens on an extensive scale and without the strictest controls we shall simply be transferring the problem from one sector to another and building up even greater problems in the livestock sector?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are mixed views about green fallowing. Obviously it has environmental benefits but equally, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, unless we get the system right there will be serious implications for, and effects on, livestock producers in other areas, and for overproduction. I have pressed those points during our discussions on green fallowing in the European Community. If that is accepted as part of set-aside, it should be optional on member states, which must be able to make up their own minds. I know that the National Farmers Union is worried about green fallowing, for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the equivalent of the set-aside scheme paying workers to watch lathes, brush them down and oil them? When one puts aside all the jargon, is not the effect of the scheme that we are paying farmers £150 per acre to watch grass grow?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point. As I think he accepts, we first need to deal with the surplus production in the Community. That means that more land must come out of agricultural production. That land is visited by millions of our fellow citizens who want to see an attractive countryside, and not one set down to scrub, bracken and defoliation. There is an important environmental aspect in the set-aside scheme. It is of interest to us all that the land should look attractive.

    Fish Landings (Newlyn)
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of fish landed by British vessels at Newlyn from January to October 1987.
    Mr. Gummer: The answer is £11,926,831.
    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those who turned Newlyn into the top port in England and Wales as far as the value of fish landings are concerned, during that period? Does he agree that the figure that he has just quoted gives the lie to the myth that is constantly spread, that the fishing industry in Cornwall is declining? It is not. It is booming and flourishing.
    Mr. Gummer: We are impressed by the way in which Newlyn has reacted to the problems of the shortage of fish.
    1150
    Fishermen in Newlyn have not only caught what is there, but have marketed it most efficiently. I hope that some of the other ports in the country will learn from Newlyn and from the other successful and go-ahead ports which have made that free enterprise part of the economy such a success.

    Trade Concessions
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of any current trade concessions that exist between the EEC and Eastern European countries for food and drink products.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Romania and Yugoslavia, together with many non-Eastern European countries, benefit from reduced rates of duty on some food and drink products under the Community's generalised scheme of preferences. Yugoslavia, like many other Mediterranean countries, also benefits from a co-operation agreement with the EC.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend give assurances that over the longer term those arrangements will be phased out and that our citizens and farmers will not be disadvantaged vis-a-vis those Eastern European countries?
    Mr. Thompson: I cannot give an assurance that the arrangements will be phased out. The arrangements are complicated and voluminous. All sorts of countries, for all sorts of reasons, benefit.
    Mr. Cryer rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Litherland. No. 14.
    Mr. Cryer: My name is Cryer.
    Mr. Speaker: I know. The hon. Gentleman has been called once before.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Ralph Howell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the rise in food prices since 1979; what has been the rise in prices generally; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average annual increase in food prices in the period October 1974 to May 1979; what were the comparable figures for the period May 1979 to December 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Between May 1979 and December 1987 the average annual rate of increase in food prices was 5·8 per cent., while the increase for the all-items retail prices index was 7·8 per cent. The current annual rates are 3·7 per cent. for both food prices and the all-items index.
    Mr. Howell: In view of my hon. Friend's reply, and because consumer expenditure on food since 1979 has fallen from 21 to 15·6 per cent., farm incomes are at their second lowest level since the war and farm assets have fallen to 66 per cent. of what they were in 1979. In view of that, does my hon. Friend agree that there can be no justification in any call for lower producer prices?
    Mr. Thompson: The consumers benefit from all that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We now have a very steady food price policy which benefits all of us and which in turn, because of its steadiness, must benefit the farmer.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Instead of jacking up land prices by subsidising unused land, why not let the market operate, let land prices fall and the cost of producing food fall in the long term?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be in favour of that, or in favour of turning his constituency into derelict areas of docks and thistles. However, they would be in favour of steady food prices.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the United Kingdom pig industry.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: As a result of pressure from the United Kingdom and other member states, the pigmeat management committee has recently decided to reintroduce a scheme of aids for private storage and this should help to strengthen the market. Our pig producers are also concerned about the monetary compensatory amounts payable on imports of pigmeat. My commitment and that of my right hon. Friends is to see MCAs abolished in this sector. There are widely differing views within the EC on this issue and it will not be easy to achieve.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his very full answer and his letters, which clearly show his understanding of the problems of Lancashire pig farmers. Will he look at two things? The first is the commutation of further payments to the Aujeszky's disease fund. Secondly, will he support the initiative taken by Back Benchers to write to supermarkets and butchery chains to encourage further consumption of home-produced pork?
    Mr. Thompson: The Aujeszky's disease fund is committed on an annual and regular basis to the banks and it would be impossible to discontinue those payments until the overdraft has been paid off. I am very glad to hear of the initiative of my hon. Friend and his Back-Bench colleagues in writing to supermarkets and other places asking them to promote pork, and I shall do all I can to encourage that to happen.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister aware that in the Grampian region, where the bulk of Scottish pig production is centred, many pig producers are facing bankruptcy? What immediate hope can he hold out to them of eliminating unfair competition from Denmark and Holland? Will he look at subsidised feedstuffs for the pig industry?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Lady will know that we reintroduced private storage aid, not without a struggle in the Community. We are looking at the use of imported cereal substitutes on the continent to see how they affect the market.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister remember the plight of pig farmers in Northern Ireland when he is giving consideration to what steps he will take to help the pig
    1152
    industry across the United Kingdom, and will he keep in mind the representations that have been made to him from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Thompson: Northern Ireland and Scotland are, of course, very important in the pig industry, and I shall give special consideration to those areas. In fact, I have already been in conversation with the Ministers responsible.

    Agricultural Wages
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present average agricultural wage.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Most recently available figures show that for the year ending September 1987 average gross weekly earnings for whole-time adult men were £146.
    Mr. McCartney: Is the Minister aware that some of the poorest paid workers in this country are facing deregulation of rents in the private sector and in rural areas? Because of that, about 40 per cent. of their disposable income will be spent on rent increases. Is it not a disgrace that the Government are preparing to do that to the rural poor? Will the Minister make a statement, saying that the Ministry supports this attempt to deregulate rents in rural areas?
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. For example, 40 per cent. of farm workers live in accommodation provided by their employer and pay little or no rent, which should be taken into account when considering the £146 average wage. There will be little difference under the new regulations.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February 1988.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): 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. Fraser: Will the Prime Minister accept, from those of us who were with the nurses at their demonstration yesterday, that they had the vast, visible and vocal support of the public? As long as wards are closed and operations cancelled, in London and elsewhere, the Health Service is not serving the patient. What is at fault is not the right hon. Lady's familiar statistics, but her judgment of the country's need.
    The Prime Minister: Conservative Members and patients are grateful to those nurses who did not go on strike, who stayed to carry out their duties, looking after their patients, and who are concerned that about 400 operations will have been postponed because of the activities of this week. I find it astonishing that some nurses should go on strike when a pay review body is considering their claim. The review body was granted to them because they, like some other professions, such as the

    1153
    armed forces and the police, cannot go on strike. We felt that they should have this special review body to make its own recommendations on nurses' pay.
    Mr. Ward: Given the Attorney-General's announcement yesterday about the inability to withdraw charitable status from the Unification Church, will my right hon. Friend give her support to an urgent review of the law on charitable status?
    The Prime Minister: I read in great detail the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I know that some people were disappointed, but it is difficult to get a precise definition of charities suitable to the circumstances. I shall pass on what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend will be very much aware that it is easy to analyse problems in this sphere; it is very difficult to draft something that is precisely suitable for what is wanted. I shall consider the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Kinnock: Following the statements by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday, and other statements and counter-statements by Members of the Government over recent weeks, there is considerable public confusion about the Government's policy on nurses' pay. — [Interruption.] In an effort to clear that confusion, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government's submission to the pay body is published?
    The Prime Minister: No. It is not customary for that submission to be published. It is customary for each side to give its submission to the other, and that is why the Government's submission was made available to the unions. It is very strange that when these papers are made available to the other side they somehow find their way into public perception. But that is not our practice. There is no confusion in Government policy over setting up a pay review body or about the way in which we have dealt with it. That is a matter of fact.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is not commonplace for the presidents of the royal colleges, or for the British Medical Association, to have to take the kind of stand that they have taken to in recent months. Nor is it commonplace for nurses to be driven into the protest action that they have been taking. As the staff side submissions have been made public for many weeks, why will the Prime Minister not make it clear where the Government stand? Will she confirm the report yesterday in a reputable journal, Nursing Times, that the Government have submitted that
    "the total resources now provided for health authorities in 1988–1989 will be expected to cover all pay and price increases."
    Is that true?
    The Prime Minister: The pay review body will consider the proposals put to it from both sides. It will consider the new structure, which is vital, and which has been agreed. The review body will put figures to that. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was not a review body for nurses in his time. May I also point out that the way in which his Government dealt with the review body proposals—[Interruption.] This point is material. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the way in which his Government dealt with the review body proposals for doctors' pay. May I remind him that in 1976 and 1977 the then Government did implement the doctors and dentists review body proposals in full, but when in 1976 inflation
    1154
    was 16·5 per cent., the review body recommendation was 2·2 per cent. It protested to the Government about the restraint measures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."]—on the pay system and structures, which were not compatible with the duties that it had to carry out. There are no such restraints on the nurses pay review body.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any strike action by Ford workers following their rejection of the recent pay offer will imperil their jobs and many thousands of jobs throughout the country among people working in the motor components manufacturing business, including nearly 300 of my constituents? Does she agree that the current wave of strikes, if continued, will seriously damage Britain's new and hard-won reputation for having kicked the strike habit?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that strikes put the jobs of the strikers in jeopardy. They also jeopardise the jobs of those who supply components and other materials to the factories. If the latters' jobs are in jeopardy, they should blame the Ford workers.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that the reason why nurses, doctors, other Health Service staff and patients were on the streets yesterday was that top salaries have risen 30 per cent. and manual workers' wages have gone down by 6 per cent. under this Government? Does she realise, further, that they were also protesting at the suggestion that nurses might only not get more money in the Budget, but the health authorities may be obliged to pay all the money that is awarded? Does the Prime Minister not think that, just once, the public tide might be right and that Queen Canute might be wrong?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated in reply to a previous question that under a previous Government, which the Liberal party supported, the doctors' and dentists' review body was put under substantial restraints over what it could recommend, as a result of which it recommended pay increases that were greatly below the increase in inflation. That is what the hon. Gentleman supported. Under this Government the increases for doctors and nurses have been substantially above the increases in inflation. Labour put down doctors' and nurses' pay by something like 20 per cent. in real terms and the Tories have put up nurses' and doctors' pay by about 30 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively. That is an excellent record and that is what the hon. Gentleman cannot bear.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of support for her insistence that reform of EEC funding should depend upon a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? Does she agree that allowing the EEC a fourth resource—a percentage on GDP rather than VAT — would make EEC spending less, rather than more, responsible, would increase the burdens on the British taxpayer and should be firmly resisted?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the key to the European Council meeting is whether all

    1155
    member countries are really prepared to tackle the matter of surplus commodities, in particular wheat, barley and oil seeds. They are a great drain upon the financial budget. We must tackle those, and every country must do so.
    With regard to how the budget is financed, a fourth resource, related to GNP, would alter the way in which the money was raised, and it is possible that some countries with a rising GNP are not paying enough. We shall insist that the Fontainebleau abatement continues. We do not wish either to gain or lose on that abatement.
    Q.3 Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware of inefficiency at the top of the DHSS? Is she aware that the chief executive officer of the Rochdale local authority wrote to ask for a public inquiry into the running of the Rochdale health authority, and seven months later he was told that his original letter was lost? Is she further aware that I asked for another, different type of equally involved inquiry, and that 17 weeks later, when I asked the Leader of the House to take up the matter, I was told that my letter, too, had been lost? Is she aware that the cynical name of the Department now is the "Department of Stealth and Total Obscurity"? Will she investigate the inefficiency of this Department at the top level?
    The Prime Minister: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get a reply to his letter. It does not seem to have prevented considerable increases in cash coining to Rochdale health authority—[interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the cash allocation to the Rochdale health authority went up 10 per cent.— [Interruption.] —in cash terms and capital was up by £6·3 million. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend join the Royal College of Nursing in condemning strikes within the NHS, and remind the Leader of the Opposition that during the two most recent major stoppages in the Health Service, in 1979 and 1982, on both occasions the effect was to increase the waiting lists in hospitals by more than 100,000? Is this what the Labour party means by its concern for patient care?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I join my hon. Friend. The nurses were given a special review body because the Royal College of Nursing did not go on strike. It was noticeable yesterday that the RCN nurses stayed at their posts. Nurses who belonged to other unions—not very many— went on strike. Nevertheless, we think that the activities
    1156
    this week by a few of the nurses will have delayed about 400 operations. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen, as well as Conservative Members, would be concerned about that, but lion. Gentlemen seem to be more interested in having strikes than in the welfare of the patients.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlile: What is the right hon. Lady's view of the shocking fact that officers as senior as superintendent in the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been held to have attempted to pervert the course of justice? Does she agree that nothing less than the resignation of the Chief Constable will satisfy national and international concern about the Stalker-Sampson inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already dealt fully in his statement of 25 January with the question of criminal proceedings. I have nothing to add to what he said. The hon. and learned Gentleman is also aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told the House that the next step is for the findings of the Stalker-Sampson inquiry to be considered in the context of possible disciplinary proceedings, and he has promised a statement on matters within his responsibility concerning procedures and control within the RUC.
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Birmingham about 5,000 youngsters sat their entrance test for the King Edward foundation grammer school? Is this not ample evidence that parents have a high regard for academic achievements within the schooling system, in schools which the Labour party would have destroyed many years ago? Is not the great Education Reform Bill an attempt to develop those academic schools throughout the length and breadth of the land?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Parents are always anxious to get their children into good schools which not only serve the pupils who go to them but help to raise standards in their own areas and all over the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state 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 8 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Motion on the Local Government Act (Police and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities) Precepts Limitation Order.
TUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY — Debate on a motion on televising the proceedings of the House of Commons.
Motions on the Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority), (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority) and (Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority) Orders.
WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Completion of remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Motion on the Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order.
THURSDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.
Debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Kinnock: In view of the completely inadequate performance of the Government in the wake of the cover-up over the Stalker-Sampson report, when will the House have an opportunity to debate the issues raised by the Government's behaviour?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. John Marks, chairman of the British Medical Association, said yesterday:
"There is a crisis in the health service and it would be irresponsible not to debate it."?
Does the Leader of the House agree with Dr. Marks, and will he provide a debate in Government time in the near future?
Did the Leader of the House notice that on Monday the Minister for Overseas Development responded to criticisms of the Government's huge cuts in overseas development aid and the demands for a debate on the subject by saying that it could be raised on Thursday afternoon, and that he would be more than happy that there should be such a debate? Can the Leader of the House gratify his hon. Friend and the Opposition by making speedy arrangements to provide such a debate in Government time?
Can the Leader of the House give us a date for the long-awaited debate on the social fund?
We are to have a statement later today on the Government's policy towards the Inner London education authority. It will mean a fundamental change in the policy put forward at the general election by the Tory party and in the policy presented in the Education Reform Bill, which is currently going through the House. From the various press reports it appears that there is reason to suppose that the change is to be so great as to warrant a completely separate Bill. Will the Leader of the House tell
1158
us whether he proposes to continue with the current arrangement, which would show a completely disreputable attitude towards the proceedings of the House, or whether he will at the very least provide the House with a motion that will give hon. Members the opportunity to decide whether a separate ILEA Bill should be presented to the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The Leader of the Opposition asked me five questions. The first was about the Northern Ireland situation. As I told the right hon. Gentleman last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement to the House on the matter. I think that is the best way to proceed initially. I recognise the concern, and of course we shall have to consider a debate. However, I would prefer to wait until after the statement has been made by my right hon. Friend.
With regard to the National Health Service, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, a debate took place recently on an Opposition motion, which was, I think, helpful to the House. I recognise that we shall have to come back to that matter, and indeed we shall do so, but I cannot give a time for a debate in the immediate future.
As for overseas development, I was present when my hon. Friend answered questions on Monday and I heard what he said. I am looking at the matter but I cannot provide a date for a debate in the immediate future.
Dealing with the social fund debate, the right hon. Gentleman raised that question last week. I am looking at this and I hope to be able to announce a debate in the very near future.
With regard to ILEA, of course I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but I recognise the concern about this matter. I made it very clear during the debate on the timetable motion earlier this week that if a new matter of major importance arose we would have urgent discussions through the usual channels to see what would be the best way to proceed. I believe that in what the right hon. Gentleman said there may be the germ of an idea on how best the House could proceed in these matters.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend note that since the debate on the timetable motion on Thursday I have been approached by a number of hon. Members asking me why I have not arranged for a debate on the Procedure Committee reports that have been waiting to be debated for some years? I have had to tell them that it does not rest with me. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could help me out and try to ensure that we have a debate this year, as otherwise we shall be getting much too far through this Session.
Mr. Wakeham: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he requires, but I hope to do rather better than that. I recognise that there are a number of outstanding matters which the House wishes to consider. I am hoping to arrange a debate in the relatively near future. Indeed, I am having discussions through the usual channels about this, because matters of procedure are best dealt with by as much agreement as possible throughout the House.
Mr. James Wallace: Has the Leader of the House read the Official Report for last Thursday, when you, Mr. Speaker, indicated that Scottish hon. Members whom you were unable to call to ask a question on the statement dealing with the Government's

1159
attitude to school closures might well be called in a subsequent debate? Does the Leader of the House intend to have a debate on the prayer in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends dealing with that order?
Secondly, has the Leader of the House had time to consider early-day motions 608 and 609 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn):
[That this House notes that benefit claimants entitled to flat-rate payments to correct the error in the calculation of the retail price index are entitled to an £8·00 payment for each order book they possess, and that therefore people with combined order books for several eligible benefits, including married pensioners, are entitled to only one payment; believes this to be grossly unfair and unnecessarily bureaucratic; recognises that it will cause understandable distress and anger for the thousands of people who possess combined order books for convenience, and considerable embarrassment for the Post Office staff who administer the payments; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to review the payments procedure as a matter of urgency.]
[That this House notes that an estimated 175,000 pensioners claiming the higher rate attendance allowance with combined order books will lose up to £5·00 as a result of the Government's decision to pay a flat-rate payment as compensation to those who lost benefit due to the miscalculation of the retail price index; believes this will cause unnecessary hardship and distress; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reimburse them as a matter of urgency.]
They deal with the situation that has arisen in which supplementary benefit claimants who have one combined book are receiving only one payment of £8 to make up for the error in the retail prices index, whereas those who have two books are getting more than one payment. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing considerable distress, irritation and anger in many parts of the country? Will the Government consider this matter with urgency and bring forward a statement showing that they are prepared to retrieve the situation?
Mr. Wakeham: With regard to Scottish schools and the question which the hon. Gentleman asked me last week, I am looking for an opportunity in the near future to debate the prayer that has been tabled against the order.
As to the matter of the retail prices index, I believe that Ministers have made the matter very clear indeed. However, if there is any confusion, I shall look into it and discuss it with my right hon. Friend to see whether there is any way in which the matter can be clarified.
Sir John Farr: Can my right hon. Friend arrange a fairly early debate on a report relating to miscarriages of justice produced by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and published in the 1981–82 Session? It referred to the setting up of an independent review body, as the Committee described it. In view of the serious misgivings about recent appeal court decisions, I believe that it would be very advantageous if we could have a debate on the recommendations of the Select Committee, which have never been debated by the House, before too long.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest. I cannot hold out the opportunity of an early debate, but I shall discuss the matter with the Home Secretary. It
1160
seems to me that the Criminal Justice Bill may provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend to air some of those points.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Given the serious situation and the marked deterioration in industrial relations in the mining industry, does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers should give early and positive consideration to these matters, and that the House should have the opportunity of a relevant debate in the near future?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the matter, but I do not think that I can offer the hon. Gentleman the chance of a debate in the immediate future. No doubt there will be opportunities to discuss it.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that two weeks ago I asked the Government for a statement on meningitis outbreaks in Britain, which are causing great concern? The situation appears to be getting worse. We have no facts and it is time that the Government made a statement on the subject.
Mr. Wakeham: I referred the matter to my right hon. Friend, as I said I would, but if the situation is changing I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend again.
Mr. Jack AshleyIs the Leader of the House aware of the case of Mrs. Busby, a victim of Opren who is disfigured and to whom sunlight will always be a means of torture? She has been offered £3,000 by Eli Lilly. Her plight reflects no credit on the House. Will the Leader of the House find the time to debate, first, the legal precedent which led to that miserly offer, secondly, the need for a system of challenging those precedents in such cases when a second legal opinion has said that the offer should have been increased eightfold, and, thirdly—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Ashley:—will he consider the need for an entirely new system whereby multinational companies a re compelled to pay fair and swift compensation?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's concern about these matters, but the proposed settlement is entirely a matter between the parties concerned. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further while the matter is still before the courts, but I shall undertake to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Numerous attacks have been made in the House, and outside by Ministers of the Dublin Government, upon certain members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have been suspended for more than a year and a half—a period of great anxiety for those officers and their families. Those allegations and attacks have now been extended to include the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. Those officers cannot reply publicly. May we have a debate on how those officers, who with their colleagues have served Northern Ireland well, can now receive a fair and unprejudiced hearing?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern, but it is important that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should properly consider these matters. When he has considered them he will make a statement to the House. I am sure that that is the best way to proceed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Can I press the Leader of the House on that point? When is the statement likely to be made? Today we were informed that the Minister has already made a statement. When will he answer the questions, and when will hon. Members for Northern Ireland be able to join the interrogation and put the case of the people of Northern Ireland? Will it be possible to have a debate in the near future on the concept of national interest and the level at which protection will be provided to those who serve the nation?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern, but I do not believe that I can add anything more, other than to say that I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend who will report to the House as soon as he can.
Mr. Michael Latham: May I first thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to a debate on agriculture, which is much appreciated. With regard to the debate next week about televising the House, will he ensure that either the Government motion or any instructions to a Select Committee will make specific reference to the fact that demonstrations in the Strangers' Gallery must in no circumstances be shown?
Mr. Wakeham: It is our intention that the debate should take place on early-day motion 15 that has already been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). Of course, the important points that my hon. Friend makes are very relevant to the debate that we shall have.
[That this House approves in principle the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television; and believes that a select committee should be appointed to consider the implementation of such an experiment and to make recommendations.]
Mr. Tony Banks: Let me draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 600.
[That this House supports in principle the televising of proceedings of the House for an experimental period of six months; calls for such televising to be conducted on a round-the-clock basis and on a dedicated television channel funded by monies voted by Parliament.]
Will he tell me whether the motion that we shall debate on Tuesday will provide for the setting up of a separate television channel for the broadcasting of Parliament on a round-the-clock basis, thus avoiding the problems of editorialising that concern so many hon. Members on both sides of the House? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the motion can be amended to include such a provision?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the motion can be amended if the hon. Gentleman does not think that it reflects the point of view that he wishes to express. However, it is not a matter for me which amendments are selected by Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the point of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman in the early-day motion would be perfectly relevant to the debate, and could be discussed then. I see a number of practical difficulties in his suggestion, but that is a subject for next week's debate.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be an alarming
1162
difference between the legal definition of "charity" and the public perception of it? May we have an early debate on the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what my hon. Friend has said. I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that she would be discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I think that that is probably the best way to proceed in the initial period.
Mr. Michael Foot: On the question of the debate on the televising of Parliament, can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister has yet made up her mind on the subject, and how many Tory Members will switch their votes according to what she tells them to do?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not usually talk about voting or whipping matters from this Dispatch Box. Traditionally, such issues as this have been on a free vote. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as always, has an open mind on the subject, but I think that most people probably know her views.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement to the House about the proposal by the Department of Trade and Industry to move the Patent Office from London to Newport, south Wales? It should be borne in mind that the matter has not been discussed by the many industries and organisations that would be involved, and that smaller businesses would suffer immensely from the resulting inconvenience and additional cost.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend, and ask whether he thinks it appropriate to make a statement. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) might care to raise the subject on an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 613? The motion is signed by 129 hon. Members from all parties. It arises from the death of my constituent Billy Walker, aged 11, who swallowed the top of a pen and was the 11th child to die in that way.
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to investigate the provision in schools of Bic pens, with separate tops, of the type that caused the death of Billy Walker of Leicester; further calls on the Government to institute research into the safety of pens provided for and to schoolchildren; and expresses its profound sympathy to the parents and family of Billy Walker.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, together with me, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs was good enough to see the boy's parents yesterday, and that he has stated that manufacturers and suppliers of unsafe pens are liable to be prosecuted now? May we have a statement from him to warn manufacturers such as Bic which still refuse even to have the decency and compassion to talk to us about their position?
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly share the sympathy expressed in the motion tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman and a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

1163
The Government have carried out investigations into the dangers of pen tops. Following completion of the research, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a press notice advising parents and others about those dangers, and made the report's findings available to United Kingdom manufacturers and importers. Suppliers are aware of their responsibilities, and are working towards the introduction of safer pen tops. Local education authorities are responsible for the issue of pens and similar items to schools, and the Department of Education and Science will consider whether any separate notification of authorities about the dangers of pen tops is needed.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), is my right hon. Friend aware that, after yesterday's announcement of the decision not to proceed with action against the Moonies, interest in the Government's response to last year's Woodfield report, which recommended a strengthening of the Charity Commission has been greatly increased? Will he urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider as speedily as possible the implications of the decision on the Moonies, so that the House can have an opportunity, as the other place has recently done, of debating the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and, as I have said, I shall refer the matter urgently to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to examine early-day motion 574, signed by a number of hon. Members, on the Government's golden share in Britoil?
[That this House notes the assurances given to the House on 31st March 1982 and 1st April 1982, Official Report, columns 333, 334 and 450, by both Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Gray of Contin, the then Minister of State for Energy, that the 'golden share' would offer effective safeguards for Britoil's independence; questions whether this has been shown to be the case; and calls for a full debate on the guidance given to the House by Mr. Chancellor and the noble Lord on the efficacy of the 'golden share' provisions when they were seeking honourable Members' approval for the privatisation of BNOC.]
Is it not time for a full debate on that issue so that the House can decide whether it was misled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assurances of Britoil's independence, freely given in 1982? In the light of the Government's announcement that the bid is not to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, such a debate would also provide the opportunity to examine the double standards inherent in an industrial policy which protects Britain's largest company, British Petroleum, and will not even consider the protection of Scotland's largest company, Britoil.
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a private notice question on that subject as recently as 1 February and a debate at this stage would not be the best use of parliamentary time.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen various press reports to the effect that hon. Members may attempt to filibuster to stop the Abortion (Amendment) Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) completing its
1164
Committee stage? Will he give us an assurance that if that filibuster continues, he will find Government time for the Bill in Committee so that this exceptionally important business of the House is not decided and stopped by a small minority of hon. Members?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but that is a hypothetical question. I have seen no evidence of what he suggests. However, I am sure that the House would deprecate any such misuse of procedure if the Bill's Committee stage were delayed in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Foreign Office to explain next week why, since 2 January, the British embassy in Islamabad has been refusing permission for a 16-year-old constituent of mine, Nasreen Akhtar, to return to her home in Bradford and to her school? Is he aware that, despite telexes sent to the embassy by the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and despite letters from me to the girl, she was refused permission on 4 and 27 January to return home and she is being denied schooling and reunification with her family? Can he explain that extraordinary refusal by British authorities in Islamabad, and do something urgently to enable this girl to return home and to her school?
Mr. Wakeham: I have no knowledge whether the hon. Gentleman has been given all the information that he needs to make the statement that he did, but I shall refer the matter to the Home Office immediately after I have finished answering questions and ask somebody to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On the Stalker affair and its disturbing ramifications, will my right hon. Friend understand that we need not just a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, important though that is, but a full-scale parliamentary debate? Will he understand that that debate must include an opportunity to give proper parliamentary scrutiny to the Attorney-General's definition of where the national interest lies in this matter? On that matter, will my right hon. Friend persuade the Attorney-General to explain his curious inactivity in issuing any kind of civil injunctions on, or taking any kind of criminal proceedings against, the breach of the duty of confidentiality by Mr. Stalker in his articles in the Daily Express, which makes a curious contrast of double standards with the injunctions issued on all other breaches of confidentiality?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend puts a point of view persuasively, but I do not think that I shall shift from my earlier position. I believe that the first stage in this matter is to have a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Harold McCusker: The right hon. Gentleman said that we would have that statement as soon as possible. May I press him on what he means by "as soon as possible"? Is he aware that we have already been waiting for two weeks to discuss those matters, in which time foreign politicians have been given an opportunity that has been denied us to press the Secretary of State on them? Is he further aware that, in the past two weeks, men have been identified, convicted and perhaps condemned to death without a single word being said in their favour and without their side of the story being given?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great concern about these matters, but I know that my right hon. Friend will make his statement as soon as he can.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Central to our constitution is the idea of the rule of law and the supremacy of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend pay heed to what is being said and organise as a matter of some urgency the attendance of the Attorney-General to justify his extraordinary view of the world—that the murder of a 16-year-old fellow citizen and the perversion of the course of justice by police officers in part of the United Kingdom are lesser matters than the supremacy of the rule of law? The House would like to look at the judgment of the Attorney-General in terms of the public interest and of that which we hold to be extremely important.
Mr. Wakeham: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has a duty to discharge. In my view, he discharged his duty in a proper and effective manner. He came to the House and made a statement and that is the proper course of action.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to make a statement, will the Leader of the House put one other point to him? Will he ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why Mr. Stalker is not being prosecuted under the existing Official Secrets Act or, indeed, under the new Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Aldridge, Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) which has in general been approved by the Home Secretary?
Mr. Wakeham: Matters of prosecution are not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Rees: Yes, they are.
Mr. Wakeham: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows more about Northern Ireland than me. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend, but I am not in a position to add anything to what I have said.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we were most impressed by his imaginative, guarded and diplomatic answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who asked about the future of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill? However, it was hardly an answer to the question that he was asked. Will he assure the House that if what is now hypothetical ceases to be hypothetical the Government will ensure that there is a proper debate on the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. — and if I may say so learned — Friend puts another question to me. I shall not answer a hypothetical question.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments performs a useful purpose? That purpose is thwarted when orders such as the two orders to limit the precept on Manchester and West Yorkshire are debated before the Joint Committee has had time to consider memoranda. We have asked the relevant Departments why they tried to bounce the Joint Committee into accepting the instruments without adequate time. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that on board and make suitable adjustments to the business next week?
1166
Will the right hon. Gentleman also remind the Department of Transport that we have still not had a statement on the Settle-Carlisle railway? Many people are extremely concerned that the Department of Transport is trying to make the local authorities a scapegoat for the closure, and the local authorities will not accept that.
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to what I said about the railway last week. I shall look into the other matter to see whether I can assist, but I cannot undertake to change the business for next week.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at the work of Standing Committee C to establish whether what has been suggested in the press is indeed happening? Does he recognise that if there is a filibuster it will be thwarting the will of the House, which voted for that Bill? We should at least have an opportunity to ensure that the will of the House is fully debated and to show people outside that we have reached a conclusion one way or the other.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend have so far been realised. I believe that the House would deprecate such a misuse of procedure if that happened.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: A week on Monday, the Leader of the House said we shall be debating agriculture. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that he will ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that that debate will not be used as a green light for the Government to give the go-ahead for the set-aside scheme for farmers, which will allow them to get up to £150 an acre for allowing land to remain fallow? Is that not a disgrace at a time when agricultural wages are at an all-time low, relatively speaking, when agricultural workers cannot get a 35-hour week and the National Health Service is in tatters? Here is a scheme to give the farming community £150 an acre and yet a third of the world is starving.
Mr. Wakeham: The debate that I have arranged for Monday 15 February was at the request of a number of hon. Gentlemen. It seems to me that the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are better applied to that debate than they are to business questions.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am not going to ask my right hon. Friend to give us any specific assurances about the Bill to which reference has been made by some of my hon. Friends because I know him well enough to know that he will do his duty with honour and I trust him. However, my right hon. Friend should note the intense feeling that exists among the majority of hon. Members who believe that efforts to frustrate, once again, a Bill that is concerned with a deep moral principle, held by many people in this country, should not be allowed as a result of dirty tricks.
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly recognise the strength of my right hon. Friend's comments, but there is nothing further that I can say at this moment.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I underline the point made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) about the widespread disquiet following the recent

1167
decision of the Court of Appeal, which has implications for the entire criminal justice system, the forensic service and our relations with other countries? I request the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on this and related matters, preferably, as suggested by the hon. Member for Harborough, under the general heading of miscarriages of justice. That debate should have particular reference to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee published six years ago, which recommended that an independent review tribunal should be set up to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice. Not one of the report's recommendations has been implemented even though there was a Tory majority on that Committee. May we have a debate on this subject as soon as possible?
Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the independence of the judiciary is one of the greatest safeguards of the freedoms of people in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) raised this matter and I said that I would refer it to the Home Secretary and I intend to do so.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about the continuing loss of jobs of registered dock workers? Last week, the Government put aside £7 million to add to the redundancy fund. Is this not the right time to have a debate on this subject so that we can get a consensus in the House on the best way forward for the registered dock workers' scheme?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that a debate in this House would necessarily produce a consensus. I do not see an opportunity for finding time for a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not an affront to every Member of the House when the Prime Minister, as she did today, comes to the Dispatch Box and reads a very carefully phrased answer to a question on the Stalker affair with the clear objective of blocking questions on the Order Paper? Does the Leader of the House understand that every Member of the House of Commons, irrespective of political persuasion, would wish to deprecate such activity because, on occasions, it may militate against their particular interests? Will the Leader of the House make representations to the Prime Minister and ask her to answer questions and not to use that blocking device, which many of us believe that she intends to use over the next few days?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman could ask questions as intelligently as my right hon. Friend answers them, the standard would go up considerably.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that many Conservative Members are extremely conscious of the extraordinarily dangerous and difficult job that members of the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment must carry out? Any discussion of the Stalker affair or any of the other issues should include our recognition of the dangers that those officers and their families face.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I believe that it is relevant to the issue.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to curtail business questions. I will call the hon. Gentlemen who have been rising, but we must then move on.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House reflected on the following early-day motions relating to Westland: No. 228,
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prune Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
No. 253,
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
No. 272,
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Britian himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved … He (Mr. Britton) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
No. 273,
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon

1169
Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
No. 286,
[That this House notes that, in the book "Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal", on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that "Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and the right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
No. 622,
[That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbegin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS "Conqueror"; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.]
and No. 627,
[That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench Members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of candour about what they have done.]
Could the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the question of which I gave his Office notice, namely, the inquiry that is purported to be taking place into leaks from the Department of Trade and Industry at the behest of Sir Brian Hayes? Should there not be a statement next week to suggest that Sir Brian Hayes might cast the mote out of his eye, so involved was he in the leak inquiry into the selective leaking of a Law Officer's letter, rather than to enter into any kind of major inquiry in his Department? Apparently, when leaks seem to suit senior civil servants and senior members of the Government there is no inquiry, but when leaks are awkward there is an inquiry. What is just in that?
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing further to say about the early-day motions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but
1170
I recognise that he referred the matter of his question to my Office. The memorandum from Sir Brian Hayes was to explain to all staff the importance of respecting confidential information and was entirely consistent with the guidance note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers that was circulated by Sir Robert Armstrong in December. It did not, contrary to the suggestion in the Daily Telegraph, announce a leak inquiry.
Mr Frank Dobson: "It says here".
Mr. Wakeham: I have just got that information and therefore, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has noted, I read it out for greater accuracy.
Mr. James Pawsey: May I return again to the subject that has been raised by four of my hon. Friends — the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which is currently going through the House? If that Bill is frustrated by activities in Committee, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that any similar Bill introduced to the House in a later Session will have Government time?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend widens somewhat the hypothetical nature of the inquiries he is making, but I still do not believe that I can answer hypothetical questions.
Mr. David Winnick: In relation to some other questions that have been asked today, does the Leader of the House recognise that the absence of any parliamentary scrutiny of the security services is a blot on our democracy? As for the blocking of questions, there is no way that such questions can be tabled, let alone answered. Does the Leader of the House intend to let the situation rest as it is or does he recognise, as other democracies have done in Western Europe, that the security services should be subject to some form of parliamentary control?
Mr. Wakeham: What I do recognise is that there is more than one view in the House on what should prevail in these matters. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in the minority and that the Government's view is that of the majority.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend, if he is considering granting time for a debate on the Birmingham bomb trial appeal, recognise that many Conservative Members believe that the appeal was a thorough investigation and that a fair judgment was reached at its end? We are in no good position to judge, having heard bits of the evidence, what three senior judges can decide, having seen all of the evidence in the case.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly; I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Has the Leader of the House yet had an opportunity to examine the report of the Select Committee on Energy which was placed in the Vote Office one hour and 10 minutes ago? It concerns the need for a debate in the House on new Statutory Instrument 218 governing the rules for public inquiries into new power stations and overhead lines. In the report's words:
"As far as the House is concerned we recommend that the business managers should ensure that a debate takes place on the prayer at present tabled as an early day motion".

1171
Will the right hon. Gentleman look at early-day motion 497, which has been signed by 78 hon. Members, and the prayer in early-day motion 499, which has been signed by 68 hon. Members? The two motions are on the same topic and require the House to examine the new rules that severely constrain the rights of objectors, and ask, in particular, that that should be done well before the Hinkley Point public inquiry takes place so that the objectors can know how much their rights have been reduced since the Sizewell inquiry.
[That this House notes that S.I., 1987, No. 2182, regulating the procedure for tribunals and inquiries under the Electricity Act 1957 and relating specifically to electricity generating stations and overhead lines, was laid before Parliament on 18th December 1987 with an enforcement date of 14th January 1988, notes that these regulations will severely restrict the rights and opportunities of objectors to raise issues of public concern such as energy policy, public health and safety, including reactor safety and environmental impact, local and/or national economics and national security, and calls for the date of implementation of these regulations to he delayed pending the result of a full parliamentary debate in government time.]
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I., 1987 No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.]
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there is concern about this matter in the House. The question of a debate is best left for discussion through the usual channels.
Mr. Ian Gow: If there is to be a debate on matters that arose out of the Attorney-General's statement on Monday of last week, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some Conservative Members will want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the integrity and judgment of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General?
Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. I do not anticipate a debate on the decision of the Attorney-General; when the Secretary of State makes his statement we shall see how to proceed from there. I agree with my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland are men of the highest standing.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Does the Leader of the House recall that, during the replies to questions on the statement on the future of the Crown Suppliers, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was particularly evasive to right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition about which parts of the Crown Suppliers would remain in the public sector? In view of that, will he arrange for another statement on the matter to be made by the Secretary of State, because Opposition Members are concerned about not getting the full facts about this undesirable, unwanted and outrageous privatisation proposal?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement yesterday about the parts of the Crown Suppliers that are to be sold, making it clear that those with security implications would not be. I do not think there is anything else to add at this stage.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Steel.
Mr. David Steel rose—
Mr. Dave Nellist: He has not been standing.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is the leader of the Liberal party — [Laughter.] Order. All Back Benchers who have been standing will be called. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was here when I said that I would call those who had been standing. It would be helpful if he stood a little earlier in the proceedings.
Mr. Steel: The point I want to raise arises directly from the reply that the Leader of the House has just given. I sat through business questions, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me.
The integrity of the Attorney-General is not the issue that concerns the House. What worries the House is that the Attorney-General's decision and the withdrawal of Mr. Stalker from the inquiry raise the suspicion that the definition of national security is being extended to cover Government embarrassment. That is what concerns hon. Members on both sides. An internal disciplinary inquiry will not be enough: there must be further discussion of the matter in the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement of last Monday, but I repeat that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement on these matters in the near future.
Mr. John Fraser: Is the Leader of the House aware that the rate-capping order against ILEA, which is down for business on Wednesday, involves a savage attack to the extent of 15 per cent, on the resources of London education? There is no need to bring in the order next week. More time should be allowed for the parents, pupils and people of London to debate the issue, and for the Secretary of State to come to his senses. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw next Wednesday's order, or, if he persists in going ahead with it, will he allow more than an hour and a half so that the Opposition can expose these savage attacks on education in London?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot undertake to accept what the hon. Gentleman proposes, but I shall have discussions through the usual channels if that will help.
Mr. Nellist: Referring to the statement made by the Leader of the House three quarters of an hour ago, when will a debate take place in Government time on the deterioration of the National Health Service? Is he prepared to stand idly by and see the frustration of working people and trade unionists throughout the country building up pressure for a one-day general strike to defend the Health Service? Before that debate finally takes place, as it will inevitably have to, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Services, so that when he comes to make his contribution at the Dispatch Box he will try to lift the proceedings from the patronising level of last night's Tory party broadcast, and, instead of trying to do a five-minute impression of Geoffrey out of "Rainbow", live up to the fact that he is a Cabinet Minister in charge of £22 billion a year?
Mr. Wakeham: The only encouraging thing to say about that is that the hon. Gentleman listened to the broadcast last night; I thought it was very good. I shall certainly not be more forthcoming to the hon. Gentleman than I was earlier to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 547 about the Yorkshire heart hospital, and to the statement by the cardiothoracic surgeon, Duncan Walker, who said that people on the waiting list are dying? May we have an early debate on what is happening with these operations? This week I have had a representation about a young constituent whose heart operation was cancelled last week and whose medical condition is deteriorating every day.
[That this House notes that at the Yorkshire Regional Cardiothoracic Centre, Killingbeck Hospital, Leeds, only six of a 12 bed intensive care unit can be used for heart operations; further notes the comments of Dr. Martin Muers, Chairman of the Hospital Consultants' Committee, that 'we do not do enough heart operations up to Department of Health and Social Services guidelines' (Telegraph and Argus 18th January) and that the Consultants' Committee has sent an urgent letter to the regional health authority signed by three heart surgeons, five heart specialists, all the anaesthetists, cardiologists and cardio-radiologist, imploring the regional health authority to provide three extra intensive care units to avoid tragedies; and notes especially that amongst those signing was Duncan Walker, Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon, who recently criticised shroud-waving over the repeated cancellations of children's heart operations in Birmingham and now states that 'people are now dying on our waiting list' (Independent 18th January), which is further evidence of the profound and pervasive crisis in National Health Service operating theatres, a crisis obvious to all reasonable persons and denied now almost alone by the Prime Minister.]
Mr. Wakeham: The Yorkshire regional health authority is currently considering increasing the number of staffed intensive care beds in the next financial year. The number of heart operations in Yorkshire has increased in each of the past two years and is planned to continue to do so.

Inner London Education Authority
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the organisation of education in inner London.
The Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at an acceptable cost. ILEA has patently not done that. Its spending is profligate; its service is poor. Between 1981 and 1988, its spending increased from about £700 million to more than £1 billion—while over the same period, its pupil numbers have fallen by 15 per cent. It now spends 52 per cent. more than the outer London boroughs, 45 per cent. more than Manchester, and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham—cities with problems comparable to those of London. That increase in expenditure has in no way been reflected in improved pupil performance, which remains disappointingly low. There is now an urgent need for change.
ILEA's failure is partly a failure of political will, but it is also a product of its unmanageable size. Its administration is cumbersome, excessively costly and too distant from its clients. The Government want to improve standards of education in London and to bring costs under control. We decided that the way to do this was to enable each inner-London council to become the local education authority for its area.
Our proposals are incorporated in part III of the Education Reform Bill. Three boroughs have already stated their intention to apply for LEA status. Other boroughs are known to be considering similar action, but as this positive response to our proposals has emerged, there has been a growing view that our objectives would be better achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions in inner London.
The Government have reviewed these developments and have concluded that the time is now right to carry through the logic of their proposals in the interests of better standards and of orderly progress. We therefore propose to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill, while it is before the Standing Committee, to wind up ILEA and to secure the transfer of education responsibilities to local councils from 1 April 1990.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Educational vandalism!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Baker: We propose that the arrangements for transferring functions should follow closely those established at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
First, a staff commission will be established to facilitate the process of staff transfer. All ILEA teaching and non-teaching staff working at individual schools and colleges will transfer by order to the employment of the council concerned. Where appropriate, detriment or redundancy compensation will be available on the terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
Secondly, the arrangements for property transfer will be broadly those set out in the Education Reform Bill. It

1175
is likely that the London residuary body will be employed to deal with assets which cannot be allocated between boroughs.
Thirdly, the Education Reform Bill already contains certain counter-obstruction safeguards to protect the interests of the local councils which will be assuming education functions. We shall strengthen those safeguards, introducing the same sanctions as were included in the legislation abolishing the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils.
The Government propose that each local council should be required to publish in 1989, as a basis for local consultation, a development plan, setting out the way in which it proposes to organise the transfer of responsibilities and the service that it would propose to run. The Government will issue statutory guidance on the subjects to be covered by such development plans, which will provide the basis for property and staff transfer orders.
I recognise that some co-operation will be needed between inner London councils for the maintenance of certain aspects of education provision. I hope that in most cases such co-operation will he secured through voluntary arrangements, which might, in certain circumstances, need to take the form of joint education committees, requiring my approval under existing powers. Were it to become necessary, there are also powers under the Education Act 1944 to enable me to require groups of boroughs to establish joint education committees in respect of particular functions.
The Government propose to maintain rigorous pressure to control ILEA's expenditure over the next two years. We attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children. They and their parents have a right to something better. The Government's proposals set out the basis for a more cost-effective and responsive education service for inner London.
Mr. Jack Straw: On his way to the Tory leadership, the Secretary of State for Education and Science has just been mugged by two political hooligans, the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Is the Secretary of State aware that this humiliating reversal of the position which he was taking just eight weeks ago has nothing whatever to do with concern for or commitment to the needs of London's children and everything to do with squalid manoeuvring for position inside the Tory party, with London's children—my children—being used as pawns?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Cabinet of which he was a member concluded just three years ago, in the words of the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Sir Keith Joseph, that a unitary education service offered the best prospect of meeting the educational needs of inner London, not for the reasons given by the present Secretary of State, but
"because there is so much movement across borough boundaries by London children and students"?—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 127.]
Has this movement across borough boundaries suddenly stopped in the last eight weeks?
What exactly has changed since the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill on 1 December, when the Secretary of State described his then proposal to retain ILEA as offering
"London's children a better deal"?
The Minister described ILEA as a
1176
"model authority". — [Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 780–858.]
Is there no limit to the Secretary of State's ability to twist and turn?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government have no mandate for this wilful and spiteful act, which will bring anxiety, uncertainty and instability to London's education service at a time when what it most needs is stability? Why was this new proposal for breaking up ILEA not included in the Conservative manifesto just eight months ago, if it now has so much to commend it? Was it excluded eight months ago because it was considered and rejected, or because it was seen as so ludicrous and vindictive as not to be worth considering at all? As the Government have no mandate and as none of this was even included in the Queen's Speech, does the Secretary of State accept that it would be constitutionally outrageous and an abuse of the procedure of the House for this to be introduced other than through a new primary Bill?
As the Secretary of State preaches so much about parental choice, will he say where in all this London parents are to have a say? Is the truth that, as Wandsworth Conservative borough council discovered from its own opinion poll of ILEA parents, 84 per cent. were satisfied with the academic achievement of their children's ILEA secondary schools, he has decided to ignore the clearly expressed wishes of London parents to keep ILEA intact?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, overwhelmingly, all the responses which he has received to his proposals from parents, teachers and others in London say, "Keep ILEA and do not break it up"? Why does the Secretary of State continually abuse ILEA for its examination achievements when analysis, accepted as accurate by his Department, shows ILEA in the middle of all LEAs, like Oxfordshire, represented by the right hon. Member for Henley, and well above Waltham Forest, when it was Conservative-controlled, represented by the right hon. Member for Chingford?
How does the Secretary of State dare to criticise ILEA's spending per pupil of about £2,000 per head in secondary schools when, under the assisted places scheme, he has decided that expenditure not at £2,000 but at £4,335 per head is an acceptable charge on the public purse for pupils at Westminster school?
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is the view of all London head teachers that, to go down the road which he is suggesting, involves
"dismantling a system that provides the stability and hope that is lacking in so many other aspects of the life of young people in inner London."?
Is he aware that they have warned that breaking up ILEA will
"spell chaos for the capital's schools."?
Is the Secretary of State aware that this disreputable announcement today will be treated with anger and contempt by parents, teachers, governors and all who put the needs of London's children above the sordid internal politics of the Conservative party?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman talked about the constitutional position of making changes in a Bill that is before the House. He will have heard the exchanges that occurred earlier this afternoon between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the

1177
House, and the exchanges on Monday. Clearly, more time will have to be found to debate these proposals. The Government accept that.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised first the question of the manifesto. The principle on which we went to the country in June, and which underlies my education reforms, is the dispersal of responsibility. So it was with ILEA. We wanted to pass responsibility to the inner London boroughs, and we made that absolutely clear during the election campaign. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman quoted my predecessor. The manifesto clearly signalled the end of a unitary education authority in central London. The positive response of borough councils has led us to quicken the pace of devolution. Indeed, the positive response of so many inner-London boroughs means that the debate that we are having today and in the next few weeks would have taken place in about a year's time.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the review of ILEA. I advise him that many reviews of ILEA have taken place in recent years, but they have not led to an improvement in that authority's performance. ILEA has been on notice since 1981, when my predecessor but one, Lord Carlisle, put it on notice. That was seven years ago to this very day, but little has been done in those seven years.
In 1987 the new leader of ILEA, Neil Fletcher, said:
"We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year".
The hon. Member for Blackburn then asked me about parental involvement. However, he knows perfectly well that, when it comes to the transfer of local government powers, it has always been this House which has had to make the decision. Parliament cannot delegate its authority.
If the hon. Gentleman is interested in polls, he will no doubt have seen the recent Harris poll, which showed that nearly one third of parents in inner London would like to send their children to another school. That proportion was higher than the corresponding figures for neighbouring boroughs.
The hon. Gentleman chided me for listening to various voices. I advise him that we have listened to many voices beyond the Conservative party. He will know that the leader in last week's Times Educational Supplement stated that the best way forward would be now to accept the amendment.
I have also read a speech by the noble Lady, Lady Blackstone, who takes the Labour Whip in the other place and who is an expert on education in London. She stated:
"the Government should have had the courage of its convictions and abolished the Authority instead of this slow attrition".
I advise the hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues in the other place, that the Government now have the courage of their convictions and will move to abolition.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in eight years of arguing as a Minister inside Government I failed to secure the abolition of ILEA, but that in eight months of arguing outside it seems that I have done so? Will he be kind enough not to draw any conclusions from that? Will he further ignore all the blatherings from the Opposition, which are only an echo
1178
of the foolish blatherings and threats that were made when we abolished the Greater London council, which is now dead, gone and forgotten?
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for his wholehearted support for my proposals. I have long known his views on ILEA. They have been expressed to me on several occasions in terms that were rather more blunt than appeared on the Order Paper. However, I am glad that I have his support and look forward to that support being continued in the weeks and months to come when we move ahead with this important measure.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: If ILEA is so bad, in isolated cases, why then has the Secretary of State not used his powers to intervene to put matters right? How can he justify that, except on the basis of a squalid attempt to provide a political excuse for this hasty and brutal dismemberment? If the Secretary of State is worried about Left-wing inefficiency and influence, how can he hand over the schoolchildren lock, stock and barrel to the tender mercies of councils such as Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark?
Mr. Baker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is concern about many aspects of the education provided. I read most of the reports that are published about inner London by HMI — the hon. Gentleman may read some of them — and all express real concern, especially about secondary education. At one secondary school, for example, the inspectors found that, in the fifth year as a whole, attendance was only 55 per cent., and in one class it was only 46 per cent. When making a survey of science in secondary schools, Her Majesty's inspectors stated:
"the quality of teaching and learning experience … in over one-tenth of classes visited was unrelievedly bad".
Mr. Straw: What reports are these?
Mr. Baker: These are very recent reports. I shall make them available.
I advise the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that a great part of the problem is that ILEA is too large and remote. We feel that education will be improved and become more responsive to parents' wishes when it is closer to the local community. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that that is the principle behind the Education Reform Bill.
I find the hon. Gentleman's attitude strangely illogical, because it is the Liberals in Tower Hamlets who want to run their education service, and presumably the hon. Gentleman does not object to that. Are those Liberals in Tower Hamlets less competent than their fellow Liberals in Richmond?
Mr. Michael Heseltine rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heseltine.
Mr. Heseltine: May I strongly support today's announcement by my right hon. Friend which will give London schoolchildren a more stable, effective and accountable background for their educational arrangements? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the excess in ILEA's overspending will not be passed to the boroughs under the arrangements that he has in mind?

1179
Will my right hon. Friend accept how deeply I resent the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and I are political hooligans? I believe that my right hon. Friend is renowned the length and breadth of the land for his charm and courtesy. However, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State happens to be looking for a couple of likely lads to help him with the administrative arrangements for bringing about these transfers, subject to consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, we might be able to suggest a couple of names.
Mr. Baker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for my proposals. I have known his views on ILEA for a long time, and he has known my views on ILEA. Nobody should underestimate my right hon. Friend's ability to hurl himself through a half-open door.
I shall be setting up a unit in my Department which will negotiate with ILEA and with the London Labour boroughs in the coming weeks and months to ensure an orderly transfer. That is an important function and responsibility for my Department.
On the financial matters about which my right hon. Friend specifically asked, we shall consider carefully what the most appropriate transitional arrangements might be, given that the inner-London boroughs are likely to inherit overspending from ILEA.
Mr. Peter Shore: If the Government do not think that the inner-London boroughs are capable of running their own housing services—the Government clearly do not think that they are capable of running a lot of other services as well, hence the necessity to hive them off—and since the Government have either rate-capped or fined most of the London boroughs for overspending, why do they think that education services will be better administered by those so-called inefficient, incompetent and worst boroughs than under the present ILEA?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House, and especially me, since I represent one of the poorest boroughs in London, Tower Hamlets, what arrangements he will make to ensure that ultimately there will be no fewer financial resources available to the poor boroughs of inner London than are available today under the cross-subsidisation of ILEA?
Mr. Baker: On the last point, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look in Hansard tomorrow at the responses I have given my right hon. Friend on the financing of London boroughs after the 1990s. Irrespective of the policy change, the present system of local government finance, under which the wealthy boroughs subsidise the poorer boroughs—London equalisation—will cease in 1990, when the community charge and unified business rate come into operation. Instead, a system of Exchequer grants to local authorities will equalise the differences in the need to spend. The new system will provide a means of ensuring the equitable distribution of resources of local authorities to take account of local and social needs. Clearly, in the determination of those separate needs grants for individual London boroughs, taking into account the educational responsibilities, is very important.
On the general point raised by the right hon. Member, I am a little surprised that Labour Members seem so angry
1180
and alarmed at the prospect of Labour-controlled inner-London boroughs running their education. Does not the right hon. Gentleman have more confidence in his party colleagues?
Mr. James Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the central thrust of the Education Reform Bill is to devolve power and responsibility to parents? Does he agree that the abolition of ILEA is well in accordance with that central aim and that ILEA will be forgotten just as quickly as the Greater London Council?
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because when I was dealing with the abolition of the GLC I was constantly told that London boroughs could not do it, and that civilised life as we knew it in the capital city would end.
Mr. Tony Banks: It has.
Mr. Baker: As for the former chairman of the GLC, I say to him that few people now remember what the GLC actually did. It has left virtually no memorial.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government have changed their mind three times in the past four years on the best way to organise London education? What evidence is there that giving education to the boroughs will ensure better education for London children?
Mr. Baker: I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has followed these matters closely, that when my predecessor, Lord Carlisle, made a statement seven years ago to this very day, he said:
"The long-term retention of the single education authority for inner London is justified only if the authority shows that it can give the children and students of inner London a good service in all phases of education at an acceptable cost. It is up to ILEA to put its house in order."—[Official Report, 4 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 296–7.]
ILEA has had seven years, and the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been concerned with this for some time, that it has shown precious little effort to put its house in order. It has said repeatedly that it will be better next year. We believe that the education of the children of London would be improved if it were done at a more local level.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last time education was looked at independently was by a royal commission in October 1960? It came down very firmly against a unitary authority, but certain of the educational intelligentsia were able to bring sufficient pressure on the then Government so that they backtracked. As one who opposed the formation of ILEA from the very beginning, when I was in local government, I welcome the support of my right hon. Friends and their conversion to the cause.
Mr. Baker: I well recall my hon. Friend, who was the Back-Bench spokesman for London matters in the 1960s, advocating this throughout that period. As he will know, I have been a long-term supporter of that. In fact, my pamphlet in 1980 advocated the dispersal of responsibility for education, and our manifesto in June of last year signalled the end of the unitary authority. We are now putting that in hand.
Mr. Spearing: What will the Secretary of State say to those 500,000 people who attend day continuation classes

1181
and evening classes in the ILEA area, including those from outside Greater London? Is he aware that 60 per cent. of the pupils of primary schools in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea go outside the borough to secondary schools, based on parental choice? Is he aware that on Tuesday, when in a written question I asked him to set out the numbers of pupils and attendances at colleges in each London borough, his hon. Friend said that the information was not collected centrally? Did the Cabinet take the decision today or previously on information which they did not have, or was that answer incorrect?
Mr. Baker: Since 1980, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when children move from an education authority in one borough to another, the money has followed the child. That has been the position, and it has been done on separate terms for children with special educational needs and other needs.
Mr. Banks: Not within ILEA.
Mr. Baker: No, but from ILEA to outside. It is possible to have exactly the same arrangements. Dealing with the first point the hon. Gentleman raised, on the services of further education and adult education in London, which is very important, I entirely accept that many people outside the inner London area use those services. Many of them are organised on a cross-borough basis, which is one of the reasons why I have set up a unit in my Department to examine with the boroughs and ILEA whether there is a need for any joint education committees.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: If one is to split up ILEA, it would seem better to split it cleanly at the beginning than to have one, two or three boroughs dropping out one by one, with the authority not knowing what will happen in the next year. It seems to me to be sensible to look at co-operation where the parents want co-operation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the Inner London education authority has never attained the same reputation as the former London county council, which was renowned throughout the world. An authority that spends 40 per cent. more in real terms than the average in the rest of the country, with children having 40 per cent. less likelihood of getting five O-levels or CSEs, seems to have a death wish.
Mr. Baker: Certainly ILEA, by any standards, is an extravagant authority. As for the list of exam results quoted by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), even if one accepts the basis for those adjustments, there are considerable reservations on the methodology. The authors of the report said:
"Limitations on the data used mean that the method should be taken as illustrative of the method of analysis rather than a final judgment on the LEAs concerned."
Even if I were to accept the judgment of the LEA concerned, ILEA comes 56th out of 96, but it is No. 1 on expenditure. It has become clear that there is considerable support in many parts of London for an orderly transfer. That has been expressed by people in ILEA, people who are not Conservatives, people who are concerned, and by certain churchmen. I am sure that we are right to take the action.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I tell the Secretary of State that for me he personifies the smile on the face of Fascism in the latter-day Tory party? Will he tell the House, first, how much Government money goes to the Inner London education authority at the moment? Which London boroughs, other than the three Tory boroughs, have signified any interest in opting out of the Inner London education authority? How has he managed to change his mind so remarkably yet again, first on the GLC and now on the Inner London education authority?
Mr. Baker: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has never got over being the last chairman of the GLC. I recognise that the hon. Member believes that he is the king over the water for the GLC, the last of the Jacobites waiting for the restoration. I believe he has the regalia still in store. He knows better than anyone else that the GLC's performance over the years badly let down the people of London, and ILEA is even worse. It has badly let down far too many London children. I find it extraordinary that a Labour Member representing an outer-London borough which has full education responsibilities should wish to deny the same responsibilities to Labour inner-London boroughs.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today's ILEA is unrecognisable from the LCC education authority, to which I was appointed as a young teacher 31 years ago? The deterioration in behaviour, work and the attendance of children over those years, and the authority's inability to recruit, as it could 31 years ago, the best teachers in the country—it has difficulty today in recruiting teachers in many schools because of its policies — means that the children of London are getting a very raw deal.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Peter McIntosh, who was a distinguished ILEA chief inspector of physical education for many years, and who chaired the recent committee that looked into sport in London schools following the collapse of sport in London schools —which formerly was very good—wrote to me this week to say, "Harry, will you support the immediate disbandment of ILEA? It is quite the best solution and much better than many others on offer"?
Mr. Baker: The political leaders of ILEA—not its administrative staff—over the years have done a great disservice to education in London by following a series of fads, of which one was to condemn competitive sport. Late in the day, as a result of that committee's report, it changed its policy. That is one reason among many why so many children get a poor deal out of ILEA.
Ms. Diane Abbott rose—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order at the end.
Ms. Abbott: The Secretary of State has accused ILEA of letting down the children of inner London. He referred earlier to his plans for equalisation. Is he willing, here and now, to give a commitment that the resources available to

1183
individual boroughs under his arrangements will not he less, in real terms or relatively, than the resources available now? Otherwise, although his arrangements may result in an improvement in the quality of education of children in Mayfair, overall his arrangements will result in a decrease in the quality of education for poor children in London, such as those in Hackney, whom I represent; he will be letting down the children of the poor in London.
Mr. Baker: The points that I have already made on the financial arrangements after 1990 are very important. We have made it clear that ILEA is an extravagant authority. We believe that much can be saved in its administrative costs. It has two and half times more administrators than the average LEA. We should like to see —
Mr. Dobson: What about Stubbs?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position makes a comment about Mr. Stubbs. Various remarks that I completely deplore were made about Mr. Stubbs in the debate on Monday. He has been an outstanding servant of inner London. The trouble is that he has had very poor political direction.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I recognise that my right hon. Friend's proposal will bring great benefit to many children in London. Will he in turn recognise that there is grave disquiet in boroughs such Southwark, where people think that it does not have the ability to run an effective education service? Will he assure the House that there will be special assistance and advice to boroughs such as Southwark? Will he also recognise the important work that is being done Londonwide by the adult education institutes, particularly the excellent work of the Mary Ward centre, the City Literary Institute and Morley college?
Mr. Baker: I completely agree with the latter points made by my hon. Friend. These are the very matters that the unit in my Department will be discussing with inner-London authorities and ILEA.
As to the ability of authorities to run education services, many more powers will be in place as a result of the Education Reform Bill, and many more opportunities will be available. First, there will be the national curriculum, which will provide a bulwark of protection against distortion of the curriculum in schools. There will be open enrolment, whereby parents will have a greater chance to choose the school they want their children to attend. There will be financial delegation, whereby headmasters and senior teachers will have more power over their schools. Last, and very important, there will be the opportunity for schools to opt out. All these will be safeguards for the position that my hon. Friend envisages.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The Secretary of State may know that I have been critical of ILEA's performance over recent years, particularly of its levels of bureucracy and its performance at secondary level. But what evidence is there that transferring the education of children such as mine from ILEA to London boroughs will result in an improvement in the quality of education for them? Will the unit consider the needs of children with special needs? They have been extremely well provided for by ILEA, and they may suffer if the centralised provision, which is available only on the larger scale, is withdrawn.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The great bulk of special education provision in
1184
inner London is good—some of it is very good. There have been one or two disappointing reports, but I am glad to say they are the exception. These are the sorts of service for which it is possible that there will be a joint education committee. The transfer of children with special needs from one borough to another is rather more easy because the full cost of education transfers with the child. I assure the hon. Lady that I do not want any diminution in the good provision for special education in London.
Mr. William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, ever since I was a chief whip on ILEA 20 years ago, I have supported its abolition? However, my conviction was tempered by the fear of what might happen to children in my constituency if education were to be run by Lambeth council. I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said, and by the safeguards in the Education Reform Bill.
Will my right hon. Friend keep very much in mind the concern that many of us will have about adult education, the youth service and special needs? Will he consider, for adult education and the new service, transferring the full cost, rather than the national average cost, to the borough accepting people from the other borough? Will he also consider implementing the Thompson report and making the youth service statutory? It would be a good time to do so.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend's last point goes rather wider than the measures that we have in hand. I am glad of his support for these measures. He brings a great deal of experience to ILEA matters, having been its chief whip, and I know that over the years he has been particularly concerned about the provision of education in his constituency. I can assure him that the matters that he has raised — adult education, further education and the youth service — will be taken carefully into account during the transfer of education responsibilities.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State accept that many people outside the House will recognise today as a terrible day for education in inner London? He has committed an act of political vandalism against a Labour-controlled authority. He has deliberately starved it of funds ever since he has had the power to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I have been in touch with our borough council. We found that the net deficit in spending by ILEA, compared with what Islington ratepayers pay, is about £30 million. As the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to answer any specific questions from other hon. Members about how much money will be available for education in the boroughs, will he assure me that there will not be school closures, loss of teachers' jobs, loss of ancillary workers' jobs and sale of school premises when he has committed this act of vandalism?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be enormous opposition to this act? Parents, children and employees of the authority realise that they are about to experience the swift destruction of a very good education service.
Mr. Baker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the various inspectors' reports, including Her Majesty's inspectors' reports and ILEA inspectors' reports, about the standard of education in inner London. He simply cannot have read them. I am surprised at his lack of

1185
confidence in the ability of his borough to cope with education. According to the ILEA chief inspector's report about Islington:
"As the smallest division, DO3 (Islington) enjoys certain advantages: communication is relatively easy and the scale of the division helps to engender a sense of identity. Inspectors and officers work as a close team, and there exists a tradition of innovation and independence."
The new responsibilities will be built on that.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend most sincerely on his decision, which will be very well received in Kensington and which is obviously essential as part of his campaign to improve education standards in London? May I express the hope that politically motivated opposition to his decision will very quickly die down, so that the teachers, the parents and the local authorities concerned can work together in peace to make this reform a success?
Mr. Baker: I very much hope that that will be the spirit over the coming weeks and months. There will clearly be a much more orderly transfer of responsibilities if there is co-operation from the different boroughs — Labour as well as Conservative. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will give a lead by encouraging Labour boroughs and ILEA to co-operate, so that there may be an orderly transfer. I am sure that there will be a relatively short-lived political campaign to preserve ILEA, but I hope that everyone concerned in London politics will appreciate that the measure will go through and that it is important from the point of view of the children that the responsibilities are transferred in a proper and orderly fashion.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Before the Secretary of State introduces the proposals which are politically and constitutionally arbitrary and irresponsible, will he arrange for a poll of all electors in ILEA to determine whether he has a mandate? Contrariwise, can it really be right that the future of the education of 270,000 children in ILEA should be determined by the scratching paw of a tabby cat from Henley? Who is in charge of education, her or him?
Mr. Baker: In the general election, the Conservatives did very well by winning two seats in inner London. I have already said that we clearly flagged the end of a unitary education authority for London in our manifesto. We are now implementing that.
Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the underwhelming welcome from Opposition Members for this proposal may have something to do with the fact that they are members of the party that is responsible for the mess in which ILEA finds itself? Does he agree that there will be a widespread welcome for his statement from everyone concerned about the under-achievements of ILEA? Does he agree that an education authority that produces results whereby under 10 per cent. of children leave school with five or more O-levels and nearly a quarter with no results or achievements on paper has failed the children of inner London?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend speaks from direct experience as one of the victors in inner London at the last general election, when he was successful in Wandsworth. The popularity of our proposal to transfer educational
1186
responsibilities to Wandsworth was triumphantly vin-dicated in the Wandsworth council by-election when it was made the issue by the Labour party. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the level of educational performance because, at the end of the day, that is what it comes down to. The children in inner-London schools deserve better.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the Secretary of State withdraw the deceptive and wrong implication that Lady Blackstone is in favour of the break-up of ILEA?
The Secretary of State talks about parent power. Why has he not listened to parents in Southwark? The three hon. Members representing constituencies in Southwark are aware that parents in Southwark who know more and care more about their children than the Secretary of State ever will believe that the best chance to improve their children's education lies with the Inner London education authority. This is not politically motivated opposition to the break-up of ILEA: it is parentally motivated opposition to the break-up of ILEA.
Mr. Baker: I quoted from the words of Lady Blackstone as I read them in The Times Educational Supplement. If she feels that the quotation does not represent her views, no doubt she will make that known. She is quite capable of doing so. I repeat what I said in reply to an earlier question: the transfer of responsibilities between an upper and lower-tier authority has always been the duty and responsibility of this House.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware how welcome the lifting of ILEA's bureaucracy from the backs of parents and teachers in inner London will be to so many people who have struggled in schools—some of which are excellent—to provide a decent education under ILEA? Is he aware that the lifting of ILEA from their backs will enable those schools to provide not only a good education, but a much better education than they provided previously? I was also glad to hear my right hon. Friend's statements about the transition and the arrangements that have been made to cover special schools, adult education and in particular nursery schools, all of which are tributes to London and must continue after abolition.
Mr. Baker: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's warm support and endorsement. I remind the House that he was another winner in inner London in the general election. I am glad to hear his support for the way in which we intend to handle this matter. We want to do this responsibly and orderly, so that the education services in London are preserved and improved. We believe that they will be improved when responsibility is transferred closer to the parent and the local community.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that I, as a representative of the borough of Lewisham, have received not a single letter from a parent, teacher, parent-teacher organisation or governing body seeking to have the education of children of the borough removed from ILEA and transferred to the borough of Lewisham? I note that hon. Members representing other constituencies in Lewisham are not present in the Chamber—[Interruption.] They are on the Tory side. I urge the Secretary of State to give me his evidence from my constituency to support his proposals.

1187
Furthermore, will he answer an earlier question and tell us which local authorities, apart from Tory-controlled authorities, are seeking to have the change brought about?
Mr. Baker: What passes through the hon. Lady's postbag is not a matter for me. In response to the interest about boroughs that wish to take responsibility for education, I can state that three authorities have already decided to do that — Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. The City of London has also said that it wants to do that.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is not an inner-London authority.
Mr. Baker: It counts, none the less. Those who follow London politics — the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows about local government —know perfectly well that the City of London is a local authority for those purposes.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: It has no children.
Mr. Baker: It does have some children.
Tower Hamlets has also clearly expressed a view. Earlier—I would not say that this is the view expressed now—there was considerable interest in some Labour-controlled authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which are they?"] Hon. Members opposite represent those authorities and they must find out which have expressed interest. I predict that, after my statement today, many of those authorities will now become infinitely more interested.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend has noted that a list of people apart from the Baroness Blackstone, including Mr. William Stubbs and various officers and ex-officers of ILEA, believe that a one-step devolution is preferable to opting out. The paramount importance now is urgency. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will carefully monitor the fact that London boroughs are making full preparations for a changeover in April 1990?
Mr. Baker: Yes, that is the target date. It is an important date, because it means that the provision of educational responsibility in London will feature prominently in the local government elections of that year, as it ought to.
As regards the time available, we are working on very much the same timetable as was used in 1963 for the establishment from scratch of the outer London boroughs as local education authorities. The dispersal of responsibilities for the GLC was undertaken in a much shorter period of eight months. I am satisfied that there will be enough time for a satisfactory transfer.
Mr. Paul Boateng: The Secretary of State will be aware of the findings and recommendations of the Swann committee of inquiry into underachievement among Afro-Caribbean and Asian children. He will also be aware in that regard that the Inner London education authority's centre for urban educational studies, the centre for learning resources, and such ILEA-funded organisations as the Afro-Caribbean educational resource project, have done work that has been praised by his own inspectors, and has been emulated by education authorities, Conservative and Labour alike, and indeed studied throughout the world as examples of best practice in this area. Apart from vague generalisations about joint committees, how is this valuable work to be preserved?
Mr. Baker: If there is valuable work carried on by those bodies—and I do not question it for a moment—those are the sorts of things that will be examined by the unit in my Department in its discussions with ILEA and the London Labour boroughs. Could I say to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he follows these matters very closely, that some interesting educational research has been done in ILEA on the achievement of black Afro-Caribbean children compared with white children. What they discovered—this is of no surprise at all—was that many of the black Afro-Caribbean children were infinitely more motivated to achieve and do better than many of the white children. But what the research also discovered was that their failure to do as well was due to the absence of basic skills. That is ILEA research. It is very important to embed in children, from whatever background they come, the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, at an early age.
Mr. Toby Jessel: My right hon. Friend has just mentioned 1963. Does he remember that, back in 1963, he was prospective Conservative candidate for Poplar and I was the candidate for Peckham, both of which are in inner London.
Mr. Martin Flannery: You did not win.
Mr. Jessel: The then Conservative Government, in abolishing the London county council, had intended to set up the inner-London boroughs as education authorities, but there was a strident campaign by teachers—
Mr. Spearing: And parents.
Mr. Jessel: —the Government wavered, and the Inner London education authority was set up, which was disastrous. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that this time, in the event of a strident campaign by teachers, this Conservative Government will not waver?
Mr. Baker: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I remember very well fighting alongside him in politics in the 1960s. I remember fighting Poplar in 1964—and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, it is fair to say that Poplar fought back. I was not elected. But what my hon. Friend says is true and I can assure him that we will resolutely carry through the proposals that I have put to the House today.
Mr. John Fraser: Since ILEA does not receive any Government money at the moment, how much Government subsidy is planned to be given to boroughs such as Lambeth after 1 April 1990? Could the Secretary of State tell us how many Conservative Members of Parliament from Lambeth, Southwark, Greenwich and Lewisham have made representations in favour of the announcement today?
Mr. Baker: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to the representations that have been made during these questions. The funding of all local services in central London will change after 1990, because all boroughs will receive a grant that will be based in large part upon the needs assessment of that particular borough, which 'will include education. The assessment of that is a very important factor in this, and, as I have said, it is the sort of thing that the unit in my Department will be looking into.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As one who was educated at an LCC comprehensive school and who was

1189
a teacher in one, and who has latterly been an opposition Member of ILEA, may I assure my right hon. Friend that many of us are delighted that he has at last grasped the nettle of overspending in ILEA and its poor examination results?
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a parliamentary answer by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, which showed that ILEA was 84th in the exam league, yet Wigan, which has the same socio-economic problems, came ninth and spent less? Does that not show that it is not merely a question of what an education authority provides, but how it supports teachers in their schools?
Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the exam results would be better in the school where he taught if he was still teaching there, but that does not mean to say that we want him to give up being the hon. Member for Pembroke. He brings a great deal of experience to the question, and I confirm what he says.
The analysis of exam results, as those who have looked into the matter will know, needs very careful interpretation. The recommendations of the report of the task group on assessment and testing are that exam results for schools should be reported exactly as they are, as it were — undoctored or unadjusted—because of the methodology in the adjustment. The report also says that, when exam results are published, there should be a report about the socio-economic background of the school. That seems to be reasonable, but the adjustment of examination results and the various methods that have been tried have not won much credit statistically.
Mr. Flannery: Will the Secretary of State accept it from me, coming from a city in the north, that the excellent work of ILEA is deeply admired by local education authorities all over Britain, and especially by my own authority? Will he also accept it from me that that fact is not unlinked to the attack by the Government in the Education Reform Bill on all local education authorities?
I have in my hand the list of assisted places that was given in the written answer on 1 February. For instance, 459 pupils out of 1,200 at public schools in Newcastle-under-Lyme have assisted places at £2,000 each, which is £900,000 of public money. If that figure is multiplied by all the other schools, it means that more than £50 million of public money will go to private education. The figure will go higher and higher with another 126 schools having assisted places. Can we have an answer about that, when the Secretary of State talks about the money that ILEA is properly using for the education of the children of London?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is a leading member of the National Union of Teachers. I do not believe that anyone who recalls the disruption of schooling that was caused by the teachers' walk-outs of recent memory will take lectures from the NUT or from him about inflicting damage on children.
Mr. Flannery: Answer the question.
Mr. Baker: I certainly will not take lectures about causing havoc to schoolchildren from a representative of a union that next week will disrupt schools in London yet again.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call Conservative Members who have been rising because they have a specialised interest in the matter, although they are not London Members.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: May I say to my right hon. Friend how much I welcome his decision? However, a shadow that hangs over it, to my mind. I share some of the anxieties of Opposition Members who represent some of the inner-London boroughs at their competence to run primary education. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he will look very carefully at the situation of those primary schools which will not be able to opt out and which might have difficulty in obtaining all the resources they need in the very early years of the national curriculum to meet its demands? Will he ensure that some of these Labour boroughs do not destroy their opportunities?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right to express his concern. We envisage that each London borough will be asked to present a development plan early next year, and that will form the framework and structure. We will examine it together with them. That will be the basis for the transfer of responsibilities. Clearly, we want to be satisfied that a proper structure will be provided. I am optimistic enough to believe that that is what most, indeed all, of the London boroughs will want to do as well.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has beome increasingly the view of head teachers in London that ILEA has become more cumbersome and distant and too bureaucratic and that his proposals present tremendous opportunities and responsibilities to all those in local communities, including Labour borough councillors? I should have thought they would welcome and seize such opportunities and responsibilities.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the unit that will oversee the ease of transition and the necessary collaborative arrangements has seconded to it as advisers some representatives from, say, head teachers or the local authority administrations, so that wider general public support can be given to what he is doing.
Mr. Baker: On my hon. Friend's last point, I will consider what he has said. I do not know whether they will be members of the union. That may not be appropriate. Certainly we want to call upon collective advice and individual experience. My hon. Friend used a word which I was glad to hear — "opportunities". There will be better and growing opportunities as a result of what we have announced today. That is one of the exciting aspects of our proposals.
Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend's decision is very good news for children. It brings to an end a great deal of uncertainty, but inevitably it will give rise to more uncertainty in the minds of many teachers. Will he do all he can to ensure that not only our teachers' unions and organisations are well informed about the proposals but that individual teachers are approached directly by letter or in some other way so that the campaign of disinformation which is bound to flow from the vested interests can be circumvented?
Mr. Baker: I very much hope that ILEA will not engage in a campaign of disinformation, particularly on staffing. I set out clearly in my statement the provisions on transfer

1191
of staff. I hope that the various unions and the staff of ILEA will study them carefully. In shorthand, we are keeping to the same proposals as applied to the dissolution of the GLC. I think that will give considerable reassurance to many teachers in schools and colleges.
Mr. Tony Baldry: May I say, as a parent whose children are about to start their state education at an inner London school in Lambeth, how warmly I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? The abolition of ILEA will inevitably mean that schooling will be more cost-effective and more responsive. Many parents will take the opportunity given to them by the Education Reform Bill to ensure that their children who are at state schools in inner London have a decent education, as have children elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Baker: I warmly thank my hon. Friend for saying that. That is the whole purpose of what we are trying to do. We are trying to improve the basic education of children. In the past, far too many have not had a good deal, particularly at secondary level. —[Interruption.] I hear the Minister of State, who is in charge of our campaign on parent governors, expressing the hope that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) will become a parent governor.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Is it not clear that, despite the vacuous style of the Secretary State, his statement represents a personal climbdown? I agree with one statement made by the Secretary of State. He was accurate when he said that the statement represented a dispersal of responsibility. That it does—a dispersal of responsibility away from the Secretary of State to his right hon. Friends who made the decision.
Several of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends have welcomed his conversion to the abolition of ILEA. At no stage have the Government or the Secretary of State had a mandate for the proposal. Despite the words of the Secretary of State, there was no reference to the abolition of ILEA in the Conservative party manifesto. There was no proposal for its abolition in the Government's consultative document which was published in the autumn. Certainly there was no proposal for the abolition of ILEA in the Bill published in November and debated in the House on 1 December. If there had been such a proposal, why would there have been a need for the campaign by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and 100 other Conservative Back Benchers?
The Secretary of State has to answer the question of where the mandate has come from. He also has to answer the question, what has happened since the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, when he pronounced that the proposals in the Bill were good for the education of the children of London? The proposals announced today are totally contrary to those in the Bill. Has the Secretary of State had a conversion or is his previous tenuous hold on political principle now severed?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps read the pamphlet that I produced in 1980. I have consistently believed that education in inner London would be better if it was returned to the boroughs. What we signalled in the manifesto was the end of a unitary education authority for central London because that has become so popular, with a number of boroughs indicating support for it. The voices that have grown, not just from the Conservative
1192
party but from many other places, indicate that it will be better to have an orderly transfer of education responsibility. I very much hope that the proposal will have the support of the practical, active Labour politicians on the ground in inner London.
5.24 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Government to seek to abolish the Inner London education authority."
The Secretary of State's statement of intent represents an abuse of power. There has been no consultation whatsoever on the proposal with the people of London who foot the entire bill for the Inner London education authority. It is a classic example of an elective dictatorship at work. It is constitutionally improper and represents an insult to the House of mammoth proportions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (M r. Fatchett) has said, the Government have no electoral mandate to abolish ILEA. Perhaps the Government have become so arrogant or authoritarian that they no longer have any regard for an election manifesto.
The Government considered abolition of ILEA at the same time as abolition of the Greater London council, but rejected it. They could have included abolition in the Education Reform Bill when it was presented to the House; they did not. On Monday, when we took the decision on the guillotine motion for the Education Reform Bill, an announcement could have been made; it was not. What different factors prevail now that did not exist in 1985, or eight weeks ago when the Education Reform Bill was debated, or last Monday when the guillotine motion was moved?
This is not the first attempt by the Tory party to abolish ILEA. It was considered in 1977, in 1979, in 1980 and between 1983 and 1985. All previous reviews of ILEA have come to the conclusion that it was in the interests of inner-London pupils, teachers and parents to preserve the unitary education authority. The statement by the Secretary of State has nothing to do with the educational needs and interests of Londoners.
Mr. Speaker: One minute more.
Mr. Banks: We believe that it is all part of the squalid, ideological campaign being waged by this noxious Government against Labour-controlled local authorities. For all we know, it is probably part of a leadership battle to establish the successor as leader of the Conservative party when Mama Doc finally stands down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is riot like the hon. Gentleman to use such phrases.
Mr. Banks: The circumstances are somewhat different today, Mr. Speaker.
The Secretary of State does not have one single principle that he would not willingly trade for personal political advantage. The implications for Londoners and for the boroughs of the abolition of ILEA are too profound to be dealt with other than by a separate Bill which would be discussed on the Floor of the House. Since that is not to happen, it is essential that we have a full debate in the House as soon as possible. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the application sympathetically.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Government to seek to abolish the Inner London education authority."
I listened with great concern to what the hon. Gentleman said. I listened also to what the Leader of the Opposition said to the Leader of the House, and again to what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said to the Secretary of State. I noted the responses of the Leader of the House and of the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my duty in assessing a Standing Order No. 20 application is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House today.
Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of the point of order, which does not relate to the application under Standing Order No. 20 but is concerned with whether it would be more appropriate for the change of policy announced by the Secretary of State for Education to be introduced by way of a new Bill rather than being spatchcocked into the Education Reform Bill.
I fully understand that you are not responsible for the content of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but you are responsible for the order of the House and for the orderly progress of legislation. On many occasions Ministers introduce amendments and new clauses as Bills are going through the House. However, I do not think that any hon. Member can recall an occasion involving the introduction of a major change of policy into a Bill after that Bill has been the subject of a guillotine motion, with a timetable laid down for its progress in Committee and in the House.
The simple reality is that it will not be possible properly to consider the major issues raised by this new policy within the timetable either in Committee or in the House. Moreover, there would, if this were included in the present Bill, be no chance for the House to have a debate upon the principle, as would be possible in a normal Second Reading debate.
In view of all those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to rule that it would be far more appropriate for the Government to bring this forward by way of a new Bill than to abuse the procedures of the House and truncate consideration of new clauses?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I could rule in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I fully accept that the House would expect more time.
Mr. James Wallace: On a similar point to that raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), obviously there will be a political debate because the Government are clearly putting their internal political battles ahead of the interests of 270,000 children in inner London. There is an important constitutional point here. We have a fundamental new principle being tacked on to the end of a Bill and it is quite clear from what the Secretary of State has said that this cannot be a matter of one new clause; there will have to be schedules and a considerable number of new clauses.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn and what the precedents
1194
are for such a fundamental change of policy, and to give your considered view to the House, perhaps next week, on whether the Government have acted with propriety and whether there is a precedent for a separate Bill being brought in.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that an amendment to a Bill in Committee is not in order if it reverses the principle of the Bill as agreed on Second Reading? Is it not the case that a new clause may not in effect redraft clauses already in the Bill?
We maintain that this is a reversal of the principle of the Bill as agreed on Second Reading, in which case it is unacceptable. The Secretary of State would say that it is a redrafting of clauses already in the Bill. If it is, it appears to us that it is still out of order. But, setting aside the technicalities of "Erskine May", you, Mr. Speaker, as the person in the House principally responsible for maintaining the reputation of the House, from time to time say that certain activity in the House is likely to bring it into disrepute. As members of the Opposition, we can think of nothing more likely to bring the House into disrepute than an effort by the Government totally to reverse their election manifesto commitment on one item seven months after the general election, and as a sideshow in an existing Bill.
We believe that the only way in which the reputation of the House can be preserved and the interests of children, young people and mature students in inner London protected is by having a new Bill. Nothing less will protect the reputation of the House or satisfy the people of inner London whose interests are being denied and damaged today.
Mr. Speaker: Let me take up one point which the hon. Gentleman made. I have no idea what kind of amendments are likely to be moved, or whether amendments are likely to be moved. I can tell the hon. Member that, if amendments were proposed which went beyond the scope of the Bill, they would be out of order. That would, of course, be a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee and not for me.
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill, which has already been guillotined, so that we are not having a chance to discuss very large parts of it. To insert into the Bill a huge issue such as this, when it is already a vast Bill—indeed, one of the biggest ever, and we have already spent about 90 hours on it, with more to come—seems to many of us to be completely out of order.
We want it placed on record that this is a very major decision which has apparently been thought out as matters have been running along so as to get rid of ILEA in one fell swoop. We believe that it is sufficiently important to merit a Bill in its own right and not to be inserted in a Bill which has already been guillotined.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too speak as a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill and also, incidentally, as a parent of children at ILEA schools. I believe that abolition was fully foreseen in the Bill because it is provided in clause 1(1)(v) that ILEA would be completely abolished once eight boroughs had chosen to opt out. Furthermore, members of the Committee have put down

1195
amendments to the effect that that trigger should operate after five boroughs have opted out. It is now clear that, on the strength of advice from many worthy figures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that it is more orderly to abolish ILEA in one step. So I see nothing irregular in the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder whether you could consider, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order for the Government to amend this Bill rather than bring forward another Bill on the basis of the composition of the Committee. The Committee of Selection, acting on behalf of the House, selects hon. Members to serve on a Committee on the basis of the Bill when it comes to Second Reading. On Second Reading, the provisions concerning ILEA were relatively small, and I think it is fair to say that the Committee of Selection took into account its impact on London.
Clearly, if these proposals were to be added at this stage it would be appropriate for the Committee of Selection to reconsider its selection and ensure that there were rather more representatives from inner London on the Standing Committee. I believe that that would produce considerable procedural difficulty, so surely it is right and proper that we should start with a new piece of legislation and not have these proposals added to the present Bill.
Mr. Speaker: We have to have regard to later business, in which a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. All these matters are for the discussions which the Leader of the House has said that he will carry on through the usual channels. I cannot answer them.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I wonder whether it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker, if I were to indicate how I see the position.
During the debate on the timetable motion on Monday, I indicated that if there were to be a major change of policy we would look again at the timetable for the rest of the Bill.
We have had an important statement today. I think that the right thing now is for us to have discussions through the usual channels to decide how best to proceed from here. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in the way that he framed his question to me, made what I thought was a constructive suggestion. I shall look at that and see if I can find a solution that is acceptable to all hon. Members of the House.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said when you gave your ruling to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that you would not be prepared to grant a Standing Order No. 20 application today, and I understand the reasons for that. The scope of the Second Reading of the Bill, whatever may have been the technical extent of the short title, included optional, not mandatory, provisions for education in London, which, I remind hon. Members, has been in being since 1870, for the bulk of the children in the area, organised by virtually a single continuing authority.
The Bill in Committee will clearly be changed by the amendments that are to come. The Leader of the House has referred to a certain possibility, but, whatever the technical scope of the Bill—to which you have already referred, Mr. Speaker—a debate on the order which will
1196
be before us next week and which is a narrow statutory instrument will not properly deal with the point that has been raised unless the Government make a statement very soon that there will be a separate Bill. If they do not do that, Mr. Speaker, may I revert to the point with which I started concerning a future Standing Order No. 20 application on another day?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will recognise and agree that the statement made by the Secretary of State this afternoon is of major importance. It envisages a major piece of legislation, and it is not acceptable that such a piece of legislation should be tacked on to the end of a Bill that is timetabled and guillotined in Committee.
Would it not be better if you, Mr. Speaker, now ruled that you would not allow amendments to be tacked on, but insisted that the Government went through the legislative process, as they do for everything else, issued a White Paper on their proposals to break up and destroy ILEA, and then proposed a Bill after consultation on the White Paper, instead of allowing the destruction of education in inner London to be rushed through in a few weeks on an already guillotined Bill?
Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are not these points of order rather synthetic? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] However the Bill is framed, the education of children in London's schools and of adults in further education, higher education and other educational institutes in London will continue. The method of organisation is subsidiary to that. The fact that Opposition Members are calling for an emergency debate seems somewhat synthetic. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will not respond to them.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) would expect me to respond to any point of order that he put to me. I have an obligation to respond to them all.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Page 556 of "Erskine May" refers to proceedings in passing public Bills and says:
"An amendment … which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading is not admissible."
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that today's proposition absolutely reverses the principle of part III of the Bill which received a Second Reading. That is one reason why the points of order we are making today are not at all synthetic. We seek your guidance, not necessarily today but certainly in the course of discussions through the usual channels.
Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that it will help, but I shall hear it.
Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) read out a reference to an amendment. Surely it is not possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule upon an amendment before that amendment has been tabled. Even if it were possible for you to rule on an

1197
amendment that had not been tabled, the ruling would be given not by you, Mr. Speaker, but by the Chairman of the Standing Committee.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that once, and I was about to say it again.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me take one point of order at a time. If an amendment is proposed in a Standing Committee, it is a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee to decide whether that amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Dobson: I understand your ruling, but surely the question of the acceptability of amendments in Committee is a material consideration for the House when deciding what to do about the Government's proposition. It is an attempt to introduce new legislation that totally reverses the propositions that were accepted by the House on Second Reading. We put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that would be a material consideration for you to bear in mind when considering any future applications under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with that matter.
Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, there was a money resolution. I understand that amendments cannot be tabled in Committee that would exceed the limits set out in the money resolution. If the money resolution, as presently designed, is exceeded, would the Government have to come back to the Floor of the House and move a second money resolution, or could it be taken in Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I can do no more than to say, yet again, that if amendments proposed by the Government go beyond the scope of the Bill, they will be out of order, but that would be a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
Mr. Speaker: In view of the late start of this Adjournment debate on a very important matter in which a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part, I ask for brief contributions, please.
5.44 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): Although modestly cloaked as a debate on the Adjournment, the issues involved in our discussion today are of very great significance, I hope, if I may express at least one personal opinion, that this will prove to be one of the best occasions in the House, when we have the opportunity to debate a major subject without the pressure of reaching an immediate set of conclusions, but in a way that helps to influence and strengthen the standing of whatever conclusions are eventually reached.
I assure the House that that is the spirit in which the Government approach the debate. On a number of issues, the White Paper sets out considered Government proposals for legislation, on which we remain anxious to take full account of the views of the House in shaping the precise form of the Bill which in due course will follow. The Government have neither expressed, nor seek to express, a collective view on the issue of research. They seek to provide, by discussion of the White Paper and by proposals for alternative draft clauses in the subsequent Bill, a basis for the House to reach a properly considered conclusion.
Despite the size of the subject, I see my task in quite limited terms — principally to set the scene for the expression of views by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall seek — my aim has been reinforced by what you, Mr. Speaker, said a few moments ago—to be correspondingly brief, thereby maximising the opportunties for those views to be expressed. I am conscious—as I observed recently in another context — that being Minister for Health gives me no special status to advise on matters of conscience or morality, such as those involved in our discussion.
In the 10 years since the birth of the first test-tube baby, subjects of embryo research and in-vitro fertilisation—to give test-tube babies the proper terminology — have rarely been out of the news. That is not surprising, in view of the revolutionary developments that they signify. These are very difficult, new topics and touch on issues on which most people hold strong personal views. I have no doubt that today's debate will reflect the various strands of opinion.
Perhaps I should observe that, alongside those who hold particular views about embryo research, our debate will obviously be followed closely by the many thousands of couples who suffer from infertility. Despite the increased independence of women, and the more general acceptance—at least in some quarters—of the other life styles, the ideal of the nuclear family — father, mother and children — is still the ambition of many, indeed most, people in our western society. It pervades our everyday lives in countless ways, and it comes home strongly to those couples who cannot, for whatever reason, have children as a particularly painful issue. Their

1199
emotions and desires are not matters that any hon. Member would wish to dismiss or ignore, whatever conclusions may ultimately be drawn from the debate.
Medical treatments are constantly being improved. For some, a course of drugs may be all that is required to enable them to conceive naturally. However, for most infertile couples the problem is less easy to treat, and for many there may as yet be no answer at all. The treatments for infertility covered by the White Paper "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation" include some of the most advanced treatments yet available. They bring hope to couples who have tried all else to no avail, and to some they have undoubtedly brought great joy and happiness. However, as we are all aware, at the same time they raise questions for society as a whole—questions of an ethical, social and legal nature. It is those difficult issues that we all have to face, particularly all of us in this place, to whom it falls to determine the legal framework.
The wider public debate on the subject began in earnest with the publication in 1984 of the report of the inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology set up by the Health Ministers, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and chaired by Dame Mary — now Baroness—Warnock. That report still stands as the prime document in the debate. It would be an understatement to say that not everyone agrees with all its conclusions, but there is fairly general acknowledgement of the acclaim that it has received, in this country and internationally, as a survey of some of the problems and issues. It has certainly provoked deep thought and a good deal of response from many individuals and organisations, and it remains the foundation of the discussions that have subsequently taken place.
The publication of that report was followed by debate both in this House and in the other place. Many responses were received, the chief focus of debate being embryo research and surrogacy. A clear consensus emerged at an early stage on commercial surrogacy, and the Government felt in a position to make a suitably quick response in the form of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, which banned commercial surrogacy agencies and advertising of, or for, surrogacy arrangements. Parliament has also had a number of opportunities to consider embryo research as a result of a series of private Members' Bills.
Surrogacy and human embryo research remain important topics. However, the Warnock report covered a far wider range of issues which also deserve detailed consideration, and which were somewhat overlooked in the aftermath of the report. To try to redress the balance, the Government published a consultation document in December 1986 specifically inviting views on matters such as the nature of the licensing authority, storage and access by children to information about donors.
Many responses were received — again revealing a wide variety of views. But despite that wide variety of views, on the strength of the responses received—taking the consultation process as a whole—the Government felt able to make proposals on the direction that legislation should take. My right hon. Friend announced the publication of the White Paper in November last year.
It could be seen as a rather leisurely process—overleisurely, some might think. I believe, however, that we shall find that this steady, even slow, progress towards legislation, which has been open at all stages to debate, will prove invaluable in the face of fast-developing and
1200
extremely sensitive and difficult issues. I expect it to result in the ultimate formulation of legislation that is clear and effective on matters on which sufficient consensus can be found, but does not go too far, too fast, on those on which society is still forming its view.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I may be anticipating what my right hon. Friend is going to say. However, in view of the concerned letters that I have received, will he assure the House that he would see the licensing authority as a totally impartial body, not weighted in favour of embryonic research or, necessarily, against it?
Mr. Newton: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that that is our aim. It is possible that. in the course of the debate, hon. Members will wish to express views about how that can best be achieved, and those are precisely the sort of views that we would wish to take into account in any further thinking.
I should like to outline some of the basic principles underlying the White Paper's proposals. On one matter there is well-nigh universal agreement— indeed, I hope that it is universal—that due respect must be given in law to the presence of human life. That means, unequivocally, that the early embryo must be protected in law. However, it must be acknowledged that there are significant differences of opinion on the extent of protection that should be afforded to the embryo. Tension still remains between the need to protect the early embryo and the need to offer as much help as possible to infertile couples, or couples at risk of passing on severe hereditary diseases to their children. I-low that tension is to be resolved is for Parliament to decide.
As I have already said, the Government have decided that their role is to provide the House with alternative clauses, and to encourage as informed a debate as possible on the issues at stake—which they have done through their consultation document, their White Paper, and which they hope to advance further through today's debate.
A second principle underlying the White Paper is the desire not to cut off hope unnecessarily from infertile couples and others who may be helped by the new developments. The procedures exist; we must recognise that they will continue to exist; and desperate couples will continue to find help somewhere. The general view emerging from consultation was that treatments like in-vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination by donor should be allowed to continue in this country, but under strict regulation to ensure that there are proper safeguards.
A further guiding principle is that the welfare of children born as a result of such treatments must be of paramount importance. They, as much as every other child, have a right to a sense of identity and a secure family life. Society as a whole, in permitting the treatments to be developed, has a responsibility to the children born as a result of those treatments, and must ensure that they have the best chance possible of achieving that sense of identity and secure family life. That is why the White Paper proposes that counselling should be statutorily available to all couples considering these treatments, and to children who subsequently wish to find out some information regarding their genetic background. For the time being, we propose that the donors should remain anonymous, but we must recognise that public attitudes may change, as they did with adoption. In the future, it may seem right to allow the child access to the donor's name.

1201
That brings me to another point, which I hope the House will keep in mind, if it agrees with me. This is a fast-moving issue, and it would be wise to avoid legislation that is completely inflexible and cannot assimilate developments as they occur. That is why the White Paper suggests that, while the basic remit of the proposed statutory licensing authority should be set out in the primary legislation, it should be adjustable by regulations. In addition, a number of finer points of detail should be left to the authority to determine in its code of practice, which will be laid before Parliament.
We must aim to provide the licensing authority with a clear legal framework within which to work, and, while providing a line of accountability to Parliament, we must not try to do the authority's work for it. In the decisions that it makes, and the advice and guidelines that it gives to both Government and clinicians, it must be genuinely independent, and seen to be independent. I reiterate what I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) about the need for genuinely balanced advice from a balanced and representative membership.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the ultimate responsibility for the work of the statutory licensing body will be his and that he will be answerable to the House?
Mr. Newton: I think it is clear that the framework that we propose would provide a proper line of accountability to Parliament. If my hon. Friend feels that that is not sufficiently clear in the White Paper, we shall wish to take account of any views that she expresses in the debate. However, if she is asking me whether Ministers could, on their own responsibility, overrule decisions of the statutory licensing authority within that framework, I do not think that that is appropriate, or indeed that Parliament would want it.
Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for the enforcement of which the Home Secretary is responsible. Ultimately, the responsibility rests here. Is the Minister going to tell us that less responsibility will be vested in Parliament—as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) suggested—in respect of the human embryo, a human being, than for animals used in scientific experiments?
Mr. Newton: We all deeply respect my right hon. Friend's feelings on these matters. We shall listen with great care to the points that he will no doubt make in the debate.
Ultimately, anything which happens under statute and which, in the broadest sense, falls within his remit, a Minister must be prepared to account for to the House —but that is a different matter—if only to explain why he feels it right not to change the legislation or to undertake some other action urged upon him. There is a clear distinction between that and the suggestion—I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) was making it and whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was picking it up—that Ministers should have the right, on their own responsibility, to overrule decisions
1202
of a statutory licensing authority of the kind proposed in the White Paper. But if it is the view of my hon. Friends that that should be the case, I shall, at the very least, undertake to consider what they say in the course of the debate.
I am conscious of the desire of the House that I should be reasonably brief, so let me deal now with some of the key points in the White Paper. First, its proposals for statutory regulation concentrate on procedures or treatments which require regulation primarily because of the ethical as well as the social and legal problems that they raise. Thus, the proposals would apply to embryos fertilised or maintained outside the body; also to donated gametes, that is, sperm and eggs, and any treatments involving them, such as artificial insemination by donor, or gamete intra-fallopian transfer, using donated gametes.
The proposed regulatory mechanism that we have just discussed briefly is the independent statutory licensing authority. That is really the keystone of this aspect of the White Paper and is one subject on which there was a wide measure of agreement among those who responded to the consultation document. Seventy per cent. of respondents were in favour of a statutory authority, which included the existing Voluntary Licensing Authority set up two and a half years ago by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to provide voluntary professional self-regulation of IVF and embryo research.
I say again that the statutory licensing authority would be entirely independent in that it would have the power to grant and revoke licences for all of the regulated procedures without reference to Parliament or Ministers. However—I hope this will give some reassurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point —Ministers will retain certain important powers, including the appointment and termination of membership. At least half the members of the authority will be lay members and at least one third will be doctors or scientists expert in this area. Licences would be required for all clinics offering any of the regulated treatments or procedures and, if Parliament permits research at all, for all research projects. It would be a criminal offence to undertake any of these procedures without a licence.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those medical and research-based members of the statutory licensing authority would not all be 100 per cent. in favour of embryo experimentation, and that there should be a balance among the scientific members as well as the lay members of the authority?
Mr. Newton: I can assure my hon. Friend that careful consideration will be given to membership issues within the powers granted by the House. Today's debate is precisely to enable my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to make their points on these issues which we can then take into account as we develop the legislation and in the course of any action which would subsequently take place.
Let me deal now with the proposal in the White Paper to which most attention has been and no doubt will continue to be paid—embryo research. There is some important measure of agreement here. There are some, mainly speculative, areas of possible research which most agree should be prohibited. Those include the creation of embryos with certain predetermined characteristics by

1203
cloning, and the creation of hybrid creatures, half man, half beast. Such experimentation, if it ever took place, would be regarded as ethically unacceptable and the Government—this will be welcomed by nearly all hon. Members—are committed to making such procedures a criminal offence, even if Parliament were to accept research in general.
However, there are other areas of research which, while recognising the need for controls, some, but by no means all, consider to be ethically acceptable in view of the benefits they could bring. Those include research to develop infertility treatments, to prevent certain congenital disorders or to improve contraceptive techniques. I do not need and I shall not seek to rehearse the arguments of those who believe such research should be permitted, nor of those who wish all research to be a criminal offence. To assist the House, they are set out in annex B of the White Paper and I am sure that many speakers will address that issue.
The Government's position is clear, and I make no apology for reiterating it. On a matter such as this, where hon. Members are likely to hold strong personal beliefs of a moral or religious nature, the Government do not take a collective view. In order that in this instance Parliament may be completely free to decide on the future of embryo research, the White Paper proposes that the draft legislation will include alternative clauses on embryo research—one banning all research, the other permitting it under strict controls. Our aim throughout has been to assist the choice which each and every individual hon. Member will have to make.
Mr. W. Benyon: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the position is moving so fast that there really is a need to put these proposals into law at the earliest possible moment? Can he assure me that such legislaton will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament?
Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, my hon. Friend has some experience as part of the usual channels, so he will know that the Government have clearly stated their intention to legislate in the present Parliament. He will equally know that all the conventions, apart from anything else, would preclude me from making a statement as definite as the one that he is seeking from me about what or might not be in the Queen's Speech for any particular Session. I hope that he will acknowledge that.
The White Paper, like the Warnock report before it, deals with far more than just embryo research. It includes important proposals covering the donation and storage of gametes and embryos, further clarification of the law on surrogacy, counselling and the legal status of children born following donation of gametes — the last being additional to the provisions already made, with regard to children born following sperm donation, in the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which is due to come into force later this year in England and Wales. While less attention is usually paid to these matters than to those on which I touched a few moments ago, they are none the less vital to the people that they will affect, and I hope that today's debate will give our proposals in these areas due consideration.
Today's debate is an important stage in our progress towards legislation. As I have just said, we are committed to introducing legislation during this Parliament. We owe
1204
it to the infertile couples of Britain, and to all interested in the matter, to conduct our debate in an informed and responsible manner, recognising that the ideal, if it can be achieved, is a framework which will allow the proper use of the knowledge that we have, or can gain, to assist people to a sense of fulfilment in their lives, while clearly protecting the fundamental values on which our society is based, not least the respect due to human life itself.
The House needs no further reminder from me of the size and difficulty of the task ahead of us in legislating in this area, but I am sure that we should make that attempt and then translate the work that underlies the White Paper into a well-considered statute. I hope that today's debate will help to achieve just that.
6.8 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: I am glad that we are now having a debate on the White Paper on human fertilisation and embryo research which has arisen, as the Minister has said, from the consultation conducted by the Government on the proposals in the Warnock committee's report.
I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Baroness Warnock and the members of her committee. They were facing, in a disciplined and responsible way, complex issues raised by advances in medical science. Their report has aroused considerable controversy, as it would do, in deciding how best, and with what guidelines, society should tackle new concepts which up to now have been beyond our comprehension. They were divided in some of their views but they gave us a lot to think about.
It was unfortunate that some hon. Members decided, following the publication of the Warnock report in 1984, to isolate their particular objection to one aspect of it—research on pre-embryos — and thereby give the impression that that was all that the report was about. To use private Members' Bills to legislate on one aspect—however crucial or controversial—is not the right way to deal with this matter. It is for the Government to draft much more comprehensive legislation — as they now intend to do—with all the resources and advice that they have available. Parliament should not be required o make important choices with lasting effects on women and their partners, families and future children, in isolation, in an ill-considered way based largely on prejudice and with badly drafted proposals. That was true of the Powell Bill a year or two ago and it is true of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
Many other issues arise from the Warnock report and the White Paper. On the assumption that the Government will legislate on all of them later, I shall touch on some of them now. I support the setting up of a statutory licensing authority and I have taken that view since the Warnock report was published. Clearly, the establishment of such an authority is the only way to ensure good practice. I welcomed the setting up of the voluntary licensing authority, because it showed a sense of responsibility on the part of doctors. However, its performance has shown that the medical profession is, frankly, unable to impose objective controls on some of its members with respect to in-vitro fertilisation.
In theory, the decision not to enshrine too many fine details in law but to leave them to guidance on good practice is a good one. In practice it would depend on the composition of the statutory licensing authority at any one time and on whether changes in composition are allowed to result in sudden changes in recommendations. As the

1205
Minister acknowledged, there must be a range of experience on the statutory licensing authority — the White Paper proposes that —and it should include lay representatives. However, those lay representatives must not end up as separate factions with irreconcilable views, as happened on some aspects in the Warnock committee. The interventions that we have heard seem to suggest that some hon. Members want differing views to be represented on the statutory licensing authority. If the House has taken a view about that licensing authority's functions, its members should reflect that view. How do the Government propose to tackle the possibility that there might be separate factions on the statutory licensing authority — even among non-lay and non-medical members? Presumably, the authority will include professional sociologists and some high-profile professional sociologists today oppose such treatments in any form that is practised. It would be a pity if the authority became polarised.
The Government propose that there should be a reasonable balance between men and women. I hope that the Minister recognises that the appointment of a handful of lay and professional women will be regarded as nothing more than a token gesture if there is a preponderance of men on the statutory licensing authority. We have to reflect the society in which we live, and there is a wealth of talent, experience and sound common sense among the majority of the population — women — from which to draw. After all, because of their child-bearing function, women are the ones who are principally affected. They should, therefore, form a strong part of the statutory licensing authority.
Let me pick out one of the functions of the authority for comment. I hope that the guidelines will ensure that counsellors are independent and trained in non-directive counselling. It is not the function of a counsellor to push the patient in one direction or another but to ensure that she understands what is in prospect. The woman—and her family, if they are with her when the consultation takes place—must be informed that there may be delays and disappointments but that it is to be hoped that there will be rewards as well. The counsellor's job is to ensure that the woman and her partner make an informed choice.
I seek clarification on the provision of funds for the statutory licensing authority's operation. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says that a contribution will be made from public funds but that
"it will be expected to meet a large proportion of its expenditure from fees collected in connection with its licensing activity."
How will that work? Will NHS clinics offering infertility services be required to pay fees to the licensing authority, part of whose funds will come from the public purse?
I understand that the authority will be funded partly from private funds, but part of its money will come from public funds. The Medical Research Council, which is funded from public money, supports research aimed at improving in-vitro fertilisation techniques and reducing the risk of genetic diseases. Its function is to undertake research that will improve people's lives, including the medical care available to them. Will the M RC be required to pay money to the statutory licensing authority out of
1206
the public funds allocated to it to fulfil its function? If so, that seems an unnecessary and bureaucratic way of bookkeeping, which might cost more in the end.
I am not opposed to infertility clinics in the private sector contributing to the work of the authority. They make money. However, I hope that they will not pass on the additional cost to their patients, who already pay heavily for treatment. Three of my constituents undergoing private infertility treatment have told me that they have had to remortgage their houses to do so. As far as possible, I would like the service to be available to all women, whatever their income, so I hope that we shall examine that matter.
In all this, the person to be considered is the patient. Women and their partners who seek advice and help because of infertility problems must be assured of a free service under the National Health Service. At the moment, the NHS is in crisis and we have all been arguing and pleading for more resources for patient care. I do not believe that infertility treatment should be regarded as a luxury to be paid for, because if it is, only the better-off will be able to afford it.
I have to confess to being unsure whether children who are born following artificial insemination by donorAID—or egg/embryo donation should have the absolute right to information about their origins. My instinct is that parents should be able to choose for themselves whether to tell the child, and I suspect that, in practice, that is what will happen in most cases. There has been a good deal of public debate about this issue. Some feel that the child should have the right to know his or her genetic origins and point to experience in adoption to back up that view. However, adoption is not exactly the same as AID and I believe that we need to examine the matter further before we enshrine such a right in law. In the White Paper the Government acknowledge the problem and propose to keep it under review. That is the correct step to take.
The most controversial part of the Warnock report is that concerning whether research should be carried out on pre-embryos. Every woman who is pregnant wants to produce a normal, healthy baby. Two weeks ago, when we debated the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, some of the debate centred around that theme. A great deal was said about the tests that can now be carried out, amniocentesis, ultrasound and a new technique that will be available in a few years' time, chorionic villus sampling. That technique is still in its early stages of development.
The termination of a wanted pregnancy, even if it is done at an early stage, can be distressing. During our debate on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill much was said about developing techniques to detect severe handicap at the earliest possible stage. Indeed, such techniques were discussed by some hon. Members opposed to pre-embryo research as part of their argument for abortions to be carried out at the earliest possible stage.
Some women who know that they are at risk either because they or their partners carry a disorder would like to feel that they can start a pregnancy in the sure and certain knowledge that it can be carried right through and that the baby will be born healthy. The new research that is now being undertaken could be the answer. That includes screening for genetic defects before the embryo begins to develop, which is on the 14th day. Genetic defects are a common cause of handicap and the death of babies. Genetic defects and congenital malformations occur in 2 to 5 per cent. of all live births and cause between

1207
40 to 50 per cent. of deaths in childhood. The technology has been developed in a relatively short time, but in the foreseeable future it may he possible to detect those pre-embryos that would develop specific disorders such as Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, Hunter's syndrome, Hurler's syndrome and Huntington's disease.
Are those hon. Members who are opposed to research unwilling to face up to their responsibilities to help those couples who want to take advantage of the available research? Are they so prejudiced that they will deny couples the chance of the baby they so dearly want? One of the worst inherited diseases is severe combined immune deficiency. The baby is born apparently quite perfect. However, pre-programmed by the genes inherited by its parents, it has no immunity to disease. The baby appears healthy at the beginning, when protected by the antibodies of its mother, but it will suddenly die from its first infection, usually after a few months. That is a great tragedy for any family.
In December 1987 two doctors completed tests that may eventually help doctors to diagnose the presence of combined immune deficiency in a human egg only a few days after fertilisation. More research is needed on human fertilised eggs before the suffering caused by such incurable, fatal diseases can be eased. Everyone should search their hearts to decide whether they should say that research to seek solutions for such handicaps should not take place because of their prejudice against pre-embryo research.
Research using pre-embryos is still at a relatively early stage. However, many women have been helped as a result of improvements in test-tube baby treatment. As infertility affects at least one in 10 couples and pre-embryo research has been so beneficial in the development of IVF I believe that that research is essential if the present low success rate is to be improved. Such research is also likely to help those with hormone problems and women whose early embryos are not properly implanted. We must not forget that many women miscarry because the pre-embryo and the subsequent foetus are malformed. Such miscarriages occur naturally, but I am sure that none of us would want to go through one or more miscarriages with the accompanying distress. Research could enable doctors to detect the reason for some miscarriages and, I hope, to prevent them in the future.
I hope that hon. Members have had the opportunity to read a serious article written by Dr. Anne McLarendirector of the Medical Research Council's mammalian development unit — in the "New Socialist" of 10 December 1987. [HON. MEMBERS:"New Socialist"?] I apologise, I meant the "New Scientist". She might well have written an article in the "New Socialist". That article is well worth reading. It is highly technical, but it demonstrates the advances that have been made and could be made in the future.
The White Paper states that the Government are proposing to table alternative draft clauses when a Bill comes before Parliament. It is rather unusual for a Government, at the first printing of a Bill, to propose two separate concepts contained in separate clauses rather than choosing one and having an amendment put down to it. However, if that practice will make the debate clearer, so be it. When we come to vote on this matter I shall certainly vote in favour of research, with safeguards.
1208
Frankly, I find it hard to understand the moral objections to research on the pre-embryo. It is the size of a needle point and hardly visible to the human eye.
A great deal was said about the moral questions involved with pre-embryo research in the House of Lords on 15 January. That debate is well worth reading. Indeed, the Archbishop of York discussed the problem of the status of the embryo and spoke of the need
"to ascribe full personal value to human matter which possess none of the attributes which normally belong to persons." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1462.]
There appeared to be consensus about that problem.
I fail to understand those hon. Members who are calling for an end to late abortions simply by lowering the present upper time limit to 18 weeks or fewer when some of their contributions to the debate a couple of weeks ago accepted that abortions should be permissible as early as possible. I know that many hon. Members are opposed to abortion as such and I respect their view. However, they are supporting the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which allows abortions in certain restricted circumstances. I do not understand how they can adopt that position and yet oppose research at a much earlier stage of development.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Lady has said. She quoted the Archbishop of York and in that same speech he also said:
"I regard as totally unrealistic and indeed immoral any proposal to continue in-vitro fertilisation without a proper backing in research".—[Official Report, House of Lords 15 January 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1461.]
Will the hon. Lady confirm that she believes that the opportunities for childless couples to have babies, as a result of IVF, is something that the House must support?
Ms. Richardson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I agree with most of what was said in the House of Lords and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has also read that debate.
There is a connection between this debate and the debate that we have had about abortion rights. I believe that it is curious that the same people who are now accepting that abortion should take place, but at an earlier stage, are not prepared to take that argument to what I believe is its logical conclusion and to try to seek the causes of genetic handicap at the earliest possible stage.
I would guess, noting the hon. Members who are waiting to speak, that we shall shortly hear how they manage to do that. It is curious that some of the early postcards that arrived in October last year in the mail mountain organised by SPUC advised voting for the Alton Bill but against medical research. That seems odd: that Bill is an 18-week Bill, so I do not know how the two ideas can be reconciled.
As well as support for controlled medical research from informed and distinguished scientists, doctors and the Upper House, support also comes from many organisations concerned with helping the handicapped. They have shown their concern by speaking out for research They include such highly respected bodies as Mencap, and last December they reconfirmed that they were in favour of continuing medical research. I am a member of an organisation called PROGRESS which has brought together a number of organisations—some of them of handicapped people, some of hospitals and some of

1209
concerned people. We have been trying to put forward the message that controlled and accountable research can help us all—and the future of this country's children.
Within and outside this House there are fundamentalists who would outlaw all research; and there are fundamentalists at the other end of the spectrum who would allow unlimited and uncontrolled research. I support neither group. I hope that Parliament will eventually take the view that research on pre-embryos should be permitted — with proper controls and accountability—to scientists and clinicians. Parliament has a role to play in protecting the public interest, and although 14 days has been proposed as the limit for such research, the White Paper rightly acknowledges that new developments might make exceptions permissible, and we may include those by affirmative resolutions in the future. I agree that we must have a certain flexibility of approach and not be hide-bound by a specific date.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wholly share the hon. Lady's view that research should be allowed and controlled. Does she agree that the clear and available publication of what is being done, and how it is being done, is of fundamental importance to the control of research?
Ms. Richardson: I quite agree. Parliament and public alike are entitled to know what research is being carried out and what the prognoses for that research are. That cannot be done immediately, because all research is inevitably slow, but we must have the opportunity to know what is going on and what it might lead to.
We must bear in mind the need for a properly resourced National Health Service to do the necessary work of research and treatment, and to ensure that funding of those things is not done by private, unaccountable bodies. Funding for research of this sort must not, however, be at the expense of other commitments. To judge by the way that the Government have so far failed to recognise that, whatever extra money they have put into the National Health Service, that has not been enough to stop patient treatment crumbling. I am worried about their willingness to find more money for research and treatment in this area. Couples who suffer from infertility problems will take that point to heart. They believe that they are as much patientsto-be as people undergoing other sorts of treatment in the National Health Service. Parliament must take these momentous decisions about the future of infertile couples and assess their value to women, their partners and the children of the future. We should demand that public funding be available for this research.
Like the Minister, I hope that we shall have a sensible, calm debate today on all the important points raised in the White Paper. I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate and hearing what the Government propose to include in the Bill that they will bring forward later this year.
6.35 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: I agree on one point with the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson): I am glad that we are having this debate.
I shall go at once to the fundamental issue before the House. In a debate on the Warnock report in 1984, I recall saying:
1210
"the committee performed its task without first considering the very question, on which all else depends—the nature of the human embryo".—[Official Report, 23 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 539.]
To put it mildly, the committee was uncertain about the human embryo. It did not answer the question whether the embryo is human, and, if so, deserving of special consideration from the outset, although it described it as such. It did not dare to say that the embryo was not human, because we all know that it is capable of becoming a child, an adolescent and an adult, and is incapable of becoming anything else.
Because it could not answer many of the questions that it posed, the committee jumped over them:
"Instead of trying to answer these questions directly we have therefore gone straight to the question of how it is right to treat the human embryo."
How odd that the Warnock committee was ready to consider treating the human embryo without being clear about what it really was. So odd was it that some members of the committee could not stomach the recommendations to which they were asked to agree. Led by Professor John Marshall, the distinguished professor of clinical neurology at the Institute of Neurology, they signed a minority report saying that there should be no experimentation on the human embryo and they gave what were, to many of us, convincing reasons. They recommended that
"the embryo of the human species be afforded special protection in law".
They were not opposed—neither am I; nor are those who share my views— to IVF procedures designed to overcome the distressing condition of infertility. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend, the former Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, who introduced a Bill on the subject which obtained a substantial majority on Second Reading.
Again, the Warnock committee sounded an uncertain trumpet on other matters. Yes, there could be experimentation on human embryos, but only up to 14 days. Why 14?
Mr. Doug Henderson rose—
Sir Bernard Braine: Mr. Speaker enjoined upon us the duty of being as crisp as possible, because many hon. Members want to speak. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he can speak later in the debate. By holding me up, he may frustrate his own chances.
Why 14 days? Why should it be lawful to tamper with and destroy a human embryo in the first fortnight of its existence and not afterwards? The hon. Member for Barking mentioned the Abortion Act 1967. It is lawful under that Act to destroy every year thousands of perfectly normal healthy children without any protection under the law. The pro-experiment lobby—and the hon. Member for Barking — has argued that such experiments are necessary to combat a whole range of genetic disorders. It is a fallacy to believe that embryos, at such an early stage of their existence, can be of any help with such disorders as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Down's syndrome. At 14 days the embryo has not developed to the point at which it can yield any helpful information. Leading specialists have made it plain that 14 days is not long enough.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bernard Braine: I have not finished the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen to me carefully and make a more informed speech when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In this kind of debate, we must develop what we know and we feel, and that is what I propose to do. I shall not give way, and I serve notice to that effect. I am not frightened of my hon. Friend or of anybody else. If I am forced to give way, I shall do so—
Mr. Thurnham rose—
Sir Bernard Braine: —but if I did so I should not have the support and encouragement of the Chair. My hon. Friend must listen.
When Lady Warnock was pressed on the issue of 14 days, she said that it would do for a start. What precisely did that mean? We are anxious to hear the Government's view about such uncertainty. We are on a downward slide with these people and we do not know where it will end.
The Warnock report is also uncertain about other fundamental issues. Paragraph 12.2 deals with public concern about trans-species fertilisation. The report states that certain experimentation in this field should be permissible, but acknowledges that the possibilities
"have caused public concern about the prospect of developing hybrid half-human creatures."
What did the report mean by going on to say that some experimentation in this field would be possible? Of course, that will need strict regulation by a licensing authority. The report even referred to the possibility that human embryos could be used to test the effects of newly-developed drugs or other substances that may possibly be toxic or cause abnormalities, and it went on to point out the deep concern that this might be exploited commercially. Yet paragraph 12.5 states:
"We concluded however that there may be very particular circumstances where the testing of such substances on a very small scale may be justifiable."
In short, the end justifies the means. The House must forgive me if I recall the defence of the murderer of that brave Polish priest, Jerzy Popieluszko:
"I thought that, by doing a little evil, I might prevent a larger one."
Although the Government are bold and adventurous in some respects, it is no wonder that against that background they have taken over three years to come up with a White Paper. Even then they are so uncertain that they put forward two alternative courses of action—to experiment or not to experiment.
What is one to make of the White Paper? I certainly welcome the first proposal, on page 6, to prohibit research on the human embryo. I reject the second proposal, to permit research subject to licence by a statutory licensing authority. Indeed, the second proposal begs an important question. To permit research on the human embryo gives man the power to play God, and so the Government propose that God should be regulated by a statutory body. Who then will regulate that body? Currently the Medical Research Council monitors such research on a voluntary basis, without the benefit of a statutory watchdog. The work is carried out by at least one distinguished figure whose early claim to fame rested on experiments with live human foetuses, injected with steroids, which were then killed and dissected. The facts are contained in the medical literature. That is the kind of watchdog employed at present and it explains the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health.
1212
Is this the sort of policeman we can expect if experimentation is controlled by the new statutory body? Will it be directly answerable to Parliament? If not, who will ensure that that statutory body will authorise only ethical procedures? We are entitled to ask that question. Parliament is the only real safeguard against the abuse of power. The judges and the press play an important role, but this surely is a matter for Parliament—the buck stops here.
If the Government's first proposal becomes law, it will not prohibit in-vitro fertilisation. That would continue and I am in favour of that, but I cannot support much else in the White Paper. Ever since the Warnock report and the debates on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which received so large a majority on Second Reading but was later frustrated by one means or another, we have been regaled with promises of cures for genetic diseases if Parliament would allow experiments on embryos to continue. I respect the views of the hon. Member for Barking, as she has been consistent over the years in hoping that Parliament will allow experimentation on the human embryo to continue. I am sorry to see the White Paper give so much credence to this point with little or no consideration of alternative methods of finding the same information. I would remind the House that no one in the scientific community supporting research has come up with any real evidence to support their claims that the human embryo will provide answers to genetic arid congenital diseases, particularly not in respect of experimentation on the human embryo in the first 14 days.
The all-party pro-life group, of which I have the honour to be chairman, is advised by a distinguished group of scientists and doctors, including Professor John Marshall — a member of the Warnock committee and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists — Sir John Dewhurst and Professor Erwin Chargaff who, in work on the cell in the late 1940s, discovered material that was crucial to Crick and Watson in formulating their model of DNA. The group is also advised by Professor Jerome Lejeune, one of the most distinguished geneticists in the world. Professor Lejeune's work on Down's syndrome is well known, and he has been working towards an amelioration of that disease without the use of the human embryo.
Our scientific and medical advisory committee has advised us that there is much potential for research involving gametes, ovum and sperm separately. On cures for infertility, we have been advised that there is much scope for research on the biochemistry of the reproductive system, as in-vitro fertilisation is applicable to a minority of cases of infertility and there is a great need for research to be directed to the majority. Research to enhance the future growth and development of a particular individual human embryo is also acceptable.
In evidence submitted to my right hon. Friend's Department, in response to its consultation paper, Dr. John McLean, the distinguished secretary of our scientific and medical advisory committee, outlined an alternative method to in-vitro fertilisation for the treatment of infertility. This method does not involve super-ovulation; it works with the natural reproductive cycle.
One of the papers submitted in response to the consultation paper by Professor Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the Universite René Descartes in Paris, stated:

1213
"My prediction concerning effective research without the use of human embryos has been amply demonstrated by numerous investigators in several countries. Vitamin supplementation in early pregnancy has been shown to protect the embryo from neural tube defects in spina bifida. The new developments in molecular biology applied to cells taken from adult patients with cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease and retinoblastoma have also generated a much greater understanding of the genetic factors responsible for these diseases as well as their location within the human genome. In addition, there is now the possibility of treating and curing certain genetic blood diseases with bone marrow transplantation. None of these achievements have involved the use of human embryos."
At the end of his paper, he added:
"The proponents of the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig were mistaken when they put forward to the public this cruel suggestion: either you accept our philosophy that embryos may be used or else you condemn families affected by genetic diseases and you wash your hands of their sorrows … Medicine is not forced to choose between playing Herod and Pontius Pilate. There are possible lines of research in full accordance with medical norms and already they are being demonstrated as fruitful."
In short, those who share my view of this grave matter are not opposed to research, but we reject that which lessens human dignity and reduces the weakest and most vulnerable form of human life to the level of a laboratory rat. The House should know—I made a recent inquiry about this and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who knows about scientific procedures, will no doubt bear me out—that, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, an animal that is used for scientific investigation is granted more protection than we give to our own species. I am referring here to the aborted human foetus which is not protected by the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. That is disgraceful.
It is about time that people faced fundamental facts. I believe that by proceeding in this way the Government are putting the cart before the horse. We want to know what sort of horse it will be. We want to know who will constitute it—who will be the front legs and who will be the back legs. We want to know which alternative of the two before them the Government will choose.
6.51 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his comments, save possibly on one point—that the Government could have been more positive on this matter. However, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I want them to be positive in different ways.
I take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about the slow progress that has been made in overcoming genetic diseases. Yes, that progress is slow, but it is equally slow by the alternative methods that the right hon. Gentleman advocates. Both methods take time but I suspect that both are showing ways forward. We who favour research want to make sure that no stone is left unturned in overcoming the crippling disabilities which have been referred to.
I should like to pick up the right hon. Gentleman's point about IVF techniques. He stressed that he supports the continuing availability of those techniques. However, those techniques, as currently used, would not have been available if there had not been research. The clause that is one alternative — the restrictive alternative — in the
1214
White Paper could close the doors to research that could improve IVF techniques. Had it been on the statute book 20 years ago, who knows whether we would be in a position today to rejoice at some of the progress that has been made:
If and when the proposals in the White Paper become legislation, they will have a significant effect on many individuals and families. I thank the Minister for the way in which he presented the White Paper. I noticed his concluding remarks and the way in which he referred to using knowledge in a constructive and responsible manner. That should be the guideline as we seek our way forward.
I am mainly concerned with the implications of the White Paper for research, both in terms of improving the IVF technique to help women who desperately want children, and in terms of the prevention of congenital handicap. Such legislation can be very intrusive into the most sensitive areas of personal and family life and has a particular implication for women, who are often the most directly affected. In some areas, there may well be a case for new frameworks. However, if they are to be imposed by legislation, I suggest that it must be by general consent. That should be a guideline also.
I have a deep personal and family interest in this matter, from the point of view of research into congenital abnormalities and profound mental handicap. I want to concentrate on that aspect. Hon. Members may know that, as a family, we lost two boys arising from such a genetic condition. Alun was 13 when he died in December 1984, and Geraint was 12 when he died three months later. Their condition was the San Philippo type of mucopoly saccharide group of disorders. It caused profound mental and physical handicap and a short life expectation. It was necessary for both my wife and myself to be carriers, which we were, and as any other hon. Member may be but be unaware of that fact. Even then, when both of us were carriers, there was a 1: 4 chance that the children would be affected. Unfortunately, of our two elder boys, two out of two were affected. Mercifully, our third and fourth children are not affected. Thankfully, the risk of their children being affected with the San Philippo condition is very However, whereas we are lucky other parents with children suffering other varieties of condition must suffer the terrible anguish of knowing that their children's children may be afflicted by profound handicap.
I give my personal background so that hon. Members can appreciate the background against which I speak, and the reasons for my passionate advocacy that research into such types of disability must not be prevented, as would be the case if the House refused to accept the Warnock report recommendations and passed into law the restrictive clause outlined in the White Paper. Such a decision would close the shutters on the faint ray of hope for many families suffering genetic disorders. It would be an act of callous and calculated brutality against thousands of parents and potential parents who have to travel through life with the enormous and depressing responsibility of knowing that their offspring may be afflicted by a crippling condition. Further, those children, even if they are not disabled, have to go through their early adult life with the same uncertainty in regard to their offspring.
The relevance of the White Paper for such families is that medical research is moving ahead rapidly and holds the key to the possibility of overcoming at least some forms of such genetic disorders. It is still early days, and

1215
it would be wrong to say that there is a panacea round the corner. However, it is equally wrong to deny that for a number of conditions, such as the Lesch Nyhan, which occurs fairly rarely, and Duchene muscular dystrophy, which is more commonplace, there is not a glimmer of hope that the frontiers of medical science are moving forward.
Medical science now holds out the possibility, at the pre-embryo stage, of identifying the pre-embryos which carry faulty genes and implanting into the uterus only those pre-embryos which appear not to be carrying the congenital disorder. Those pre-embryos are, in fact, a cluster of identical cells a few days old. That state is before the cells begin to differentiate; before implantation; before the primitive streak appears; before it is known whether the pre-embryo is to become a single foetus or twins and before individual identity. In the ordinary processes of life, such pre-embryos may develop in several ways. The majority will not become embryos, but will form the placenta. Some may develop into a malignant tumour. Some may be lost in the menstrual cycle and some may develop to become embryos. However, those pre-embryos carry the genetic information that cano help to identify potential congenital abnormality.
The technique now being developed involves the extraction of a few cells from the pre-embryo and their analysis by chromosome, gene-mapping and DNA identifying techniques to recognise possible genetic abnormalities. The technique has been shown to be effective in research on mice at the 8-cell stage. However, before using the technique on human beings, on a pre-embryo that is intended to be grown into a foetus and a baby, clearly careful research is needed on the human pre-embryo to make sure that we k now what we are doing.
The restrictive alternative in the White Paper would prevent such research from being undertaken and close the door on avoiding profound abnormalities such as the Lesch Nyhan syndrome. That is the syndrome for which we appear to be nearest to developing diagnostic techniques. The disease is caused by a lack of enzyme production associated with the X chromosome. It is possible to establish whether an embryo is deficient by looking at a single cell. Children with the Lesch Nyhan syndrome are normal at birth, but deteriorate rapidly, becoming mentally handicapped and self-mutilating and do not usually live beyond the teenage years. There is an application with an ethical committee waiting for the go-ahead to diagnose the Lesch Nyhan disease in pre-embryos. The outcome of the work could be the key to certain forms of cerebral palsy that are genetic, although not all cerebral palsy is genetic.
Another important disease which depends on enzyme tests is the Tay Sachs disease, which causes babies to die within two years of birth. It should be possible to develop a similar single cell test to establish whether Tay Sachs disease is present in an embryo. Two other major diseases where similar advances are likely are Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is carried by one in 20 people and is therefore a particularly serious problem. Many babies with cystic fibrosis die in infancy.
At a recent joint meeting of the all-party group for children and the all-party disablement group in the House, we were told by Professor Robert Winston of Hammersmith hospital of a case of a woman with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who had seen her brother die at the age of 15 and had two nephews with the disease.
1216
She was determined not to have a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. She had two terminations of pregnancy and the stress on her and her husband caused her marriage to break up. She subsquently remarried and had three terminations. She decided that she could no longer try to have a child. However, if an embryo diagnosis were possible she would wish to try to establish a pregnancy using in-vitro fertilisation.
These techniques will enable couples, who would otherwise be too fearful of having a child suffering from a chronic disability, to have children. It will avoid abortions at a late stage — something which we must surely all agree is desirable. It is worth stressing the enormous strain which profound disability places on a family, particularly multiple profound disability. It leads to marriage break-ups and suicides, places tremendous strain on other siblings and has a massive financial, social and psychological effect on the family. I know this from my own personal experience.
People who are insensitive to such experience sometimes suggest that we who advocate such research to avoid profound disability somehow place a lesser value on disabled children. I find the suggestion deeply offensive. I hope that we loved our two boys as they were and for what they were. Our wish was not that Alun and Geraint had not been born but they could have been born without such heart-rending handicaps; that they could have lived full lives without suffering what they endured. After all, how many other hon. Members who have been lucky enough to have had normal children would have chosen for their children to be so severely handicapped?
The miracles of medical science now hold out the chance of a choice for families afflicted by profound genetic disorders. They may be able, very soon in some cases, to have a pre-embryo selected which is free from disability. Does the House in all seriousness believe that such a choice should be denied to them?
In earlier debates on the matter some hon. Members have opposed such research and have asserted that they are taking the Christian view on the issue. The implication is that those of us who support research are in some way unChristian. I find that allegation offensive, arrogant and ignorant. I quote from the Archbishop of York, to whom reference has been made, in a debate on this subject in another place, when he said:
"First, let me say that I believe research must continue if in vitro fertilisation is to continue. One cannot separate them, and I regard as totally unrealistic and indeed immoral any proposal to continue in vitro Fertilisation without a proper backing in research.
This is for the simple and basic reason that imperfect techniques without a backing in research are bad practice medically and, I believe, wrong morally. There is a duty to patients to do the best which can be done, and any technique which involves the present traumas and uncertainties and wastage of embryos must be capable of improvement and therefore open to research."
He went on:
"I believe that in the very early stage when personal attributes are non-existent and when identity is yet to be established there is room to allow experiment. But it has to be hedged round by safeguards which make it publicly obvious that respect for our human origins is being properly observed. I see this as the tenor of the Government's proposals, including the tentative proposal to allow embryo research, and I hope that we shall see legislation along these lines in the very near future." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1461–63.]

1217
I refer also to a comment from the Spastics Society—we heard a moment ago the comment from Mencap—of which I am the president in Wales:
"The Spastics Society has been concerned with the prevention of handicap and has promoted research and information to ensure that avoidable handicap is reduced. We would therefore be seriously concerned at any move which limited the possibility of detecting the causes of congenital handicap, or knowledge about factors leading to congenital disease …. The Spastics Society would be appalled at any move which led to such vital and important work being stopped. The alternative if this happens is that many preventable handicap births will continue. The Spastics Society will always fight for a better quality of life and for the dignity of disabled people. But we also want to see all preventable forms of handicap avoided."
I believe that doctors have been blessed with an enormous talent which, if it can be carefully developed, can avoid the pain, anguish and suffering of many profound congenital handicaps. The choice posed by the White Paper is whether those talents should be allowed to develop under strict control to the benefit of thousands of families or whether those talents, as in the parable of the talents, should be buried in the ground. The decision is critical for many vulnerable families, and the House should ponder long and deep before closing the door on their glimmer of hope.
7.7 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It is a profound honour to follow the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), just as it is a profound honour to be a Member of the same House of Commons as him. I remember several years ago — no doubt he does — a speech made on a Friday morning by our former colleague, Keith Wickenden, on the subject of Down's syndrome, related to one of his children who was afflicted with that disease. In a debate of such seriousness and high quality, I cannot speak in the same personal terms as the hon. Gentleman. In reference to the quality of the debate, I refer particularly to the speech of the Minister, which I felt met the objections and concerns of the House with remarkable sensitivity. I speak with humility. I emphasise that the fact that a considerable amount of pre-embryo and in-vitro fertilisation research is done in Cambridge does not affect my view of the matter, because I am not making a constituency speech; my reasons are more personal.
First, I am in favour of the general principle of research, particularly into such subjects. I do not see that there is much of a role for Parliament or the Government to stop research which is positive. Secondly, the research has created life and has brought hope to the one in 10 families who are infertile—and in many cases not only hope but realisation. A friend of my family has recently given birth to a healthy daughter, after years of infertility and frustration, entirely as a result of the research and IVF. They are inseparable. I must disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), because they are inseparable.
Of the many letters that I have received, I shall quote one from a constituent, whose name I shall not give:
"When we first wrote to you in October 1986, we were a couple among many others in this country. Frustrated and extremely desperate, as the result of not being able to have children naturally.
1218
In less than three months from now, we expect the birth of our first long awaited child whom we totally owe to those whose work is now being threatened …"
Pre-embryo research, which is carefully controlled and licensed, provides early indications of serious abnormalities, prevents miscarriages and avoids the need for late .abortions. I am slightly puzzled by the illogicality of some hon. Members who support the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, but at the same time try to deny the research that will prevent the necessity for late abortions.
The Bill is strongly supported by organisations closely involved in these matters. In that regard, Mencap has been particularly mentioned. For some couples this research is a lifeline. At Bourn Hall, which is just outside my constituency, we have just celebrated the birth of the 1,000th baby to be born through IVF and this research. I should emphasise that we are talking about research for life.
Fewer than one in 10 IVF insertions are successful. Unless research continues, the possibility of misfortune and tragedy will continue. This research makes it possible to discover the causes of diseases such as cystic fibrosis, spina bifida and other genetic diseases that have hitherto baffled us and caused such misery.
I join the hon. Member for Caernarfon in imploring the House to give its support to this research. We are the world leaders in it. For the sake of future generations, why should we throw it away?
7.12 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in the debate. Many people in this country, like myself, doubt the need for any extensive or restrictive legislation. Whatever the nature of the legislation, it would be wrong to introduce it too quickly. I welcome the opportunity that is afforded by the publication of the White Paper to have a debate on the main issues involved in embryo research. These issues involve morality, and the appropriateness and practicalities involved.
Some people in this country — hon. Members will have been deluged with correspondence on this subject —argue that there is no moral justification, under any circumstances, for the premature termination by a scientist of the life of an embryo. They oppose all research that must inevitably lead to the disposal of an embryo by a scientist. I do not agree with that view, but I concede that there is an internal logic in it. If one takes that view, one cannot have option 1 in the White Paper, which has already been referred to.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that there is a contradiction in his position. If one takes the view that there should be no interference in the normal course of events with an embryo, one cannot have option 1. Option 1 would legalise procedures that are aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, if there had not been research in the past, it would not be possible today for thousands of couples to have the benefit of it. Option 1 is ridiculous, because it legitimises past research but outlaws current research. One cannot have one's cake and eat it.
Other arguments have been put forward by opponents to research that are less moralistic, and I think that they have less validity. One argument is that we should not have research because we cannot guarantee that there would be

1219
any beneficial results. That is a ridiculous argument. Would those opponents hold the same view on research into AIDS, cancer, arthritis or any of the other terrible diseases that affect our society and for which there is no known cure at the moment?
Another argument advanced by those who fundamentally oppose research is that it would be better to have research into animals, and that the results can be just as good. That cannot be argued consistently. It is accepted medical opinion that there is a significant difference between species, and that sensible results cannot be obtained on how human cells might react when compared with those of animals.
I do not concede that the fundamentalists have all the moral arguments on their side. I would be the first to defend their right to a philosophical belief, and I am sure that the House would also want to defend that belief, but they must judge the value of their ideology against the potential value that can accrue to society from research. They must judge whether their straitjacketed ideological thinking should outweigh the potential to relieve the problem of infertility, which affects more than one in 10 couples of child-bearing age in this country. They should remember the anguish, loneliness and insecurity, the sense of inadequacy and the mental pain of childlessness. I know a little about that, because I was married for 12 years before we had a child.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point mentioned humanity. The human test of opinion on ideological purity is whether the right hon. Gentleman could square it with the anguish, soul-searching and sense of inadequacy of hundreds of thousands of couples not only in this country but worldwide.
Currently, IVF has only a 15 per cent. success rate. If opponents want to test their morality they should do so on the people who have suffered and on the small percentage who have been lucky enough to have the chance of treatment.
I am not making a party political point, but the chances of receiving that treatment depend on the part of the country in which one lives. The facilities in this country are completely inadequate. Even where that treatment is available, the success rate is only 15 per cent. Some people find it necessary to spend any additional resources on private facilities. I know of people who have had to sell their houses and cars, and sometimes change their job, just to be able to have the chance of having a child.
I challenge opponents outside and inside the House to spend time with those people who have suffered, to live their experience and then say that their moral position stands the test. Surely we have enough resources in one of the wealthiest countries of the world to make that provision. Surely we can make provision for all those who suffer and so badly need the treatment.
Those who oppose this must judge their ideological position against the case for embryo research to prevent genetic disease. I do not want to refer to that aspect in great detail, because the case was made clearly and with great compassion by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. I am sure that others will further the arguments on that point later. It would be a scandal and a condemnation of the lack of liberalism in this country if we prevented research when scientists were telling society that they were almost ready to develop treatment for people with single-gene defects to overcome the problems of cystic fibrosis and other diseases.
1220
Having accepted the case for research in future, is there a case for regulation? On balance, I believe that there is. A body is required to review developments, to encourage the best practice and to consider the need for resources. This is a party political point. It galls me a little that we can apparently trust the City of London to self-regulate, but we cannot trust medical scientists to regulate their own affairs.
Having said that, I must concede certain aspects. I would certainly support the establishment of a licensing authority, although we must be clear in establishing the rules for it that we are not imposing the scientific priorities on medical researchers. It is Parliament's job to impose the financial rules, but scientists must use their intelligence, initiative and adaptability to investigate areas that they believe might be important.
Mr. Frank Field: Surely we need to go further than that. We cannot say that we can completely trust the scientific community. I know that this is an extreme example, but surely no one would trust the scientific community in Nazi Germany.
Mr. Henderson: I accept my hon. Friend's point. Society must have some control over the actions of scientists.
One of the reasons why I am hesitant about the efficacy of a statutory body is that I am not sure that it would exercise proper control. I would rather see a legal requirement laid down by Parliament that scientists should notify Parliament about the purpose of research work. That would be the proper control and a way of ensuring that there was no abuse by the scientific community.
I agree with those who argue that at the moment the 14-day limit is acceptable. We know from the literature that an embryo has not been kept alive so far for more than eight or nine days. However, we must look to the future. Researchers such as R. E. Edwards of the physiological college at Cambridge have said that research into hereditary diseases cannot prove wholly useful and diseases cannot be detected until the 14th day. However, if scientists believed that it was possible to detect a disease on the 15th or 16th day, what view would Parliament take? We might have to face that question in the very near future. I would say that scientists must have the right to go beyond the 14-day limit, but I concede that there must be some regulation.
Miscarriages are a major problem which affects many women many times in their lives. Again, scientific evidence shows that examination into miscarriages cannot be conducted adequately this side of the 14-day limit. Scientists may say that the limit must be extended to 15 or 16 days and we may have to face that problem soon.
There are many reasons for supporting the need for research. The Medical Research Council, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Warnock committee and many others have supported legitimising research on the embryo. Public opinion is also in favour. A Marplan poll in 1985 showed that 63 per cent. were in favour of research. However, I believe that a more telling poll was conducted by the Medical Research Council. It questioned 1,000 women attending a family planning clinic; 78 per cent. of them thought that research should be permitted on pre-embryos in an effort to prevent genetic disease and that women should be free to donate eggs for that purpose.

1221
All those authorities are good reasons for supporting research. However, I still believe that the best reasons for supporting research are to give life to babies who would otherwise not be born; to give a better life to babies who would otherwise have been physically and mentally handicapped; to give hope to and alleviate the pain and misery of the millions of childless couples; to assure the many women who suffer from miscarriages; and, finally and importantly, to give the extraordinary talent and diligence of our scientists and medical researchers the chance to help ordinary people.
7.26 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He asked whether we could trust our scientists. I would ask "Can we trust this House and the bureaucracy?"
I have read the Warnock report from cover to cover. When I looked at those people who had drawn up the report, I discovered that there was not a clergyman among them, even though this is a moral issue. Indeed, I read all the speeches in another place on 15 January and I found that only one clergyman spoke, the Archbishop of York.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that perhaps morality is too important to be left to the clergy?
Sir Trevor Skeet: That is a very fair observation, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his contribution later.
I want to consider where this whole matter will lead us. The prohibited areas are probably the most interesting. Ectogenesis involves maintaining the embryo in vitro for progressively longer periods. Why have a limit of 14 days? Why should it not be extended to 20, 30 or 40 days? The ultimate goal may be to produce a child entirely in vitro or to produce genetically identical individuals by cloning. In other words, the goal may be to mimic the natural process leading to selective breeding or the creation of human beings with predetermined characteristics. Those of us of my generation will recognise exactly what Hitler did and we remember his domination and his concept of the master race. One can see that coming, not in a lifetime but in two lifetimes. All those matters are hypothetical, but they may come about. As we are aware, we slide from one piece of legislation to another piece of primary legislation and so on.
I want to consider sex selection next. That is of benefit where it is learned that either of the couple is a carrier of a sex-linked hereditary disease, for example, haemophilia, or Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, it may be detrimental if it is allowed to affect the ratio of males and females in society. It is of vital interest to Indians in my constituency who welcome the birth of sons, but it is disturbing for the role of women in our society.
I now want to consider trans-species investigations. We are all aware that in agriculture they have combined a sheep and a goat and a rather remarkable beast was formed. It would not take a great leap of imagination to imagine what might happen. Each cell has its DNA. It is possible through genetic engineering and manipulation of cells to remove or to splice in a link and that might have catastrophic consequences.
1222
Lady Warnock puts her case this way: "We can stop our descent down the slippery slope at any point we wish, and the way to stop ourselves descending to unknown horrors is by legislation." But in many countries in the world there have been absolute monarchies or dictatorships, and we know what they have done with legislation in the course of time.
The White Paper, Cm. 259, at paragraph 27, says that we must have a system of mandatory licensing. That system, of course, would create a criminal offence. But I must ask the Minister how one can ever enforce a conviction to fortify the prohibition. There will be a problem of evidence. Most of the activities in breach of the law could be compiled clandestinely. Therefore, while one might get the respect of those who have respect for the law, those who thirst for knowledge, regardless of restraints, will work unceasingly for what they term their own aspirations.
We were advised by Lord Skelmersdale, the Leader of the Upper House on 15 January 1988, at column 1505, that the 14-day limit after fertilisation could be extended through primary legislation. Of course it could. I mentioned a moment ago that any length of time might be allowed. Once we get on that slope, the time can be extended further. On the other hand, a list of prohibitions that I have been talking about could be detailed. Paragraph 36 of the White Paper says:
"legislation should clearly prohibit all such activities, but with a power for Parliament itself, by affirmative resolution, to make exceptions to these prohibitions if new developments make that appropriate."
Everybody in the Chamber will know how often we have debated affirmative resolutions in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. This is a process of change by stealth. After a short debate such resolutions are sanctioned by the House. The ratchet turns only one way.
AID has grown in its operation without any official encouragement. Abuse of the Abortion Act 1967 has proceeded apace, regardless of the law. Euthanasia is practised to some extent throughout the United Kingdom.
I was very impressed by the minority report of Carrilene, Marshall and Walker. Their words impressed me:
"because embryos have the potential to become human persons neither the relief of infertility, nor the advancement of knowledge justifies their deliberate destruction."
The Select Committee of the Australian Senate has said that genetically new human life, organised as a distinct entity, is oriented towards future development. I will not quote Professor Thomas Torrance, nor Professor Lejeune, whose words were referred to by my right hon. Friend. He was denigrated by Professor Bobrow in a letter to The Times of 19 March 1985. I have looked at that letter. He said, finally, that research on very early post-fertilisation stages will be of medical value. He put it no higher and no lower than that. Later, he argued that, due to the parlous state of NHS finances, he doubted whether resources would be available to fund such research.
This is a solemn occasion. The dignity of man must remain inviolate. His status is degraded as soon as the legislature permits us to interfere, to man's detriment, with any part of his being, whether in the time of growth or synthesis. Infertility is a serious deprivation, but not fatal. It can cause no greater anguish than the lot of a very plain girl who fails to marry. It is ironic that the world may sympathise with infertility, but shows little interest in the plight of the latter. In abortion, as in experiments on

1223
human embryos, allegedly for his benefit, scant regard is paid to the fate of man, who may already have begun his pilgrimage course towards birth.
I shall put a few points now to the Minister. I am naturally concerned, because I am perplexed in my own mind, that there are benefits here, of course, which we have noted, but where does this legislation take us? Will we be able to find out the course that is absolutely important to us?
The Medical Research Council has indicated that it is not possible to extrapolate the research results from experiments on animals into man. I accept that. It further claims that certain genetic abnormalities occur only in humans, as in cancers of the outer placenta and in cystic fibrosis.
I received a letter recently from the department of biochemistry and molecular genetics, St. Mary's hospital, which makes an important point. It says:
"Advances toward any of these objectives, particularly the latter two"—
and it indicates them—
"would require a very small number of early embryo experiments carefully regulated and only using material which would otherwise be discarded."
It continues:
"Animal experiments cannot suffice, since there is no animal model for cystic fibrosis."
Will the Minister give the House a complete list, when she winds up or perhaps at a later date if she cannot do so now, of the diseases that are likely to affect infertile people, apart from those such as cancers of the placenta and cystic fibrosis, which we are advised can be studied only in human pre-embryos? Will she tell the House whether the understanding of certain diseases can be enhanced, first, by the study of animals, and, secondly, by the study of adult patients, and, thirdly, by study of the sperm and ovum rather than the embryo? Fourthly is there any other method such as micro-surgery of the fallopian tubes that might be used? I have the following diseases in mind: Down's syndrome, or mongolism, Tay Sachs, muscular dystrophy in various forms, Huntington's chorea, Lesch Nyhan syndrome, Friedrich's ataxia, and brittle bone disease. These are some of the important diseases to research, and there are many more as well. If we could get to the true facts, research into human embryos could he limited to a very narrow field. This list could be included in the Bill, and added to if necessary by regulations.
Techniques cannot be disinvented. The work that has been achieved in the United Kingdom cannot be undone, and nobody would wish that to happen. The Medical Research Council has laboratories at Carshalton and there are others at Edinburgh, and at the Cromwell hospital in London. I understand that there are 15 research centres in the United Kingdom. There have been great achievements throughout British medicine and I pay tribute to the work that has been done. Having said all that, surely we in the House can see, down the labyrinth of years, the dangers to which we are exposed, and the dangers to which we are exposing the nation. While acknowledging the remarkable work that we have done, can we remove some of the hard edges beyond infertility? I ask the Minister to consider such questions carefully. I will be satisfied with the answers.
If I am the son of a mother who received AID, I am entitled to my name and I am entitled to know who my father is. The Minister said that a child would not be
1224
entitled to the name of his lather and that therefore the child would have no link with his father. The child might have a passport but would have no link with identity. [Interruption.] The Minister said in his opening remarks that the child produced by AID would not be given the name of his father. The White Paper proposes that the name will not be disclosed. However, the Minister said that this might change. It might be wise to follow the policy in Sweden where the name is revealed. The child is entitled at the ages of 16 to 13 to know who his father was, what he was, what he did and everything about him in the same way as is obvious to the average individual.
Ms. Harriet Harman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of allowing children born by artificial insemination by donor to find out the name of the father is being reconsidered because the supply of sperm for donation has begun to dry up?
Sir Trevor Skeet: I would not have thought that there was any shortage of that material. I will not pursue the point. There are students everywhere; there are students at universities. I am talking about the basic right of the child; I am not putting any emphasis on the parent. The child has a right to know his identity. He has the right to know who his parents were. He has the right to know whether there was any moral problem in his line of descent.
I could say more but it would be unfair to other hon. Members who want to speak. I am not against AID provided it does not lead to destruction. Once a human is conceived, it is on the slow course which will lead it to birth. It is open to science to prevent it, but in that case we are all culpable for the result which follows.
7.42 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The White Paper is only a framework, but its drafting can be commended. Although the Warnock report was a study into which a great deal of work and research went, not all of us agreed with all its findings. Therefore, I am pleased that the White Paper is a significant improvement on the original report. The wide consultations with many organisations provided significant ground work for further consultation. I believe that almost 200 detailed responses were received.
The great support for the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill had a significant effect upon opinion. I trust that the statutory licensing authority will keep all the representations in mind when it makes decisions. The body will be completely independent in its decisions. I am glad that half of its members will be lay persons. I hope that there will be one member from the nursing profession and perhaps one from the Royal College of Midwives. The Minister should consider the composition carefully.
Research is the key word in the White Paper. One's views of research are personal. The recommendations which permit research and those which prohibit research will allow embryo experimentation to take place. Research is essential, but opinion on whether embryonic research is necessary is divided.
Professor Martin Bowbrow, professor of paediatric research at Guy's hospital medical school, believes that human research of this type is essential in the search for a cure for Down's syndrome and other chromosonal defects, including muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and haemophilia, because cures are unlikely to be found purely through animal research. This is disputed forcibly.

1225
One of the world's leading geneticists, Professor Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the cause of Down's syndrome, and Mr. Rex Brinkworth, the founder of the Down's Children's Association, have both categorically denied that the use of human embryos is necessary for research into genetic disorders. They maintain that there is no genetic information which could not be provided by a study of adult patients. Researchers who do not use the human embryo have achieved major breakthroughs in understanding and tackling cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Huntington's disease, using the techniques of molecular biology. There has been great progress in the treatment of genetic blood disease through bone marrow transplants and of spina bifida through vitamin supplementation for pregnant mothers.
The word "pre-embryo" is bandied about, but I maintain that there is no such being. Let us just talk about the embryo. Is the embryo a child? This is perhaps the most difficult question of all and one on which any decision will probably be based. The Warnock committee wants a ban on research after 14 days because that coincides with the feature known as the primitive streak, which is described in the report as
"the heaping-up of cells at one end of the embryonic disc on the fourteenth or fifteenth day after fertilisation. Two primitive streaks may form in a single embryonic disc. This is the latest stage at which identical twins can occur. The primitive streak is the first of several identifiable features which develop in and from the embryonic disc".
Those who say that it is not a child point out that the early embryo is a mass of cells, nearly all of which are destined during normal development to form part of the afterbirth. It is morally defensible to give absolute legal protection to this early embryo. From the moment of conception the embryo is a genetically unique, living, individual human being. At conception everything about the new human is established—the colour of hair and eyes, the sex, the eventual height and the complete genetic make-up of the individual with all his or her gifts and talents. At conception the human embryo simply has to grow and develop, as at any other stage of life.
I will quote what the Royal College of Nursing has said about experimentation on human embryos:
"We have little to add to the debate surrounding this issue. Our own view, and the view of the college, is that experimentation on human embryos is unacceptable save for therapeutic purposes which directly benefit the embryo. As practitioners whose daily work is taken up with close personal contact with prospective parents and real live children, we cannot but view embryos as something special."
The White Paper has another flaw in that there appears to be a lack of training initiative. Persons working in gynaecology, family planning and genetic counselling may be involved in limited assessment and follow-up work. One problem that seems to be identified is the lack of training for those undertaking this counselling of parents and the resultant supportive role. The Royal College of Nursing has said that as long as counselling is seen as a secondary objective it believes that the client is receiving an inferior service. It would therefore welcome comments on the need for properly organised counselling services for couples receiving infertility services, with adequate preparation of staff and regulation of the service in terms of resourcing and recording of information.
In closing, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, I quote what my hon. Friend the Member
1226
for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in the debate on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. He echoed my sentiments when he said:
"We should get away from and dispense with the charges and counter-charges about motive and who has what reason for taking which point of view.
It is not part of my case in favour of the Bill to question the motives of the scientists and doctors who carry out work in the disciplines which may be in some way restricted by the Bill, some of whom approve of the Bill and others of whom are opposed to it. Their motive is the advancement of humanity and the advancement of knowledge, and they pursue those objectives with a determination and single-mindedness which from time to time inevitably brings them up against the test of what the law should tolerate and where the boundaries should be drawn. But I do not question or challenge the motives of their work, for which I have the highest regard.
It does not follow from saying that everything which anyone working in any of these fields might feel should be done should be sanctioned. Our experience over the years is that there will always come a point where the researcher wants to do something which society thinks should not be done, and the argument is about where those boundary lines should fall."—[Official Report, 15 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 693.]
The human embryo is my boundary line, and I will not cross it, although I respect the views of others in this Chamber. I am interested to hear the information that is coming out in the debate tonight.
7.52 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sure that all hon. Members will have been deeply moved by the speeches of those hon. Members who have had personal experience of the tragedies of infertility and genetic handicap. It is worth remembering that it is estimated that each one of us carries on average six defective genes in our make-up, and it is purely a matter of chance whether our partner has the same genes so that we carry the risk of passing on this handicap in the form of a child who is born with a dreadful disorder.
The most common of these handicaps is cystic fibrosis and one in 20 of the population carries this gene. I take the strongest exception to the remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that cystic fibrosis research does not require the use of human embryos. I have had a letter today from Professor Williamson of St. Mary's hospital, who is leading the team in this country which is doing the most work in this respect, and he confirms that every member of his team accepts that human embryo research is necessary for that work.
I should like to start by congratulating the Government on bringing forward this challenging White Paper with a view to legislation on these issues, it is hoped, later this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has said, there is no doubt that we in this country are leading the world in this science. As we heard from the Minister, it is now 10 years since the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first test-tube baby. Since then, well over 1,000 IVF babies—I believe nearly 2,000 now —have been born in this country, and worldwide the total is now over 4,000. So approximately one third of all the IVF babies in the world have been born in this country.
I think it is worth asking why this country is in the lead in this pioneering work. I believe that it is because we not only have outstanding medical skills but also the rarest of all virtues—British common sense—so that we can come to terms with the ethical, moral and social implications of these new developments.

1227
The report of Baroness Warnock's committee has been admired by people all over the world who look to this country to establish a legal framework in which our doctors and scientists can continue to do this work while society as a whole can be assured of both the continuing benefits of this work and the establishment of strict controls to regulate future research.
The Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are to be congratulated on setting up the Voluntary Licensing Authority in 1985, which has an excellent lay chairman in Dame Mary Donaldson and a committee with a balance of lay and medical members. There is no such body in any other country, and it sets the basis for establishing a statutory licensing authority, as recommended by Baroness Warnock in her report.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has commended the work of the Voluntary Licensing Authority and I would remind Members of her reply to me on 24 April 1986, when she said:
"I noted that the authority's first report had been published, and I hope that it will be widely studied, because the organisation's work is excellent."—[Official Report, 24 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 422.]
One can hardly approve of the work of the Voluntary Licensing Authority if one does not approve of the research that it carries out.
However, some sections of the public have expressed their reservations about these new developments, with massive petitions and letters to Members of the House. Some of our religious leaders have found it difficult to come to terms with these new dilemmas. The Church of England Synod voted narrowly in favour of continuing research, but the Catholic Church, with some notable dissenters, has been opposed. I was much heartened by the speeches in the other House, where I think there was a balance of 17 speakers in favour of research against four
who did not want it, and particularly by the speech of the Archbishop of York, which has already been referred to. He gave a lead to those who look for the religious argument in favour of research.
The Catholic Father John Mahoney, first president of the Catholic Theological Association, has put the divided views of the Catholic Church excellently in his book "Bioethics and Belief".
The House has recently had a passionate debate on abortion, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) pointed out to us all the dilemma of late abortions. IVF research holds out the promise of fewer abortions through the possible new technique of pre-implantation diagnosis for couples who are at risk of carrying genetic disorders, as well as of improved contraception, which in itself would reduce the number of abortions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to Professor Lejeune. I would remind him that 95 per cent. of the experts in this area in this country would endorse the statement made by Professor Bobrow of Guy's hospital:
"Sadly, Professor Lejeune has, over recent years, become an isolated figure in the world of human genetics."
Professor Bobrow said that the letter which he wrote to The Times was signed by eight senior colleagues, and that the editor of The Times limited the signatories to that number, as otherwise the massive preponderance of his profession would have signed the letter.
1228
One of the most moving experiences of my life was a meeting held here last month in the Grand Committee Room for parents of handicapped children, when mother after mother expressed her fear of giving birth to another child carrying dreadful inherited disorders. At present the only option, if any, is late termination of affected foetuses, with all the attendant stress. Who here would deny them this new pre-implantation diagnosis possibility and hence the opportunity of carrying a healthy child without the fear of a late abortion?
The former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, spoke about the dignity of man, but where is this dignity for the many hundreds of severely handicapped children in institutions and psychiatric wards whose parents cannot cope? Must we deny research that could reduce the incidence of severe congenital handicap?
I speak also for that other silent minority, the one in 10 couples who have difficulty in becoming parents. Those of us fortunate enough to have children should not be so selfish as to deny to others, usually too embarrassed and unhappy to speak out for themselves, the right to found a family. Is this not one of the fundamental rights in the European convention? It certainly is in the United Nations body of rights declarations in 1968, article 16 of which states:
"Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children."
If people suffering from infertility have a right to IVF treatment, how can we deny them the benefits of research to improve this technique, for, however beneficial, it is still in an early stage of development?
The Voluntary Licensing Authority has given me these figures for the United Kingdom in 1985 — the latest available figures, because gestation takes nine months. The number of patients treated in 1985 was 3,717. The number of treatment cycles in 1985 was 4,308—because some patients had more than one treatment. The number of clinical pregnancies arising from those treatments was 481, and the number of live births was 364. That is a success rate of only 8–5 per cent. for each treatment cycle. Surely that is evidence of the need to improve the efficiency of this technique.
To outlaw that research would not stop it—it would drive it abroad. It would be no solution to the ethical problems posed, because surely we in Britain would want to benefit from any advances. It is far better to give the Voluntary Licensing Authority legal backing and sanctioning power so that the public know that research is properly conducted, monitored and controlled.
The VLA has shown that limits can be agreed and adhered to without the danger of the "slippery slope" that concerns many people. I would remind hon. Members that no embryo has been kept alive beyond nine days of development, and that the fourteenth day indicates a point at which the embryo cannot exist without attachment to the mother's womb. Before the fourteenth day, many contraceptives, such as the IUD coil, prevent the embryo from implanting and so it is lost. Are we questioning the morality of those commonly-used methods?
The pre-14-day embryo has the potential to divide and form twins, and also to join together again to form only a single individual. That phenomenon shows the absurdity of trying to give the status of a human individual to a pre-14-day embryo.
Perhaps later this year hon. Members will have the novel opportunity to choose, on a free vote, between two

1229
clauses, one forbidding research and one allowing research, subject to the regulations of the statutory licensing authority. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the benefits of research within strict guidelines, and decide to vote in favour of the Government's proposal for a statutory licensing authority, and allow that authority the freedom to decide the criteria for embryo research within the balance of overriding limits laid down by Parliament.
8.1 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The main suggestions in the White Paper seem eminently sensible and clearly command a broad level of support. In my opinion, an independent statutory licensing authority is the right body to make those sensitive decisions. It is not an area for direct Government intervention, but more than professional self-regulation is needed.
We have not discussed the controls over surrogacy that are referred to in the White Paper, but again the balance is right. It proposes the sensible and compassionate withdrawal of any facility for any party to take another to law over money that may have changed hands. However, it pays due regard to any child who may be born in that way. The White Paper contains no Government sanction. The suggested regulations about the storage of gametes and embryos again hold the right balance.
I shall concentrate my remarks on research on embryos. That clearly is the most heated point of the debate. I speak with some humility, having listened to the speeches of those hon. Members who spoke from personal experience. I was extremely moved and convinced by what they said. In many ways, they made their case completely.
What are the reasons for such research? It is not a question of scientists getting carried away by their ability to research cloning and the fanciful subjects which seem to have stolen the headlines in the debate, but which are irrelevant to what happens in clinics that do such invaluable work to solve the problems of infertility.
We have heard today that one in 10 couples face the problem of infertility. Having gone for treatment, fewer than one in 10 couples go home with babies in their arms. The problem is huge. It is a problem which those of us who are lucky enough to have children will never experience, but we can imagine the inadequacy and emptiness of life when children are very much wanted and are not forthcoming. Who are we to deny those people something that comes so easily to so many of us?
Without a certain amount of research, even those one in 10 mothers would not be taking home their babies. There would be no babies as a result of in-vitro fertilisation if there had been no research. It is impossible to separate the two. Without further pre-embryo research, the success rate in helping infertile couples can be increased only by a greater number of re-implantations, thereby risking multiple pregnancies, miscarriages, premature delivery and infant mortality.
Pre-embryo replacement must not be done on a random basis, but only where there is a clear family history of genetic disease. The opportunities that modern science provides to detect those pre-embryos which carry disorders must and should be screened out. Pre-embryo research is the crux of the matter. It helps infertile couples and helps to eliminate genetic disorders.
1230
Yesterday, I went to a fertility clinic to look at a pre-embryo. There has been so much talk about experimentation on embryos following the debate on abortion that there is a public misconception that we are discussing experimentation on microscopic babies. It may sound silly to say it in the House, where hon. Members are so well informed, but in the country there is such an illusion.
We are talking about a small cluster of cells no bigger than a pinhead, which cannot be seen by the naked eye. For up to 14 days following fertilisation, pre-embryos exist with no nervous system and no recognisable foetal characteristics. Indeed, 90 per cent. of the cells formed in that way go on to form the placenta and not the embryo itself.
After fertilisation under normal circumstances, most of those pre-embryos fail to attach themselves to the wall of the uterus and are lost as part of the next menstrual cycle. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has already said that forms of contraception such as the coil prevent the pre-embryo from attaching to the side of the uterus and developing into embryos.
There has been much discussion about the nature of life and when life starts. We must be realistic about it. We must recognise that it does not start with an instantaneous, star-studded explosion. Fertilisation is a continuous process taking up to 24 hours and ends when the fertilised egg begins to divide.
If we allow our scientists and medical advisers to continue with careful and strictly controlled research, it will be possible to screen out genetic disorders, not only to stop one child carrying those disorders but eventually to screen out those disorders altogether from our population. It can be done.
In most instances, the chromosomes — the genetic make-up of a potential future embryo—are identifiable in that pre-embryo cell. It is simply a matter of removing one cell from an embryo, freezing the embryo, which may be only four or eight cells—they do not increase one at a time, they double — removing one cell and checking for genetic disorders. If that disorder is present, the pre-embryo will be allowed to perish naturally. If it is healthy, it can be implanted in the mother's uterus. We have heard today, only too convincingly, about the tragedy that can befall not only the children concerned, but their families, when such genetic disorders are allowed to continue while we have the means to prevent them.
Pre-embryo research will also help to establish the causes of infertility, and to tackle the problems of contraception. I have lived through an era in which we thought that we had the contraception problem cracked. In the sixties, the pill appeared. Everyone thought that was fine, and we could forget about the problem. As time has gone on, however, we have heard about risk after risk attached to different forms of contraception. Clearly we do not have the answer. There is a great deal of work to be done, and embryo research can add considerably to our knowledge.
Research must, of course, be carefully controlled. No one is advocating a completely free rein for scientists to become involved in work that is not possible, and not likely in the foreseeable future. We must, however, be clear as a Parliament that we cannot endorse some of the more fanciful elements of pre-embryo research. Continuing embryo research must be very strictly controlled. However, in my view, the benefit to mankind far

1231
outweighs any disadvantage. While it has become clear that research of this kind cannot be performed on animals, I emphasise that it is being performed not on microscopic babies, but on human material which is not an inherent human being.
Let me add a specific point to what I have made the main thrust of my argument: the need to allow research to continue. That is my anxiety about children who are the offspring of artificial insemination by donor being allowed to know their natural fathers. We have already heard that, in Sweden, the number of people coming forward to donate sperm for this cause has plummeted as a result of such a measure. Most young men would be very reluctant to indulge in such an exercise in the knowledge that, in 20 or 30 years, someone could knock on their door and say, "Hallo, Dad." That is a frightening prospect. However, more mature men have come forward, who may have had experience of infertility themselves, and may know the problem. Perhaps that is no bad thing, but the number of couples seeking such help has declined. There is evidence that some of them may be going abroad to seek help, where they will avoid the problem of a possible future revelation for the child which may be to the detriment of the whole family.
Most children know their true father only by courtesy of their mother. There is considerable evidence that up to 20 per cent. of children could not be the natural offspring of the person they have been brought up to think of as their father. We are giving those children rights that the rest of the population do not have.
We must allow controlled research. There must be regulations on this vital matter, but we must also recognise that what can be achieved will alleviate human misery substantially. For us to turn our backs on that potential achievement would surely be very wrong.
8.14 pm
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Less than a fortnight ago, we debated another issue that centred on moral and medical issues. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) presented a Bill that caused much heart-searching on both sides of the House, and I would be very surprised if similar reactions did not occur this evening.
The issues of abortion and in-vitro fertilisation are clearly, to an extent, related. Many of us opposed the Abortion (Amendment) Bill on the basis of our scientific knowledge. I, for one, could not reconcile an 18-week gestation period with the knowledge that, even with today's highly sophisticated medical techniques, no baby born before 24 weeks' gestation had survived.
I very much doubt whether legislation should pre-empt medical advances to the extent that mothers carrying undetected abnormal foetuses should be denied abortions. The House may find it significant that the three practising medical men elected to the House last year—the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and myself—all voted against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. I trust that those hon. Members who voted for a period of 18 weeks on the understanding that it would subsequently be amended to 24 weeks — a date that I would endorse—will not be disillusioned.
If we believe, as do so many Roman Catholics and, indeed, Christians of all denominations, that life begins at conception, the whole principle of IVF is presumably
1232
unacceptable. I understand the pure logic of their argument, and I admire the consistency of deeply held views. However, from my previous remarks, the House will understand that I cannot, as a physician, accept them. I understand that the new technique of gamete intra-fallopian transfer—referred to by the acronym GIFT— may overcome theological arguments, in that ova and sperm are introduced into the fallopian tubes, where fertilisation usually takes place, as opposed to the uterus, separated by a pocket of air.
For me, the overriding issue in both the Abortion (Amendment) Bill and the subject of tonight's debate—-other than the mother's well-being—is her opportunity to decide whether to bear children with varying degrees of handicap, within the context of the whole family. Surely it cannot but lead to fewer abortions if abnormalities can be detected not in the 18th, 24th or 28th week, but in the first 14 days. At this stage, the term "pre-embryo" is utterly appropriate — before cell differentiation has occurred, and before any neurological tissue has been laid down. We should never forget that the cells in the pre-embryo, roughly the size of the point of a pin, can develop either into the embryo itself or into the placenta.
Apart from the avoidance of congenital defects such as Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's chorea and cystic fibrosis— I shall spare the House a litany of diagnoses—which are just a few of about 50 serious genetic abnormalities which affect 15,000 babies annually, I cannot see that the techniques of IVF should be denied in efforts to produce normal children for previously infertile couples. Much happiness has been brought to childless marriages, and the pleasure of knowing that their own genes have produced the baby enhances the parents' joy. That does not apply to the practice of artificial insemination by donor, about which I have many reservations. How much more desirable is pre-embryo diagnosis, as opposed to late abortions, which I suspect no hon. Member views without the deepest concern.
In-vitro fertilisation is a technique developed in Great Britain after 20 or more years of research. Parallel research in the United States was held back owing to antagonistic state legislation, which may be a lesson in itself. In contrast, Australia has taken the lead unencumbered by overbearing legislation and assisted by ample funds.
The success rate of implantation in Britain 10 years ago was about 1·5 per cent. It has now risen to around 25 per cent. However, the "take-home baby rate", which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree is an inelegant phrase, is only 8 to 9 per cent.—in other words, less than one in 10 succeed. That is a disappointing figure. A plateau has now been reached, but I am led to believe by my medical colleagues that a major breakthrough is likely in the next five to 10 years if two conditions are satisfied —first, that legislation does not stand in the way, and, secondly, that adequate funds are available.
This week I visited an IVF unit in London—I was glad to see the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) following in my footsteps — which has the unique distinction of being a joint project between the National Health Service—at Barts—and the private sector. Some hon. Members know of my keenness to encourage such co-operation and this is an excellent example. Of the other 36 units, one third are in the NHS, one third in the private sector and one third are attached to academic institutions.

1233
The Voluntary Licensing Authority, set up on the initiative of the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has done admirable work, under the chairmanship of Dame Mary Donaldson, in regulating the work done in this area and has worked closely with local ethical committees. It has licensed 25 units and another 12 are under assessment.
It is no reflection on the VLA that I now support the setting up of a statutory licensing authority with advisory and executive powers, in cases of prima facie unethical practices. It should consist of professional and lay members, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks.
I would go further than the Warnock report in proposing the inclusion of a religious leader of any faith. That representative need not necessarily be ordained. For example, a doctor who has been a lay preacher might be an admirable choice. Indeed, such a person might find more favour in the House than the sociologist suggested by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).
I fully support the introduction of a new criminal offence, backed up by severe penalties, for the unauthorised use of embryos, trans-species fertilisation and genetic manipulation. The sale of embryos should in no circumstances be tolerated.
Above all, I urge the House to keep the whole issue in proportion, untainted by exaggerated and emotive propaganda. Assisted reproduction, necessarily dependent on successful and integrated research, is already of vast benefit to those 10 per cent. of couples who are infertile. We want to see more than the 2,000 healthy babies already born in this country by that means.
In conclusion, assisted reproduction is an important, worthy and humane venture and our responsible medical profession would not hazard the technique's great potential by abusing ethical standards in its country of origin. The case is compelling and I trust that the House will not stand in the way of further properly supervised research.
8.24 pm
Mr. William Cash: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) because, in their own respective ways, they summarised clearly the position that I generally oppose.
We have had what on any account has been a good-tempered and well-balanced debate, and an enormous amount of time has been given to White Papers, to the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill which was introduced by Mr. Enoch Powell — I was a member of the Committee which considered it—and to discussions in the media over the past four years or so.
I gave evidence indirectly to the Warnock committee, and I have been involved with this subject for about six years now. I have done my best to grapple with the difficult problems that it represents, but I find the issue extremely difficult. I have a clear idea of what I think should be done, but at the same time I have to acknowledge—in the hope that I am a compassionate person and also aware of the grave concern of those people who are infertile or who suffer from potential genetic defects — that there is a serious problem that we must address.
1234
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) asked whether we should sacrifice this research for the sake of future generations. The issue that has concerned me in particular has been whether we might be sacrificing future generations for the purposes of research. I say that seriously and gravely, because major questions relating to potential political control lie at the root of this important subject.
Some years ago, in the debate on the Warnock report, I said that I thought that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. I also said that if a private Member's Bill were to be introduced, there was a strong case for such a Bill being referred to a Special Standing Committee. I add as a rider to that that we could ad hoc change our Standing Orders to enable the usual three days allowed for a Special Standing Committee to be extended to, say, 10 days.
I had many discussions with Senator Brian Harradine of the Australian Parliament. As a result of his efforts, a Select Committee was set up in Australia. I kept in touch with him throughout the whole of its proceedings, and I have the volumes of evidence that were given to it which anybody could fairly say represents an enormous amount of work. If we were to have a Special Standing Committee to consider the crucial questions which arise from the White Paper, its members would have the opportunity to look at the evidence that had already been provided in Australia, sieve it, and come up with an interesting and important contribution. That Committee could cross-examine the experts concerned who so far have not been subjected to sceptical, or even cynical, cross-examination, which it is our job to provide.
I have heard much talk from hon. Members who take an opposite view to me about the relative unimportance of the pre-embryo. The Australian Select Committee considered voluminous evidence, carefully and seriously, in a balanced way and came to a number of important conclusions. After the most thorough inquiry into the status of the human embryo undertaken by any Government body anywhere, the Committee found:

"1. that the human embryo from conception is 'a genetically new human life organised as a distinct entity oriented towards further development' ….

2. that the embryo's orientation to 'further development as a biologically individuated member of the human species' commands such respect as to preclude destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on it.

3. That any 'marker' or distinction between embryos, such as `pre-embryo', 'pre-embryonic disc', 'pre-conscious' or 'spare' which purports to distinguish between embryos which are entitled to such respect and ones which are not is arbitrary, ethically unsound and impractical … and

4. that 'prudence' dictates that, until"—

I would say "unless"—
"the contrary is demonstrated 'beyond reasonable doubt … the embryo should be regarded as if it were a human subject for the purposes of biomedical ethics ….".
There is much more in that report.
The importance of this subject was borne out by my visit to the United Nations some years ago with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. I am glad to see that she is in her place, as she may recall the discussions that took place in the Population Control Committee room. I raised the question of eugenics, which lies at the centre of gravity of the problem. I had been referred to a book called "Human Fertility — Health and Food." I remember that book vividly. In effect, it said, "There are a lot of nuts running

1235
round the world. There is absolutely nothing for anyone to worry about. The research will be undertaken anyway and we will package them up and dispatch them." The evidence that I have accumulated since then proves beyond reasonable doubt that we need to consider positive eugenics very seriously. I would recommend all hon. Members to read a book by Dr. Glover, a distinguished philosopher and fellow of New college, Oxford. It is called "What sort of people should there be?" It is not a joke book. It describes analytically, calmly and unhysterically genetic supermarkets, positive eugenics and related matters. We know of the works of Mr. Muller writing in America in the 1930s and we have evidence of the way in which the Germans behaved in the pre-war period and during the war. Anyone who does not believe that it is possible for this research to be turned to evil purposes is under a grave illusion.
That brings me to my next question. Would the proposed Bill ban all research, as many have thought? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health will forgive me if I misquote him, but I think that he said that it would ban all research. Writing in The Independent of 14 December, Tom Wilkie said that one of the options to be considered was
"whether research should be banned altogether."
If one examines the White Paper and, as it were, translates it into a Bill — I have no doubt that parliamentary counsel will be doing that with the next Session in view — one finds that research is not as prohibited as we had thought, or perhaps hoped. I shall not go into all the technicalities, but paragraph 30, relating to the alternative draft clauses, says:
"It will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at"
a number of purposes, and there is a similar draft dealing with the question of permitting research.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): The White Paper makes it clear that it will be for the House to decide whether research should be permitted. The present proposal is to offer the House alternative clauses, one which would permit research and one which would not. It would be for the House to decide on a free vote.
Mr. Cash: Of course, that question will be implicit in the Second Reading debate and it will be decided then. But when we have got past that point and the scope and long title of the Bill have been conceded on Second Reading, we have to ask: what degree of research will be allowed? My hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me on that point.
I shall now deal with the question of extending the activities—or reducing the prohibition—by regulation. Effectively, that would be done by means of affirmative resolution and the so-called Henry VIII clause. For those hon. Members who do not know what that means, it means that the Act can be amended by subsequent statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. The problem is that if that technique is employed, we are on the slippery slope — the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) in his telling speech and I believe by me in the debate on the Warnock report in 1984. I am bound to ask whether we are entitled to examine the relationship between the
1236
benefits on the one hand — I concede those benefits, because I have compassion for those affected — and grave political dangers on the other.
I shall come to my point on that straight away. I see that another distinguished Minister, the Minister for Local Government, is in the Chamber. When he was at the Department of Trade and Industry, I think I asked him whether we should have international treaties to deal with these matters. It is not just a question of what we do in this House; we may significantly affect what goes on elsewhere, just as the Australians may significantly affect what we do. That is the way that the world goes round these days. We live in a small global village. We could possibly work through the EEC. I believe that these matters would fall within the provisions of the treaty reserving our right to determine matters of public health. If that is so, we should be able to sustain the veto if we had to do so while negotiating in that context, or unilaterally, with other countries.
The implications for the world as a whole are serious enough for us to consider that. I say that because there is now much evidence of the dimensions of the problem. An article in the Spectator of 29 August 1987, referring to the physiology and genetics research station at Roslin just outside Edinburgh, says:
"They have plans to try to transfer a copy of a gene taken from a human being — the one responsible for the production of an essential ingredient of blood plasma—into sheep. They are using human tissue."
The author of the article refers to it as being a "scary subject", and says:
"The need to spend money has its own momentum and few human beings need a purpose beyond insane curiosity to meddle with nature."
I got 150 signatures for my early-day motion on trans-species fertilisation. The Daily Telegraph subsequently reported the creation of an ape-man hybrid in Florence. These are not scare stories. They are questions of great importance and we need to take them into account in determining how to deliberate on this matter. There are some well-intentioned people who want to produce helpful research for other people, but there are nevertheless significant problems which Parliament needs to contain and control.
I wonder, therefore, whether it would be sensible to impose a 10-year limit on the Bill on the assumption that we are dealing with experimentation and that many of the proposals may be overtaken by events. Those who take the opposite view to mine may well find that the Abortion Act 1967 had a time limit imposed on it. It may have been another Act. It does not matter which one of those seminal pieces of legislation had a time limit imposed on it, which was subsequently erased by resolution of the House, but the important part is that a time limit was imposed. It would be useful to consider that.
It might also be helpful for a Sub-Committee of the Social Services Select Committee to be given the specific task to monitor, within Parliament, the activities of the SLA. I believe that Congress follows that practice. I am concerned about what the word "therapeutic" means. I am speaking almost in shorthand because I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I apologise if I have taken too long.
At the end of the day, we must consider this subject from the point of view of the child—not children. We

1237
have to make our first priority the preservation of life, not its destruction. This subject is too important for us to play games with it.
8.40 pm
Mr. John Hannam: This has been a quiet, well-informed debate. Anyone who listened to the moving speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) detailing the tragedies within his family and also listened to the opposing but probing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will appreciate the careful approach that has been adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister who has tried to find the right path for this delicate subject.
I have consistently supported measures to restrict unlimited abortion and other campaigns for the protection of the unborn child. Therefore, it may be rather surprising that I now wish to speak in support of research on pre-embryos. However, in common with my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I see no contradiction in adopting that position. Obviously, if we can remove the flawed cell at the beginning we shall remove the need for an abortion at a later stage. If, as a result of research, contraception methods are improved we also remove the need for abortion at a later stage.
Hon. Members will be aware that I am deeply involved in working with and for handicapped people. For some 15 years I have been an officer of the all-party disablement group and in common with other hon. Members I am an active member of many organisations such as Action Research for the Crippled Child, the Parkinson's Disease Society, Alzheimer's Disease Society, Mencap and other disability groups. Much of the work of those organisations involves preventive care, that is, helping to find ways of preventing those dreadful, disabling diseases that cause such distress not only to the sufferers, but to the parents and families concerned.
During my 17 years in Parliament much progress—medical and social—has been made for those who are unfortunate enough to be handicapped and disabled. A great deal is now being done to help them live reasonable lives. Nevertheless, I will do everything that I can to prevent such disabilities occurring. I am convinced that the harnessing of medical and scientific progress, under proper supervision, can lead to great advances in preventive care.
Earlier I mentioned Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. With both of those dreadful afflictions, and possibly with multiple sclerosis, we are on the verge of an amazing breakthrough with brain cell transplantation. With that issue we run up against perceived moral and ethical obstacles because the transplant material comes from aborted eight to nine-week-old foetuses. The Government will have to clarify the law on that matter if that great medical breakthrough is to be put into practice in this country as it already is in Sweden and Mexico.
The key issue today is the use of pre-embryos for research into the genetic diseases or abnormalities that can be detected in the first 10 or so days of a fertilised cell's existence. As we know, when a male sperm fertilises the female egg it is one cell. That cell divides quickly into two cells, which in turn divide into four and so on. They are clustered together and at that early stage each new cell
1238
looks just like the other. During the first 14 days after fertilisation the majority of those cells separate to form the placenta. At this time they can be seen only under a powerful microscope. It is at the 14 day stage, when the process of separation is complete, that the remaining cells then form an embryo—in the case of twins two embryos are formed. If all remains well, the embryo may grow into a foetus and become a baby.
The bulk of the research that is under discussion in the White Paper concerns helping people to get pregnant or avoid losing their babies before birth and, of course, IVF. As well as improving infertility treatment, research on pre-embryos could also help to improve contraceptive methods and prevent human genetic defects. Such defects are a common cause of handicap and death of babies. Genetic defects and congenital malformations occur in 2 to 5 per cent. of all live births and are the cause of 40 to 50 per cent. of deaths in childhood. Genetic diseases account for 10 per cent. of all diseases and such diseases are untreatable. Some 12 to 15 per cent. of all paediatric admissions are due to congenital abnormalities. One person in 50 has a major congenital abnormality—that equals 14,000 births a year. One in 100 people have a single gene defect and one in 200 a major chromosomal disorder. It is estimated that 20 per cent. of pre-embryos are abnormal and certain couples are at particular risk. Screening for pre-embryos would help those couples who were known to face a substantial risk of defect. In the foreseeable future it may be possible to detect those pre-embryos that would develop specific disorders such as muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Hunter's syndrome, Hurler's syndrome and Huntington's chorea.
Mencap and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation believe that research on embryos under 14 days could help to reduce the genetic diseases figures and must be supported by Parliament. The advantages of such research are only now becoming apparent because of recent developments in relevant technology. In January at a joint meeting of the all-party disablement group and the all-party children's group, Professor Robert Winston, professor of fertility studies at Hammersmith hospital, pointed out that, within the next few months, it would be possible to establish guidelines for diagnosing certain genetic conditions two days after fertilisation. The first condition with which the model has been successfully developed is the Lesch Nyhan syndrome. Children with that disease are normal at birth, but deteriorate rapidly, becoming mentally handicapped and self-mutilating. Such children do not usually live beyond their teenage years. It is now possible to establish whether an embryo is deficient by looking at a single cell. The two other diseases where major advances are likely are Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. The cystic fibrosis gene is carried by one in 20 people and is a particularly serious problem. Many babies with the disease die in infancy.
At present the only way of discovering whether a woman is carrying an abnormal foetus is by amniocentesis. That test cannot be carried out, as we know from recent debates, until the 14th or 16th week of pregnancy.
An embryo up to 14 days after fertilisation is one tenth the size of a dot of newsprint and it has no organs or feelings. During this stage a woman would not normally know that the egg had been fertilised because implementation would not have taken place. In addition, at least 40 per cent. of fertilised eggs are shed before

1239
implementation and widely accepted methods of contraception such as the coil and low-dosage pills work by preventing implementation of the fertilised egg rather than preventing actual fertilisation.
It is easy to imagine the heartache that parents must endure as they consider whether to terminate a pregnancy or whether they will be able to cope with a severely mentally or physically handicapped child. All that could be saved if the presence of an abnormal gene or chromosomal defect could be detected in a pre-embryo. It would then be possible to ensure that only normal pre-embryos were transferred back to those women whose families carry serious genetic diseases.
The alternative to that handicap prevention development is our present system of identifying an abnormality at the 14th to 20th week of pregnancy. The parents are then faced with the terrible choice of either having an abortion or the birth of a severely handicapped child. Surely if such terrible abnormalities could be identified and the defective cell replaced by the mother's normal, healthy cell that must be right. Banning pre-embryo research will halt essential work being carried out to find ways of preventing chromosomal abnormalities and hereditary genetic illnesses that affect up to 14,000 children in Britain every year.
The claim that human embryonic material is not needed for dealing with genetic diseases is refuted by nearly all the experts involved with medical science. The latest claim that recent advances in understanding cystic fibrosis, which is the most common severe genetic disease affecting children, had come about without the use of embryos is vehemently denied by one of the leaders in the field, Professor Williamson of the department of biochemistry and molecular genetics at St. Mary's, whose research group has been one of the major teams studying that disease. He points out that 2 million people in Britain carry the lethal genetic defect that causes the disease. He says that tremendous progress is being made towards finding a longterm solution:
"Advance towards any of those objectives …would require a very small number of early embryo experiments, carefully regulated and only using material which otherwise would be discarded. Animal experiments cannot suffice since there is no animal model for cystic fibrosis."
It seems, therefore, that the general White Paper approach of the development of a statutory licensing authority exercising strict controls over surrogacy and the storage of eggs and sperm and acting, if Parliament sees fit to approve—I hope that it will—as the licensing authority for the specific limited time approach on pre-embryos, is ethically and morally right. I hope that, like those in another place, hon. Members will eventually support that.
For those of us working in the area of disablement and handicap the extending of the frontiers of medical knowledge towards finding methods of eliminating and preventing severe abnormalities and curing established disablements incurred later in life represent a satisfying and rewarding future. From my personal contacts with the medical experts working on such research projects, I can say that I find them to be quiet, dedicated people who are responding to all the ethical and moral dilemmas that face us all. We must remember that they face and treat, day after day, the many thousands of sufferers from such dreadful diseases — and deal with their families. Their motivation to use the increased knowledge that they slowly acquire to help alleviate this suffering is surely
1240
understandable. It does not lead to an excess of desire to drive a coach and horses through the ethical and moral barriers to which society adheres. They are intelligent people conscious of their moral responsibilities.
This debate, like that on 15 January in the other place, has been a deliberate one, but I hope that it will help to influence hon. Members and the world outside. I am grateful for the opportunity to put forward my views, which I desperately hope will accord with those of the majority in the House.
8.52 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I want to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Minister by using a moderate and constructive approach similar to his. It is right that we should approach the debate's subject matter with compassion for couples who face the blow of childlessness due to infertility. As a mother of three, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) —I see that she is no longer with us—that I know the father of the three children concerned, and if she saw them, she would be in no doubt who he was. My hon. Friends certainly know him. Perhaps the hon. Lady is as fond as I am of the old calypso: "Your father's not your father but your father don't know".
However, as a mother I know only too well the mixed blessings that the children can bring. Predominantly, they bring joy, happiness and fulfilment to their parents. To those unfortunate people who yearn for children but are denied that fulfilment I express my genuine concern, understanding and sympathy.
My first point is that, however greatly a couple may wish to have children, to do so is not an absolute right. If it were, we should have devalued children to little more than property to be possessed. Children are not like that; they are not a right: they are a privilege. We must ensure that our Health Service makes provision to seek to alleviate infertility when it is realistically practical to do so, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it rests with an authority higher than doctors or specialists to decide whether a woman bears a child.
Secondly, the simple fact that can all too easily be overlooked is that experimentation on the human embryo is not the best way to alleviate infertility. Nor indeed is the technique of in-vitro fertilisation an appropriate one for dealing with the majority of such cases. I shall not enter into all the details of the argument now—it would take too long—but I should point out that infertility due to tubal occlusion is avoidable in many cases, arising as it all too often does from sexually transmitted disease, the aftereffect of abortion or a complication from having used an intra-uterine device.
Furthermore, IVF is only an appropriate treatment for infertility in a minority of cases. Those who want a solution to the majority of cases of infertility would do well to heed this fact and to accept that it would be a far better use of resources, and would help a great many more women to bear children, if those resources were used to highlight the problems of promiscuous sexual activity and abortion so as to prevent the occurrence of infertility in the first place. In other words, prevention is better than cure —and it is possible in the majority of cases of infertility. I want the House to take that point to heart.
I also want to highlight the work now being done by Dr. Kevin Rees, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, of Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport—which is near my

1241
constituency—and of Dr. John McLean, senior lecturer in anatomy and embryology at the university of Manchester medical school. Those two doctors are working on a project to simplify the procedure of treating infertility due to tubal occlusion by transferring the ovum directly into the uterine cavity and allowing natural intercourse to provide the opportunity for in-vivo fertilisation. That new technique is particularly exciting because it could be used in many other types of infertility in addition to those for which IVF is considered appropriate.
I also draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health the fact that not only is this technique more widely applicable than IVF but it is also much cheaper and could, in the near future, be available through every district general hospital. If that does not strike the fear of God into my right hon. Friend's heart at the present time, I do not know what would. It should also be noted that the technique has been introduced and is being developed with no need for experimentation on the human embryo.
As the new technique holds out much brighter hope than IVF, at lower cost, for more women, why do a small number of individuals continue to promote IVF as the only solution? Could it be because of the financial gain that is possible through that high-tech but low-effect treatment? Perhaps it presents the opportunity for scientists to get their hands on the human embryo for other purposes. We can only speculate, but it remains beyond doubt that the usefulness of IVF is extremely limited.
Dr. Rees and Dr. McLean have applied to the North-West regional health authority for financial assistance with their work. I hope—I am sure that thousands of infertile women will share the hope—that such funding will eventually be forthcoming.
If we accept that IVF has a continuing role to play in the treatment of infertility, experimentation upon the human embryo need have no part in IVF. To explore the reasons behind the poor success rate of IVF, we need a careful study of those embryos which fail to implant and die, and of the wombs of the affected women, not of other living healthy embryos. It is not logical to suggest otherwise.
I wish to deal with one other aspect during this reasonably short speech—the false promises which have been made by so many people with an interest in allowing human embryo experimentation to continue. In debate in Committee on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, on which I served, we were repeatedly told by many, including the Medical Research Council, that such experiments would find a cure for genetic disease. This has proved a totally unfounded hope. During the five years which have passed since the Warnock committee began to consider these matters, there have been no great discoveries from those who argued for the use of the human embryo in this way.
Yet, on the other hand, dedicated research workers have shown considerable success in dealing with the problems of handicap without the use of the human embryo. Vitamin supplementation in early pregnancy has been shown to protect the human embryo from neural tube defects, such as spina bifida. New developments in molecular biology, applied to cells taken from adult
1242
patients with, for example, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease and retinoblastoma, have generated a much greater understanding of the genetic factors responsible for these diseases, as well as their location within the human genome. There is also the possibility of treating and curing certain genetic blood diseases with bone marrow transplantation, and progress is also being make in seeking to work with those suffering from Down's syndrome.
It is clear, therefore, that there are fruitful and practical lines of investigation into handicap which do not require the use of a human embryo. I believe that this argument for the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig is nothing more than a red herring to distract attention away from those who wish to experiment in other directions, for example, in the development of new abortifacient drugs or contraceptives and, I fear, for possibly more sinister purposes. On the latter point, millions of pounds will be made by those scientists who are successful in those experiments. The House should address that point.
As the Medical Research Council, which has campaigned so actively for experimentation on the human embryo, has failed to acknowledge the wealth of opportunity which is available without the use of embryos and, as it has so persistently misrepresented to hon. Members the possible benefits of human embryo research, the time has come to re-examine whether this body should continue to receive Government funding.
If the MRC cannot supply accurate, impartial and useful information to hon. Members, we are left with no alternative but to call into question its ability to supervise the use of funds allocated by the Government from taxpayers, with the approval of this House, for research purposes.
Finally, I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the recommendation of the Warnock committee that the status of the human embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation. No other principle than that of a right to life, free of experimentation, could possibly be enshrined in legislation by this House. The duty of upholding this right must rest with the Minister, to such an extent that he would be abrogating his responsibilities if he passed responsibility for such matters to any new quango, such as a statutory licensing authority.
However, I hope that, when the House finally has the opportunity to enshrine these matters in legislation, it will accept that there is no ethical or constitutional alternative but to establish in law the right of the human embryo to be protected against those who would seek to experiment upon it, and to rest responsibility for ensuring that this remains the case directly with the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House.
9.4 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have not spoken in the previous debates on this subject. I have tended to reserve my contributions in this area to children at a later stage: child benefit, child abuse and family courts. However, I now have the privilege of being the parliamentary representative of the Medical Research Council, taking over from our former colleague, the previous Member for Canterbury, Sir David Crouch.
The Medical Research Council has been mentioned during the debate, not only by my hon. Friend the Member

1243
for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). It is important to note that during the past 65 years the Medical Research Council has offered independent advice to Government. It was established by royal charter in 1920. Its research activities are wide ranging, covering the areas of cancer, heart disease, strokes—still the third-largest killer— mental illness, Alzheimer's disease, addiction, disorders of movement and balance, low back pain and much else.
It is important to see the Medical Research Council's involvement in embryo research in its proper context. Of a total budget of around £140 million, perhaps only 0·1 per cent. is spent in that area. However, it is important work. Together with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Medical Research Council has been responsible for the voluntary licensing authority. In the light of remarks that have been made about the activities of the Voluntary Licensing Authority, it is important to give credit to Dame Mary Donaldson, the chairman, who, with impeccable credentials, has carried out that important work without reproach as a lay chairman working for the best interests of research and the public.
During this thoughtful debate, mention has been made of contributions from the other place. I refer especially to the comments of the Archbishop of York who talked about the moral need to continue research. To stop research on pre-embryos at this stage, with in-vitro techniques in their present state, would be a cruelty to those receiving this treatment for infertility. The success rates are so low and the dangers of multiple births are so great that to stop now would be an inhuman option.
Similarly, important research remains to be completed in the area of contraception. With the world's population increasing at the rate of 250,000 people per day, there are further developments to be made in that area.
A similar argument applies to the prevention of handicap. Many moving accounts have been given today of people's personal experiences. Before entering Parliament, I worked with a family with Huntington's chorea, where each member of the family had a 50–50 chance of inheriting that mentally and physically degenerative disorder, leading ultimately to death. For mothers with Huntington's chorea in the family, having the option of producing a healthy child can be regarded only as a pro-life solution.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes urged caution before hastily outlawing research during our earlier debates on the Bill of our former colleague, Mr. Enoch Powell.
A report of the Conservative Women's National Committee showed a majority in favour of the establishment of a statutory licensing authority to permit supervised research on the embryo before the 14-day limit. It is broadly understood by many people that at 14 days the embryo becomes a rather more developed cell cluster. At the early stage, embryos are regularly lost by means of the intra-uterine device.
There are arguments now for moving with considerable speed towards legislation. Time and trouble has been taken in the preparation of the White Paper. There is broad agreement on many areas. Opinion has moved with the publication of the White Paper.
This is an important subject. We debated only recently the time limits for abortion. In conclusion, I can do no more than remind hon. Members of the contribution made
1244
by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science when we last discussed the subject three years ago with which I entirely agree. He then said:
"Parliament has licensed the termination of the life of embryos by abortion up to the 28th week after conception."
Many hon. Members would support that being reduced further now.
"Among the circumstances that are implicitly allowed to permit an abortion is the possibility of serious congenital abnormality in the unborn child. Parliament has thus recognised the legitimacy of terminating the prospect of human life for a defective embryo. Should it now turn its back on the emergence of technical possibilities which might enable an embryo to come to a normal and natural life with its abnormalities corrected or prevented in the womb? These technical possibilities …might make it possible to avoid procuring an abortion. In these circumstances we must surely ask, which stance is 'pro-life' a nd which stance is 'anti-life'." —[Official Report, 15 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 681–682.]
9.10 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Not least because of the Minister's well-balanced and reasonable opening speech, we have had an excellent debate. We have heard many sincerely held, if different, views. I do not think any hon. Member would do other than congratulate the Government on their initiative in 1982 in setting up the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. However, while their foresight is to be commended, the composition of the committee left a great deal to be desired, as every member started by being in favour of the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. Two members afterwards changed their mind and signed a minority report opposing the use of the human embryo in that way, but it would have been a prerequisite for anybody serving on the committee to favour the experimental use of the human embryo. It was not a good start.
It says a great deal for those involved that, in the ultimate, seven of the 16 members of the committee dissented from the main report, which recommended that it should be permitted to manufacture embryonic human beings specifically for experimental use. Not surprisingly, the report was not acclaimed by the general public, albeit the media did its utmost to present it as a step in the right direction for a civilised society. The fact is that the vast majority of the British public were not having it, as many hon. Members can confirm from their post-bags or from public opinion surveys that have been carried out.
This became obvious when the Department of Health and Social Security sent out the Warnock report, calling for comments on it. Many of the comments demonstrated clearly the revulsion with which many people viewed the recommendations of the Warnock committee, despite the huge press campaign which was launched to try to convince people that if the use of the human embryo for experiments was banned we would see research into cures for genetic and chromosomal diseases brought to a halt, as well as work on infertility stopped. To my mind, this was one of the most cruel aspects of the campaign against pro-lifers, particularly as those involved must have known this to be totally untrue. They must have known the tragic effect this would have on the many thousands of couples who were unable to have children or who have handicapped children.
Every hon. Member owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Enoch Powell when in December 1984 — at that time he was the Member for South Down — he

1245
decided to use his place in the private Member's ballot to introduce the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, with the aim of outlawing the experimental use of the embryonic human being. It would not have resulted in the prevention of in-vitro fertilisation if the aim was to allow an infertile woman to bear a child. However, it would have stopped the use of either spare embryos or especially manufactured embryos from being used as guinea pigs.
The House does not need to be reminded of what happened to the Powell Bill. Few of us will ever forget the manner in which it was talked out, with the result that not only were pro-lifers outraged, but many hon. Members who do not support my views on the issue were appalled, and the media became more anxious to put across the pro-life cause.
The following year I decided to reintroduce the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. However, our antagonists were determined that it would not even be given a Second Reading. As a result, I reintroduced it as a ten-minute Bill, when we determined that we would have a vote, particularly as our opponents kept informing the press and the media at large that we had lost support since Enoch Powell attempted to change the law. The vote on my Bill showed that this was not so, as we won by 229 to 129. That indicated quite clearly that, if anything, there had been an increase in the number of hon. Members who supported it.
Since then my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) have demonstrated the determination of the majority view of the House, reflecting the majority view of the people, by attempting to reintroduce the Bill.
In the meantime, we have witnessed an innovation. Like other hon. Members, I have heard of all manner of press launches for any number of marketable products. I was surprised that those in favour of experiments on embryos organised a press reception at which they launched a new word. They did not announce it as a new word, but launch it they did. The word was "pre-embryo", and we have heard it many times in the debate. They spoke as if it were the norm and as though anatomists, doctors and scientists had been using it for centuries. It appears in no book of biology, anatomy or medical dictionary published in this country or, to my knowledge, anywhere in the world.
It certainly was not used by the Warnock committee. One of its members, Dr. David Davies—who signed the main report supporting the production of embryonic human beings, especially for use in experiments—had the integrity to point that out when he wrote in the scientific journal, Nature. He said:
"I am reasonably sure that at least in (Warnock Committee) discussions the word 'pre-embryo' was never used …If research on embryos were an uncontentious matter, and if scientists were generally of the opinion that the new terminology helped their understanding, nobody would have any qualms at the name change. But those who are introducing the word 'pre-embryo' into the vocabulary know full well that the research is indeed contentious and that fundamental issues have yet to be resolved."
In other words, a member of the Warnock committee, who quite obviously does not agree with us, was complaining at the manner in which some scientists strive to manipulate public opinion by the invention of words
1246
that have no true meaning, and which certainly do not describe the human at conception. Pre-embryo may fairly describe the sperm and ovum before fertilisation, but there is no way in which the human at conception or after conception could be so described.
I am delighted to see that the ploy has not worked. The majority inside and outside the House still want the human embryo protected. They regard it, as do I, as a member of the human family from the moment of conception. They reject words such as "pre-embryo", which are intended to suggest that it is less than human.
It is to the credit of the Government's White Paper that it does not indulge in the misuse of words. However, on reading it, it is difficult not to suspect that the decision to indulge in a second round of consultation on the Warnock report was made to delay a decision in the hope that public opinion might change. I am glad to have received an assurance from the Minister that that was not so.
There is nothing new in the White Paper. It simply reiterates what the Warnock committee said on the issue. That is made even more regrettable when we realise that evidence was submitted, which was approved by some of the most eminent scientists in Britain, America and Europe, showing that what we said in 1985 was being substantiated by developments in the scientific world. That evidence shows that the human embryo is not required to make advances in seeking the cause and cure of genetic diseases, infertility and other problems.
I note with some concern that the Government have concluded that an independent statutory licensing authority should be established. What guarantee will Parliament be given that it is independent and unbiased? If the committee of inquiry can be made up of members who all share the same views, as I have outlined, how can we be sure that the statutory licensing authority will not be manned in the same way? That remains a worry, although I was glad to hear an assurance about that from the Minister in his opening speech. Infertility treatments and services should be directly controlled by Parliament under the Secretary of State. So far-reaching will be the effects on society of the legislation that we shall shortly introduce that it will be one of the most, if not the most, important pieces of legislation to come before the House.
I hope that we shall ensure that the most defenceless of our society — unborn human beings — are at least preserved from being used as human guinea pigs. When an experiment could not possibly be for his or her benefit, it has never previously been acceptable for it to be carried out without that person's consent. That position must continue, otherwise we shall be setting out on a slippery slope.
I should like to congratulate the Government on the part of the report that promises that the House will be granted an opportunity to vote on two alternative clauses. It lays that out quite clearly and fairly. I call on the Government to ensure that that clarity is maintained when the Bill is ultimately produced. I urge that that should be done without further delay. We have waited long enough, and it is time to act to give the human embryo the legal protection that we all enjoy.
9.19 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: It was an honour for me to come 17th in the ballot for private Members' Bills this Session and to take on the mantle of my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr.

1247
Hargreaves) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Powell, in introducing the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill which lies at the heart of the discussion this evening.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health and Social Security on bringing forward the report that is the basis of this evening's debate. They have recognised that there are deep feelings inside and outside the House over the sensitive issue of embryo research. I hope that in the very near future—I stress very near future — the report will be translated into legislation. I hope, too, that the legislation will reach the statute book in Government time.
I am sure that my colleagues would agree that it is only the strength of feeling inside and outside the House that has ensured that we will be given the choice, through the White Paper, to decide whether to allow embryo research in legislation in future. That is the central point. I do not want to discuss any other details from the report now.
I speak for people who have children and for those who have struggled to have children. My wife and I, unlike many other fortunate members of the community, did not have children easily. We had to struggle. I appreciate the problems about infertility and childlessness. However, deeper issues are involved, as many of my hon. Friends have said.
I am also interested in research. As president of the charity Action Research for the Crippled Child in my constituency, I am keen to see that research to prevent child diseases is fully funded. However, setting aside my interest in those things, I must state that there is a deeper and more fundamental argument about the nature of life. Whatever view we may take about this, our view of life and its creation is fundamental to this issue.
The major division between us is that those of us who would outlaw research on embryos believe that life begins at fertilisation, inside or outside the womb. Once fertilisation begins there is the potential for life. I want to bury some of the arguments that have been put forward tonight against that view.
It has been suggested that the embryo has only the chance for life. Not only has it a chance for life; the embryo is life. We should not forget that fundamental point. It has also been said that the embryo has a chance to develop. I would argue that we should not deprive that life of the chance for development. Embryonic human beings must not be treated like laboratory rabbits. Research on embryos would bring about such treatment. Most important of all, embryos should have not just a chance for development. The issue is about human rights. It is about the right to live and the most important issue of human dignity. We must consider the fact that those embryos have the right to live. It is their human right to live, and we must protect that right.
For too long the law has ignored the rights of the unborn child. We will be able to protect those rights when legislation is introduced on this matter. We will be able to vote and correct the imbalance that has existed for many years.
Another argument that is put against it is what I would call the "not yet" fallacy—that the embryo is not yet a person, not yet a member of the human race, and for that reason it is quite all right to treat it as a spare, to be experimented on and frozen. These things are permissible, but I totally reject all of these arguments. I take the view —and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will take
1248
the same view— that the embryo is a person with the potential for life and has human rights. We must respect those rights.
Everybody in the human race started as that little cluster of cells that has been much maligned. That cluster of cells has led to life for people throughout this country and the world. We must respect it. One of the problems in the attitude of those engaged in embryo research is the failure to accept that need for respect.
There are those who say that there is no alternative to embryo research. I was in the House when the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, who is unfortunately no longer a Member, introduced his Bill. We were told then that this was the only way. In the past few months, since introducing my Bill, I have considered some of the research that is going on. No one has come forward and said that he has made a major breakthrough with the use of fertilised embryos in research. It has been a case of saying, "Tomorrow, tomorrow." But, while we do nothing, these things march on.
It is time to deal with the problem. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) put her finger on it when she said that in other areas, using different techniques, major breakthroughs are being made, especially in relation to molecular biology, in cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease. Work is being done by Dr. John McLean at Manchester university. Let us not forget the greatest of all the researchers in this area, Professor Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the basis of Down's syndrome, and who is still working in that area. He is a tower of strength, and he says that there are alternative ways of doing this research. We must indeed follow those alternative ways.
Let us also not forget that when the Warnock committee reported a minority report was signed by Professor Marshall, professor of clinical neurology at London university, and six others. The impression given by the supporters of embryo research is that the medical profession is united and speaks with one voice. That is far from the truth, and the public ought to know that.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. It is a fundamental issue that we must look at most carefully. I welcome the judgment of the Government in recognising the strength of feeling on both sides and allowing a free vote. Legislation cannot be brought forward soon enough. I look forward in the next few months to debating this most important subject yet again.
9.28 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, especially as tribute has been made to my colleague the former Member of Parliament for South Down. When he was introducing his Bill, he said that there comes a stage where we must put up signposts and markers. In that context, I believe that when scientists are doing their job and have a task to do, which I sympathise with and understand, it is the responsibility of Parliament to put up the markers to guide them. For, even within the scientific fraternity, as they are human, they can err like the rest of us.
It is in that context that the House can legislate. It is important to remind scientists who support embryo research and experimentation that historically some of the greatest breakthroughs have come not from the majority but from the one imaginative person who went his own

1249
way. The medical profession and others do no service to the community when they denigrate the work of Professor Lejeune because he is working on his own.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the way he introduced the debate. I welcome the acceptance by the Government in paragraph 63 of the White Paper that
"the sale or purchase of gametes or embryos should be controlled so as to avoid the risk of commercial exploitation."
I am sceptical about how that will be achieved. I have put down questions in the past about the commercial use of foetuses and I have got very inadequate replies. Therefore, I ask the Government to have second thoughts on how they will control such use in future.
9.30 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the fact that a broad range of views has been expressed in the debate, not because I was unclear about my position and might have been helped by listening to those views — indeed, I have a firm view on the matter—but because I might have had a sense of unease if we had not heard different views. There is something sick about a society which stops questioning itself about these issues. We have to have a creative tension. We must have constant argument, even though I might end up making a decision completely different from that of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I can see why it is tempting for some people to say, "Let us not look over the precipice. It involves very difficult issues. If we start going down this path, who knows where we may end?" I can understand the fear that that causes some people.
We cannot turn our back on the possibilities that are opened up by research on pre-embryos, for two main reasons. The first is infertility, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members. No one knows how many men and women are affected by the inability to conceive, but we know that many who want to have children, but cannot, say nothing about it. Many suffer in silence, partly because men fear that if they admit that they cannot have children somehow it casts doubt on their manliness, and for women the admission flies in the face of the traditional assumption that it is the most natural thing for a woman to do, and the most central part of a woman's life.
Because infertility is such a sensitive issue, it remains largely hidden. I have no doubt that the inability to conceive affects many people. Estimates range from one in six to one in ten. I hope that the Government will follow up Lady Warnock's proposal that we must collect statistics and carry out more research into the true level of infertility.
The research which has been done so far suggests that about 1 million people are affected. It causes great suffering. The inability to have children can sour the most loving of relationships. It can embitter the happiest of people and can cause great distress. Just as I respect the deeply held views of hon. Members who oppose the research which has led to in-vitro fertilisation and the research which could make IVF more successful, so they should recognise the blight that infertility casts over the lives of so many.
Hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Castle Point who has three children, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) who has three children and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet)
1250
who has two children should be very careful before they argue that people should accept their fate and not go down the road of trying to ensure that research leads to greater possibilities for treatment of infertility.
Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady is making a most interesting speech and I know that she would not wish to mislead the House. I have never taken that view. I am in favour of IVF and of the research that has taken place. I am not in favour of the proposal that a free hand should be given to experimentation, not on the pre-embryo —a term which is used so loosely — but on the human embryo, which has the potential of being a human being.
Ms. Harman: In response, I would remind hon. Members of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that one is in favour of IVF treatment as offering hope to some infertile couples and yet say that one is against the research that has led us to the situation we are in now and makes it possible to make that treatment more successful in the future.
Sir Bernard Braine: I gave examples to the House. There are leading scientists who tell us that there are alternative means of research that are delivering the goods.
Ms Harman: I shall get to that point later in my speech. I am also very concerned about the line of argument that emerged from the speech of the hon. Member for Congleton, which smacked rather of blaming the victim. Some infertility is caused by intra-uterine devices, some infertility is caused by sexually transmitted diseases, some infertility is caused by abortion; therefore, it is asked, have not those people somehow brought their infertility upon themselves? That adds insult to the suffering of all those who are not able to conceive.
There is also the suffering and misery caused by miscarriage. The fact that miscarriage is a relatively common occurrence in no way lessens the heartache for the woman and her partner. If some women are offered through IVF a chance of bearing a child, and if embryo research offers a chance of understanding the factors that can cause a miscarriage, we simply cannot turn our backs on it.
I also think that the Government ought to take very seriously Lady Warnock's proposal that we must have a proper review of infertility services. It is quite wrong that for a poor family that suffers infertility there is no chance of treatment, IVF or any other, because of the lack of availability of fertility treatment on the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister will assure us tonight that she regards fertility treatment as a part of the NHS, not as a luxury optional extra which is available only to people who can afford it by giving up their second holiday.
The second major reason why we must not turn away from embryo research is the continuing task of trying to prevent handicap. Work is being carried out to find ways of preventing chromosomal abnormalities and hereditary genetic illnesses. We heard in the most courageous and moving speech from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) why this work simply has to go on. The work to control defects such as Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and haemophilia is very important.
We are not absolutist about this problem. We are not saying that the only way to make breakthroughs is

1251
through research on embryos. We are saying that we do not want to rule out one avenue which might lead to the possibility of controlling those very serious defects.
It is easy to understand why we have to take advantage of this medical advance, and it is right that we should understand also why we should control it. I do not say that we should have a statutory licensing authority because we think that we need the research and therefore are prepared to concede that point to make it somehow more acceptable. I firmly believe that we must control this, and we must ensure that it is properly monitored and supervised.
I was talking on the telephone last night to a Dr. Rothman, in California, who is the leading expert in America on a new technique called sperm harvesting. That involves taking the sperm from somebody who has died and giving it to his relatives so that they might use it in future. Doctor Rothman gave the example of an only son dying and his bereaved parents asking for his sperm to be harvested so that at some future date they could arrange for somebody to have his child. Then they could feel that somehow their child lived on, because they could have the grandchild that otherwise would have been impossible. Doctor Rothman said that in America that was regarded as completely uncontroversial and that everyone thought that it was a good idea to extend such possibilities. In Britain we would not take that view.
We must have a statutory licensing authority which, instead of waiting for such developments and then saying that they should be stopped, will constantly keep an eye on the direction in which such developments are going, and ensure that they do not go off the rails. I support the statutory licensing authority that was suggested by Lady Warnock.
If we remember what happened last year, when the Humana hospital refused to accept the ruling of the Voluntary Licensing Authority that the number of embryos implanted should be limited to four, we can understand why, although the Voluntary Licensing Authority has done a great deal of good work, it should become a statutory authority.
I should like to say a few words about the time limit in which research should take place. There have been a number of suggestions, but any time limit is arbitrary. The Warnock committee canvassed a 14-day time limit, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested 28 days, the Medical Research Council suggested two to three weeks, and some have suggested 30 days. If we are to have a statutory, fixed time limit, we should also have, if it is not a contradiction in terms, some flexibility. The Government and the House should consider the possibility of allowing the statutory licensing authority to lay down a certain maximum time limit. That would provide a legal maximum time limit of, say, 21 days, and allow the statutory licensing authority to decide where, beneath that time, the limit should be for getting a licence.
It is remarkable that there has been so little discussion of surrogacy. I am against commercial surrogacy, but the Government were right not to have chosen the option of trying to outlaw surrogacy, other than for commerical reasons. In America, where they sell sperm for 35 dollars a go and where they sell blood and other human tissues, it is not surprising that they should not jib at the idea of womb leasing. We do not want such a situation to develop here.
1252
I should like to say something about the rights of children born to mothers who have had artificial insemination by donor. In America, a real crisis occurred when a woman had had artificial insemination by donor. Her husband knew about it and the names of the husband and wife were on the birth certificate. The child did not know that it had been conceived by a donor instead of by its father until the family broke up. In the bitterness of the divorce, the mother claimed that the father should have no access or visiting rights, because he was not the real father.
We must be cautious about situations in which the whole of family life can be built on a deceit, whether it is a deceit about which only two people know or whether all the other relatives know but the child is unaware of it. We must be very careful about that. In America there is a club of children born by artificial insemination by donor who are going around the United States looking for their donor fathers and campaigning for the right to know the identity of their natural fathers. We must look for future difficulties that have not yet occurred because the children produced by artificial insemination by donor are not yet sufficiently grown up.
Medical and scientific advances present at the same time tremendous possibilities and tremendous problems. We should not disregard the problems. A statutory licensing authority with a fixed maximum time limit of 21 days on embryo research would give me sufficient reassurance. However, for the sake of those who long to have children and cannot conceive, for the sake of those who can conceive but suffer repeated miscarriages, and for the sake of those who through genetic disorders are condemned to watch their children suffer and die, we must allow research to continue.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Let me start by joining the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) in paying tribute to the Warnock committee, to Lady Warnock herself, to the members of the Voluntary Licensing Authority and, indeed, to all who have contributed to producing the papers on which we base our debate today. The hon. Lady is right in saying that, we should not isolate any one issue, and that the Government must legislate. This is Government business. That is also part of the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). We do not feel that we can leave the question of the time limit to an extra-Government body; it must be decided ultimately by the House.
The hon. Member for Barking raised a number of points with which I should like to deal immediately. She asked about the composition and role of the proposed statutory licensing authority. I agree with her that it would be a pity if there were polarisation in the SLA. It would also be a pity, however, if its membership did not command public respect, and that will be our aim in appointing it.
It is also worth pointing out that, whether or not research is permitted by vote of the House, the SLA will still have a substantial role, as set out in the White Paper— among other things, in licensing the clinics where IVF and other work is to be done.
I entirely take the hon. Lady's point about women members, but I suggest that we do not put a figure on it. I do not agree with her argument that women should be

1253
included because it is they who have the babies. I think that our men are involved somewhere along the line! As for the argument that women form half the population and should therefore be adequately represented, if the hon. Lady looks at recent appointments to the Health Education Authority and the breast cancer advisory committee she will find that that is exactly what has been happening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) asked about alternatives to embryo research in their important speeches. No one favours the unnecessary use of embryos in research for benefits which could be obtained in other ways. The White Paper proposes that, if research is permitted, the SLA should satisfy itself, in granting a licence, that adequate consideration has been given to the possibility of achieving the aims of the project by other means.
As for the question of a list of diseases, I understand that most genetically linked diseases can be studied in the embryo form. Some can be studied in non-embryonic human material, and others in non-human material. However, our view is that if Parliament permits such work at all, the SLA should look at each proposed programme and check whether there are any ways other than using human embryo material. In other words, research using human embryos, if permitted at all, should never be the first resort. We are not sure whether we should want to insist on its being the last resort, because there may be occasions when it is the best resort in terms of potential success.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend has said that research should not be the last resort. Will she confirm—I speak as a supporter of the majority of the Warnock report's recommendations — that some research is essential, and that we can look forward to further research that is regarded as essential, and often as a first resort?
Mrs. Currie: I take my hon. Friend's point. It will be a matter for the House to decide whether, on occasions when research is the best resort—or, indeed, one of the possibilities — it wishes to allow that research to continue. The purpose of our debate tonight is simply to enable points of view to be offered, and no doubt they will all be taken into account in the drafting of the legislation. That is why the debate has been called in Government time.
I therefore feel that I need not answer in detail all the points that have been made, but should merely say to all hon. Members on both sides of the House that their views will be taken into account as the legislation and the regulations are prepared, as soon as parliamentary time will permit.
We have heard 20 speeches today. Most, we are glad to see, welcomed the White Paper in one form or another. In some areas the White Paper goes further than the Warnock report—for example, in proposing to prohibit some kinds of research, such as genetic engineering and the development of clones or hybrids, in imposing stricter controls on the storage of embryos and in banning the sale of embryos and gametes. In other areas, such as surrogacy,
1254
we have not gone as far as the Warnock report recommended, because we do not believe that criminal sanctions are the right approach.
The legislation, when it is introduced, will firm up or adjust points of detail in the White Paper, but today's debate suggests that we may have got the basic framework about right. Procedure, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels, but no doubt they will take note of his views.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the sanctity of life and the special nature of the human embryo. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will allow me simply to use the term "human embryo" and not some of the other terms that have been suggested. Feelings about the sanctity of life and the special nature of the material about which we are talking are shared by all. The debate has shown that there are strongly-held views about whether humanity commences at contraception or some point thereafter. I refer all hon. Members to the learned speech by the Archbishop of York in the other place who took us elegantly around that subject.
For those who want embryo research to continue, I notice support for the Warnock committee's view that the appearance of the primitive streak might well be a sensible point in the continuing development at which to impose the time limit. It will be entirely for the House to decide whether research should be permitted on human embryos before that date.
However, we are firm in our view that such work should be illegal after that date. It is our respect for the particular status of the human embryo that leads us to say that we cannot go on any longer without legislation in this area, with the sort of "anything goes" approach which has sometimes been urged upon us.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North said, it is not a question of starting down the slippery slope; we are on it. We must put a stop to the slide somewhere. It will be a matter entirely for Parliament to decide where the limit should be placed. It must be Parliament, not scientists or clerics, which takes that decision. That is what we have set out to do.
Subject to that, the Government are determined to see on to the statute book legislation which clearly defines the kind of work which can and cannot be carried out with human embryos, and anything outside that definition will be banned if the legislation is accepted by the House.
Our thoughts have been guided, as indeed have those of many hon. Members, by a keen concern for the sanctity of family life. That is why we have already moved to ban commercial third-party surrogacy, and that is why we propose that surrogacy contracts of all kinds should be made non-enforceable. I am concerned, as is the hon. Member for Peckham, that we should not have any development of practices which have been seen in the United States and which have been dubbed "baby farming." That is also why we believe that the law should make it clear how the child relates to the mother who bore him and to those who bring him up. That point was strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North.
We have already legislated, in the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which applies only to unmarried couples and which comes into force in April this year, to make it clear that the AID child is in law the child of the mother and

1255
her husband and should be registered as such. Under our proposals, that will apply to IVF and GIFT children, too, where donated gametes are used. It is also important, since that legislation applies only in England and Wales, that we achieve some consistency with Scotland, and that is also proposed in the White Paper.
We shall also make it clear that the mother who carries a baby is, in the eyes of the law, that baby's mother, even if she is not genetically related. Any other line would weaken the role of the family and those whom I would call the caring parents—those who provide a home for the child and bring it up. The words in the White Paper are clear:
"the donors of the gametes or embryos will have no parental rights or duties in relation to the child."
That is the legal view. In other words, our thoughts in framing the proposals have always been, "What is best for the child? What will best ensure that he or she is brought up in a secure, loving and caring environment?"
Let me say a little more about the rights of the child. I feel rather sad that in all that we have heard today there has been too little discussion about the rights of the child after birth—except by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes)—
Ms. Harman: And me.
Mrs. Currie: My apologies. I wrote this bit of the speech before I heard the hon. Lady's speech and that of her hon. Friend the Member for Barking. I am sure that both hon. Ladies would agree that we must legislate so that the child may know his right to a name, to inherit property, and, if he wishes, to obtain some information about his origin. We will take into account the fact that attitudes on this matter may well change in time and make provision for that. Children born as a result of treatments using donated gametes should not suffer the anxiety that they may be related to a large unknown family of half brothers and half sisters especially taking into account the dangers, outlined by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that may be generated when close relatives—albeit unnamed close relatives — come together to marry and have children. We may therefore need to set a limit on the number of pregnancies that may result from one donor. We shall look to the statutory licensing authority to consider that.
As has been pointed out, most of the research done on embryos is intended to promote knowledge about conception and handicap and its prevention. There are two points to make on that. First, whatever one's view of the nature of early life, strict controls are needed on the treatment of human embryos. Those who argue that the benefits that research can bring — for example, in preventing handicap—justify the use of embryos before 14 days must recognise, nevertheless, the genuine fears of those who worry that the same techniques in different hands could lead to less laudable goals. That is why we propose that all such work — to the extent that Parliament permits it—should be strictly controlled by a statutory body, that licences should be tied to specific projects—that would cover both means and ends, both methodology and intentions—and that it should be an offence to go beyond what is expressly permitted. In that we concur entirely with the Warnock committee.
Secondly, people have a right to expect us to do our utmost to prevent disease and handicap. Parents who
1256
carry defective genes have a right to expect sound information about their chances of passing them on or avoiding such transmission. A lot of misery and anguish is potentially avoidable and may be influenced by research of the kind that has been described. I hope, therefore, that those both for and against the Warnock proposals will recognise the high degree of sincerity and motivation on both sides.
Let me deal with the point about the private and the public sectors. Clearly, it is important that there should be consistency in ethical standards and good professional standards across the divide between the public and private sectors. The statutory licensing authority will be able to achieve that consistency, which Ministers regard as a major benefit of legislation. We give notice that we will not allow the ethical framework within which the treatments are provided to differ in any way as between the private sector and the National Health Service. That is especially important now that close links are developing between the two sectors, including the Barts-AMI link which has been mentioned several times. The number of women treated there will increase from 300 a year under the Health Service to about 1,000 under the joint arrangements.
I am prepared to see some differences between the opposing Front Benches, but I would resist Opposition Members' demands that we should expand activity in the Health Service to meet all the demands placed on it now or in future. On treatments involving new technologies —particularly GIFT—some may feel that, because of their ethical difficulties, because they are expensive, because as yet the success rates are poor and because some would say that they are treatments for people who are not ill in the strict sense, they should not be part of NHS provision at all. The Government do not agree with that. We see no cause to ban such treatments from the Health Service, provided that their practice is properly regulated. There is a fully funded NHS in-vitro fertilisation clinic in Manchester, as the hon. Member for Barking may know, and many of the others are partly funded. It is for the local health authorities to decide whether that work is of sufficiently high priority to put off something else.
I hope that the House will agree with me when I say that we should not forget that all the latest techniques cannot help everyone. I do not believe that people's status is determined by whether they have children. Childless people are not, in any way, lesser people. We all have our contribution to make to society. Although for many women that contribution is by bearing and bringing up their children, for others it is by other means. To be childless is not to be less of a woman, less of a man or less of a citizen. I deeply hope that that thought may offer a little consolation to some of those who are listening tonight.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
  That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.
  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Housing Executive
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
10 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I place on record my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting me to draw attention to the misleading information supplied to me by the director of operations—the deputy chief executive—of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on behalf of its chairman.
On 7 December 1987 my Ulster Unionist colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) who is here tonight and will, I hope, catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), the mayor of Lisburn, Mr. Bleakes, and myself, met the chairman and senior officers of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive at the housing centre in Belfast. It was not a social call and we declined to accept any hospitality prior to a formal business meeting. It was an opportunity to raise specific matters and to have them dealt with on behalf of constituents.
At that meeting I referred particularly to problems in my constituency and to the problems being experienced at the Windmill estate, Carrickfergus, where windows larger than the original windows had been installed in some properties. I had been informed that new venetian blinds and curtains, fitted to suit the original windows, became a total loss to the tenants who could not afford to replace them after the imposed change in window size. I sought information and assistance for my constituents.
The director of operations, the deputy chief executive, replied on behalf of the chairman of the Housing Executive about the four areas of concern that I had raised at the meeting. His letter, dated 18 December, dealt with the specific issues of redevelopment proposals at Tullygarley, Lame, the Windmill estate, Carrickfergus, Green Walk, Rathcoole and Ballystrudder. He gave a detailed response and for the information of the House I should like to place on record his response to the problems at the Windmill estate, Carrickfergus:
"At present, there is an ongoing planned external maintenance scheme at Westmount Avenue, Windmill, Carrickfergus which includes for the replacement of front and rear panels and front and rear windows. However, from the date the proposals were submitted to Building Control until the contract was awarded, regulations in relation to lighting and ventilation changed with the result that the demands of our original windows did not now satisfy the current Building Regulations, and so large windows were installed in the first five dwellings and curtains and venetian blinds no longer fitted. The contractor has now come to an agreement with the tenants by way of compensation, and in view of the publicity surrounding this contract, the Building Control Officers have now agreed that we can revert to the original specification and provide windows of a smaller size to those being replaced."
I work closely with all the councillors in my constituency. Fortunately for me, in east Antrim we have no Sinn Fein councillors to work with. I, in turn, endeavour to enlist the support of councillors and undertake to keep them informed.
Early in the new year, on 8 January, I copied the relevant reply from the Housing Executive about the Windmill estate to the mayor of Carrickfergus, Alderman Jim Brown. Because of the repeated references in that reply, I copied it to the district building control officer at the town hall in Carrickfergus and asked him for his comments, which were as follows:

1259

(1) There is no minimum size requirement regarding windows in the Building Regulations.

(2) There has been no change in the Building Regulations regarding minimum window size since Building Regulations were introduced in 1973.

(3) The Building Regulations do not require that buildings erected under former control, e.g. Bye-laws, be brought to current standards."

How can those points be reconciled with the statement I received on behalf of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Is it not more than a coincidence that an application for building regulation approval arrived at the building control department in Carrickfergus borough council on 8 December 1987, a day after my visit to the Housing Executive headquarters in Belfast?
The building control officer's fourth point was this:
"Application for Building Regulation approval was not received until the 8 December 1987. This followed my becoming aware of the work which was being carried out following press reports of the controversy in early December, 1987. I then drew to the attention of the N.I.H.E. and their agents that an application was required for the work which was being carried out."
So the executive was aware that no application had been properly made. The fifth point was:
"Since there was no requirement under the Building Regulations, to change the window size in the first instance, I did not subsequently agree that windows of the original size would be satisfactory. There was no necessity for such an agreement!"
Again I was very concerned at the apparent contradiction in that statement.
I am a simple man, brought up to believe every word from my mother's lips. She often said, "Now come on, son —tell the truth and shame the devil," and I always tried to please her. I believe that even when the truth hurts it must be told. It is vitally important that hon. Members should be completely confident, and be able to place their trust in their dealings with other hon. Members and with civil servants in our various Government Departments. They should even be able to place their trust and confidence in their dealings with officers employed in quangos such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Since applying for and being granted this Adjournment debate, I received the following correspondence, dated 29 January 1988, from the director of operations. I do not know whether to believe it. but here it is:
"Dear Mr. Beggs,
I wrote to you on 18th December 1987 responding to a number of matters which you had raised when representatives of your Party met with the Executive on 7th December 1987.
In that reply (paragraph 2), I referred to the external maintenance scheme for Westmount Avenue, Windmill, Carrickfergus and I gave an explanation for the change of window size in the first five dwellings of the project.
I have now been advised that my reply on this matter was inaccurate. The information was provided by the Executive's professional Consultants responsible for the project and the Executive Officer who prepared the reply had no reason to believe that the information provided to him was incorrect. It was inconceiveable that the Consultant would allow the project to proceed on site without seeking formal Building Control approval.
The Executive acknowledges that neither the Building Regulations, nor Building Controls were in any way responsible for the change of windows which occurred to five dwellings in Westmount Avenue.
I am most concerned that the information given to you was incorrect and offer my sincere apologies."
I, too, am most concerned that I should have received such a response in the first instance. It should never have been necessary for that officer, at his level, to have to come back with such a response. However, if I had not asked for
1260
comment by the building control officer in Carrickfergus council, the misleading information would not have been detected. This experience has shattered the confidence of elected members of my party in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It makes one believe that it is necessary to look closely at every reply one receives.
It is not unreasonable for some of us to ask how many similar cover-ups have gone unchallenged. I do not think that anyone could consider that to be an unreasonable thought to harbour. I am not so ungracious as not to accept the follow-up letter of explanation and apology, dated 29 January, from the executive.
From this singularly disgraceful experience, my party colleagues believe that no expense must be spared by the Minister in providing full and detailed answers to questions raised in the House regarding activities in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which requires more thorough scrutiny than occurs at present. The Minister answered questions on this matter, on 3 February 1988, from my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), whose disappointment and dissatisfaction I share. The costs likely to be incurred in making available the information sought through those written answers is well worth it.
I bring this matter to the attention of the House and of the Minister. I trust that he will agree with me that it should never have been necessary for me to bring this matter to the House or for him to be here to deal with it. It is inconceivable that such inaccurate information should have been relayed to a Member of this House. I trust that the Minister will assure the House that such action as is necessary will be taken to ensure that it can never happen again, and that the so-called professional consultants who proffered the advice in the first instance are reprimanded. Otherwise, I am sure, that some of us could legitimately feel that those who supplied the information had been apt pupils of Sir Robert Armstrong in being economical with the truth, or guilty, as another distinguished gentleman once said, of terminological inexactitude.
10.15 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am glad to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) in this matter. My remarks will be short, and I hope to the point.
I must admit that I speak more in sorrow than in anger. Along with my colleagues on this Bench, I have endeavoured to work a system which I find undemocratic and generally unresponsive to the needs of my constituents. It is a shock to find that our efforts to iron out general housing problems by having a full and frank discussion with top officials of the body responsible for housing in Northern Ireland have been exploited by deflecting our relevant and specific questions with what has subsequently turned out to be misleading information.
It is even more surprising that that should have happened at the meeting referred to by my hon. Friend, which took place on 7 December. It was attended not only by senior officers of the Housing Executive, but by a representative number of the board members, including the board chairman.
I remind the House and the Minister that this is the second time recently that the conduct of that body has been raised in this place. It was last raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth). On that occasion he was concerned that Members of Parliament,

1261
all of us from Northern Ireland, had been told that we could not raise any matter on behalf of our constituents without producing to the Housing Executive a letter of authority from the constituent concerned. I am glad that that mistaken impression was subsequently corrected and each of us received a letter of apology.
However, the matter is much more serious. If a body under the control of a Minister who is responsible to this House—we should remember that those who attended the meeting included the chairman of the board of the Housing Executive — is prepared through carelessness, laziness or, worse still, deliberate intent to mislead other Members of this House, that must call into question the rights and privileges of this House. Those rights and privileges were fought for and established over the centuries and have been jealously guarded by this illustrious House at all times.
It also unfortunately raises the question: has it happened before? Has it happened in other similar bodies in Northern Ireland, either knowingly or unknowingly? Those questions are probably impossible to answer without a great deal of investigation.
We hope that the Minister in his reply will give us a categorical assurance that he will do all in his power to see that it does not happen again. For our part, we will be extremely careful in future to see that it does not happen again. I only hope that we do not have continually to come back to the House seeking Adjournment debates to get the truth from the Housing Executive.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The information given to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) was, as he rightly said, incorrect. Mr. Cameron wrote to him apologising fully for having given the hon. Member wrong information. Mr. Cameron, whom Opposition Members know well, deeply regrets that, and I am absolutely convinced that there was no intention in his letter to the hon. Member to do anything other than give him the facts as they were presented to him.
As the hon. Member pointed out, a consultant employed by the Housing Executive was undertaking the work. The hon. Member raised the matter with the Housing Executive, on the basis that some of his constituents had complained that the larger windows had been placed in the buildings, which meant that their blinds and curtains did not fit. When the Housing Executive inquired of the consultants why this had happened, quite frankly, it got a cock and bull story. The Housing Executive deeply regrets that it fell for that line, and wrote to the hon. Member as it did.
The chairman of the Housing Executive is known to Opposition Members. In my dealings with him, even though I have occasionally taken hospitality from him, I have found that it has not in any way altered his strenuous defence of his right to question the Government's policies in relation to the money and back-up that the Housing Executive requires. He is a man of great personal integrity and determination and feels very strongly that hon. Members should be fully informed about what goes on in the Housing Executive.
The Housing Executive has 170,000 houses to manage, spends approximately £500 million per year and does
1262
about 400,000 repairs each year, and things do go wrong. The chairman regrets that, and I am sure that the officers of the Housing Executive regret that. If there are ways to improve the relationship between the Housing Executive and hon. Members, I am sure that the executive would be only too willing to accept that. Of course there will be occasions when hon. Members, write to the executive, as there are when we write to our local housing authorities, and sometimes receive replies which we do not find to our taste. Having said that, I am not saying that information should not be given to hon. Members promptly, politely and properly, and it should be correct in every detail.
I inquired today how many letters had been received from hon. Members for Northern Ireland since the election. Some 3,600 have been received, and some 3,400 from councillors. The executive does its best, but the best sometimes falls short of the ideal.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Would the Minister say that it is coincidental that the letter to my hon. Friend arrived the day after the Order Paper was published? Will he acknowledge that most of those letters refer to simple items and press for cases to be considered? Does he share my concern about important matters such as a contractor being given further contracts when he was not insured? We were fobbed off with the sort of answer that had been put to the chairman, that such practice is detrimental to the public interest, to the taxpayers and to the Housing Executive.
Mr. Needham: If there are cases in which the hon. Gentleman feels that contracts may have been given without proper consideration, I should take that immensely seriously. It is crucial that that sort of construction is carefully monitored. I know that that view is fully understood by the chairman, the board and the officers of the Housing Executive. Having said that, I accept that it has not always got it right. If the hon. Gentleman presses me on whether it is a question of conspiracy on the one hand or a cock-up on the other, I think that, when mistakes were made, they were more likely to have been as a result of inadvertence rather than some deeply laid plan to avoid giving proper and sensible advice to hon. Members.
Nevertheless, I accept that hon. Members have every right to raise matters in the House if they feel that incorrect information has been given. I welcome that, because it is extremely important that the Government know exactly what is going on. Hon. Members are best able, in dealing with their constituents, to discover the facts on the ground.
I am sure that hon. Members will accept that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland has done a remarkable job over the past few years in raising the standard of public-sector housing and in effecting repairs. However, that does not give grounds for complacency.
I accept the point that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has made. We shall look, as will the chairman, at what can be done. If hon. Members think that steps could be taken to improve relationships with the Housing Executive at local, regional or central level to make communication easier and more efficient, we shall look at that.
On behalf of the Housing Executive, and Mr. Cameron, I apologise for the fact that the hon. Member for Antrim, East was given incorrect advice. I have looked into the matter carefully. I do not believe that there was any

1263
intention to give that advice. Nevertheless, the wrong advice was given and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
1264
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Punishment Attacks
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the known numbers of punishment attacks for each year since 1975, indicating if possible the nature of the attacks, the areas in which they took place and the organisations who admitted or are suspected of responsibility.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Punishment shootings (see note 1)

  Punishment assaults (see note 2)

  (Paramilitary organisations believed to be responsible)

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  1982

  22

  58

  80

  3

  6

  9

  1983

  9

  22

  31

  1

  2

  3

  1984

  6

  20

  26

  1

  43

  44

  1985

  11

  21

  32

  4

  26

  30

  1986

  24

  17

  41

  12

  29

  41

  1987

  67

  57

  124

  27

  33

  60

  Note 1: Punishment shootings are primarily kneecappings.

  Note 2: Punishment assaults are primarily with sticks, metal bars, breeze blocks and electric drills.

  Farm Effluents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for grant aid in respect of disposal of farm effluents were received from 4 November 1987 until closure of applications; how many applications were accepted and how many refused; and what are the sums involved in respect of applications accepted and acknowledged.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: In the period 4 November 1987 to 31 December 1987 the Department of Agriculture received 2,934 prior notifications from farmers intending to undertake the provision of farm effluent disposal facilities. All prior notifications continue to be acknowledged. No prior notifications have been refused by the Department.

  It will not be possible to indicate the amount of money involved until claims in respect of completed work have been received by the Department.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will reintroduce grants for the provision of effluent disposal on farms in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: My noble Friend Lord Lyell announced on 31 December 1987
  676

  Punishment attacks1

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  1975

  50

  139

  189

  1976

  36

  62

  98

  1977

  28

  98

  126

  1978

  17

  50

  67

  1979

  25

  51

  76

  1980

  26

  51

  77

  1981

  14

  66

  80

  1982

  25

  64

  89

  1983

  10

  24

  34

  1984

  7

  63

  70

  1985

  15

  47

  62

  1986

  36

  46

  82

  1987

  94

  90

  184

  1 Paramilitary organisations believed to be responsible.

  Details of the areas where these attacks took place are not readily available for earlier years but, since 1983, the following information is available:

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Greater Belfast

  24

  53

  49

  66

  158

  Other areas

  10

  17

  13

  16

  26

  Details of the nature of these attacks, broken down between punishment shootings and punishment assaults, are available from 1982 and are as follows:

  that a decision about the future of the agriculture improvement scheme (national scheme) would be made as soon as possible after 29 February 1988. This remains the position.

  Grants for effluent disposal facilities continue to be available to farmers who include such works in farm improvement plans submitted under the agriculture improvement scheme which is reimbursable by FEOGA.

  Potato Cyst Nematode
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to remove potato cyst nematode from the list of notifiable diseases of farm crops.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: A proposal to remove potato cyst nematode from the list of notifiable pests in Northern Ireland is presently the subject of consultation with industry interests.

  Potatoes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons his Department requires that potatoes shall not be grown more than once in five years on the same land; and if he now has any plans to remove this requirement.
  677
  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: Limitations on the growing of ware potatoes to once in five years on the same land were introduced with the intention of preventing the build up of potato cyst nematode. A proposal in light of current circumstances to remove the frequency of planting restriction in respect of ware potatoes in Northern Ireland is at present the subject of consultation with industry interests.

  Agricultural and Horticultural Stocks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take and what measures are at present in force to maintain the present standards of health in agricultural and horticultural stocks and crops in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: Arrangements to maintain the standards of plant health in agriculture and horticultural stocks and crops in Northern Ireland have been established under the Plant Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. They provide for restrictions and

  19822

  19833

  19843

  19853

  19863

  Rent registration area

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  —

  6 (50)

  3 (40)

  7 (30)

  3 (34)

  Dyfed

  —

  22 (18)

  13 (18)

  0 (20)

  8 (12)

  Gwent

  —

  29 (14)

  29 (7)

  8 (12)

  6 (16)

  Gwynedd

  —

  100 (5)

  — (0)

  6 (17)

  0 (11)

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  64 (11)

  69 (52)

  17 (29)

  67 (94)

  Powys

  —

  14 (7)

  0 (28)

  14 (7)

  25 (4)

  South Glamorgan

  —

  7 (214)

  4 (235)

  3 (74)

  11 (171)

  West Glamorgan

  —

  15 (52)

  5 (39)

  0 (38)

  0 (57)

  1 Including regulated and housing association cases.

  2 Data not available.

  3 Figures in brackets indicate the total number of cases in sample.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases referred to the rent assessment committees in each county in Wales rent in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  Rent Act 1977: Total number of reference of fair rent cases to rent assessment committees, Wales 1983–87

  Rent Registration Area

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Clwyd

  44

  59

  32

  51

  28

  Dyfed

  24

  11

  37

  18

  38

  Gwent

  26

  53

  15

  59

  83

  Gwynedd

  21

  15

  23

  15

  36

  Mid Glamorgan

  30

  53

  114

  70

  61

  Powys

  8

  34

  10

  5

  11

  South Glamorgan

  164

  188

  105

  196

  254

  West Glamorgan

  70

  73

  32

  66

  49

  This includes regulated and housing association cases.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications there have been for registered fair rents in each of the last five years in each county in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of applications received for Registered Fair Rents between 1983 and 1987 are as follows:
  678
  prohibitions on imports of plant material and for measures to eradicate outbreaks of diseases and pests in Northern Ireland and to prevent the spread of certain serious pests and diseases already established there.

  Industry interests are being consulted about proposals to consolidate and update present arrangements in line with current circumstances.

WALES

  Rents
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases referred to the rent assessment committee in each county in Wales resulted in a reduced in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information relating to the numbers of reductions in rent as a result of all referrals to the rent assessment committee is not held centrally. However, an analysis of a sample of cases1 shows that the committee's determination was lower in percentage terms than the rent officer's assessment as follows:

  County

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Clwyd

  2,028

  1,820

  2,078

  2,672

  2,482

  Dyfed

  854

  1,060

  1,083

  1,554

  1,421

  Gwent

  2,945

  2,359

  3,408

  3,600

  3,596

  Gwynedd

  729

  605

  854

  925

  1,073

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,166

  3,298

  4,439

  3,816

  4,625

  Powys

  530

  771

  758

  777

  771

  South Glamorgan

  4,353

  3,534

  4,943

  4,705

  6,253

  West Glamorgan

  2,193

  2,056

  2,637

  2,274

  2,862

  This includes regulated and housing association cases.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage change in the number of applications for fair rents in Wales over the past five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The total number of applications for fair rent for regulated and housing association tenancies in Wales in 1982 was 13,790. The total in 1987 was 23,083. This represents an increase of 67 per cent.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many properties have been assessed for fair rent in Wales in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Grist
  In 1987 the total number of registrations for fair rents in Wales was 22,677. This includes regulated and housing association cases.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of fair rent in the private sector in Wales in each county, in the latest year for which figures are available.
  679
  Mr. Grist
  The following information shows the mean rent for registrations in 1986:

  Rent Act 1977: Mean registered Rents, Wales 1986

  Unfurnished per £ annum

  Furnished £ per annum

  Rent Registration Area

  Clwyd

  874

  1,212

  Dyfed

  942

  1,351

  Gwent

  897

  1,080

  Gwynedd

  765

  1,210

  Mid Glamorgan

  701

  1,108

  Powys

  1,012

  1,228

  South Glamorgan

  1,038

  1,442

  West Glamorgan

  793

  1,231

  Wales total

  853

  1,231

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been made for fair rent by local authorities in Wales in each county in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of applications by local authorities for review of a fair rent is not held centrally. However, the total number of first registrations of fair rents where the application has been made by the local authority is as follows:

  Rent Act 1977: First registrations only, resulting from application from local authorities, Wales 1982–86

  Rent registration area

  11982

  1983

  1984

  21985

  1986

  Clwyd

  —

  2

  50

  108

  82

  Dyfed

  —

  19

  108

  166

  54

  Gwent

  —

  2

  46

  102

  72

  Gwynedd

  —

  0

  8

  13

  8

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  0

  7

  17

  47

  Powys

  —

  2

  102

  63

  20

  South Glamorgan

  —

  0

  0

  113

  89

  West Glamorgan

  —

  22

  173

  187

  61

  Wales Total

  —

  47

  494

  769

  431

  1 Data not available.

  2 First half of 1986.

  Alyn and Deeside (Industry)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total amount of resources earmarked by his Department for the Welsh Development Agency for rural initiatives in Clwyd for traditional factories, bespoke projects and new development sites in market centres; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) in which areas in Alyn and Deeside he proposes to provide small industrial estates and workshops; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his estimate of the demand for starter units in Alyn and Deeside; how many he has so far allocated; how many he will allocate for 1988–89; what land he will make available for starter units in Alyn and Deeside; what partnerships he envisages with the private sector and local authorities concerning starter units; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his estimate of the increase in the square footage, expressed also as a percentage of factory working space on (a) Deeside industrial park and (b) other named industrial locations in Alyn and Deeside for the year 1988–89 compared with the previous year;
  680
  (5) what plans he has for the Alyn and Deeside district for the new property development initiative; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what plans he has to upgrade Deeside industrial park, Engineer park and other industrial locations in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency is still developing its detailed plans for all elements of its 1988–89 budget. Its property development programme for the year was published on 28 January and is available in the Library of the House. Other information on the agency's programmes is not yet available on a district basis.

  Demand for starter units in Alyn and Deeside is strong and the agency's latest factory programme and property development initiative arc aimed at meeting it.

  Present estimates suggest that in 1988–89 agency-related factory floor space will increase by nearly 140,000 sq ft or 17 per cent. at Deeside industrial park. It is too early to forecast the outcome of the property development initiative on accommodation at Engineer park.

  The Welsh Development Agency plans to spend up to £1 million on infrastructure at Deeside industrial park in order to pave the way for futher development.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the scheme prepared by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to be made available to hon. Members for comment before it receives the Lord Chancellor's approval.

  The Attorney-General
  The draft scheme was placed in the Library last month.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations have been made to the Lord Chancellor relating to postponing the effective date for implementing the scheme provided for in paragraph 4 of schedule 3 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has received no representations about the timetable for the implementation of the scheme for the next council. The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has intimated that its aim is that the new council should assume office on 1 March 1989.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General, further to his answer given on 9 November 1987,Official Report, column 16, why the Council for Licensed Conveyancers' recognised bodies rules and the Council for Licensed Conveyncers' recognised bodies practice rules have not yet been made; and when the Lord Chancellor expects to give them his approval.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand the Lord Chancellor wrote to the hon. Member on 1 February.

  Judiciary
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give under appropriate headings the total number of
  681
  members of the judiciary in post at the latest convenient date, giving under each heading the numbers born in or before 1920.

  The Attorney-General
  Excluding the Lord Chancellor, the total number of members of the judiciary in post on 1 February 1988 is set out in the table:

  Post

  Total

  Post holders born in or before 1920

  Lord of Appeal in Ordinary

  9

  4

  Heads of Divisions

  4

  2

  Lords Justices

  27

  5

  High Court Judges

  77

  17

  Circuit Judges

  392

  63

  509

  91

  Mr. John Stalker
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he is giving to the prosecution of Mr. John Stalker, under the Official Secrets Acts, in relation to information contained in his book "Stalker", published by Tiptreee Book Series; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I shall not be able to complete consideration of this matter until after the book has been published and examined.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Attorney-General during 1988 how many oral hearings have been held by the social security commissioners in(a) London, (b) Edinburgh and (c) Northern Ireland; and how many non-resident commissions conducted hearings in Cardiff.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested, which relates to the period 1 January to 1 February 1988, is given in the table:

  Location

  Oral hearings of appeals

  London

  28

  Edinburgh

  6

  Northern Ireland

  5

  In the same period, a Commissioner sat in Cardiff for three days to deal with five oral hearings.

  DNA Tests (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make arrangements to ensure legal aid is made available throughout the United Kingdom to those eligible to pay for DNA tests; which area legal aid committees already accept legal aid applications for DNA costs; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the use of DNA tests in immigration cases. In England and Wales, such tests may be paid for under the legal advice and assistance scheme if the area office concerned extends the normal limit for expenditure under the scheme. Extensions are normally granted for this purpose where the validity of a claimed relationship is the decisive factor in an immigration decision and DNA tests are needed to resolve any doubts about the relationship.682
  The legal aid head office of the Law Society has issued guidance to area offices in order to promote a consistent approach. The same principles apply in Northern Ireland.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Information
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy towards setting up formal internal inquiries into the improper leaking of official information in cases where the salient facts appear to be known in advance of such an inquiry; what criteria she uses in such cases in deciding what fresh evidence an inquiry might produce and how effective a use of public funds and officials' time such an exercise is likely to prove; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a premise which I do not accept.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has now finalised proposals to be put to the forthcoming meeting of the European Council on the budgetary crisis facing the EEC; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on 8 December on the outcome of the Copenhagen European Council.

  Retford Hospital
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will pay an official visit to Retford hospital.

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

  Governor-General of New Zealand
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the past two years Her Majesty's Government has corresponded with the Governor-General of New Zealand; and on what subjects.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Economic League
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any Government Department has used the services of the Economic League since 1979, when considering applications for jobs; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I am advised by the Civil Service Commissioners who are responsible for recruitment to the higher levels of the Civil Service that they have not used the services of the Economic League. Recruitment to the more junior levels is the responsibility of Government Departments individually and details are not held centrally of recruitment schemes they operate. I am not aware, however, that any Department has used the League's services when considering applications for jobs. Civil Service recruitment at all levels is governed by the principle of fair and open competition and selection on merit.

  Engagements
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
  683
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

  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.

TRANSPORT

  M1 (Congestion)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for relieving congestion at the southern end of the M1 from Luton to junction 1.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A scheme for the improvement of junction 1 was included in the trunk road programme last year. In addition, climbing lanes are to be provided between the A41 overbridge and junction 4 and at junction 9. The M40 extension between London and Birmingham is expected substantially to relieve the M1.

  Cargo Reservation
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which countries enforce cargo reservation policies that are detrimental to British shipping interests; what type, tonnage and percentage of cargoes are affected; and what remedial measures he intends to take.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A wide variety of cargo reservation measures have been introduced, largely, but not exclusively, by developing countries. However these are applied with varying degrees of severity and it is impossible to quantify their impact. The most comprehensive statement of these measures is produced by the OECD maritime transport committee and its latest report is in the Commons Library.

  The United Kingdom plays a major part in tackling these restrictionist policies in collaboration with our partners in the Community and through our chairmanship of the consultative shipping group.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make plans to move air traffic from the London area to regional airports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We support the growth of air services to and from regional airports to meet demand in the regions concerned. It is not our policy that traffic wishing to fly to and from the London area should be redirected to the regions.

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of further disposals of National Bus Company subsidiaries since his answer to the hon. Member for Burnley of 18 December 1987,Official Report, columns 777–78.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The following National Bus Company subsidiaries have been sold since 18 December 1987:

  Management/employee buy out

  Crosville Wales Ltd.

  London Country (North West) Ltd.

  Third Party Purchases

  Midland Red North Ltd.

  Lincolnshire Road Car Company.

  In all, 59 subsidiaries have now been sold, 33 to management or employee teams.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many vehicles registered within the private sector have been tested under the Department of Transport heavy goods vehicle annual test, in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; and how many vehicles have failed the test;

  (2) how many vehicles registered for each public body within Scotland and the United Kingdom have been tested under the Department of Transport heavy goods vehicle annual test, in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; and how many registered public sector vehicles have failed the test.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available. The vehicle inspectorate does not keep separate records distinguishing between private and public sectors.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many vehicles have failed the Department of Transport heavy goods vehicle annual test, in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many vehicles have been tested under the Department of Transport heavy goods vehicle annual test, in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The tables give the number of heavy goods vehicles first and annual tests in Great Britain and Scotland for the years 1980–81 to 1986–87 for motor vehicles and trailers. Figures prior to this date are not available.

  Motor vehicles

  United Kingdom

  Scotland

  1980–81

  Tested

  540,091

  50,913

  Failed

  113,171

  10,326

  1981–82

  Tested

  522,493

  47,822

  Failed

  108,018

  8,973

  1982–83

  Tested

  514,023

  46,557

  Failed

  116,324

  9,721

  685

  United Kingdom

  Scotland

  1983–84

  Tested

  524,244

  47,284

  Failed

  128,715

  12,309

  1984–85

  Tested

  525,954

  47,412

  Failed

  126,991

  12,269

  1985–86

  Tested

  536,619

  48,897

  Failed

  130,223

  12,365

  1986–87

  Tested

  537,133

  47,679

  Failed

  130,040

  11,228

  Trailers

  United Kingdom

  Scotland

  1980–81

  Tested

  205,333

  19,881

  Failed

  28,638

  2,594

  1981–82

  Tested

  202,624

  19,250

  Failed

  28,394

  2,339

  1982–83

  Tested

  203,696

  19,018

  Failed

  28,637

  2,302

  1983–84

  Tested

  199,174

  18,335

  Failed

  28,788

  3,283

  1984–85

  Tested

  206,682

  18,983

  Failed

  34,429

  3,402

  1985–86

  Tested

  214,815

  19,834

  Failed

  37,846

  4,009

  1986–87

  Tested

  213,212

  19,576

  Failed

  37,550

  3,755

  Statistics for Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Breeches Buoy Equipment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often the coastguard service has used breeches buoy equipment in the last five years to save life.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  During the five-year period, 1983–1987 inclusive, throughout the coastguard service, rescue was effected by breeches buoy equipment on two occasions.

  Preston Station (Accident)
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposes to take consequent upon the report on the rail accident at Preston station on 18 January 1986; and if he will make a statement.
  686
  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Inspecting Officer of Railways concluded that the accident was caused by an error on the part of the train driver. Any further action is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the report of the accident at Preston station on 18 January 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have had no representations, but one of my hon. Friend's constituents has corresponded with the Inspecting Officer of Railways.

  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recommendations of the report on the accident at Preston station on 18 January 1986 have been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The report made no firm recommendations, but did suggest that consideration be given to installing an audible alarm, which would sound in the signal box, if a train passes a signal at danger at the entrance to complex station or junction areas. The British Railways Board has considered this suggestion but has concluded that the work to reduce the number of signals passed at Danger that it is already undertaking will be more beneficial.

  Train Drivers' Cabs
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department gives regarding the carriage of passengers in the driver's cab of a moving train; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The carriage of unescorted passengers in the driving cabs of trains is prohibited under the British Railways Board's own rules. My Department fully endorses this policy.

  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how widespread is the carrying of passengers in the driving cab of a moving train; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Carrying of passengers in driving cabs of trains is known to occur on rare occasions. The British Railways Board takes appropriate action on these.

  Double Decker Buses
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the minimum lateral stability angle required for a double decker bus.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Twenty-eight degrees.

  Abnormal Loads
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made any progress in the study of the track costs and vehicle excise duty rates of vehicles used to move abnormal loads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A report "Goods Vehicles in Restricted Tax Classes: 1986" covering the work of vehicles involved in the movement of abnormal loads has been published by the Department today. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The report shows that there are about 400 "special type" motor
  687
  vehicles (generally with specialised trailers) which are used to move abnormal indivisible loads—very heavy, wide, or long. On average these vehicles cover about 16,000 miles (26,000 km) per year and have an average axle weight of over 9 tonnes when loaded. We estimate that this means they impose, on average, at least the same wear and tear on the roads as a standard 38 tonne articulated vehicle. However, the vehicle excise duty for a "special type" is £130 per year, compared with £3,100 for a five-axle 38-tonne vehicle. We are looking at how this new evidence might affect the allocation of road tract costs, with a view to ensuring that all vehicles are treated in the same way.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Standard Passport
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the date for the introduction of the EEC standard passport; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will estimate the total cost of replacing existing British passports with the EEC standard format passport.

  Mr. Renton
  Work is well advanced on plans for the introduction of a computerised system to enable British passports to be issued in the format adopted by the EEC and to be machine-readable internationally.

  It is planned to commence operation of the system in the Glasgow passport office from July this year. Its phased implementation in other passport offices should be complete by the end of 1989. The cost of producing a British passport in the new format will not be greater than that of producing the existing passport. In preparing passport offices to receive and operate a computer-based system for the issue of machine-readable British passports in the format adopted by member states of the EEC, we estimate that the Home Office will incur capital expenditure of about £7 million. The overall aim of computerisation is to achieve greater efficiency in the passport-issuing process.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he is willing to finance to combat juvenile crime in the Easington district.

  Mr. John Patten
  The availability of central Government funding for measures to combat juvenile

  Telecommunications

  Letters

  Total

  Warrants in force on 31 December 1985

  Home Secretary

  212

  74

  286

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  22

  2

  24

  Warrants in force on 31 December 1986

  Home Secretary

  206

  76

  282

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  33

  2

  35

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his assessment of the findings of the review of the present laws governing jackpot gaming machine arcades; and if he will make a statement.
  688
  crime depends on the exact nature of the measures proposed. The report of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention working group on juvenile crime, a copy of which is in the Library, emphasises the need for juvenile crime prevention initiatives to have a local focus and local support. It also stresses the importance of an inter-agency approach. We believe that a great deal can be achieved at local level through this approach.

  Refugees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to adopt a code of practice as proposed by Amnesty International for fair treatment of refugees in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I shall shortly be meeting Amnesty International to discuss its proposals in detail. I have already confirmed to it that many of the proposals in the code of practice represent existing Home Office practice. The Government cannot, however, accept the principal proposal that there should be an in-country right of appeal for all applicants: as the evidence of other countries demonstrates, such a right would be likely to encourage abuse of our asylum procedures.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number if warrants reviewed by category under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Hurd
  The figures for the number of interception warrants issued by the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland in force on 31 December 1985 and 1986 are recorded in the table. The information was given in an annex to the report of the commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Lloyd, on the first year of operation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 which was presented to Parliament in March 1987 (Cmnd. 108). I understand that the corresponding figures for 31 December 1987 are to be given in a annex to the commissioner's next annual report, which I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to present to the House shortly. I do not propose to publish statistics additional to those in the commissioner's reports.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our aim is to take this work forward as quickly as possible. We expect the results of this analysis to be available within the next few weeks.

  Police (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the
  689
  chief constable of Leicestershire concerning the level of police requirements in the county; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 2 February at column 527. I have received no separate representations from the chief constable.

  Radio
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what frequency separation he anticipates will be imposed by the new Radio Authority on(a) FM and (b) AM.

  Mr. Renton
  This will be a matter for the radio authority to determine in assigning the frequencies allocated to it to stations which it licenses.

  Demonstrations
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will institute legislation to enable the police to charge organisers of demonstrations the full cost of policing those demonstrations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to protect members of the public going about their lawful business from being inconvenienced by demonstrations on the streets of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will introduce legislation to prohibit demonstrations on the streets of the United Kingdom by foreign nationals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The question whether organisers of demonstrations should be charged for the cost of policing them and whether demonstrations by foreign nationals should be subject to special controls, were among matters which were considered in the Government's review of public order law published in May 1985 (Cmnd. 9510). We concluded that it was neither feasible nor desirable to do so. We are satisfied that the Public Order Act 1986, which stemmed from the review, strikes the right balance between the rights of the peaceful protester and those of the wider community.

  Mr. Dicks
  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 as to how many police officers, vehicles and motor cycles were needed to police the demonstration held in London on Saturday 30 January by Iraqi nationals, and as to the cost to the public purse.

  ILEA net recurrent institutional expenditure per pupil, £

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Primary schools

  Teaching cost

  621

  686

  727

  759

  804

  Non-teaching cost

  410

  432

  481

  508

  511

  Total

  1,031

  1,118

  1,208

  1,267

  1,315

  Secondary schools

  Teaching cost

  852

  955

  1,029

  1,140

  1,253

  690
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that 300 officers, 21 vehicles and 15 motor cycles were deployed in policing this demonstration at an additional cost of around £6,960.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Pen Tops
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations regarding the danger to children of asphyxiation and death from accidentally swallowing a pen top; and whether he has considered steps to seek to ban pen tops from schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have not received any representations on this matter, but the media coverage of one recent tragic accident will have served to alert both parents and teachers to the risks involved when pen tops or other objects are put in the mouth.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the number of(a) women and (b) men students recruited by all medical schools in the United Kingdom in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Jackson
  The intake of pre-clinical medical students to United Kingdom medical schools was as follows:

  Academic year starting in

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Men

  2,311

  2,224

  2,258

  2,246

  Women

  1,814

  1,869

  1,861

  1,874

  1 Provisional.

  ILEA (Education Costs)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much it cost the Inner London education authority in 1986–87 and each of the preceding five years to educate(a) a primary school pupil and (b) a secondary school pupil for one year, broken down into (1) teaching costs, (ii) administration costs and (iii) other costs,; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Detailed figures for actual expenditure by ILEA in 1986–87 are not yet available. The table gives net recurrent institutional expenditure per primary and secondary pupil in ILEA broken down between teaching and non-teaching costs for the years 1981–82 to 1985–86. ILEA's central administration and inspection costs over the same period are shown separately per head of population.
  691

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Non-teaching cost

  554

  609

  726

  802

  832

  Total

  1,406

  1,564

  1,755

  1,942

  2,085

  ILEA central administration and inspection expenditure per head of population, £

  19·5

  20·6

  23·8

  27·6

  29·3

  School Leavers
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what percentage of school leavers during the academic years 1985–86 and 1986–87 had no graded examination results in(a) England, (b) the Inner London education authority, (c) Birmingham, (d) Croydon, (e) Leeds, (f) Manchester, (g) Liverpool, (h) Kingston, (i) Barnet and (j) Harrow;

  (2) what percentage of all school leavers in the academic years 1985–86 and 1986–87 had at least five exam passes at grades A, B or C in 0-level or grade one in CSE in (a) England, (b) the Inner London education authority, (c) Birmingham, (d) Croydon, (e) Leeds, (f) Manchester, (g) Liverpool, (h) Kingston, (i) Barnet and (j) Harrow.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information for the authorities requested is given in the table.

  Leavers from maintained schools Average of academic years 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86

  Percentage of leavers with

  5 or more higher1 grades at GCE O level or CSE

  No graded result at GCE or CSE

  England

  23·7

  10·0

  ILEA

  15·5

  21·3

  Birmingham

  18·4

  14·6

  Croydon

  24·9

  9·2

  Leeds

  22·3

  10·4

  Manchester

  18·2

  21·0

  Liverpool

  17·3

  20·9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  35·8

  8·6

  Barnet

  39·9

  5·8

  Harrow

  38·9

  5·5

  Source:

  School Leavers Sample Surrey. Data subject to sampling error.

  Note:

  1 O level grades A-C, CSE grade 1

  Mode 3 Examinations
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the annual rate of increase over the last three years for the utilisation of mode 3 examinations in(a) England and Wales and (b) the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not held centrally.

  Education Reform
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have taken place between local education authorities, voluntary bodies and business communities on the training of school governors to help them discharge their duties under the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend is aware of a number of discussions and initiatives, which he welcomes. For its 692
  part the Department is considering with all those interested, partly through the forum of an informal working group, what steps can usefully be taken on a national basis.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, local education authorities will be financially responsible towards teachers who have been made redundant by the governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  LEAs will be responsible for making redundancy payments to teachers who have been made redundant following the decision of the governing body of a school with financial delegation. It will be for governors to decide whether to offer compensation in excess of that provided for by statute or by contractual rights acquired on or before 20 November 1987. The LEA will bear the costs of the redundancy payments outside the school's delegated budget unless it has good reason to deduct them from that budget.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, governors who, acting in good faith incur debts, will be able to ask the local education authorities to relieve them of their duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  In preparing their schemes of financial delegation LEAs will have to establish systems for the monitoring and audit of school budgets handled by governing bodies. LEAs should therefore be aware at an early stage of any difficulties governors may be experiencing and will be able to step in to give advice, or where appropriate, to withdraw the delegation until such time as the governors could take it on again.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, under the provisions o the Education Reform Bill, local education authorities will be financially liable if an industrial tribunal decides that a teacher has been unfairly dismissed but that the governing body acted in good faith; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The LEA would be liable to pay compensation and costs awarded by the industrial tribunal. Where a school had financial delegation, the LEA would meet those costs outside the school's delegated budget unless it had good reason for deducting the costs from that budget. What would be a good reason would fall to be determined in the circumstances of the case.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the level of parental contributions to the fees of pupils in the assisted places scheme 1988–89.
  693
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to the usual consultations and to parliamentary approval, the parental contribution scales will be adjusted upwards for the school year 1988–89 as follows:

  Part of relevant income to which specified percentage applies

  One assisted pupil Per cent.

  Each of two assisted pupils Per cent.

  Each of three assisted pupils Per cent.

  That part which exceeds £7,092 but does not exceed £7,711

  9·00

  6·75

  5·25

  That part (if any) which exceeds £7,711 but does not exceed £8,341

  12·00

  9·00

  7·00

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,341 but does not exceed £9,591

  15·00

  11·25

  8·75

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,591 but does not exceed £11,513

  21·00

  15·75

  12·25

  That part (if any) which exceeds £11,513 but does not exceed £14,023

  24·00

  18·00

  14·00

  That part (if any) which exceeds £14,023

  33·00

  24·75

  19·25

SCOTLAND

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current level of profitability in the pig industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Overproduction in pigmeat within the European Community, coupled with certain difficulties on third country markets, is currently having an adverse effect on the profitability of the Scottish pig industry. The Government have taken, and will continue to seek to take, steps to improve the situation within the context of the EC pigmeat regime and the CAP generally.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report any pork processing units in Scotland which have been closed since 1979 indicating, the location of the unit and the date of closure in each case;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report every existing pork processing unit currently in operation in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Pork processing units range from large, single species plants to very small enterprises processing pork and other meats. Lists of these units are not maintained by my Department.

  Pigs
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total importation to Scotland in each of the past five years of cereal replacer-substitutes for the use of pig producers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department does not maintain records on the importation of cereal substitutes for incorporation in pig feed. Cereals remain the main component in Scottish pig feed rations and manioc is not currently being used in substitution.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recent representations he has received about current difficulties being faced by pig producers in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The National Farmers Union of Scotland has recently made representations to my noble 694
  Friend the Minister of State about the overproduction of pigmeat within the European Community, which coupled with certain problems on third country markets, is currently presenting difficulties for the Scottish pig industry.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people employed in pig production in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table sets out the labour force (which need not be employed on pig production) on units returning pigs at the June 1987 agricultural census.

  Pig size groups

  Units

  Total labour

  1–2

  124

  312

  3–9

  99

  246

  10–19

  60

  159

  20–29

  44

  103

  30–59

  48

  107

  50–99

  69

  162

  100–199

  66

  155

  200–249

  55

  70

  250–499

  58

  397

  500 and over

  199

  1,371

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of pig producers in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Total producers1

  Total pigs

  1983

  1,169

  442,238

  1984

  960

  405,483

  1985

  933

  418,465

  1986

  906

  413,736

  1987

  822

  425,745

  1 Based on units returning pigs at the June agricultural census.

  Meat Production (Subsidies)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total level of subsidy paid to on(a) red meat, (b) pig meat and (c) poultry to producers in Scotland in 1987.
  695
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The European Community operates "light" regimes in the pigmeat and poultrymeat sectors involving protection of the Community market from third country imports, but little direct support. In contrast, under the Community arrangements for supporting beef and sheep production it is estimated that in Scotland in the 1987–88 financial year £151 million will be paid.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest information he has on the level of abuse of gambling or gaming machines by minors in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The findings of a research project on this issue carried out on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and extending to Scotland are currently being assessed.

  Mr. A. Graeme Adam
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report on investigations into alleged fraud by Mr. A. Graeme Adam was given by Strathclyde police to the procurator fiscal; whether the report has been referred to the Lord Advocate; and when he expects action to be taken on the report.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A report on investigations to date was made to the procurator fiscal by the police on 3 February 1988. Investigations will continue under the direction of the procurator fiscal.

  Surgery (Private Sector)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the recent letter sent to Fife health board concerning financial allocations for surgical procedures to be carried out in the private sector.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have placed a copy of the recent letter to Fife health board, concerning the additional allocations, in the House of Commons Library. Following further consideration by the board of its proposal to treat NHS patients in private hospitals, I have agreed that the board may use the resources set aside for this purpose in its own facilities.

  Media (Meeting)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what purpose Mr. Ian Dean, the Crown Agent, was present at the meeting with representatives of broadcasting and the press in Scotland on 4 December 1987 in Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The meeting in question was one of the periodic dinners which my right hon. and learned Friend has, accompanied by a number of ministerial colleagues and senior civil servants, with senior broadcasting executives. The purpose of the meeting was informal discussion on a broad range of Scottish affairs.

  Ophthalmology
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the waiting time for an ophthalmology out-patient appointment for every hospital in each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is given in the table. The waiting times relate to routine cases, that is, cases where there is no indication of special urgency.

  Minimum and maximum waiting times for a first consultation as an ophthalmology out-patient (routine cases): by hospital Year ending 31 March 1987

  Health Board and Hospital

  Minimum waiting time(weeks)

  Maximum waiting time (weeks)

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Isle of Arran War Memorial

  —

  —

  Crosshouse

  13

  21

  Heathfield

  6

  12

  Ballochmyle

  13

  13

  Borders

  Borders Peripheral Clinics

  —

  —

  Galashiels Health Centre

  7

  7

  Argyll and Clyde

  Dunoon and District General

  2

  13

  Mid-Argyll

  4

  32

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  4

  12

  Victoria Hospital, Rothesay

  16

  20

  West Highland

  2

  2

  Dumbarton Health Centre

  6

  7

  Inverclyde Royal

  —

  12

  Royal Victoria Eye Infirmary

  —

  —

  Paisley District General

  —

  —

  Renfrew Clinic

  —

  —

  Barrhead Clinic

  —

  —

  Fife

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  2

  16

  Peripheral Clinic, East Fife

  —

  —

  Dunfermline and West Fife

  6

  6

  Peripheral Clinic, West Fife

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  Townhead Health Centre

  —

  —

  Baillieston Health Centre

  —

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  20

  20

  Stobhill

  10

  15

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  12

  13

  Southern General

  2

  8

  Drumchapel

  —

  —

  Gartnavel District General

  3

  7

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Drumchapel

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill

  10

  11

  Western Infirmary

  3

  20

  Glasgow Eye Infirmary

  14

  18

  Highland

  Caithness Central Hospital

  2

  19

  Lawson Memorial

  30

  30

  Raigmore

  4

  6

  Belford

  34

  34

  Mackinnon Memorial

  —

  —

  Portree

  —

  —

  Ross Memorial

  28

  28

  Lanarkshire

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  —

  —

  Monklands DGH

  77

  77

  697

  Health Board and Hospital

  Minimum waiting time (weeks)

  Maximum waiting time (weeks)

  Law

  5

  5

  Strathclyde

  1

  7

  William Smellie Exteral Clinics

  —

  —

  Hunter Health Centre

  —

  —

  Blantyre Health Centre

  —

  —

  Hairmyres

  —

  5

  Stonehouse

  5

  6

  Larkhall Health Institute

  —

  —

  Hamilton Central Clinic

  —

  —

  Craighead School Clinic

  —

  —

  Grampian

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  7

  11

  Woodend General

  —

  —

  Royal Aberdeen Childrens Hospital

  6

  6

  Kingseat

  —

  —

  Royal Cornhill

  —

  —

  Peterhead Cottage

  10

  10

  Fraserburgh

  12

  16

  Huntly Jubilee

  8

  8

  Chalmers

  34

  34

  Dr. Gray's

  8

  8

  Seafield

  —

  7

  Turner

  —

  —

  Leanchoil

  4

  4

  Lothian

  West Port Clinic

  —

  —

  North Berwick Health Centre

  —

  —

  Leith

  2

  4

  Newton Port Clinic

  —

  —

  Western General

  —

  —

  Prestonpans Health Centre

  —

  —

  Tranent Health Centre

  —

  —

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  10

  12

  Bangour General

  10

  10

  Tayside

  Ninewells

  3

  9

  Dundee Eye Institute

  —

  —

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  5

  5

  Crieff Cottage

  —

  —

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage

  —

  —

  Murray Royal

  —

  —

  Arbroath Infirmary

  16

  16

  Brechin

  25

  25

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  Stracathro

  2

  2

  Forth Valley

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  4

  8

  Bo'ness

  —

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  6

  12

  Western Isles

  Lewis

  —

  —

  Daliburgh

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  20

  52

  Kirkcudbright Cottage

  —

  —

  Garrick

  —

  —

  Newton Stewart Health Centre

  —

  —

  Castle Douglas Health Centre

  —

  —

  Shetland

  New Gilbert Bain

  —

  —

  —: Means that a person would wait less than one week or would be seen at the next clinic.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the numbers of mentally handicapped people in Scotland;

  (2) what are the numbers of profoundly mentally handicapped people in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to give exact figures or reliable estimates for the numbers of people with mental handicap in Scotland since reported prevalence rates for milder degrees of mental handicap show wide variation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning his Department's recently announced changes in regional aid to industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the publication of the DTI White Paper on 12 January we have received several representations on aspects of regional policy which refer, amongst other things, to the changes we have made.

  Schools (Industry Links)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to strengthen schools-industry links.

  Mr. Butcher
  A number of measures to strengthen school-industry links were announced as part of the enterprise initiative in the White Paper "DTI — the department for Enterprise" published on 12 January 1988. Three new targets were set:— every year, 10 per cent. of teachers should have the opportunity to gain some personal experience of the world of business
  —every young person should have two or more weeks of work experience, suited to his or her ability and needs, before leaving school
  —every trainee teacher should gain an appreciation of the needs of employers and the importance of links between schools and employers

  The DTI will also continue to support a wide range of innovative school-employer link activities, courses and projects which promote better understanding between employers and education and the development of practical, adaptable and enterprising attitudes in young people.

  Origin Marks (Harmonisation)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to have further early discussions with equivalent Ministers in the European Economic Community Council of Trade and Industry Ministers' Committee about harmonising origin marks, brand name designation, and trade marks policy in the Community.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Council of Ministers (Internal Market) discussed trade marks both in December and most recently on 2 February. Some outstanding technical problems need more consideration. I expect colleagues to be involved in further policy discussions with Community colleagues on this subject.

  Debt
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any policy to encourage the availability of free advice on debt.

  Mr. Maude
  A great deal of advice and help on debt problems is already provided free of charge by citizens advice bureaux. I have encouraged the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which is funded by central Government, to seek additional funding for this specialised service from the finance industry. Two money advice support projects, one in the south-east and one in the north-west of England, are already under way as a result of private sector funding and I understand that agreement has been reached on a third major scheme which will be announced soon.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number, name and location of private nursing homes in the northern region which have received regional selective assistance or regional development grant over the last five years, together with the amount of grant payable in each case and the date upon which payment was made.

  Mr. Atkins
  Private nursing homes do not qualify for regional development grant. There were five offers of regional selective assistance in the northern region —Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Durham, Cleveland and Cumbria in the five years to 31 December 1987. Details of offers made are as follows:

  Name and location

  Amount offered £

  R. Harrison—Whitley Bay

  25,000

  Burnside Lodge Ltd.—Whitley Bay

  40,000

  Mr. and Mrs. P. Smith—Whitley Bay

  10,000

  Redezeus—Sunderland

  25,000

  John Lisle—Whitley Bay

  20,000

  Mergers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list any information he has as to the major industrialised countries with mandatory prenotification procedures for mergers; and if he will indicate above what size these procedures come into effect.

  Mr. Maude
  Countries with merger prenotification requirements include the United States of America, Canada, Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany, the rules are complicated but in general the requirement to prenotify applies:in the USA, if one party has annual sales or assets of $100 million, the other party has annual sales or assets of $10 million, and as a result of the transaction the acquiring firm would hold at least $15 million or 15 per cent. of the stock of the acquired firm;
  in Canada, if the combined annual sales or assets of the parties exceed Can $400 million and if the value of the assets acquired exceeds $35 million;
  in Japan, to all pure mergers and transfers of a substantial part of a business (through a simplified procedure applies to certain small mergers where the assets of each party are less than 5 billion yen);
  in the FRG, if one party to the transaction has annual sales of at least DM 2,000 million, or if both parties have annual sales of at least DM 1,000 million.

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what extra resources he proposes to provide to trading standards departments to inspect equipment for use in trade.

  Mr. Butcher
  The rate support grant settlements for England, Scotland and Wales, approved by Parliament on 9 and 15 December 1987, make adequate provision for trading standards—consumer protection in 1988–89. It is for each local weights and measures authority to provide from the rate support grant for its trading standard department to give effect to the purposes of the Weights and Measures Act.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list United Kingdom trade with,(a) the European Community, (b) the United States of America, and (c) the rest of the world in 1975 and 1987 at real and constant prices.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Details of United Kingdom trade in current prices are as follows. Information on constant prices by geographical area is not available.

  United Kingdom Trade with the European Community, the United States of America and the Rest of the World in 1975 and 1987

  £ million, OTS basis

  1975

  1987

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports

  Imports

  European Community

  6,844

  9,352

  39,417

  49,557

  United States of America

  1,810

  2,362

  11,014

  9,136

  Rest of the World

  10,953

  12,332

  29,420

  35,322

  Charter Group Initiative
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost to his Department of becoming a full member of the Charter Group initiative; and if he will list the other members of the initiative.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is not possible to give the cost of the DTI becoming a full member of the Charter Group initiative since the terms for participation have not yet been agreed. More than 150 organisations have so far indicated their interest in, and intended support for, the initiative.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take to ensure that private consultants appointed using grants under the enterprise initiative are professionally competent.

  Mr. Atkins
  Before a consultancy practice can undertake assignments under the terms of the enterprise initiative, it must satisfy two basic criteria. First, the practice must have been established for at least two years. Second, it must provide four satisfactory business references for work undertaken on its own account. In addition, every assignment undertaken by a consultancy is closely monitored by the organisations contracted to administer the consultancy schemes. A consultancy practice that fails to deliver quality and value for money will not be used again.

  Single Company Projects
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the projected budget for providing assistance to exceptional cases of single company projects offering significant national benefits.

  Mr. Atkins
  Assistance is available under this facility for a limited number of investment projects and research and development projects that meet the demanding criteria for support. The budget envisaged for 1988–89 is £4 million.

  Government Policies (Impact on Business)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take to ensure that in assessing the impact on business of all of the Government's policies, he receives the views of a wide range of companies.

  Mr. Atkins
  Ministers and officials receive the views of companies through numerous contacts with trade organisations and individual firms. I expect these to continue, and to be helped by the steps we are taking to strengthen and extend my Department's regional office network.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take to ensure that in assessing the impact on business of all of the Government's policies, he receives the views of the workers in small businesses.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is the Government's practice to consult fully on proposals for change.

  Small Businesses (Employees)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to consult the employees of small businesses about the effect of deregulation on their working conditions.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is the Government's practice to consult fully on proposals for change.

  Contracting-out
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his Department's services which he is currently examining with a view to contracting-out to the private sector.

  Mr. Butcher
  In recent years the Department of Trade and Industry has contracted-out the majority of cleaning, laundry, catering, maintenance and security-guarding, and the position in the few examples which remain in-house is currently under review. Some financial appraisal casework and company accounts analysis has recently been market-tested; the export marketing research scheme is currently undergoing such testing; and the possibility of market testing some messengerial work is under examination.

  Enterprise Counsellors
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether individuals from the private sector to be used by his Department as part of the organisation of teams of enterprise counsellors will be paid according to Civil Service pay scales; and to whom they will be responsible.
  702
  Mr. Atkins
  No. Enterprise counsellors will be contracted to the Department of Trade and Industry at £70 per day plus reasonable expenses. They will be responsible directly to the DTI through its regional office network.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactures by value for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to table E2 in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Small Firms (Exemption from Regulations)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which regulations he proposes to exempt small firms from complying with as indicated in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise".

  Mr. Atkins
  It is the Government's policy to examine all areas of regulation to ensure that any compliance costs for business, including small businesses, are reduced to the minimum. As stated in "DTI — the department for Enterprise" further proposals for deregulation will be included in a White Paper to be published in the summer.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to seek to amend consumer protection legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) on 18 November, at column 552 to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 16 December at column 540 and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 13 January at column 315.

  We are also considering proposals for revised regulations on pyramid selling and for amending the Unsolicited Goods and Services Acts. The Government intend to repeal the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 by replacing it with a new order under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 in order to introduce new requirements on the origin marking of goods.

  Regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (which includes a general safety requirement for consumer goods) and its predecessors will be kept under continuous review with the aim of revising, revoking or adding to them where this is necessary, to provide specific protection to consumers. In particular, the House will be aware of my hon. Friend's statement on 11 January about regulations on the flammability of domestic upholstered furniture.

  Microgravity Research
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to increase the funding of microgravity research in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have no intention at present to increase the funding of microgravity research in
  703
  the United Kingdom. Any proposals for research in this field will be considered on their merits in competition with other demands on resources.

  Earth Observation
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government's interest in Earth observation, whether by means of the polar platform or a number of smaller satellites.

  Mr. Atkins
  Proposals for developing earth observation satellites such as the polar platform in the earth observation field are under consideration.

  Space Policy
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on a United Kingdom space policy.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are considering the report and a reply will be given to the House of Lords Select Committee in due course.

  RADARSAT
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for bilateral collaboration with(a) the United States of America and (b) Canada in space development of RADARSAT.

  Mr. Atkins
  Proposals for bilateral collaboration on RADARSAT are under consideration.

  Radio and Electronic Equipment
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what has been the level of exports of radio and electronic equipment suitable for military use to(a) Israeli and (b) Palestinian destinations over each of the last four years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on such exports to countries in the middle east could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Proofing of Guns
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to regulate the arrangements for the proofing of guns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Gun barrel proofing is already closely regulated by legislation dating back to the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, and I do not consider further regulation necessary. On the contrary, I am currently consulting on a modest measure of deregulation, to enable the proof houses to set their own charges independently of Government.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the balance of trade figures for information technology for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Butcher
  The available information is given in the table.
  704

  Information Technology and Electronics Industries1

  £ million

  Year

  Crude trade balance2

  1979

  -444

  1980

  -355

  1981

  -1,060

  1982

  -1,471

  1983

  -2,137

  1984

  -2,186

  1985

  -1,647

  1986

  -1,839

  Notes:

  1 Activity headings 3301, 3302, 3441, 3442, 3443, 3444, 3453 and 3454 of the SIC 80.

  2 Exports (fob) less imports (cif).

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the nature and extent of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the Airbus project; and what is the total sum so far committed to the project by way of grants or loans to(a) British Aerospace plc and (b) other companies and bodies.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: Her Majesty's Government are committed to promote the success of Airbus Industrie projects which are the subject of its arrangements with those Governments. Under principles of co-operation established in 1978 with the Governments of France and Germany, Her Majesty's Government fully support British Aerospace's participation in Airbus Industrie and stand behind the discharge by British Aerospace of its financial obligations to Airbus Industrie.

  The Government will provide up to £700 million in launch aid to enable British Aerospace to participate in the A320 and A330–A340 projects.

  In addition, £60 million launch aid has been paid to Rolls-Royce in connection with the development of the V2500 engine, which is intended for use with Airbus aircraft: and a total of approximately £4·25 million has been made available in selective financial assistance to suppliers of equipment to the Airbus programme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fiji
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any recent representations from groups in Britain about the situation in Fiji; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's present attitude to the Fijian Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received virtually no such representations recently. We welcome the move from a military Government to a predominantly civilian Government in Fiji, which we hope will he a step towards a return to parliamentary democracy and constitutional government.

  India ("Panorama" Programme)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations from the High Commissioner for India concerning
  705
  the recent "Panorama" programme about the Indian Government, shown on BBC1 on 18 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Eggar
  No. The BBC has full editorial responsibility for the programmes it broadcasts.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if pursuant to his answer of 1 February, he will provide the information on the exercise of the royal prerogative requested in respect of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  The constitutional arrangements for Hong Kong are set out in letters patent and royal instructions, which are issued from time to time in exercise of the royal prerogative. The Governor of Hong Kong exercises his powers in accordance with letters patent and royal instruction and any other laws in force in the colony.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 1 February, he will provide the information on the exercise of the royal prerogative requested in respect of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Falkland Islands Constitution Order 1985, the executive authority of the Falkland Islands is, subject to the constitution and any other law, exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the governor either directly or through officers subordinate to him. The governor is obliged by the terms of the constitution to act in accordance with any instructions which Her Majesty may from time to time give him through a Secretary of State.

THE ARTS

  Library Services
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has for the privatisation of local authority library services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans for the privatisation of these services. However, I hope to provide new opportunities to help public libraries to find additional resources for improving their services by allowing them to charge for a wider range of additional and specialised services, perhaps in partnership with the private sector, and by encouraging them to contract-out parts of their operations. I shall shortly be issuing a consultative paper on how this might best be done.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Smoke Detectors
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of recent announcements about the dangers of foam in domestic furniture, he will consider zero-rating smoke detectors for value added tax purposes.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. The case for zero-rating smoke detectors cannot be considered in isolation from many other equally deserving candidates for special treatment. To grant relief from VAT in all these cases would be unacceptably expensive in revenue terms and would in the long run undermine the broad-based nature of the tax.

  Inflation
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which are his latest prospects for the inflation rate in 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  The forecast in the Autumn Statement was that inflation would be 41/2 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1988. My right hon. Friend will present a new forecast at Budget time in the usual way.

  "Adjustment With a Human Face"
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the United Nations Children's Fund's recent study entitled "Adjustment With a Human Face", a copy of which has been forwarded to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The IMF recognises the need to take full account of the effect of structural adjustment on the poor and we shall continue to encourage this both at the policy design stage and when new programmes are implemented. It is important to recognise that in many cases adjustment policies are in fact of direct benefit to the very poorest groups in developing countries — the rural poor. One important example of this is increasing the artificially low prices farmers receive for their crops—which often both directly improves income distribution and encourages more domestic food production. Structural adjustment measures such as this are essential in the poorest countries if they are to achieve better economic growth, and thus better living conditions for all, including the poorest.

EMPLOYMENT

  MSC (London Docklands)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the main activities and projects of the Manpower Services Commission in London docklands over the last six years; and what have been the practical results.

  Mr. Cope
  In London docklands over the last six years, the Manpower Services Commission has made available its full range of programmes, including YTS, adult training schemes and the community programme. Practical results through specific activities have included an integrated recruitment and training package for fire officers at the new airport; provision of literacy-numeracy, language and job preparation courses to help develop basic skills and community programme projects including environmental improvements, house insulation, and work to benefit leisure activities and the development of tourism.

  Childcare Payment System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total amount paid out under the job training service childcare payment system.

  Mr. Cope
  Child care payments for single parents who participate in the new job training scheme were introduced, on a pilot basis, in 10 areas on 1 September 1987. Up to the end of January 1988, £4,000 had been paid under these arrangements.

ENERGY

  British Coal
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on British Coal's external financing limit for 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Coal's external financing limit for 1987–88 has been increased from £842 million to £920 million to reflect higher redundancy costs. This reflects a higher rate of colliery closure and manpower rundown than originally envisaged. These costs will increase the corporation's deficit. A Supplementary Estimate to enable the Government to contribute towards the additional deficit and restructuring costs will be submitted to Parliament shortly.

  The increase in external financing limit is being charged to the reserve and will not add to the public expenditure planning total.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will give the expenditure plans for British Coal for the purchase of mining machinery for each of the next three years;

  (2) if he will give the breakdown of mining machinery purchased from (a) British and (b) foreign companies by British Coal in each of the last three years and in the current year and, where known, planned to be purchased over each of the next three years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a management matter for British Coal. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many farmers presently farm in national nature reserves.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No detailed record is kept of the number of farmers within national nature reserves and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I shall shortly be able to let the hon. Member have the details of tenure requested in his question of 19 January at column 602.

  Water Boards (Bonuses)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will introduce as a criteria for determining bonus payments to water authority boards a measurement of success in improving the quality of the water supply;

  (2) what are the criteria used to determine bonus payments to water authority chairmen;

  (3) what is his policy on bonus payments to water authority chairmen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A performance bonus scheme for water authority chairmen and executive board members was introduced in 1986–87 to provide a financial incentive for the participants to achieve exceptional corporate results in relation to targets agreed with Government. Bonuses from 5 to 15 per cent. were paid for meeting or exceeding the authorities' agreed performance aims. I will be considering what form the scheme should take in 1988–89.

  Low-cost Housing
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve the supply of low-cost housing in rural and in rural development areas.

  Mrs. Roe
  The White Paper published last September (Housing: The Government's Proposals, Cm. 214) set out the Government's proposals for housing generally including proposals to expand the housing association programme which provides low-cost homes for rent arid other tenure in rural and urban areas.

  We are currently considering whether any further measures, designed specifically to help rural areas, are needed.

  Water Authority Employees
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has on how many hours per week and days per year water authority chairmen and executives have worked on average, for each of the last 10 years;

  (2) what information he has on how many hours per week and days per year on average the chairmen have worked in each water authority in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  All executive members of regional water authorities hold full-time appointments. The basis on which chairmen have held office over the last 10 years, as a percentage of full time, is as follows:

  Anglian–1979–80: 70 per cent., 1983–88:1 80 per cent.

  Northumbrian–1979–88: 50 per cent.

  North West–1979–88: 80 per cent.

  Severn Trent–1979–88: 80 per cent.

  Southern–1979–84: 70 per cent., 1985–88: 80 per cent.

  South West — 1979–80: 50 per cent., 1981–86: 70 per cent., 1987–88:2 100 per cent.

  Thames-1979–88: 80 per cent.

  Wessex-1979–82: 50 per cent., 1983–84: 70 per cent., 1983–84: 80 per cent.

  Yorkshire–1979–84: 70 per cent., 1985–88: 90 per cent.

  1Between June 1986 and March 1987, 100 per cent.

  2 Since 1987 also acts as chief executive.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hours per week a water authority(a) employee, (b) chairman and (c) executive must work to be classified as part-time.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Water authority board appointments are considered to be part-time when the duties can be discharged satisfactorily for a normal input of less than an average working week. The terms of appointment by water authorities are a matter for the authorities themselves.

  Exmoor National Park Committee
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce the names of those appointed or reappointed to the Exmoor national park committee.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall be writing to the individuals concerned shortly. I will thereafter, in accordance with normal practice, be announcing the names of those appointed or reappointed and at that stage I will write to my hon. Friend — and other hon. Members with a constituency interest in national parks—with details of the outcome of the appointments round.

  Harecastle Tunnel
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the legality of work proposed to be carried out by the British Waterways Board at Harecastle tunnel, near Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received a letter about the Harecastle tunnel from another hon. Member, to whom I shall be replying shortly. It is for the board to satisfy itself as to the legality of its actions.

  Mineral Workings and Derelict Land
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the next surveys of mineral workings and of derelict land in England to be carried out.

  Mr. Trippier
  These two surveys will be undertaken in 1988, with a base date of 1 April. The survey forms were sent out early in January. Local authorities will have up to nine months, from January to September, in which to complete the survey tables for their respective areas. We hope the results of the surveys will be published in summer 1989.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will implement the proposal made in his Department's consultation paper of July 1986 to limit the maximum permitted size of estate agents' boards to 0.2 sq m; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The consultation paper of July 1986 invited comment on a proposal to limit the maximum permitted area of estate agents' boards on residential property to 0·2 sq m. Subsequently, my right hon. Friend concluded that the maximum permitted area should be 0·5 sq m, for a single board advertising the sale or letting of residential property—a reduction of 75 per cent. in the present maximum permitted area (2 sq m). My right hon. Friend laid amending regulations (The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987, SI 1987/2227) on 8 January, subject to the negative resolution procedure. The main provisions relating to estate agents' boards are to take effect on 28 October.

  Water Supplies (Disconnections)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what notice is given to householders when a water supply is disconnected; what authority water authorities have to obtain prior to such disconnection; and what is the average delay in securing reconnections.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The water industry operates a code of practice designed to ensure that customers in financial difficulties are not cut off if an alternative solution can be found. If disconnection is unavoidable, the general statutory authority (section 38 of the Water Act 1945), empowers water undertakers to cut off supplies if charges have not been paid within seven days of being demanded unless the customer has disputed the bill or the supply is to a tenant whose landlord is in default. Undertakers must notify the local authority within 48 hours of cutting off the supply to an inhabited house. When the householder 710
  requests disconnections, he must give the undertaker 24 hours notice. Section 80 of the third schedule to the Water Act 1945 requires undertakers, before they begin works which will interfere with the supply of water (except in emergencies), to give reasonable notice to consumers.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many households in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years have had water supplies disconnected; and how many of those households included(a) retirement pensioners, (b) the unemployed, (c) young children, (d) invalidity benefit recipients and (c) single parents with young children;

  (2) what have been the main reasons causing water to be disconnected from households over the last five years; and what charge is made to householders to reconnect water supplies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The numbers of households in England disconnected by water authorities for reasons of nonpayment in each of the last five years is as set out:

  Number

  1983–84

  2,521

  1984–85

  2,052

  1985–86

  4,212

  1986–87

  6,450

  Information for 1982–83 or details of the type of household involved is not available centrally. Water authority charges for reconnection in such cases ranges from £24 to £42 in 1987–88. Disconnection in other parts of the United Kingdom are matters for the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the future of the Crown Suppliers within the public sector; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement on 3 February.

  Town and Country Planning
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 and its various amendments are to be consolidated.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have already published consultation papers on the amendment and consolidation of the minerals classes of the general development order on 30 July 1986 and of class I (Householders' development) on 6 January 1987. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are issuing today a further consultation paper with drafts of provisions amending and consolidating the remaining classes and articles of the order. The new order and planning applications regulations would also incorporate the provisions of the related special development orders which govern development in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and conservation areas.

  Our main objective is to provide a clearer, simpler text which will be more easily understood. The order and regulations would replace 13 existing orders and

  711
  amendments. We are also publishing a draft guide which consolidates material in eight extant circulars about the order.

  We are also taking the opportunity to make a number of changes to the provisions of the order, including:
  —removal of the power enabling local highway authorities to direct local planning authorities how to decide planning applications which would affect classified roads. Instead, the local highway authority would have the right to be consulted by the planning authority before the decision is made.
  — introduction of control over the development of livestock units within 400 metres of non-agricultural buildings.
  — general permission for certain changes of use, in particular, to allow premises now used for the financial and professional services class of the Use Classes Order 1987 and which have a display window at ground level to be used within the shops class.
  —restriction of the requirement to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (or, in Wales, the Welsh Office) to applications involving 20 hectares or more of agricultural land of grades 1, 2 and 3a.

  Copies of the consultation paper and annexes have been placed in the Library. There is a two-month period for comment, after which we hope it will be possible to proceed within a short time to lay the new order and regulations.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be issuing a similar consultation paper.

  Figure 1

  England 1986–87 prices

  Ranges of net household income (£pw)

  Under 50

  50–75

  77–100

  100–150

  150–200

  200–250

  250–300

  300–350

  350–400

  450–500

  500+

  All households

  Relationship of gross and net rates to net household income (£ per week)

  Rate bills

  Gross £ per week

  5·50

  5·94

  6·32

  6·58

  7·18

  7·64

  8·18

  8·90

  9·69

  10·24

  13·10

  7·40

  Net £ per week

  1·73

  2·75

  3·97

  5·80

  6·95

  7·54

  8·09

  8·81

  9·64

  10·20

  13·04

  6·37

  As a percentage of net income in each range

  Gross

  13·1

  9·6

  7·3

  5·3

  4·1

  3·4

  3·0

  2·8

  2·6

  2·3

  2·1

  3·8

  Net

  4·1

  4·4

  4·6

  4·7

  4·0

  3·4

  3·0

  2·7

  2·6

  2·3

  2·1

  3·3

  Relationship of gross and net Community Charge (and residual domestic rates) to net household income, with safety nets1

  Gross £ per week

  4·13

  4·86

  6·46

  6·79

  7·58

  8·09

  8·70

  9·40

  9·74

  10·54

  12·00

  7·44

  Net £ per week

  1·39

  2·25

  3·78

  5·82

  7·12

  7·77

  8·34

  9·08

  9·43

  10·15

  11·48

  6·33

  As a percentage of net income in each range

  Gross

  9·8

  7·8

  7·4

  5·4

  4·3

  3·6

  3·2

  2·9

  2·6

  2·4

  1·9

  3·9

  Net

  3·3

  3·6

  4·3

  4·7

  4·1

  3·5

  3·0

  2·8

  2·5

  2·3

  1·8

  3·3

  1 The transitional safety net arrangements were announced on 17 November 1987.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what factors he attributes the variations in increases in gross and net rates for each income band between 1984–85, as in annex F of "Paying for Local Government", and 1986–87, as in his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: In general, the increases in net and gross domestic rate bills are much as expected in the light of the average increases in rates between 1984–85 and 1987–88. Rate increases have not been uniform over the period, however. Outside London rates have increased by nearly 40 per cent. while in inner London, mainly as a result of the successful application of rate capping, rates have reduced by 7 per cent. This variation might explain in part the small differences in rate increases for bands of household income

  Rates (Summonses)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has on the numbers of the issue of summonses for the alleged non-payment of rates to households which have already paid their rates in London boroughs over the most recent period for which figures are available, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his answer, 28 January 1988, e. 375]: The figure given for the number of summonses for non-payment of rates issued by Greater London boroughs in 1986–87 was incorrect. The correct figure is 183,962.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce the figures in figure four of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge on the basis that 1986–87 is year one and including the net safety net effect.

  Mr. Howard
  The figures asked for are set out in the table. For ease of reference, the comparable table for the present system (figure 1 of the published note) is reprinted below.

  over £250 per week. Average incomes in the Greater London area are about 20 per cent. higher than the national average.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker),Official Report, 25 January, columns 37–38, (a) which equivalent income scale was used to derive the tables on the relationship between charges and income (b) how many (i) over-18's and (ii) people in total he estimates to be in each income band, (c) what margin of error applies to the figures, (d) whether the poll-tax figures include the safety net effect and (e) if he will reproduce the tables on the decile basis used in his reply to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 16 December 1987, Official Report, column 522.
  713
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: The basis for adjusting household incomes to equivalent incomes is that described in paragraph F14 of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government," Cmnd. 9714. The estimated total population and numbers of adults in each equivalent income band is shown in the table. The community charge estimates used for the purpose of my answer of 25 January were those for the full implementation of the community charge published on 29 June, and therefore exclude the effect of the transitional

  Ranges of Equivalent Net Household Income (£ per week)

  Numbers of (million)

  Under

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  250

  300

  350

  400

  500

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  250

  300

  350

  400

  500

  +

  Adults

  1·4

  6·2

  4·6

  9·2

  6·1

  3·6

  2·0

  1·0

  0·5

  0·5

  0·2

  Total

  1·8

  7·9

  6·3

  13·3

  8·3

  4·5

  2·3

  1·2

  0·6

  0·5

  0·3

DEFENCE

  Exercise Bonnie Dundee
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of Exercise Bonnie Dundee; on what dates and in what locations it is scheduled to take place; what units are involved; and how many troops will participate.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Bonnie Dundee is a home defence exercise to be held in Scotland between 22 October and 2 November 1988. It is designed to test progress in military home defence planning since Exercise Brave Defender which took place in 1985. It is too early to provide further details of the exercise since plans have not yet been settled.

  RAF Stornoway
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any plans exist to alter his Department's commitment to limit the peacetime use of RAF Stornoway for military exercises to six weeks per year; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many weeks of military air exercises it is planned to conduct at RAF Stornoway in 1988.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 24 July 1987 at column 595. There are no plans to alter my Department's commitment to limit the peacetime use of RAF Stornoway for military exercises to six weeks per year.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of RAF Stornoway in Exercise JMC 88–1.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  None is planned.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if flying operations from RAF Stornoway by Falcon aircraft of Flight Refuelling Ltd. and Hunter aircraft from the fleet requirements and air direction unit will count towards the permitted maximum six weeks of military exercises each year at RAF Stornoway.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.
  714
  safety net proposals. I have repeatedly pointed out that the estimates of the impact of our proposals are based on a sample survey and are subject to sampling errors. The confidence intervals attaching to these estimates will vary with each estimate. The estimates of the relative contributions of those in the top and bottom deciles of household income to local services were not produced from the tax benefit model. The note of 25 January could be produced from the model on a decile basis only at disproportionate cost.

  Exercise ASWEX 1–88
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of RAF Stornoway in Exercise ASWEX 1–88.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Routine use, amounting to a small number of daylight transfers of stores and personnel by military helicopters, will be made of the civil facilities at Stornoway airport during Exercise ASWEX 1–88.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of Benbecula airport during Exercise ASWEX 1–88.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  During Exercise ASWEX 1–88 Benbecula airport will perform its usual functon as an air traffic control point. In addition, there may be one daylight transfer of personnel, involving military aircraft.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what naval activity will be conducted in the Minch and the waters around the Western Isles during Exercise ASWEX 1–88; and what consultations have taken place with fishermen's organisations.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  ASWEX 1–88 is a routine naval exercise involving a small number of units. There will be little activity in the Minches and the waters around the Western Isles during the exercise. It is not our normal practice to consult fishermen's organisations about relatively minor exercises of this nature, and we did not do so on this occasion.

  RAF Aird Uig, Lewis
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the ship-to-shore and shore-to-ship communication systems being installed at RAF Aird Uig, Lewis; and what increase in(a) Royal Air Force, (b) Royal Navy, (c) United States and (d) civilian personnel working at the station will result from their introduction.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The communications system to be installed at RAF Aird Uig will form part of the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment system. Up to a maximum of six additional RAF technicians will be required at RAF Stornoway to maintain the facility. No other personnel will be involved.

  Air-sea Rescue
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy or Royal Air Force air-sea rescue sorties were carried out in 1987 to assist(a) foreign merchant ships, (b) foreign military vessels including NATO forces, and (c) foreign trawlers, sailcraft and other vessels.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following sorties were flown in 1987 by United Kingdom-based Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters to assist:

  Number

  (a) Foreign merchant ships

  38

  (b) Foreign military vessels including NATO forces

  4

  (c) Foreign fishing vessels

  37

  (d) Foreign pleasure craft

  5

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy or Royal Air Force air-sea rescue sorties were flown in 1987 to assist(a) Royal Navy ships, (b) British merchant ships and ferries and (c) British trawlers, sailcraft or other vessels.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following sorties were flown in 1987 by United Kingdom based Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters to assist:

  Number

  (a) Royal Navy shipping

  11

  (b) British merchant shipping, including ferries

  57

  (c) British fishing vessels

  83

  (d) British pleasure craft

  127

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy or Royal Air Force air-sea rescue operations were flown in 1987 to rescue(a) British military aircrew, (b) NATO aircrew, (c) British civilian aircrew and (d) other foreign military or civilian aircrew.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not held in the precise form requested. Assistance was provided in 1987 by United Kingdom-based Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters as follows:

  Incidents

  (a) British military aircraft

  97

  (b) United States Military aircraft

  6

  (c) British civilian aircraft

  19

  There were an additional 49 call-outs to assist aircraft in distress in which the nationality of the aircraft was not recorded.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy or Royal Air Force air-sea rescue sorties were carried out to rescue mountaineers or were in support of other domestic civilian emergency operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  A total of 418 sorties were flown in 1987 by United Kingdom based Royal Navy and Air Force search and rescue helicopters to assist civilian personnel on land.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rescue sorties were carried out by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force air-sea rescue service outside British territorial waters in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom's responsibility for search and rescue extends well beyond territorial waters, and separate figures are not held for incidents outside 716
  those waters. International co-operation is an important feature of search and rescue and from time to time assistance is given by United Kingdom-based Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue aircraft in areas which are the responsibility of other nations, but, again, these are not recorded centrally.

  A total of 93 search and rescue sorties were flown in 1987 by Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters based overseas, of which 51 were to military incidents and 42 to civilian incidents. Records are not kept centrally of rescue sorties carried out by aircraft embarked in Royal Navy ships.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rescue sorties were carried out by the Royal Navy air-sea rescue service in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, a total of 349 search and rescue sorties were flown by United Kingdom-based Royal Navy search and rescue helicopters.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training, rescue or other sorties were carried out by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force air-sea rescue services in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987 the United Kingdom-based Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters flew 1,494 search and rescue sorties. Information on training sorties is not held centrally.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian personnel have been rescued by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force air-sea rescue services in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, a total of 903 civilian personnel were rescued by United Kingdom-based Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been rescued by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force air-sea rescue services in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987 a total of 54 military personnel were rescued by United Kingdom-based Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rescue sorties were carried out by the Royal Air Force air-sea rescue service in 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, a total of 1,145 search and rescue sorties were flown by United Kingdom-based Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters.

  Weather Satellites
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to transfer weather satellites to the private sector.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The Ministry of Defence has no weather satellites of its own. The United Kingdom is one of 19 participating nations in the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT). Each nation is represented by its national meteorological service. In addition, the Meteorological Office is involved with United States Government agencies in research, development and provision of certain types of sounding instruments for installation on United States polar-orbiting satellites, the data from which are beneficial to Meterological Office forecasting. Private industry is
  717
  making some contribution to this instrument development programme in the expectation of industrial benefits from the production of further units. Basic satellite and other global weather observations are collected and exchanged internationally free of charge under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organisation; direct private sector participation would therefore not be appropriate.

  Exercise Purple Warrior
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons were lost during Exercise Purple Warrior and remain unaccounted for; and where they were lost.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No weapons were reported as having been lost during Exercise Purple Warrior.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ferries used in Exercise Purple Warrior were chartered from(a) Denmark and (b) West Germany.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Four ferries were chartered from Denmark and two from West Germany.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the arrangement to charter ferries from(a) Denmark and (b) West Germany for use in Exercise Purple Warrior.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 16 November 1987 at column 458.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ferries were chartered for Exercise Purple Warrior.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Nine.

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Women's Royal Voluntary Service personnel have been assisting the Army for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of Women's Royal Voluntary Service personnel who have been employed in work assisting the Army in each year from 1979 to 1987 is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  32

  1980

  35

  1981

  38

  1982

  36

  1983

  34

  1984

  32

  1985

  32

  1986

  26

  1987

  21

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding has been provided by his Department for Women's Royal Voluntary Service personnel attached to Army units for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The amount of funding provided by the Ministry of Defence to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in the years from 1979 to 1987 has been as follows:
  718

  £

  1979

  59,250

  1980

  67,575

  1981

  67,200

  1982

  76,218

  1983

  85,000

  1984

  96,000

  1985

  130,944

  1986

  92,204

  1987

  100,717

  Army Barracks (Food and Accommodation Costs)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions food and accommodation charges for soldiers living in barracks have risen since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Eight. Food and accommodation charges are included in the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's annual recommendations on pay and allowances for the services. However, in 1979 the Government imposed a standstill on accommodation charges pending further examination of the basis of the charges by the review body.

  Royal Naval Chaplains
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why Royal Naval chaplains do not wear badges of rank.

  Mr. Freeman
  Naval chaplains are commissioned as such rather than as naval officers, and hence do not wear badges of rank.

  DROPS
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the Scammell (Leyland/DAF) DROPS was chosen by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The vehicle was selected as a result of a competitive exercise from 1982 to 1985 involving detailed engineering and other assessments together with extended troop and associated trials by the Army and the Department's research and development authorities.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what different tyre sizes were tried on the original DROPS trailer vehicle 18 months ago.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Scammell (Leyland/DAF) DROPS achieved a lateral stability of 28 degrees plus in trials.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether DROPS is air portable.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to review the decision to procure the Scammell (Leyland/DAF) DROPS.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. Like all major equipment projects, the DROPS programme as a whole will continue to be subject to regular review in the normal way.
  719
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what design changes have been made to the chassis of the original DROPS trailer equipment; and by how much this has raised the vehicle's centre of gravity.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Royal Navy Ships
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year of construction each ship in the Royal Navy 20 or more years old, giving both name and type of vessel.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The following Royal Naval ships, listed by the year their construction was completed, are 20 or more years old.

  1778

  First rate ship of the line

  Victory

  1954

  MCMVs

  Cuxton

  Brereton

  Brinton

  Bronington

  Gavinton

  Kirkliston

  Royal yacht

  Britannia

  1955

  MCMVs

  Hubberston

  Iveston

  Kedleston

  Kellington

  1956

  MCMVs

  Upton

  Sheraton

  Ice patrol ship

  Endurance1

  1957

  MCMVs

  Nurton

  Maxton

  Soberton

  Stubbington

  1958

  MCMV

  Walkerton

  1960

  Rothesay class frigate

  Rothesay

  1961

  Rothesay class frigate

  Plymouth

  1962

  Oberon class submarine

  Odin

  Olympus

  Onslaught

  Otter

  1963

  Oberon class submarine

  Oracle

  Otus

  720
  Leander class frigate

  Penelope

  1964

  Leander class frigate

  Euryalus

  Oberon class submarines

  Ocelot

  Opossum

  Opportune

  Osiris

  1965

  Assault ship

  Fearless

  Leander class frigate

  Arethusa

  Survey ships

  Hecate

  Hecla

  1966

  Leander class frigates

  Cleopatra

  Minerva

  Phoebe

  Sirius

  Fleet submarine

  Valiant

  1967

  Assault ship

  Intrepid

  Polaris submarine

  Resolution

  MCM support ship

  Abdiel

  Leander class frigates

  Argonaut

  Danae

  Navigation training ship

  Juno

  Fleet submarine

  Warspite

  Oberon class submarine

  Onyx

  1 Endurance was completed as a merchant vessel in 1956 but was not purchased for Royal Navy service until 1967.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Free Food
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the operation of the European Community free food scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend announced on 12 January that butter and beef would be made available, subject to Commission authorisation, in response to applications from charitable or non-profit-making organisations meeting appropriate conditions. Agriculture Departments have invited applications by a closing date of 29 February. These will be considered together, and scaled down if necessary to fit the finance available.
  721
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with organisations eligible for operating the EC free food scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  I and my Department have kept in close touch with the main charitable organisations at every stage in the evolution of the scheme.

  When it became clear that organisations other than charities would be eligible to participate in this scheme, although they had been excluded by the European Community from the previous scheme, I made sure that they, too, were informed.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on the distribution of surplus Common Market food.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland).

  EC Agricultural Commissioner
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the European Economic Community's Agricultural Commissioner; and what was discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. Andriessen, at the Agriculture Council on 23–24 January, the outcome of which I reported to the House in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall).

  Inshore Fishing
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from sea anglers' associations about inshore fishing undertaken by commercial fishing vessels.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received no recent representations from sea anglers' associations about inshore fishing undertaken by commercial fishing vessels, although sea anglers' associations have raised other issues such as the management of the bass fishery.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the subsequent effect on intervention stocks of the agreement of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in December 1986.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Largely as a result of the reforms to the EC dairy regime agreed under the United Kingdom presidency in December 1986, and the associated accelerated disposal programme for existing stocks, EC stocks of butter at the end of November 1987 were 974,000 tonnes, 31 per cent. down on their level in December 1986. Stocks of skimmed milk powder at the end of November 1987 were 592,000 tonnes, 34 per cent. down on those in December 1986. United Kingdom intervention stocks of butter were down 36 per cent. and stocks of skimmed milk powder down 88 per cent. over the same period.

  In the period from 6 April 1987, when the reforms to the beef regime came into effect, to the end of 1987, EC purchases were 396,500 tonnes, 19 per cent. down on the
  722
  same period in 1986. Broadly proportionate reductions occurred in the United Kingdom. EC intervention stocks in 1987, however, built up to higher levels than those obtaining in 1986 because of substantially lower sales from intervention for export.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that there is an increase in the scope of monitoring to test foodstuffs for pesticides residues.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Existing monitoring, consisting of surveys targeted at potential problem areas, and the examination of residues in the average national diet, has been supplemented since last year by regular surveys of the dietary staples — milk, bread and potatoes. Later this year we shall be introducing statutory maximum residue limits for the most important primary food components of the United Kingdom diet in addition to implementing obligatory EC limits in and on cereals and animal products. Financial provision will be sought in the Supply Estimates for 1988–89 to increase resources to allow for extra monitoring arising from this legislation.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available for public scrutiny the evaluations of pesticides still in use, and those no longer marketed but prepared under the former voluntary pesticides safety and precautions scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The arrangements under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 for making evaluations on pesticides publicly available apply to those evaluations produced for newly approved pesticides and for reviews of existing ones.

  My Department responds to specific queries about pesticides registered under the pesticides safety precautions scheme. However a large number of active ingredients were involved over nearly 30 years, and many are of limited current interest. The priority given to this activity depends both on the availability of data and the nature of the concern expressed.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to respond to the Select Committee on Agriculture's report on the effect of pesticides on health.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The agreed report of the Agriculture Committee dealt, in very brief terms, with the reason why, because of the general election, it had been unable to complete its inquiry. In these circumstances, the Government believe that it would be inappropriate to offer any formal response to the agreed report.

  Departments are, however, considering the individual conclusions and recommendations contained in the draft report of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), which, although not agreed by the Agriculture Committee, was published as an appendix to the main report. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) has already seen the draft report and certain points raised in it will be considered in the first instance by the relevant panels supporting the ACP.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in controlling the supply and use of pesticides.
  723
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 28 January as regards the controls on use, introduced under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  As far as supply is concerned, the following controls have been implemented with effect from 6 October 1986.

  only approved pesticides may be sold or supplied; suppliers must take all reasonable precautions to protect human health, animals, plants and the environment;
  suppliers must be competent for the duties they are to perform;
  pesticides may only be supplied to the end user in approved containers and under approved labels.

  As from I January 1988, anyone selling or supplying a pesticide approved for use in agriculture, horticulture or forestry must hold a recognised certificate of competence or be supervised by a certificate holder.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to ensure that there is increased public awareness of the legal controls on the use of pesticides and of individuals' responsibilities.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since the introduction of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, a series of press releases have been issued drawing attention to particular aspects of the new controls. In addition, my Department has to date distributed some 200,000 copies of the leaflet "Pesticides — Guide to the new controls" which will continue to be made available.

  The Ministry's publicity efforts have not been carried out in isolation. Many sections of the industry are helping to get the message across.

  Water Quality (Intensive Farming)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he proposes to ensure water quality is not harmed in areas of intensive farming.

  Mr. Gummer
  As well as a wide range of other activities through which my Department aims to reduce farm pollution, I have this week launched a campaign to increase awareness among farmers of the problem of nitrate pollution and how they can help to reduce it.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held recently with farmers' representatives concerning water quality in areas of intensive farming.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am in frequent contact with farmers' representatives to discuss a wide range of issues, including the possible effect of intensive farming on water quality.

  Eastern Bloc Klondykers
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has held regarding the location of eastern bloc Klondykers in, or close to, United Kingdom fishing ports in the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  Other Departments, relevant sections of the fishing industry and other local interests have been consulted where appropriate.

  Nutrition Labelling
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there have been any developments in the European Commission's plan for a Community system of voluntary nutrition labelling.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We still await the Commission's proposals on nutrition labelling of foods, which were due to be issued by the end of 1987. In the meantime we have issued our own guidelines and we are pressing for widespread adoption as a result of the revise circulated on 21 January.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he expects to introduce further proposals for the declaration of nutritional information on food products.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Revised guidelines for a standard approach to voluntary nutrition declarations were issued on 21 January,Official Report, column 836. I am pressing for widespread adoption by food manufacturers and retailers. Proposals for legislation to set out the form in which voluntary declarations must be given will be considered once we have experience of the operation of the system and European Community intentions on nutrition labelling are clearer. We are looking at the need for simple graphical or representational systems to supplement numerical declarations, and at the need for controls to prevent misleading claims for nutrient content undermining the value of nutrition declarations provided in accordance with the guidelines.

  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the current method of calculation of monetary compensatory amounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  MCAs generally are calculated in an objective manner in order to avoid trade distortions. However, technical improvements which can usefully be made are discussed with the Commission and other member states from time to time.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek the phasing out of monetary compensatory amounts in the pigmeat industry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 28 January.

  Cereals Surplus
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of the cereals surplus in the United Kingdom and the European Community.

  Mr. MacGregor
  For the current cereals marketing year, Community consumption of home-produced-grain is provisionally estimated at 133 million tonnes and production at 153 million tonnes. Intervention stocks at the beginning of the year stood at 14·3 million tonnes.

  For the same period United Kingdom consumption of home-produced grain is estimated at 16·7 million tonnes and production at 21·5 million tonnes. Intervention stocks at the beginning of the marketing year stood at 2·3 million tonnes.
  725
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the size of the cereals surplus in the United Kingdom and the European Community in five years' time.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Consumption in the Community of home-produced grain is around 130 million tonnes and forecast to remain stable.

  The latest estimates of production trends produced by European Statistical Office are as follows:

  Million tones

  1988

  168

  1989

  171

  1990

  174

  1991

  178

  These figures are based on an extrapolation of current trends. Intervention stocks of grain in the Community at the beginning of the current marketing year stood at 14·3 million tonnes.

  No such forecasts are available separately for the United Kingdom.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to have discussions about the dairy industry with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My colleagues and I have regular contacts with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss various issues affecting the dairy industry.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current value of the support provided by the Government for farmers in the less-favoured areas.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The current forecast of additional support in the less-favoured areas for 1987–88 is £143.9 million comprising

  £ million

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances:

  Sheep

  64·5

  Cattle

  50·3

  Additional benefits under Agricultural Capital

  Grants, including the Northern Ireland Agricultural Development Programme

  25·3

  Other grants including forage groups, special assistance to the Scottish Island and crofters

  3·8

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of present or proposed arrangements for the setting aside of arable land to be used for forestry to secure a sufficiently positive response.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In November we announced significant increases in the rates proposed for the annual payments under the farm woodland scheme which will now focus primarily on arable and improved land. The new rates were generally welcomed by interested parties.

  I expect there to be provision for the planting of woodland in the Community set-aside scheme, on which
  726
  discussions are continuing in the Council of Ministers. I and my colleagues will be considering the appropriate United Kingdom arrangements in the light of the Community's final decisions and of responses to the consultation document issued on 8 December.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the European Community cereal set-aside policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have received a large number of representations, most of them in response to the consultation document on extensification issued on 8 December.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether agreement has been reached on the level of premium to compensate for the European Community scheme of setting land aside.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The consultation document issued by the Agricultural Departments on 8 December suggested a rate in the range of £150-£200 per hectare of cereals land set-aside. No decisions will be taken until current discussions on a wider set-aside scheme in the Council of Agriculture Ministers reach a conclusion and I have considered with my colleagues the views expressed to us on this and other features of the scheme.

  Severe Weather Damage
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any requests from coastal authorities for grant aid towards the cost of repairing damage caused by gales in early January.

  Mr. Gummer
  Bournemouth borough council has advised me of the need for emergency coast protection work following the January gales. This will be considered for grant aid in the normal way. No other coastal authority has made such an approach.

  Carry-Over Premium Scheme
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the incorporation of herring and mackerel in the carry-over premium scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  I received a number of representations about the incorporation of herring and mackerel in the carry-over premium scheme during 1987. They were mainly from fish producer organisations in Scotland who felt that the change would provide additional flexibility in marketing the species.

  Food Research
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the Government's review of funding for public sector basic food research.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The review is an internal exercise which does not involve formal consultation outside Government. But we are receiving views from a number of interested parties which are bing taken into account.

  Cereal Policy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the paper entitled, "Cereal — A Positive Policy", recently published by the Grasshoppers Club, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have read this paper with interest. For cereals I continue to believe that a tough price policy should be accompanied by a voluntary set-aside scheme designed to encourage producers to reduce levels of production and to cushion the impact of lower prices on those least able to cope.

  Conservation
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been undertaken since 1979 to improve the balance between farming and conservation.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have introduced a wide range of measures since 1979 in order to improve the balance between farming and conservation. In particular, the agricultural improvements scheme has since 1985 encouraged farmers to invest in environmentally beneficial projects, 10 areas of England have been designated environmentally-sensitive areas following agreement in the Agriculture Council of Ministers to proposals first put forward by the United Kingdom, and the farm and countryside initiative provides work of benefit to the rural environment for the long-term unemployed under the community programme of the Manpower Services Commission.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how farm incomes presently compare with figures for 1986 and 1987, respectively.

  Mr. MacGregor
  United Kingdom income in 1987 is forecast at £1,404 million, about 1½ per cent. lower than the 1986 total of £1,427 million. More detailed data on farm incomes is given in the "Annual Review of Agriculture 1988" (Cm 299).

  Food Intolerance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding his Department's support for research into the prevalence of food intolerance.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  If I consider "food" to include "food additives" then between 1984 and 1987 my Department funded a multicentre study of food additive intolerance at three major clinical centres. The principal project assessed the prevalence of food additive intolerance in a large population by rigorous (double-blind) challenge.

  The prevalence estimated from the clinical data, using two methods of calculation, was 0·01 to 0·23 per cent. suggesting that the problem of food additive intolerance in the large population group studied was small.

  Other complementary work my Department funded during this same period has indicated that food additive
  728
  intolerance in many children is mainly a transient phenomenon, and it has thrown some light on the mechanisms of intolerance reactions in the human body.

  My Department is continuing to fund further research in this area and during 1987–90 a project designed to examine the prevalence of food intolerance per se for comparison purposes and to extend our knowledge of the mechanisms by which intolerance is mediated, has been commissioned at the same clinical centres.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning his proposals to encourage tree planting on surplus agricultural land.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I announced the revised proposals for the farm woodland scheme in November following a consultation exercise earlier last year. Since then, the revised scheme has been discussed with representatives of the main interested organisations. Most of the changes I made have been welcomed on all sides.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what policies he is promoting to diversify and strengthen the economy in rural areas.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to help sustain the rural economy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We are introducing a variety of measures designed to encourage changes in land use and contribute to the vitality of the rural economy.

  The farm diversification grant scheme was introduced on 1 January. This offers 25 per cent. grants on on-farm investments worth up to £35,000 in a wide range of nonagricultural profit-making activities. These include farm tourism and crafts, farm shops, the value-added processing of food, agricultural products and timber, sports facilities, livery and, in less-favoured areas, pony trekking.

  The Farm Land and Rural Development Bill, which is now before the House, contains the powers under which the farm woodland scheme, providing incentives for the planting of woodlands on farms, will be introduced. It also provides enabling powers for the introduction later this year of complementary grants for feasibility studies and marketing costs for diversification enterprises.

  In addition, 14 environmentally sensitive areas have now been designated in the United Kingdom and four more are being designated. In these areas farmers will receive payment for following farming practices designed to conserve their landscape and wildlife value.

  Finally, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Environment and for Wales have issued revised guidance on development involving agricultural land which emphasises the need to foster the diversification of the rural economy.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has had with the National Farmers Union to discuss the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have had no formal meeting with the National Farmers' Union on the proposed community charge.

  EC-Israel Protocol
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details on the progress of the EEC-Israel protocol; and what concessions have been granted to Israel concerning food and drink products.

  Mr. Gummer
  The protocols to the EC-Israel agreement were signed by the Community and Israel on 13 December 1987. They await the assent of the European Parliament which is required before they can enter into force.

  The protocols provide in particular for duties to be removed progressively from a range of food and drink products, and for tariff quotas to be opened for certain products, most notably cut flowers. Whilst the United Kingdom has shown itself supportive of freer trade in Mediterranean products, we have insisted upon proper access to the European market being provided for Arab producers from the occupied territories. Details are contained in EC document 4280/87 (explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 10 April 1987) a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Council of Fisheries Ministers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met members of the European Community's Council of Fisheries Ministers; and what subjects they discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  The last meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers was on 14 to 16 December 1987; my right hon. Friend the Minister reported on discussion at this meeting in a written reply of 16 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell),Official Report column 585.

  Potato Imports (Hungary)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received expressing concern at the possible lifting of all embargos and related quantitative restrictions regarding potato products from Hungary.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  One, from the Potato Processors' Association.

  Breeding Ewes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the present number of breeding ewes in the United Kingdom.
  730
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Provisional figures from the June 1987 agricultural census show 18·056 million ewes and shearlings in the United Kingdom (Source: "Annual Review of Agriculture 1988" (Cmnd. 299)).

  Pig Producers
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that British pig producers are not subject to unfair competition from imported meat.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Denmark and Holland are the major exporters of pigmeat to our market. A major study carried out by the food and drink manufacturing economic development council in 1986 concluded that there was no proof that the pig industries in those countries gained any substantial advantage over United Kingdom producers as a result of state subsidies. I am always ready to consider referring to the European Commission for action any firm evidence that national Governments are paying illegal aid to their producers.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the amount which the EEC is spending per week on the storage, destruction and dumping of food surpluses; what was the comparable sum actually spent per week, five and 10 years previously, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Weekly community expenditure on technical and financing costs of public intervention and on export refunds and internal disposal subsidies (including loss on sale out of intervention) for commodities now in structural surplus (cereals, sugar, olive oil, wine, beef, milk and milk products) was £28 million in 1977, £80 million in 1982 and £233 million in 1987. In some circumstances withdrawn produce finds no end use and may be assumed to be spoiled or wasted, but the relevant expenditure is not separately identifiable.

  Fishing Industry (Support)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to change his policy on financial support for the fishing industry, in the light of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, entitled "Financial Support for the Fishing Industry in Great Britain"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Fisheries Ministers thoroughly reviewed their objectives and policies with regard to both financial support for the United Kingdom fishing fleet and the restrictive licensing arrangements as recently as the winter of 1986–87 and one of the results of that review was our decision to withdraw the decommissioning grants which attracted particular attention in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I announced our conclusions on 30 April, 1987,Official Report, columns 217–19. We continue to keep our policies for the fishing industry under regular review.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received
  731
  about the loss of cheese-making capacity in the United Kingdom as a result of the European Commission milk quotas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received no such representations. The shortage of milk for cheese production last autumn was in large part the result of a greater than usual seasonal reduction in milk production. The answer to this problem is not to increase milk quotas, since the Community is not short of milk, but rather to encourage a more even supply of milk throughout the year.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the fishing industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  Thanks to this Government's policies, including t he negotiation in January 1983 of a satisfactory common fisheries policy, the United Kingdom fishing industry is in better heart than for many years. Although figures for 1987 are not yet complete, it is clear that landings were up over the previous year both in volume and in value terms, implying a significant increase in real earnings.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin
  (West Derbyshire): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what progress was made towards reforming the common agricultural policy at the recent meeting of Ministers in Brussels.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave today to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Country Landowners Association about his Department's handling of the Chernobyl accident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Chernobyl was one of a number of topics discussed when I met representatives of the Country Landowners Association on 28 September 1987. My officials have, of course, been in frequent contact with the associaton on action taken following the Chernobyl accident.

  Agriculture Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the agriculture industry.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Although overall farming income as a whole in England is forecast to have fallen somewhat, largely because of the effects of adverse weather on the arable sector, there have been increases in England in the dairy and less-favoured areas livestock sectors, and there was a good recovery in forecast farming income for 1987 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  British Sherry
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his response to recent representations by the British Wine Producers' spokesmen on product description usage for British sherry and related matters.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Article 129 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Communities authorises the use of the description "British Sherry" until 1995 when the matter will be reviewed by the Council of Ministers. This is a clear provision, welcomed by the British wine industry and one which the Government continue fully to support.

  Grain Surpluses
  Mr. Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current stabiliser regulations for grain surpluses.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) on 25 January, columns 52–3.

  Extensification (Report)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been carried out by his Department on the effects of the proposals out lined in the consultation document "An Extensification Scheme on Employment".

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18 December to his hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the effects of Government legislation on agricultural tenancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  From time to time, I receive comments from individuals and interested organisations about the current arrangements. The existing agricultural holdings legislation, revised in 1984 after lengthy consultation, represents a careful balance of interest between landlord and tenant and any proposals for change must have the support of the industry.

  I am always, of course, ready to consider any ideas the industry puts to me on an agreed basis.

  Sheepmeat
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department has taken to promote exports of British sheepmeat.

  Mr. Gummer
  We set up Food From Britain in 1983 with the aim of encouraging and developing the marketing of British food and drink. British lamb and mutton is one of the many products which FFB actively promotes in overseas markets, in close collaboration with the extensive export services of the Meat and Livestock Commission. The Government have fought to maintain free and fair terms of trade under the EC sheepmeat regime. Since the regime was negotiated in 1980, our exports to the
  733
  Community have risen from 36,829 tonnes to 63,611 tonnes in 1986 with a further increase expected in the final figures for 1987. In 1986 our total exports of sheepmeat, to all destinations were worth some £134 million.

  Farming Methods
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is conducting into the extent to which less intensive farming methods will reduce food production.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is conducting and funding a wide range of research and developments on less intensive farming methods which may help farmers maintain a reasonable income whilst reducing their output of crops in surplus.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had recently with farmers' representatives concerning the problems of farming in national nature reserves.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received no representations suggesting that problems exist relating specifically to farming in national nature reserves.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir Michael Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the imposition of value added tax on confectionery products and chocolate biscuits.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have seen a copy of the submission which the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance sent on 18 December to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was among the matters discussed when my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met the president of the alliance on 13 January.

  Research and Development
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make an announcement about the future of research and development in agriculture, fisheries and food.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government are looking at the issues of better targeting of Government expenditure on science and technology R and D and the reappraisal of priorities to achieve the most effective exploitation of results. In MAFF we are currently reviewing the balance of our own programmes against this background and the Government's general view that industry should fund more of the work of benefit to it. I will inform the House of any developments.

  Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the take-up of the woodland scheme announced in the ALURE package.

  Mr. Gummer
  As we made clear at the time, legislation is required before the farm woodland scheme can be introduced.
  734
  The Farm Land and Rural Development Bill, which has been considered in another place and received its Second Reading in this House on 1 February, will provide the enabling powers. Subordinate legislation will be introduced following the passage of the Bill and we hope that the scheme will come into operation this autumn, in time for the main tree planting season.

  Clyde Herring
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is in a position to give the approximate date at which an increase could be considered to the total allowable catch for the current year of Clyde herring.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I explained to the House during the debate on 9 December last, the reduction in the total allowable catch (TAC) for Clyde herring for 1988 is based on firm scientific advice from the advisory committee on fisheries management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. This committee is due to hold its next meeting to review the state of stocks from 16–26 May. I have, however, no reason to believe that the report of this meeting will provide any basis for increasing the current year's TAC for Clyde herring, which would of course be a decision for the Council of Fisheries Ministers of the European Community.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to reactivate the scheme for the decommissioning of fishing vessels in the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Weil's Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many rivers in the Chelmsford constituency are contaminated with Weil's disease;

  (2) what action his Department is taking to minimise the dangers to human life caused by Weil's disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: I have been asked to reply.

  The organism which causes Weil's disease (leptospirosis) is carried in the kidneys of wild rodents and can, therefore, be passed by those animals into rivers and inland waters.

  As the organism can enter the human body when cuts and abrasions or the membrane of nose, mouth or eye come into contact with contaminated water, members of inland sailing and canoeing clubs are issued with warning leaflets. Early diagnosis and treatment of Weil's disease are important, but it responds readily to antibiotics.

  Arable land
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Community's proposals for taking arable land out of production and the implications for United Kingdom farming of such a scheme.
  735
  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).

  Green Pound
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the devaluation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) earlier today.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the operations of the Potato Marketing Boar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Potato Marketing Board is a producers' organisation and it is for them to decide whether or not they are satisfied with its operations. The board administers the Government's potato guarantee arrangements and it has performed this task satisfactorily.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total level of support provided to the British agricultural industry(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The public expenditure on agriculture grants and subsidies in 1979–80 was £677 million. The "Annual Review of Agriculture" just published gives the figure for 1986–87 as £1,444 million. The Government also 736
  support the industry in a number of other ways, such as research and development, advisory, veterinary and administrative services.

  Agriculture Council Meeting
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the discussions at the Agriculture Council meeting held in January.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Agriculture Council met on 18–19 and 23–24 January. Proposals for stabiliser mechanisms for agricultural commodities and for a set-aside were the main issues discussed. I emphasised the essential need for effective stabilisation of agricultural expenditure if there is to be agreement at the next European Council.

  Blue-marked Sheep
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions were issued following the Chernobyl accident to environmental health officers and meat inspectors relating to blue-marked sheep presented for slaughter; and if he will place copies of these instructions in the Library.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 2 February 1988]: Throughout the period of the operation of the "mark and release" scheme for sheep, including the periods when blue-marking was used, my officials have been in communication with the appropriate personnel in local authorities to advise on the nature of the restrictions and enforcement action. The advice has had to take account of the differing organisation for enforcement that exists within the various local authorities. Copies of all the communications could be obtained only with disproportionate effort and cost.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Spending Power
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for each of a single wage married couple (i) with two children aged four and six years and (ii) with three children aged three, eight and 11 years; earning (1) £60, (2) £70, (3) £80, (4) £90, (5) £100, (6) £110, (7) £120, (8) £130, (9) £140, (10) £150, (11) £160 and (12) £170(a) under the existing tax and benefit systems and (b) under the benefit system which will be implemented in April 1988;

  (2) if he will publish figures, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model tables, comparing net

  A. Existing tax and benefit system—assuming average local authority rent and rates and a simple rescaling of April 1987 benefits to April 1988

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  CHB

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Water rates (£1·78) rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  Married couple 60 with two children aged 4 and 6

  60

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  14·50

  19·12

  16·88

  9·80

  6·54

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·23

  70

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  14·50

  19·12

  15·63

  9·80

  6·14

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·68

  80

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  14·50

  19·12

  14·38

  9·80

  5·74

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·11

  90

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  14·50

  19·12

  13·13

  9·80

  5·34

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·06

  100

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  14·50

  19·12

  11·88

  9·80

  4·94

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·01

  110

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  14·50

  19·12

  10·37

  9·80

  4·38

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·34

  120

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  8·29

  9·80

  3·56

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  91·31

  130

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  4·99

  9·80

  2·26

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·11

  140

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  1·69

  9·80

  0·96

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·91

  150

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·11

  160

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  102·51

  170

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  108·91

  Married couple with three children aged 3, 8 and 11

  60

  0·00

  3·00

  32·90

  21·75

  19·12

  17·92

  9·80

  6·89

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  108·59

  70

  0·00

  4·90

  30·50

  21·75

  19·12

  16·02

  9·80

  6·29

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  111·79

  80

  1·22

  5·60

  25·50

  21·75

  19·12

  14·77

  9·80

  5·89

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  113·22

  90

  3·92

  6·30

  20·50

  21·75

  19·12

  13·52

  9·80

  5·49

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  113·17

  100

  6·62

  7·00

  15·50

  21·75

  19·12

  12·27

  9·80

  5·09

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  113·12

  110

  9·32

  9·90

  10·50

  21·75

  19·12

  10·88

  9·80

  4·60

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  110·64

  120

  12·02

  10·80

  5·50

  21·75

  19·12

  9·23

  9·80

  3·95

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  109·74

  130

  14·72

  11·70

  0·50

  21·75

  19·12

  7·58

  9·80

  3·30

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  108·84

  140

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  4·44

  9·80

  2·06

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  108·53

  150

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  1·14

  9·80

  0·76

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  110·33

  160

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  112·28

  170

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  116·13

  Existing tax and benefit system—assuming average local authority rent and rates and a simple rescaling of April 1987 benefits to April 1988.

  Lone mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  Supplementary benefit

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Fares work

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  a. Not working—after one year on benefit

  45·93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19·12

  9·80

  27·14

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  67·93

  b. Working part-time—earning £20

  30·891

  20·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  19·12

  9·80

  27·14

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  69·97

  c. Working part-time—earning £40

  14·351

  40·00

  0·00

  2·00

  2·92

  19·12

  9·80

  27·14

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  71·43

  1 Assumes benefit in payment for less than one year.

  738
  weekly spending power for a lone mother with two children aged four and six years, under the existing tax and benefit systems and under the benefit system which will be implemented in April 1988 and in each of following circumstances (a) not working, after one year on benefits, (b) earning £20 a week from part-time work, (c) earning £40 a week from part-time working and (d) working full-time and earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110 and (vii) £120 per week.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  The information requested is set out in the tables. It should be noted that the results are hypothetical in two senses. First, the results are based on average local authority housing charges and do not reflect the wide variety of rents and domestic rates that people actually pay. Secondly, the other assumptions used are those set out in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits," October 1987.
  739

  (d) Working full time

  Earnings Head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  CHB

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  (Water rate £1·78) Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  FSM

  FWM

  Net Weekly spending power

  60

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  19·40

  19·12

  15·66

  9·80

  6·15

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·52

  70

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  19·40

  19·12

  14·41

  9·80

  5·75

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·97

  80

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  19·40

  19·12

  13·16

  9·80

  5·35

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·40

  90

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  19·40

  19·12

  11·91

  9·80

  4·95

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·35

  100

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  19·40

  19·12

  10·40

  9·80

  4·39

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  98·88

  110

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  19·70

  19·12

  8·75

  9·80

  3·74

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  95·98

  120

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  19·40

  19·12

  6·67

  9·80

  2·92

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·95

  B. Benefit system from April 1988: Assumptions as in "Impact of reformed structure of income related benefits", October 1987. Average local authority rent and rates

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Water rates (£1·78) rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Married couple with two children aged 4 and 6

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  14·50

  19·12

  4·36

  9·80

  1·87

  5·85

  83·28

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  14·50

  19·12

  2·78

  9·80

  1·39

  5·85

  83·65

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  14·50

  19·12

  1·20

  9·80

  0·90

  5·85

  84·00

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·51

  5·85

  84·39

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  85·86

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  87·18

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  89·10

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  7·71

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  91·02

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  3·23

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  92·94

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  96·11

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  102·51

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  108·91

  Married couple with three children aged 3, 8 and 11

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  51·72

  21·75

  19·12

  2·70

  9·80

  1·36

  5·85

  99·76

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  46·05

  21·75

  19·12

  1·12

  9·80

  0·88

  5·85

  100·13

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  40·39

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  100·55

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  35·77

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  102·53

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  31·15

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  104·51

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  28·07

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  105·83

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  23·59

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  107·75

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  19·11

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  109·67

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  14·63

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  111·59

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  10·15

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  113·51

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  5·67

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  115·43

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  1·19

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  117·35

  Benefit system from April 1988:

  Assumptions as in "Impact of Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits", October 1987

  Average local authority rent and rates

  Lone mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  Income support

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  (a) Not working—after one year on benefit

  45·35

  19·12

  9·80

  25·54

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  65·75

  Income support

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Fares to work

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  (b.) Working part-time—earning £20

  40·35

  20·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  19·12

  9·80

  25·54

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·83

  (c.) Working part-time—earning £40

  20·35

  40·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·92

  19·12

  9·80

  25·54

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·83

  740 741

  D. Working full-time

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Water rates (£1·78) rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  19·40

  19·12

  1·46

  9·80

  0·98

  5·85

  84·39

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  19·40

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  84·38

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  19·40

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  86·80

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  19·40

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  88·78

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  19·40

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  90·76

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  19·40

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  92·08

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  19·40

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  94·00

  X-ray Apparatus
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans and resources exist to phase out old X-ray apparatus in National Health Service hospitals in(a) Waltham Forest and (b) nationally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally. It is for health authorities individually to take account of radiological equipment needs when determining their priorities for capital expenditure. The safety of such equipment is governed by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985, and the Heath and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 empowers health and safety inspectors to order that defective equipment is taken out of service or dismantled and removed from the installation entirely. Records show that no particular category or age group of X-ray equipment has a high incidence of safety problems.

  There is considerable investment in new X-ray facilities. Information is available centrally only on capital schemes costing over £1 million, but between 1980 and 1987 more than 260 such schemes were completed that included new X-ray rooms; 82 in 1987. In addition there have been many smaller schemes which included X-ray facilities. We estimate, for example, that in 1987 between £30 million and £35 million was spent on X-ray equipment by health authorities.

  Health Authorities (Outer London)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the total expenditure of each of the district health authorities in outer London; and if he will express this in per capita terms, based upon the number of persons resident in each district.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following is the information requested for 1986–87 (the latest year available):

  District Health Authority

  Total Expenditure £000

  Total Expenditure per capita £

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  82,474

  180

  Voluntary Organisation

  Purpose of grant

  1987–88 grant

  Access Committee for England

  Core

  91,000

  Action on Smoking and Health

  Core

  200,000

  ADFAM

  Core

  15,000

  Advance

  Core

  33,500

  Advocacy Alliance

  Core

  15,000

  Age Concern (England)

  Core

  252,000

  742

  District Health Authority

  Total Expenditure £000

  Expenditure per capita £

  Barnet

  78,081

  256

  Bexley

  40,203

  183

  Brent

  58,585

  229

  Bromley

  58,649

  197

  Croydon

  66,741

  209

  Ealing

  49,268

  167

  Enfield

  41,011

  154

  Haringey

  54,599

  278

  Harrow

  42,506

  211

  Hillingdon

  63,586

  274

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  58,174

  205

  Kingston and Esher

  43,642

  244

  Merton and Sutton

  73,486

  22

  Redbridge

  41,663

  183

  Richmond,Twickenham and Roehampton

  40,438

  176

  Waltham Forest

  59,968

  278

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of district health authorities in outer London and those of the four Thames regional health authorities.

  (b) Mid-year estimates of population, 1986 — (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report those organisations in the current financial year in receipt of grants under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, including the amount of the grant in each case and the work for which the grant has been made available.

  Mrs. Currie
  Our general scheme of grants to voluntary organisations under section 64 falls into two parts—core grants, to assist national organisations with their administration costs, and project grants, to support projects which are experimental or innovative for a specific period. The scheme also provides a small number of capital grants.

  Listed are those organisations for which a grant award in 1987–88 has been approved. The total picture will not be available until 31 March 1988.
  743

  Voluntary Organisation

  Purpose of grant

  1987–88 grant

  Age Exchange Theatre Company

  Reminiscence Project

  2,000

  Aid for Children with Tracheastomies

  Core

  5,000

  Alcohol Concern

  Core

  500,000

  Alcohol Concern

  Drinkwise

  20,000

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  Core

  110,000

  Anorexic Family Aid

  Core

  27,000

  Anthony Nolan Bone Appeal (The)

  Core

  11,000

  Association of Breast Feeding Mothers

  Library and Publications

  4,500

  Association of Carers

  Core

  31,667

  Association of Professionals for the Mentally Handicapped

  Core

  5,000

  Association of Residential Communities

  Core

  4,000

  Asthma Society

  Core

  10,000

  BACUP

  Core

  10,000

  Breakthrough Trust

  Core

  35,000

  Breast Care and Mastectomy Association of GB

  Core

  15,000

  British Association for Adoption and Fostering

  Core

  276,000

  British Association for Service to the Elderly

  Core

  12,000

  British Association of Immediate Care

  Core

  12,500

  British Association of the Hard of Hearing (The)

  Core

  30,000

  British Deaf Association (The)

  BSL Project

  20,000

  British Fluoridation Society (The)

  Core

  20,000

  British Institute of Industrial Therapy

  Core

  17,000

  British Institute of Mental Handicap

  Core

  35,000

  British Kidney Patients Association

  Core

  35,000

  British Organ Donor Society

  Core

  5,000

  British Red Cross

  Core

  10,000

  Brook Advisory Centre

  Core

  45,000

  Campaign for Mentally Handicapped People

  Core

  16,800

  Campaign for Mentally Handicapped People (The)

  Work on Community Acceptance

  10,000

  Campaign for Single Homeless

  Core

  33,300

  Cancerlink

  Core

  10,000

  Catholic Child Welfare Council

  Core

  1,875

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  Core

  40,000

  Centre for Policy on Aging

  Day Care

  24,300

  Centre on Environment for the Handicapped

  Core

  40,000

  Chest, Heart and Stroke Association

  Core

  13,000

  Child Accident Prevention Trust

  Core

  71,325

  Child Care

  Adolescents Project

  29,000

  Child Care

  Core

  26,000

  Child Care

  Development Project

  62,000

  Child Care

  Ethnic Minority Seminars

  1,200

  Child Poverty Action Group

  Citizens Rights Office

  17,000

  Childrens Legal Centre

  Core

  38,000

  Childrens Society

  Adolescent Training Scheme

  15,000

  Childrens Society

  The Bridge

  60,000

  Childrens Society

  Western Corner Project, Oxen

  10,000

  Childrens Society

  Central London Project

  20,000

  Chinese Health Information Centre

  Capital

  14,500

  Chinese Health Information Centre

  Core

  15,000

  Coeliac Society

  Core

  14,000

  Community Service Volunteers

  Core

  2,500

  Community Service Volunteers

  Health Service Programme

  37,650

  Compassionate Friends Society (The)

  Core

  4,500

  Contact a Family

  Core

  28,000

  Contact a Family

  Link Line Project

  10,000

  Cope

  Core

  104,500

  Coronary Prevention Group

  Core

  40,000

  Council for Advancement with the Deaf

  Core

  40,000

  Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes Ltd

  Core

  75,000

  Cruse (National Organisation for the Widowed and their Children)

  Core

  114,000

  Cry-Sis

  Core

  1,500

  Cry-Sis

  Information Packs

  2,000

  Debra

  Core

  8,000

  Demand

  Core

  10,500

  Dial United Kingdom

  Core

  40,000

  Disability Alliance

  Core

  20,000

  Disabled Living Foundation

  Core

  297,800

  Disabled Living Foundation

  Dress for MH People Project

  3,800

  Disablement Income Group

  Core

  17,000

  Downs Syndrome Association

  Core

  9,000

  Dr. Barnardo's

  Harrogate Kitchen

  15,000

  Dr. Barnardo's

  Liverpool ISU

  230,000

  East Community Centre

  Tact Sunderland

  17,476

  Ethnic Study Group

  Capital

  11,000

  Ethnic Study Group

  Core

  16,000

  744 745

  Voluntary Organisation

  Purpose of grant

  1987–88 grant

  Exploring Parenthood

  Parents Workshops

  9,000

  Extend

  Core

  20,000

  Family Forum

  Core

  32,400

  Family Holiday Association

  Core

  7,000

  Family Planning Association

  Core

  130,000

  Family Planning Association

  Training of Staff

  7,960

  Family Policy Studies Centre

  Core

  108,000

  Family Rights Group

  Core

  24,000

  Family Service Units

  Core

  160,000

  Family Welfare Association

  Core

  96,450

  First Key

  Leaving Care Project

  86,000

  Forward

  Core

  20,000

  Foundation for Study of Infant Death

  Towards costs of welfare etc.

  10,000

  Friends for the Young Deaf

  Core

  7,500

  Gingerbread

  Core

  78,000

  Good Practices in Mental Health

  Core

  65,000

  Greater Manchester and Lancs Council on Alcohol

  Service provision in Lancs

  4,792

  Headway

  Core

  30,000

  Herpes Association

  Core

  5,000

  Holiday Care Service

  Holiday Helpers

  10,000

  Home Farm Trust

  Core

  10,000

  Home Start Consultancy

  Core

  30,000

  Homes for Homeless People

  Core

  45,800

  Horticultural Therapy

  Core

  50,000

  Hyde Park Community Action

  Core

  5,146

  In Touch

  Core

  2,500

  Incest Crisis Line

  Core

  6,000

  Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence

  Core

  240,000

  International Social Service of Great Britain

  Core

  47,500

  Iris Fund

  Core

  2,500

  John Hunt Award Scheme

  Core

  1,500

  La Leche League (Great Britain)

  Production of leaflets

  6,500

  London Lighthouse

  Capital

  500,000

  London Lighthouse

  Core

  100,000

  L'Arche

  Core

  10,500

  Marie Curie Memorial Foundation

  Core

  10,000

  Marriage Research Centre

  Core

  5,000

  Marriage Research Centre

  Evaluation

  800

  Maternity Alliance

  Towards publications

  37,000

  McIntyre Schools Ltd. (Shipton)

  Tall Trees project

  12,000

  Medical Commission on Accident Prevention

  Core

  6,000

  MENCAP (Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults)

  Core

  220,000

  MENCAP (Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults)

  Study and survey on attitudes

  138

  Mental After-Care Association

  Core

  40,000

  Mental Health Film Council

  Core

  26,000

  Mental Health Foundation (The)

  Core

  27,000

  Miscarriage Association

  Core

  2,000

  Mobility Information Service

  Core

  5,000

  Motability

  Core

  632,687

  Motor Neurone Disease Association

  Core

  10,000

  Muscular Dystrophy Group

  Patients welfare service

  10,000

  NACRO

  Juvenile crime section

  298,135

  NAFSIYAT (International Cultural Therapy Centre)

  Core

  5,000

  National Association for Limbless Disabled

  Core

  15,000

  National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare

  Core

  10,000

  National Association for Mental Health (MIND)

  Core

  415,000

  National Association for Patient Participation

  Core

  7,100

  National Association for the Childless

  Core

  31,000

  National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital

  CO

  90,000

  National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends

  Core

  13,500

  National Association of Voluntary Hostels

  Core

  5,250

  National Association of Young People in Care

  Towards development project

  48,000

  National Autistic Society

  Core

  10,000

  National Backpain Trust

  Core

  20,000

  National Childbirth Trust

  Core

  20,000

  National Childbirth Trust

  Breast feeding publications

  11,000

  National Childminding Association

  Core

  105,000

  National Childminding Association

  Dissemination of training material

  22,500

  National Childrens Bureau

  Core

  111,000

  National Childrens Bureau

  Loan Servicing

  27,066

  National Childrens Bureau

  Participation in Planning

  1,800

  746 747

  Voluntary Organisation

  Purpose of grant

  1987–88 grant

  National Childrens Bureau

  Prevention

  11,350

  National Childrens Bureau

  'Who Cares Magazine

  25,750

  National Childrens Bureau

  Participation in Decisions

  20,000

  National Childrens Bureau

  Solvent Abuse Post-Development

  13,333

  National Childrens Bureau

  Under Fives Project

  80,000

  National Childrens Home (Leeds)

  Advice Service (Sexual Abuse)

  19,542

  National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants

  Core

  27,000

  National Council for one Parent Families

  CO

  150,000

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Community Care Dessemination

  92,500

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Community Care Project

  23,783

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Community Health Initiatives

  90,000

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Wiltshire Fund

  8,183

  National Counselling and Welfare Service for Sick Doctors

  Core

  2,625

  National Deaf Children's Society (The)

  Information Service

  25,000

  National Exzema Society

  Core

  10,000

  National Federation of Kidney Patients Association

  Core

  6,300

  National Foster Care Association

  Core

  91,000

  National institute for Social Work

  Community Social Work Project

  60,000

  National Institute for Social Work

  Race Equality Unit

  73,400

  National Out of School Alliance

  Core

  60,000

  National Out of School Alliance

  Development Project

  8,500

  National Playbus Association

  Core

  35,000

  National Playbus Association

  Family and Information Projects

  15,000

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship (The)

  Core

  91,000

  National Stepfamily Association

  Core

  8,000

  National Tape Magazine for the Blind

  Core

  500

  National Toy Library Association/Playmatters

  Core

  45,000

  National Youth Bureau

  Youth Social Work Unit

  74,000

  National Voluntary Organisations Anti-Racism Consortium

  Core

  20,000

  North Lambeth Day Centre Ltd.

  Core

  16,000

  North Regional Asssociation for the Blind

  Core

  52,007

  North West Fellowship

  Core

  20,000

  Northern Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Core

  20,000

  Ockendon Venture

  Vietnamese Refugess Project2

  340,000

  One to One

  Core

  6,300

  Opus (Organisation for Parents under Stress)

  Core

  30,000

  Organisation for Sickle Cell Anaemia Research

  Core

  15,000

  Overseas Doctor's Association in the United Kingdom

  Core

  15,000

  Pain Relief Foundation

  Core

  8,000

  Parent to Parent Information Service and Adoption Service

  Core

  2,33,100

  Parents Against Injustice (Pain)

  Core

  10,000

  Parents for Children

  Core

  48,500

  Parkinsons Disease Society

  Core

  15,000

  Partially Sighted Society

  Core

  10,000

  Patients Association

  Core

  7,500

  Phobic Action

  Core

  5,000

  Phobics Society (The)

  Core

  5,000

  Physically Handicapped and Abled Bodied

  Core

  23,000

  Pre-School Playgroups Association

  Core

  385,000

  Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability

  Core

  15,000

  Queen Elizabeth Foundation—Banstead Place Mobility Centre

  Core

  32,500

  Rape Counselling and Research Project

  Core

  25,000

  Rathbone Society

  Core

  16,000

  Raynauds Association

  Core

  3,500

  Research Council for Complementary Medicine

  Core

  5,000

  Research Trust of Metabolic Disease

  Core

  5,000

  Richmond Fellowship (The)

  Core

  97,000

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation(RADA)

  Core

  2 3100,000

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Embossed literature service

  250,000

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Rubella Consortium

  35,000

  Samaritans (The)

  Core

  125,000

  Save the Children Fund

  Hospital playschemes advice

  10,000

  Save the Childrens Fund

  Vietnamese refugees

  2 3131,000

  Scoliosis Association United Kingdom

  Core

  1,000

  Sense (National Deaf-Blind Rubella Association)

  Core

  30,000

  Sense (National Deaf-Blind Rubella Association)

  Ushers syndrome project

  15,000

  Sequal

  Core

  35,200

  Sequal

  Equipment for terminally ill

  5,800

  Sexual and personal relationships of the Disabled

  Core

  33,500

  Sickle Cell Society

  Core

  15,000

  748 749

  Voluntary Organisation

  Purpose of grant

  1987–88 grant

  Social Work Training Grants

  Core

  2,400

  Society for Mucopolysaccharide Diseases

  Core

  1,250

  Society of Voluntary Associates

  Training IT volunteers

  25,000

  Society of Voluntary Associations

  PT training resources officer

  3,700

  South Regional Association for the Blind

  Commission on Multi Handicapped Blind

  2,500

  South Regional Association for the Blind

  Core

  73,405

  St. John Ambulance

  Core

  10,000

  St. Katherine Housing Trust

  Core

  18,000

  Standing Committee on Sexually Abuse of Children

  Core

  2,500

  Standing Conference on Drug Abuse (SCODA)

  AIDS information project

  28,000

  Standing Conference on Drug Abuse (SCODA)

  Core

  173,000

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society

  Core

  22,000

  Terrence Higgins Trust

  AIDS information project

  300,000

  Thalassaemia Society

  Core

  5,000

  Tibble Trust

  Core

  1,000

  Tuberous Sclerosis Association

  Core

  1,000

  Turning Point

  Core

  99,000

  Twins and Multiple Birth Association

  Core

  3,000

  VOLCUF (Voluntary Organisation Liaison Council for Under Fives)

  Core

  27,000

  Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children

  Core

  40,000

  Volunteer Centre

  Training Voluntary Service Co-ordinator

  12,500

  VORTEX (Voluntary Organisations Register of Training Exercise)

  Core

  11,600

  Walsingham Community Homes

  Core

  10,000

  West Yorkshire Youth Association

  Pre-court Diversion Project

  25,000

  Westminster Pastoral Foundation

  Core

  66,000

  Widows Advisory Trust

  Core

  18,000

  Winged Fellowship Trust

  Core

  15,000

  Womens Aid Federation (England)

  Core

  98,000

  Womens Health Concern

  Core

  7,000

  Womens National Cancer Control Campaign

  Core

  74,500

  Womens Therapy Centre (The)

  Core

  5,000

  Working Mothers Association

  Core

  12,000

  £ for £ Dr. Barnardos

  Darlington Project

  32,865

  £ for £ National Childrens Home

  Core

  100,000

  Total

  12,162,610

  1 Position on 22 January 1988.

  2 Interim payments; grant not yet settled.

  3 Interim.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will commission research into the provision and funding of private residential care for the mentally ill financed by supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The following research projects on supplementary benefit and residential care, including residential care for mentally ill people, are already under way:

  (a.) Kent university's personal social services research unit and York university's centre for health economic—a national survey of private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes.

  (b.) The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys — a survey of small unregistered residential care homes and other establishments such as supported lodgings.

  (c.) The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys — a study of the characteristics of residential care and nursing homes.

  (d.) York university's social policy research unit—a study on the impact of charges in supplementary benefit legislation on private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes.

  In addition, information on costs and charges in homes, including homes for mentally ill people, has been collected from a wide range of sources for our reviews of the supplementary benefit limits. In particular, in 1985 we commissioned Ernst and Whinney, a firm of independent
  750
  management consultants, to examine the operation of the market in voluntary and private provision of residential care and nursing homes.

  Any further research will need to be considered in the light of Sir Roy Griffiths' report on the funding of community care.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide details for the last four years for which figures are available of the number of single payments made by his Department's Blyth and Cramlington office for(a) household furniture, (b) clothing, (c) bedding, (d) replacement household equipment and (e) as a result of urgent payments made to replace domestic and household goods affected by natural disasters.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to introduce a comprehensive scheme of screening for breast cancer among women aged below 50 years in Northumberland.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. The nationwide breast cancer screening service which we are introducing over the next three years is based on the conclusions in the report of a Government-appointed working group, chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest. The report concluded that the effectiveness of screening by mammography has so far been demonstrated only for women aged 50 and over and recommended that the priority for any screening programme should be to offer an initial screen to as many women as possible aged 50 to 64 years.

  Hospital Developments
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many hospital beds in new hospital developments in England and in each of the National Health Service regions are currently empty because there was insufficient money for the whole development of parts or it to be opened on the planned date; and if he will relate the figures to the population of each region.

  (2) how many new hospital developments in England and in each of the National Health Service regions are

  Surgical acute beds per 100,000 population, West Midlands Region, 1986

  Health authority

  Average daily available beds

  Resident population (100,000s)

  Beds per 100,000 resident population

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  138·1

  1·64

  84·2

  Herefordshire

  239·8

  1·53

  156·7

  Kidderminster and District

  120·5

  1·01

  119·3

  Worcester and District

  279·3

  2·36

  118·3

  Shropshire

  610·4

  3·92

  155·7

  Mid Staffordshire

  260·7

  3·08

  84·6

  North Staffordshire

  694·1

  4·61

  150·6

  South East Staffordshire

  239·6

  2·52

  95·1

  Rugby

  119 7

  0·85

  140·8

  North Warwickshire

  161·3

  1·73

  93·2

  South Warwickshire

  302·9

  2·23

  135·8

  Central Birmingham

  618·2

  1·81

  341·5

  East Birmingham

  311·3

  2·00

  155·7

  North Birmingham

  167·9

  1·64

  102·4

  South Birmingham

  663·8

  2·48

  267·7

  West Birmingham

  400·0

  2·11

  189·6

  Coventry

  603·3

  3·10

  194·6

  Dudley

  512·7

  3·01

  170·3

  Sandwell

  297·6

  3·01

  98·9

  Solihull

  175·0

  2·02

  86·6

  Walsall

  259·4

  2·62

  99·0

  Wolverhampton

  462·6

  2·52

  183·6

  West Midlands RHA

  7,638·2

  51·80

  147·5

  RAWP Ratings
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the current resource allocation working party ratings for each of the National Health Service regions and for each of the districts in the west midlands region.

  Mr. Newton
  The allocations which I announced on 16 December 1987 for the financial year 1988–89 result in the distances from RAWP target set out in the following table.
  752
  currently either unopened or partially open because there was insufficient money for the full opening on the planned date or for their continued operation.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally. The right hon. Member may wish to inquire of regional health authorities for this information.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated wasted cost to the National Health Service, in terms of the interest on the capital expenditure, of leaving completed hospital developments unopened or partially open.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information on completed hospital developments that are unopened or only partially open is not collected centrally. It is not therefore possible to estimate the cost to the National Health Service in terms of the interest on capital expenditure incurred on these schemes. The right hon. Member may wish to inquire of regional health authorities for this information.

  Surgical Beds (West Midlands)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for the west midlands region the number of current acute surgical beds per hundred thousand population in each of the region's districts.

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

  Regional Health Authority

  1988–89 percentage distance from RAWP target allocation

  Northern

  -1·6

  Yorkshire

  -1·4

  Trent

  -2·7

  East Anglian

  -4·0

  North West Thames

  +4·5

  North East Thames

  +7·3

  South East Thames

  +1·7

  753

  Regional Health Authority

  1988–89 percentage distance from RAWP target allocation

  South West Thames

  +1·0

  Wessex

  -1·8

  Oxford

  -2·6

  South Western

  -1·4

  West Midlands

  -1·3

  Mersey

  +1·5

  North Western

  -1·4

  The distribution of resources to districts, including the assessment of distances from target, is a matter for regions. The process reflects the same aims as national RAWP, but at this level annual allocations need to be closely related to service plans and to allow for a manageable pace of change.

  Health Districts (Resources)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, when considering invitations to visit health districts, he will make it his policy to give priority to those that are the most deprived on the resources allocation working party criteria.

  Mrs. Currie
  No, that would not be a sensible criterion on which to decide. Invitations are made and accepted for a variety of reasons.

  Special Payments
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money the Government estimate will be saved by only making one special payment per benefit book rather than making one payment per eligible benefit; and how many people will lose money as a result.

  Mr. Scott
  There will be no resultant benefit savings, because that amount of the social security underspend caused by the error in the retail prices index which is not disbursed in the form of special payments is to be donated to charities. The additional administrative complexities and costs of attempting to make one payment per eligible benefit would have been considerable. About 1·75 million people whose benefits are combined will receive a special payment; of these about 175,000 will be undercompensated.

  Health Screening
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to require district health authorities to request quotations for health screening from private hospitals before investing in their own capital equipment.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities are encouraged to give careful consideration to all means of securing greater cost-effectiveness in the provision of services to maximise resources available for patient care. In particular, when planning and implementing their breast cancer screening services, regional health authorities have been advised to consider the scope for collaboration with private sector providers and voluntary organisations.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if each appropriate category of social security benefits will be separately accorded the £8 ex gratia payment made by his Department as a result of an error in calculation of the retail prices index.

  Mr. Scott
  In the interests of combining as far as possible fairness with speed of payment, an £8 ex gratia payment (or £5 in the case of mobility allowance) will be made in respect of each instrument of payment which contains payment of qualifying benefit for the week commencing 1 February. This means that we have been able to ensure that 12 million people will receive special payments from this week. The additional administrative complexities and costs of attempting to make one payment per eligible benefit would have been considerable.

  Elderly People (Care)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to alter the responsibility for the care of the elderly.

  Mrs. Currie
  We shall be considering any relevant recommendations made by Sir Roy Griffiths in his report on community care, which we expect to receive shortly.

  Health Authorities (Efficiency)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the CIPFA TARI index in measuring the comparative efficiency of district health authorities; and how he plans to ensure that performance indicators are used more reliably by health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  The total acute revenue indicator, quoted in the CIPFA report on health trends, shows approximately how much money is spent per head on providing acute care for a district's resident population wherever the residents are treated. It is an indicator of the extent to which people in different parts of the country have access to acute hospital care and on this basis is included in the performance indicator package. It is not an indicator of efficiency nor is there any one indicator of efficiency.

  This package has been sent direct to every health authority annually for the last three years and the latest indicators will be issued this month. District health authorities are expected to identify areas where improvements in services to patients and in overall efficiency might be possible as a matter of good management. The indicators are developed for use with other information as an aid to this process. Regional health authorities will be expected to examine differences in performance between their districts as suggested by the indicators and other information.

  Social Fund Applicants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how adjudication officers will ascertain the amount of income or capital that would become available to a claimant on application to the social fund, for the purposes of regulations 42(2) and 51(2) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.
  755
  Mr. Scott
  Payments from the social fund are disregarded when calculating a claimant's weekly entitlement to income support. Therefore, adjudication officers need not consider the provisions of regulations 42(2) and 51(2) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 in relation to such payments. Repayments of social fund payments, however, may be made by deductions from the claimant's weekly income support entitlement.

  Retirement (Earnings Rule)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest estimates of(a) the number of people deferring retirement and earning increments to their retirement pensions, (b) the number of people whose pensions are reduced by the earnings rule and (c) the cost of abolishing (i) the retirement condition and (ii) the earnings rule.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that about 125,000 people over minimum pension age are currently deferring retirement and earning increments to their pensions. There are just over 2,000 people whose pensions are reduced by the earnings rule. This figure does not include adult dependants for whom the dependency addition is reduced on account of their earnings. The latest estimates show that it would cost about £250 million gross to abolish the earnings rule. It is not possible to provide separate costings for the abolition of the retirement condition and the earnings rule.

  Retford Hospital
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will receive a deputation from the Retford hospital action committee to discuss keeping open Retford hospital;

  Number of notifications of all forms of acute meningitis and meningococcal meningitis; and death registrations of meningococcal infection (ICD 9 036) by approximate monthly period, England and Wales 1986–87

  Notifications

  Deaths1

  Period

  Acute

  Meningococcal

  Meningococcal infection

  4 January 1986–31 January 1986

  160

  76

  13

  1 February 1986–28 February 1986

  160

  71

  8

  1 March 1986–28 March 1986

  151

  83

  15

  29 March 1986–2 May 1986

  178

  100

  13

  3 May 1986–30 May 1986

  123

  61

  11

  31 May 1986–27 June 1986

  130

  63

  6

  28 June 1986–1 August 1986

  200

  69

  13

  2 August 1986–29 August 1986

  172

  44

  7

  30 August 1986–3 October 1986

  255

  93

  5

  4 October 1986–31 October 1986

  194

  66

  10

  1 November 1986–28 November 1986

  184

  51

  7

  29 November 1986–2 January 1987

  165

  80

  24

  3 January 1987–30 January 1987

  258

  142

  18

  31 January 1987–27 February 1987

  244

  132

  15

  28 February 1987–27 March 1987

  240

  117

  19

  28 March 1987–1 May 1987

  251

  120

  12

  2 May 1987–29 May 1987

  166

  68

  9

  30 May 1987–26 June 1987

  176

  65

  6

  27 June 1987–31 July 1987

  231

  76

  8

  1 August 1987–28 August 1987

  229

  69

  12

  29 August 1987–2 October 1987

  174

  67

  10

  3 October 1987–30 October 1987

  174

  61

  5

  31 October 1987–27 November 1987

  207

  75

  16

  28 November 1987–1 January 1988

  217

  98

  27

  1 Provisional.

  756
  (2) whether he will issue a directive to the Trent regional health authority to keep open Retford hospital;

  (3) whether he will provide additional funds to the Trent regional health authority for the retention of Retford hospital;

  (4) what steps he is taking to save Retford hospital from closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The management of local services is the responsibility of the district health authority concerned (in this case Bassetlaw). I understand that Bassetlaw DHA has temporarily closed two units within Retford hospital. This is a matter for local decision. Any proposal for permanent closure would need to be the subject of formal consultation and, if opposed by the community health council, would need to be submitted to Ministers for a final decision. My colleagues and I are always prepared to meet local deputations at that stage.

  Trent regional health authority was allocated an additional £5·8 million in December for the financial year 1987–88. For 1988–89, the region's revenue allocation will be £1,050 million, an increase of 6·3 per cent. The hon. Member may wish to contact the regional chairman for details of the RHA's allocation to Bassetlaw.

  Meningitis
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many(a) cases of and (b) deaths attributable to meningitis have been notified in each of the last 24 months.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the data are not available in exactly the form requested: notification data for infectious diseases are compiled on a weekly basis; the table shows totals by weekly group for 1986 and 1987.
  757
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the regional incidence of meningitis in the past five years.

  Notifications of acute meningitis: (a) all, (b) meningococcal, 1983–87 England and Wales, standard regions rates per 100,000 population

  Standard region

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1983–87

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  England and Wales

  Acute

  1,226

  2·47

  1,230

  2·46

  1,533

  3·06

  2,172

  4·34

  2,565

  5·12

  8,726

  3·50

  Meningococcal

  428

  ·86

  401

  ·80

  550

  1·10

  870

  1·74

  1,090

  2·18

  3,339

  1·34

  North

  Acute

  53

  1·71

  44

  1·43

  56

  1·82

  127

  4·12

  153

  4·97

  433

  2·80

  Meningococcal

  11

  ·35

  17

  ·55

  20

  ·65

  59

  1·92

  73

  2·37

  180

  1·17

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Acute

  210

  4·28

  208

  4·24

  242

  4·94

  368

  7·51

  376

  7·67

  1,404

  5·73

  Meningococcal

  48

  ·98

  32

  ·65

  52

  1·06

  117

  2·39

  125

  2·55

  374

  1·53

  East Midlands

  Acute

  78

  2·02

  70

  1·80

  88

  2·24

  129

  3·29

  132

  3·37

  497

  2·55

  Meningococcal

  39

  1·01

  25

  ·64

  37

  ·94

  53

  1·35

  64

  1·63

  218

  1·12

  East Anglia

  Acute

  28

  1·45

  38

  1·93

  61

  3·06

  49

  2·46

  58

  2·91

  234

  2·38

  Meningococcal

  11

  ·57

  16

  ·81

  20

  1·00

  15

  ·75

  19

  ·95

  81

  ·83

  South East

  Acute

  322

  1·89

  379

  2·20

  453

  2·62

  576

  3·34

  846

  4·90

  2,576

  3·00

  Meningococcal

  121

  ·71

  135

  ·79

  191

  1·11

  225

  1·30

  332

  1·92

  1,004

  1·17

  South West

  Acute

  101

  2·28

  92

  2·04

  137

  3·02

  169

  3·72

  191

  4·20

  690

  3·07

  Meningococcal

  61

  1·38

  29

  ·64

  44

  ·97

  82

  1·80

  84

  1·85

  300

  1·33

  West Midlands

  Acute

  97

  1·87

  98

  1·89

  125

  2·41

  237

  4·57

  280

  5·40

  837

  3·23

  Meningococcal

  27

  ·52

  37

  ·71

  49

  ·95

  93

  1·79

  105

  2·03

  311

  1·20

  North West

  Acute

  266

  4·15

  223

  3·49

  285

  4·47

  370

  5·80

  390

  6·12

  1,534

  4·80

  Meningococcal

  78

  1·22

  76

  1·19

  97

  1·52

  159

  2·49

  215

  3·37

  625

  1·96

  Wales

  Acute

  71

  2·53

  78

  2·77

  84

  2·98

  147

  5·21

  139

  4·93

  519

  3·69

  Meningoccocal

  32

  1·14

  34

  1·21

  39

  1·38

  67

  2·38

  73

  2·59

  245

  1·74

  Ministerial Speech
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on the National Health Service, made on Friday 29 January, represents the policies of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  Yes. In particular I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the rise in living standards under this Government and the increased consumer choice this offers families including, if they wish, the purchase of private health care.

  Dartford and Gravesham District Health Authority
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received adequate and acceptable assurances from the Dartford and Gravesham district health authority concerning the standard of medical care
  758
  Mrs. Currie
  The number of notifications of all forms of meningitis and meningococcal meningitis for the years requested is shown in the table.

  to be provided in support of the in-patient and casualty services at Gravesend and North Kent hospital under the recently approved rationalisation plan; and if he will give details of that supporting medical care.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Gravesend and North Kent hospital presently accommodates obstetric and gynaecology patients, a special care baby unit, general surgical and orthopaedic patients. A daytime casualty service is also provided.

  The health authority has informed me that the medical cover provided is as follows:

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  Constant resident cover

  General Surgery
  Constant resident cover

  Orthopaedics
  Constant resident cover

  Paediatrics
  Constant resident cover
  759
  Anaesthetics
  Constant resident cover

  General Medicine
  There are no general medical beds remaining but if an inpatient requires to be seen by a physician then a consultant attending a general medical out-patients' clinic at the hospital could attend or a doctor would attend from Joyce Green or West Hill Hospital.

  Casualty
  A 9 am to 9 pm casualty service is provided for `walk-in' cases.
  Emergency ambulance cases are taken direct to West Hill hospital. The casualty doctor at Gravesend and North Kent hospital provides initial treatment and has the support of other specialist doctors on site if required.
  Should a patient with a medical condition attend, advice is available, if required, from physicians at West Hill or Joyce Green hospital.
  If admission to a medical bed is considered appropriate arrangements have been made with the ambulance service for rapid transport of patients to Joyce Green hospital, with a nurse escort if necessary.

  District Health Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in respect of each district health authority(a) the total number of full-time equivalent employees and (b) the total number of full-time equivalent management employees above the level of department head or ward sister.

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

  Residential Care Allowances
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present level of, and what are the criteria for, allocation of Department of Health and Social Security residential care allowances for community care in Scotland.

  Mr. Scott
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to supplementary benefit allowances for people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes. People in these homes can claim supplementary benefit to help meet their fees but there are limits to the levels of fees with which help can be given. A list of the current limits is given in the table. The limits apply nationally, other than for a special provision for London.

  The purpose of the supplementary benefits scheme is to provide help for people who are not in full-time work, whose capital is not more than £3,000 and whose income, from all sources, is below a minimum level. The terms and conditions of entitlement are set out in the supplementary benefit Acts and regulations.

  Supplementary Benefit: Residential Care and Nursing Home Limits

  Category

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  £

  £

  Elderly

  130

  175

  Very Dependent of Blind Elderly

  145

  —

  760

  Category

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  £

  £

  Mentally Ill

  130

  180

  Drug/Alcohol

  130

  180

  Mentally Handicapped

  150

  200

  Physically Disabled under Pension Age

  190

  230

  Terminal Illness

  —

  230

  Other

  130

  175

  Note: The limits for all homes in the Greater London area can he extended by up to £17·50.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any changes will be made to the cash limits and gross running costs for his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for Class XIV, Vote 1 (Hospital and Community Health Services) will be increased by £109,461,000 (from £10,339,619,000 to £10,449,080,000) following the announcements on 23 October 1987 and 16 December 1987, and including £44 million to reflect a change in health authoritis' carry forward arrangements. The cash limit for Class XIV, Vote 3 (Miscellaneous Health Services and and Personal Social Services, England) will be increased by £13,803,000 (from £403,152,000 to £416,955,000). This increase comprises an increased allocation of £2,500,000 to maintain services following the rising number of AIDS cases as announced on 23 October 1987; an additional £10 million for a grant to the Haemophilia Society of Great Britain as announced on 16 November 1987; and the transfer of £2,223,000 from Class XV, Vote 5, for DHSS staff made available to the Disablement Services Authority with effect from the authority's creation on 1 July 1987. These increases are partly offset by a reduction of £920,000 in respect of the repayment of a grant which had been made to a voluntary organisation in respect of a community home. The provision for running costs on Class XIV, Vote 3, is increased by £3,318,000. This increase will not result in an increase in the overall DHSS running costs limit.

  The cash limit for Class XV, Vote 5, (Administration and Miscellaneous Services) has been increased by £2·777 million from £1,339·919 million to £1,342·696 million. The revision takes account of the additional administrative costs associated with the special payment exercise to compensate for the error in the RPI, namely £5 million, and the transfer of £2·223 million, provision for the Disablement Services Authority, to the Vote for miscellaneous health services and personal social services, Class XIV, Vote 3.

  As a result of the above-mentioned transfer to health and personal social services and the additional requirement, the gross running costs limit of the Department of Health and Social Security is increased by £5 million from £1,700·678 million to £1,705·678.

  The additional £5 million costs are not being met from the "savings" that accrued because of the RPI error. The

  761
  public expenditure costs of these changes have been charged to the reserve and do not add to the public expenditure planning total.

  Diabetic Blindness
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about his policy towards charges for eyesight tests for the monitoring of diabetic blindness.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The proposal in the White Paper on primary health care is that free NHS sight tests should in future be confined to children, students under 19, those on low incomes, and the registered blind and partially sighted.

  The Government's action last year to make disposable syringes and needles available free to insulin-dependent diabetics on general practitioner prescription, and the decision announced in the White Paper to make blood-glucose testing strips available in the same way as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, are intended to assist in enhancing the role of GPs in the regular care of diabetics. GPs will be aware of the need to look for symptoms of eye disease in diabetics, and where such disease is suspected the patient would be referred to the hospital eye service for the necessary tests.

  My hon. Friend may like to know that we are currently funding a research project at Exeter, Oxford and Sheffield into methods of screening for diabetic retinopathy; and are making available a further £100,000 for the continuation of this work in 1988–89. We shall carefully consider the results, which are due next year.

  Income Support
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of claimants of(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) family credit who will be liable for a rates contribution which (i) exceeds or (ii) is less than the amount of compensation allowed for in the income support personal allowances.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: Using the assumptions set out in the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits", October 1987, 1·7 million income support recipients would be liable for rates contributions smaller than the compensation in their benefit entitlement. For 1.8 million recipients their rates liability would exceed it. These figures assume that non-dependant deductions are not made.

  For the balance of those on housing benefit (that is, those not also on income support) and for those on family credit these calculations are of limited importance and precise figures are not available. The operation of the rate taper under housing benefit means that liability for a contribution to rates increases above the minimum 20 per cent. as income rises. Family credit is treated as income for housing benefit purposes and the contribution to rates made by family credit recipients will reflect this.

  Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the second report of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make an announcement about the future of irradiation of foodstuffs.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to make an announcement concerning Government proposals for the irradiation of food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make his response to the consultative report from the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: In April 1986 the Government published the report of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods (ACINF) on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated foods and sought comments on it. Some 6,000 letters have been received from members of the public, interested organisations and hon. Members. In the light of these, further advice was sought from the ACINF which reaffirmed its earlier advice that, under the conditions prescribed, irradiated food is safe and wholesome. Having carefully considered the arguments, Ministers for Health and Agriculture have accepted this advice. Copies of ACINF's further advice to Ministers have been placed in the Library and it is our intention to make copies publicly available.

  The committee drew attention to certain practical issues relating to the monitoring and control of irradiated foods and enforcement. The Government have therefore decided to maintain the present general prohibition on irradiated foods until they are satisfied that effective regulatory controls can be drawn up for the irradiation of specific foods in order to bring about good industrial and marketing practices and ensure informed consumer choice. Such controls should include assurances on the quality of the particular foods to be irradiated, requirements as to the maintenance of documentary records, the licensing of premises and inspection of operations. The availability of detection tests will be one of the factors to be taken into consideration and there would also be statutory provision for the labelling of irradiated foods and food ingredients.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will now arrange for further work to be carried out to examine the scope and format of any controls. Consultations under the Food Acts will not be initiated until Ministers are satisfied that there is adequate provision to ensure the prevention of abuse and the protection of consumer choice. At the same time, working with our European partners we will endeavour to achieve a common approach to the irradiation of food throughout the European Community.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the expected amount to be spent in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland on (i) loans and (ii) grants from the social fund in each year to 1991; and what is his estimate of (1) the number of payments and (2) the number of claimants in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: Social fund budget allocations for 1988/89 are shown in the table. Allocations for future years have not yet been decided.

  The number of payments that will be made from the loans and grants budgets will depend upon the size of individual payments. This will be determined by the amounts applied for, and the decisions of individual social fund officers in
  764
  accordance with the law and directions and in the light of guidance. The number of applicants will depend upon a number of factors, including any take-up campaigns. No firm estimates can therefore be given until the new scheme is in operation.

  Social fund budgets 1988–89 (£)

  Grants

  Loans

  England

  45,248,177

  106,224,026

  Scotland

  11,506,069

  27,143,347

  Wales

  3,462,240

  8,136,641

  Northern Ireland

  7,200,092

  13,700,140

  Social fund contingency funds 1988–89

  £

  Great Britain

  2,000,000

  Northern Ireland

  199,768

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Lord Monkswell: Personal Statement
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a short personal statement in connection with the demonstration which occurred after the vote on Clause 28 last Tuesday. On that day, four young ladies were admitted to the visitors' gallery in my name. Until today I was under the impression that they were not involved in the demonstration. However, I have been advised that those young ladies were involved. On the basis of that advice, I tender my apologies to Black Rod and his staff for any difficulties that they had to contend with as a result of my actions. While neither condemning nor condoning the demonstration, I believe that it was understandable, given the results of the vote on Clause 28.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Monkswell: I conclude by repeating the words spoken by a 12 year-old girl yesterday as regards Clause 28:
"It is just what the Germans did to the Jews".

Motorcycles: Control of Noise
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in curbing motorcycle noise in urban areas since the answer to Lord Rodney's question on 21st November 1985 (Official Report, Vol. 468, col. 654).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, a new directive on motorcycle noise has been agreed by the European Community. It will introduce more stringent requirements for new motorcycles from 1990. The Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations controlling the quality of replacement exhausts and silencers for motorcycles when they are offered for sale. We are preparing regulations to introduce both those new controls and I expect that we shall consult on them very shortly.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which seems to refer in the main to new motorcycles. I am not sure that new motorcycles make most of the noise. I have never seen a motorcyclist stopped for making too much noise. Can the Minister tell the House whether it will be
1184
possible to institute periodic checks such as those which are made for speeding?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we all appreciate that noisy motorcycles are a great problem. Concerning the use of noise meters at roadsides, the police have found that procedure difficult to operate because of the problems of finding suitable test sites and of excluding noise from other sources. I can assure the House that there are prosecutions for motorcycle noise offences and that the police prosecute when they can.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only motorcycle noise in urban areas which causes grave concern? Trail riding in upland areas and particularly in the national parks is also a problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is possible that the noise problem is even worse in rural areas than in urban areas where there are other background noises. However, we believe that the various measures concerning the sale of replacement silencers and making sure that they are up to scratch, together with the regulations for new motorcycles, will go some way towards alleviating the problem.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, taking into account the Answer which the Minister has just given, we have legislation to deal with exhaust systems and silencers on new machines and also replacement equipment. Therefore the whole problem is now one of enforcement. Does he agree that it is difficult to see how a Community directive can assist with enforcement? Do the Government have any ideas on solutions to the problem? Enforcement could tie up police to a considerable extent. However, the nuisance must be dealt with. Responsible motorcycle organisations agree with that assessment of the situation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is quite correct. The police do not have the resources to do absolutely everything that they might like to do. However, I can assure the House that exhausts are checked in MOT tests and a motorcycle can fail the test if one is leaking or insecurely mounted. Motorcycles will also have to have silencers which conform with the regulations.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many young motorcyclists actually tamper with their exhausts in order to remove the silencing material? Therefore it is necessary for the police to institute roadside checks in order to see whether the silencing material is still present.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is an offence to tamper with an exhaust pipe so that it makes more noise than it should. I understand that there have been prosecutions involving such actions. The new British standard replacement silencers should be made tamper-proof if possible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the level of noise from motorcycles is still unsatisfactory? In June 1934 my father moved an amendment into the Road Traffic Act of that year which made it illegal to supply a vehicle which was not silenced. In 1974 I moved an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill which made it illegal to drive such a vehicle and which was later struck out in another place. Can the Minister give an undertaking that in the year 2014 my son will be able to assure me of a happy issue to my family's involvement in the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that it will be sooner than that.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the most troublesome matters, apart from the total volume of noise that a motorcycle can make in the daytime in traffic, is the early bird who gets up to go to work on a motorbike and wishing to say hello to a boyfriend or girlfriend left behind in the house revs up his bike as a symbol that he is off? Those are the people who wake everyone up and disturb them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is an offence to ride a motorcycle which causes excessive noise or to ride in such a way as to cause excessive noise which could have been avoided with reasonable care on the part of the driver. That covers the point which my noble friend makes. On the other hand, I should think that it would be quite difficult for the police to bring prosecutions in such circumstances.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as the Member of your Lordships' House who sponsored the last Bill dealing with that subject during the last Parliament, I ask whether it is not regrettable that no progress has been made as a result of the passing of the Act.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for piloting the Bill through the last Parliament in its closing stages. As I said in my original Answer, we have now prepared regulations to introduce the new controls. We shall be consulting on them shortly. I hope that they can be introduced quite shortly.

Confectionery Exports: Japanese Tariff
3.9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to persuade the Japanese to reduce their high import duty of 35 per cent. on sugar confectionery.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we shall be pressing in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations for reductions in levels of tariffs, including the Japanese duty on sugar confectionery. Meanwhile, we are taking appropriate opportunities
1186
to remind the Japanese Government that we regard the level of the duty as excessive.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what sort of level the Government will propose for the tax?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we regard an acceptable level to be one which compares favourably with the EC tariff on such products. Of course ultimately we should like to see no tariffs whatsoever.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this question goes very far beyond the matter of confectionery? It concerns the appalling arrogance of the Japanese Government, who will in no way listen to the appeals of the United States of America, our allies, or the British Government. Is it not about time that a British Government and a United States Government made joint representations to the Japanese and asked them whether they will make every endeavour to be honest and truthful?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there are areas where barriers to UK exports still exist, and we tackle them. However, UK exports were well up last year; an increase of 25 per cent. over the previous year. I think that all Members of your Lordships' House would wish to welcome that achievement by British exporters.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is very hard to get that tiny concession from the Japanese. It is about time that the Americans and the British asserted themselves and the dignity of both nations.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government also bear in mind another kind of confection which is in liquid form, which comes from Scotland and which at the present time is discriminated against by Japanese taxation?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes. My noble friend answered a Question on this point last Monday.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to say that the Government make representations directly to the Japanese Government on this and other trade matters. Does he agree that representations have been made by successive British Governments and successive trade Ministers to the Japanese and that the result is not exactly what we might have hoped for? Can he point to any particular successes that these direct approaches have achieved?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think that it is very important that all possible avenues are explored in order to reduce tariffs against British exporters. However, we feel that Japan is very unlikely to make any concessions outside the GATT. But my noble friend the Secretary of State will have a further opportunity to raise the issue during his visit later this year. I welcome that initiative and hope that he has every success.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, it seems that it was only the other day when we were fighting that lot. Will the Minister be good enough to explain why we do not impose tariffs on their exports when they come to us?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we fought for a free world and we still fight for free trade.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble friend perhaps enlarge a little on that response? Is he aware that I managed to persuade the Japanese to reduce their tariffs on chocolates and biscuits in 1982 but they would not do so on sugar confectionery? Is he also aware that I sought to persuade them at that time that the right level of tax should be the one that we put on Japanese motor cars and other such goods, namely around 5 per cent.? Can he say whether the Government have in mind that kind of figure?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes, I am aware of my noble friend's efforts in this regard. I said a little earlier that we should certainly not wish to see any higher tariff than that imposed by the EC on Japanese goods of that nature.

Religious Worship in Schools
3.13 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of schools are contravening the law requiring an act of corporate worship to take place at the start of each school day, as provided in the Education Act 1944; and what action has been taken to enforce the law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government look to the schools themselves and their local authorities to observe the requirements which the 1944 Act lays on them. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has power to intervene under Sections 68 and 99 of the Act where complaints are made that particular schools are not providing collective worship in accordance with the 1944 provisions. All such complaints are fully and carefully investigated. Very few such complaints are made each year.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, I do not think that she has dealt with the question of whether any official judicial action has been taken. Is it not a sad reflection on the present state of affairs that the 1944 Act now appears to be totally disregarded by over 90 per cent. of schools? As the new Education Bill will soon be coming to this House, will HMG consult with the leaders of the Christian Churches to see whether the schools' obligation to organise Christian worship and teaching could not be included in the new Act? If that were agreed, I should also like to suggest that in the Act there might be a written obligation to allow parents who do not wish their
1188
children to attend such worship to opt out of it and to make arrangements for their own, different religion to be taught instead. Will my noble friend look seriously at that suggestion before we get down to the nitty-gritty of this important new Act?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend refers to a figure of some 90 per cent. in relation to non-observance of this requirement. The Government are not aware of such evidence and indeed I should be surprised if that figure were correct. If the noble Lord has such evidence, I should be grateful if he could supply it to me.
So far as concerns the place of the Christian tradition in collective worship, the law does not explicitly require the act of worship to be Christian although the authors of the 1944 Act clearly envisaged that it would be. The law requires of county schools that worship should be nondenominational. Over the years, as the ethnic and religious backgrounds of pupils have become much more varied, there has been a growing move to multi-faith collective worship, particularly in schools with a high proportion of pupils from non-Christian backgrounds. The Government recognise the reasons for that trend, as I believe do the Churches. At the same time, in many areas and in many schools where Christianity remains the dominant religion, it is right that worship should continue to be mainly Christian in flavour. It is also important that schools should be sensitive to the balance of religions among their pupils and that they should devise forms of collective worship in which as many pupils as possible can participate. The Churches have an important role to play in that whole area.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at a time of declining Church attendance, it is all the more important for children to experience a public act of worship corporately together? Does she further agree that trying to teach RE and leaving out the act of worship is like trying to teach astronomy and leaving out the stars? What action is her ministry taking to ensure that these acts of worship are indeed acts of worship and not seminars on current affairs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are fully committed to maintaining the requirement for a daily act of worship to take place in all maintained schools for all pupils, and the proposals for change contained in the Education Reform Bill do not affect that general requirement in any way. The whole area of the teaching of religious education is of course separate.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, also accept that part of the difficulty of organising an act of corporate worship, where the whole school wishes it, lies in the fact that some schools are now so large that it is impossible to gather the whole community together in a single act of worship? Furthermore, is she aware that there has been very real concern among people in schools that the act of worship had failed and had become merely an assembly at which some prayers were read?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. The existing law on collective worship was first criticised officially in 1986 by the Education, Science and Arts Committee report on primary education. Subsequently a consultation exercise was carried out by the Department of Education and Science in 1987 which revealed overwhelming support from educational and Church bodies for greater flexibility in the timing and organisation of daily collective worship. Certainly the design and size of secondary school premises make it more difficult than the authors of the 1944 Act envisaged.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that part of the 1944 Act was never capable of being carried out? From 1954, off and on for eight years, I had to try to apply it but it proved quite impossible. A teacher who is not a practising Christian can teach religion, but it is not reasonable to ask someone who is not a practising Christian to hold an act of Christian worship.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the benefit of his considerable experience in this matter.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the reply that the noble Baroness gave—I think it was two questions back—in which she outlined the Government's general view of the position and the circumstances that are now emerging in our society. Will she confirm that the religious provisions in the new Education Bill will allow for much greater flexibility under the heading of corporate worship with regard to the timing of the act of corporate worship? Will she also confirm that this greater flexibility has been broadly welcomed by all the relevant Churches?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, indeed. The response to the consultation process from the Churches and educational establishments is what has led to the provision in the Bill. Clause 79 of that Bill provides that such arrangements may in respect of each school day provide for a single act of worship for pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups.
Lord Elton: My Lords, notwithstanding the Answer that my noble friend gave to the substantive Question, and the contribution of my noble friend Lord Eccles, is the Minister aware that there is some concern in this country about the way in which the place of religion, and in particular the Christian religion, seems to be slipping in the educational arrangements? Will she ask her right honourable friend to bear this in mind when he is looking at the curriculum as well as at morning worship?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. I shall happily draw this point to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, I should like to repeat that the Government are fully committed to maintaining the requirement for a daily act of worship to take place in schools because they feel that this is an important part of the school programme.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would not some of the problems that have been mentioned be solved without difficulty by calling upon the clergy and the religious leaders of non-Christian bodies to help the headmasters of schools by inviting these religious leaders to conduct the acts of worship instead of the headmaster?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the provisions for greater flexibility by allowing acts of collective worship under the proposals in the Bill to take place at different times and in different groups will enable representatives of outside interests to participate in these acts of worship. It is something that we would welcome.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, with reference to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about opting out, can the Minister confirm that parents already have the right to remove their children from any act of worship in which they do not wish them to take part? I cannot say whether this provision is in the 1944 or the 1968 Act, but perhaps she can confirm that this is so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me that I omitted to add this point in answering the original supplementary question of my noble friend. The 1944 Act provides that a pupil may be excused from attending collective worship at the request of his or her parents.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the voluntary schools have never deviated from this? They have always provided the act of worship throughout the whole period, whichever government were in office.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure that I can confirm it, but we certainly hope and expect that that is the case.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the act of worship would include hymns? Hymns are a very important part of our British heritage and give great comfort and encouragement to many people at all times in their lives. An example is:
"All people that on earth do dwell,
Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice,
Him serve with mirth, his praise forthtell,
Come ye before Him and rejoice".
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with my noble friend that the singing of hymns can uplift the spirit, and the memorising of the words of hymns even more so. The arrangements that are proposed will be met by the individual schools, and it is proposed that head teachers, in consultation with the governors, will make the necessary arrangements.

Severn Estuary: Second Crossing
3.25 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there have been any significant delays in the work on the planning and provision of a second Severn crossing since the original announcement on 24th July 1986, and whether they are confident that the crossing will be completed in time to meet the traffic demands likely to develop by the mid 1990s.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, following the announcement made by my noble friend in his former capacity on 24th July 1986, consultants have been appointed to carry forward the initial design of the scheme. The results of the work undertaken to date will be presented at a series of public exhibitions to be held in the vicinity of the crossing this month. The Government remain confident that the crossing can be provided by the mid-1990s and will meet the expected traffic demand for the foreseeable future since there will then be a total of four lanes each way across the estuary.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he recall that there was an interval of some 15 months between my original announcement and the appointment of consultants? Does he recognise that the timetable for these large and complicated projects is extremely tight and that there will be the greatest difficulty in meeting it unless a firm timetable is laid out and is met at every stage? Will he take it from me, and from those who have been involved in this matter for a long time, that there can be no doubt that there is an imperative need for this crossing to be built by the mid-1990s to meet likely traffic demands?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's deep interest in this matter and his enormous efforts in getting it under way in the first place. I hope that no time has been wasted. It is a complex project. The terms of the appointment and the brief for the consultants needed special care. However, I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the provision of the second crossing by the middle of the next decade.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that if the traffic flow over the existing bridge continues to grow at the record rate for 1986–87, the designed maximum carrying capacity of the bridge will be reached in the early 1990s and not in the middle of the 1990s? In that event, the existing bridge would become overloaded, with all that that implies.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are progressing as fast as we can to achieve this objective by the mid 1990s. We shall monitor the situation on the existing crossing in the meantime and institute further traffic management measures if necessary.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether the brief to the consultants includes consideration of the Severn barrage scheme?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand not. That is a separate project.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in view of the enormous capital cost and the time that will be taken to write off that capital cost, will the Government take the opportunity to review their attitude to tolls on estuarial crossings?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have made no decision yet on whether this second crossing should be tolled or not. However, on tolled crossings, we believe that there are more pressing demands on resources than abolishing tolls and that the estuarial crossings have been promoted by legislation unique to each on the basis that costs would be recovered from tolls.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with reference to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, is the Minister aware that following the date referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I have five other dates—I have the documents with me—when Ministers said that they hoped to provide this second crossing by the mid-1990s? But in each case—perhaps I may have the leave of the House to quote—it was stated:
"if the build-up of traffic needs it by then and Parliament so decides".
What does that mean? Does it mean that the decision to establish the second crossing is not as firm as we believed? What will be the criteria for determining the build-up of traffic? Is there much point in going ahead with consultants and discussing tenders if the Government have not yet made up their minds that there will be a need for the second crossing by the 1990s?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have always affirmed our commitment to the provision of a second crossing by the middle of the next decade, depending on traffic growth. Obviously if traffic does not grow then there could be some slippage in the project; but there is a firm commitment to build the bridge.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord then convey to his right honourable friend the real urgency expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in asking this Question, and convey to him the fact that all sectors of the economy in Wales see the rapid beginning of this project as essential to that economy? Will he please see that there is no slippage?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have said that I shall convey to my right honourable friend the remarks that have been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I have said also that I hope that there will be no slippage.

Personal Statements: Procedure
3.32 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, perhaps this is an appropriate time for me to seek your Lordships' indulgence to ask the Leader of the House whether he has it in mind to seek the guidance of the Procedure Committee on any necessary clarification of our normal procedures with regard to personal statements and whether he is of the view that such clarification might be necessary?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the guidance in the Companion to Standing Orders on personal statements in your Lordships' House to any Lord wanting to make such a statement is perfectly clear. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, it occurs to me that possibly the informal body which consists of the Leaders and Whips of the parties in your Lordships' House, together with the noble Baroness the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, might get together to decide whether they feel that there is any point in the guidance which should be brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I fully agree with his suggestion that this should be referred to the informal committee of Leaders and Whips and not to the Procedure Committee? It is of course impossible to control a noble Lord or to anticipate personal statements when they exceed the bounds of propriety.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on education in inner London.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Legal Aid Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during the adjournment the Motions for approval on the Employment Protection (Variations of Limits) Order 1987 and the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987 will be taken.

Licensing Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Welsh Development Agency Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 62 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 9, page 6, line 39, leave out '70' and insert '69'.
2 Clause 19, page 16, line 28, at end insert 'and subject also to section 170'.
3 Clause 19, page 16, line 36, at end insert 'and subject also to section 170'.
4 Clause 36, page 33, line 21, after 'immediately' insert 'after'.
5 Clause 43, page 39, line 8, after '22(2)' insert 'and (3)'.
6 Clause 136, page 113, line 2, leave out 'this section' and insert 'section 135'.
7 Clause 139, page 120, line 18, leave out 'that office or employment' and insert 'the office or employment by virtue of which he acquired the shares'.
8 Clause 174, page 152, line 34, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
9 Clause 178, page 155, line 17, leave out '176' and insert '174'.
10 Clause 190, page 168, leave out lines 28 to 31.
11 Clause 218, page 194, line 15, leave out 'trade' and insert 'trades'.
12 Clause 218, page 194, line 20, leave out first 'of' and insert 'in'.
13 Clause 218, page 194, line 35, leave out 'and 218' and insert 'to 217'.
14 Clause 242, page 215, line 45, leave out '393'(8)' and insert '393(9)'.
15 Clause 281. page 250, line 29, leave out '(4)' and insert '(6)'.
16 Clause 349, page 323, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
'(d) to any payment to which section 369 or 479(1) applies; and subsection (1) above does not apply to any small maintenance payment within the meaning of section 351.'.
17 Clause 409, page 386, line 20, after 'to' insert 'in'.
18 Clause 413, page 391, line 39, after 'company' insert 'or, in the case of a company within section 402(3)(b), of its holding company'.
19 Clause 413, page 391, line 42, leave out second 'the' and insert 'that'.
20 Clause 413, page 391, line 43, leave out 'of the company'.
21 Clause 427, page 407, line 15, leave out 'this section' and insert 'section 426'.
22 Clause 503, page 485, line 34, after '833(4)(c)' insert 'and of Chapter 1 of Part III of the Finance Act 1971'.
23 Clause 513, page 494, line 1, leave out subsection (1).
24 Clause 601, page 579, line 23, at end insert 'or'.
25 Clause 601, page 579, line 28, leave out '590(5)' and insert '19(3) of the Finance Act 1970'.
26 Clause 615, page 589, line 16, at end insert 'or'.
27 Clause 646, page 616, line 23, after 'under' insert 'section'.
28 Clause 687, page 649, line 11, leave out 'founded' and insert 'found'.
29 Clause 713, page 676, line after 'before' insert 'on'.
30 Clause 719, page 683, line 5, leave out '(5)' and insert '(4)'.
31 Clause 753, page 719, line 6, leave out '13' and insert '12'.
32 Schedule 7, page 845, line 21, after 'sections' insert '354(5) and (6)'.
33 Schedule 7, page 845, line 24, leave out '354' and insert '354(1) to (4)'.
34 Schedule 7, page 845, line 27, after 'sections' insert '354(5) and (6)'.
35 Schedule 7, page 845, line 35, leave out '354' and insert '354(1) to (4)'.
36 Schedule 18, page 914, line 2, leave out second 'or' and insert 'and'.
37 Schedule 27, page 973, line 17, leave out '760(3)(b)' and insert '760(3)(c)'.
38 Schedule 29, page 985, line 33, in column 2, leave out 'and (6)(a)' and insert ', (6) and (7)(a)'.
39 Schedule 29, page 985, line 41, in column 1, leave out '602(2)' and insert '602'.
40 Schedule 29, page 985, line 48, in column 2, leave out '602(2)' and insert '602'.
41 Schedule 29, page 985, line 49, in column 2, leave out '605(2)(a)' and insert '605(3)(a)'.
42 Schedule 29, page 986, line 29, leave out '602(2)' and insert '602'.
43 Schedule 29, page 986, line 31, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'subsection (2) of that section.'.
44 Schedule 29, page 986, line 42, after '267(3C)' insert 'or 278(5)'.
45 Schedule 29, page 986, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert—
'(c) in subsection (4), in paragraph (a) for "85 of the Finance Act 1972" there shall be substituted "239 of the principal Act", and in paragraph (b) for "85" there shall be substituted "239"; and'.
46 Schedule 29, page 988, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
'15. In the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979

(a) for "the Taxes Act", in each place where it occurs except sections 1, 31 and 34(4)(a), the definition of "the Taxes Act" in section 155(1) and paragraph 6(8) of Schedule 1 and any provision mentioned in paragraph (b) below, there shall be substituted "the Taxes Act 1988";

(b) in sections 16, 26, 29A, 32, 35, 75, 84, 87, 98, 107 and 136(10), paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 5 and paragraphs 12 and 21 of Schedule 6 for "the Taxes Act" there shall be substituted "the Taxes Act 1970";

and in addition the 1979 Act shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in relation thereto in paragraphs 16 to 28 and 32 below.'
47 Schedule 29, page 999, line 8, after '333' insert 'of the Taxes Act 1988'.
48 Schedule 29, page 1000, line 5, leave out '619(7)' and insert '620(9)'.
49 Schedule 29, page 1000, line 10, leave out '(2)' and insert '(5).
50 Schedule 29, page 1000, leave out lines 12 to 19.
51 Schedule 29, page 1000, line 22, leave out '579' and insert '519'.
52 Schedule 29, page 1000, line 27, at end insert—

'5(1)(c)

from "243(6)" to "1972"

8(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

'5(2)

from "the said" to "1972"

sections 8(5) and 822 of the 1988 Act (over-deductions from preference dividends before passing of annual Act)'.

53 Schedule 29, page 1001, line 3, at end insert—

'12(3)

154 or 251(1)

113 or 337(1)'.

54 Schedule 29, page 1001, line 12, after '134' insert '(twice'.
55 Schedule 29, page 1001, line 24, after '348' insert 'or 349(1)'.
56 Schedule 29, page 1001, line 26, at end insert—

'85(4)

111

54'.

57 Schedule 29, page 1002, line 1, at end insert—

'2, para. 8(1)(c)

78(1) or 306(1) of the principle Act

32(1) of the principal Act or section 306(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'.

58 Schedule 29, page 1002, line 7, at end insert—

'6(1)(c)

463

706'.

59 Schedule 29, page 1002, leave out line 20 and insert—

'30

47 or 48 (twice)

824 or 825 of the principal Act or section 47'.

60 Schedule 29, page 1002, line 24, leave out '349' and insert '350'.
61 Schedule 29, page 1003, line 6, leave out '(6)' and insert '(5)'.
62 Schedule 29, page 1003, line 7, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'section 615(3) of that Act'.
63 Schedule 29, page 1003, line 9, leave out '(6)' and insert '(5)'.
64 Schedule 29, page 1003, in column 3 leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert 'section 102, 113(5), 263(5) and (6), 343(10) or 783(9) of the principal Act, or paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, or'.
65 Schedule 29, page 1003, line 19, in column 3, at beginning insert 'sections 6 to 12 and'.
66 Schedule 29, page 1003, line 26, leave out '5(3)' and insert '5(4)'.
67 Schedule 29, page 1004, line 6, leave out 45(3)' and insert '5(4)'.
68 Schedule 29, page 1004, line 12, in columns 2 and 3, leave out '286(4) 419(3)' and insert '286(5) 419(4)'.
69 Schedule 29, page 1004, leave out line 22.
70 Schedule 29, page 1005, line 2, after '204' insert '(three times)'.
71 Schedule 29, page 1005, leave out line 6 and insert—

'last para.

from "11" to "to the principal Act"

102, 113(5), 263(5) and (6), 343(10) and 783(9) of the principal Act, to paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'.

72 Schedule 29, page 1005, line 10, in column 2, at beginning insert 'Chapter'.
73 Schedule 29, page 1005, line 10, in column 3, leave out 'III of Part XII' and insert 'section 468'.
74 Schedule 29, page 1005, line 11, in column 3, at beginning insert 'section'.
75 Schedule 29, page 1005, line 16, in column 2, at beginning insert 'Chapter'.
76 Schedule 29, page 1005, line 16, in column 3 leave out 'III of Part XII' and insert 'section 842'.
77 Schedule 29, page 1005, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—

'540(2)

1979

1979 and any reference in this Act to the Taxes Act 1988 is a reference to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'.

78 Schedule 29, page 1006, leave out line 22 and insert—

'44(6)

63 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987

404 of the Taxes Act'.

79 Schedule 29, page 1006, line 23, leave out 'the Taxes Act 1988' and insert 'that Act'.
80 Schedule 29, page 1007, line 10, after of insert 'Part XIV of.
81 Schedule 29, page 1007, line 12, at end insert—

para. 13

533 of the Taxes Act

839 of that Act'.

82 Schedule 29, page 1007, line 17, at end insert—

'69(4)

80

34

134(2)

1970

1988'.

83 Schedule 29, page 1009, line 6, in column 1, leave out '(b)'.
84 Schedule 29, page 1009, line 6, in column 2, leave out '(twice)' and insert '(three times'.
85 Schedule 29, page 1009, line 11, leave out line 11 and insert—

'para. 3(1)(d)

section 174

sections 388 and 389'.

86 Schedule 29, page 1009, line 16, leave out '349' and insert '350'.
87 Schedule 29, page 1009, line 20, leave out '349' and insert '349(1)'.
88 Schedule 29, page 1010, line 20, leave out '238(1)' and insert '231(5)'.
89 Schedule 29, page 1010, line 22, leave out '701(8)' and insert '701(9)'.
90 Schedule 29, page 1010, line 23, leave out '59(10)' and insert '58(10)'
91 Schedule 29, page 1011, line 2, leave out '41(3)' and insert '41(2)'.
92 Schedule 29, page 1011, line 12, at end insert—

'1(2)

Taxes Act

Taxes Act 1970 and Part VIII of the Taxes Act 1988'.

93 Schedule 29, page 1011, leave out line 17.
94 Schedule 29, page 1011, leave out line 20.
95 Schedule 29, page 1012, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—

'74(2)

sub-paragraph (6) of the said paragraph 5

section 427(4) of the Taxes Act 1988.

74(2)

sub-paragraph (2)(b) of that paragraph

section 426(2)(b) of that Act

74(5)

formed part of the said paragraph 5

were included in sections 426 to 428 of the Taxes Act 1988.'.

96 Schedule 29, page 1012, line 9, at end insert—

'89(1)

paragraph 1 of the said Schedule 8

section 251(2) of the Taxes Act 1988'.

97 Schedule 29, page 1012, leave out line 15.
98 Schedule 29, page 1012, line 18, leave out '125(8)' and insert '124(8)'.
99 Schedule 29, page 1012, leave out line 21.
100 Schedule 29, page 1013, line 2, at end insert—

'155(2)

42(1)(2)

282(1) and(2)'.

101 Schedule 29, page 1013, leave out lines 22 and 23.
102 Schedule 29, page 1013, line 26, in column 2, at beginning insert 'subsections'.
103 Schedule 29, page 1014, line 2, at end insert—

'64(9)(b)

154(2) or 155(1) of the Taxes Act

113(2) or 114(1) of the Taxes Act 1988'.

104 Schedule 29, page 1014, line 3, leave out '66' and insert '65(5), 66(5)'.
105 Schedule 29, page 1014, line 3, leave out "Income and Corporation".
106 Schedule 29, page 1014, line 5, at end insert—

'73(6)

533 of the Taxes Act

839 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

107 Schedule 29, page 1014, line 7, leave out '108(8)(b)' and insert '108(8)(b)'.
108 Schedule 29, page 1014, line 19, leave out '213(2)(a)'and insert '231(3)(a)'.
109 Schedule 29, page 1014, line 21, leave out '213(1)' and insert "213(2)'.
110 Schedule 29, page 1914, leave out line 25 and insert—

'84(2)

(4) of section 481

(5) of section 745

84(2)

481(1)

745(1)'.

111 Schedule 29, page 1015, line 10, in column 3, leave out '345(1)(a)' and insert '345(1)'.
112 Schedule 29, page 1015. leave out lines 15 and 16.
113 Schedule 29, page 1015, line 20, at end insert '1988'.
114 Schedule 29, page 1015, line 22, at end insert '1988'.
115 Schedule 29, page 1015, leave out lines 23 and 24.
116 Schedule 29. page 1016, line 9, at end insert—

'12, para. 3(3)(b)

341 of the Taxes Act

488 of the Taxes Act 1988

3(3)(e)

Chapter III of Part XI of the Taxes Act

Part XI of the Taxes Act 1988

3(3)

533 of the Taxes Act

839 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

117 Schedule 29, page 1016, leave out lines 15 to 19.
118 Schedule 29, page 1016, line 23, after 'the' insert 'Income and Corporation'.
119 Schedule 29, page 1016, line 24, in column 3, after 'the' insert 'Income and Corporation'.
120 Schedule 29, page 1016, line 24, at end insert—

'8, para. 11(2)

533 of the Taxes Act

839 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'.

121 Schedule 29, page 1017, line 17, at end insert—

'113(8)

532 of the Taxes Act

838 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

122 Schedule 29, page 1017, line 27, in column 2, at beginning insert '(5) of section'.
123 Schedule 29, page 1017, line 27, in column 3, at beginning insert '(6) of section".
124 Schedule 29, page 1018, leave out line 4.
125 Schedule 29, page 1018, line 5, at end insert—

'12(2)(c)

II of Part I of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987

IV of Part XIV of the Taxes Act 1988.

13(4)(b)

the Finance Act 1978

Schedule 9 to the Taxes Act 1988

21(3)

230 of the Taxes Act

657 of the Taxes Act 1988.

72(4)

Finance Act 1978

Taxes Act 1988.

86(3)

Finance Act 1978

Taxes Act 1988'.

126 Schedule 29, page 1018, line 9, at end insert—

'96

234(3) of the Taxes Act

210(4) of the Taxes Act 1988".

127 Schedule 29, page 1018, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

'151(1)

218 of the Taxes Act

615(3) of the Taxes Act 1988'.

128 Schedule 29, page 1018, line 19, in the second column, at end insert 'of the Taxes Act'.
129 Schedule 29, page 1018, line 19, in the third column, at end insert 'of the Taxes Act 1988'.
130 Schedule 29, page 1018, leave out line 21 and insert—

'174(1)(a)

VII of Part II of the Finance Act 1984

V of Part VII of the Taxes Act 1988

174(1)(a)

92(3)

757(3)

174(1)(b)

1 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 1984

4 of Schedule 4 to that Act

174(1)(b)

2(2)

7(2)

178(1)

358 of the Taxes Act

468 of the Taxes Act 1988

204(5)

from "478" to "1981"

739 or 740 of the Taxes Act 1988

272

52 of the Finance Act 1974

519 of the Taxes Act 1988

272

the definition of the Taxes Act

"the Taxes Act 1970" means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970;

"the Taxes Act 1988" means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;'

131 Schedule 29, page 1018, line 26, at end insert—

'68(7)

Taxes Act

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970".

132 Schedule 29, page 1019, line 5, after '5(4)(a)' insert '.6(d).
133 Schedule 29, page 1019, line 5, at end insert—

'19, para 16(3)

from "Part I" to "1983"

Chapter III of Part VIII of the Taxes Act'.

134 Schedule 29, page 1019, leave out lines 23 to 26.
135 Schedule 29, page 1020, line 4, at end insert—

'In the Housing Associations Act 1985 c.69

Section

—

—

62(2)

341

488

62(2)

1970

1988'

136 Schedule 29, page 1020, leave out lines 14 to 17.
137 Schedule 29, page 1020, line 21, at end insert—

'69(6)

535 of the Taxes Act

841 of the Taxes Act 1988'.

138 Schedule 29, page 1020, line 22, leave out '65(8)' and insert '78(9)'.
139 Schedule 29, page 1021, line 8, at end insert—

'In the Insolvency Act 1986 c.45

Sch. 6

—

—

para. 1

204 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970

203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

para. 2

69 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975

559 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'

140 Schedule 30, page 1033, leave out lines 15 to 18.
141 Schedule 30, page 1033, line 38, leave out from 'which' to 'immediately' in line 39 and insert 'paragraph 9 or 17(1) of that Schedule applied'.
142 Schedule 31, page 1036, leave out line 6.
143 Schedule 31, page 1038, line 3, at end insert—

'1979 c. 14.

Capital Gains Tax Act 1979

Section 155(5). In Schedule 7,

paragraph 5; in paragraph 8, in Part 1 of the Table, the entries relating to sections 265, 352 and 526 of the 1970 Act, the Finance Act 1972, section 29 of the Finance Act 1970, section 67 of the Finance Act 1976 and section 45 of the Finance Act 1977, and paragraph 3 in Part II of the Table; and in paragraph 9 the entries relating to sections 186, 246, 265, 266, 305, 352, 359, 360, 474, 488 and 489 of the 1970 Act, the Finance Act 1972, the Finance Act 1973, sections 26 and 30 of the Finance Act 1974, section 42 of and Schedule 8 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975, section 67 of the Finance Act 1976 and the Finance Act 1978 (except section 64(5).'.

144 Schedule 31, page 1039, in column 3, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert 'Section 50(10)(a) and (c).'.
145 Schedule 31, page 1039, line 53, in column 3, leave out'(d)'and insert '(e)'.
146 Schedule 31, page 1040, line 9, in column 3, leave out 'and 21 to 23' and insert', 21 and 22'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 146.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill is a very large consolidating statute. It has been produced against a fairly tight timetable in order that the printed Act should be available to those with an interest in these matters—and that encompasses rather a lot of people—before the date of the next Budget. The result of this is that the checking process has had to be continued throughout the stages of the progress of the Bill through this House and through the other place. The Joint Committee of both Houses considering the matter had a number of amendments before it which it accepted and agreed to. The checking process has gone on since then and the result is these Amendments Nos. 1 to 146.
The amendments are technical, mainly drafting and correcting amendments, some to take account of
1200
legislation which was in course when the Bill was being considered. My noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, the chairman of the Joint Committee on consolidation has seen these amendments, and I understand that he is satisfied that they may properly be made. I am very happy to seek to explain to your Lordships any individual amendment if any noble Lord should desire that. However, it may be felt that the amendments are of a character so technical that you would not wish me to explain each individually. It is in that expectation that I have asked leave of your Lordships to move them en bloc.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side are obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the Commons Amendments. As he said, they are quite numerous and so far as one can gather, they are technical where they are not drafting. We are very much obliged for the efforts that have been made to bring the Bill into its final form and in advance of the Chancellor's Budget Statement. That will facilitate matters in the Budget Statement which fall to be considered by the legal and accountancy professions, and we are accordingly grateful.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his helpful intervention. The Government—especially those who were involved in this very large exercise—will be grateful for his kind remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Basic definitions and other preliminary provisions]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at beginning insert—
("( ) It is the purpose of this Act to promote and secure the provision of a legal aid scheme, whether by means-testing or otherwise, designed to assist those who are financially disadvantaged in procuring access to legal advice, assistance or representation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as the Legal Aid Bill stands now, it has one serious omission. It contains no definition of its purpose. The Long Title simply says:
"An Act to make new provision for the administration of, and to revise the law relating to, legal aid, advice and assistance."
In Clause 2 the Bill merely gives the Legal Aid Board the general function of securing that advice, assistance and representation are available in accordance with the statute and with administering the Bill when enacted.
The purpose of the legal aid scheme is clearly to ensure that people of insufficient means are not denied access to justice on account of their lack of

1201
means. To use an old English expression, it is to ensure fair play. It is also a necessary piece of social insurance. If people cannot find a remedy at law for their disputes and grievances, there is a risk that they will take the law into their own hands with highly undesirable and expensive consequences.
The Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee put the matter so well when it stated:
"If the rule of law and equality before the law lie at the heart of the social system, then equally legal aid lies at the heart of the legal system.".
Although the need for a legal aid scheme may be self-explanatory, the need for including a statement of purpose of the scheme in the Act arises because, in order to establish and give effect to the legal aid scheme, a large number of regulations are to be made under it. A clear statement of purpose will provide a standard against which each regulation made under the Act can be measured.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, moved an amendment which had support in all parts of the House but which failed to find favour for two reasons. First, it sought to put upon the Lord Chancellor a duty to promote and secure the legal aid scheme. Secondly, it contained what was thought to be too general and imprecise a yardstick of relevant means. At the end of the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said most helpfully, as always, that he would endeavour to produce, with assistance,
"a statement in the simplest terms that we can devise, which 1 hope will be comprehensible, of the purpose of the Bill"—[Official Report, 14/1/88: col. 1368.].
My noble friend Lord Mishcon and I had a shot at a draft which we tabled and which is this first amendment. Since it was tabled the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has, by letter, kindly informed me and other sponsors of the noble Baroness's amendment that to produce a simple and comprehensive statement of the Bill's purpose has proved a difficult task. He further said that he would not have an amendment of his own ready for the Report stage but that he was hopeful that it would be possible to devise a suitable clause. If his hopes were borne out, he would table the amendment at Third Reading. Characteristically, he added:
"I hope you can bear with me till Third Reading.".
We can certainly do that. In view of the indications given by the noble and learned Lord, I shall be asking leave to withdraw the amendment. In the meantime, my noble friend and I hope that the House may find the amendment, and our shot at stating the purpose, acceptable. We shall hear the reactions of the noble and learned Lord to that matter in the fullness of time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
I am now told that I should proceed with the amendment in order to obtain the reactions of the noble and learned Lord, although that has been indicated in the communication that he gave me leave to quote. However, I am always willing to take advice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mishcon, whether he be learned or not. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the introduction of this matter by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. It has proved to be a fairly difficult task but, as I stated in the letter read to your Lordships, I am hopeful that at Third Reading we shall be able to bring forward a satisfactory statement of purpose clause.
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for promoting this amendment. I am glad to say that I have also been in receipt of help from other quarters. We shall endeavour to make the best possible use of all that help. I fear that I cannot accept the present proposal with complete certainty that it is 100 per cent. in accordance with what is desired by those assisting me in the drafting of the Bill. However, I assure your Lordships that it will be taken into account.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in those leave to withdraw the circumstances, I beg amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 20, leave out from ("Representation") to ("and") in line 22 and insert ("means representation for the purposes of proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical drafting amendment. The definition of representation as it currently stands refers to,
"proceedings to which any Part or provision of a Part of this Act applies".
As such, it looks forward to the introductory provisions of Parts III, IV, V and VI which all begin with a definition of their application. Part II, however, does not. This amendment puts it beyond doubt that the definition of representation in Clause 1 applies to Part II. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we on these Benches are happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (10).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that it would be right to explain Amendment No. 3 in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 5, 51, 57, 58, 59 and 60. The principal amendment in the group is Amendment No. 58 which introduces a new clause to be inserted after Clause 33. All the amendments taken together are intended to fulfil undertakings I gave during the Committee stage to consider making certain regulation-making powers in the Bill subject to affirmative resolution procedure. With your Lordships permission, I should like to speak to all the amendments together in order to explain the principle on which I have sought to proceed. The amendments to Clauses 1, 2, 32 and 33 and the amendment to Clause 43 are consequential to the new clause.
I have sought to provide that those regulation-making powers dealing with, first, the transfer of new

1203
functions to the board; secondly, the scope of the advice and assistance scheme; thirdly, the scope of civil legal aid; and fourthly, the restriction of the individual's choice of solicitor to a panel solicitor, shall be subject to affirmative resolution. Those, I believe, are the man powers that concerned your Lordships at Committee stage. I believe that, by these amendments, I have gone a very long way towards meeting those concerns.
I have to say, however, that in consideration of the arguments advanced in Committee. I think I have now gone far enough. I should like to speak further on that topic because there are a number of other amendments seeking to extend still further the affirmative procedure. I cannot believe that it is a sensible use of your Lordships' time to seek to debate the majority of what already are, and will continue to be, very detailed regulations.
At an earlier stage of the proceedings, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out how bulky are the existing regulations. Noble Lords will see the blue legal aid handbook to my right and will note how bulky it is. That is the present legal aid system. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said on Second Reading that he had counted some 56 regulation-making powers in the present Bill, which of course consolidates the previous legislation to some extent. That figure, since I am fond of figures, prompted me to see how many regulation-making powers were in the previous legislation. In the 1974 and 1982 Legal Aid Acts there are something like 60 equivalent powers to make regulations or schemes. Accordingly, if one is seeking to measure the achievement of this Bill in relation to the amount of regulation-making power for the legal aid system as a whole, I have achieved a substantial reduction—something of the order of 10 per cent.—which I hope your Lordships may feel is to be commended.
However, it is right to say that, as these figures show that legal aid has from the start been thought of as a system which would require to change to take account of changing circumstances, and as your Lordships' time for primary legislation is not so freely available that we could hope to come here every year with a new Legal Aid Bill to take account of changing circumstances, it is appropriate that the detailed matters should be dealt with by regulation. Secondly, it is right that these regulations should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and every single regulation-making power in this Bill is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, there is room for distinction between the affirmative and the negative resolution procedure in matters of this kind.
What I have sought to do in this amendment, taking account of the arguments that were deployed so powerfully in Committee on each of the powers, is to make subject to the affirmative resolution procedure those regulation-making powers which would seem to call for some explanation to he given to your Lordships before you were asked to make a decision. On the other hand, there are many detailed matters of regulation which it would be right to leave to see whether there was anything controversial in them.
In that event your Lordships could raise such controversy in the negative resolution procedure. Therefore, in my submission, we have now reached a reasonable balance between the affirmative resolution for those particular and rather special regulation-making powers where an explanation would be called for and those where one would not. Nothing could be worse than to waste your Lordships' time by unnecessary explanations of uncontroverial matters, and that is what might be forced on the House if we extended the affirmative resolution procedure further. For those reasons, I commend this series of amendments to your Lordships and beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the great care with which he has considered a matter of considerable importance to the House. Where we are dealing with matters of significance affecting the subject, it is essential that Parliament should make proper scrutiny of them. Indeed, where the subject's rights are affected, frankly it would be preferable if it could all be set out in primary legislation.
However, I appreciate the point which he has made that that would inevitably tend to lengthen proceedings and time of course is one of the most precious of parliamentary commodities. Therefore the most important part of the submissions we made on this point has to a substantial degree at any rate been met by the noble and learned Lord, although I did not expect to have to deal with all the amendments at the same time and it may therefore be that on one or two we shall still seek to raise some questions and keep them in reserve.
The significant proposals—if I may put it in that way perhaps against my own interests— and the measures of importance calling for careful parliamentary scrutiny are now to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Short of primary legislation, that is the best way to proceed. I quite see, for example, when we come to look, as we shall shortly, at Amendment No. 6 dealing with board members, subsection (8) refers to the powers exercisable by statutory instrument, which are significant powers, whereas subsection (8A) refers merely, if I have it right, to a power to alter the number of board members. On the latter, one would not want the whole panoply of affirmative resolution and I see the sense of proceeding in the way proposed.
I reserve the possibility at any rate, putting it no higher than that, that when we come to the individual orders or regulations we may find it necessary to raise some questions. However, subject to that, I welcome the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, which goes some of the way to meet the wishes both of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who spoke on this matter, and of my noble friend and I.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I think that the Lord Chancellor has made a very important statement this afternoon in support of these amendments. It is always a matter of concern as to where the distinction should be drawn between those matters which should properly be the subject of affirmative resolution and

1205
those which as a matter of common sense and convenience should be the subject of negative resolution. It seems to me that the line must be drawn somewhere. Where the provision for subsidiary legislation concerns principles which affect the particular rights of the individual in the country, I think the resolution should be an affirmative one. Where it is obviously a matter of mere detail—and much legal aid legislation, like other modern legislation, is—it is right and proper that it should be dealt with by the negative resolution procedure.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I cannot give a blanket welcome to everything the Lord Chancellor said, but as far as I have been able to follow the details—and I do not pretend to have mastered the details of this Bill—where he has indicated that he is changing the provisions to allow for affirmative resolution, it seems to me that he is following a principle to be derived from the powers that have been reserved in the Bill.
Where the line is to be drawn is a matter which concerns not only this Bill but legislation generally. Although in theory we are all in favour of affirmative resolutions, in practice it would be impossible, particulary with our present procedures, to have affirmative resolutions on all these subjects. However, from these Benches I warmly welcome the statement of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, knowing how reluctant the managers of government business are in both Houses to agree to there being affirmative procedure rather than negative, I am sure that my noble friends on these Benches agree with me when I say that we should not only be grateful to my noble and learned friend but we should congratulate him on the persuasion that he must have used. If I may say so, I think his choice of the various items for affirmative resolution is significant and important. The scope of legal aid and advice, for example, will be subject to affirmative resolution, as will the extent of representation under Clause 13(2) which is going to be a vital part of the scheme. I join in the welcome that has been given to this series of amendments.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have welcomed these amendments. Of course I entirely accept that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, may want to reserve their position with regard to individual amendments. I have sought to explain mmy amendments together for the reason that the principal amendment comes very late. It is a new clause to provide, in effect, for the affirmative resolution procedure since there was no such clause in the original Bill. Therefore I am grateful for what has been said and I will be happy to try to deal with any matters of detail that may still arise when amendments proposed by noble and noble and learned Lords are reached. In the meantime I am grateful for the present welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Legal Aid Board]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor shall consult the General Council of the Bar with a view to the inclusion on the Board of at least two barristers.
( ) In appointing persons to be members of the Board the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the Board includes persons having expertise in or knowledge of—

(a) the provision of legal services;

(b) the work of the courts and social conditions; and

(c) management.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, those noble Lords who have been following these debates will recollect that I said on Second Reading that the reason we did not have a provision for two members of the Bar in the Bill as presented was that there was some doubt whether it would be feasible to arrange for two members of the Bar to take part in the work of the Legal Aid Board considering the nature of what we anticipated the burden of that work might be. Obviously it would be silly to have a provision in the Bill that the board should contain at least two barristers if one could not be certain that one could obtain such persons to serve on the board. That would frustrate the whole system. On the other hand, I made it perfectly plain that I wished to have at least two barristers on the board if that was feasible.
This position may be very clear to your Lordships but it may not he quite so clear to persons who have not had the privilege of following all our debates and therefore it may be open to misunderstanding in some quarters. In order to try to cope with that I sought advice on whether we might have a clause which showed my intention but did not have the restrictive effect to which I referred. This amendment is intended to have that effect and provides that the Lord Chancellor shall consult the General Council of the Bar with a view to the inclusion on the board of at least two barristers.
My fervent hope is that this consultation will have the effect that at least two barristers will be on the board. The consultations with the Bar Council have been continuing as these matters have been going through this House and I hope that we shall be able to have two barristers on the Legal Aid Board. That would be extremely useful but just in case it does not happen we have the clause in this form. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, again I am most grateful, speaking for this side of the House and certainly for the members of the Bar, among whom by some curious chance I still find myself.
The noble and learned Lord has most graciously acceded to the representations that have been made. I quite see that if there was a risk and no two members of the Bar would be available, or perhaps not even one, to perform the duties, not even the noble and learned Lord could command the impossible. However, the information I have received is that there will be a ready willingness to comply with what he hopes for; namely, the willingness of two members of the Bar at least to serve on the Bar Council. I am sure that that can be achieved. In the meantime I again express our gratitude to the noble and learned

1207
Lord for the manner in which this issue has been dealt with.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, in the temporary absence of my noble friend Lord Meston who dealt with this matter during the Committee stage, may I from these Benches welcome this amendment, couched as it is in the most felicitous and diplomatic terms. The noble and learned Lord is to be congratulated on the way that he has solved this problem and met the various representations made to him.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, may I very respectfully make a point to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack which I trust he will not find to be pedantic? I have nothing at all against this amendment in principle but I question the use of the word "expertise", which by my book is not respectable English. It does not occur in the Oxford English Dictionary. It does occur in the supplement and in Collins but with totally different and inconsistent meanings.
I suggest to my noble and learned friend that if he means "specialist knowledge, experience or skill" he should say so and that the word "expertise" should be expurgated. The trouble with these novel Gallic imports into our language is that they seldom mean the same thing to everybody and, what is more, they constantly change their meaning from one moment to the next. It is important that the courts, if they are to interpret the Bill, should be sure of what the word means.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with deep humility—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in moving this amendment indicated that what he wants after consultation is two barristers on the board. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones took that as meaning two members of the Bar Council which would, I should have thought, be much more difficult to secure. Perhaps that point could be cleared up.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I did not suggest that. I certainly did not have it in mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I leave aside the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. On the question of the availability of counsel of experience, knowledge and good standing to attend meetings of the Legal Aid Board, that will depend mainly upon the times at which they are held.
It may be of some comfort to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to be reminded that meetings of the Senate of the Bar Council and meetings of the Benches of the Inns of Court have always taken place after court hours. I have never known them start before five o'clock in the evening. I cannot speak with the same knowledge of meetings of the Law Society but I imagine that they also tend to be in the later part of the day's work. If the board arranges its meetings fairly late in the day, I do not think that it will be difficult to get the most respected members of the Bar to serve.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I raise a slightly mundane matter which only a lay person could intrude into this rarified atmosphere. My understanding is that barristers and solicitors receive rather different fees. Why is it necessary to have two more on this board? Will their advice and information be different? Why is it necessary to have two more, shall we say, highly qualified people? Solicitors will hate me for this! There is no doubt that the make-up of a board such as this has a germane function in relation to people at the grass roots and it would be unfortunate if it is made more costly to operate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take first the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. The Legal Aid Board will have responsibilities which are central to the work of solicitors and of the Bar. Hitherto solicitors and barristers have played a very significant and important role in the discharge of the responsibilities for the administration of legal aid; for example, the granting of legal aid applications, refusing them and so on.
My noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Havers and myself all agree that it is right that members of the solicitors' branch of the legal profession and barristers should be an important part, but not by any means the whole, of the Legal Aid Board. It was only because of practical difficulties in being certain of securing the services of at least two barristers that there was not a provision in the original Bill on the same lines as for solicitors.
As regards remuneration for members of the board, that will I hope be determined by reference to board membership. I do not anticipate at the present moment that it will be necessary to distinguish between the individual members in respect of their skill, experience or knowledge. I shall try to avoid for the moment the word used in the clause. The particular difference to which the noble Baroness referred may not be of vital importance in this connection. I believe that it would be very much in the interests of the success of the board that it should have available to it people who are experienced both as solicitors and barristers.
However that is by no means the whole of the story. I specifically did not draw attention to the second part of the amendment when I moved it because I was acceding to an amendment proposed at Committee stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in relation to that part of the amendment. It was also supported by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston. It was that in appointing persons to the board the Lord Chancellor should have regard to a much wider field than the legal profession. It is in this connection that the clause had used the word "expertise" to which my attention was drawn by my noble and learned friend. I shall certainly take account of what he said and I shall seek advice in making an important improvement. As regards the substance of the amendment I am glad to think that your Lordships feel that it is an improvement on what was previously in the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether in his consideration of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said the Lord Chancellor might consider that the absence of the word "expertise" from a dictionary may be a sign of some fallibility in the dictionary and not of the draftsman.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, while the noble and learned Lord is considering the word "expertise", he might care to bear in mind that it does not present any difficulty whatsoever to ordinary people. I doubt very much whether lawyers or judges would find difficulty in understanding what it means.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, "expertise" is a highly bogus word, with a very large number of different shades of meaning. It is most unsuitable.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House I propose to invite my advisers to consider the matter. I hope that I shall be able to bring forward something which will be acceptable to all of your Lordships. As the House is aware, that is not always the easiest thing to achieve.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is one of a series to which I have already spoken in connection with the affirmative and negative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) The powers conferred by subsection (4) above are exercisable by statutory instrument which shall not come into force unless or until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8A) The powers conferred by subsection (6) above are exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the query that I had has already been dealt with as to the first part. Undoubtedly subsection (8) is covered by the affirmative resolution procedure; subsection (8A) is to be by a process of annulment, and having checked that it relates to the numbers of board members it seems to me in the circumstances that it is not a matter to be pressed further. That can be dealt with adequately by the negative resolution procedure. Accordingly if it is proper for me to do so I shall not move my Amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Powers of the Board]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert ("and such directions shall include conditions as to the availability to the public, and quality of, advice, assistance or representation, and as to the means for monitoring such availability and quality.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may well remember that this was an amendment that was dealt with at Committee stage and it was left on the basis that the noble and learned Lord, with his usual courtesy, would have a look at the wording and also at the need for such an amendment to the Bill.
The whole purpose of the amendment was that as regards advice work, if I may put it in that shorthand term, the directions that the Lord Chancellor should give should ensure that the Legal Aid Board would be guarding the proper level and quality of services to be maintained when such work was contracted out. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to say in Committee on 14th January, reported at col. 1417 of the Official Report:
"I understand the point that the noble Lord has made. I am not convinced that it would be necessary to set this as an obligation in respect of all grants and loans as well as contracts. I should be glad to consider further what he has said and to see whether anything further is required to be added to the provisions of the Bill. It was our intention that the Bill should give power to cover this aspect of the matter. I should be happy to consider that further in the light of what he has said if he feels able to withdraw the amendment at the present stage"
In the face of such courtesy and the offer to consider, I at once expressed my gratitude and withdrew the amendment. In the meantime the noble and learned Lord, with further courtesy, has written to me.
I hope that I shall not find it necessary, with his permission, to read the whole of the letter, but I should like to read one little paragraph. I hope I shall read it accurately and that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I paraphrase the remainder. The paragraph I wish to read out is this:
"As I said in Committee I am sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. I therefore tried to consider what you propose as favourably as possible. Unfortunately there are difficulties".
This is where the paraphrase comes in. The difficulties that the noble and learned Lord saw were, first, that it would be preferable for conditions to be drawn up by the board rather than by the Lord Chancellor or his department. Secondly, it would not necessarily be relevant to have directions given in relation to all loans, grants and contracts which will be covered by this amendment. Finally, the noble and learned Lord said that there is always the possibility that if you specify certain directions there are other desirable directions that you omit. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will think that that was an accurate paraphrase of what he was courteous enough to write to me.
This is a very important amendment. I do not have to argue about the desirability of the spirit of it because the noble and learned Lord has conceded that. It must be right, if one can possibly procure it, that in all matters of contracting out the Legal Aid Board should know from the Lord Chancellor and from what Parliament has put in the legislation that standards will be maintained. We still feel that those directions should come not from the Legal Aid Board but from the statute itself. Indeed, the clause implies that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would himself put into the directions safeguards which we feel Parliament should put in this Bill.
Perhaps I may quickly deal with the difficulties that the noble and learned Lord saw in the way of agreeing with this amendment. I can do it speedily,

1211
and I bear in mind that this is Report stage. As to the first difficulty, it is quite true that the board would be involved in the detail in regard to contracting out services, but it is the principle under which it must labour by which we say it should be bound in regard to the wording of the statute itself. We say again that this direction should be given by the Lord Chancellor himself.
If the directions were inappropriate in regard to certain loans, grants and contracts, which was the second difficulty, then quite obviously they would not be applicable. Finally, in regard to the fact that there may be other desirable directions which one excludes because one puts down the nature of the directions in the statute and in primary legislation, we have specifically used the word "include" and therefore have not by any means excluded other directions which could be put in.
If the spirit is conceded by the Government—and it is—the House may well feel that it is right that Parliament should take this opportunity on a very important matter to ensure that the standard of the contracting out shall be of the standard that Parliament would want in regard to affording legal aid and advice. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the spirit of his amendment was one that I shared, I had in mind that we all wanted the advice and other work done under contracting out to reach an appropriate standard. What this amendment does is create a statutory obligation on the Lord Chancellor in every exercise of the power to which it is affixed to include,
"conditions as to the availability to the public, and quality of, advice, assistance or representation, and as to the means for monitoring such availability and quality".
This applies generally to every action of the board under this power. What I said in my letter and what I say again is that the board will have the first responsibility for doing that. I expect the board to be concerned about the quality of the advice and anything else in respect of which it is handing out money. For example, if it is making a grant to a law centre, which it would be entitled to do under this power, I would expect the board to satisfy itself before it did so that it was an appropriate thing to do. It is quite another matter for me as the Lord Chancellor to have to require it to do something further, over and above what it wants to do. That assumes that the board will not itself have in its mind the concerns which lie behind the noble Lord's amendment. Only if the board does not in its arrangements take proper account of those would any necessity for directions arise.
While I entirely sympathise and agree with what the noble Lord has in mind, this amendment is an unnecessarily rigid and bureaucratic way of achieving it. If we get a good Legal Aid Board, as I sincerely hope we shall, we want to leave it to get on with the job and try to get the operation under way with as little interference from the Lord Chancellor as possible. The less the Lord Chancellor has to do directly with the work of the board and in terms of interfering with it, the better. Therefore, while I
1212
entirely share the object of the amendment—perhaps "spirit" is a slightly ambiguous word in this context—the means that have been chosen are inappropriate and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that the noble and learned Lord will accept this as a respectful remark, but I am disappointed, as are my noble friends, with his reply. This an important way—indeed, a vital way—of ensuring the standards of those services which are being contracted out. We feel that this ought to be in primary legislation and that it ought to be the responsibility, if I may respectfully say so, of the Lord Chancellor to give these directions to the Legal Aid Board. It might otherwise be hindered, by the amount of the budget it may have been given, as regards the standards that we all want to see when services are contracted out. In these circumstances, I feel it only proper to test the opinion of the House.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 129.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Serota, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hughes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, E.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Blyth, L.

Annan, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Barber, L.

Braye, B.

Bauer, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Benson, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blatch, B.

Carnock, L.

1213

Coleraine, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Cowley, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cox, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mersey, V.

Croft, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Elibank, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elles, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrier, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Foley, L.

Reay, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Geddes, L.

Salisbury, M.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandys, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selborne, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Havers, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Somers, L.

Hives, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Hood, V.

Strathspey, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Ilchester, E.

Terrington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kearton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kitchener, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lindsay, E.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Education in Inner London
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the organisation of education in inner London.
"The Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at an acceptable cost.
"ILEA has patently not done that. Its spending is profligate; its service is poor. Between 1981
1214
and 1988 its spending increased from about £700 million to over £1 billion—while over the same period its pupil numbers have fallen by 15 per cent. It now spends 52 per cent. per pupil more than the outer London boroughs; 45 per cent. more than Manchester; and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham: cities with problems comparable to those of London. This increase in expenditure has in no way been reflected in improved pupil performance, which remains disappointingly low. There is now an urgent need for change.
"ILEA's failure is partly a failure of political will but, it is also a product of its unmanageable size. Its administration is cumbersome, excessively costly and too distant from its clients. The Government want to improve standards of education in London and to bring costs under control. We decided that the way to do this was to enable each inner London council to become the local education authority for its area.
"Our proposals arc incorporated in Part III of the Education Reform Bill. Three boroughs have already stated their intention to apply for LEA status; other boroughs are known to be considering similar action. But as this positive response to our proposals has emerged there has been a growing view that our objectives would be better achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions in inner London.
"The Government have reviewed these developments and have concluded that the time is now right to carry through the logic of their proposals in the interests of better standards and of orderly progress. We therefore propose to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill, while it is before the Standing Committee, to wind up ILEA and to secure the transfer of education responsibilities to local councils from 1st April 1990.
"We propose that the arrangements for transfer-ring functions should follow closely those established at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
"A staff commission will be established to facilitate the process of staff transfer. All LEA teaching and non-teaching staff working at individual schools and colleges will transfer by order to the employment of the council concerned. Where appropriate, detriment or redundancy compensation will be available on the terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
"The arrangements for property transfer will be broadly those set out in the Education Reform Bill. It is likely that the London Residuary Body will be employed to deal with assets which cannot be allocated between boroughs.
"The Education Reform Bill already contains certain counter-obstruction safeguards to protect the interest of the local councils which will be assuming education functions. We shall strengthen these safeguards, introducing the same sanctions as were included in the legislation abolishing the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils.
"The Government propose that each local council should be required to publish in 1989 as a

1215
basis for local consultation a development plan setting out the way in which it proposes to organise the transfer of responsibilities and the service it would propose to run. The Government will issue statutory guidance on the subjects to be covered by such development plans which will provide the basis for property and staff transfer orders.
"I recognise that some co-operation will be needed between inner London councils for the maintenance of certain aspects of education provision. I hope that in most cases such co-operation will be secured through voluntary arrangements; these might in certain circumstances need to take the form of joint education committees, requiring my approval under existing powers. Were it to become necessary, there are also powers under the Education Act 1944 to enable me to require groups of boroughs to establish joint education committees in respect of particular functions.
"The Government propose to maintain rigorous pressure to control ILEA's expenditure over the next two years. We attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children. They and their parents have a right to something better. The Government's proposals set out the basis for a more cost effective and responsive education service for inner London."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, convention impels me to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I have to say that we are deeply shocked by it; we are shocked by the timing and, indeed, by the leaks that have gone on. Since last Friday there have been unseemly debates in the media leading to a major change of policy. In the week when the Education Reform Bill has been guillotined in another place and a timetable agreed for discussion of the remaining clauses, among which are the clauses on ILEA, surely a separate Bill is called for. The proposal comes at a time of heavy legislation when Parliament is already under pressure from an overloaded programme. This proposal was not in the Conservative Party manifesto, nor in the Queen's Speech. The Government have no mandate for it. Have the parents been consulted about this? Have the Churches been consulted about this? Have the teaching staff been consulted about this? The Government have made much of parental involvement in the Education Reform Bill. What parental involvement has there been in this sudden decision?
I remind noble Lords that there was a very full discussion three years ago when the GLC abolition Bill was going through Parliament. It was decided that ILEA should be a directly elected authority. What has happened since then and indeed in the last eight weeks since the Education Reform Bill was published to trigger off such a fundamental change?
ILEA has been criticised for excessive expenditure. The cost per secondary pupil at ILEA is just over £2,000. The DES is paying for assisted places at
1216
Westminster School, costing just over £4,000 a place, and at St. Paul's School, costing just under £4,000 a place. ILEA's size is mentioned in the Statement. This has been accepted by four reviews in the last 10 years, three of them done by this Government. I remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said as the then Secretary of State for Education:
"The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case."—[Official Report, Commons, 5/4/84; col. 1124.]
I repeat,
"The nature, scale and importance".
The effect of the Statement is that the education service in inner London will be handed over, not back, to boroughs with no experience of running an education authority and, some would think, not capable of carrying out such a function. For instance, Kensington and Chelsea would have just one county secondary school in its area. At the same time these councils will be coping with the administration of the poll tax, with new housing legislation and with the privatisation of their services. As to the quality of education, a recent poll in Wandsworth, which I remind noble Lords is a Conservative council, showed a high level of satisfaction by parents with ILEA schools in both primary and secondary education. Over 80 per cent. of parents said that they were satisfied with academic standards.
I wish to ask the Minister some questions. What will happen to special education, adult education and further education in which ILEA has such a good record when this legislation has gone through, if it does go through? Inner city problems may well be exacerbated by the abolition of ILEA. The Government are supposed to be taking a special interest in inner city problems. I suspect that children in inner London are likely to be the sufferers from this political act. Perhaps I may mention the Centre for Young Musicians, which is held at Pimlico School. What will happen to such provisions where children from all over London assemble for the most wonderful teaching and performance?
Have the Government thought through these proposals and their implications? The answer must be no.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister in a qualified way for repeating the Statement. I do not think that I have ever been impolite in your Lordships' House hitherto, but I propose to be now, at the expense not of noble Lords but of the Government's proposal.
Let us be frank and say first that the Government have never liked ILEA. It is a large organisation controlled by Opposition parties. That of course does not please them. Now they feel like Macbeth:
"With barefaced power sweep him from my sight".
If small boroughs control education throughout London the Government will more easily be able to control them and will be in a position to divide and rule, which seems to be their growing policy. It will also be convenient for the London Residuary Body to be able to empty County Hall at last, a matter that has been bugging that body for some time past.

1217
As the noble Baroness said, the idea is not a new one. It has been discussed a number of times under this Government in three reviews, to which the Minister referred. On each occasion it was concluded that a unitary education authority was the best for London. The most recent occasion was when the then Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, concluded that inner boroughs will not have the right to opt out. He said:
"The Government have decided that there should be a continuing unitary authority for Inner London".
That was only just over three years ago.
In 1985 the Local Government Act established the authority as a directly elected body. It is not two years since the first election. Why the change? We are now told that this will happen within a Bill already before Parliament in which we have been considering very different proposals—to the effect that the boroughs should opt out independently. Now, with the minimum time, we have to consider this much more drastic proposal.
No reference was made in last summer's consultation papers to any detailed study on which the current proposals were based. When I speak of the current proposals, I mean either the proposal for boroughs to opt out individually or for this much more drastic measure. No reference was made in the consultation papers to any research or consultation that has occurred.
I cannot refute offhand the figures quoted in this Statement, but I know that ILEA, for all its faults, has done much excellent work in the time of its existence. I am thinking in particular of the research that it has done: such things as the Fish report into the problems, diagnosis and remediation of children with special education needs. How can this sort of report covering the whole of London be carried out by individual boroughs? Much imaginative and innovative work has been done by the authority. Let us remind noble Lords that it is now doing all it can to restrain the activities of the unions which have caused so much trouble. I am thinking in particular of the Inner London Teaching Association, which the authority is now trying very hard to control.
London has been under a unitary education authority for well over 100 years, since my grandfather introduced the local government Bill in the other place in the 1880s. Throughout the years it was considered that the LCC was a highly efficient organisation, so the reference to the sphere of its control being too great seems to be quite untrue.
What will happen to the poor and deprived boroughs without the cross-subsidy which the Inner London Education Authority was operating? Can one imagine Kensington and Chelsea voluntarily subsidising Hackney? Is the Minister aware that some boroughs are in a state of administrative and financial chaos? Will any research be done to discover whether boroughs are fit to take on full responsibility for education within their bounds? How many councils want to opt out? Has that been discovered? There was a vague pronouncement in the Statement that a number of councils were thinking of it. Of course they are thinking of it, but they may well
1218
decide that they do not want to do so. Have the parents been consulted, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked?
Finally, I have to ask those two Back-Benchers of the Conservative Party who are apparently advocating this policy how much they know about education in London. Has this matter really been thought through? I cannot give more than the barest formality of thanks to the Minister for reading the Statement to us.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments, I must say as a preliminary how surprised I am that they were both shocked and forced to resort almost to rudeness. I find it rather difficult to discern this in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie.
The whole question of the future of ILEA has been debated for some time. There has been strong feeling expressed on many sides and the Government are responding to that strong feeling, not only from people in another place who have tabled Motions but also from many experts. I think we can even quote a Member on the Opposition Benches in this House who has asked for an orderly transfer in a planned and rational fashion.
Lord Strabolgi: Name him.
Baroness Hooper: It is a "her", actually—the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She has been quoted when she spoke at a conference on this matter. She told us that we should have the courage of our convictions and abolish the authority for this very reason—in order to have proper and orderly progress. However, I shall endeavour to respond to the questions raised both by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if perhaps I do not get my responses in quite the right order or put them quite as gracefully as I should wish.
On the question of timing, I should like to point out that the outer London boroughs were set up largely from scratch in 1965, just 20 months after the passage of the London Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963. The inner London boroughs will have a similar period in which to prepare to assume their new responsibilities, and in doing so they will have the assistance of the staff commission and the residuary body. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to set up a special unit in the department to help boroughs to prepare for the transfer of functions and to consult them about the arrangements to be made.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to our manifesto commitments and to consultation with parents, teachers and the Churches. Apart from the fact that our election manifesto brought in the principle of devolution by giving the right to boroughs to take over responsibiliity for this service, the responses that we have received are such that we have decided that this is a better way of achieving our objectives.
Apart from the fact that there was an explicit reference in the election manifesto which was warmly

1219
subscribed to by the electorate at large, there was a very recent poll on this matter. The noble Baroness referred to a poll in Wandsworth. I should like to refer to the by-election in Wandsworth which took place on 19th November last year, where this issue was brought very much to the fore by the Opposition parties and where we improved our majority. In addition, we believe that the Churches will also welcome the effort to bring in an orderly and rational scheme rather than subscribe to the accusations which we have had directed at us of allowing ILEA to wither on the bough. So there is nothing new about the proposals in terms of what will happen in ILEA. There is simply a different direction.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord referred to special education, further education and, I believe, adult education. As regards specialist provision, of course boroughs must explain in the development plans that they put forward what they wish to do with property that they plan to take over, including plans for continuing specizalist provision. There is something I should like to add to that, because local authorities have and will have a duty to secure adequate provision for children with special education needs. Smaller local education authorities in other parts of the country who do not provide a complete range of schools themselves often co-operate with neighbouring authorities and may use non-maintained special schools and independent schools. We see no reason why boroughs in the inner London area should not co-operate in the same way as boroughs in other parts of the country.
So far as concerns further education and adult education, again, we recognise that these are very important provisions. In terms of cross-boundary movement in this area, there is again perhaps an enhanced problem in the London area. Nevertheless. we believe that this will be met by the possibilities which exist for co-operation between boroughs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, felt that small boroughs were not going to be able to cope. I should point out to him that there is, in addition to the provisions that have been made, the special unit to which I have referred, the staff commission and the London Residuary Body. Those will enable boroughs which have not had recent experience of education provision to cope. The important thrust behind all the Government's proposals in this Bill is to take back provision and responsbility for education to the grass roots.
Therefore we must look at these proposals in the light of the other proposals of the Bill; for example, the provision for the national curriculum, which will better ensure that standards are maintained on a more balanced level throughout the country, as well as the provisions for financial delegation.
There may not have been a detailed study to which we can refer in that instance—again the noble Lord raised this point—but reviews have taken place steadily over past years. There was the Marshall review in 1977 and there was the Young review in 1981. Those reviews admitted that a unitary authority might be the most appropriate way of dealing with inner London provision of education. However, I must emphasise the second paragraph of
1220
the Statement where the Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at acceptable cost.
If one can say that it is acceptable for inner London to provide 4 per cent. of the country's pupils with education costing 8 per cent. of the country's spending, if one thinks it appropriate that ILEA should employ two and a half times more administrators than the average local education authority and if one can agree that ILEA is providing a better service in spending 52 per cent. more per pupil than the outer London boroughs, 45 per cent. more than Manchester and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham, I can only say that it is my turn to be surprised.
In relation to the extravagance and liberal spending, there is little evidence of pay-off in terms of results. Nationally some 53 per cent. of school-leavers have been getting one or more higher grades at O-level; ILEA has just 43 per cent. At A-level the figures is 14 per cent. nationally and 11 per cent. in ILEA. I can even pray in aid the intentions of the present Labour leader of ILEA who has made it clear that it must improve education standards and levels of achievement. Obviously he too thinks that the provision is wanting.
We believe that we are acting in the best interests of all the children in the inner London area in making these arrangements. The arrangements that are made, the plans that are put forward, will be scrutinised very thoroughly, and every possible co-operation will be given by the Department of Education for the smooth and orderly progress of these plans.
5 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords,
before we lash ourselves into an emotional pother about all this perhaps I may make a brief intervention. I must confess that I was one of the putative fathers of ILEA, I think the only surviving one, from those ancient days when Mr. Macmillan was Prime Minister. In the election of 1959—which I think shows that the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps has too short a memory and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, too long a memory—our manifesto was to hand over to the boroughs the educational responsibility of the local education authorities in London. It was recognised then that a small central body would be necessary, and the intention was to make it very small.
I think I am the surviving member of the committee which was asked to say how large the central body should be. We came to the conclusion that we did not for any educational reason at all but for a perfectly practical one. Since in central London the London County Council had built its schools as a matter of bricks and mortar without reference to the borough boundaries as they then existed, still less to the boundaries as they exist now, it would be necessary to use the old LCC area as the central authority. If the conclusion is reached that the experiment has been a failure, which I think must be the case but for one question which I have to ask my

1221
learned friend, there is no reason for the extraordinary outburst of emotion to which we have been subjected.
The question I should like to ask is the bricks and mortar question. The crux of the matter lies in the question of whether by the machinery which the Statement contains, if I understood it correctly, inter-borough education committees can deal with the problem of bricks and mortar and the location at any rate of older educational institutions in central London. If those will work it seems to me this is a long overdue reform. I should like some assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench that it is thought that this is a viable approach.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his intervention. It is certainly true in terms of size that ILEA is the largest local education authority in England. It has therefore developed commensurately large support services. Clearly from some of the examples I have given size does not guarantee effectiveness. In fact the outer London boroughs have been responsible for education for over 20 years, and three of them, Harrow, Kingston and Barnet, achieved better examination results than anywhere else in the country. That is a very hopeful and happy prospect to which to look forward.
On the question of bricks and mortar, perhaps I can respond to my noble and learned friend by saying that boroughs will be required to explain in their development plans which institutions and which property they need to inherit in order to secure adequate provision. This applies in particular to further education, which has been mentioned, because there is a great deal of trans-boundary provision. Where colleges in particular have sites in more than one borough the Government intend that in general they should not be split up but should be assigned to the borough in which they are primarily located. But again there is scope for voluntary agreements and arrangements to be made between boroughs.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I feel that this Statement uses a great many words to tell a very simple story. Since ILEA is to be abolished because it has a Labour majority, just as earlier the Greater London Council and earlier still the London County Council were abolished for the same reason, would it not have been more candid and courageous for the Government to tell us plainly what they are doing and why instead of trying to cover it up with this verbose camouflage?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the standard of education available in London is the paramount consideration. We believe that the continued failure of ILEA to put its house in order makes an arrangement such as we are proposing the best way of raising standards for children in inner London. I can only say that there was a lot of fuss and bother about the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties, but who is missing them now?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as High Steward and a former Member of Parliament for Kingston I should like to thank my noble friend for her graceful and kindly reference to the great education success of the Kingston Borough Council. Arising from that, does that not illustrate the extraordinary situation there has been in recent years in which large and wealthy boroughs such as Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea have not had education authorities, whereas education authorities have existed in much smaller places? I suggest to my noble friend that if education is to be a locally administered service, then it is absurd that such large boroughs should he excluded from the administration of education.
Is my noble friend aware that that logical approach might have been answered if ILEA had been a success? However, as she has made clear, it has been an expensive failure for both children and ratepayers. Therefore, perhaps I may thank her most warmly—and perhaps more sincerely than did the noble Baroness, Lady David—for the Statement and say that my only regret is that such a step was not taken years ago. In particular, I regret that the opportunity which was given by the Local Government Act three years ago when the matter was raised and discussed, was not taken. If it had been, we should now be rid of that monstrous organisation. Perhaps my noble friend can also tell me whether this matter will help to facilitate the eviction of the rump of the ILEA from the buildings across the river.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, to answer the last point made by my noble friend, there will no doubt be a transitional period with the continued existence of a rump. However, the process will no doubt be speeded up. I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention underlining some of the comments which have been made and indicating how important and urgent it is to get on with the job now.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the ILEA election the Labour Party won less than half the votes but more than three-quarters of the seats? Perhaps some of the problems of ILEA—like some of the problems of local Labour authorities—are created by its unrepresentative nature which is due to the addiction of the Conservative Party to a preposterously undemocratic electoral system. Will the Minister assure us that her party will learn from experience and that the idea of representative democracy will carry some weight in the future?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are learning in relation to ILEA and I can assure the noble Lord that he will have no further problems because there will be no further elections in ILEA.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, no one could be discourteous to the Minister for the very painstaking way in which she answers our questions. However, I do not think that her amiability can disguise the fact that many of us feel that this is a most discourteous manner of proceeding. If the issue is so important—and it is; it involves the abolition of the largest and most important education

1223
authority—why is it stuffed in at the Committee stage of a Bill? Why did the Government not bring it forward in the initial stages of the Bill? Is my noble friend Baroness David not right in saying that the matter should be withdrawn and made the subject of a separate Bill when some of the proposals which are being put forward can be properly worked out?
The Minister referred to the possibility of forming joint education committees. Does she have a clear idea as to whether the poorest inner London boroughs will form local education committees? Has not the matter been discussed with them? Have the Government no clear idea of what the government and administration of the schools is to be?
I am sure that the noble Baroness shares with all of us the desire that every one of those children who are in the poorest and most deprived parts of London—that is the reason for the emotion which has been generated on this occasion—should have the best possible education. Does she realise that if we consider any of our large provincial cities, we shall find that the worst examination results are produced in the poorest areas of the city and the best examination results are produced in the Kingstons of the city? If noble Lords do not appreciate that, then they do not understand the fundamental problem.
I ask the Minister to take the matter back to the Government and say that the proposal needs much more careful working out and thought. If we are not careful, we shall leave the poorest authorities with the most inadequate resources and withdraw the strongest elements, without any clear ideas from the Government as to what is to replace them. I do not wish to be offensive when I say that if there is powerful pressure from some Back Benchers in another place and the Government do not know what to do, they say, "Stuff it in the Bill".
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his courteous introduction to his comments. However, I must disagree with him. The subject is not a new one which has been brought up overnight. The whole question of ILEA and its future has been under discussion for a considerable length of time. It was a manifesto commitment that action would be taken, and the subject has been well discussed both in the media and in education circles. I do not think that it can be regarded as a sudden move requiring a separate Bill. Furthermore, the new clauses will be introduced at Committee stage in another place. There will be ample time under the guillotine Motion for a discussion. There will be further time for discussion at Report stage. The emphasis must now be on action rather than further discussion.
I share the view of the noble Lord that the interests of the children and students of ILEA are paramount. I have emphasised the fact that the reason for the changes to be introduced is to make sure that educational standards are improved as well as being made more cost-effective.
As regards the comments made by the noble Lord concerning other provincial cities with poor inner city areas and their examination results, I can only say that ILEA's results come below those of other large
1224
cities with similar socio-economic problems and large inner city areas. As regards the smaller boroughs who have perhaps not been considering the possibility of operating their own education systems as education authorities in the manner of the boroughs which have given us notice of their intention to opt out I say this. We must take all the reforms together and look at the fact that the Government are providing a national basis with a national curriculum for improving and maintaining standards. They are also providing other ways for schools to take more responsibility. Schools, teachers and parents will have more opportunities to be responsible for education in their immediate areas.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question concerning standards. In the Sheffield University league table, which took into account socio-economic conditions, out of 96 local education authorities ILEA came 56th, Oxfordshire was 54th, Waltham Forest was 71st, Essex was 92nd and Bromley was 96th. If other matters are taken into account, ILEA has done pretty well.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I speak as someone who has looked at the problems of ILEA. I welcome what my noble friend has said in her Statement. The fact that the Government have taken a decision removes an uncertainty about the future of a number of London boroughs. We all share the view of the importance of the education of children, not only in inner London but throughout the country as a whole.
Parents are obliged by law to send their children for at least 11 years of compulsory education. One of the most disturbing features of educational life is uncertainty. Now we know that 1st April 1990 is the date from which individual boroughs will be responsible for education in their areas. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I think that that is much clearer than the original provisions in the Education Reform Bill as it stands at the present time.
I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about standards is very important. It is true that the standards ILEA fall well below those which we should like to see. It is true that they have to educate some of the poorest and most disadvantaged children. However, inspectors' reports show that children still underachieve and we should see a better result. I believe that devolving downwards (as the Education Reform Bill and this measure propose) will make it more likely that there will he greater parental and other involvement which will help the children in the end. Much will be said; but I should like to welcome this Statement and say that I for one look forward to hearing the details of how it will be worked out. That is something we must look at very carefully.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments and for underlining the fact that the present proposals remove the uncertainty which existed and which indeed was growing. The Government are carrying on a continuing consultation process on education reform. They are responding not only in this area but in other areas to comments and consultation. I

1225
apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for not responding immediately to her previous remarks. I do not have the statistics that she mentioned, but I should like to underline the fact that the Labour leader of ILEA himself has said that socio-economic factors are too often used as an excuse for poor achievement.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I first make this point? The noble Baroness referred to my colleague Lady Blackstone and her remarks on ILEA. In case your Lordships have misunderstood her view, my noble friend was, and is, totally against the abolition of ILEA. Her comment, to which the Minister referred, was simply to the effect that if the Government were against ILEA they should show a little courage by removing it rather than killing it off by the death of a thousand cuts. I make that point just in case there was any misunderstanding of my noble friend's position.
I am a little disappointed at another aspect of the noble Baroness's Statement. My colleague Lady David has made the statistical point about 1LEA's undoubted achievements. I never decry statistics. But my view is that one ought to go and visit some ILEA schools. I hope that noble Lords opposite will occasionally do so. My experience from such visits is that the teachers perform miracles every day of the week. I should have liked to hear the noble Baroness proffer at least some words of support for those teachers. I was most disappointed not to hear such words.
Finally, there is the question of whether this is a genuine decision or a political one. I am always willing to be persuaded by the noble Baroness, but I must ask her what evidence has arisen about performance and costs that would cause the Government to change their mind since the Bill was originally published. If the noble Baroness wishes us to believe that there is no political side to this question and that it is a genuine educational decision, she might well offer us some new evidence to justify that change.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am glad that the age of miracles has not passed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me to put in a word for the teachers—the very good teachers—who do indeed perform miracles in some of London's schools. I believe that those teachers will welcome these moves because they will be able to continue teaching in the schools and provide education with less interference than was experienced under ILEA.
I shall marry up the noble Lord's first and last points and quote from the statement made by his noble friend, who, I quite accept, might well be against any change at all in ILEA. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is quoted as saying that this slow dismemberment could not be more damaging to the education of young people in London and therefore the Government should have had the courage of their convictions and met it head on. That is precisely what we are now doing and we expect to receive some support from the noble Baroness.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I was nominally responsible for ILEA for some three years, and perhaps I am the only Member of this House to have held such a position. I can confirm that when we took over ILEA it was then as now cumbersome and excessively costly. It had an ability to spend at an enormous rate and at the same time operated with an inflated staff level which was totally unreasonable. Like the GLC, ILEA has brought about its own doom by poor financial controls, petty policies and, more importantly, by sending pupils from poor and deprived areas out into the world with a poor education. This situation must be ready for reform, and I hope that the Government will press forward with it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I have very mixed feelings about ILEA. I think that some of the criticisms that have been made of it are quite justified. It has destroyed itself by often taking very partisan views on subjects. My only experience with ILEA concerned its dealings relating to the Polytechnic of North London, which did not reinforce my good opinion of the authority.
Having said that, nobody expects the Government to hold inquiries or carry out research because whenever they do, as in the case of the Peacock report, the research and the report come out in a form which the Government do not like. Even if one does not undertake research, I should have thought that it was politically extraordinarily insensitive to make a Statement which misses the one point which anyone who knows anything about education in London must have in the forefront of his mind; namely, when one removes the rich boroughs how are the poor boroughs to be financed?
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was entirely right to say that it was scandalous that this was not in the forefront of the Statement, and it must confirm people in the view that the Government think of the inhabitants of those poor boroughs as sludge and the schools in them as sinks.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I find it very difficult to accept the point made by the noble Lord, because, if he is talking about resources for schooling, there has been no indication that those resources will be reduced. In fact, our aim is that the available resources should be used more cost-effectively.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to correct the record with regard to something that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I can speak as one who has relatives—my son and daughter-in-law—who are teachers in Catholic schools in London. I can assure the noble Baroness that far from removing uncertainty this will further demoralise staff which is already struggling in appalling conditions. Uncertainty looms up every day. Staff do not know how many teachers will be retained, nor the character of the borough by which they will be taken over. I think that it must be placed on record that whoever else may like this action it is certainly not the teachers of London.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that there is important business to which we must return. Perhaps it would be the wish of the House to take the noble Baroness's question and a question which I know was coming from behind me and then call it a day and return to the Legal Aid Bill.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is precisely because I know that other noble Lords wish to ask questions that I ask what the House would like to do. Let us take the next two questions and we shall know whether your Lordships wish then to return to the Legal Aid Bill.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is difficult to judge competing evidence which is put forward. However, the Government's evidence has been that an orderly and rational progression to the splitting up of ILEA will be the best possible solution that will find acceptance and support among parents and teachers in the boroughs concerned.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, much has been said about the poorest children in London and about how they may be disadvantaged by the abolition of ILEA. Can the Minister inform us that she is aware—as I believe she is—that these are the people who are being so disadvantaged now? The children in the poorest part of Islington—I speak as someone who has practised in that area over a long period—are almost unemployable. If one asks them to put a dozen forms into alphabetical order, they cannot. These are school-leavers. Eighty-five per cent. cannot put 10 or 20 forms into alphabetical order. This means that ILEA has failed those poor children, and when there is a clear option for boroughs such as Westminster, with which I am closely connected, to opt out, they will certainly do so, and there will remain a hopelessly ill-formed ILEA. It will be only the worst of ILEA. Certainty is absolutely essential in these circumstances. Certainty and rapid change are important.
In the abolition of the GLC, because of the time taken over the preliminary Bill which did not go through, uncertainty existed for the two years during the abolition process. This caused great anxiety to staff. It also caused the problems referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of people not knowing what was gong to happen. I believe it is right that the Government have made a definite, formative Statement so that everyone will now know the situation. I also believe that in terms of finance no one living in the so-called wealthy borough of Westminster needs to delude himself or herself that it will not continue to cost Westminster a lot of money. Under all the inter-borough arrangements presently existing for social services, Westminster is still contributing on a rateable basis.
1228
I therefore believe that there will still be that same element of the rich boroughs subsidising the poor. I represent an outer London borough and I have seen how much better education was there. We saw last year the Audit Commission report on the ineffectiveness of ILEA. I believe that the abolition of ILEA will enable better education and better value to be provided.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have tried to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that these proposals should not be taken out of the context of the other proposals in the Education Reform Bill. Neither should they be taken out of the context of the proposed new system of local government finance. Any arguments therefore for cross-subsidy of education from one inner London borough to another will no longer apply. We believe overall that the new system will provide a fairer means of distributing resources to local authorities, taking account of local social needs. Boroughs will have an opportunity to examine the cost of education in their areas in this light.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up this point. Is the Minister aware that in inner London the education service is financed by a rate on the whole of inner London? Is she saying therefore that the Government will have the power to rate the whole of inner London in order that it may establish the equality that the Inner London Education Authority now provides?
She spoke very glibly about the way in which the outer London boroughs have settled down. Perhaps I may remind her that the outer London boroughs were always education authorities in the sense that they had delegating powers. Inner London education has always been planned for the whole area. ILEA merely succeeded London County Council. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady David, made seems to have been ignored. Education was planned for London as a whole. There are many boroughs. The noble Baroness, Lady David, instanced a particular borough that had only one county secondary school. It is not isolated. The plan for education in inner London was always for the whole area. Will the Minister say what the Government propose to do about that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the context of the outer London boroughs perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that they took over not only the education functions but also all other functions. They managed to do that successfully in the time.
On the financial aspect, the new proposals for local government finance will take into account the particular situation of inner London. We believe that the new system will provide a fairer means of distributing resources to the local authorities.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
5.36 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Legal services regional committees.
.—(1) The Board shall establish regional committees for legal services, composed of appropriate groups of legal aid areas or any parts of legal aid areas.
(2) The said committees shall consist of bodies representative of the consumers and providers of legal and advice services and local authorities in each region, and other people interested in the work of the committees.
(3) The said committees shall ensure and facilitate the development of legal and advice services.
(4) The said committees shall advise the Board upon regional needs for legal advice, assistance and representation and the Board shall exercise its powers and duties under this Act with due regard to such advice.
(5) The Board shall provide financial and other resources to the regional committees for the performance of their obligations.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we now return to the Legal Aid Bill. When the excitement of departure has abated, which I trust will not take long, I shall move Amendment No. 8, which imposes a requirement on the board to establish,
"regional committees for legal services, composed of appropriate groups of legal aid areas or any parts of legal aid areas".
It has been common ground in the debates on this Bill that the provision of legal services throughout the country is uneven and in some areas very inadequate. The tragedy is that it is in the areas which most often give rise to the most difficult legal proceedings in social security, housing, immigration, consumer credit and matters of that kind, that we have the least adequate provision in respect of availability of solicitors, legal aid, and advice centres.
The purpose of this important amendment is to impose a duty on the board to establish regional committees for legal services. There is an admirable precedent in what has been done by the work of the north-western legal services committee, and the work that is already being done with inadequate resources in the North-East and South Wales. The legal aid annual reports over recent years have all paid tribute to the work of the existing legal services committees, recognising their importance in the regional development of legal services by identifying unmet needs, pioneering new schemes for the delivery of legal services, and co-ordinating the provision of services in their areas. The aim of this amendment therefore is to impose a statutory duty on the board to establish these committees.
It has been said by the noble and learned Lord in our earlier discussion on this matter that this amendment is unnecessary because there is already power in the Bill for the board to establish these committees. That in my submission is not enough. The board should be under a statutory duty to establish these committees. They should consist, as the amendment states,
"of bodies representative of the consumers and providers of legal and advice services and local authorities in each region, and other people interested in the work of the committees. The … committees shall ensure and facilitate the development of legal and advice services".
1230
The amendment also states that the board shall be under a duty to,
"provide financial and other resources to the regional committees for the performance of their obligations".
In our view it is not sufficient to say at this stage in the proceedings on the Bill that the power is there. What we are asking for, indeed demanding, is that these duties should be placed on the board. If it be said that the board will surely do what it is empowered to do, what we seek to obtain from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, speaking for the Government, is an undertaking that the board will be directed to set up these regional committees and will be told in advance that the relevant financial and other resources will be provided. We say this in the light of the proven record of the North-Western Legal Services Committee which for 10 years has successfully brought together all those concerned with the administration of justice and has achieved great improvements in the northwestern area. Therefore when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to reply we await a positive commitment and undertaking that the board shall be required to do that which is set out in Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out at the Committee stage, the board will, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, have power to establish regional committees and, presumably, area committees, too. To my mind it is unthinkable that they could discharge their duties without a great degree of decentralisation. I should have thought that that is so plain that it would be unnecessary to write it into the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we discussed this matter, as the noble and learned Lord has said, in Committee. I wish to pay tribute to the work of the North-Western area committee; indeed, I have already done so. As the noble and learned Lord has remarked, I have said before and I now say again that under the Bill the board has power, if it thinks fit, to establish and fund regional committees to help in the discharge of the board's functions. But the amendment goes a great deal further. It places a duty on the board to establish such committees and would give them the task of ensuring and facilitating the development of legal and advice services. It would also require the board to provide financial and other resources to the regional committees for the performance of their obligations.
It seems to me that the result of passing the amendment would be to establish two, or perhaps three, levels of responsibility for legal services. The Lord Chancellor has overall responsibility. Clause 2(2) gives the board the general function of securing that advice, assistance and representation are available in accordance with the Bill. The amendment would seem to establish a third level of responsibility.
Passing the amendment into statute would have at least two thoroughly undesirable consequences. The first is that it would make responsibility for legal services a muddle. Under the Bill the board will have

1231
the main responsibility for securing that the advice, assistance and representation would be given. The board will be judged on its success in securing appropriate arrangements at all levels and that is as it should be. The additional obligation on regional committees introduced by the amendment would be an unnecessary muddle and confusion in the administration. If we have learnt anything from history it is that muddle and confusion are very likely to lead to ineffective and costly administration. The lines of responsibility should be clear. The methods by which these responsibilities are discharged should be as open and as flexible as possible. The Bill provides that; the amendment would have the contrary effect.
The second undesirable consequence of the amendment is that it would make the committees responsible for securing legal aid and advice services. The Bill is concerned with legal aid in the shape of the various headings that I have already mentioned. It does not deal with general responsibility for advice services. That would be a further confusing muddle.
The board on being established may think it right to set up committees to assist it in some areas. It is possible that such committees may be needed in all areas. But it is by no means a foregone conclusion that they would always be required. The board itself, through sub-committees operating with particular knowledge, might be able to deal with that. As your Lordships will appreciate from the terms of paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 1, the sub-committees of the board can be composed of people who are not members of the board.
The powers would allow the board to apply its mind to its responsibility and to decide in the light of circumstances at the time whether or not to have regional committees. For example, the situation may vary from time to time and in different areas. The Bill gives the necessary adaptability to deal with that. The amendment would, in my submission, introduce wholly unnecessary and undesirable rigidity.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I regret to say that I find that a very unhappy and unsatisfactory response. The danger in much that emanates from Whitehall and Westminster is preoccupation with London, the London area and the English area. The provinces tend to be starved of resources and to be neglected: at least that is the feeling that exists in several of the places where at present, as I said earlier, the availability of legal services is so sparse and uneven.
It is flying in the face of the advice from the legal aid annual reports to doubt the value of these regional legal services. Indeed, I do not think the noble and learned Lord has ventured to do so. Their value has been proven and the outstanding example is in the North-West. It is right, at this critical stage in the development of legal aid and legal advice under the aegis of the Bill, that a new step forward should now be taken by the setting-up of regional legal services committees as proposed in the amendment.
In view of the importance we attach to this amendment, we feel it right to take the opinion of the House upon it.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mais, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Meston, L.

Caradon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Northfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Hanworth, V.

Simon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Ackner, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ailesbury, M.

Dilhorne, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundee, E.

Ampthill, L.

Elibank, L.

Arran, E.

Elles, B.

Barber, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bauer, L.

Elton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Beloff, L.

Faithfull, B.

Belstead, L.

Ferrier, L.

Benson, L.

Feversham, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Bethell, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blatch, B.

Gainford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Geddes, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Braye, B.

Greenway, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harrowby, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L.

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hooper, B.

Colwyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Joseph, L.

Cox, B.

Killearn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Croft, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

1233

Long, V.

Reay, L.

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rodney, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Margadale, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Marley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mersey, V.

Sudeley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swansea, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Munster, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Trumpington, B.

Onslow, E.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Pender, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
Clause 7 [Scope of this Part]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 36, after ("section") insert ("this Part applies to any advice or assistance and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee your Lordships passed an amendment, against my advice, in relation to the opening part of Clause 7 of the Bill. I asked my advisers, in particular the draftsmen, whether, in so far as it was consistent with producing a technically proper result, they could use all the words of the amendment which was passed. However, I was advised that in order to make the Bill technically adequate while preserving the amendment, the amendment which I now propose, together with Amendments Nos. 22, 41 and 44, are desirable.
The substitution which your Lordships made removed from the clause a reference to the matters to which this part of the Bill applies. The clause goes on to refer to matters to which this part of the Bill applies, and therefore it is necessary to include a provision which makes an application of that reference. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 10 is intended to make clear that the operation of Clause 7 is subject to, and in accordance with, all the provisions of the later relevant clauses of the Bill which your Lordships left standing. It must be in accordance with the view taken by your Lordships as to what ought to happen. Therefore, these are the amendments that are technically necessary to incorporate into the Bill with reasonable technical correctness what your Lordships decided on the last occasion.
Amendments Nos. 22, 41 and 44 are designed to secure that where a similar provision operates in another part of the Bill, there should be a certain symmetry between the provisions. Otherwise, as many of your Lordships know, the court construing Clause 7 in contradistinction to a later clause wonders why on earth the wording is different and it may not be possible to disclose to them the reason for that under our existing rules. Accordingly, it is wise to make the structure of similar clauses in the Bill as symmetrical as possible. That is the explanation of Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 22, 41 and 44. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in language which I know the noble and learned Lord, as well as others of your Lordships, will well understand, I reserve my position in regard to the interpretation to be put on the vote which your Lordships registered in Committee by way of an alteration of the clause to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. Subject to your Lordships agreeing to the next amendment which I shall move in a moment, Amendment No. 11, I have no objection to these amendments, because if your Lordships pass Amendment No. 11 I hope that you will then feel that the decision on the last occasion will be carried into effect in a way which ought to be pleasing to the Government. I hope that those last words will be echoed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when Amendment No. 11 is moved.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I feel that there is a simple lesson to be learnt from this; namely, that when against the advice of the Lord Chancellor a simple amendment is carried which looks all right in itself, it may give rise to a very complicated set of purely technical amendments in order to correct the matter. I must confess that I was not present on that occasion, when the Government were defeated by only two votes. However, I somehow feel that had it been realised that there were to be these consequential technical amendments, the amendment that was passed might very well not have been passed.
I know that is a matter of speculation' to which there is no answer. Nevertheless, when moving amendments which are apparently simple, we ought to try to think the matter through, especially if we are voting against the advice of the Minister in charge of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always open to your Lordships to vote against the advice of the Minister. I share my noble friend's view that on many occasions it may not be wise to do so. However, on this occasion I accept as fully as I can the words of the amendment and I am making the consequential amendments which I am advised are necessary in order that the Bill be technically correct. I appreciate that there will be an argument about Amendment No. 11, and I reserve what I have to say about that until we hear it being commended by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor Moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 37, at end insert ("subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this section and sections 8, 9 and 10").
The noble and learned Lord said; My Lords, I have already explained this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 12, at end insert—
("(6) The power to exclude or restrict advice or assistance by regulations under subsections (3) and (4) shall not be exercisable unless the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the Board will provide or secure the provision of advice or assistance equivalent to that excluded under subsections (3) or (4) in accordance with its powers under Part II.

1235
(6A) Any regulations made for the purposes of subsection (6) above shall not come into force unless or until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, no one will be astonished at the statement that a Minister feels that when his advice has not been accepted, the House has not acted with the amount of intelligence that it ought to have shown. One appreciates that point of view and I pay tribute to the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor graciously accepted the verdict of the Committee.
I said that I reserved my position in interpreting what the vote was on the last occasion and what it meant. We all missed the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on that occasion, but we know he will listen with the care that he always does to those who were present, provided they give an accurate and fair account of what transpired.
The Committee was patently disturbed by Clause 7(3) and (4). I will remind the House what those subsections say. Subsection (3) states:
"Advice or assistance of all descriptions or advice or assistance of any prescribed description is excluded from this Part, or is so excluded as regards any area, if regulations so provide; and if regulations provide for all descriptions to be excluded as regards all areas then, so long as the regulations so provide, this Part (other than this subsection) shall not have effect.".
Subsection (4) says;
"Advice or assistance of any prescribed description is restricted to its provision to prescribed descriptions of persons if regulations so provide.".
That wording may sound complex but it can be put into very simple language in which the word "expertise" will not be included. The simple language is that regulations can be made hereafter to exclude from the green form scheme the giving of advice in certain areas on various matters to persons who may be prescribed by these regulations. In theory, the whole of the green form scheme could be wrecked by regulations hereafter. When I brought this matter to the attention of the Committee it was on a different amendment. My amendment then meant that the Committee was asked to agree that to do this by regulations was absolutely wrong, that primary legislation ought obviously to say what is going to be excluded from the green form scheme and if there was no such clear explanation in primary legislation the power should not be given at all to exclude any person from the benefit of the green form scheme.
I drew to the attention of the Committee and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—not that he needed it from me—that there was a White Paper issued by the Government as long ago as March 1987 recommending that there could be certain areas which would be excluded from legal advice, aid and assistance. The areas—I am not going to detail them again to the House now; I did so in Committee—included all aspects of conveyancing and all aspects of wills.
All sides of the Committee were worried by the fact that no indication was given in this primary legislation of what exclusions could be made hereafter. Replying to the debate, the noble and learned Lord, with his usual courtesy and clarity, said—if I may paraphrase his remarks, I believe fairly—that one wanted a fluid position, that one did
1236
not want to say now what areas might be excluded, that this would be dealt with by a process of continuing thought and that there was no indication to be given to the Committee at that stage of the areas that might be excluded by the regulations.
One area that the noble and learned Lord would certainly agree in principle should not be excluded from the green form scheme relates to the drawing up of a will for perhaps very needy people, appointing the guardian of an infant child and making provision for that infant child. Other matters, including those, would have to be thought about.
I pleaded with the Committee, on a completely non-party basis, that we were walking into the most dangerous chapters of legislative history (in which this House has always played such a proud part) if, on matters as vital as this, there was no clear statement from the Minister as to what might happen in the future and we were legislating by regulations the nature of which we knew not and which could indeed be wrecking regulations to the whole of the green form scheme. It was on that basis and with that plea which I made to the Committee that the vote took place. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, may be satisfied that it was not on a technical basis, as so often happens in Committee, but on a matter of principle. The Committee was saying, "We do not like excluding our responsibility for such a vital clause as Clause 7 with its powers under subsections (3) and (4) without some clear assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to what he himself had in mind by way of recommendation to the Legal Aid Board or otherwise by way of exclusion of certain areas from the green form scheme.
It is absolutely correct that the amendment that was passed provided that legal aid would be available to any person but then made that subject to what appeared in the rest of the clause. Subsections (3) and (4) were still applicable. We realised that, but we wanted to come forward again on Report having considered everything that the noble and learned Lord had said. The Committee having expressed its view, one hoped that the consistency which your Lordships' House so often shows would determine your Lordships on how to vote on this amendment. May I say, with the deepest respect, we hoped also that it would have a desirable effect on the very learned mind of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
We did the thinking, and the thinking was this. The main objection of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the advice which he tendered to the Committee was the lack of flexibility if one puts this sort of measure in the Bill. That was the first point.
The second point was that in depriving oneself of flexibility and further consultations, one was doing something rather foolish. We have got over that in this amendment which says just this—if I may again use simple language. We do not ask that the primary legislation shall say specifically that nothing is to be excluded from the green form scheme. We do not say that what is to be excluded has now to be announced, though I again plead with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he replies to the amendment to show his mind in regard to these

1237
matters rather more than he has done to the House up until now.
What we say is that nothing will be excluded from the green form scheme under this part of the Bill unless its equivalent is provided for by the Legal Aid Board and that it is satisfied that provision can properly be made for an equivalent service being afforded under Part II of the scheme. In other words, we allow for the fact that those services can be contracted out but that they will be provided and that there will be no such exclusion completely from the green form scheme. In Committee—and I would not dream of wearying your Lordships now—I dealt with the points made in the White Paper. I spoke about the injustice, unfairness and wrongness which would exist if a broad provision was made about the exclusion of wills, conveyancing and matters of that kind which were specifically canvassed in the White Paper of March 1987. I do not intend to do that again because the noble and learned Lord courteously dealt with those matters; not in detail, but he recognised that there was at least merit in the argument that the provisions for legal aid and advice in the green form scheme were certainly of a valuable nature.
That is all we ask for in this amendment. Flexibility remains. Counselling, thinking and consideration all remain. All that we are saying, without allowing regulations to take over a legislative power which we think is completely inappropriate especially in this case, is that if one excludes from Part III in the green form scheme any area at present covered by it, then it must be provided for in the contracting-out provisions of Part II.
The vote in Committee was a very clear vote for Parliament not deciding to wreck the green form scheme as it might be wrecked, or to exclude, without totally wrecking, various areas of legal aid work and assistance which is now given. The consistency which I hope we show in this amendment is to recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put some points to the Committee which ought to be treated with respect. This amendment, if I may be allowed to say so, similarly ought to be treated with respect by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It is not clear what exclusions are envisaged in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7. It must remain a concern that those matters are not spelt out. The fact is that flexibility can be misused and if we cannot have the principles clearly stated on the face of the Bill then there should be some mechanism for governing the powers as proposed in the amendment.
I should like to take the opportunity to express one other matter of concern as regards the terminology which may only be as a result of my concern and stupidity. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to "areas of advice" and the White Paper refers to "areas of work". I assumed that that was the sense in which the word "area" was used in Clause 7(3). Then it occurred to me that it might be taken as meaning a geographical area which is the way in
1238
which the word "area" is used, for example, in Clause 3 which refers to,
"different areas in England and Wales and in different ways in different fields of law".
I hope that is a matter to which some consideration might be given in order to clear up exactly what is meant, particularly because the White Paper uses the expression "area" in another sense altogether.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's motive in moving the amendment. I have been trying to follow through its effect in relation to the Bill as it stands and in relation to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said when replying to the debate in Committee on a previous occasion.
It may be that it is my own intellectual limitation but I find a very strange situation arising from the amendment. In Clause 7(3) we find that there may be exclusions by regulation. The amendment says that there may not be exclusions by regulation
"unless the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the Board will provide or secure the provision of advice or assistance equivalent to that excluded".
We shall have a plain contradiction if we add that amendment to the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the permission of the House perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down. He will find the definition under Part II. What has to be done is that before one excludes anything by regulation, the Lord Chancellor and the board have to be satisfied that it can provide what is excluded under Clause 3 of Part II.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord has, no doubt unintentionally, brought me to the very next point that I was going to make. We have to be very careful, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said on a previous occasion, not to have a duplication between Part II and Part III. Also I should like boldly to go a little further and say that we have to be careful not to have a contradiction between Part II and Part III.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Part III of the Bill deals with advice and assistance. Part II enables the board to contract out, for example, to solicitors, legal advice agencies and law centres, the obtaining and giving to clients—that is persons who wish to avail themselves of advice and assistance—of that particular kind of advice or assistance. Under Part II, if the board contracts out a particular service it would seem right that it should not also be provided under Part III by way of duplication. Subsections (3) and (4) therefore embrace necessary provisions to exclude from Part III what is provided under Part II. Otherwise, there is a waste of time. If one sets up a contract with a law centre for legal advice on, let us say, social security benefits and these provisions are made, then anyone can go along to a law centre and obtain advice on social security benefits. That is the arrangement. If at the same time anyone with the appropriate qualifications and means goes along to a solicitor under the green form scheme for the same kind of advice there is a quite unnecessary duplication in the service.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, recognises that and in effect it says that exclusion

1239
cannot be made under Part III unless there is provided the equivalent service under Part II. So far so good. But Part III contains exclusions which are not related to alternative provisions at all. In relation to legal aid, power to this effect has been included in the legislation for quite a long time. I instance Section 7(2) of the 1974 Act.
Perhaps I may give an illustration. In the White Paper the Government said that it would not be right to continue giving the green form scheme cover to advice required for wills and conveyancing. In any publicly-funded service of this kind it is surely necessary to try to direct the available money—which in no regime is infinite—to the places where it is most needed. If your Lordships were asked to think of two branches of the law in which this form of advice might not be required to be given by a publicly-funded system, I venture to think that conveyancing would come first perhaps, and wills second. Those instances might well occur to your Lordships. That is the idea that is floated as a proposal in the White Paper. If that is to be given effect the Government need power to do that. The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would cut that out; it would allow it to be done only if the law centre was to provide advice on conveyancing and wills.
I plainly recognise that the general subject of wills and conveyancing is a rather general description and that there may be instances within these classifications where your Lordships would feel it right that green form advice should be available. On the last occasion I instanced the situation of a one-parent family living in rather needy circumstances. The single parent might think it right to nominate a guardian for the children who would look after them in the event of anything happening to the parent. That is a very proper provision and something which might not occur to your Lordships as a very typical example of the kind of will that one sees mentioned in the newspapers from time to time. Nevertheless it is an important will and in the interests of the children.
I clearly see that it might be very wise to exclude that kind of special situation from the generality of the exclusion. These are matters to be considered carefully. I believe your Lordships will agree that these are matters upon which experience may show from time to time that what has been done to date is not perfect and that some improvement might need to be made in the descriptions of either the excluded class or of the exclusions from it.
The powers that are contained in subsections (3) and (4) are designed to cover both those possibilities which have existed since 1974 in relation to legal aid. The objective is to cut out some kinds of aid from the scheme altogether. The defamation action is an example. From the beginning of legal aid, successive governments have thought it right that it should not be available for actions of defamation. That is not universally agreed and your Lordships have argued about it during the course of discussions on the Bill. However, the decision has been taken and it seems to me a reasonable decision. It is an illustration of the fact that legal aid is not universal, and that in using the money the taxpayer has given it is wise for the
1240
Government to try to direct it to the types of work for which it is really necessary and will be effective in helping the people who really need it.
That power is required and subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 7 confer it. However, the power is expressed in such a way as to enable us also to exclude from the green form scheme the situation where it has not been cut out altogether but has been provided in another way through contracting out under the Part II provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the word "area" and also to the other part of the clause. The word "area" is used here—and I believe consistently in the Bill because it is the dictionary of the Bill that is important—in a geographical sense. If a law centre serves an area in which one can get advice of a particular kind, it would be right to exclude that type of advice from the green form scheme in that area. If there is no such law centre or advice agency in a different area of the country it would not be right to do so. It is right to have variation with geographical area in mind.
It is also right to have particular types of advice or assistance. The phrase used for that, in contradistinction to "area", is "any prescribed description". If I were operating the power to exclude, for example, wills and conveyancing in the whole of the country, the prescribed description would be wills and conveyancing. I have no doubt that the draftsman will advise me that it would require to be more carefully drafted but for the purposes of argument that may be sufficiently precise.
We need both of these powers and they are covered in subsections (3) and (4). The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be utterly to cut out the power to restrict the application of legal aid by reference to subject matter unless it was already provided under Part II. That would not enable us to target legal advice and assistance on the areas which might be important. Your Lordships have been told that this is an important matter and with that I agree. In consequence, I have agreed that these powers to exclude from the scope of legal advice and assistance will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore your Lordships would have to have an explanation of why, if I were to bring this forward, it was thought right to cut out wills and conveyancing from the green form scheme, possibly subject to exclusions, such as I have mentioned, in favour of one-parent families and other cases of that kind. The noble Lord's amendment would effectively demolish that option and might force us to continue to apply money to areas where it was not being particularly well used when there was crying need for it to be used to better effect in another part of the work.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in his reply to this amendment the noble and learned Lord said two main things. However, he did not say one very important thing. He said that this amendment would exclude work the nature of which is not thought to be of a high priority in the green form scheme and which therefore, looking at the scheme as a whole, ought to be excluded. He said, secondly, that the House can

1241
always voice its opinion in regard to any excluded matter proposed because the regulation will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The noble and learned Lord has not said that the 1974 Act had a similar provision. But nobody has thought since 1974 of excluding anything that was then available under that Act. But there was a White Paper of March 1987 and that proposed some types of exclusion. So there is a different situation when we repeat that provision here.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord has still not said what he and the Government have in mind by way of exclusions. Not one single example has been given. There was a general phrase about the area of conveyancing and wills—I am sorry if I use the word in the sense that might be muddling but I do not think it is muddling when I use it in this context. There was no reference to whether conveyancing and wills might be hit, or other matters besides those, or within the areas of conveyancing and wills what might or might not be thought of as being of high priority for needy people. On the last occasion I gave examples of the conveyancing need—because conveyancing sounds such a grand phrase—for poor people in necessary circumstances.
I wonder whether your Lordships will take for granted for one moment that the regulation was of the nature that the noble and learned Lord was good enough to indicate by way of example. A regulation comes before the House that says that under subsections (3) and (4) it is proposed to exclude—I shall continue with the example—matters of conveyancing and wills. I wonder whether the House will be good enough to ponder for a moment what the parliamentary power would then be. Some of your Lordships might think that a very good case has been made out for conveyancing but not for wills, or for wills but not for conveyancing. Your Lordships will not be able to move an amendment to exclude or include either of those items. Your Lordships will either have to accept the whole lot in one swallow or not.
In regard to the speeches that will be made on that occasion, one knows that any Lord Chancellor will listen to them with courtesy and patience. He will have the very distinct option, having taken note of them, to decide that he will still go ahead with the regulation. Your Lordships will know that no power whatsoever is vested in the House to deal with a series of exclusions that maybe put forward in a regulation. Indeed, it is not even a normal procedure for the House to vote against a regulation even though it would have to vote for or against it in its entirety.
In the face of not one single indication from the Government, even at this stage, as to its reaction to the White Paper of March 1987, what does the amendment do? Before I have to take a decision with my noble friends as to how I deal with the amendment on Report, will the noble and learned Lord at least—I shall sit down to give him the opportunity to reply if he would kindly take advantage of it—give an assurance that before the completion of the Bill's passage through Parliament he, or the Government in another place, will give a
1242
clear indication of their thinking on what should be excluded under subsections (3) and (4)?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I should like to say that the White Paper makes the Government's thinking plain in general terms. I see no reason, on this aspect, to depart from that thinking subject to the need to qualify those exclusions by reference to cases such as I have already mentioned. There may be other similar cases which have not yet been brought to our attention on consultation. I want to make it plain that those powers exist to be considered not only immediately after the Bill has been passed, but from time to time to ensure that the money which the taxpayer contributes towards legal aid is used to its best advantage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am grateful for the polite reply that the noble and learned Lord gave to my question. I am sure he will not think me in the slightest degree rude if I limit the adjective to the word "polite".
The Government's policy is vague in regard to a valuable scheme—one of the pillars upon which legal aid depends. The green form scheme saves a great deal from the country's coffers by way of preliminary advice so that litigation is avoided. For example, advice on wills is given so that there is no mess in regard to children and so on when people leave this earth. The Government's answer on this matter is so vague that I am afraid I must press the amendment in the same spirit as on the last occasion. I hope that your Lordships will be consistent when we go through the Division Lobbies.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Meston, L.

Benson, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bottomley, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Gallacher, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Thurlow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

1243

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Harrowby, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Bauer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beloff, L.

Joseph, L.

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bethell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Napier of Ettrick, L.

Cox, B.

Nelson, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Croft, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Prior, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Renwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sudeley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Swansea, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Geddes, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Halsbury, E.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
Clause 8 [Availability of, and payment for, advice and assistance]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Assistance by way of representation under this Part shall not be given without the approval of the Board except—

(a) in proceedings before the Mental Health Tribunal; and

(b) in proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners, and subject to any other prescribed exceptions.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises from the provisions in the Bill for advice and assistance in Part III. Clause 8(3) provides:
"Subject to any prescribed exceptions, assistance by way of representation under this Part shall not be given without the approval of the Board".
The amendment proposes that two exceptions be specified at this stage in order that they may be put into the Bill and become part of the law on enactment. There are two circumstances where representation should be given. One is in proceedings before the mental health tribunal. Those proceedings are already the subject of enjoyment of advice facilities under the legal aid scheme. The mental
1244
health tribunal provided expressly for them in the discussion on the mental health Bill. That is kept in because they are already part of the arrangements.
It is proposed to add for availability for assistance under the green form scheme proceedings before the social security commissioners. In an earlier discussion on tribunal representation when a number of other tribunals were under consideration, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seemed to be particularly well disposed towards proceedings before social security commissioners. It may well be that they are—as I submit—in a sense a class apart. Since April 1987 they have dealt with questions of law only.
The DHSS and the Secretary of State for Social Services are invariably legally represented in proceedings before the social security commissioners. This reflects the legal complexity of many of the matters that they have to consider. Claimants, however, who are usually in the appellant's role, are except in a handful of cases unable to afford private representation and have to rely on the free services of law centres, advice agencies and the free representation unit and other admirable bodies, which do their best to help the needy. Since those resources tend to be concentrated in London and in other large urban centres, as I ventured to say earlier, access to their services depends to an unacceptable extent on the geographical location of the claimant in question. The amendment, by putting a duty on the board to ensure that representation is available everywhere in social security commissioners hearings, remedies that situation. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I understand it, the amendment would have the effect of removing the merits test altogether in respect of proceedings before the mental health review tribunals. The merits test applies not only to the nature of the proceedings but also to the respresentation that is in question. In the case of mental health tribunals the merits test presently applied under the existing system, which would continue to be applied in the future so far as concerns the general statutory provisions and regulations, is this. The ordinary merits test is that the applicant has a reasonable case and that it is not unreasonable to grant aid in the particular circumstances of the case. Under the regulations so far as concerns mental health review tribunals this form of representation shall be approved unless it appears unreasonable that approval should be granted in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words, there is a strong onus in favour of the applicant, but it is not absolutely compelling.
So far as I have been able to discover, the normal result is that an applicant before a mental health review tribunal has this form of representation. There has been at least one exceptional case in which the applicant wished to instruct a solicitor who practised a considerable distance away from the hospital. That was going to involve considerably more expense than getting a solicitor equally able to deal with the matter much closer.
Under the amendment, which has the effect of removing the restrictive merits test altogether, whenever an application is made for representation,

1245
however unreasonable the circumstances, the Legal Aid Board's approval will not be required. I doubt whether it is wise to go that far. I entirely accept the noble and learned Lord's desire to ensure adequate representation before mental health tribunals. That is my response to that part of the amendment.
The second aspect seeks a new development altogether in respect of social security commissioners. Representation is not available before the social security commissioners at present. As I said in Committee, the theory under which all these tribunals have been set up is that they should be informal and of a kind in which the tribunal did all the work; all the applicants had to do was state their cases. Those of your Lordships who have had the privilege of attending tribunals in recent times may be apt to question the extent to which that objective has been entirely fulfilled. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, spoke on Second Reading about the weight of representations that sometimes appear at various tribunals, no doubt on occasion at least to good effect.
The social security commissioners tribunal deals with difficult and important questions. I said in Committee—and I repeat—that in my view there is a high priority for extending legal aid to do this when opportunity offers. One has to take account of all the circumstances. We are concerned at present with the basic framework under which we are operating. I think that it would not be right as part of the primary legislation at this stage to include the social security commissioners.
There are other tribunals for which a strong case can also be made. I have not personally had an opportunity of hearing the arguments in favour of these others, but I am sure they will have strong arguments to make. This is my own view in the light of what I have heard so far; but I do not believe it would be fair to reach a conclusion upon this point at this stage of the Bill.
In my submission to the Committee this Bill is concerned with putting the structure in place. The precise scope of the form of representation and the rest of legal aid so far as it is not laid down in the statute would appropriately be the subject of regulation. I would therefore invite noble Lords not to approve this amendment, although I shall certainly have very much in mind the second part of it as we go forward into the future of legal aid.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I just wish to say a word about the mental health tribunals because I have been involved in this subject for many years. I helped to pilot the Home Office clauses of the Mental Health Act 1959 which are really the foundation still of the present law. When we had the more recent mental health Act in your Lordships' House, I think in the last Parliament, I took a close interest in the details of the legislation. I also happen to be the president of MENCAP and I was chairman for a number of years before that.
It has not been brought to my notice that any hardship has been caused under the present arrangements which my noble and learned friend has mentioned. If I have understood his remarks correctly, it is the intention under the new scheme,
1246
subject to a degree of flexibility, to maintain those arrangements. Therefore, I would not have thought that there was any need for the amendment so far as it affects mental health tribunals. However, I do not have a close knowledge of the work of the social security commissioners so I shall not comment on that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, with regard to the mental health tribunals, I am also involved as president of the Mental Health Foundation and I am very concerned in this field. I do not know whether an amendment to include the restricted merits test might remedy the difficulties which the noble and learned Lord contemplated about accepting paragraph (a) in the amendment. I do not know whether it would be possible to give thought to that before the next stage.
On the other matter of the social security commissioners, the most I can apparently hope for is a vista of when there will be an extension of the availability of legal aid and legal services. Now that we are told of the enormous wealth at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer perhaps we may hear of it during the forthcoming Budget and the forthcoming legislation. But in the short term at any rate, and without provoking a denial by virtue of my words, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can help a little more about the difficulties which are envisaged in proceedings before the mental health tribunals.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as far as I can see, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the present arrangements are satisfactory. If I understood correctly the effect of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, it would simply remove the present merits test. It is a very restricted merits test indeed, in the sense that it is very easy for the applicant to pass the test. In the vast majority of cases, apart from the exceptional one which I mentioned, the applicants seemed to have passed the test. There may be some point which the noble and learned Lord's amendment focuses upon which I have not completely understood. In that case, no doubt we can confer later. But at present my understanding is that the arrangements are as I have described. They seem highly reasonable and only give scope to cut out utterly unreasonable applications, they work well and could be left as they are.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, perhaps before the next stage I in turn can take further instructions and guidance from those who were concerned about this. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that we have reached a suitable moment to break. If so, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned; and that we do not return before 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1987
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th December 1987 be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1987 be approved. Perhaps I may also speak to the other order on the Order Paper, the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987. Both these orders were laid before your Lordships' House on 9th December 1987.
The Draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1987 has been laid before your Lordships in accordance with Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. This legislation requires the Secretary of State for Employment to review in each calendar year the upper limit that is imposed on the amount of a week's pay for calculating certain payments and awards under the employment protection legislation. The awards in question are redundancy payments, the basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal, and debts that can be paid under the insolvency provisions of the 1978 Act. The Secretary of State is also required to review the limit on the amount of guarantee pay due to an employee in respect of any day on short time or temporary lay-off, and the duration of such payment.
In making the review my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to consider the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review, the national economic situation as a whole, and such other matters as he considers relevant.
The Government have consulted a wide range of organisations in the course of the review for their views of what changes, if any, should be made to the limits. Employer organisations were in general against any increase on the grounds of the additional costs to industry, or suggested, alternatively, that any increase should be modest. Trade unions, on the other hand, argued for increases at least in line with the increases in average earnings.
Having carried out the review the Government propose to increase the limit on the amount of a week's pay from £158 to £164 and to raise the limit on the daily amount of guarantee pay from £10.90 to £11.30. These increases are in line with the rate of inflation.
In reaching their decision the Government have had very much in mind their belief that excessive burdens on business will only tend to discourage enterprise and have an adverse effect on employment opportunities. There is evidence to support the view that the employment protection legislation has inhibited some employers from recruiting. While making every effort to encourage employment by reducing the burdens on businesses the Government are of course committed to safeguarding the essential rights of employees. It is important to establish an equitable balance between the interests of employers
1248
and employees and I believe that the proposed increases do just that.
The other limits relating to the duration of guarantee pay will not be varied. The specified number of days in the relevant period for which such payments can be made will remain at five, and the relevant period will continue to be three months. If my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State decides, as he has done, that these limits should not be varied, he is required to lay before Parliament a report giving his reasons. Such a report was laid at the same time as the laying of the draft orders we are now debating. It explains that both the limits on the duration of guarantee pay still seem to strike a fair balance between the employers' obligations and the employees' rights.
I come now to the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987, which has been laid before the House in accordance with Section 73(4B) and 75A(7) of the 1978 Act. These awards were introduced by the Employment Act 1982 and they apply to dismissal for trade union membership, trade union activities or non-membership of a trade union. The limits are not subject to annual review but they may be reviewed from time to time.
These special provisions were introduced in order to protect the individual's rights to choose whether or not to join a union. The Government have therefore decided, as with the other awards, to increase the basic and special awards generally in line with inflation. The minimum basic award will therefore go up from £2,300 to £2,400, and the limits which apply to the calculation of the special award will be increased from £11,500, £23,000 and £17,250 to £11,950, £23,850 and £17,900 respectively. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th December 1987 be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister for his explanation of these orders and to say from these Benches that we welcome any increase. On the other hand, we regret that the Government have not found it possible to up-rate the employment payments by more than the rate of inflation this year. Indeed, the increases again fail to match the increase in average earnings which I understand was 7·7 per cent. last year. In the past there has also been a failure even to meet the rate of inflation, because I understand that past increases have been of the order of 1 per cent, and 2 per cent.
The result of all that is that the statutory redundancy and unfair dismissal payments which are allied to what people have been earning while in employment are now only two-thirds of the value they would have been had there been proper up-rating in line with the average earnings since 1976. Another way of putting it is that between 1976 and 1987 average earnings increased more than three-fold, by 317 per cent., whereas the limit on redundancy pay has only been increased two-fold. This is particularly unfortunate since there is a provision under Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1979, to which the

1249
Minister has already referred, which stipulates quite clearly that the Employment Secretary should take into account the general level of earnings.
I note that the Minister says that there has been consultation with both sides of industry on the issue of up-rating of employment benefits. However, it is my understanding that the Trades Union Congress has written to the Minister again to complain, as it has complained in the past, at the failure to up-rate in line with the wages index. I should like to ask the Minister whether, if further representations are made, these will be considered, and whether there will be an agreement to see the TUC on this question of up-rating of benefits if the matter is pressed. It is my understanding that this is not the first occasion on which this matter has been raised. There is serious concern that the employment benefits are not being up-rated in line with the wages index and with what was taken to be a provision and a promise contained in the 1979 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. On the point of whether or not the rises should be linked to average earnings or to some other criterion, in reviewing the limits on awards my right honourable friend has to assess a number of factors. To have increased the limits in line with average earnings would have put an unacceptable burden on employers and have had an adverse effect on employment opportunities and recruitment.
The noble Baroness referred to the Trades Union Congress and to further representations which my right honourable friend might possibly take into account. I assure her that he will always consider any representations and give them fair hearing. Having said that, I should say to the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend has already considered this matter very carefully before coming to his decision and in the circumstances he has judged the balance as best he can between the interests of all parties involved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987
7.14 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th December 1987 be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.15 to 8.5 p.m.]

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 8.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 40. leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) Subsections (6) and (7) above shall not apply to a person whose financial resources are such as to make him eligible for prescribed social security benefits, who shall be entitled, without payment of a contribution, fee or charge to advice and assistance under this Part".).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to remedy a curious anomaly which arises from the following circumstances. Financial eligibility for legal aid is assessed according to the applicant's means on the basis of disposable income and capital. The civil legal aid scheme has upper and lower capital limits which are currently £3,000 and £4,850. Therefore, an applicant with capital between those amounts would be entitled to legal aid on payment of a contribution and subject to assessment of income. However, the green form scheme to which Part III and Clause 8 with which we are now dealing apply has only one capital limit which is currently £825.
A person with capital of less than £825 is entitled to assistance, subject to paying whatever contribution is required out of income. No contribution is payable out of capital. However, a person with capital of more than £825 is not entitled to advice and assistance under the scheme. The capital cut-off for entitlement to supplementary benefit is currently £3,000. Therefore, not all supplementary benefit claimants are entitled to advice under the green form scheme. That works particularly to the detriment of elderly claimants on supplementary pension who are excluded from the legal aid scheme because of a small amount of savings which they may have accumulated.
It is interesting to note that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee recognised the anomaly as long ago as 1978 when it stated in a report:
"There is considerable evidence that people, particularly pensioners who have saved a little capital, are thereby taken outside the scope of the scheme, and we do not think this was intended. Again, we think that no smaller amount than exists for supplementary benefit should be available here".
Claimants of social security benefits are certainly deterred from seeking legal advice if they have to pay for it out of any savings they may have accumulated. Unhappily, those most affected are pensioners who have no opportunity to replace savings that they have to spend and who rely on those savings to ease their retirement years and, above all, to pay for their funerals. In the old days that matter used to worry working people and no doubt it still does.
The conclusion which I submit to the House is that the green form capital limit should be allied with capital limits for income-related benefits to ensure that all claimants are eligible for advice and assistance under the green form scheme and that elderly pensioners should not be prejudiced. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the point raised by the amendment was raised in a somewhat similar

1251
form at Committee stage. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, for a long time there has been an arrangement under which a person on supplementary benefit who has capital of over £825 is required to contribute to pay for legal advice. In other words, people are not entitled to advice and assistance just because they are entitled to supplementary benefit. In that situation the total amount that is required is comparatively small, given the limit of the green form; and it seems not unreasonable to ask persons with capital of over £825 to pay the modest sum that is involved in the green form advice.
The problem about capital is a general one. It is always somewhat hard on persons who have saved that they have to pay, whereas persons who have not saved and have no capital do not have to pay. However, if one is going to use need as the criterion, that is the consequence.
However, we have in mind that it may be wise in the future for a number of reasons to link the entitlement to green form advice with the social security benefits. We have provided for that in Clause 8(8). The regulations may be couched in terms that tie the two eligibilities together. So we have catered for it in the Bill to that extent; but at present I do not think it right that the Bill should be enacted in a form which binds us in whatever circumstances. There are different considerations to be applied to legal advice and assistance on the one hand and supplementary benefit on the other. The one may well be a good criterion in many circumstances for eligibility for the other, but not necessarily in all circumstances. It is on that basis that the Bill is drafted and I invite your Lordships to adhere to that principle.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely follow what the noble and learned Lord has said. Are the regulations to which the noble and learned Lord referred current and effective regulations that are presently applied or are they something contemplated for the future?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry that I have not made the position clear. The Bill provides the power to link eligibility for advice and assistance to entitlement to benefit under social security regulations. It enables us to couch the regulations in that form in the future but it does not necessarily tie us to giving free legal advice and assistance to those who are on supplementary benefit. It would enable us to do that but does not bind us to do so.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we really are dealing with a miserable situation. What about old people who have saved a little and gone just beyond the limit where they can enter this green form scheme without having to make extra payment? It sounds mean. I do not think that any government like to be thought mean; but this situation has existed for a long time unfortunately and in so far as meanness can be applied to this Government, it could equally have been applied to those which preceded it. However, we are dealing with very small sums, and although
1252
paying out a small sum may be negligible to those of ordinary resources, for those in this category with the enormous capital of £825 saved which prejudices them from entering into the green form scheme, it really will not do. Can the noble and learned Lord not get the great men of the Treasury to look at this to see whether they cannot rescue the scheme from this appalling anomaly?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord tempts me again. In the Bill we have provided scope for doing so; but I think that it would be wrong to be bound to do it. After all, no one can say how liberal social security benefits may be in the future, and I think that it would be wrong to go any further than I have done.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, looking at the presence in the House, to ask the opinion of the House would be a matter of supererogation. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [Financial limit on prospective cost of advice or assistance]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor shall carry out an annual review of the prescribed limit and in making regulations or determining whether to make regulations shall have regard to the hourly rate of remuneration for solicitors giving advice or assistance prescribed by regulations made pursuant to section 32.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for an annual review of the financial limits for advice and assistance under the legal aid scheme. As your Lordships will know, that is currently £50 for ordinary cases. The upper limit has been increased from time to time over the years. From 1974 until 1980. it was £40. It became the present £50 in November 1983.
There has been no undertaking from the Government to review the financial limits on a regular basis. The thinking behind the amendment is that the provision of early and efficient legal advice is an essential part of the system of justice. That is because, in practice, failure to increase the initial limit for green form advice in line with remuneration levels has meant that the amount of work that may be performed without further authorisation has become minimal. The Law Society would say—and I do not understand it to be factually challenged—that it represents now only one and half hours' work.
What matters about the green form scheme is not its theoretical availability. Harking back to a previous amendment, what matters are the issues it will cover in practice and whether the financial limit can provide anything of real worth.
An adequate and realistic financial limit can save money in the long run. I hope that an argument in the name of sensible economy will appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. There must be many cases where, if the limit were higher, negotiations could be conducted and a settlement reached.
Your Lordships should also know that these limits apply to a broad range of cases; for example, matrimonial cases in which, as is well known, an inadequate financial limit can lead to greater cost in the long run as well as painful and unnecessary friction between the parties. Similarly, this low level of financial limit has been extended into other forms of advice. The advice given to people held at police stations under the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme is restricted to £50 in lower tier cases.
It was argued in Committee that a financial limit set at a specific higher level would avoid the need to apply for extensions to the legal aid authorities. That would lead to corresponding savings in administrative costs. It was suggested that, rather than setting the limit at some arbitrary monetary level, it would be more appropriate to link it with remuneration levels so that the initial limit would always cover a period of work—for example, three hours, four hours or whatever. That approach was the subject of an amendment that was tabled at Committee stage. But the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the point that that might well make it more difficult to exercise responsible control over public expenditure and it would therefore be preferable to retain a cash figure rather than a reference to hours of work. Nonetheless, he said in terms that he was willing to consider the matter.
The thinking behind this amendment is that it is flexible, and that it is intended to react to what were received in Committee as sympathetic comments by the noble and learned Lord. It does not require the Lord Chancellor to change the limit every year. It does not require him to set the level at any figure. Therefore the way in which I put the argument in support of this amendment to the noble and learned Lord is to remind him that sometimes when amendments are proposed which would impose duties—for example, to set up legal services regional committees—the noble and learned response is, "No, that would be too rigid".
Sometimes we seek to take a discretion away from the noble and learned Lord; for example, the power to dissolve the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, on which we look forward to a debate and on which he continues to reserve his case. Thus far we anticipate that the argument may be, "Do not take the discretion away from me because I and my successors will certainly exercise the discretion wisely". Sometimes—if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me—even when a good amendment in principle is proposed the noble and learned Lord says, "It is not quite right; it is not quite perfect. Therefore I cannot recommend its acceptance".
This amendment obliges the noble and learned Lord to do nothing more than think again on an annual basis. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can accept that this amendment only requires him to review annually the financial limits which are vital for the green form scheme to be seriously effective in practice rather than a sham.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in Committee I said in answer to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has referred that I would consider the matter. Theoretically, an amendment of
1254
this kind, if put into effect, ought to produce an administrative saving in the way that the noble Lord has suggested. My information is that when amendments have taken place in the past on the limit, they have produced not a saving but a net cost. I am not entirely clear why that should be.
In very broad principle. I am sympathetic to the amendment that is proposed. If the noble Lord will allow me, I should like to consider it further. I do not promise that I shall be able to do anything but I undertake to write to him with conclusions. I have not had proper opportunity thoroughly to understand what happened on earlier alterations and how those affected the situation. One can see that at the margins there will be occasions when a solicitor may go over the £50 limit but does not trouble to do the administration required to cover the balance. When one raises the limit one has to pay for that in effect. That may be the explanation.
However, I have not had time properly to understand what has happened on previous alterations. I have to be careful about this, as the noble Lord will appreciate. I undertake to consider the matter further and to write to him in time for him to put forward an amendment such as this, or along these lines, for Report if I am not able to meet his amendment any further.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I could now (but for obvious reasons do not) seek to answer some of the concerns which the noble and learned Lord has expressed. However, plainly in view of the potentially sympathetic and co-operative posture that he has struck, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Costs of successful unassisted parties]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 9, line 31, after ("section") insert ("in respect of any costs").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment should be taken with Amendments Nos. 17,21, 32, 34 and 39.
There are two places in the Bill where a similar problem arises. One is in Clause 12 and the other is in Clause 17. The costs that are incurred by an unassisted litigant against an assisted litigant at first instance where the unassisted litigant has been successful are awarded against public funds—against the legal aid fund—only if the court is satisfied that severe financial hardship will accrue to the unassisted person.
If the legal aid certificate is extended to an appeal, the legally-aided person has then a second bite at the cherry and the ordinary rule of general equity comes in. But it is not intended that the appeal court should have power to award costs at first instance except under the conditions that apply at first instance. That is the present situation.
On looking closely at this clause in the light of the points raised in Committee, I was advised that the clause may not carry out exactly that intention. These amendments that I propose to Clause 12 are intended to make the position clear in relation to Clause 12. Amendments Nos 32, 34 and 39 make the same point in relation to Clause 17 where a similar situation arises.
These are technical amendments intended to give effect to the policy that I have described. There are amendments that we shall consider in a little while that would alter the policy. I am therefore not going into that at the moment. I simply give this explanation in support of this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 9, leave out from beginning of line 34 to ("and") in line 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16, which is substantially similar to though not identical with an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, at Committee stage. Broadly speaking, it removes the criterion of severe financial hardship to which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has just referred. In effect, it removes Clause 12(4)(b). If carried, it will require slight tidying up, purely technical, at Third Reading.
The background of this clause—as noble Lords know, and as my noble and learned friend has just described—is the conditions under which a successful unassisted person in litigation with an unsuccessful assisted person may be reimbursed for part of his costs from the legal aid fund.
The general background is that there are countless disputes in society of which only a very few come in to court. They come into court because one of the parties to the dispute has either resisted a claim that is rightly made or wrongly asserted a claim. When that situation arises, in other words when a disputant is forced into court to vindicate his rights, it inevitably causes loss. Costs are incurred. The normal rule, as my noble and learned friend has just said—he called it the equitable rule—is that costs will then follow the event. The successful party will get his costs, partly at any rate, from the unsuccessful party. That is not an absolute rule. There are exceptions with which your Lordships will not be concerned and there is a general discretion in the court as to costs.
The situation which your Lordships are considering is where a claim has been wrongly financed by a legal aid body so that a successful defendant, as the clause now stands (although there is an amendment in that respect), has been forced wrongly into litigating in order to vindicate his right and has suffered loss. The question is who should bear that loss: the innocent unassisted party who has suffered loss through no fault of his own or the public body which has financed an unsuccessful claim against him?
In fact it is very much narrower than that because your Lordships will see in subsection (4)(a) that costs may only be made if they are made apart from the legal aid scheme. Moreover, if your Lordships read subsection (6) it refers only to party and party costs. There are three, possibly four, levels of costs which are recoverable and party and party costs are the lowest. Thus it is only a very small amount of the loss that is suffered by the unassisted party through a
1256
public fund having mistakenly financed an action against him for which he can be reimbursed.
I said "wrongly financed". I ought to make it clear that legal aid bodies make thousands of decisions each year and there are very few mistaken decisions and very few complaints. They obviously make mistakes, just as Ministers, judges, counsel and solicitors make mistakes, because they are human beings. Part of the drawback of being a human being is that one is fallible. So it is really only a question of where justice lies.
The crucial test is in subsection (4)(c). The court may only order the legal fund which has financed wrongly an action to compensate in part the unassisted successful party if it is just and equitable for that to be done. As I ventured to say at Committee stage that should really be an end of the matter. If it is just, he should be reimbursed, at any rate to the limited extent permitted by the rest of the clause. If it is equitable, he should be reimbursed. But over and above that there is the test in paragraph (b) that he is not to be reimbursed, notwithstanding that it is just and equitable that he should be, unless he can show that he has suffered "severe financial hardship". That is an extremely vague test and perhaps I may say from personal experience that it is an extremely difficult test to apply. But what is the situation? It means that he cannot be compensated because he has not suffered severe financial hardship, notwithstanding that it is just that he should be compensated. He cannot be compensated, notwithstanding that it is equitable that he should be.
The Bill is part of the machinery of justice. This is a piece of ex hypothesi injustice because it is something that imposes a test that goes beyond justice and beyond equity. It can only be justified if it be the case that to sacrifice that additional criterion is more than can be afforded. I ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack if he will say what the estimate of cost is, because he must have inquired about that. The costs could be very high indeed that would justify what is an injustice and an inequity as regards a Bill which is designed to promote justice and equity. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has said, unless subsection (4)(b) is excised there is, on the face of the Bill, an injustice and an inequity because it follows that the court is deprived of the power to do justice or to do equity unless a further condition "severe financial hardship" is established. It cannot be mere financial hardship; it must be severe financial hardship. Therefore a person who cannot prove that, but perhaps can prove only financial hardship, leaves with an injustice and an inequity forced upon him by the statute. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning gave your Lordships an example of such a case during the Committee stage.
A point to be borne in mind is that as a result of the proposals in the Bill a defendant who is not legally assisted will have the opportunity of making representations as to why a certificate should not be granted. If he makes those representations and fails,

1257
and he succeeds in court on the basis of his representations ex hypothesi unsuccessful before the committee, then it is a gross injustice and inequity that he should be left suffering hardship.
There is a further point. No doubt this will involve the Exchequer in expense. If the demands on the public purse are too great, no doubt that will be an end of the matter. However, a great deal of the wasted money in the legal aid system is the result of unnecessary certificates being granted. If the legal aid committees know that one of the consequences of not listening attentively and sensibly to representations made by the non-legally aided party as to why a certificate should not be granted results in a loss occurring on the fund, not only on appeal but at first instance, greater care may be taken in the grant of the certificates and as a result a great deal of money could be saved. Although on the face of the matter this provision may raise a charge on public funds, in the long run it may not be anything like as significant as might be thought.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have doubts as to whether it would be wise to leave out paragraph (b) because one might have a successful, unassisted party in the proceedings who happened to be a very rich man. The costs in which he might be involved would, in relation to the circumstances, be a fairly small matter. In those circumstances it is difficult to understand why public funds should bear the cost.
However, I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale that the test of severe hardship which is imposed will present difficulties in judicial interpretation. I do not want to anticipate Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, but I believe that when we discuss them we shall find a sensible solution in regard to this matter.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I also wish to support the amendment. The argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in Committee was that the problems of the unassisted party who succeeds against a legally aided litigant should diminish in numerical terms with the power to be given by the Bill. That would enable the unassisted potential opponent to make representations to the board at the stage when the granting of legal aid is being considered. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has illustrated, that seems to be a two-edged argument. If the board rejects the view of the unassisted party and grants legal aid to someone who then goes on to fail before the court, in the face of the opposition of the potential opponent, the unassisted opponent must have an additional grievance under the proposed system. His grievance can only be increased if he is told that although he has suffered hardship he can have no redress against the legal aid authorities because he cannot demonstrate that his hardship is sufficiently severe.
The necessary step forward might simply be the removal of the word "severe", as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has suggested. That has not been introduced into the Bill as a new issue but it has existed under previous legislation. However, as this Bill is meant to look to the future, it may now be
1258
appropriate to take the opportunity to remove the word "severe", if nothing else.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not think that this amendment is the right one. My noble friend mentioned the case of the unassisted rich litigant but there are also many cases where the amendment would be of benefit to those who are fully supported by insurance companies. This is not the amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, moved in Committee. That amendment excluded the benefit of change from the unassisted plaintiff. I think that there is a case for benefiting the unassisted defendant who is successful. I hope that when we reach Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 we shall find a solution which is acceptable to your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the position which I have described has obtained in the legal aid system since its inception. The three words contained in the phrase "severe financial hardship" are reasonably common. The question of their application to particular circumstances is a matter for judges; but judges are accustomed to making decisions, applying simple words to a variety of circumstances. In this case they have the additional provision that:
"no appeal shall lie against an order under this section, or against a refusal to make such an order, except on a point of law".
That is to say, it is recognised that there is an element of judgment in applying the phrase to any particular situation, and it is one of which the judges are perfectly capable.
The legal aid system is designed to help people who would otherwise be unable to litigate because of shortage of funds to raise litigation. Many of those against whom litigation is raised are financial institutions of considerable strength. Insurance companies have been mentioned; the state is a litigant on occasions; and many corporations are the defendants in litigation.
When the legal aid system was set up it was thought reasonable that where a person could show that he suffered severe financial hardship by a case being allowed to proceed against him, he, then succeeding, should be entitled to recover the costs at public expense, recognising severe financial hardship. However, where a litigation was conducted at public expense against someone who was not thereby occasioned severe financial hardship, it was reasonable that the expenses, at first instance, should fall where they had originally fallen.
The legal aid fund, the Law Society at present, and the Legal Aid Board in due course, require to ascertain whether the application or legal aid satisfies the merits test; that is to say, whether it is reasonable to litigate on the basis of the matters which the plaintiff can put forward. There is a merits test at that stage. The litigation is not supposed to be started without reasonable cause. That does not mean that the litigation will necessarily be successful, but it must be reasonably started. The mere fact that the litigation failed does not show that the legal aid committee made a mistake any more than an

1259
acquittal shows that a prosecution should never have been brought. The two are quite different. As I say, the mere fact that the litigation has failed does not show that it was not a reasonable matter for the public to fund through the legal aid fund. That is the basis of this justice which has been set up for some time.
It is said—and I appreciate the way in which it is put by my noble and learned friends Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Ackner—that this involves an element of injustice. Justice is a practical concept, and the question is whether it is necessary in order to achieve practical justice that every unassisted litigant who happens to succeed against a publicly-funded litigant should be entitled to his costs just as if the public funds were not available and involved at all. The fact that it is a public function which is being served appears to me, as it appeared to those who set up the scheme orginally, to justify practical justice in recognising severe financial hardship where it is occasioned by the funding of the litigation and not otherwise. So far as concerns the first instance, at the higher levels if the legal aid fund goes on to fund someone to an appeal, and possibly a further appeal, then it is quite reasonable that the unassisted litigant should be entitled to the ordinary basis of costs for those further steps. However, that appears to me to do practical justice for the first step reasonably taken.
I am not able to estimate precisely what the cost will be to give effect to the amendments, but I believe it is quite likely to be substantial. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner suggests that in practical terms it may not make much difference because it will impose a new sanction on the legal aid authorities. As I said already, the fact that the case is ultimately unsuccessful is not the test of whether the legal aid authorities were right to grant legal aid in the first place. I think your Lordships would be slow to approve anything which would have the effect of leading the legal aid fund to refuse to grant applications reasonably made on the footing that in their judgment, without hearing the whole case as a judge would, the case is not likely ultimately to be successful. Therefore, the sanction might achieve more in the way of ultimate injustice than at first sight appears. I invite your Lordships to adhere to the practical balance of practical justice which obtains at present and I am not personally aware of very many occasions where it has resulted in practical injustice.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I omitted to say what I should have said. I tabled this amendment in a starred form because it was only yesterday evening that I learned that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, (who I had understood was going to table a similar amendment) was ill. It is for the same reason that I put my name to the amendments which stood in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning because he unfortunately is unwell and has been advised not to come here this week. I have known him for over 50 years and it is the first time I have ever known him to take advice; but your Lordships will think that he is very wise in having done so, and I know would wish a message of sympathy to go to him and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, wishing them a rapid recovery.
1260
Perhaps I may turn to the argument of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. With great respect, he is mistaken in saying that this has been in the legal aid scheme from the beginning. It came into the legal aid scheme as a result of a notorious case called Auten v. Rayner, which was conducted by a legally aided plaintiff against a gentleman who was by no means wealthy but above the legally-aided limit. It went on for day after day, and by the end of the case the defendant, although successful, was ruined. As a result, an amendment was brought in which was in this form that in the first instance for the unassisted party you had to show severe hardship but in the Court of Appeal you merely had to show hardship. That has disappeared. The Lord Chancellor says that it is right that costs should follow the normal course in the Court of Appeal; and so they should, even though the respondent may be amply insured. He may be a millionaire but costs follow the event there; and so they should at first instance, unless your Lordships are going to countenance what is prima facie—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not gainsay this—unjust and inequitable. I do not yield to the arguments of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack; but I confess that I yield to his lobby potential and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 34. leave out ("in the case of costs of proceedings'") and insert ("as respects the costs incurred").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9. line 35. leave out ("those proceedings were instituted by the assisted party and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I put my name to this and the other amendments in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning at his request when he telephoned me yesterday with the news that he could not be here today. I told him that I certainly would do so, and that I would certainly lay them before your Lordships although I was not completely convinced as to the validity of all of them. However, of this I am entirely convinced. That means that a defendant shall be put in the same position as a plaintiff.
Normally it is the legal aid fund which finances an action at the instance of a plaintiff, but it may not do so; it may be an unassisted plaintiff and the legal aid fund finances the defence. It has made a mistake. It has made a mistake because legal aid committees are composed, even when they are applying the merits test, of fallible human beings. I remember one case where the legal aid area committee was furnished with counsel's opinion that an appeal to the Divisional Court was likely to succeed on five grounds but was almost certain to succeed, as it did, on one of them. In fact, it succeeded on all five.
The legal aid committee, applying the merits test and assisted in every way that it can be assisted, is yet composed of fallible human beings. Therefore, it can

1261
make a mistake in wrongly financing a plaintiff or wrongly financing a defendant. In my respectful submission, the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, to which I have put my name, should commend itself to your Lordships.
There is one other thing I should have said in relation to the earlier amendment. What I said (and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's answer) relates equally to Amendment No. 33. This relates equally to Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have some doubts about Amendment No. 18, but on balance the words,
"those proceedings were instituted by the assisted party and",
should remain in the paragraph. It means therefore that this paragraph only applies to successful unassisted defendants.
I have great sympathy, as your Lordships will have understood from what I said earlier, with Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. Apart from the question of judicial interpretation, to which I shall return in a moment, I think that for the successful unassisted defendant to have to prove severe hardship could, in many cases, be too harsh a test. The practical justice of the matter, if I may borrow that phrase, would surely be better met by using the expression "appreciable loss". One need not elaborate on that; I should have thought that it is plain from the use of the words themselves.
I come now to the question of judicial interpretation. Severe hardship is a matter of opinion where one judge may very much vary from another.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I have not yet moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. I moved Amendment No. 18.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I hope I have not wasted time. I understood that we were also discussing the other two amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. In that case, I must now sit down but hope to return to the point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall seek to deal with that point in due time. What I said about the earlier amendment applies also to this matter. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for correcting me. I believe I began with the phrase, "For a long time it has been part of the legal aid system", and then slipped into saying, "From the beginning". My noble and learned friend is right. I think that originally the balance was even worse and was improved in favour of unassisted persons by the amendment to which he referred.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine says that originally there was no balance. It is a balance between public desire to help the needy and the possible consequences of that for other people who are not quite so needy. As I said, the same situation applies in this amendment. The idea is that the initiative requires to be taken by the assisted person
1262
because the severe hardship has, in effect, been caused by the fact that a litigation has been started with public support, causing that severe hardship. If the severe financial hardship has not been caused in that way, there is even less of a case for making the award. For those reasons, in my view this amendment should not be supported.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, with that explanation, my noble and learned friend certainly has not explained why there should be any difference between a plaintiff caused severe financial hardship and a defendant caused severe financial hardship. That is the crux of the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. That has not been explained. However, once again I yield for the same reasons I did previously and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9. line 36, leave out ("severe") and insert ("appreciable").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment can conveniently be taken with Amendment No. 20. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning wanted to replace the words "severe financial hardship" with the words "appreciable loss". There are two comments to make on that. First, this proposal commends itself to so great a lawyer as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is straining at the leash—in fact, he has already burst from the leash!—in order to speak in favour of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may strain at the leash without leaving my kennel, I should like to say that it seems to me that judges are going to find it difficult in many cases to decide whether there has been severe financial hardship. In any event, I think it is too stringent a test. However, the expression "appreciable financial loss' would enable the justice of the case to be met in most circumstances that one could imagine.
I feel that there is a great deal to commend these two amendments. The same point arises on Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 and perhaps we may be allowed to refer to those in order to save time and the need to repeat the arguments that we are using now. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will regard with sympathy what has been said on Amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord. We have established that the balance to which my noble and learned friend referred dates back to 1964 and the Legal Aid Act of that year. Since that time litigation funded by the state has greatly increased as also has the wealth of the nation. It is high time that serious thought was given to shifting the balance a little towards the unassisted defendant who stands to suffer gravely from the law as it is at the moment.

1263
Perhaps I may declare an interest. If I were an unassisted defendant not backed by an insurance company, almost certainly I should have to settle at almost any price if I felt that the state was against me and there was any doubt about my case. My noble and learned friend, in summing up an earlier debate, said that he was not aware of many cases where injustice has been caused in respect of the law as it stands. The reason for that may be that many people cannot afford to litigate with the legally-aided plaintiff. The only comment I wish to make on the actual wording of the two amendments is that they seem to me to present no difficulties. Perhaps it would give greater grounds to the unassisted defendant if in Amendment No. 20 "hardship" was left in and the words "or loss" were inserted after the word "hardship".
Lord Meston: My Lords, I agree with those last words. Speaking for myself, any loss is appreciable. The hardship caused by the present law arises from the use of the word "severe" and the difficulty in proving severe hardship as distinct from ordinary hardship. If the word "severe" was removed a great deal of the injustice which has been talked about would be eradicated.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with regard to the last point made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, I appreciate that if one has limited resources and is faced by the state either in the form of a legally-aided litigant or otherwise, there is a certain amount of difficulty in resisting if one can settle reasonably within one's means. If the cost is too high then perhaps it does not matter anyway. If one can settle within one's reasonable means it is obviously a wise precaution. I am not at all clear how this particular amendment, if it were given effect, would alter that situation because one has to win a case before it applies. Therefore it is necessary to fight it out. I believe that the same problem would still arise.
The result of Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would be to insert the words "appreciable loss". That is just another way of saying that if the defendant succeeds he will always get his costs because, subject to the other conditions, in the ordinary course of events the costs will be not insignificant if the litigation is of any size at all. He will not have any benefit from the costs and therefore there will be appreciable loss. If one is to have a test which is as easy to pass as that, it is as well not to have a test at all.
At present the situation is one in which hardship has to be shown and it must be hardship of a degree sufficient to qualify as "severe" in the opinion of the particular judge. That is a matter for the judge who tries a particular case and it is a very effective way of preventing injustice. Severe financial hardship would amount to an injustice to the successful defendant, but something less than that, in reasonable terms, would not amount to such an injustice that the state should be compelled to contribute.
As far as I can see, if this clause is amended in accordance with Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, it will
1264
have the result that all the major litigants to whom I have referred: namely, insurance companies, the state, and the like, would all be entitled to costs out of public funds if they managed to succeed against an assisted plaintiff. That cannot be a good balance to strike at this time. I am perfectly content that one should look again at the balance. I believe that the balance that was struck in the light of the case to which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred is a good one. It was struck in the light of particular circumstances and I humbly suggest to your Lordships that we cannot improve on it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for reminding me that in moving Amendment No. 19 and speaking to Amendment No. 20 I was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37.
Once again, I am completely demoralised by the lobby power behind the argument of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 39. leave out ("those") and insert ("the").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Scope of this Part]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert ("representation under this Part shall he available to any person to and in accordance with sections 14 and 15 ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment as one of those that follow the technical necessities arising out of the amendment made to Clause 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Availability of, and payment for, representation under this Part]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 15, at end insert ("and, except in an emergency, the other side has been given a fair opportunity of being heard.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is yet another amendment that I move at the request of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. It gives the right of hearing to the other party (the party other than one applying for legal aid or assistance) when the merits are considered. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has already referred to the advantage of that, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning wants to see it on the face of the primary legislation. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as has already been said, the intention is to introduce a system under which a person against whom action is proposed to be raised, assisted by public funds, will have an opportunity to make representations before a decision is taken in the ordinary case to grant the application. That was announced by the Government in the White Paper. The intention is to alter the present regulations to give effect to that.
The idea is that the opposing party should be able to bring any relevant information to the attention of the legal aid authorities before a decision on the application is made. I am not at all certain at this juncture that it would be wise to make provision for a hearing. The ordinary circumstance would be that the representations would be considered by the legal aid authorities at the time they were considering whether or not to grant the application. There is no intention that the trial of the case should take place in the legal aid office before proceedings start. The intention is to help the legal aid authorities to check any information they have in relation to the party's means, because sometimes representations may have some bearing on that; and also to bring attention to any particular problem that may arise on the merits test in the applicant's case.
In answering the amendment, I suggest that the matter is one best dealt with in regulations and that the particular conditions to be attached to the representations ought to be capable of alteration in the light of experience. This system has worked satisfactorily north of the Tweed for quite a long time, and I think there is a reasonable prospect therefore that it may function equally satisfactorily on this side of that border. I suggest that while considerations of that nature are relevant to such proposals, they are best dealt with by regulations.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I must have sounded somewhat ungracious when I withdrew the previous amendment which I had moved. However, in relation to this amendment, I am wholly convinced by what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has just said. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding any provision in this Act or regulations, a person or group of persons who require representation to rebut the development risks defence under section 4(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 shall be granted representation without regard to their financial resources.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not a lawyer, and I rise with considerable diffidence to move the amendment, especially after re-reading the debate in Committee on the amendment which dealt with "class actions"; but this amendment is a good deal narrower and more specific than that one. If it would help and remove any doubt, I would not regard it as essential to retain the reference in the amendment to a "group of persons".
I like to persuade myself that it would not be unfair to claim that the amendment could assist the
1266
Government to carry out the policies which they themselves enunciated during the passage of the Consumer Protection Bill, which I think is due to come into force next month. Section 4(1)(e) of the Act in the form in which it unhappily eventually emerged, provides that it shall be a defence to an action for injuries caused by a defective product if the producer can show that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of similar products could be expected to have discovered the defect.
The Government justified the provision for that special defence largely on the ground that it was required in the public interest to ensure that enterprise and initiative were not stifled. But they went on to say, time and again, that the defence could rarely be successfully invoked.
The Government explained that the reversal of the burden of proof would make it difficult for any producer to establish that defence. They spelt out the various obstacles which any such attempt would encounter. It was abundantly clear from what the Government said that if a producer set about invoking such a defence he would be likely to be put to a great deal of trouble and expense in mounting the array of technical and expert evidence which would be required and in meeting the requirements, for example, of demonstrating that no other producers of such products had the knowledge available to them at that time. What is to happen if, in practice, the producer decides to raise that defence? Is the plaintiff not at risk of being put in an impossible position? Hardly any individual, however rich, could hope to be able to parade all the scientific and other expert evidence which would be necessary to rebut the defence. Moreover, the plaintiff would be likely to be faced with an enormous bill if he lost. Is there not a real danger that the special defence of "development risks" could in practice succeed by default, although we were assured that it could rarely, if ever, hope to succeed on the merits?
The amendment suggests that if the defence of "development risk" were raised, it is in the public interest that the issue should be properly argued in court; that can be done only if public funds stand behind the plaintiff. It would be totally unsatisfactory if everything should turn on whether the plaintiff happened to come within the limits for legal aid. This would not be the first time that provision was made for legal aid from public funds without a means test, as I understand it. Section 170 of the Housing Act 1985 seems to empower the Secretary of State to do just that in connection with the right to buy.
I do not think that an amendment on the lines that I suggest would necessarily cost a lot of money. If it were known that adequate resources were going to be available to a plaintiff to resist this special defence, the chances are that the defence would be raised only rarely and only after the most careful thought. If the defence was nevertheless pursued, it seems to me right that the issue should be properly argued out. I do not think the Government would quarrel with the view that it is in the public interest to discover why a dangerous product has been put on the market. If they were right in what they said, it would be pretty

1267
rare for the defence to succeed with the legal aid fund left holding the bill.
One other point arises. Under the EC directive put into force by the Consumer Protection Act, in 10 years' time it would fall to be considered whether the defence of development risks should continue at all. Under the directive it is optional at present. This country will be in no position to make a sensible contribution to the debate on the issue unless in the meantime steps have been taken to ensure that when this special defence is raised it is properly threshed out in court and we all know what is involved. I am only too conscious of the difficulties in the path that I am treading. However, I am convinced that there is a real problem here and that if we do not tackle it in one way or another there is trouble ahead. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with diffidence, I support the amendment. We tend to think of the development risk defence mainly in connection with class actions like thalidomide cases, Opren cases and suchlike. However, this can deal with the individual case such as the old case of Davies v. The New Merton Board Mills Ltd. where somebody got something in his eye from a faulty chisel. That type of case could just as easily come up where a person outwith the legal aid levels would suddenly be met with a defence needing expert evidence on the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of his injury or at the time of the manufacture of the article and evidence of what the producer of similar products would be expected to know. That would be a very expensive defence to have to meet. If justice is to be done, it appears that that defence would require to be met and not merely led unchallenged. The cost of meeting it, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has described, should be met by the state in such a case.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the argument put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Morton of Shuna, suggests to my mind that it is based on the idea that where there is open a rather costly line of defence the plaintiff should be entitled to legal aid.
It is true that the point addressed here arises under the recent statute shortly to come into force. I suppose that there might have been a case for saying in that Act that because of some special situation envisaged there, Parliament should have provided the same right they gave to the Secretary of State in respect of the right to buy. The situation in respect of the right to buy is rather a special one. It depends upon the statutory background in question and the feeling that it might not be worthwhile a tenant taking on the might of a local authority. However, it might be in the interests of the general body of tenants that litigation should be funded. The Secretary of State was empowered in that situation to mount such an attack, such as litigation. In the present case, on the basis of the amendments which have been produced, there is no necessary implication that anyone will benefit from this case but the plaintiff.
1268
I can well see that if a plaintiff were faced with this sort of defence and had more money than made him eligible for legal aid, he would like to have this amendment. Obviously, a generously-minded person would be glad if he had it. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to persuade the person seeking to establish a complicated medical negligence claim for a very serious injury that he was being fairly dealt with if he did not get legal aid on the same basis. Thus, as far as I am able to judge, there is nothing special about this type of case which should bring it out of the ordinary rules with regard to legal aid.
I undertook at the Committee stage to look at the class action and there is an amendment later which might raise that more specifically. Perhaps it would be then that I ought to say what I have to say about it. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, in moving this amendment, it is not necessarily a class action at all. Although it may be expressed to include a group of persons, the argument would apply equally to a single person affected by this development risks defence.
I find it difficult therefore to justify making a special case of this situation against the general background to which I have referred. While I understand perfectly the motivation in putting forward the amendment, I feel that it would not be fair to make this innovation in the legal aid system.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said before coming to any conclusion. I would simply make the point that this is a special defence in a very special sense in that there is this general provision in the Consumer Protection Act to rule out the defence of negligence. Here is a way left open for a defence which could mean that we would have another thalidomide case.
We argued at the time that it was a mistake to have the defence in the Act at all, and I still remain of that view. I hope that within the next decade it will go, but having said that, I should like to consider what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Reimbursement of Board by contributions and out of costs or property recovered]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 40, leave out ("amount of the").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment falls to be considered along with Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear the two distinct elements of contribution which we wish to provide for: the possibility of a lump sum or capital contribution and a payment which runs for a period. As was made clear in the White Paper of the Government, the intention was that the obligation to pay on this income basis should continue for as long as the case might last.
The primary provision in these amendments, particularly in Amendment No. 29, would allow contributions of the income kind, the periodical payments, to run for the whole period of the case. On

1269
Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and other noble Lords drew attention to the possibility that in some situations that might not be fair. For example, if the plaintiff's case were stayed to enable some test case to be disposed of, where nothing was really happening it might be unfair that the periodical payment should then continue. On the other hand, there is always a slight advantage in the plaintiff himself having an incentive for the case to be brought to some conclusion. Therefore, there is some force in allowing payments for the period of the case in the general situation.
The amendment allows the regulations to make the payments of the periodical kind payable during the course of the case or any shorter period. I may not need to remind the House that the total to be paid is in no case to exceed the cost of litigation to the legal aid fund, so there is no question of the legal aid fund making any sort of profit out of its plaintiffs. The object is rather to make as unobtrusively and with as little hardship as possible arrangements for the plaintiffs to contribute to the cost of the legal aid fund. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29:
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("such as is").
Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("and may take the form of periodical payments or a lump sum or both").
Page 11, line 43, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The contribution required of a person may, in the case of periodical payments, be made payable by reference to the period during which he is represented under this Part or any shorter period and, in the case of a lump sum, be made payable by instalments.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Any regulation made for the purposes of section 14 or section 15 shall not come into force unless or until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain why it has been decided not to cover these regulations by the necessity for affirmative resolutions in view of the fact that they appear to affect matters fundamental to the nature of representation available and the personal cost. Will the noble and learned Lord explain why he has not extended the embrace of the affirmative resolution to these regulations?
The Lord Chancellor: These regulations on financial eligibility and criteria for determining whether it is more appropriate for the applicant to be given assistance by way of representation rather than civil legal aid for the amount of contributions and in respect of the statutory charge have been covered by the ordinary procedure in the past. The regulations on that sort of matter are very largely self-explanatory, and to bring the matter to the House in order that an explanation be given affirming the reason for them would be wasting your Lordships'
1270
time, I venture to think. That is the reason I did not apply the affirmative procedure to this group of regulations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not also the case that these regulations will not create any rights for individuals? They are the administrative machinery for asserting rights that have been granted elsewhere.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of the explanations which have been given, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Costs of successful unassisted parties]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 15, after ("section") insert ("in respect of any costs").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is a mirror of the amendment made in respect of Clause 12, to which I have spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 18, leave out ("in the case of costs of proceedings") and insert ("as respects the costs incurred").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("those") and insert ("the").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is one to which I have already spoken in respect of Clause 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Scope of this Part]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
("and representation under this Part shall be available to any person subject to and in accordance with sections 20, 21, 22 and 23.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 is a technical amendment consequent upon the amendment to Clause 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Availability of representation under this Part]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 16, line 23, at end insert—
("The factors to be taken into account by the competent authority in determining whether it is in the interests of justice that representation be granted in any case shall include the following—

(a) where there is an appreciable risk that in the event of conviction, the defendant would lose his liberty or suffer serious damage to his livelihood or reputation;

(b) that the charge raises a question of law which may be in dispute and which goes to the merits of the charge;

(c) where the accused would have difficulty in following the proceedings and stating his own case because of his inadequate knowledge of English, mental or physical disability or illness, age, or other infirmity;

1271

(d) where the accused would have difficulty without professional assistance in carrying out pre-trial preparation (for example, the tracing and interviewing of witnesses) or in dealing with other matters of such nature as render professional assistance desirable; or where there is a need for professional examination-in-chief or cross-examination of witnesses or a need for professional care in the preparation of a plea in mitigation;

(e)When legal representation is desirable in the interest of a witness, for example, in the cases involving sexual offences or offences of violence, or where cross-examination by the accused in person would cause unreasonable stress or suffering to the witness in question.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to embody in primary legislation the criteria for the granting of criminal legal aid. The amendment is in the form of what have been known for a very long time as the Widgery criteria for the granting of criminal legal aid. The form embodied in the amendment includes the revisions suggested by the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee in its 34th Annual Report, although without the word "substantial" which qualified the words "question of law" in Ground B.
The criteria are in somewhat similar form in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. They have proved of value as guidance to courts having to administer criminal legal aid, and they have stood the test of time well. They are well known to your Lordships and to all who are involved in criminal proceedings. In dealing with a well-known and familiar matter, it suffices for me to move the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I feel that the difficulty with the amendment, especially in relation to the expressio unins rule, is as follows. While those are the important and most likely factors to arise, by presenting them in this way instead of leaving the matter as one of open discretion, there is a risk that if any other factors are applicable to a particular case, it may he that, because they are not expressly mentioned in the statute, they will be considered to be unimportant and will not be given as much weight or inadequate weight. I should have thought that it might be better when applying the merits test to leave the matter open to discretion and the light of previous experience.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Bill as it stands creates as the basis on which representation should be granted in this part of the Bill:
"where it appears to the competent authority to he desirable to do so in the interests of justice".
That phrase has the advantage of brevity and, I would submit, of clarity. We all know what justice is, or at least we certainly think we do.
The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, gave a very helpful exposition of those words, and the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord draws quite heavily on that formulation. As the noble and learned Lord reminded me when we were considering this matter in Committee, these criteria are expressly adopted in the corresponding legislation for Scotland which your Lordships recently passed.
However, it is worth mentioning that in the Scottish legislation, as I understand it, there is a provision for alteration of the criteria by statutory
1272
instrument. It was appreciated by your Lordships when passing the Scottish legislation that, excellent though those criteria were, they were not perhaps as sacrosanct as the laws of the Medes and Persians and that experience might show that those criteria could be improved upon.
If I were to opt for the interests of clarity and permanence, I think that the Bill as it stands would perhaps be the most satisfactory way forward. However, I can see that there may be occasions on which some help should be given to the competent authorities by expansion of the clause. Therefore, I am inclined to think that it might be reasonable to include those criteria. I think that it would have to be with the power to amend on the lines of the Scottish legislation.
If that course commends itself to the noble and learned Lord, I certainly undertake to consider it very favourably with a view to bringing forward a government amendment at Third Reading. As I say, I am not absolutely convinced; on the other hand, we are contemplating this being done in the future by the Legal Aid Board and by officers on its behalf and I can see that it may have merit. Mere uniformity with Scotland might not be an end in itself, but I can see powerful arguments for saying that what was good in that case is good here.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, uniformity with Scotland may not be an end in itself but to some extent it is inherently desirable. The reservation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that these factors being mandatory might be thought to be exhaustive could certainly be dealt with by some expression such as "which are not exhaustive". As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated, he would wish to retain the flexibility to alter these mandatory factors; that is to say, they might he added to subtracted from or modified by statutory instrument. For myself, that appears to be entirely sensible. The basic purpose of some such provision as this is to promote consistency of practice, which, since we are talking of justice, is no doubt an aim of justice.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in response to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the purpose of publishing the criteria was the hope of ensuring consistency in decision making on criminal legal aid applications. They have proved useful. But I respectfully agree with the propositions that have been made that it is clearly desirable that machinery should be available to alter the criteria if experience proves it necessary.
My noble friend Lord Morton has drawn my attention to the provision in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act which provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations made under the section vary the factors listed, which are somewhat similar to those on my amendment, by amending factors in the list, or by adding new factors to the list. I would be content if such an addition were to be made at the next stage of proceedings. In those circumstances, on the assumption that the criteria will be included, but subject to that additional proviso, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 43:
Page 17, line 26, leave out ("may provide") and insert ("shall provide in prescribed circumstances").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the previous amendment, which was withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Representation in care proceedings: scope and competent authorities]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert ("to any person subject to and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 is an amendment to which I have spoken a little time ago. It is one of the amendments consequential upon the amendment to Clause 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  FOOD IRRADIATION: GENERAL PROHIBITION
  FOOD IRRADIATION: GENERAL PROHIBITION
  HOMOEOPATHIC PRODUCTS: DHSS CONSULTATIONS
  HOMOEOPATHIC PRODUCTS: DHSS CONSULTATIONS
  DEER: NIGHT SHOOTING LICENCES
  DEER: NIGHT SHOOTING LICENCES