Sitting of 29 February 1988

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

    European Regional Development Fund
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount of support which Wales has received from the European regional development fund during each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in the past 10 years.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Net commitments to Wales from the European regional development fund in the years 1978–87 amounted to £419·7 million; during the last five years the amount was £276·3 million.
    I will circulate annual figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Thomas: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the investment in the European regional development fund has been important to Wales in the years that he has mentioned. Does he agree that it becomes more important as we look to 1992 and beyond, in the context of the single market?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the views expressed in a report made to the Commission last year that the regional fund should be expanded, particularly to attract private capital investment into regions, to ensure that the objective of the fund — to cope with the problems arising out of the European market—can be met after 1992?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously the fund has had an important role to play, and obviously Wales has a considerable interest in the terms and conditions on which it will be operated. I am anxious that the views of the problems of Wales are fully understood by the Commission when its future plans are decided.
    Mr. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend assess the consequences for employment of these not inconsiderable grants?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously, they are substantial. Some of them are difficult to measure in employment terms, because they have an indirect effect on employment, but such amounts have had a considerable impact on the improving employment position in Wales.
    Mr. Rogers: As the Secretary of State well knows, the European funds are linked to what was the treaty of Paris in regard to the Coal and Steel Community, and are now subsumed within the European Community. In view of that link, does he believe that south Wales will be badly affected and that colliery closures will result from the recently announced electricity privatisation plans?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Given the growing importance of the European regional development fund in providing employment in Wales, will my right hon. Friend accept that great importance attaches to the composition of Welsh representation in the European Parliament, and that it is vital that we send there people who really intend to make a success of it?
    Mr. Walker: Yes.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: May I revert to the inadequate reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)? Is the Secretary of State making any calculations about how much European support will be necessary if the south Wales coalfield is forced to close down as a result of the implementation of the Government's proposals for the electricity supply industry? How real and how serious is his opposition to the proposals? Is he prepared to lay his job on the line, as was suggested in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph?
    Mr. Walker: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have had the privilege of being a member of Cabinets for most of the past 18 years. If the hon. Gentleman had ever had that privilege, he would understand that he could put forward whatever views he liked, and I am sure that they would be listened to with the enthusiasm and cordiality with which my views are always received.
    Following is the information:
    Net commitment to Wales from the European regional development fund was £17·1 million in 1978, £21·7 million in 1979, £32·5 million in 1980, £24·8 million in 1981, £43·7 million in 1982, £45·1 million in 1983, £63 million in 1984, £54·9 million in 1985, £59·5 million in 1986 and £53·8 million in 1987.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from district councils in Wales, and the Committee of Welsh District Councils, on the implementation of the poll tax in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that recent proposals which the Association of District Councils in Wales has put before the Government to spread the burden of the poll tax more evenly among the 37 Welsh districts are the only means by which the effect of the tax can be mitigated for the Welsh? Does he agree that his right hon. Friend's most welcome Valley initiative would be to accept the proposal and so ease the burden of this unjust, unfair and unwanted tax?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows very well, as he is on the Local Government Finance Bill Standing Committee with me, that the needs element of the grants

    633
    will take care of the differentiation between the different areas in Wales. As for the rest of his questions, I think that time will have to elapse.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on last week's excellent decision to remove caravan parks from community charge and make them non-domestic rated. This will be most welcome in Wales and will help the tourist industry.
    Mr. Grist: Indeed, and it proves that it is the Government who are the listening party, not others who make similar claims.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister and the Secretary of State promise to read carefully today's Daily Post, in which a feature article discusses aspects of the poll tax and says that the Duke of Westminster could be £8,000 a year better off, Lady Pilkington could be £2,000 a year better off and Lord Derby could be £7,000 a year better off? Is it not an immoral tax which enables that to happen when ordinary people must contend with increased prescription charges? Is it not time that the Government withdrew the Local Government Finance Bill?
    Mr. Grist: Not at all. The vast majority of people will benefit from the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the least well off will be able to benefit from rebates.
    Mr. Raffan: In view of the serious effect that the community charge could have on religious orders which have taken a vow of poverty and have no income of their own, will my hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that they are exempted?
    Will he also consider issuing an explanatory leaflet on the community charge to every household in Wales to counteract the lies in Labour's leaflet, which misleadingly states that if people do not register they will not be able to vote?
    Mr. Grist: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he will know that the Government are looking into the matter most sympathetically. As to the latter part of his question, I hope that my hon. Friend keeps up his good work in putting the right arguments.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the "listening Government" listening to the representations being made about sporting facilities, especially non-commercial sporting facilities, such as indoor squash and tennis courts? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will bring forward an amendment to give a statutory exemption to such facilities, bearing in mind that they are exempting commercial fish farms and open-air sporting facilities?
    Mr. Grist: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that that matter is being considered sympathetically.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the community charge does not come to pass there will have to be a general revaluation and that the valleys of south Wales will feel the greatest upward effect from it? Is that not a further special reason why we need the community charge as the only practical and fair reform?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is an ironic effect. A revaluation would often hit poorer areas rather surprisingly, not least because the areas which in 1973 had highly rated assets of garages and central heating, for example, have recently been overtaken by
    634
    much poorer areas which have recently had the same assets installed, so they would find that their rateable values rose fairly rapidly by comparison.

    NHS (Funding)
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet representatives of health authorities in Wales to discuss the funding of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I met health authority chairmen in November and discussed a range of funding issues. Revenue funding has increased by 9·1 per cent. for 1987–88 over 1986–87.
    My next meeting is likely to take place in June.
    Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State meets representatives from the Mid Glamorgan health authority, will he have anything to offer them to help meet their estimated £3·8 million shortfall during the coming financial year? Is he aware that one of the consequences of his cuts is a nursing shortage which is so severe that, in some geriatric hospitals in Mid Glamorgan, terminally ill patients are being left to face their final hours without any nursing care? Does he not think that we should do something about that?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the cash increase in revenue funding for Mid Glamorgan health authority this year of £10·5 million, or nearly 9 per cent., over the 1986–87 figure, and the growth in recurrent revenue resources from 1978–79 to date, which has increased by nearly 30 per cent.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Why is the Secretary of State not funding a single intensive care cot anywhere in Wales?
    Mr. Walker: From his interest in this subject, the hon. Gentleman knows about the improvement in care for young babies and that the improvement in the mortality rate has been substantial. I hope that that improvement will continue.
    Mr. Forth: In the light of improvements in the number of patients treated and the funding which my right hon. Friend has announced, and which is welcome in Wales, is he surprised that some health authorities claim that a crisis has overtaken them without any warning and that they have not done more to deal with the problems which they claim exist? Will he invite those same authorities to submit their positive plans for improvement of the Health Service as part of the review now being undertaken by the Government?
    Mr. Peter Walker: Financial budgeting and financial management reviews are taking place and they are extremely important. My hon. Friend mentioned the number of patients being treated, and that is considerable. The number of in-patients treated is 84,000 a year up on the number treated when we took office, and the number of out-patients treated is 76,000 a year up on the number treated when we took office.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State consider giving extra financial aid to the East Dyfed health authority so that it can build the second phase of Bronglais hospital at Aberystwyth?
    Mr. Walker: All such matters under the capital investment programme come up for discussion, and obviously they will be given proper consideration.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure the Secretary of State will recognise that we are discussing the future spending on health in Wales against a background, not just of shortages of nurses and doctors and the lowest number of hospital beds available since the Health Service was set up, but of unforgivable waiting lists. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, on the basis of his published spending plans for the next three years, he could spend £230 million more on health in Wales if he achieved only the average annual increase that was achieved under the last Labour Administration? [Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman laughs at that, may I put to him a more modest objective? May I point out to him that, astonishingly, he could spend £191 million more if only he—
    Mr. Forth: Is this a question?
    Mr. Williams: Yes it is. The hon. Gentleman is not a Welsh Member and he should let us ask Welsh questions in our own way.
    Does the Secretary of State not realise that he could be spending £191 million more if only he sustained a level achieved by his late, unlamented predecessor? Therefore, does he not appreciate that in Wales—
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: This is is not a question.
    Mr. Williams: Yes it is. I have asked a series of questions and I want answers.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. But please not too many questions.
    Mr. Williams: I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, are directing your comments at the Conservative Benches as well.
    Does the Secretary of State not recognise that in Welsh eyes it does not take much to do better than Nicholas Edwards, but it takes either sheer incompetence or wilful neglect to do worse?
    Mr. Walker: In the long history of shadow Secretaries of State for Wales there cannot have been a worse one than the present incumbent. I leave the right hon. Gentleman to explain how it was that, in the last year of the Labour Government of which he was a Minister and, therefore, had partial responsibility, waiting lists in Wales increased by more than in any other year in history. It is interesting that he said that there are now fewer beds available, but he did not mention that there are now 4,000 more nurses, many more doctors and many more patients being treated.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that consideration of future hospital plans in the counties of Wales involves adequate opportunities for public comment based on full information on (a) the impact on services to patients, (b) the relationship to community medical services and general practice and (c) detailed financial appraisals.
    Mr. Grist: This is already accepted policy.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he share my concern that the financial appraisal that was promised by the South Glamorgan health authority when it launched its plans last October is still not available? That appraisal was promised originally for December, and then for January. In the light of the
    636
    delay in providing that financial appraisal, it was promised that there would be an extended period for consultation. Will the Minister press the health authority to expedite the provision of that information, without which, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it is impossible to make sense of the health authority's recommendations?
    Mr. Grist: As far as I am aware, the consultation process is proceeding normally. If the hon. Gentleman has a point that he would like to make to me afterwards, I shall be willing to listen.
    Mr. Morgan: In relation to the problems of South Glamorgan, will the Minister comment on the severe shortage of cardiology facilities, which occasioned last week's extraordinary announcement that the health authority intended to spend more than £500,000 on contracting out operations to a private sector hospital? Will he comment on that issue, in the light of the fact that, before the 1983 general election, the former Secretary of State promised that cardiology facilities in South Glamorgan — intended to serve the whole of south Wales—would be doubled from their existing level and yet, six years later, that promise has still not been made good?
    Mr. Grist: I am a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman will not have a supplementary left for his question 21 on this very subject. It is worth pointing out that South Glamorgan was given £385,000 by the Department in the current year to conclude its programme of 600 operations. We shall wait until the year end to see how South Glamorgan achieves that.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: What would my hon. Friend's attitude be to proposals from specialist companies to build and run a new hospital on the waterfront in Cardiff—or, for that matter, anywhere else—so emulating the excellent success already achieved by the new kidney dialysis units in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: With interest, but clearly we would have to consider such a proposal when it arrived.
    Mr. Coleman: In light of the criticisms voiced about West Glamorgan health authority's proposals to re-site the Neath general hospital, will the Minister undertake to ensure that when representations are made to him regarding the siting of that hospital the fact that there has not been adequate public consultation is borne very much in mind?
    Mr. Grist: Clearly, all representations will be borne in mind, and the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter are well known.

    Agricultural Services
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to reorganise his Department's agricultural services, in particular in north and mid Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. I consider existing arrangements to be satisfactory for present purposes.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. However, I am sure he is aware that to keep the services at their present level—in north Wales at least—he needs to keep the Ruthin office, open. Employees at that office are very concerned about the future, bearing in

    637
    mind that financial input in new building is needed for that office to remain open and continue to provide a service in its area.
    Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make inquiries into who has been so enthusiastic in spreading rumours about the closure of the office. There are no plans to close the Ruthin office and it is a great pity that unfounded rumours continue despite the assurances that have been given.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State ensure that there are sufficient farm management advisers—the number will need to be increased—to tackle the financial crisis in Welsh family farms, and will he make extra provision for marketing schemes in Wales?
    Mr. Walker: Much can be done on the marketing side. Last Friday I had discussions with the WDA about how we could improve still further the marketing of various products from Wales.

    Occupational Health Care
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is planning any initiatives in the field of occupational health care.
    Mr. Grist: Initiatives in work place health care are undertaken on my right hon. Friend's behalf by the Welsh Health Promotion Authority.
    Mr. Griffiths: No doubt the Minister will be aware of the trade-union inspired scheme of heart health screening undertaken at RAF St. Athan, in the constituency of the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower). Several of my constituents were involved in that scheme. At £17 the screening is far cheaper than at a BUPA hospital, where it costs £100. Will the Minister consider supporting and extending such schemes across Wales, given that every year five out of every thousand employees die of a heart attack and 6,000 working days are lost at a cost of £200,000?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this extremely serious matter. We welcome any such initiatives, and I am glad to say that many employers take advantage of these Welsh heart programme schemes for the benefit of their working people. They include major companies such as Parke Davies, Texaco, British Airways, BICC Power Cables, British Gas (Wales) and the Polytechnic of Wales, and we should like involvement to be much more widespread.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members share the concern of the Welsh Health Promotion Authority about the proposed minor role of health education in the national curriculum? Surely my hon. Friend must agree that health education in schools is a wise investment and that prevention is preferable to and more cost effective than cure.
    Mr. Grist: Certainly, but that should be a part of the curriculum of life, which I hope all decent schools would teach.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware of the important high technology wound dressings made in my constituency? Will he assure the House that lack of resources will not prevent these dressings from being made available
    638
    on prescription and thus ameliorating the condition of a large number of people in my constituency and in Britain as a whole?
    Mr. Grist: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the dressing to which he referred is currently being tested.

    Bible Translation (400th Anniversary)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to mark the 400th anniversary of the translation of the Bible into Welsh.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Arrangements for numerous events throughout Wales to mark this most important anniversary are being coordinated by a committee chaired by the former Archbishop of Wales, the Right Reverend G. O. Williams. I am very pleased that the Welsh Office has been able to contribute £25,000 towards the costs of the committee.
    Mr. Butler: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. As the Welsh Office co-operated in the new translation of the Bible into Welsh, I trust that that translation will be better than the modern English versions of some liturgical matters.
    Mr. Roberts: I am bound to say that we have not contributed to the translation as such. However, I am sure that it will be a good one. We have given a grant of some £7,500 to the Welsh joint education committee to assist local education authorities with the cost of purchasing copies of the new translation.
    Mr. John: Would not the best practical way of celebratong Bishop Morgan's translation be the provision of a specific sum of money to provide textbooks in Welsh for A-level subjects such as economics?
    Mr. Roberts: That is certainly one of the many ways in which the translation of the Bible might be celebrated. I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that we give considerable support to the provision of textbooks and teaching materials.
    Dr. Thomas: Since it was an Act of Parliament of 1563 that ordered the Welsh bishops to produce a translation into Welsh, is it not about time that the Welsh Office responded to the consultation on the new Welsh language Act?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows that it was about 20 years after that Act before the Bible was translated into Welsh. We are consulting. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting various organisations concerned with the language in Wales. He has set up a group under my chairmanship and we are considering actively the next moves forward with regard to the promotion of the language. Of course, legislation may be one of the options before us.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were in employment in 1979 and at the latest available date in (a) Cardiff and (b) Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The latest available figure for numbers in employment in Wales is 1,021,000 at September 1987. The figure is derived from a Department

    639
    of Employment quarterly series of employees and the annual labour force survey of some 3,000 households in Wales. The corresponding figure for September 1979 was 1,160,000. There is no comparable information on employment in Cardiff.
    Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the numbers in employment are at least as valid as the statistics for unemployment? Can he assure me that the surveys to which he referred are sufficiently accurate and that there are now much better rates for finding jobs for the long-term unemployed and school leavers, which are two important areas?
    Mr. Walker: It is difficult to assess accurately. The figures are the result of a survey of 3,000 households, which has been the consistent survey over that period of years. On the matter of employment prospects, one of the most interesting figures is the enormous percentage increase that has taken place over the past 15 months in jobs advertised in the main Welsh newspapers.
    I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the fall in long-term unemployment in Wales over the past 12 months has been greater than in any other region of the country, as has the fall in Welsh youth unemployment.
    Mr. Anderson: Has the Secretary of State noticed that the earnings of those in employment in Wales have sunk to next to bottom of the league table in the United Kingdom because of the loss of high-wage steel and coal jobs and their replacement with low-wage, retail, part-time jobs? Is that worrying the Welsh Office and, if so, what is it doing about it? Is it content to see Wales as a low-wage economy?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I am delighted, as, no doubt, is the hon. Gentleman, about the substantial number of manufacturing firms that have been opening in Wales during the last period. There is no doubt that the trend, both in service and manufacturing industries, as many more firms come into Wales and many existing firms expand, is very good for earnings in Wales.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State tell us what prospects there are for my constituents, who have the highest male unemployment rate in Wales? There are no job vacancies registered at the job centre and closure of Lady Windsor colliery at Ynysybwl will push up male unemployment to 34 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the coal industry and the Government have some responsibility for the social consequences in my area when that closure occurs and unemployment reaches those drastic proportions?
    Mr. Walker: That is why I am pleased that the Welsh Development Agency will have much more money to spend on advance factories than before. I am pleased that the British Coal Enterprise company is continuing its activities and I know that it will concentrate its activities on those areas where pit closures are taking place.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the figures that he has just announced show that there were 122,000 more people at work in June 1979 than there were in June last year? Indeed, if one leaves out the self-employed, the figure was 170,000 more. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree—
    Mr. Walker: That figure included the self-employed.
    Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening. I gave a figure including the self-employed, and then gave a figure excluding the self-employed. Does he not agree that last week's Government figures show that between June 1983 and June 1987—the period covered by those figures—Wales was the only region in the United Kingdom to see a fall in the combined numbers of employed and self-employed?
    With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the unemployment figures. I note that he suddenly switched to the long-term unemployed. Will he confirm that the latest unemployment figures show that over the past 12 months Wales has seen its rate of change fall below that of the national average and trail behind that of five other regions of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman's desire always to depict—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question"]. He really should have the answers. I am delighted to say that the figures for youth unemployment and for long-term unemployment in Wales were the best of any region in the country in the past 12 months. [Interruption.] I am also delighted to say that 1987 was a year of record inward investment. The right hon. Gentleman is now becoming the one lonely voice in Wales who thinks that things are going badly for Wales.

    Water Rates
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the average domestic and industrial water rate bill for 1988–89 is attributable to (a) Welsh water authority financial targets having to be above break-even, (b) current cost accounting having to be used in place of long-term loans, (c) Welsh water having to bear the cost of paying the capital and interest repayments on the debt of £450 million and (d) the cost of raising beach bathing cleanliness standards to EEC limits.
    Mr. Grist: The assessment of water charges is a matter for the Welsh water authority. The authority estimates that the information asked for is as follows: (a) 16 per cent., (b) 15 per cent., (c) 24 per cent., and (d) 4 per cent.
    Mr. Flynn: The large sum, almost £20, added to the bills of every ratepayer in Wales as a result of the changes in domestic rate relief means that way over half the total cost of rate bills in Wales is due to Government policy. Will the Minister admit that the Government have imposed on Welsh water ratepayers a financial straitjacket that is entirely artificial and contrived? The figure has increased by more than twice the rate of inflation for many years now. When will the Government stop this long-running confidence trick against the payers of water rates in Wales and introduce a little fairness into the system?
    Mr. Grist: I believe that the Welsh water authority, as run at present, is a great success for the people of Wales. In the Welsh water authority we inherited, in many cases, ill-run facilities. Under the Government capital expenditure in the authority has risen by 33 per cent., compared with 11 per cent. under the Labour Government. If one considers why charges have sometimes increased, one finds that it is because that investment was ignored in the past.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Minister agree with the way in which the charges have been levied? There was a whopping increase of over 20 per cent. in standing charges,

    641
    as a result of which rich people have a proportionally lower increase, whereas poorer households have a 20 per cent. increase in their water charges this year.
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Welsh water authority is implementing as a policy the raising of the standing charge element until it represents 50 per cent. of the average bill, which reflects the fact that 90 per cent. of all costs are fixed.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that his answers are unsatisfactory? Does he realise, for instance, that in recent years charges in Newport have increased by 2,500 per cent. and that standing charges in Wales will soon be the highest in Britain—£36 compared with £6 in Yorkshire? Can the hon. Gentleman not see how this is damaging industry, let alone causing hardship for households? When will he get rid of this complacency and do something about this dreadful situation?
    Mr. Grist: I do not think that it is a matter of complacency that the Welsh water authority should be run economically and efficiently. That is precisely what the Government have been ensuring.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the financial targets could be reached with far lower charges for consumers if the Welsh water authority did not have an enormous historic debt around its neck? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the first thing that the Government will do with privatisation is to write off that debt? Why not do it now, so that consumers can get the benefits?
    Mr. Grist: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would understand that, if the charges, which are rising this year by 8 per cent., were cut the investment needs of the Welsh water authority would have to be met from further borrowing, which would raise the debt interest that the Welsh water authority has to pay in the future.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    Mr. Peter Walker: On 14 January 1988 the numbers of unemployed claimants in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 8,071, 23,451 and 148,477 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.
    Mr. Hughes: When will the Secretary of State realise that, despite all the trumpet-blowing and all the massaging of the statistics, these unemployment figures are still appalling? Although we welcome the setting up of the Patent Office in Newport, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that will be of little benefit overall if we lose the Passport Office? When will the right hon. Gentleman sort out the issue of premises for that valuable establishment?
    Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual optimistic and eager response. The unemployment figures for Wales are still exceedingly bad and great progress needs to be made. I know how the hon. Gentleman will rejoice in the knowledge that in the past 12 months there
    642
    has been the biggest fall in unemployment in Wales since the war, that the number of WDA lettings and number of inward investment firms have broken all-time records, and that not just the Patent Office but the Trustee Savings bank, with 2,000 jobs, have decided to go to Newport. In the interests of Newport, it is time that the hon. Gentleman cheered up.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that only when he can report to us and the nation that unemployment in Wales is the same level as in 1979, when the right hon. Gentleman and his Government took office, can we start waving our daffodils on St. David's day, which is tomorrow, and the day when we should have our debate instead of on Wednesday?
    Mr. Walker: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall not even be satisfied when unemployment reaches the 1979 figures. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Labour Government, unemployment increased substantially too.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great disappointment if the trend is the same as in 1979—inexorably upwards?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. There was an upward trend in unemployment. Unemployment in Wales has increased considerably, so I shall not be content with the 1979 figures with which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) would be satisfied.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for the Welsh farming industry of the decisions of the European Community Brussels summit regarding reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The stabiliser arrangements will have an impact on future trends in agriculture, but the impact on Welsh agriculture will be particularly affected by future negotiations.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable anxiety in Wales as a result of the recent Brussels agreement, particularly about the effect of stabilisers on the sheep sector? Will the Secretary of State now make it clear that he will not just consider representing, but will represent, the interests of our farmers in any future talks in Brussels, so that we can ensure that the sheepmeat regime is kept intact? Will he further agree with me that the European regional and social fund must be expanded to ensure that rural areas in Wales can benefit from diversification schemes?
    Mr. Walker: It is obvious that the future income for sheep and beef producers is of fundamental importance for Wales, so in all Community and national negotiations I shall play a full and eager part.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the considerable hardship facing Welsh farmers is due to the disparity in the green pound? When the next farm price review comes round, will he press his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to bear the special problems of Wales very much in mind?
    Mr. Peter Walker: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that it is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is considering carefully.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Rating Reform
    25. Mr. Allen: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what further representations the commissioners have received from (a) clergy and (b) tenants or leaseholders of the commissioners regarding the effects of the proposed poll tax.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners have no responsibility for the rates on properties let to tenants and leaseholders, and have received no representations from them. They continue to receive letters from clergy and church members about the loss of charitable relief on clergy accommodation and the financial implications which the Government's proposals pose for the Churches.
    Mr. Allen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is outrage among the clergy in Nottingham and among the other religious denominations which will be hit very hard by the poll tax? They will have none of the relief on rates currently available, and they will suffer for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there are likely to be concessions or exemptions for Anglican and other clergy? If there are, will he ask for them to be extended to old-age pensioners in my constituency, who will also suffer under the poll tax?
    Mr. Alison: I hope that the hon. Member will reassure at least the Anglican clergy whom he represents that it is unlikely that they will have to pay the community charge, any more than at present they pay rates. I am afraid that I cannot speak about the prospects for non-conformist clergy, but I have no doubt that the leaders of the non-conformist denominations will probably follow the pattern of the Church of England.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that where someone, cleric or otherwise, has the vote, uses local services and receives an income of some kind, it is quite right and proper that he should be asked to pay the same contribution to local government finances as any one else?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. There is no question but that the community charge will be paid. At present, under the existing rating system, clergy are internally exempted, in that the Church Commissioners pay the rates. Under the community charge, the likelihood is that it will be paid direct on their behalf.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the hon. Gentleman not have a word with his right lion. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Why does he not put it to him that he should stop bellyaching and knocking the Church and the bishops, and spend a bit more time meeting the needs of the farmers?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the poll tax. I do not think that that arises.
    Mr. Alison: If I have any communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State I shall find myself' answering questions about mangel-wurzels. I do not want to have to do that.

    Clergymen
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member of Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the number of clergymen in each of the past 10 years.
    Mr. Alison: The total number of full-time stipendiary clergymen at the end of 1978 was 11,409; at the end of 1987 there were 10,624. In 1987 the first women deacons were ordained, increasing the total of full-time stipendiary clergy to 11,063. I shall arrange for full details to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast bulk of the clergy work long and anti-social hours, often with little material reward? Does he agree also that one of the functions of the clergy—and, one hopes, of the bishops — further is to give a moral lead to their congregations? Does he further agree that, as one would not expect a bishop to sponsor adulterers for ordination, one can agree with those bishops who are refusing to sponsor practising homosexuals?
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners have no direct responsibility for ordination, selection or training. It is unlikely that an avowedly practising homosexual would be recommended for ordination or ordained by a bishop in the Church of England. It would scarcely be compatible with a clergyman's pastoral duties for the teaching of Christian personal ethics to recommend ordination.
    Following is the information:

    Full-time stipendiary clergymen

    Year

    Number at end of year

    1978

    11,409

    1979

    11,279

    1980

    11,053

    1981

    10,882

    1982

    10,789

    1983

    10,807

    1984

    10,749

    1985

    10,672

    1986

    10,649

    1987

    10,624

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Select Committees
    Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what will be the total spending by each Select Committee on overseas visits by the end of financial year 1987–88; and what submissions were made by each committee to justify their journey.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission): It is anticipated that the gross total outturn for 1987–88 for overseas travel will be the £290,865. I shall arrange for the total for each Committee to be published in the Official Report. The Commission has no knowledge of submissions made by individual Committees, as responsibility for deciding on such submissions within the budget determined by the Commission has been delegated to the Liaison Committee.
    Mr. Allen: I am not one of those hon. Members who feel that hon. Members should never travel abroad.

    645
    Anything that broadens the minds of hon. Members. particularly of Conservative Members, is welcome. However, will the hon. Gentleman concede that for hon. Members to go abroad with no programme of work, but just a desire to go abroad, brings an honourable system into disrepute? It may be seen as being part of a free-trips policy, with which I am sure hon. Members would not wish to be associated. In future, will the hon. Gentleman try to ensure that before hon. Members go abroad on Select Committee visits, the Select Committee has put forward a sensible programme of work to him, which should include the reasons for the visit?
    Mr. Beitha: Some time ago the Commission took the decision that these matters were best dealt with by the Liaison Committee, to which each Committee must defend its proposed visits. The House has seen fit to set up Select Committees and give them responsibilities, which include considering the overseas activities of Government Departments and the implications for the House of matters that take place overseas. It is now the job of the Liaison Committee to spend appropriately within a budget on that work.
    Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the opposite of broad-mindedness is narrow-mindedness? It would not be in the best interests of Parliament or the Government if the House were to adopt the policies that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Allen) has espoused. Insulting remarks have been directed towards the Chairmen of Committees, but those Chairmen go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that the work is correct for those who go overseas and that reports that the Committees make to the House are in the best interests of everyone.
    Mr. Beith: The Liaison Committee is chaired by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who takes these considerations into account very carefully when doing his work.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this expenditure on Select Committees is a record? As they were set up so late, they seem to have got through a remarkable amount of money.
    Mr. Beith: The total amount budgeted for has increased by roughly no more than the rate of inflation year by year, but the Commission has taken the view that the expenditure for the current year should be underspent in view of the late time in the Session that the Committees were set up. No doubt, when the total outturn is seen, that will be taken into account by the Commission when looking at next year's total.
    Following is the information:

    The gross total expenditure expected to be incurred by each select committee on overseas travel in financial year 1987–88 is as follows:

    Select Committees

    Projected year

    ending out-turn

    £

    Agriculture

    34,511

    (316)

    Defence

    26,982

    (2,160)

    Education Science and Arts

    10,043

    (10,043)

    Employment

    31,821

    (1,920)

    Environment

    10,872

    —

    European Legislation

    28,993

    (1,730)

    Foreign Affairs

    42,616

    (748)

    Home Affairs

    15,139

    (206)

    Procedure

    31

    (31)

    646

    Select Committees

    Projected year

    ending out-turn

    £

    Social Services

    2,235

    (2,235)

    Trade and Industry

    49,142

    (4,788)

    Transport

    38.164

    (32)

    Treasury and Civil Service

    316

    (316)

    £290,865

    (24,525)

    Notes:
    The figures in brackets show expenditure incurred in respect of visits made prior to 31 March 1987, which has been brought to account in the current financial year. Much of the rest of the projected expenditure comprises estimates of the cost of overseas travel not yet undertaken but planned for the period up to 31 March. Actual expenditures may eventually be somewhat lower, depending on the number of persons travelling.

  WALES

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of unemployed in Wales at the latest date; what it was in May 1979; and what is the total and percentage increase.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The seasonally adjusted numbers of unemployed claimants in Wales at May 1979 and January 1988 were 73,100 and 137,700 respectively, which I am pleased to say has decreased by 21 per cent. over the past 20 months.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Alyn and Deeside district council is experiencing problems in obtaining control over the site of the redundant Connah's Quay power station? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that it is estimated that £50 million would be needed to recommission this redundant power station? Is he aware that the fixed costs of staying connected to the grid would be prohibitive? Does he agree that this site is very important for my council for economic and social reasons? Will he help that district council?
    Mr. Walker: That is a matter for the commercial judgment of the CEGB. I understand that the board will judge all proposals on their merits, given its statutory duties. I cannot interfere with those statutory duties.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not an advantage that people in Wales are now employed in a wide variety of industry, whereas some years ago they were employed in two or three major industries which were susceptible to a very large decline in manpower?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I believe that the two main industries concerned — coal and steel — are in a position of considerable strength for the future. The decline in manpower in those industries is certainly coming to an end. That will greatly strengthen future trends in the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: As the Secretary of State had to shout previously, will he tell us exactly when unemployment in Wales will be below the figures for 1979? It has been on a downward trend for a long time.
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been an enormous decline in the numbers employed in the coal and steel industries. I am glad to say that the figures that I have given show an enormous increase in employment during the past 20 months. That trend is

    647
    continuing. With the capital investment programme of the WDA and the present inward investment, I hope that that trend will continue.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Televised Proceedings
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the proposed televising of the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have received representations from a number of sources, including right hon. and hon. Members.
    Mr. Favell: During the recent debate my right hon. Friend said that he had had preliminary discussions with the broadcasters about editorial control. Have there been any further discussions with broadcasters on that subject? In view of the influence that television is having on the American presidential primaries, is it not clear that television is the most powerful medium of all and that the possibility of it slanting a debate one way or another makes it a powerful tool?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. These matters are within the scope of the Select Committee's remit, and obviously the Select Committee will want to address its mind to them. The House will have the opportunity to consider the Select Committee's recommendations in due course.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not vital that sufficient time is made available on the air for coverage to enable professional editors fairly to represent the opinions within the House that are presented in debate?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that the amount of time the broadcasters choose to use for television broadcasting is a matter for me.
    Mr. Stokes: In spite of all the difficulties involved, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time for all hon. Members, whether or not they voted for the proposal to televise the House, to make the best they can of the new situation, or at worst to engage in damage limitation?
    Mr. Wakeham: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House.
    Mr. Boyes: The Lord President of the Council will be aware that many hon. Members believe that the absence of photographs in the House is deplorable. Now that television cameras will be let into the Chamber, will he consider allowing photographers into the Chamber to take pictures? If such representations are made, will he or the Select Committee consider them?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Committee, in arranging for the conducting of an experiment in public broadcasting, will have quite enough work without considering the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps we shall have to consider that matter in some other way.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend watched the televising of the House of Lords, and has he noticed that when controversial Bills are under discussion the commentators do not leave the viewers to
    648
    decide for themselves, but add such comments as "This is the fifth speaker against the Government."? That is quite unnecessary—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must let the hon. Lady finish her question.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The commentator may well say, "This is the fifth speaker against the Bill.". Is that not editing of the worst order? It should be up to the listeners to judge for themselves.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that if the House were to be televised the public would expect there to be a balance for and against the Government in any broadcast. Such matters are highly relevant to the work of the Select Committee.

    Strangers' Gallery
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many admission orders were issued for entry to the Public Gallery in the most recent Session for which figures are available.
    Mr. Wakeham: Since parliamentary Sessions vary in length, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it helpful if I give him the average annual figure over the past three calendar years 1985–87, which is 160,201 admission orders.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Lord Presient of the Council for his reply. What steps is he taking to encourage more visits to the Strangers' Gallery? Is it not about time that we opened some real public restaurants and facilities in this place? That would encourage people to come here and could, indeed, turn the Palace of Westminster into a real people's palace. Even if televising the House of Commons turned into the most boring show on earth, which I doubt, given the experience in the House of Lords, even one night's broadcast of what goes on in this place would reach more people than could visit the Stangers' Gallery over about four or five years.
    Mr. Wakeham: With hon. Members getting tickets in rotation — two orders every nine days — if the hon. Gentleman has any spare tickets, I am happy to make use of them for my constituents. Most hon. Members could deal with more admission orders than they currently get. The Galleries are well used without the attractions that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that hon. Members are responsible for members of the public for whom they obtain tickets for the Strangers' Gallery? It is their responsibility when they misbehave. What action has he taken against hon. Members when it is quite obvious that they have allowed into the Strangers' Gallery people who intend to demonstrate?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the House will expect any hon. Member who facilitates a member of the public going into the Strangers' Gallery to hold himself responsible for the conduct of that person, in so far as he is able to do so. What action should be taken against any hon. Member who, by neglect or other means, lets into the House somebody whom he should not let in is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Dalyell: There is desperate pressure for tickets. Has the Lord President of the Council ever looked up to the

    649
    Strangers' Gallery, just before 3 o'clock, and seen many empty seats? Our colleagues have to queue from 2 o'clock onwards to get tickets. It is not the case that, too often, with the system of rotational tickets, colleagues on both sides of the House pocket their tickets in case they want to use them, find that they do not need them, and forget to return them to the Admission Order Office, while people who really want tickets cannot get them? Should not the rotational system be looked at?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter in the past. On many days, all admission orders are issued. The time until 3 pm is allowed for those visitors whose arrival has been delayed. At 3 pm, any unoccupied seats are allocated to people waiting in the public queue. That is the general system. It has worked to most people's satisfaction, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it should be looked at, I shall see what can be done.

  WALES

    Job Creation
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been provided in Wales during the last period of 12 months for which figures are available by firms based outside the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Inward investment projects from outside the United Kingdom secured during 1987 are planned to create or safeguard 5,161 jobs. These were 59 projects, which is an all-time record.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: From those figures, and the figures for preceding years, is it not clear that Wales was, and remains, exceptionally attractive to inward investors? Will my right hon. Friend continue his extremely successful efforts to attract still further investment in the Principality?
    Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the available figures for 1987 show that Wales was the leading region in the United Kingdom for attracting inward investment.

    Psychiatric Treatment (Powys)
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on arrangements for the provision of psychiatric hospital treatment in Powys.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The provision of psychiatric hospital treatment in Powys is a matter for the Powys health authority in the first instance.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that because of the present enlightened conditions in psychiatric hospitals patients are far better treated there than in the community? Will he insists that Powys health authority keeps the same number of beds in the Mid Wales hospital at Talgarth as it has now?
    Mr. Grist: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that must be a matter for the local health authority. On the first part, he must await the Welsh Office mental illness strategy, which will be published soon.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons Mr. John Wakeham): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the rearranged business for this week:
TUESDAY 1 MARCH—Until about seven o'clock, motions on a Social Security Order and Regulations. Details are in the Official Report.
Resumption of the adjourned debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) and (Limit on Deficit Grants) Orders.
Motion on the annual report from the European Court of Auditors for 1986. Details are in the Official Report.
The business for the remainder of the week remains unchanged.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and welcome the opportunity to continue the debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts order, but my colleagues from Scotland and Wales believe that they have not been treated quite as fairly. It appears that the business this week can be changed at the drop of a hat, yet Scottish Members are expected to debate the order on Paisley grammar school at some ungodly hour tonight. If the business for tomorrow could be changed so swiftly to accommodate the needs of Northern Ireland, my right hon. and hon. Friends from Wales believe that it could have been adjusted to enable the debate on Welsh affairs to be held on St. David's day. Apparently it was impossible to make the adjustment last week, but this announcement shows that it would have been possible to make the adjustment this week.
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that I had done pretty well to get the Welsh affairs debate as near to St. David's day as I have done. Before the hon. Gentleman continues in this tone, I suggest that he examines the record of the Labour Government, who often failed to provide time for a debate on Welsh affairs at this time of the year.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Leader of the House agree that, far from giving preferential treatment to Northern Ireland business, the change resulted from a certain amount of bungling by hon. Members on both Front Benches?
Mr. Wakeham: No. The change resulted from an initiative that I took. The House wanted a statement on a major matter, which meant that the time allocated to the Northern Ireland debate, which would otherwise have been satisfactory, was not enough. I thought that the House generally welcomed my action.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for so promptly and graciously acceding to the wishes of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House for more time to debate the emergency powers, may I ask whether the necessity to alter
652
the business does not bring out forcefully the unsatisfactory manner in which Northern Ireland business has been handled since the abolition of Stormont?
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that our handling of Northern Ireland business is less than ideal, but I have no proposals to change it now.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I assure the Leader of the House that the attachment of Plaid Cymru Members to Wales is not sentimental, so whether the debate takes place on St. David's day, the day before or the day after is immaterial. The important thing is to have regular debates, unlike the position under some Labour Administrations — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before Conservative Members cheer too much, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that the debate will be wide-ranging and that there will be no problems about ministerial arid departmental responsibility for the subjects covered in the debate? Will the debate cover the role of all Government Departments in Wales, and will the Secretary of State for Wales be free to comment on the activities of the Department of Energy?
Mr. Wakeham: The debate will be on the Adjournment, and that is as wide a basis as possible for a debate in the House. Whether what the hon. Gentleman says is in order will be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, not for me.
Mr. Paul Flynn: As some compensation for the slight to Welsh Members, will the Leader of the House consider making arrangements so that in future debates in this place and elsewhere we can discuss the affairs of our country in both the languages of our country? Many of the debating chambers throughout the world succeed in debating in two, three, and sometimes as many as 10, languages. Surely it is within the realms of possibility that in this House, perhaps on an experimental basis at first, we can arrange to debate in both the languages of Wales.
Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans for that at the moment, but if the hon. Gentleman is so sensitive that he considers it a slight to have the Welsh debate on 2 March, he must be positively insulted by the record of the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Eric Forth: As there are more people living in the west midlands than in Wales, and as more languages are spoken in the west midlands than in Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh get far more time in the House than those representing the west midlands, and that it is high time that that was reversed?
Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans to reverse it next week, but I take my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Greville Janner: Perhaps the Leader of the House knows that many of us who were born in Wales would associate ourselves with the views that have been expressed about Wednesday.
As the business of the House for tomorrow is being changed, and as it has been announced that the Secretary of State for Defence is giving a written answer today to a question by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) about the British commandos sent to their death by Waldheim's unit, is there any chance of a statement being made either before or after tomorrow's business,

653
because the matters raised in that written question are immensely important? The families of those commandos are still alive, and one of them wrote to me yesterday. They are extremely concerned. It is now clear that not only Waldheim but his family have been involved in those matters in a way that should be brought before the House in a statement, not in a written answer.
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been forthcoming about the Government's attitude to these matters. I cannot promise a statement, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

National Health Service (Charges)
3.37pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about voucher values for spectacles, blood glucose testing strips, and NHS charges from 1 April 1988.
First, on spectacle voucher values, help with the cost of spectacles through the NHS voucher scheme is available to children under 16, full-time students under 19, people on low incomes and those needing complex lenses. The current voucher values were set when the voucher scheme was introduced on 1 July 1986. We have decided to increase them from 1 April 1988 so that, for example, the lowest voucher value will rise by nearly 9 per cent. from £14·25 to £15·50 and the highest voucher value by 28 per cent. from £66 to £85. In the hospital eye service there will be small increases in the maximum charges, which limit the charges to those requiring expensive lenses but not entitled to vouchers, and no increase in the charge for contact lenses.
In setting the new values we have sought to repond to the representations of the Royal National Institute for the Blind by making particularly large increases in vouchers for the more complex spectacles. We also propose a number of other changes to assist with special needs, on which representations have been made. Over and above standard voucher values, there will be a new supplement in the hospital eye service of up to £4 for people prescribed photochromic lenses for clinical reasons and a new supplement of £30 for those whose particular facial characteristics entail specially made frames. There will also be a new supplement of £30 for children who need exceptionally small glasses, available through the general ophthalmic service and the hospital eye service.
The voucher scheme is at present available for contact lenses only if they are prescribed for clinical reasons by the hospital eye service. We propose to end this restriction and to give complete freedom of choice at to whether vouchers are used for spectacles or for contact lenses.
These changes will increase expenditure on the voucher scheme by about £7 million in 1988–89, to a total of more than £65 million.
Secondly, blood glucose testing strips for diabetics. We announced last November our intention to bring about a further improvement in services for diabetics by making such strips available on general practitioner prescription, following the similar action we took last year in respect of disposable syringes for those who need to inject insulin.
Discussions have now been held with the suppliers of the strips, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that they will be made available on prescription from 1 June this year. Diabetics are, of course, exempt from prescription charges and will therefore receive their supplies free of charge. The cost of this measure in 1988–89 will be around £8 million.
Thirdly, we propose to increase prescription charges broadly in line with the increased cost of medicines. The item charge will rise by 20p from £2.40 to £2.60, an increase of around 8 per cent. The four-monthly season ticket will increase by £1 to £13.50, and the annual season ticket by £2.50 to £37.50. We estimate that the increases will yield over £10 million in 1988–89.
Over three quarters of all items will, of course, continue to be dispensed free of charge under the wide-ranging

655
exemption arrangements, which cover children, those on low incomes, and everyone over retirement age. The House will also be glad to know that we propose to extend the exemptions for young people to include those under the age of 19 while they remain in full-time education.
Fourthly, dental charges. As the House knows, we have already announced our intention to move from the present complex and anomalous system of charging for dental treatment to a straightforward system of proportionate charging set at 75 per cent. Of the cost, subject to a maximum of £150. This new arrangement will apply to all routine dental treatment and crowns from 1 April 1988, and the charges for dentures and bridges will be set as fixed cash amounts at or about the same 75 per cent. level.
We estimate that the changes will yield additional income of about £17 million in 1988–89. However, as many people now pay the full cost of the more limited courses of routine treatment, the cost of many such courses will, in fact, fall. For example, the charge for a scale and polish and two small fillings will come down from £14.20 to £10.65.
We are retaining all the current exemptions — for children, young people aged 16 and 17, students under 19, expectant and nursing mothers and people on low incomes—which mean that nearly half of all courses of dental treatment attract no charge at all. In addition, we intend to bring forward a Government amendment at the Report stage of the Health and Medicines Bill to end the anomaly whereby some young people of 16 and 17, while exempt from charges for treatment, nevertheless have to pay for dentures and bridges. The effect, if the House agrees, will be to exempt them from all dental charges.
In view of the changes to social security benefits that will come into effect on I1 April, I should make it clear to the House that, for the purposes of exemption from prescription and dental charges, of entitlement to spectacle vouchers and of reimbursement of expenses incurred in travelling to hospital for treatment, receipt of income support or family credit will qualify beneficiaries in the same way as supplementary benefit or family income supplement do now. There will also continue to be arrangements for assisting other people on low incomes, based on the new social security framework. Regulations will be laid before the House in due course to establish a single consolidated scheme, which will be both simpler and speedier than with the present arrangements.
Lastly, charges for private patients and overseas visitors. Increases in the central list of charges for private patients, averaging about 6·5 per cent., have already been announced. Charges for overseas visitors will also be increased for 1988–89, by 8·1 per cent. on average for inpatients and 6·5 per cent for out-patients.
Details of the proposed new spectacles voucher values, the prescription and dental charges and the charges for overseas visitors are available in the Vote Office. Regulations giving them effect will be laid before the House shortly. Equivalent measures will be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): I should like to give an unqualified welcome to two items in the statement—for both of which the Opposition have pressed. The first is that blood glucose testing strips will be available on prescription. This will be welcomed in all quarters of the
656
House. The second is the announcement that there will be an additional exemption of dental charges for 16 and 17-year-olds, an issue which, the Minister will agree, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and her colleagues have been pressing in Committee.
I should like to give a qualified welcome to the announcement on vouchers for spectacles. It is qualified, first, because, as the Minister knows, we are in this difficulty about more complex spectacles only because the Government privatised the entire optical service and, secondly, because the increase in the lower voucher charge is about £1·25, which, the Minister will admit, is less than the likely increase in the price of spectacles from the imposition of VAT, which is calculated to cost another £2 or £3 per pair of spectacles. If the Government intend to accept that European decision, the least that the House might have expected was that they would protect the poorest purchasers of spectacles from its effect.
The Minister will appreciate that his statement will be judged by the fact that this is the tenth increase in prescription charges since the Government came to office. The Minister attempted to defend the increase by saying that it represented the increase in the cost of medicines. Is he aware that the prescription charge is now 13 times the prescription charge of 1979—an increase wildly in excess of the increase in the cost of medicines in the intervening period?
Is the Minister aware that last year the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee estimated that, after last year's increase, one third of the items available on prescription cost less than the face value of the prescription charge? Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the increase, many drugs will be cheaper to obtain at the retail price than on an NHS prescription? Does he agree that the exemptions to which he referred do not include chronic conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia, and that it is wholly wrong that people who suffer from chronic conditions which require significant medication should have to pay for their presccription charges?
I remind the Minister of the statement of the chairman of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee that 2,000 people forgo part of their prescriptions every week because they cannot afford the charges. Is that not what the Minister would have expected, as an advocate of the law of supply and demand? Is it not precisely the effect that he would have predicted—people responding to an increase in prices by taking up fewer treatments? Is it not entirely wrong that they should be priced out of the treatment that they need?
The Minister concluded by referring to the 6·5 per cent. increase in charges for pay beds. Will he admit that the Government's policy on pay beds has been a commercial disaster? Is he aware that since 1979 the Government have increased the number of pay beds by one fifth—in sharp contrast to the cut in the number of NHS beds—and that the number of patients in pay beds has gone down by one third, while the bad debts from private pay bed patients last year alone reached £800,000? Against that background, is it not entirely fanciful for the Minister to suggest that the NHS can generate income from an activity that is a net loss to the service?
On the subject of charges to patients, will the Minister comment on the recent practice in Merton and Sutton district health authority, which has introduced charges for mentally handicapped patients for music and speech

657
therapy? Will he say whether he regards it as reasonable that long-stay mentally handicapped patients should generate income for their own treatment?
The whole House will be aware of the background to the statement. There is a massive surplus revenue in the Treasury which the Chancellor intends to give away in tax handouts in a couple of weeks' time. The money is there to fund a decent Health Service without charging the sick another £10 million for their prescriptions. The increases are unnecessary, unjustified and undesirable. When the orders are tabled, the Opposition will demand a debate on them and an opportunity to vote against them.
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming words about some aspects of the statement. I readily note that in Committee his hon. Friends raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I am glad that we have been able to respond in the way that we have.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman's remarks about prescription charges are exaggerated, especially when one considers that last year's increase of 20p was followed by the largest increase in the number of prescriptions dispensed for some years. There is no serious evidence of the deterrent effect to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
With regard to exemptions, the hon. Gentleman will know that my predecessor made it clear that the Government did not think it right to reopen the general list of exemptions, but rather to focus especially on ensuring that effective arrangements were available to those on low incomes. We have consistently sought to do that.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is labouring under some misapprehension with regard to pay beds. It should be clear to the House that such beds are pay beds only when they are occupied by a paying patient. It other times they are available to, and are used by, the NHS. I readily accept that not as much income has been made from such beds as we would like. Indeed, one of the aims of the Health and Medicines Bill is to increase the capacity of the Health Service to raise additional sums from such beds, for the benefit of NHS patients. I see nothing wrong or foolish about that.
I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised about Merton and Sutton, which is new to me, and write to him if necessary.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comments about revenue available to the Treasury, it should be remembered that the background to this statement is an increase of no less than 43 per cent., in real terms, in expenditure since 1978–79 on our primary care services and plans for substantial additional real spending over the next two to three years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the fact that this is an Opposition day, on which there are two important debates, and some heavy business after that. I shall allow questions to go on until 20 minutes past 4. I am sure that we shall return to this matter, and therefore I ask hon. Members to ask one question rather than several.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed on the Conservative Benches, especially in respect of spectacles
658
and diabetic prescriptions? Is he aware that, every day, people pay, and expect to pay, enormous sums of money for toothpaste, ointments and a whole range of proprietary medicaments for which no prescriptions are required? Does that not put into perspective the reaction to charges for those items for which prescriptions are required? Indeed, as my right hon. Friend said, prescriptions are paid for by only a quarter of those for whom they are written.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that more than 75 per cent. Of items are dispensed without charge, and indeed approaching half the population are exempt from prescription charges. I believe that that puts the matter into perspective.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We welcome the initiatives on eye-testing, dental charges and blood glucose testing about which we are keen. Will the Minister clarify what he means by the increase in prescription charges of 8·3 per cent., which is above the rate of inflation? The phrase "the cost of medicines" is rather bogus, because 20p is way above what the pharmaceutical people believe the increase should be. Will pharmacists be advised to give the people the right formula; in other words, will they be told that they should be using the cheapest, but best, forms of medicine?
Mr. Newton: We would always hope that that principle would apply. Equally, if pharmacists are aware that an item that has been prescribed is available without prescription at a lower price, it is entirely reasonable to draw that to their customers' attention. Prescription charges are, necessarily, an averaging process, and I do not make any great apology for that.
It is true that the increase in prescription charges is greater than the general rate of inflation, but the price of medicines — partly because of advances — is rising somewhat faster, and the increase is in line with the rise in the cost of medicines.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's enlightened statement on charges. However, will he accept that while the increase in the value of the spectacles voucher is also welcome it will not be of much benefit if, in a few months' time, he announces the abolition of the free eyesight check, because that will simply deter many people from getting their eyesight checked in the first place?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend and I discussed this matter at some length in Committee. I made the point then that nearly three quarters of those entitled to spectacle vouchers spend sums well in excess of £10 over and above the value of the spectacle voucher when purchasing their spectacles. As far as we can judge, they do that voluntarily, and that must cast some doubts on my hon. Friend's proposition about the alleged deterrent effect of our sight testing proposals.
Mr. Max Madden: As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, there is a general welcome for parts of the Minister's statement. However, many members of the public will be extremely angry that the Minister has seen fit to increase prescription charges for the 13th time since the Government came into office, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting on a mountain of money. Does the Minister not recognise that on this occasion he could have announced that there

659
was to be no increase in prescription charges? That would have been very welcome at a time when the vast majority of people want to make Budget day National Health Service day. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that, as he has found it impossible to halt the increase in prescription charges, he has no intention of increasing any NHS charges for the remainder of the year?
Mr. Newton: We have made it clear that we have no plans of the kind that the hon. Gentleman adumbrated in the latter part of his remarks.
Prescription charges need to be considered against the background of the cost of drugs. These charges still raise a good deal less than 10 per cent. of the total cost of drugs, which has been increasing very rapidly. It is not an unreasonable policy to increase charges at least in line with the rise in the price of drugs.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us who make no secret of our wish for additional funding for the National Health Service will nevertheless find it possible to accept the increase in prescription charges that he has announced? Whereas there are some things that only Governments can do — for example, authorising the building of new hospitals and meeting increased payments to nurses—there are some ways in which we can help ourselves. Therefore, for those of us able to afford it the additional 20p on prescription charges is quite acceptable.
Mr. Newton: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Opposition Members are concerned with those who cannot meet the additional 20p. The Minister said that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would make a similar announcement. Will that take into account the remarks of the Secretary of State in his commentary on public expenditure in Scotland the week before last, in which he showed clearly that Scotland still has the largest number of deaths from heart disease and cancer in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister honestly believe that increasing prescription charges will do anything to solve that very serious problem?
Mr. Newton: The generality of our plans for the primary health care services—which go much wider, although in some ways they are related to today's announcement — is directed at improving preventive measures, the early detection of ill health and early action to stop it getting worse. That entails the sort of moves that we plan for the development of general medical services, to which some of the proposals that I have announced will contribute.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposals provide a welcome opportunity for diabetics to look after their own health more effectively and so improve the quality of their lives?
Mr. Newton: One of the purposes of last year's move on syringes and this year's move on blood glucose testing strips is to encourage diabetics to have more regular contact with their general practitioners, many of whom now run diabetic clinics. We are anxious to encourage that, and I am sure that that is in the general long-term interest of good health care for diabetics in this country.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If the Minister is serious about preventing worsening health, surely he must think again about the charges for eye testing. May I press him for clarification on what he said about the transition from supplementary benefit to income support and family credit? Will there be any groups that could lose on benefit and be sustained by the guarantee that has been given by the Government? If that is the case, will that guarantee also operate on passporting for prescriptions?
Mr. Newton: There are two separate points. One concerns the move from supplementary benefit to income support and from family income supplement to family credit, where passporting will have the same effect as the transition itself. Of course, many more families will be in receipt of family credit than are currently in receipt of family income supplement. On the low-income scheme above those levels, the effect is more complicated. That is partly because it is extremely complex now and the scheme does not work very well. As I said in my statement, we shall try to bring forward a simpler and speedier scheme. It would be right for the hon. Gentleman to look at the details of that when my hon. Friends are able to bring it forward.
Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of the blood testing strips was a burden on a considerable number of diabetic patients and that they will greatly welcome his statement? Will the availability of blood testing strips on prescription apply to all strips, or just to a proprietary few? If the blood-testing strips are improved by advancing medical technology, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing those to he available on prescription without any delay?
Mr. Newton: I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend in the latter part of his question.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that it is totally immoral to increase the tax on the sick, including those with multiple sclerosis and asthmatic diseases, just a fortnight before the Chancellor is planning a decrease in taxes on the very rich and often able-bodied people? When the Minister talked about an increase of 43 per cent. in real terms in spending on the NHS, is that in terms of the retail prices index, or of the actual cost to the NHS?
Mr. Newton: The figure is related, not to the NHS as whole, but to the family practitioner services, which are the primary focus of the statement. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's moral strictures. Indeed, they are absurd, when about half the population are exempt from prescription charges, over three quarters of all items dispensed are dispensed free, when there are expensive exemptions on medical grounds and when there are important season ticket arrangements, which help many of those who need regular prescriptions.
Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. Friend's £8 million announcement on glucose strips is as welcome as the statement last year on free syringes for diabetics. It will help to make their lives more liveable. So that we are not awash with crocodile tears when the orders are laid before the House, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that 75 per cent. Of prescriptions are free, and that when the Labour party was propped up in power by the Liberals there was a charge, or as the Opposition put it, a tax, on sickness under that regime?
Mr. Newton: Yes. I can readily agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister accept that the deterrent effect of charges on primary health care is likely only to put pressure on the acute services, which are already under-funded? Will he accept that the future of health care will look very grim until we stop charging for primary health care and do something about getting the nation's health into proper repair?
Mr. Newton: The whole programme put forward in the Government's White Paper on primary care and the generality of the measures being debated currently on the Health and Medicines Bill are designed to achieve precisely the significant further improvement in the primary care service that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. We obviously disagree about whether it will bring about improvement, but my judgment is that it will, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that general practitioners and pharmacists often do not recommend to their patients that they can buy over the counter more cheaply than they can obtain some things on prescription. Will he consider encouraging pharmacists to issue a receipt showing the cost of the drugs dispensed to patients, so that they are able to make the decision themselves, and, in other cases, to enable them to adjudge the great value for money that they receive from the massive cost of the drugs that can be dispensed?
Mr. Newton: That is an interesting suggestion and I shall consider it. I would hesitate to go nap on it at the moment, in view of the possible administrative costs entailed.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Bearing in mind that a vast number of people are caught in the poverty trap and cannot afford today's prescription charges, what provision does the Minister intend to make to ensure that they receive adequate medicine free?
Mr. Newton: I have already referred to the Government's intention to bring forward proposals for a simpler and quicker low-income scheme for those above the direct passporting from income support or family credit, as it will be. We share the aim of avoiding the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am hopeful that our proposals will do just that.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the indignation from Opposition Members is bogus and synthetic, as the increase is less than the cost of a bar of chocolate, and as Labour Governments promised to abolish the prescription charge but have failed to do so? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would contribute to a season ticket for the cure of verbal diarrhoea for the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I would care to go down precisely the track advocated by my hon. Friend in the last part of his remarks. However, I endorse the first part of his question and would add that I am advised—this is against the background of the wide range of exemptions—that the average spending in this country on alcohol is now £8 per adult per week.
Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not unjust to put up prescription charges when the Government are putting through Parliament a measure such as the poll tax? Does the Minister know that under that tax as envisaged his grace the Duke of Westminster will be £7,000 per annum better off? Is it not unjust to announce higher prescription charges when the duke will not have any problem in paying the higher charges?
Mr. Newton: I have enough problems of my own, without getting into the poll tax.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome what the Minister said about blood strips for diabetics, but how does he justify the increase in prescription charges for others who are chronically sick? This is perhaps one thing in life that I share with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who is sitting alongside the Minister. Many British holidaymakers have found that if they forget their inhalers they can obtain them more cheaply over the counter in France than they would in this country, with all the benefits of the NHS. With the latest increase in prescription charges, will the Minister tell the House how many countries in the EEC sell items such as asthma inhalers over the counter at a cost lower than they can be obtained on prescription in this country?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks. However, I have said already that the prescription charge scheme is almost inescapably an averaging arrangement, and that implies that some people will receive their drugs more cheaply than they could in other ways, but others may find that they are a shade more expensive. I accept that.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister tell the House why the price of medicines has gone up so much? He announced an 8 per cent. increase in prescription charges, which is twice the rate of inflation, and he said that that was because of the increase in the price of medicines. Is that not indicative of the excessive profits being made by the pharmaceutical industry? Is it not true that if he took steps to prevent that industry from creaming off money from British taxpayers he would have more money at his disposal to devote to primary health care?
Mr. Newton: I have to say that, following the introduction of the new pharmaceutical price regulations scheme, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's perception would be shared by the industry. Great sums of money are invested in drugs, but the cost of producing them does rise. We are anxious to keep costs under maximum control, but the price has risen by 8 per cent. and that is the background against which I have made the announcement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does not the Minister's argument contain a curious logic? He said that when prescription charges are increased it will not be a deterrent to the sick who have to purchase various commodities. However, he uses the alternative argument—as his right hon. and hon. Friends will on Budget day—of saying that there is a deterrent for those in the higher income bracket who have to pay tax of 60p in the pound and that we should remove that deterrent so that they will work harder. The truth is that that curious logic has meant that the Minister has had to make this statement today so that

663
it is not made on Budget day, because the Government do not want the Budget to look really bad by increasing prescription charges while giving high rate taxpayers probably hundreds and hundreds of pounds per week.
Mr. Newton: I do not see any connection between the two lines of argument. The Government's taxation policies have contributed to the substantial increase in economic resources that are enabling us to sustain the services that we are discussing today. I do not believe that a charge of £2·60, levied, at most, on only half the population, will have a deterrent effect when people are ill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Following are the charges:

Optical voucher values and charges from 1 April 1988

New values £

Percentage increase

(1) Single vision spectacles

Voucher type

A £14·25

15·50

8·8

B £22·00

25·50

15·9

C £33·00

42·00

27·3

(2) Bifocal spectacles

Voucher type

D £27·00

29·50

9·3

E £42·00

50·00

19·0

F £66·00

85·00

28·8

(HES only)

G £66·00

85·00

28·8

(3) Amounts added to voucher value for clinically necessary:

Prisms £3 per lens (single vision)

3·50

16·7

Prescription charges from 1 April 1988

Charges proposed

Present charge £

New charge £

Percentage increase

Charge per item

2·40

2·60

8·3

Season tickets:

4 monthly

12·50

13·50

8·0

Annual

35·00

37·50

7·1

New values £

Percentage increase

£4 per lens (bifocal)

4·50

12·5

Tints £3 per pair (single vision)

3·50

16·7

£4 per pair (bifocal)

4·50

12·5

(4) Complex lens vouchers for those not entitled to standard vouchers:

Single vision £2·00

3·00

50

Bifocal £14·00

17·00

21

(5) Hospital Eye Service Maximum Charges:

Single vision £29·00

32·00

10

Complex lenses £50·00

52·00

4

Contact lenses:

charge per lens £25·00

25·00

—

New Supplements

Supplement for children needing very small glasses

30·00

—

Hospital Eye Service only:

(a) Supplement for people needing specially-made frames

30·00

—

(b) Supplements for people prescribed photocromic lenses for clinical reasons:

(i) single vision

3·00

—

(ii) complex lenses

4·00

—

Percentage

Other treatment

Full cost up to £17: 40 per cent, of cost above £17

75 per cent, of cost

-25 to about +50 depending on cost

Maximum charge for course of treatment

£115

£150

30

Daily charges for services provided for overseas visitors as in-patients as at 1 April 1988

Class of hospital in which services are provided

Single room £

Shared accommodation £

Class A

Long-stay hospitals

93

84

Class B

Psychiatric hospitals

85

77

Class C1

Mainly acute and other hospitals in non-teaching districts

149

136

Class C2

Acute and other hospitals in non-teaching districts

170

154

Class D

Hospitals in London teaching districts (other than hospitals in Classes A and B)

231

210

Class E

Hospitals in provincial teaching districts (other than hospitals in Classes A and B)

185

168

Class F

London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals managed by Special Health Authorities except the Hospitals for Sick Children and the National Heart and Chest Hospitals

253

230

Class G

The Hospitals for Sick Children and the National Heart and Chest Hospitals

392

357

Charges for services provided for overseas visitors otherwise than as in-patients as at 1 April 1988

Services provided

Hospital class A to E £

Hospital class F and G £

1. For a patient on each attendance at a hospital other than attendances directly associated with the procedures listed in paragraphs 4–12 following.

14·50

21·50

Day Cases1

2. Charges per day exclusive of charges for procedures listed in paragraphs 4–12 following.

28·50

29·50

Day Patients2

3. Charges per day exclusive of charges for procedures listed in paragraphs 4–12 following.

34·00

35·00

Pathology

4. For each request.

7·50

15·00

Radiodiagnosis, Nuclear Medicine and Ultrasound

5. (i) For each procedure listed in Appendix D (charge per Korner unit value).

6·50 per unit for the first 6 units, 1·00 per unit thereafter

9·00 per unit for the first 6 units, 1·25 per unit thereafter

(ii) CT Scanning. For all scans

96·00

115·00

Radiotherapy

6. For treatment in any one day

18·00

45·00

Physiotherapy and Remedial Gymnastics

7. Per attendance

5·50

11·50

Occupational Therapy

8. For treatment in any one day

8·50

10·00

Other Diagnostic Procedures

9. (i) Audiometry

5·00

5·00

Points of Order
4.10 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, of which I gave you notice, in as succinct and gentle fashion as possible. On the front page of the Mail on Sunday yesterday, there appeared the banner headline "Fines for Hooligan MPs."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh, dear.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, it is "Oh, dear." I am as quiet as a church mouse. Those who sit next to me know that I never open my mouth, shout, bawl or do any of the things about which that article complains. However, the article raises issues for the House because it states that Government business chiefs are considering drastic action before television is introduced and that the Commons Procedure Committee is considering making recommendations. The article states:
"Last week a group of senior Tories met behind closed doors and criticised Mr. Weatherill for being too soft on Labour Left-wingers. And with Mrs. Thatcher worried about Parliaments increasingly tarnished image, the committee's recommendations are sure to be pushed through by the Tory majority."
We wish to be clear about those recommendations. It is open to argument whether those Members of Parliament suspended by the House should he fined. Speaking as one who has been in that position, I am not necessarily against a deduction of salary. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, but, before any proposals are introduced, there should at least be a debate.
We should also debate what should happen to Ministers who are less than candid with the House and, therefore, provoke some hon. Members to behave in that way. It is a question of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander. By all means, let these matters be considered, but let us see the issue as a whole.
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of matters appear to be being trailed on the back of the introduction of television cameras into the Chamber. There are rumours
668
of recommendations for a glass screen above the Strangers' Gallery and for the number of seats in the Strangers' Gallery to be greatly reduced. If it has been proposed that those who are suspended should be fined by losing their salary for the duration of their suspension, have you, Mr. Speaker, received any suggestions that there should be loss of pay for those hon. Members who deliberately absent themselves from this House for days and, in some cases, for weeks and months?
Have there been any suggestions that there should be loss of pay for those hon. Members who see fit to visit South Africa and other unsavoury regimes for weeks on end? Will there be loss of pay for those hon. Members who are away from this House for long periods on non-parliamentary official business? We should know whether any such suggestions have been made by those who are trying to gag hon. Members and thus prevent them making a legitimate protest in this Chamber.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has any suggestion been made to you that we should take a leaf out of the books of the other courts of this land and not permit those who have been suspended to return until they have apologised? It is not sufficient merely to deprive them of their salaries.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any more help.
Mr. Skinner: This is an important point.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that it is and I take it seriously, but this is an Opposition Supply day, on which there are two debates.
I saw the article to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred. It was grossly overdone. I know nothing about meetings behind closed doors. If the House wishes to change its procedures in any way, whether in respect of pay or the introduction of screens, the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House and have the agreement of the House. We have controversy politics in this Chamber and I hope that we shall always have a robust Parliament and not be mealy-mouthed.

Ministerial Statements
4.15 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon, you have twice referred to the fact that this is an Opposition Supply day. The first occasion was when the Minister of State was making his statement on prescription charges and associated items. It is noticeable that, through the years and under all Governments, statements are frequently made during Opposition Supply days, but, with great respect, the cure for that is in your hands because, when a Minister asks permission to make a statement, you can say, "No, it is an Opposition Supply day and, therefore, you must make it on a Government day." I would support that approach, even if a Labour Government were in power.
Mr. Speaker: I do not have that authority. Perhaps the House should also debate that issue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important that Members of Parliament, especially those who are new, understand why hon. Members who are expelled from this place receive their pay. It may come as a notable surprise to many people that, just before the general election in 1983, the Government changed procedures in Parliament so that hon. Members expelled from the Chamber, regardless of the length of their suspension, should receive their pay.
I have more news which will help you, Mr. Speaker. The Government introduced that rule, but I made a speech in the Chamber late that night, when the measure was being debated, opposing the idea that the Tories were putting forward, as I was prepared to pay the fine. However, the Government got their troops to march through the Lobby in support of the measure. It is ironic that some Tories now wish to return to the previous procedure. If that is reintroduced, we should make it apply to those hon. Members who come in here drunk or half sober.
Mr. Speaker: I need make no further comment on that.

Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  South Africa (Apartheid)
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and not the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
  That this House strongly condemns the action of the Government of South Africa in effectively banning all peaceful opposition to apartheid by its restriction on the United Democratic Front, Confederation of South African Trade Unions and 16 other organisations dedicated to the ending of apartheid; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to participate constructively in urgent international and Commonwealth action against South Africa including comprehensive economic sanctions.
  Every day seems to bring its fresh instalment of outrage by the Government of South Africa. Already today we have heard of the arrest of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and of other Church leaders who were bundled into a police car, having been arrested while on the steps of St. George's cathedral and while praying on the pavement after a gathering of Church leaders inside the cathedral. They were later released, but it is clear that not even senior Church men in South Africa are safe from that apartheid Government.
  The debate arises from events of last Wednesday, when issue No. 11,157 of the "South African Government Gazette", published in Pretoria, gave the text of Order No. 334, signed by the Minister of Law and Order. That order stated that banning orders had been placed on 17 organisations, ranging from the Azanian People's Organisation to the Western Cape Civic Association and including the largest organisation in which black people in South Africa associate peacefully to oppose apartheid, the United Democratic Front. No one has alleged that any of those organisations stands for violence or has been involved in violence. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his Minister of State have pointed out that they are all non-violent, and that is repeated in the Government's amendment to our motion.
  To take one example, the Detainees Parents Support Committee has the purely humanitarian objective of monitoring detention without trial. It has specialised in publicising the detention of children under the state of emergency and, as we know, thousands of children—some as young as nine — have been detained by the South African apartheid Government. Under last week's banning order, all these organisations are prohibited
  "from carrying on or performing any activities or acts whatsoever."
  George Orwell himself could not have put it more chillingly. Furthermore, Order No. 335 from the Ministry of Law and Order places a series of prohibitions on the other South African black organisation that has mass support, the Congress of South African Trade Unions. These prohibitions include a ban on
  "appeals or demands for the release from detention of a prisoner or prisoners belonging to a category of prisoners"
  and

  671
  "encouraging or inciting among members of the public … to commemorate the death of a person or persons belonging to a category of persons".
  Those are both now illegitimate acts by CSATU.
  Restriction orders have been served on a number of persons. Who they are is not known officially, since a spokesman of the Ministry of Law and Order announced that the names of those sought would not be made public. He did reveal that 18 restriction orders had been signed by President P. W. Botha. However, it is known that those affected include Mrs. Albertina Sisulu, co-president of the UDF. It seems that she is confined to her home between the hours of 6pm and 5am and may not leave the district of Johannesburg without police permission. Also the subject of a restriction order is Mr. Archie Gumede, another co-president of the UDF, who is specifically prohibited from talking to the news media and from preparing, compiling or transmitting any matter for publication. It is reported that recently the main activities or Mrs. Sisulu and Mr. Gumede have been to try to negotiate an end to violence. They are both now prevented from seeking a peaceful solution to South Africa's problems.
  Already South Africa is not only a racially discriminatory and authoritarian society, but a gagged society. It is illegal in that benighted country not only to call for the release of detainees, but even to publish the names of detainees or to state that anyone has been detained.
  The Ministry of Law and Order orders of 24 February put an end to the activities of all organisations that oppose apartheid in a non-violent way. The Prime Minister, in her statement to the House after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Vancouver, said:
  "the momentum for change must come from within South Africa itself."—[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 921.]
  How is such a momentum possible when the Government's amendment points out that advocates of a peaceful change have been suppressed?
  So far, only the Churches have escaped banning orders. Only clergymen have still been able to speak out in South Africa, as they did courageously in special services yesterday and as they sought to do today. How far they will be able to go in speaking out is in doubt, following today's outrageous arrest of Archbishop Tutu, Dr. Allan Boesak and the Rev. Peter Storey, leader of the Methodist Church, among others. It is significant that those senior Church leaders were arrested for taking part in a march whereas on Saturday South African police stood by when the Nazi anti-semitic and anti-black resistance movement breached the emergency regulations with a march through Pretoria and when those conducting the march handed over a petition, the police helpfully accepted it. That is the contrast that we now see.
  Dr. Allan Boesak, the Coloured Reform Church leader, has said of these latest Government restrictions:
  "Every single peaceful action we can take has now been criminalised."
  His arrest today proves the accuracy of his words. Frank Chikane, the general secretary of the South African Council of Churches, has said:
  "If more and more people resort to violence, we are going to find difficulty in saying, 'You must not do it because there is still space for protest', while that space is being closed daily."
  It was closed even further today. As the voices of nonviolence are silenced, it must be said that the Government
  672
  of South Africa have set the stage for bloodshed and that any bloodshed from now on will be entirely the responsibility of P. W. Botha and his gang.
  This latest twist in the spiral of totalitarianism in South Africa has been greeted with revulsion. Members of this Government have joined in. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said that he is "shocked and saddened" and, no doubt, in a little while he will favour us with further verbs of outrage accompanied possibly by various eleemosynary adverbs. The Minister of State, in a somewhat incoherent interview on "Newsnight" last Wednesday, said that she was worried out of her mind. I have no doubt that both are absolutely sincere in their condemnation of these bannings. The question is: what is to be done in response to them?
  On "Newsnight" the Minister of State said:
  "The international community is going to be more harsh in their actions towards South Africa than they've been in the past."
  Mr. Peter Snow responded:
  "Really? And what are you proposing to do yourselves?"—
  meaning this Government. The right hon. Lady replied:
  "We shall talk with our partners about what can be done"
  and then, at a loss for any ideas, she simply retreated into saying that apartheid was repugnant and detestable. M r. Snow rather cruelly went on:
  "Oh, you've made that very clear, but what are you going to do about it? … Are you going to take harsh measures?"
  The right hon. Lady then cleared the situation up. She said:
  "I didn't mention harsh measures in that sense".
  Instead she said that people must be brought round a table. Who should go round the table is not very clear, since anyone from the South African side who might be of any use round a table is either in prison or under a restriction order.
  As for the Minister of State, it is true that she spent 10 minutes with the South African ambassador last week, but it is difficult to be sure for which of them it was a bigger waste of time. The fact is that, whatever the decent intentions of Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers and however much they semi-coherently splutter their indignation, any action by Britain against apartheid is effectively sabotaged by the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister is the world's most effective and enthusiastic accomplice of apartheid. If hon. Members doubt my word they should accept that of a South African National party Member of Parliament, Mr. André Fourie, who yesterday went on television to defend the latest Government measures in South Africa and, in the course of doing so, stated:
  "We have appreciated the stand taken by the Thatcher Government."
  That at any rate was both sincere and accurate, for the stand taken by the Prime Minister has been at great pains to obstruct international action against South Africa.
  The predicament that we face was summed up starkly in the report published in 1986 by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group on its mission to South Africa. One of that group was Lord Barber, who was nominated by the Prime Minister. The eminent persons said:
  "We have been forced to conclude that at present there is no genuine intention on the part of the South African Government to dismantle apartheid."
  What would they have said after last week's grim developments?
  They went on:

  673
  "We are convinced that the South African Government is concerned about the adoption of effective economic measures against it … The question is not whether such measures will compel change: it is already the case that their absence, and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change".
  If anyone doubts the fear of sanctions by the South African Government he has only to look at the terms of the prohibition order on the Confederation of South African Trade Unions. This, among other things, bans COSATU from
  "the making of calls on or inciting (i) a person doing business in the Republic, or with persons in the Republic, to disinvest in the Republic or to otherwise cease doing business in the Republic or with persons in the Republic; (ii) the government of another country to institute or apply trade, economic or other punitive measures against the Republic or to sever or restrict diplomatic or other relations with the Republic".
  If the apartheid Government of President Botha were so unworried about sanctions, they would not ban COSATU from even advocating them or trying to persuade others to be involved in them. If, as the Prime Minister claims, sanctions would have such little effect on apartheid, why do the South African Government go to such trouble to prevent COSATU from even advocating them?
  Every time the international community, and especially the Commonwealth, seeks to take action to end apartheid, the Prime Minister takes delight in impeding that action and, by doing so, casts herself in the role of handmaiden of apartheid. She came back from the Commonwealth conference in Nassau in 1985, her eyes bright with exultation as she rejoiced at the way in which she had obstructed sanctions. She was asked whether she had moved. "Just a tiny little bit," she replied, holding her fingers about half an inch apart.
  At last year's Commonwealth conference, not only did she obstruct discussion of action against South Africa so that the statement on the programme of action on southern Africa was littered with the humiliating litany "with the exception of Britain", but she put her Press Secretary up to spreading untruths about Canada's trade with South Africa, deliberately based on false and outdated figures, to the extent that the Prime Minister of Australia accused the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of propagating "an abominable lie".
  When the African National Congress held a conference against apartheid in Arusha last December, Britain alone of the European Community countries was not officially represented. Even President Reagean sent a representative to the opening ceremony. The conference was filled with contemptuous gossip about the humiliation of the first secretary at the British High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam who, having travelled more than 300 miles to Arusha, was kept hanging round the Mount Meru hotel, waiting for the telephone call that would have allowed him to attend that opening ceremony. He never received that call and had to go back, humiliated, to Dar-es-Salaam while other Western countries were properly represented at ministerial or ambassador level. I myself sat next to the representative of the Finnish embassy, for example, and the Danish ambassador gave an outstanding description of the sanctions that Denmark was imposing.
  When, at the beginning of this month, the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers met in Lusaka to discuss not simply sanctions but the next steps against apartheid, Britain's chair was empty.
  674
  The Prime Minister claims that she is playing her part by assistance to the front line states. Even if that assistance were substantial, it would not meet the problem. At Arusha, the Minister of Information in the Mozambique Government stated that no amount of aid for the front line states was a substitute for direct action against South Africa, since the latter's aggressive actions made the aid for the front line states necessary in the first place. His opinion was echoed this weekend by Colonel van Dunen, a senior Minister in the Angolan Government, who, I understand, met the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State while he was here. He said, speaking for Angola,
  "Our main problem is the root cause of destabilisation —South Africa".
  Since South Africa's aggressive actions make the aid for the front line states necessary, it must be pointed out, for example, that aid to Angola is £222,000. Statistics, when analysed, show that bilateral British aid to Angola between 1980 and 1986 had risen to that pitiful level. It had also risen to Mozambique and Zambia, but British aid to Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zimbabwe has fallen in real terms during this decade.
  What is more, Britain's assistance is noticeably less than that of other, much smaller countries. Norway has contributed to Mozambique twice as much aid as Britain since 1980. In 1986 Sweden contributed nearly twice as much aid to the front line states as did Britain. In the period since the front line states formed the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, the contributions from the Nordic countries have far exceeded that of Britain — nearly double, in fact — and our aggregate contribution since 1980 of £819 million compares with British investment in apartheid South Africa of £6 billion.
  That British economic stake in South Africa counts for more with P. W. Botha than all the Foreign Secretary's ineffectual reprimands. We all remember the pointless trip of the Foreign Secretary to South Africa in 1986. When he set off, it was reported that
  "British officials said that Sir Geoffrey was in determined mood, and was ready for plain speaking".
  I am afraid that the plain speaking was rather like Bottom's unsuccessful efforts to be cast as Thisbe in "A Midsummer Night's Dream". Bottom promised that he would speak in a "monstrous little voice". Thisbe Howe's monstrous little voice failed to charm the South Africans. He was kept hanging around, waiting for a gap in P.W. Botha's diary. He was publicly insulted by Botha and was sent away with a flea in his ear, reduced to admitting,
  "The responses which I have received have not yet enabled me to claim that I have made progress that I would have liked."
  He can say that again.
  It is about time that the Government realised that soft words to the South African Government will be treated with contempt. The only thing to which they pay attention is strong action. This Government's lack of commitment to fighting apartheid is illustrated by the strong line that they take on other issues.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman talks about strong action, and says that the South African Government only react to strong action. If he is going to advocate sanctions to the House, as the motion suggests, he owes it to us and to the people of South Africa to spell out exactly how he believes that they would work, and whether he believes that they will have

  675
  an effect in doing what I want to see, which is, bringing the Government of South Africa and their apartheid regime to an end. He has not said anything about that. If he will not do so, he ought to be quiet.
  Mr. Kaufman: The South African Government believe that sanctions would work, which is why they have prohibited CSATU from advocating them. Sanctions will have an effect on the South African Government, and I shall be coming to that— [Interruption.] One effect the absence of sanctions does not have on Britain is to give us a reputable name throughout the continent of South Africa.
  The Government's lack of commitment to fighting apartheid is illustrated by the strong line that they take on other issues. Last month, the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), created a stir when he visited the Gaza strip. When will a Minister stand outside Soweto and tell television cameras,
  "Conditions here are an affront to civilised values … a blot on the face of civilisation"?
  Last week, all of us who have been involved in the efforts to secure the release from gaol in Iraq of the British prisoner, John Smith, were delighted when he was released after the Prime Minister sent a personal letter to President Sadam Hussein. When will the Prime Minister send a Minister with a personal letter to President Botha pleading for the release of Nelson Mandela?
  The Prime Minister has given boosts to Soviet dissidents by receiving Irina Ratushinskaya and Anatol Shcharansky at 10, Downing street. When will she invite Albertina Sisulu and Winnie Mandela to No. 10, Downing street? Such actions would have an enormous impact. They would show the Prime Minister's commitment to the destruction of apartheid. Her failure to take action, either materially through sanctions or symbolically through public moral support for the opponents and victims of apartheid, shows her complete lack of concern at the abomination of apartheid.
  In a pathetic interview on "Newsnight", the Minister of State forlornly quoted the pop song, "Give me hope, Joanna, give me hope." It is pointless for the oppressed black people of South Africa to call out, "Give me hope, Margaret Thatcher, give me hope". There is no hope of justice for them from that bleak countenance or from that cold heart. The failure of this Government and that of the United States to take action has allowed the South African Government to feel free to take these latest steps.
  We all know why those steps have been taken — a fear of setbacks in this week's two by-elections in the Transvaal and the fear of an organised boycott of the local elections later this year. That is why the prohibition order on CSATU specifically forbids it campaigning.
  "To boycott or not to take part in an election of a local authority or to commit any other act preventing, frustrating or impeding such an election."
  Apartheid has become tougher than ever because the South African Government are responding defensively to internal pressure from the far Right. The problem is that there is insufficient countervailing pressure from outside South Africa, and the Prime Minister of this country bears a heavy burden of personal responsibility for that. She decries sanctions against South Africa, but that did not prevent her from taking part in sanctions against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The deciding factor for
  676
  the Prime Minister is not whether sanctions would work, but her attitude to the regime against whom she has been urged to take sanctions.
  Last week's banning orders proved conclusively that a policy of no sanctions has abjectly failed. A policy of sanctions by Britain has not even been tried. It is time to try it, and that must be the message that goes out from this country.
  Apartheid is doomed. Black majority rule in South Africa is certain. The real questions are whether apartheid goes sooner or later and whether black majority rule in South Africa is to be achieved by peaceful negotiation or through bloodshed. The Eminent Persons Group warned that only effective action,
  "may offer the last opportunity to avoid what could he the worst blood bath since the 2nd World War."
  This Government's policies, through the blocking of effective action, make it more likely that that change will come late and that it will come violently. That is a very heavy burden for the Prime Minister to carry.
  History is on the side of freedom in South Africa. This Government seek to spit into the wind of change. The Labour party welcomes the inevitable historical process, the culmination of which will bring long-delayed justice to those suffering millions. We speak for all who care about freedom and justice and who hate discrimination. That is why we ask the House to vote for our motion.
  4.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'deplores the restrictions announced by the South African Government on 24th February against 18 extra-parliamentary organisations and certain leading opposition figures; calls for the repeal of these measures, which suppress legitimate, peaceful political activity; reaffirms its opposition to punitive economic sanctions and its support for Her Majesty's Government's policy of practical and constructive action in Southern Africa; and calls on the South African Government to take urgent steps to enter into dialogue with free and freely chosen representatives of the black community, with the aim of bringing the repugnant apartheid system to an end and establishing a non-racial, representative system of government'.
  I begin by expressing my dismay—it is worse than dismay—at the arrogant assumption of a monopoly of virtue by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when addressing himself to this question. The entire fabric of his speech was founded on the presumption that he, and he alone, and those who think like him, have any insight into the horrors that must be corrected in South Africa. It is founded on a premise of simplicity and injustice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that will not withstand examination. [HON. MEMBERS: "What will the Government do about it?"] The question of what to do about it is one that vexes us all. I only wish that it was half as simple as Labour Members make it seem.
  We must start from the firm proposition that all hon. Members share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Gorton about the mischief that underlies apartheid. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on Thursday last week that we condemn the restrictions that were announced by the South African Government last Wednesday against most of the leading extra-parliamentary political groups in South Africa and

  677
  against certain leading political figures. The Government, through my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have put their views clearly and forcefully to the South African Government. This debate should start from that premise.
  As soon as I heard the news I issued a statement condemning what was happening in South Africa. Last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Minister of State summoned the South African ambassador for the same purpose. Our ambassador in Cape Town has made plain our views to the Government there. However, I should make it plain again that these measures are swingeing and wholly unjustified. They amount to a ban on legitimate peaceful activity by most of those, both black and white, who are working by peaceful means for an end to apartheid—the very apartheid that President Botha has described as outmoded.
  The measures follow the imposition of a country wide state of emergency, widespread detention without charge, continued evictions and forced removals and unprecedented curbs on the freedom of the press. They are a step away from dialogue and negotiation. They are a step towards further polarisation and conflict.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should like to develop my argument for a moment.
  As yet we have not received full reports about the incident in which Archbishop Tutu, Dr. Boesak and others were involved this morning, but it seems that that peaceful protest was broken up by police action. In that regard, I should emphasise that we are completely opposed to the suppression of peaceful political activity of that kind.
  The measures that have been taken — the House should be clear about the extent of the agreement on this matter—are a recipe for despair among black South Africans, who may well ask what peaceful channels of expression are to be left for the legitimate political aspirations of the black community. The South African Government should think again and move to repeal these measures, not only because they are unjust, but because despair breeds violence. Suppressing the symptoms of a problem does not solve that problem; it only makes it much worse in the longer term.
  Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of virtue in their denunciation of apartheid. Let it be absolutely clear that on both sides of the House our judgment is the same. At the heart of all these problems lies the system of apartheid. Our position on that is clear. Apartheid is repugnant. It is a blatant abuse of human rights. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why Opposition Members should be affronted by my statement of the simple facts on which the House is agreed. South Africa is not the only country where there is racial discrimination, but South Africa claims to be a part of Western society and to share Western democratic values. Yet, tragically, South Africa is the only country which has institutionalised racial discrimination at almost every level of society.
  It must be acknowledged that until a few months ago we could detect some encouraging signs of reforms by the South African Government. [Interruption.] We must face the facts both ways. Those changes included the ending of job reservation, the recognition of black trade unions, the scrapping of the pass laws and influx controls, increasing
  678
  provision for black education and the abolition of legislation for petty apartheid. We acknowledged and welcomed those reforms, and we were criticised for that. The tragedy—this view should be supported on both sides of the House—is that we are no longer seeing such progress.
  Instead of moving forward, the South African Government now seem to be moving backwards. The basic institutionalised structures of apartheid remain intact. It is that fundamental discrimination that hon. Members on both sides of the House find so abhorrent. That is why we argue so strongly that apartheid must go. It must be replaced by a non-racial, representative system of government.
  Mr. Winnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely right to say that Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of emotional concern about apartheid. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is equally opposed to the system of apartheid. I do not question that. However, the Foreign Secretary has not said what effective action Britain is to take. Words will not stop, and have not stopped, Botha from doing what he has done.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall come to that directly, and clearly, provided that I am able to do so on the basis of the premise conceded by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that the feeling of anger against apartheid is shared on both sides of the House.
  Let us start honestly. We want to get rid of apartheid. That objective is shared by everyone in the House. Our clear objective is to end apartheid by peaceful means. The question is how we are to do that. We are right to react with feeling to unacceptable acts by the South African Government, but we must temper our response with the realism that will help us to find an answer.
  The truth is that only South Africans themselves—all South Africans—can find a solution to their country's problems. Change will come only when South Africans with the power to act are persuaded of the need for action.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: There seems to be a certain amount of scepticism among Opposition Members as to whether Conservative Members agree with the remarks that my right hon. and learned Friend has just made, expressing his abhorrence of the policy of apartheid. It might be appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend to invite any Conservative Member who does not share his views to stand up and say so.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall come back to the central issue. The House and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister do not need the sneering and patronising advice unjustly offered from the Dispatch Box by the right hon. Member for Gorton. We do not need the unjust attack that he launched on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Now is the time for the South African Government to give full weight to the fact that last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, from the Dispatch Box, presented the Government's forceful condemnation of the latest folly of the South African Government.
  It cannot be for outsiders to prescribe solutions. It is not the special responsibility of the British Government to end injustice in South Africa. This is not a colonial

  679
  problem. It is not comparable with Rhodesia. South Africa is an independent, sovereign country. It has been so for many years. But we are right to try to help South Africans meet the challenge. That is why we have made clear the approach that we would commend. All sides must come to understand the need for negotiations. What is needed as a first step is a genuine national dialogue between the South African Government and free and freely chosen leaders of the black community.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that the most hopeful key so far identified to getting such a process started remains the negotiating concept proposed by the Eminent Persons Group set up at the Nassau Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. That concept is based on initial reciprocal and matching commitments by both sides. One of the things that it calls for is the unbanning of the ANC and other political parties. That is the ironycc—indeed the tragedy—of last week's news, that we are now seeing intensified proscription even of peaceful activity. The proscription of peaceful activity is tantamount to the prescription of violence.
  That violence must be our fear: that despair breeds violence. New restrictions can only add to to the seething frustration of the black community. They may well now say that the channels of peaceful opposition are being closed to them, but I have to say that violence is no alternative. Violent struggle would lead only to enormous loss of life on both sides, and it would strengthen support in the white community for repression of this sort. Violence strengthens only those who wish to turn their backs on progress, change and justice.
  That is the message that we continue to put to the ANC when we meet it. Of course, we see the ANC as one of the main representative voices of black opposition. It will have to be involved in any negotiations, but I repeat: violence will not advance its cause.
  Dr. David Owen: At a time when Archbishop Tutu has shown his condemnation of violence and has been arrested, is this not the moment when the British Government ought to show their condemnation, not just in words, but in actions? If the Foreign Secretary wishes to influence white opinion, why will he not agree at least to the suggestion by the Eminent Persons Group that there should be a mandatory ban on all direct flights to and from South Africa? That, more than any other measure, would bring home to white South Africans how much we condemn the recent action.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has been attached to that approach for some time. However, it cannot be distinguished from the general case against punitive economic sanctions. I shall come back to the right hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
  I understand why the events of last week will bring from the House and from elsewhere new calls for punitive economic sanctions. Of course I understand the frustration of those calls for sanctions, but I do not accept that judgment.
  Of course these harsh new measures increase our outrage, but the Government's strong and sincere views of sanctions are unchanged. There is no satisfaction or utility in striking out at South Africa unless in doing so we bring the end of apartheid nearer. It is no answer to respond by taking measures that only make things worse.
  680
  That is precisely what punitive economic sanctions would do. They would make things worse. Many leading South African opponents of apartheid agree with us on this, and there is independent evidence to support it. The major study produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit is a particularly convincing recent example.
  We must not forget — the right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned this—that the black opposition is not the only opposition in South Africa. The rising popularity of the extremists of the extra-parliamentary right is already worrying. They are people who regard President Botha as a dangerous liberal. We have seen them on our television screens in the past couple of days. No one who remembers the 1930s in Germany will have any difficulty in recognising what they portend. Isolation and fear feed that creed of hatred. Nobody should lightly adopt policies that would give it leeway.
  Let me look at sanctions as they have been imposed so far. The implementation by some countries of punitive sanctions has had no beneficial effect. Attitudes in South Africa towards genuine negotiations have hardened as a result. The result of the general election on 6 May last year showed that. The latest measures taken last week bear that out. If South Africa is determined to defy the rest of the world, that determination springs in part from the pressure of sanctions.
  One other equally unfortunate consequence of sanctions has been the withdrawal from South Africa of about half the American companies that had interests there. What has been the result of that? It has been bargain basement takeovers by South African management, now free from external pressure. Many of the progressive programmes of liberal employment practice in which foreign countries have taken a lead have been discontinued. How has that helped? It has not helped the blacks of South Africa at all. What would be the effect of general punitive sanctions?
  Mr. Neil Kinnock rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would contain himself and listen to the case that is being made against him. I wish that he would give us credit for the sincerity of our position also.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North conceded that he does not doubt the sincerity of my commitment against apartheid. Let us start from that and consider the effect of general punitive sanctions. Let me tell the House our judgment. General punitive sanctions would stiffen the resistance of the South African Government and the majority of the white population to change. They would worsen the cycle of frustration, violence and repression. They would undermine the South African economy. It would become more difficult to keep pace with the rapidly increasing population, never mind improve the living standards of disadvantaged communities. The people who would suffer most would be those whom we are trying to help. Sanctions would undermine further the stability of the region. Many of South Africa's neighbours have precarious economies closely linked to that of South Africa. The losses inflicted on them in economic confrontation would far exceed the capacity of outsiders to help.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall give way in a moment.

  681
  Those are the reasons why we oppose, and will continue to oppose, punitive sanctions. Punitive sanctions will make it harder for South Africans to come together to work out a more just future. They will prolong apartheid, not destroy it.
  Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friends and I do not doubt the sincerity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitudes. We doubt the continuity of his logic. He is saying that tighter, more direct action against South Africa would block the possibility of change. Does he recall that last week unprecedented draconian powers were taken to exclude peaceful organisations, not as evidence of the South African Government's responsiveness to his reasonability, but in response to the neo-Nazi Transvaalers whom they are trying to appease to win a couple of by-elections. In the wildest stretch of his imagination, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that his words of condemnation will induce any form of reasonability in the Botha regime? What will he do?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are two answers to the right hon. Gentleman's question. First, because of the position that the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have sought to condemn, condemnation from this Government is likely to be met with more conviction than condemnation from almost any other Government. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have his case both ways. Denunciation and condemnation by this Government make an important impact. In the fullness of time they will make a more important one.
  Secondly, how can the right hon. Gentleman argue that the sanctions that have been imposed by many other countries are having any effect at all if the South African Government are responding in such a way? The fact is that —this is the entire burden of the experience that we all share—additional measures of that kind being taken in that way will only fortify the resistance of the South African Government and entrench the attitudes that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose. They will prolong apartheid, not replace it.
  Mr. Kaufman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that sanctions and actions of that kind will only fortify the South African Government and their present policies, why have the South African Government banned the Confederation of South African Trade Unions from advocating sanctions? If sanctions did not bother them, surely it would not bother them if sanctions were advocated. They fear sanctions, provided that they are imposed effectively.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech. Quite frankly, it was not one of his better points. Of course the South African Government would rather live a life free from sanctions, because they represent a range of attitudes to which they have to react. When I was there two years ago, one of the lessons that impressed itself most clearly upon my mind was the determination with which they would react to additional sanctions by strengthening their regime and not doing the opposite. The fact that they do not like them does not mean that they would react as the right hon. Gentleman would wish—far from it.
  The regrettable fact that the House and the world have to face is that there is no panacea, no quick fix, and no easy
  682
  way through. The argument that I have used many times is that there is no place in this immensely difficult, tragic problem for what I call the Jericho school of diplomacy. If it were possible, by blowing a loud trumpet and by taking some dramatic world action, to transform the situation, it might be effective. There is no place for quick action. [Interruption.] It is naive and simplistic for the Opposition to give themselves the luxury of baying at me from the Opposition Front Bench, believing that by so doing they are solving the matter. The latest measures will make the process of change more difficult, but our approach must remain specific and positive.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Surely the Government remember what happened in Austria, Czechoslovakia and other countries, where Governments washed their hands of the matter, believing that by giving way to Hitler they would help to keep the peace. It helped to bring Czechoslovakia, Austria and other countries under Hitler's control. If the Government had stood firm at that time, and not given way, we might not have had the second world war, and the Hitler regime might not have taken control of most of Europe. Is there not a parallel today? If the Government were prepared to stand firm with most other nations and apply sanctions, we would get a different situation in South Africa.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has made, I hope, the greater part of the speech that he was otherwise going to make. I do not find myself impressed by it. The parallel is in no sense relevant. In the 1930s, between the wars, the United Kingdom were one of many Governments who would have been able, by taking effective action in the face of military advance, to check that threat. If we look at the prospect in South Africa now, the question is not whether we should mobilise worldwide military action. The case has been made that, by mobilising punitive economic sanctions, we can have an effect on what happens there. All the experience so far shows that that will not happen. I only wish that we could find something that would provide the quick answer that the hon. Gentleman wants.
  Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not give way. I must try to bring my speech to a conclusion.
  Instead of punishing ordinary South Africans for the sins of a Government in whom they have no say, we shall continue with our major programme of direct assistance to the black community. We are taking a lead in helping to educate black South Africans to leave behind the difficult present and to progress towards a better future.
  Despite what the right hon. Member for Gorton said, Britain is among the leaders in its programmes of economic and security assistance to the neighbouring states. We are working effectively to reduce the economic and transport dependence of the region on South Africa. Our activity in this area is widely recognised and welcomed elsewhere in Africa and, in the long run, it will be crucial.
  Above all, we must keep working to help political progress in South Africa. Whatever the South African Government may do—this is the important fact—even today many South Africans on all sides are showing themselves more receptive to new ideas. We have a role in pressing the case for change—
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not wish to give way again.
  Mr. Boateng rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry. I said not now.
  We have a role in urging a case for co-operation among the communities. We do that through the important work of our embassy and our ambassador in South Africa. We shall continue to press our case direct with the South African Government. We shall continue to stress the urgent need for fundamental change. We shall denounce actions that serve only to make things worse. Last week's measures are only the latest example of the South African Government's folly.
  In all those ways, there is an important job to be done, not only in London, but by our ambassador on the spot in South Africa. We shall continue to take every opportunity to make known our opposition to actions that infringe the sovereignty of neighbouring countries or further destabilise the region. We shall certainly call for a peaceful settlement in Angola and Namibia, through the withdrawal of all foreign forces in the region. Above all, we shall continue to press for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and for an end to the ban on the African National Congress and other political parties, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides.
  I invite the House to reject and condemn the latest restrictions imposed by the South African Government. I certainly invite the House to join Her Majesty's Government in urging the South African Government to repeal the measures before further harm is done. I invite the House to accept that the task of promoting peaceful change is a long and arduous one. There is no simple shortcut such as is commended by the Opposition. We will not shirk that task, nor will we make it more difficult by imposing punitive sanctions that can only make matters worse. We shall continue our constructive, practical policies, which are designed to help, not hinder, black South Africans, and to bring apartheid to an end as soon as possible.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. David Steel: The Foreign Secretary asked the House to accept the sincerity of his commitment against apartheid. I certainly accept it, but we are entitled to ask him to accept that many of us are increasingly worried—he should be, as the person charged with the conduct of our foreign policy —about the tarnished reputation of Britain, not just in the House and in black Africa but round the world, at the appearance of a lackadaisical, do-nothing approach by this Administration to the apartheid regime. Everyone knows that the policy is dictated not by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but by the Prime Minister. We must bring our condemnation to the attention of the House this afternoon.
  The Government devote twice as much energy to denouncing sanctions as they do to denouncing apartheid, and it is noticeable that the most vehement sections of the Prime Minister's statements on the subject are reserved for sanctions rather than apartheid.
  684
  The Foreign Secretary came nowhere near to answering the question asked by the Eminent Persons Group in the penultimate paragraph of its trenchant report. It said:
  "The question in front of Heads of government is in our view clear. It is not whether such measures"—
  sanctions—
  "will compel change; it is already the case that their absence and Pretoria's belief that they need not be feared, defers change. Is the Commonwealth to stand by and allow the cycle of violence to spiral? Or will it take concerted action of an effective kind?"
  The British Government have persistently declined to answer that question.
  At this year's Commonwealth conference, President Kaunda of Zambia, speaking on behalf of 48 of the 49 members of the Commonwealth, said that they had to accept Britain's right to be wrong. The House regards it as humiliating that other members of the Commonwealth must accept Britain's right to be wrong. Why cannot Britain join other countries in being right on this issue and in being willing to take effective action?
  Sources other than those quoted by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have praised the Prime Minister's stance on apartheid. After the Vancouver conference, the pro-Government Johannesburg daily newspaper The Citizen devoted an entire page to an editorial on the Prime Minister's stand at Vancouver and applauded her publicly. The Government, and especially the Prime Minister, stand charged and convicted of giving aid and comfort to the Botha regime at every turn.
  This weekend, I met the Norwegian Prime Minister in Oslo. I discovered that when the Prime Minister visited Norway a little time ago she spent much of her lime lecturing — again with vehemence — members of the Norwegian Government on the wrongheadedness of their approach to South Africa. Everywhere she goes, she uses that argument, and everywhere she goes, she is in the wrong.
  We should examine carefully the measures that have been promulgated by the South African Government. Some of them, which were published on 24 February in the Government Gazette by the Ministry of Law and Order, would be laughable if they were not so serious. The Congress of South African Trade Unions is banned from
  "the stirring-up, by way of publicity campaigns, of opposition among members of the public … to … the detention of a person, or of persons belonging to a category of persons."
  That is a sweeping promulgation, It is forbidden
  "to commemorate or celebrate an event in the history of an organisation … which is of some importance or other to such organisation."
  It is also forbidden to engage in
  "any interference in or meddling with … the affairs or functions of a local authority."
  Our Prime Minister would stand to be convicted under that item if she lived in South Africa. That shows the flavour of the sweeping measures that have been taken against organisations that were trying to do what the Foreign Secretary so approves of: to secure change in South Africa by peaceful means.
  The Government amendment talks about
  "practical and constructive action in Southern Africa."
  That was the thinnest part of the Secretary of State's speech. I pay tribute to the work of the aid and education programmes, but what practical constructive action are the Government taking to help to end apartheid? The answer is none. Earlier this month, the other

  685
  Commonwealth Foreign Ministers set up a committee and met in Lusaka. Sadly, Britain was not represented because the Prime Minister decided that we should not take part in the work of the committee. The Foreign Ministers of Canada and Australia were there, together with representatives of some front-line states. They decided to commission a study on the effect of targeted, intensified sanctions—a phrase that I prefer to the one contained in the Opposition motion of "comprehensive sanctions", because I believe that targeted, selective, effective sanctions would be better than generalised, ineffective sanctions, which is what we might get.
  At their next meeting, the Foreign Ministers will consider a specific list of sanctions on which some of the items in the EPG report may feature. Their communiqué also said that they would take steps to counter the effects of censorship in South Africa and make sure that the outside world knew what was going on. Will Britain play a part in that? Our absence from those meetings suggests that we are not prepared even to do that.
  We should re-examine the list of items in the Nassau communiqué which is republished in the EPG report. On top of that list is the suggestion made a few minutes ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) of ending direct flights to South Africa. If we look at that item alone, it does not meet with the condemnation or criticism that has been levelled at other sanctions. It would not cause mass unemployment in South Africa itself. Moreover, it would have a direct beneficial effect on the economies of the neighbouring front-line states. If every business person and every politician travelling to and from South Africa had to go through one of the front-line states, and international flights were diverted to those states, that could only be beneficial, and would at least be a specific sign of the condemnation of the rest of the world, including this country, of the regime in South Africa.
  What has happened instead? There has been the piecemeal withdrawal of airline facilities by individual countries — the Scandinavians have withdrawn theirs, and so have the Americans. What have the British Government done? Not only have we not withdrawn our air services, but British Airways mounted an advertising campaign in South Africa to get business to connect people to American airlines in London. Far from joining in effective sanctions, we are prepared to undermine the efforts of other Governments, who are trying to bring pressure to bear on the South African Government. The Government should look at that again.
  Are we proud of the fact that in this country we have already been manufacturing the plastic cards or seals that are to go on the identity passes, to enable the apartheid system to be administered? The Group Areas Act will be made more effective by the fact that those passes are manufactured here.
  Many Ministers have lectured the Church on creating a climate of morality in recent times, but the Government have a duty to create a climate of morality on the apartheid issue. What has happened to the Victorian values, when cotton workers in Lancashire were prepared to go without work rather than handle the products of the slave trade? Why do the Government not resurrect such morality and say to firms that they should turn down orders for goods
  686
  that are directly related to the implementation of the apartheid system? The House is entitled to ask the Government to take that step.
  The Lusaka Ministers' meeting set a tone and a trend that we should follow. One of the other items mentioned in their communiqué was tightening up the implementation of the arms embargo and the arms-related materials embargo, to which the Government are bound under the United Nations Security Council resolution. But the Government must also accept some responsibility for the loopholes in that measure that have been allowed. I draw the Government's attention to the fact that as far back as 1983, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was saying that there was no conclusive evidence that the South African embassy in London was involved directly in the breaches of the arms trade embargo, yet subsequently the Foreign Office was made aware of an invoice from a firm in London, which carries on it the official stamp of the South African embassy—it is rubber-stamped. I have a copy of it in my hand. What was done about that? Did the Government summon the ambassador and make it clear that such conduct would not be allowed, or did they say, "Well, we'll let the matter go"—I think that that is the attitude that they took — "the people in the embassy who were engaged in this have been recalled to Pretoria, so nothing more need be done about it."? Again, the Government's attitude was to let issues slide.
  A report to the United States Congress by the State Department, which was published in April last year, listed seven countries that are in breach of the arms embargo. Chief among them was the state of Israel, but sadly the United Kingdom is another of the seven countries listed. The report states:
  "Companies in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have on occasion exported articles covered by the embargo without government permission or have engaged in sales to South Africa in the gray area between civilian and military applications."
  The report was published in April, as I said. In November I asked a series of written questions of the Foreign Office about what had been done on specific allegations of breaches of the embargo on items such as radar equipment. The Minister of State said in reply to three of my questions, on 10 November and 6 November, that the Government were investigating certain allegations that had been made in this connection.
  Since then we have heard nothing. It would be nice to hear tonight that action has been taken on those issues. As the United States report says, there is a grey area between military and civilian equipment. On our television screens we used to see Land Rovers, in the days when it was allowed, being used by the South African police and military against civilians. Such items will obviously be used for repressive purposes. It is no use shrugging and saying, "We thought that they were for civilian purposes."
  If the Government do not wish to go down the road of extending sanctions in other areas, let them be forthright with the House and report that they are implementing those embargos, as we are duty bound to do, under the United Nations resolution. If the Government fail to do that, they will stand condemned yet again of paying lip service to their opposition to apartheid. What we want is some action.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I apologise to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I shall not be here for the wind-up speeches because I have a speaking engagement in Portsmouth, when I shall speak to a school about South Africa. Opposition Members will be interested to learn that a ballot was taken among the pupils on whom they would like to speak, and I came top.
  We have just been treated to a short diatribe from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who gave the usual Liberal view and called for somewhat cosy sanctions. I am surprised that he did not endorse the call this weekend by his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that the Union Jack should be removed from the South African flag. Only the Liberal party will go along with such petty sanctions. They directly conflict with the views of his trusted and personal friend in South Africa, Mr. Colin Eglin, the leader of the Progressive Federal party, who has called consistently for the Opposition parties in Britain to withdraw their call for sanctions.
  We were also treated, inevitably, to the hypocrisy and humbug of the official Opposition Front Bench, for which it has become well noted. Should not the Opposition's words of condemnation of South Africa be voiced at the same time as condemnation of other countries where the basis of human rights is undermined by varied violent means, be it in the Punjab, Sri Lanka or anywhere else? The House might be a little more sympathetic to their arguments if the Opposition did that.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is content, as is his party, to flirt with terrorist organisations such as the African National Congress, to support those who are demonstrating outside the South African embassy in Trafalgar Square, on the basis of intimidation of innocent people walking by, and to put the policy that the Labour party espouses behind violent regimes that are trying to overturn the South African Government. The Opposition have allies in the British Broadcasting Corporation, which never ceases to take any chance—
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: I do not have time to give way.
  The BBC never ceases to take any opportunity of putting forward anti-South African propaganda. I feel, and I think many people in this country feel, that the debate is only on the basis of the Opposition trying to wear their heart on their sleeve and take some high moral ground.
  I endorse the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that the House is sick of hearing such things as the Opposition say, as if they and they only had a conscience or moral obligation—
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
  The Opposition speak as if they had some sort of moral responsibility for the matter. There are Conservative Members, with many varied views on this subject, who
  688
  care deeply about the future of South Africa, but understand the situation far more than Opposition Members, with their simplistic view.
  The state of affairs is always changing in South Africa, not least because the sanction argument has now been lost. The fact that the Prime Minister's stand has been seen to be right and to be working has been borne out in the past few months. Many of the front-line states that were calling for sanctions against South Africa have now muted that policy. Zimbabwe alone increased its trade with South Africa by some 14 per cent. last year. That is some indication of the dependence of that and other countries on the South African economy, and of how devastating sanctions would be for them—as well as for the people of South Africa for whom those who misguidedly advocate sanctions wish the benefit.
  That was brought home recently when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Kenya and Nigeria, where, despite the attempts by parts of the media to suggest that the entire trip would involve the sanctions argument, it seemed to be hardly mentioned. We begin to suspect that even the people in those countries understand that the argument is worthless. Whatever the rhetoric, and whatever measures are taken, the House must understand that—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said—the problem will be resolved only by the South Africans themselves. We do not help by condemning as we have done.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Before the hon. Gentleman ends his remarks, will he make any whisper of criticism of the measures?
  Mr. Carlisle: I am coming to that.
  The position is certainly changing, and I should like to make two small points about it. First, let me refer to the speech made by the state President when he opened Parliament a couple of weeks ago in Cape Town. A certain amount of disappointment was expressed that he had made virtually no reference to the reform process. Those of us who were present perhaps shared that disappointment—
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: No, I will not give way.
  If the reforms are to take place, and we all desire that they should, they can take place only on the basis of economic prosperity. That is where the sanctions argument undermines the very principle that it seeks to support. The idea that change can take place in revolutionary circumstances is nonsense. The fact that the South African economy is now suffering, as other western economies have done, means that the country must get its economy right.
  The dismantling of apartheid — which I support —costs money. If we want to see the same amount of money spent on the education of black children as is spent on that of white children—and I want to see that—we must understand that that can only come about if the economy is there to support it. It is a fallacy to think otherwise.
  The other matter that I wish to discuss is the basis of the latest clampdown. I must say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, were I to be here, I would find it rather difficult to support him in the Lobby tonight on the basis of the Government's amendment. It assumes, as, of

  689
  course, do the Opposition, that the peaceful protest—the word "peaceful" is in the motion; it is certainly not my word—by the various groups was indeed peaceful, and was indeed political.
  Perhaps the House needs to be reminded from time to time that elements in the Opposition parties in South Africa are violent. The ANC has declared that it wishes to see South Africa ungovernable. It wishes to see a military force bring the so-called legitimate regime to its knees. Not all those organisations — hiding, in many instances, behind the respectability of the United Democratic Front — have put forward their protests in a peaceful way. However unpalatable that may be, the House must accept it. The violence, particularly recently, has been in black townships, particularly in the Natal region. It has been black violence. If that is allowed to continue, the structure of even those societies, fragile though they are, is bound to be undermined.
  In such circumstances, any Government are bound to discuss possible measures. I am not necessarily saying that the South African Government, heavy-handed though they are, have taken the right action in this case. What we must ask in the House, and what the South Africans are asking, is for the understanding that if we in this country were in the same position, whatever the colour of our Government, we could be faced with a similar policy. It is all too easy to condemn the authorities for placing a ban on those organisations on the assumption, contained in both the motion and the amendment, that they are peaceful organisations.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we do not know the full facts of the arrest of Archbishop Tutu, the Rev. Allan Boesak and others today, but they knew the position when they marched from the cathedral towards the Parliament building. They knew full well that they were liable to be arrested. I suggest that Archbishop Tutu, glutton that he is for publicity and for any opportunity to put forward his point of view, probably got himself arrested deliberately, along with several others. We must understand how any other Government must react in such circumstances.
  Miss Joan Lestor: What about the children?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Our debate is not enhanced by bawling remarks from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, but I should like to take up the hon. Lady's point. I think that a misnomer is being used in the House. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that thousands of children had been detained under the state of emergency provisions. In fact, no child under the age of 15 has so far been detained. A lot of nonsense has been talked by the Opposition about the number of children who are detained.
  We should remember that the crimes committed by those children in the black townships would not have been accepted in this country. Let me tell the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that one 15-year-old is being held after arson was committed at a school— [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady would listen, although she may not want to hear the facts.
  The arson was started by a group of children at the school. When one of the children decided that she wished
  690
  to have nothing to do with the burning down of her classroom, she was hacked to death by the others outside the school. If that is the sort of action that the hon. Lady and her friends wish to support, so be it, but any Government in that position are bound to react by detaining those who perpetrate such crimes.
  There is no simplistic solution to the awful problems in South Africa. The country is in a state of emergency, and will remain so while people cannot get to work or to school, cannot play sport and cannot live in relative peace and harmony within the black townships. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been there should agree that the state of emergency has brought a relative calm to the areas concerned.
  These immense problems need understanding, and—as my right hon. and learned Friend has said — they need time. The simplistic and heartrending arguments from the Opposition are spurious and entirely unhelpful. We must understand the position as if we were in it ourselves, and hope that the South Africans will sort out the problems for themselves.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: The Botha regime once again stands condemned for this latest in a series of atrocities committed against the majority black population in South Africa, and against the black people in Africa generally. We have seen a two-year state of emergency and attacks on the front-line states second to none. In Angola, even now, white South African troops are fighting the Angolan army. In Namibia the South African forces continue to occupy the country illegally. We have seen the general destabilisation of southern Africa by the Botha regime.
  This latest action is extremely serious. I am surprised that the Government, who are fond of taking hard action, cannot bring themselves to take any action against the South African Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned some of the 17 organisations that have been banned by this latest decree. They include the Detainees' Parents Support Committee, which looks after the interests of children and detainees and monitors how the South African Government deals with them. It issued a press release on 24 February, which said:
  "This attempt to silence the legitimate voices of opposition to apartheid is yet another example of the Government's aggressively confrontational attitude and their refusal to attempt to negotiate with the leaders and organisations which represent the majority of South Africans. Furthermore the DPSC believes that the restrictions placed on 17 organisations are ultra vires and that the Government is not empowered to issue these restrictions. The DPSC is a welfare and service organisation. We are baffled as to how we can be a threat to public safety. We are however proud of our record in exposing state repression and bringing to public scrutiny the excesses and abuses of the security police."
  In a Radio 4 interview late last week, a person whom I believe to be the deputy ambassador at the South African embassy, when asked about the support committee, said that it was giving wrong information to the Western world and distorting the South African Government's position. Presumably that is enough of a crime for the committee to be stopped from taking any political action. Indeed, it is presumably enough to stop it from taking any action. That is not on. It is a disgrace. The Botha regime is attempting to emasculate such organisations. It is

  691
  attempting to stop them from taking any meaningful political action. It is trying to turn them into merely administrative organisations.
  We must reflect on the fact that some organisations have not been banned. I am not, of course, suggesting that they should be banned. I refer to the white-led civil rights organisation, Black Sash. White anti-apartheid groups are not banned.
  Mr. Winnick: Inkatha was not banned.
  Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is right. Why has Inkatha not been banned? The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) talked about black on black violence. He regularly throws that example in the face of the opponents of apartheid. He is effectively arguing that black people are fighting among themselves so we cannot really give them any position of authority. The argument is clearly nonsense.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I did not say that.
  Mr. Grant: The so-called black on black violence is really black on white violence, because behind Inkatha are the police and the Botha regime. The Botha regime needs people such as Chief Buthelezi to ensure that its racist and apartheid regime continues. It is a fact that when about 430 black people have been killed, the majority by Inkatha, the police have stood aside and let it happen. They have taken no action against Buthelezi and Inkatha because they know that Inkatha is doing a job for the regime.
  The United Democratic Front has been banned. It is well known that Archie Gumede and Albertina Sisulu were negotiating about violence in Natal province. It was rumoured that people were beginning to reach some sort of accommodation. We are not a million miles away from the truth if we believe that the violence against black people in Pietermaritzburg could have been stopped. By banning the UDF, the South African Government have automatically removed half the components of the peace negotiations. Because Inkatha has not been banned, it can continue its terrorism on people in the area. We must get behind the so-called black on black violence and find out who is responsible and who stands to gain. The only people who stand to gain are in the Botha regime.
  Other things have happened. In response to the recent banning orders, Desmond Tutu, who was arrested today, said that he would not be surprised if the black majority turned to violence. He said:
  "We have nothing to show for our non-violent approaches … if violence erupts what will be surprising is that it has taken so long."
  There is much in that. His sentiments are similar to those of the Eminent Persons Group. I am therefore surprised when the Foreign Secretary comes here and still talks about the peaceful road. The peaceful road leads nowhere. Everybody knows that. Even Gavin Relly, the chairman of the Anglo American Corporation of South Africa, has had something to say about the South African Government's decision. He said that any threats that were posed by the 17 groups should have been dealt with by the courts and that
  "Yesterday's actions are steps away from the rule of law."
  When we consider the present situation and the British Government's stance, we must ask a few questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me what the Government will do with regard to South Africa. The
  692
  Foreign Secretary says that external pressure does not work. He says that it only makes South Africa dig its heels in even deeper. I am surprised that he should say that, because the boycott on sport has forced the South African Government to open up to multiracial sport, even if only to a small extent. The consistent refusal to send sporting teams has forced the South African Government to make sport multiracial at least superficially. It is nonsense to say that external pressure has no effect.
  The Foreign Secretary said that sanctions would undermine the stability of the region, but the South African regime has undermined the stability of the region for many years. During two years, 140 villages, 840 schools, 900 rural shops and 200 public health installations in Mozambique have been destroyed by the South African Government or their surrogate forces. Is that not destabilisation? Is it not destabilisation when South African troops use G5 and G6 cannon, which have been supplied from the United States of America through the back door, against troops in Angola? That weapon can hit a target the size of a badminton court from 45 km. Is it not destabilisation when the South African Government and their agents bomb the Limpopo railway line? Is it not destabilisation when the South African Government, contrary to contracts made with the front-line states, refuse, at key intervals, to transport goods?
  When the Secretary of State says that sanctions would undermine the stability of the region, he is not being as frank as he should be with the House. He has talked about giving direct assistance to the black community. The Prime Minister has spoken about the great education programme that the British Government have undertaken to help black South Africans. Presumably the right hon. Lady is not aware that the key organisation in South Africa for education, the National Education Crisis Committee, has been banned for some time. Therefore, any minuscule effect that the British Government may have in South Africa is negated because the people who know what sort of education is needed are unable to play a full part in the necessary negotiations.
  The Prime Minister has said that the ANC is a terrorist organisation, but she seems to have changed her tune. During the Kenya-Nigeria tour she was reported as saying that the ANC did not represent all black people in South Africa. It appears that there has been a shift in the Prime Minister's opinion. When she came back from Vancouver she was extremely keen on the idea that the ANC was a terrorist organisation: now she says that it does not represent all the black people, but presumably she now accepts that it represents some.
  We believe that, without question, the ANC is the major organisation that looks after the interests of black people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said that the ANC's standing has been recognised by other Western Governments. We are aware that it has not been fully recognised by the British Government, but we know that the Foreign Office has been speaking to the ANC for some time now, despite what the Prime Minister may say.
  I believe that sanctions are important. The black people of South Africa have asked us to impose sanctions, and there can be no greater recommendation for them than that, because those are the people—the residents of the front-line states and of South Africa—who will suffer. Those people have said that they do not mind suffering a bit more if it will assist them, in due course, to get their freedom. If the Government do not accept the view of the

  693
  majority of black people in South Africa, they are being callous and are not recognising the rights of those people or their ability to speak for themselves. If that is the case, it would appear that the Prime Minister is saying, "I know what is good for you, never mind what you think, and I am going to follow my own path." The Prime Minister has taken such a stand on many other occasions.
  When the Minister replies, she must say whether she will recall the British ambassador from Pretoria and seek the withdrawal of European Community ambassadors. In July 1985, after the first state of emergency was declared by the Botha regime, EC ambassadors were recalled. The latest development is much more serious than the 1985 emergency. Therefore, will the right hon. Lady press for the recall of the British and EC ambassadors?
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: This debate is a charade because our party games mean that our essential unity on this matter is obscured. Indeed, I agree with the Opposition motion apart from the last four words and the Government's amendment is not so dissimilar.
  I should draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that the Government amendment makes no mention of the word "Commonwealth", yet it appears in the Opposition motion. I believe that it is a sad and significant thing that, when discussing Africa, the interests of the Commonwealth should be mentioned only in the Labour party motion and be absent from the Conservative Government amendment. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made no mention of that word in his speech. One would have thought that the interests of nearly one third of the world's sovereign states would cause the British Foreign Secretary to have regard to them before discussing South Africa, a country whose policies have serious implications for the Commonwealth.
  Today's debate is rather like the debate that we had a year ago when the Government's amendment to the Opposition's motion was distinguished by the fact that the Government used the word "measures" and the Opposition used the word "sanctions". There is no difference in principle between the major parties in the House. We all detest apartheid and we all want to see the emergence of representative government in South Africa, within a democratic system. The only difference is how to secure that objective and what is meant by sanctions as a means of securing it.
  Unfortunately, the difference between us appears to be wider because the Government place their emphasis on opposing what are called in the amendment "punitive economic sanctions", and the Opposition place emphasis on "comprehensive economic sanctions." The result of the semantic difference in the wording of the motion and the amendment is that the Government of South Africa believe that the United Kingdom Government support their policies. They do not, but the British Government cannot complain if the world is given such an impression and if, as a result, damage is done to the Commonwealth. The Government do far too little to give the true impression—that we and the British Government detest apartheid and will do all that we practically can to bring it to an end as soon as possible.
  694
  What do we mean by sanctions? If, by opposing punitive sanctions, the Government mean only those measures that punish South Africa and their people in a negative way and might defer fundamental constitutional change in South Africa, I agree with them. Comprehensive economic sanctions, as advocated by the Opposition, could be regarded as similarly negative and destructive.
  Some sanctions of a symbolic and economic nature already exist. The European Community, the Commonwealth, the United States, other countries and even the British Government have applied a variety of sanctions designed, at one end of the scale, to refrain from assisting the South African Government's policies and, at the other end of the scale, to force the South African Government to come to terms with the majority of their subjects. I must confess that I am in favour of measures at the latter end of the scale. We should consider extending measures, sanctions, initiatives or whatever one may call them that might induce the South African Government to come to terms with the majority of their people. We should consider sanctions that might not do so much economic harm but would be of great significance, nevertheless. For example, we could ban direct flights between South Africa and this country and we could withdraw ambassadors.
  The Government cannot maintain their present mild policy towards the South African Government indefinitely. The violence is increasing daily and it has been made worse by internal repression. A doctrine based on the inferiority of one race and enforced by law is bound to result in cruelty, injustice, the use of brute force and misery in all contacts between authority and subjects. Furthermore, the brutality of apartheid at a personal level is bound to sicken people who live in a free society such as ours so that they demand that action be taken to destroy it.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend suggests a ban on flights between Britain and South Africa. Is not that rather self-defeating? Do we not want to encourage more contact? How can we have contact without flights? We want to encourage British people to go to South Africa and seek to influence people in South Africa and equally we want South Africans to come here and perhaps be influenced. That is sensible and we have flights to Russia for exactly the same reason.
  Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend shares a point of view that is sincerely held by a great many Conservative Members. Indeed, 20, 30 or 40 years ago I shared that view. However, as time has passed, I have realised that that is no solution. The South Africans do not want to change. They have no intention of changing. They can be induced to change only by pressure. They will not admire our system or want to share our impressions of the world. To a certain extent, I agree with my hon. Friend, because if Afrikaners could see Africans in a natural free habitat, such as is possible elsewhere in Africa, they would appreciate that it is possible to regard Africans as capable and worthy of taking a share in their government. However, there is a struggle for power in South Africa and I do not believe that those who run the South African Government have any intention of giving way even to the influence that shared communications and an outsider's view of the world might bring.
  Apartheid is an affront to civilisation and no African Commonwealth state worth its salt would tolerate

  695
  indefinitely British inactivity on this issue. Extra sanctions, measures, persuasions and influences are needed to induce the white population of South Africa, which has the vote, to accept fundamental constitutional reforms. Such inducements can include symbolic measures that do not cause grievous economic damage but show that we mean business.
  Those who support the Government of South Africa are clearly themselves supported by people with detestable ideas about government and democracy, as has been exhibited by the Nazi-style movements that have grown in strength recently. Such people must not be allowed to think that they have an ally in the United Kingdom. Britain must progressively increase the pressure on South Africa. What is being done at the moment is quite insufficient and will not bring about reform at the pace necessary for that reform to be realistic and successful. If we are to be true to ourselves and our historic role in Africa, we British have no option but to reject the wickedness of the South African Government's policies and do all that we can to change them.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: The brave speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was a welcome relief from the weasel words that we heard from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) who acts as an apologist for the South African Government. I have never doubted or denied that some Conservative Members believe that what is happening in South Africa is monstrous and should be ended, but I do not know whether they are in a minority or a majority. It was for those Conservative Members that the hon. Member for Orpington spoke.
  I considered the Foreign Secretary's speech pathetic. When I intervened during it, I said that I did not question the fact that the Foreign Secretary was against apartheid. I am sure that he is as much against that system of racial tyranny as are Opposition Members but that is not the issue. We expected, not just condemnation — although that is welcome—of the latest measures in South Africa but to hear what effective action the Government propose to take.
  From the Foreign Secretary's speech we could conclude only that the British Government do not intend to take any measures whatever. The Foreign Secretary was pathetic, not because of any personal inadequacies, but simply because he is the Foreign Secretary in a Government headed by a Prime Minister who is determined that under no circumstances should effective economic measures be taken against the South African regime. The real culprit is the Prime Minister.
  It is no coincidence that this debate is taking place in Opposition time. I find it difficult to believe that the Government would have found time for a debate following the events in South Africa last week. The Labour party has strenuously opposed the system operating in South Africa. We did so from the very beginning, when the Nationalists took office in 1948. We do not deny or apologise for the fact that we feel strongly and passionately about this subject. It is difficult to think of any subject about which we feel more strongly: just as our predecessors felt as strongly about the slave trade and its awful happenings or the tyranny of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy in the 1930s.
  696
  It was a Labour Government who banned the arms sales to South Africa in the 1960s. In 1967 some members of the Cabinet, particularly the then Foreign Secretary, the late George Brown, wanted to reverse that policy. It quickly became public knowledge. It is said that Cabinet meetings are confidential, but the subject of the meeting in question was soon leaked. Labour Members in their hundreds tabled a motion making it perfectly clear that any reversal of the Government's policy was totally unacceptable. If the Cabinet had gone ahead, we should have voted against the Government in the Lobby, because we considered that to be our responsibility.
  On 18 June 1970 Labour lost office. I should remember that election date, as I lost my seat, where I had had a majority of 81. On 6 July the Foreign Secretary, now Lord Home, announced that the Labour Government's ban on arms sales was to be reversed. The Conservative Government could hardly wait to declare that change of policy. It is a good job that the ban on arms sales to South Africa is now the subject of a United Nations Security Council mandatory resolution, and has been since 1977. If it were not, I could almost believe that the Prime Minister would be arguing—as Conservative politicians, including the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was the Leader of the Opposition, argued in the debate on arms sales in 1967 — that it was right and proper to sell arms to South Africa because other countries would do so if we did not. There is not the slightest evidence to show that the South African authorities take any notice of the criticism levelled at them by Western Governments, including the United Kingdom. It is not words that will shift the rulers in that country.
  As we know, at this moment the South African Government are concerned about the challenge from the even more Right-wing in South Africa, such as the Conservative party and the Nazi-inspired Afrikaner Resistance Movement. Botha is concerned that some by-election may be lost. He is far more concerned with appeasing the ultra-nationalists, the Right-wing or the Nazi-inspired movements such as we have seen on the television news, than with international opinion. That is what we have to recognise today.
  I accept entirely that sanctions—I want to see them applied — would not bring down the South African Government in a matter of days, weeks or months. I do not challenge that. However, it would weaken and isolate the South African authorities. They are desperately frightened of international sanctions. They do not want them at any price.
  Sanctions, moreover, would be a signal to the regime that at long last the international community is taking action and will continue to do so until substantial changes occur in South Africa leading to majority rule. There would also be a second signal to all those in South Africa who oppose the regime, such as the African National Congress and the people it represents, and those in the white and coloured communities who are just as opposed to the system as we are, that at long last Western countries, Britain included, and the EEC are determined to support their campaign and struggle against racial tyranny. No longer would it be simply a matter of words. No longer would it be a matter of condemning the South African Government's actions, as the Foreign Secretary did today, and then washing one's hands of it.

  697
  Whenever we debate South Africa, everyone here, with one or two exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Luton, North and one or two others who have not spoken, criticises the apartheid regime. In the main there is condemnation of apartheid. The real divide in the House — this is what I would say to the Foreign Secretary, who has now returned to the Chamber — is between those who criticise what is happening in South Africa but rule out any action against the regime, and Opposition Members, who argue that the South African system is a monstrous racial tyranny modelled on the lines of Hitler's Germany which should be penalised and punished for as long as it refuses to change its ways.
  The report of the Eminent Persons Group referred to sanctions. That group was made up of a number of people, including Lord Barber, whose political opinions would be somewhat different from ours on the Labour Benches. The report said:
  "If it comes to the conclusion"—
  that is the South African authorities—
  "that it would always remain protected from such measures, the process of change in South Africa is unlikely to increase … and the descent into violence would be accelerated."
  The report went to speak about the Africans and said:
  "If it also comes to believe that the world community will never exercise sufficient effective pressure through other measures in support of their cause, they will have only one option remaining: that of ever-increasing violence."
  If people are denied their basic rights, have no part to play in the government of their country, are refused the vote and basic civil and democratic rights for one reason only — the colour of their skin — is it surprising that some have come to the conclusion in South Africa that violence should occur?
  The Prime Minister said that the ANC is a terrorist organisation almost on the lines of the IRA. That only helps the IRA. No one in Northern Ireland is denied the right to put forward a point of view, however Republican he or she may be. There is no reason and no excuse for terrorism in Northern Ireland. In South Africa it is not terrorism, but violent struggle by people who are denied their rights. Therefore, to slander the ANC is to help the IRA and other terrorist organisations. It is to slander an organisation which came into being in 1912 and which until 1960 said that under no circumstances would violence be used. It was only at the time of Sharpeville that it came to the conclusion that there was no alternative.
  We are right to have this debate. I saw the remarkable film "Cry Freedom", as I am sure did some of my hon. Friends. It was moving in many ways. In my view—I am not a professional critic—the most effective moment was the end, when the credits went up and we saw the names of all the people who over the past 10 or 15 years had been murdered in detention. That is an illustration of what is happening in South Africa today. I trust that this debate will be one of many to come.
  The message from Labour Members—not from the Conservative Government—to all those in South Africa opposed to the regime, whether black, white or coloured, is, "We are on your side. Everything we can do, we will do. Your struggle is a just one. You are right to demand freedom and we want to do everything in our power to ensure that freedom and liberation come to South Africa."
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Many of us share the passion that was displayed at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). My remarks will be brief because many other hon. Members want to speak in this short debate.
  I am sure that the support that the ANC receives in South Africa is considerably higher than that which can be claimed by the South African Government—the Pretoria regime. In fact, the measurement of election figures in recent elections shows that the Pretoria regime governs on the basis of support from about 7 or 8 per cent. of the population. Of course, artificially that is a large percentage of the electorate because the electorate is so small. However, if anyone were to ask which of all the panoply of political forces in South Africa has the greatest legitimacy, I would unequivocally and unhesitatingly say that the ANC has greater legitimacy as a political force and as a component in the future government of South Africa, along with other entities and components that negotiations may bring about.
  The ANC is a constructive force for future peace but it is trapped by the vicious and evil nature of the Pretoria regime. Some people, rightly excluding my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who knows so much about South Africa, are tempted to think that the Pretoria regime is prepared to compromise and indulge in real reforms. I hope that they will allow those illusions and naive beliefs to be dispelled. There have been no reforms beyond the wholly artificial and transparent idea of racial mixing and sexual relations between peoples. The Act preventing that has been repealed. However, there have been no other reforms. Even the old passes have been replaced with new ones. They may look more modern, more acceptable and more sophisticated but the intention behind them is the same: to keep the population separated.
  In all measurements of world history it is a detestable and wicked regime that has to be removed. I am glad that Opposition Members have acknowledged that they have no monopoly of virtue on the matter. Conservative Members also feel that that has to be done. Inevitably, because South Africa is a sovereign country, it has to be done by the population concerned, however hopeless we may feel the position is after having seen the latest incredible and stupid measures of that totally evil Government who are trying once again to clamp down on legitimate and peaceful political protests and actions. We have to ask ourselves how things will work out.
  I share the genuine, honest and sincere reservations about sanctions held by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I believe that Pretoria is the sort of regime that will be forced further and further into isolation. There is the defiant laager mentality. This is a sad thing to say and I wish I did not have to say it, but even with concerted international action from all the Governments involved, out of the woodwork throughout the world—it is a wicked old world—would come all the middle men, the intermediaries, the traders and the entrepreneurs. They would go to Pretoria and say, "We will find every conceivable way of getting over the sanctions problems, do not worry." Therefore, there would be a combination of increasing isolation and political defiance, further measures of repression against the hapless and long-suffering majority black population, the Indians, coloureds and the whites who are courageous

  699
  enough to stand up against the evil, as well as the mechanisms and entrepreneurial decisions that would allow the South African Government to overcome the problems.
  The solution must come from inside. Conservative Members need not apologise for saying that we are not sure how that will happen. I am worried about the situation, as was my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when she referred to the matter in the media during the weekend, after the latest measures had been announced.
  An ominous situation is developing. I wonder what the next step will be with this crazy regime which is sufficiently defiant to ignore even rational and sensible opinion in its own country. It ignores the advice of even sensible, pragmatic business men such as Tony Bloom who are now leaving the country. I and other hon. Members regret that very much.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will comment on this, if time allows. Since the latest emergency began in 1984, how many people have been detained and how many murdered in detention by the South African regime? From my vague impression, the figure must be at least several thousand. We do not know, because no figures are published by this lying regime, which never tells the truth, so we have to guess about what is happening, but the total includes children, teenagers and women. How many people have been murdered in detention since the latest emergency began in 1984, let alone since 1976, the period with which Richard Attenborough's film deals? Almost 1,000 schoolchildren were shot in the back as they ran away from the police. That shows the kind of regime which we are discussing. It will use any excuse.
  The regime is imposing itself more by its latest series of insane measures. At present, it spared Black Sash, perhaps because it consists of powerful, rich, white ladies who do a wonderful job. I am not grumbling about that, but what will happen when the extra violence which results from the measures ensues? What happens when the regime begins to kill hapless, defenceless black citizens in large numbers? If we are against sanctions, how do we in the Western world and elsewhere react to what is happening, if we are unable to learn about it? The press shackles are so complete. The press have not even tried to bring out the truth of what is happening in the unrest areas. We have the vague impression that things have quietened down. To some extent, that is true, but there is also much more trouble going on, not just in Natal.
  When the regime starts to murder large numbers of defenceless black people, how should we react? We may have serious reservations about sanctions. They can be empty gesture politics, although I respect the sincerity of Opposition Members. The Western world and the United Nations will have to decide how to react. In the meantime, allowing for the inherently unsatisfactory nature of this appalling situation, the Government, the European Community, the United Nations and the Commonwealth must do everything in their limited grasp in respect of this sovereign country which will make its own decision and will be defiant unto us all, if it so decides. So far, that has been its indication, almost without exception.
  We must decide what we can do and I hope that that will mean, in a limited way, another EC initiative and the sending of yet another mission. Hon. Members may claim that it has not worked before, so why bother to do it again,
  700
  but attempts must be made to encourage Pretoria to listen to outside suggestions. I am pessimistic about whether the regime will respond, but we must try. In so trying, we continue our constructive policies rather than doing what I now fear we shall do, if we say that sanctions are not practical, cannot be implemented and are not a good idea because they would cause unemployment. I fear that we shall say that we can now do nothing. That is the worst of all our options.
  I understand the anxiety of Labour Members. They are entitled to complain about that danger. If we de not do anything the situation will deteriorate into genocide unless the Pretoria regime is checked by internal reforms.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: The last two contributions from the Government Benches have been well thought out speeches and have been taken seriously by a number of Labour Members.
  I challenge the basis of the Foreign Secretary's argument. He put to the House his reasons for not taking action. He asked Opposition Members to accept his sincerity about changes in South Africa and the eventual removal of apartheid. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the words of the Eminent Persons Group, of which his noble Friend Lord Barber was a member, when it went to South Africa to assess the position. That is the base line from which we start. The way in which we deal with the mentality inside the institutions of South Africa is important.
  Page 132 of the Eminent Persons Group report refers to the group's discussions with the South African Government and says:
  "In the Government's thinking, there were a number of non-negotiables; for example., the concept of group rights—the very basis of the apartheid system—was sacrosanct; the 'homelands' created in furtherance of that concept would not disappear, … the principle of one man one vote in a unitary state was beyond the realm of possibility; the Population Registration Act would continue; and the present Tricameral Constitution which institutionalises racism must be the vehicle for future constitutional reform. From these and other recent developments, we draw the conclusion that while the Government claims to be ready to negotiate, it is in truth not yet prepared to negotiate fundamental change, not to countenance the creation of genuine democratic structures, nor to face the prospect of the end of white domination and white power in the foreseeable future. Its programme of reform does not end apartheid, but seeks to give it a less inhuman face. Its quest is power-sharing, but without surrendering overall white control."
  I ask the Foreign Secretary to contrast that with the freedom charter and the principles embodied in that charter, which was the product of a delegation of some 3,000 people in 1955. That charter embodies all that any democrat would want in a multiracial society.
  That leaves us with two options. The first option is to bring further pressure to bear on South Africa. The measures that the Government agreed to take have not been carried out as was agreed at Nassau. People both inside and outside South Africa call upon us to take that course of action. Every major organisation in South Africa which supports the removal of apartheid is asking for sanctions to be applied to South Africa. Change will come only from within South Africa.
  The second option was put forward by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon — to pursue dialogue and constructive engagement. Since the Commonwealth meeting at Nassau in October 1985, a number of actions

  701
  have flown in the face of international opinion and in the face of the Eminent Persons Group, which was in South Africa when there were incursions and bombing raids into Commonwealth countries.
  There has been the imposition of another state of emergency. Media coverage has been banned and a number of journalists expelled. Violence has increased and now includes violence towards children. Any country that tortures or puts its children into prison must be asked whether it has a human Administration. There have been mass arrests of young people. A conference called "Children under apartheid", held in Harare not long ago, referred to the horrific treatment of children. The accounts came not only from young people but from psychiatrists and teachers.
  There have been incursions into the front-line states. Only last week there was a further incursion into Angola. Namibia continues to be illegally occupied, in direct opposition to United Nations resolution 435. Just last week 17 organisations, which were clearly non-violent campaigners against the apartheid regime, were banned.
  Every step taken by the South African regime is against the type of constructive engagement that the British Government have continued to pursue. It was unfortunate that the Prime Minister in a Government who were a party to an agreement like the Nassau accord tried to rubbish that conference as she came away from it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, the right hon. Lady said that Britain had moved a teeny weeny bit. But we have not moved even a teeny weeny bit. In those areas covered by the Nassau accord, we are still supplying Land Rovers, which are patrolling the townships and from which South African police shoot to kill. We are supplying British ICL computers to the South African police and the arms industry. British military radar, provided by Plessey and Marconi, is used to control South African air attacks into neighbouring African states. British oil companies, such as Shell and BP, continue to fuel the apartheid war machine. The Department of Trade and Industry has stepped up its promotion of trade. I have documentation to show that action is being taken in direct contradiction of section 6(c) of the Nassau accord. A letter of 5 January 1988 from the west midlands regional office of the British Overseas Trade Board said:
  "Dear exporter,
  Forthcoming trade mission to South Africa.
  1. Following the success of its trade mission in South Africa in November 1987 the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association has announced its intentions to mount a second trade mission there in April 1988. Full details are available from Mr. Tim Bird, 45 Great Peter Street, London SW1.
  2. In addition, management and training specialists will lead a mission to South Africa starting on 23 February 1988."
  Details are given, The letter continuned:
  "3. In accordance with the United Kingdom's international commitment neither mission will receive any Government financial support, with an exception; the full range of DTI services is being made available.
  4. South Africa continues to present many opportunities for British firms especially those in construction and engineering sectors."
  I do not know whether that is following the Nassau accord to the letter.
  Barry Harding, a senior civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry, writes:
  702
  "South Africa: export assistance available. I fear that the message which my colleagues in the market branch here have endeavoured to put across by visits to regional offices etc has not reached everyone. I would be grateful if you will remind your staff that the Minister for Trade is content for officials to continue with the present policy of offering exports for a normal range of assistance apart from those specifically banned. In practice, this simply means that no financial contribution is presently made towards outward missions or joint ventures to South Africa. All other assistance continues to be available including a useful background briefing note which is updated quarterly and a range of market reports."
  Those are the words of a leading DTI civil servant, yet we are supposed to be banning trade missions.
  I shall pose a series of questions to the Minister. First, will the British Government recall the British ambassador to Pretoria and seek the withdrawal of all European Community ambassadors? Secondly, will the British support the convening of the United Nations Security Council, since it is likely that an emergency debate will take place, probably this week? Will the Government undertake not to use their veto powers if there is a package of sanction measures before the Security Council that are acceptable to other Western countries? Thirdly, will the Government seek from the United Nations Security Council mandatory action to enforce the measures to which they have already agreed—for example, the oil embargo and an embargo on computer exports? It makes no sense for Britain to adopt such measures and then block their universal application.
  Fourthly, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary go to the meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers this weekend with a positive approach to reach agreement on additional European Community measures? In particular, will he use his influence with the West German and Portuguese Foreign Ministers to get agreement on a ban on coal imports? Fifthly, will the Government follow up the Minister's statement, to which reference has been made many times, on 24 February on "Newsnight"? Will they consult their Commonwealth partners by meeting the Commonwealth Secretary-General and support the convening of a meeting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers or a meeting of the Commonwealth southern African committee to reach agreement on further measures? There are many other measures that the Government should take to send out the correct signals to South Africa. If the Government are to fulfil the words of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, those words must be backed up by action. Convening meetings of these international institutions is an important step to ensure that the right vibes are sent out to the regime in South Africa.
  A number of us have called for the removal of the Union Jack from the South African flag. Someone said that that was fairly symbolic. Because of what we have seen on our television screens this weekend — with the AWB and actions similar to the Nuremberg fiascos when the Fascists were coming to power — many of us are afraid that, unless action is brought by external powers to liberate South Africa, the Nazi symbol of 1988 may be seen clearly at the side of the Union Jack, flying over the South African embassy in this nation. That is unacceptable. History has repeatedly taught us that we cannot run away from the Fascist tendencies. They must be confronted. We do not want to come back in a few years and say, "We told you so." As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said, there could be genocide in South Africa. We want positive action and that is what the motion is about.

  703
  If we let time pass, the predictions in the report of the Eminent Persons Group will come true. We could see the biggest bloodbath since the second world war.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Knowles: I share the fears of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), yet I believe that in part we have trapped ourselves into our present position. Our mistake has been to keep only to a stick policy. We have not had a stick and carrot policy towards South Africa; we have just kept on trying to use the stick. I have said, as have other hon. Members, that we should have offered investment in southern Africa as a whole, especially in education, on the basis of a second Marshall plan, yet that has not happened. All that we have sought to use is the stick as a policy to try to drive the South African Government in the direction that we want them to go.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made a point about black against black violence. One could say that that is perhaps a good sign, because people are starting to move towards a realisation that apartheid, in the way that it has been known, is passing and forces are starting to move to fresh positions in search of power. There is a power struggle between the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front and Inkatha, and that is not surprising. If one takes the UDF and the ANC as being roughly lined up with the Xhosa nation it is hardly surprising at all, but it could be taken as a sign that things are advancing rather than going backward.
  It is probably true of us all in all situations that we are trapped in our own beliefs and what we want to come true we work backwards towards. The thing that worries me is that South Africa is the regional superpower. It dominates southern Africa in a way that we in the United Kingdom seem not to understand. If we take South Africa in relation to Africa as a whole, with 4 per cent. of Africa's territory, South Africa consumes 60 per cent. of the continent's electricity, produces 66 per cent of its steel, is responsible for 40 per cent, of industrial production, and so on. It is a massive regional superpower and dominates the area. This must be taken into account.
  It means that if sanctions become really effective they will hit not only South Africa but every neighbouring state as well, and probably with interest. South Africa will make sure that it passes the effect on.
  Another worrying suggestion made earlier in the debate was that we should end direct flights to South Africa. This is fine as a gesture, and one takes it on board, but the net effect will be that Swissair will do very well, because all that people will do is fly to Switzerland and trans-ship. The same has happened in the United States. People fly to London. Unless one can be certain of the outcome, it is a dangerous game to play.
  The whole sanctions argument is riddled with hypocrisy. For example, 46 out of the 50 members of the Organisation for African Unity trade with South Africa. France suddenly advocated a ban on trading in nuclear power with South Africa — after it had sold a power station to Johannesburg, of course. Australia is in favour of a sanction on coal exports from South Africa. What a surprise. It is in the business itself.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman was speaking a little while ago about the problems of travel to
  704
  South Africa. Will he tell the House what method of travel he used to go to South Africa when he went out on trips spondored by the South African Government?
  Mr. Knowles: A flight from London to Johannesburg.
  Mr. Rogers: Who paid?
  Mr. Knowles: Bophuthatswana. It is all in the declaration. I am not quite sure of the point of the question, because all that hon. Members need do is look up the Register of Members' Interests and they will find it all declared there.
  A point was made about the oil embargo—
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to have gone there and seen for oneself than to sit sometimes on the Opposition Benches, never having been within 10,000 miles of the place?
  Mr. Knowles: Yes.
  A point was made about the oil embargo. The truth is that the oil embargo does not work. When I was in Durban I saw that it was a case of wall-to-wall tankers, and petrol was half the price that it is in this country. And that is supposed to be with an oil embargo. The arms embargo merely served to create a South African arms industry. The point was made earlier — again by the hon. Member for Tottenham, I think — about long-range guns. He thought that they were American. They were not. They were indigenous South African guns. They were G6 and G7 long-range guns using the special steels that had to be made to give them that range. That is the nature of the economy that one is dealing with.
  We must also understand the nature of the people that we are dealing with, the Afrikaners. It is not easy to push them around. We should know; we have tried. We fought two wars with them, and eventually won, but we must remember the cost of our winning. We put their people in concentration camps and slaughtered one third of them. We had to do that to beat them. We then spent 40 years trying to crush them as a people, and we failed.
  It is a serious situation and there is a danger of massive bloodshed. Let us not kid ourselves that there is a quick, easy solution, because there is not. We must look at it with a cold, hard eye.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: There have been two major themes in the debate, one an analysis of the events of the past weeks in South Africa and the other the appropriate response, if any, from Her Majesty's Government.
  On the analysis of the events of the past week there has, with the exception of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), been a substantial degree of consensus on both sides of the House. As regards the response from the Government side, I notice that the Prime Minister last Thursday called the action a setback for the possibility of peaceful negotiations. The very idea of a setback is an illusion. It implies there has been steady progress, marred only by this step backwards with the events of the past week. Had the Prime Minister listened to what must come from her own people in Pretoria, she must surely have been aware of not only the emergency and the detentions over the past two years, but the well trailed restrictions on universities, the proposals for trade union reform and the increasing pressure on the United Democratic Front since

  705
  its formation in 1983, which has meant that only three members of the executive of the UDF were at large— neither on the run nor in detention—last week. It can hardly be designated as a setback, therefore, but as something which has been well trailed and which is very consistent with the recent trend of South African policy: the United Democratic Front and the Congress of South African Trade Unions are seen as key barriers to the maintenance of white minority rule, which is what Botha and his Government are all about.
  Yet the Prime Minister persists in calling it a setback as if she could claim, against the evidence, that it is a process of reform, and that constructive engagement, more trade being pushed by the Government—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said earlier—and more contact with the South Africans can somehow bring them into the 20th century and the real world.
  Mr. Colvin rose—
  Mr. Anderson: I know a number of those directly concerned in the repressive measures last week, and a number are known to the Minister of State. I think of Archie Gumede, whom I first met when he sought sanctuary in our consulate in Durban. He is co-president of the United Democratic Front. I had several lengthy discussions with him at that time and I gained a pretty good view of his judgment and political disposition. I was amazed at his moderation. I certainly would not have been as moderate, given the repression to which his people have been subjected. It is well known that in the past weeks he has been involved in a search for reconciliation, in Pietermaritzburg, of the conflicts between the UDF and Inkatha. That man's voice is temporarily stilled.
  I spoke from the same platform in Durban as Albertina Sisulu. Her husband is on Robben Island. Her son, Zwelakhe, is a fearless journalist, but he has been in detention for over a year. Albertina Sisulu has been a force for peace and reconciliation not only in the Ford dispute but during the recent troubles in the Cape, but now she has been banned.
  With regard to the white population we think of Max and Audrey Coleman from the white business community in South Africa. They became politicised when their sons were detained by the South African Government. They formed, with others, the detainees' parents' support committee. That committee, to some extent, has been funded by the European Community and other worthy organisations in the west. It is the equivalent of the Sakharovs and other groups within the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister would be keen to see Sakharov, but she would not deign to see the Colemans or others in South Africa.
  Who is left to talk to when the voices of moderation are stilled? The people who have sought the ways of avoiding violence have been pushed to one side by Botha and his henchmen. Surely the message from Mr. Botha is that he has no serious interest in fundamental change. His only interest is in winning by-elections by the votes of the minority white electorate. He is ready to ignore outside opinion—the special relationship that he has with our Prime Minister.
  What should be the appropriate response of the British Government to the new measures of repression that have
  706
  stifled the voices of peaceful people and leaders within South Africa? We believe that—this was shown by the Foreign Secretary earlier—the likely response will be the same as before. All the signals given by the Government will be of comfort to Pretoria and of despair to world opinion, the Commonwealth and the United Nations. Among such signals we have already excluded ourselves from the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers, which was set up at the Vancouver conference. We were not represented at the meeting in Lusaka at the beginning of this month, even though the terms of reference of that committee were much wider than mere sanctions. The Foreign Secretary looks glum. We know that he was under orders from she who must be obeyed. The Foreign Secretary is a man of more liberal instincts. However, we must pose the question: is there anything that would induce the Foreign Secretary to resign? Perhaps the question answers itself.
  As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, there is no mention of the Commonwealth in the Government's amendment, despite the suggestions that were made at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings at Nassau and Vancouver. Was that a mere slip, or is it another illustration that the Commonwealth has been marginalised in foreign policy formulation?
  At Nassau we agreed on an oil embargo. Yet at the end of last year the Government refused to co-operate with the United Nations committee that was inquiring into violations of the oil embargo. That was another signal of support to Pretoria. It was a signal that the Government ignores world opinion. The Government have not sent the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), to the townships to make the same sort of remarks that he made in the Gaza strip.
  In response to criticism, the Government merely dig more deeply into their bran tub of words of disapproval. The Prime Minister has said that she "condemns" the moves. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is "shocked and saddened." The Minister of State is "dismayed." Words are cheap.
  I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate she will answer the question that has been asked by Labour Members—have the new measures of repression that the South African Government have taken in the past week led to any reassessment of policy by the Government? Will they change their policy as a result of those events?
  The Labour party's policy on sanctions is well known. We believe that under the United Nations and in co-operation with our Commonwealth and EEC partners, comprehensive sanctions should be taken against South Africa. For a start, there should be airline sanctions and a coal boycott, which the Government, in co-operation with the German Government, prevented at the EEC summit.
  Even if the Government rule out economic sanctions, there are a series of what the Prime Minister might call "measures" available to them. Without incurring any great cost she can still give clear signals to the white minority Government of South Africa and their supporters that we disapprove of what they are doing. Why do we still have a no-visa agreement with South Africa, which is a relic of the old Commonwealth relationship? Would not the abrogation of that agreement be a clear signal to South Africa of our position? Will we still treat South Africa diplomatically as if it were any other country? Mr. Birt,

  707
  who is the deputy director-general of the BBC, gave the South African ambassador a guided tour of the BBC last week. No doubt he told him about intimidation from the Government. Will we act in concert with our other European Community partners by downgrading our mission and possibly by removing the ambassador for some time? Even if we claim that our embassy in South Africa is playing a positive role, why cannot our ambassador show solidarity with those individuals and groups that have been banned by going to the UDF offices, by visiting Albertina Sisulu, or by meeting Archie Gumede and others? We believe that such shock treatment may disabuse those in South Africa who believe that they can get away with it because they have the support of the Prime Minister and the Government.
  The Prime Minister is in a unique position.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Anderson: The Prime Minister is trusted in white South Africa. If she were to carry out some of the measures that have been suggested it would thus have a disproportionate effect on white opinion — those who currently hold the power in South Africa. The Prime Minister's gestures have given the impression to white South Africans that she is on their side, not that of the majority in that country.
  Generations of blacks and progressive people in South Africa will look back with pride at those brave men and women whose voices have been temporarily stilled by the actions of the past week. Equally, generations of British people will look back with shame at a British Government, who at this critical time of test have only confirmed their policy of business as usual with apartheid.
  6.58 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): No one with any understanding of the need for particiption in society by all races and creeds can suggest that the South African Government's latest actions are anything but a serious further step in the tragic chronicle of repressive action in South Africa. The House, and indeed the whole international community, is at one in roundly condemning these South African actions.
  There is no doubt about Britain's position. The House heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last Thursday deplore the South African Government's actions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary issued an immediate condemnation which left no room for doubt about the Government's rejection of repression of whatever kind, but particularly on this scale and of this latest severity.
  The action of the South African Government has been condemned here in Britain and all over the world. It has been condemned by business men in South Africa such as Gavin Relly who have been doing their best to bring social and economic reform to black South Africa. Jan Steyn, the chairman of the urban foundation, said only a few days ago that
  "the ability of organisations with strong community support to function is a key factor in determining whether such progress is possible."
  Referring to the restrictions of last Thursday, 25 February he said:
  "These restrictions will severely hamper this progress."
  No one is in any doubt that the action of the South African Government is totally repressive.
  708
  The British Government's views have been put over most forcibly, in public and in private, to the South African Government, here and in South Africa. We shall see whether they will be effective because there is more to be said. I continue to urge the House to back the Government in our efforts to get the South African Government to withdraw all the restrictions forthwith.
  The House can be assured that the South African Government have been left in no doubt of Britain's views on the lasting damage caused by these measures to the prospects for peaceful change.
  What then is the way ahead that can bring about the end of apartheid, to which we are committed, and the transition to genuinely non-racial representative government in South Africa? First, let me say that I have not heard a single argument today from the Opposition which suggests that their policies will do anything to improve the tragic situation in South Africa. Maybe their rhetoric assuages their consciences.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way instead of reading her speech?
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that some of his colleagues type some of their remarks. As he can see, I have been sitting here typing.
  Opposition Members have used rhetoric to assuage their consciences, but that does nothing whatsoever to bring about the major changes necessary to help the black majority into governing in their own country.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister clearly is not giving way.
  Mr. Nellist: She has not seen me yet.
  Mrs. Chalker: It is impossible not to see the hon. Gentleman with one's eyes, even if one does not intend to give way to him. I particularly regret the narrow interpretation of our responsibilities put forward by the Opposition—
  Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not persist.
  Mrs. Chalker: For the Opposition, opposing apartheid seems to mean one thing on ly—sanctions and yet more sanctions. As my right hon. and learned Friend said to the House, punitive economic sanctions are not the answer.
  There are more effective ways of contributing to progress and to peaceful change in South Africa than blighting the country's economic development. We can make that contribution at the same time as expressing our total revulsion and rejection of apartheid.
  I say to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that I do not believe that the events of the past weeks have done anything whatsoever to take us forward with the awful problems of South Africa. The hon. Gentleman may ask for immediate judgments and for changes of course. He may ask for clear signals to the white minority Government. Those signals have been given and will continue to be given. I shall examine all that he said, as I shall examine all reports mentioned in the debate, and no voice will be stilled in condemnation.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: No. I am not giving way.

  709
  There are more effective ways, and indeed we shall consider them. I believe that, above all else, we have to maintain the effective contact with all cross-sections of the people of all colours and creeds in South Africa.
  Opposition Members have called for the withdrawal of Her Majesty's ambassador and EC ambassadors. That idea may be superficially attractive but would do no good to those in South Africa who are oppressed by the actions of the South African Government, and with whom we must keep in contact.
  Mr. Nellist: Some minutes ago, the Minister asked for constructive suggestions to improve the lot of those who are oppressed in South Africa. She also spoke about relationships between people. Given the mounting evidence of the murder and death squads operated by Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha, will she now announce that the Inkatha office opened last autumn in St. John's Wood will be closed by the Government as a clear signal that when they see terrorist activity they do something about it?
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member's point did not relate to what I was saying. If the hon. Gentleman expects sudden snap judgments such as that to be answered, he is asking the wrong person.
  There is an important job to be done on the spot by our ambassador in South Africa. I believe that those who have argued that he should come home have no idea of the range, depth and breadth of the contacts that he makes, nor indeed of what he is doing.
  I must say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) that I shall look at the letters which he cited. The way in which he expressed his speech was interesting and I shall certainly examine the letters.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised the question of what could be done. I am sad that the right hon. Member is not in his place at the moment, because it is important that we take seriously suggestions made by all hon. Members, if they warrant it. As for the cutting of air links, it would be extremely difficult to achieve an effective ban as it would only give away the air traffic to other nations. To be effective, such a ban would have to be universal and that would be impossible to achieve in today's air transport market. If we are to take up other suggestions, they must do something to affect the awful situation in South Africa and not be impossible to achieve.
  I must say to the right hon. Member for Devonport, through Hansard, that those who would be most hurt by such a ban would be those who fly backwards and forwards between Europe and South Africa trying to bring about change. The hard-line Afrikaners who went to that despicable rally on Saturday hardly ever travel outside South Africa. Perhaps if they had travelled outside South Africa they might understand something about the way in which the rest of the world works together and would be in a better position to back up what they say. I doubt whether they would continue to hold such outdated views if they did travel. The people that the House would wish to harm by cutting air links would not be harmed.
  The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) spoke of alleged breaches in arms control that he put to the Foreign Office, and he asked when he would get a reply. I agree that these matters have
  710
  been extremely difficult to research. We are consulting other Government Departments. I regret that I cannot give him an answer this afternoon, but I insist that those investigations shall be the most thorough possible. I shall reply to the allegations that he sent to my right hon. and learned Friend as soon as possible when I have some assurance of the validity or otherwise of the claims that have been made and of the evidence on which we shall base our reply. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me also about plastic covers for identity cards—the seals for identity cards. The export of transparent plastic covers is not a breach of any British restrictive measure. Uniform identity cards are issued to all South Africans. They are not the equivalent of pass books. The pass laws and the influx control have been abolished.
  I was asked further about destabilisation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary condemned destabilisation by South Africa of neighbouring countries. I reiterate that condemnation. We reject violence from whatever quarter it may come. There is no justification for cross-border violence in the front-line states or in any others. In no way does that detract from out argument that punitive economic sanctions would have a destablising effect in the region. They would have considerable cost for all South Africa's neighbours. We call on the South African Government to desist from destabilisation. For those reasons, we aim to support the front-line states in defence of their borders and, indeed, the transport links that are necessary for them to become economically independent of South Africa.
  One of the most positive things that the British Government have done has been to provide aid, aid for black South Africans. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) said.
  The students whom we sponsor and will go on sponsoring go alongside the help that we have given to trade unionists. All such aid is designed to assist those in South Africa who can have an influence on the future. We have said many times that the only way in which the problems of apartheid in South Africa will be solved is through dialogue. That dialogue can occur only if people are equipped to combat the false dialogue of members of the South African Government. That is why we wish to support leaders of the black community in our programmes in South Africa and in the front-line states. We are determined not to see the undermining of the economies of front-line states by attacks from over the border. It is in that context that we give £819 million in bilateral aid to the Southern African Development Coordination Conference states together with the multilateral aid from which they benefit.
  Without doubt, the steps of recent days are a massive further setback in the search for dialogue. To determine the best way ahead, one must consider most carefully what is happening on the ground in South Africa—another good reason for the efforts of Her Majesty's ambassador in Pretoria. When considering what is to be done, we need to be sure that we take into account the legitimate interests of all concerned—black, white and coloured—in South Africa. That is why informal contacts between South Africans of all races must continue. That is why we shall not influence the South African Government unless we can get them into dialogue. We shall continue to press them to resume the process of legislative reform. We shall

  711
  continue to implement the restrictive measures against South Africa that we previously agreed to take as a political signal of our earnest determination for progress. There has been, and will be, no let-up in our representations against human rights abuses, in particular — I was asked about this by hon. Members on both sides of the House—detention without charge, torture, and imprisonment of children.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
  Mrs. Chalker: I shall not give way. I have only a couple of minutes left. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  We shall continue to press for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and an end to the ban on the ANC and other political parties in the context of the suspension of violence on all sides. We shall continue our practical and financial assistance to black South Africans. We shall continue to oppose the destabilisation that has been conducted by the South African Government.
  The positive approach of the Government has no alternative. There is no alternative to patient, determined advocacy and pressure. We shall do all that we can to find an opportunity for constructive mediation whenever it may occur. We shall indeed, with our Commonwealth and European partners, be ready for the time when we might take external initiatives, but for the moment there is none to take.
  Sanctions will only worsen the existing situation. Punitive economic sanctions will not improve it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have united in condemning the latest repressive measures. We share the universally expressed sense of frustration. But thoroughly negative as the developments are, we shall not be forced into action for action's sake, nor into imposing measures that cannot improve an already almost impossible situation.
  The end of apartheid will, as one Opposition Member was honest enough to say, take a long time — longer than any of us would wish—but it will come about only from within, by negotiation and dialogue. The Government are determined to help wherever we can. We shall continue to do so until the last vestiges of apartheid have gone and repressive measures are totally repealed.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 265.

  Division No. 197]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Allen, Graham

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Buchan, Norman

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buckley, George J.

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Beith, A. J.

  Cartwright, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clay, Bob

  Blair, Tony

  Clelland, David

  Blunkett, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Boateng, Paul

  Cohen, Harry

  Boyes, Roland

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  712

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Corbett, Robin

  Livsey, Richard

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Bob

  McAllion, John

  Cummings, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McCartney, Ian

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Darling, Alistair

  McFall, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

  McKelvey, William

  Dewar, Donald

  McLeish, Henry

  Dixon, Don

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Madden, Max

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meale, Alan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliott

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foulkes, George

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mullin, Chris

  Galbraith, Sam

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Nellist, Dave

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  O'Brien, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gould, Bryan

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Graham, Thomas

  Patchett, Terry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Prescott, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hardy, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Randall, Stuart

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Redmond, Martin

  Haynes, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Reid, Dr John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Richardson, Jo

  Henderson, Doug

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Robertson, George

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Home Robertson, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Illsley, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Ingram, Adam

  Skinner, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  John, Brynmor

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

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kennedy, Charles

  Stott, Roger

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Strang, Gavin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Straw, Jack

  Lambie, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lamond, James

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Leighton, Ron

  Turner, Dennis

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Wall, Pat

  Litherland, Robert

  Wallace, James

  713

  Walley, Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mr. Alun Michael and

  Wilson, Brian

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Winnick, David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert

  Dunn, Bob

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Durant, Tony

  Amess, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amos, Alan

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Farr, Sir John

  Ashby, David

  Favell, Tony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkins, Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Franks, Cecil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  French, Douglas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fry, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Gale, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gardiner, George

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gow, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gregory, Conal

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

  Grist, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grylls, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, John

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butler, Chris

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Couchman, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Devlin, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles

  714

  Jack, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raffan, Keith

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knowles, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, David

  Squire, Robin

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Steen, Anthony

  Lang, Ian

  Stern, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Lightbown, David

  Stokes, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sumberg, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lord, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Thorne, Neil

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Madel, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Mans, Keith

  Trippier, David

  Maples, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Marlow, Tony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Walden, George

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Waller, Gary

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Walters, Dennis

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ward, John

  Miller, Hal

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mills, Iain

  Watts, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wheeler, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Whitney, Ray

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Moate, Roger

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wilkinson, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wilshire, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Wood, Timothy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Woodcock, Mike

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Yeo, Tim

  Mudd, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the restrictions announced by the South African Government on 24th February against 18 extra-parliamentary organisations and certain leading opposition figures; calls for the repeal of these measures, which suppress legitimate, peaceful activity; reaffirms its

  715
  opposition to punitive economic sanctions and its support for Her Majesty's Government's policy of practical and constructive action in Southern Africa; and calls on the South African Government to take urgent steps to enter into dialogue with free and freely chosen representatives of the black community, with the aim of bringing the repugnant apartheid system to an end and establishing a non-racial, representative system of government.
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the hollow and unsatisfactory answer by the Minister of State to the question about the Inkatha office in St. John's Wood, and also because of the unfortunate shortness of the previous debate, I give notice that I shall table early-day motions this week naming those who lead the death squads of Inkatha in Natal. I shall raise on the Adjournment of the House the Government's support for that organisation, through continuing to tolerate that office in St. John's Wood.

  British Science
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting with great anxiety the serious crisis which now affects this country's scientific base, and further noting the profound disappointment of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils that public expenditure plans for the science budget are insufficient to avert a reduction in the volume of scientific activity, or to allow for the strategic reshaping of the scientific base, condemns the complacent and regressive attitude of Her Majesty's Government; and calls for a real commitment to proper Government support for scientific, medical and technological research and development in higher education, research institutions and industry, so that this country's intellectual, industrial and social future tray be secured.
  The Government's furtiveness about their science record is well illustrated by the fact that they have refused many demands for a debate on science by both sides of the House. Therefore, the Opposition have had to devote one of their precious half-day Supply debates to that important issue. The last Government debate on science, according to the best researches of the Library, was on 14 June 1985, two and three quarter years ago.
  Britain now faces a crisis in science more serious than at any time since the war. There is virtually no one in the universities, the research councils or industry who disagrees with that diagnosis, except the Government. Their mood is one of complacent self-congratulation, with back-slapping for an acclaimed 15 per cent. real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, but that claim is confounded both by former Ministers and by the Government's own hand-picked Advisory Board for the Research Councils. That board consists of the country's leading academic scientists, senior science advisers to the Government and captains of industry such as Sir Francis Tombs, the chairman of Rolls-Royce, and Dr. Roberts, the joint managing director of GEC. In a letter to the Secretary of State that was published recently, the board, giving its advice on the science budget allocation for 1988–91, welcomed the increases in the science budget that the Secretary of State announced on 3 November, but was
  "profoundly disappointed that these are insufficient either to avert a reduction in the volume of scientific activity or to allow for the necessary strategic reshaping of the science base."
  Anybody who has read through that document will be clear that it is a damning indictment of the Government's record. The board says that even
  "Without any allowance for further cost increases above average inflation, the amount of research which the Science Budget buys will … be between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. lower in 1990–91 than was planned for this year."
  The board continues:
  "That reduction compares starkly with the cumulative 8 per cent. growth in the UK's national wealth … which the Government is forecasting over the same period."
  The board describes the science budget as a dismal background against which it had to make its decisions. It concludes:
  "In our expenditure advice to the Secretary of State in June, we stated that the UK science base was at a watershed. The Government's revised expenditure plans for the Science Budget do not provide the means to move our nation's scientific capability towards the twenty-first century. We remain precariously poised at the great divide and are beginning to slip in the wrong direction. A great opportunity has, sadly, been missed."
  Recognising the force of that criticism, the Government seek, as they do in their amendment, to evade

  717
  responsibility for what is happening to science, in two ways. First, they tell us to look at the total Government spend on research and development and to compare it as a share of gross domestic product with that of other countries. But our share of expenditure compared with that of other countries is respectable only when full account is taken of our expenditure on defence-related research and development. The former Minister for Information Technology, who resigned partly because of his argument with the Government over the lack of expenditure for civil research on space, said in The Times on 16 December:
  "There is a bit of sophistry in what the Government's saying about this because everybody knows that half of the Government R&D is defence and this is still a problem really."
  That was underlined by a fascinating study of research policy in the British Medical Journal on 6 February 1988 by Richard Smith, who says that if we leave out defence, Britain does poorly, and that
  "As a percentage of gross domestic product it already spends less on civil research than all the other countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development … —and is spending less as the other countries spend more."
  The figures given in that study not only spell that out, but spell out the fact that most other major industrialised countries and some that are not, including Spain and Iceland, have increased their GDP expenditure on research since 1978 far faster than this country.
  Secondly, the Government claim that there has been a 15 per cent. increase in real terms in the science budget since 1979. However, that is a reference only to the amount that is spent on research councils and other minor expenditures. That is almost entirely offset by the decay of the dual support system by which research is funded by University Grants Committee block grant, a matter to which I shall return, and is also offset by higher than general inflation, which has been accepted as affecting the Health Service, but not, as far as I can judge, research.
  The cries of anguish about the state of science are widespread. Everybody is aware of the cry that came from Dr. Max Perutz, the former director of the laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge, who said:
  "The brilliance of British science is one of the country's greatest cultural achievements, if not the greatest, but it is a fragile flower as I know from Austria, my country of birth. Once destroyed by bad politics it cannot be restored."
  The Secretary of State may wish to dismiss Dr. Perutz as a self-serving academic—
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): No.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that.
  The Daily Telegraph, of all papers, and during the election campaign, published a searing indictment of the Government's commitment to research. It quoted Sir David Phillips FRS, the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, as saying:
  "A British scientist can hardly travel anywhere without being subjected to pity by others".
  Sir George Porter, president of the Royal Society, was quoted as saying:
  "The morale of the scientific community has fallen to its lowest point this century".
  718
  That understanding is also shared by those in industry, as anyone who talks to those who are involved in scientific-based industries knows only too well. That was underlined by the article in the Financial Times last Monday, which quoted Dr. Alan White, research director at the United Kingdom subsidiary of Ciba-Geigy, as saying that he was
  "concerned about the pressures on universities to put more effort on short-term contract research rather than basic medical studies."
  Dr. John Griffin, director of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, is reported as saying that
  "the problems in academic research mean fewer young people want to pursue a career in the scientific aspects of medicine."
  Dr. Griffin says:
  "I am worried about the effects this will have on the pharmaceutical industry in the 1990s."
  There are many other symptoms of the crisis. There is the reduction in the success rate of applications to the research councils, which have fallen to a point where, according to the head of one major research institute,
  "application is discouraged and too large a proportion of creative time is spent on grant proposals."
  Alpha-rated applications are those which are judged as being of outstanding merit by the relevant research council committee. For the Medical Research Council, the proportion of alpha-rated applications that were accepted for funding was down to 63 per cent. last year compared with 83 per cent. two years before. For the Science and Engineering Research Council, it is now down to 50 per cent. One illustration of the distortions that are now arising in the science budget because of the squeeze is the fact that today we are spending as much money on high energy particle physics as on the whole of the rest of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics research combined. That balance cannot be right.
  A key factor is the expenditure on CERN. I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about the Government's approach to the continued funding of CERN, given its international importance— indeed, its symbolism—in terms of European collaboration. There is a clear case for continuing funding, but, as the ABRC said in paragraph 11 of its latest advice, there is also a strong case for treating it separately. Indeed, some people have urged that it should be treated partly as a charge against the FCO budget, but I shall not pursue that line. What I want to know from the Secretary of State is whether he is willing to accept the ABRC's advice that CERN cannot continue to eat into research funds for other aspects of the pure sciences.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman make his point a little clearer? I have received representations from people in this country who are working on high energy particle physics, particularly from Oxford university. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should reduce our contribution to that to help the other sciences? What exactly is he asking the Government to do?
  Mr. Straw: I am not saying that, but I am happy to make my point again. I am saying that the Government ought to earmark funding for CERN, so as not to undermine research in biology, chemistry, maths and physics, whose funding is now only equal to that on CERN.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only CERN but every one of the research councils must pay a very large amount to join the international organisations? In fact, the amount

  719
  is so large that it plays quite a role in the amount available. Should not the Government consider the matter seriously, with a view to helping the research councils to pay for their affiliation to international organisations?
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. There is the general problem of a squeeze, which is accentuated by the continuing commitments to international organisations and institutions such as CERN—which it is right that we should continue to have.
  Above all, as I said earlier, there has been the erosion of the system of dual support, by which research at universities has been supported partly by research council grants direct, and partly indirectly by the University Grants Committee block grant, over which the universities have had much more discretion and latitude. That erosion is compounded by the Government's refusal, when contracting for research, to bear the overhead costs of much research, and by an undermining of the infrastructure. Alongside that, the squeeze has led to an unbalanced aid structure in our universities, offset only inadequately by new blood money.
  Judging by his amendment, the Secretary of State may well talk about the additional funding that is going to universities following his great success with the Chief Secretary. But, for example, £156 million of that is being held back over the next three years simply to pay for the costs of redundancy and restructuring, and will not be used to fund research or teaching.
  If our first charge against the Government is that of inadequate funding, the second is of the creation of a major skill shortage. The facts are startling. The numbers of students registering for A-level courses in physics, biology and chemistry dropped by nearly 10 per cent. in the two years between 1985 and 1987, compared with a decrease in the age group of only 3·8 per cent. Universities and polytechnics face increasing difficulty in recruiting suitable entrants for most science and technology courses, and in keeping the best people doing doctoral or postdoctoral research. A 1984 survey by the Department of Education and Science showed that about half of physics and maths teachers did not follow the subject that they were teaching as one of the main subjects in their own degree level courses.
  Despite the Government's bursary scheme, the latest figures show an 11 per cent. drop in the number of people going forward for additional teacher training in maths, and a 14 per cent. drop in those going forward for initial teacher training in physics. There are serious deficiencies in the provision of laboratories' equipment and books, which have been highlighted by Her Majesty's inspectors' reports year by year, and today by the survey by the National Union of Teachers. The Government could find £80 million to pay for a few city technology colleges, but they cannot find the money to establish and improve a science base in our schools.
  Besides that, there is the simple fact of the brain drain. Science is international, and we accept that there should be a great interchange of people and ideas. However, there is now serious anxiety about the quality of people who leave this country. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made the point when commenting on the Royal Society's report, which was published at the end of June. Sir Mark Richmond, the chairman of the committee, said:
  "Counting heads to prove that roughly the same number of scientists come to Britain as leave is meaningless when
  720
  those who go are among our brightest young people, leaving to take up permanent posts; while those who come here do so only for a short time, to broaden their experience … the report demonstrates that salary is not the main reason why our people go. There is an urgent need for security in academic appointments, for better facilities in universities ard for the research councils to be funded at a level where they can support a much higher proportion of the best research proposals they receive."
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cutbacks have affected bodies outside the universities as well? Cutbacks in employment in the Natural Environment Research Council have led to many scientists — geologists, geophysicists, geomorphologists and so on — having to take jobs abroad. That has caused a rundown in the balance of natural scientists working in the council, which is so essential for the preservation of sites of special scientific interest, for example.
  Mr. Straw: I accept that. No research council, even the Medical Research Council, is in more serious difficulty than the Natural Environment Research Council, which today announced an absolute drop in its funding.
  Our third charge against the Government is the most fundamental: that their attitude to science is too short-term and too short-sighted. In their concern to achieve better value for money and more support from industry — both laudable aims in themselves — they fail to appreciate the critical importance of pure research; or, if they do appreciate it, they fail to provide an environment in which it can flourish. As we know, the Government are obsessed with markets as the cure-all for everything. But every advanced industrialised society that aspires to a decent scientific base understands that industry — the market — cannot provide funds or support for all research.
  Yes, British industry should do more. Its record of support for research and development is one of the most appalling in the western world. British industry is itself constrained by a financial system in the City which has appallingly limited horizons, and does not accept the importance of long-term investment in research and development, as do other nations.
  By definition, a major part of any research undertaken by industry is bound to be goal-driven. A firm says to its researchers, "Find a drug to do this," or "Find the electronic technology to do that." The Government fail to understand that none of that goal-driven research would be possible without the base of research initiated by curiosity or speculation, in which bright, inquisitive people are given the environment, security and resources to follow their instincts to an end—or., often, to no end at all.
  The goal-driven research project at present is that on AIDS. There is a clear goal: to find a cure. The project is making considerable progress, but the Government must understand that there would be no goal-driven research in AIDS if 30 years ago a few mavericks driven by curiosity —Crick and Watson, and others at Cambridge — had not been messing about, wasting time and money. They were criticised for it, but after a while they discovered DNA and the double helix, and initiated the work of a series of other people, who also messed about for many years in laboratories trying to understand genetic structures.
  Another example is Alexander Fleming and the development of penicillin. Penicillin was developed in the

  721
  war in goal-driven research because of the concern to find a cure for infections. But that achievement would never have been possible had not Fleming been messing about 15 years before discovering, before putting the research aside for a time, that some moulds could kill other bacteria.
  There are plenty of contemporary examples. There is one from my local university of Leeds, where the biodegradable glass pellet was developed to solve mineral and vitamin deficiencies in sheep and cows. It arose as a result of conversations between scientists in the department of animal physiology and in the department of ceramics who were funded out of block grant money and who could not get money from the research council for initial development. They have produced a world beater, and Pilkingtons are selling it across the world.
  We have the example of much more applied technology in the shape of the Loughborough lockstitch pile fabric machine about which I know a little because it is made by a firm in my constituency. Professor Wry and Mr. Ward, who designed it on the back of a British Railways menu on the train to Loughborough from London, were funded out of block grant. Initially, they received no funding from the SRC.
  There are scores more examples. The simple truth is that if curiosity-driven research dries up, there can be no applied research to follow. The shift of Government policy is away from curiosity-initiated or pure research to specific, targeted research. They seem to expect that the result, as well as the goal, of the research should be within the horizon before it is funded.
  I should like to consider funding and concentration and specialisation — the so-called XRT proposals of the advisory board. The Opposition do not believe for one second that the present distribution of scientific endeavour, which has happened in a random way, is perfect. We certainly accept that changes in scientific discovery and initiative require institutional changes to reflect them. There always has been discrimination, but discrimination in terms of funding must be exercised project by project, department by department and subject by subject—not institution by institution. There are many great universities which have poor departments and there are many not so good universities which have great departments. It would be terribly short-sighted to write off whole institutions.
  Universities must not be given gradings which are set in concrete for all time. Reputations change. Some R-rated departments may need to drop out and some T-rated departments may need to come into research. Any concentration needs new funding—much more than has been achieved. Everyone in private industry understands that if enormous changes such as these are to be initiated, they must be funded, but evidently the Government do not.
  The parallel between the Government's attitude to the National Health Service and the science base is striking. We are now a land of great plenty. We have a Government who tell us that they are awash with money. The moral and political question is not whether the cash is available but how to spend it. We must decide on whether to spend it on tax cuts for the better off or to invest it in the future. Today's balance of payments figures, which show a current account deficit of £905 million, show that if we
  722
  spend it on consumption — tax cuts — that will be an investment in our competitors rather than in ourselves. If we spend it on science, it will be an investment in our future.
  There is an overwhelming case for the Government to agree to the additional £100 million which the ABRC recommended. I hope to hear the Secretary of State saying that he has bullied or cajoled the philistines in the Treasury to achieve that end. The Government preach the philosophy of entrepreneurship and risk, but in science policy their cautious and centralist approach demands certainty where none is possible.
  In the 15th and 16th centuries, Britain led the world in exploration of outer space — the new world — and accepted that for every expedition that succeeded, scores would fail. How ironic it is that in today's challenge of outer space beyond the universes and the inner space of human cells, the Government have abandoned entrepreneurship, risk-taking and imagination. By doing so, they will fail our nation in the next century.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
  'notes the essential and increasingly important contribution made by the science base in higher education and the research councils to the nation's economic and social development; applauds the achievements of Britain's scientists which are second only to those of the United States of America with its vastly greater resources; welcomes the 15 per cent. real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, the progress made by the University Grants Committee and research councils in promoting better value for money and responsiveness, and the new central machinery announced in Cm. 185 for considering science and technology priorities; and commends the Government's intention to take further steps to enhance the strength and quality of the science base and to ensure that research outcomes are better exploited to the United Kingdom's benefit.'.
  I welcome this debate. It provides us with a valuable opportunity to pay tribute to the achievements of British scientists and to discuss the difficult issues which lie ahead concerning the future of the British science base, which have been well laid before us by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. I also welcome it as an opportunity to dispel the myth which Opposition Members have propagated about the Government's parsimony and cuts in publicly funded academic research.
  I should like to deal first with what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said about spending. Public spending on the science base—the dual funding system involving universities and research councils, to which the hon. Gentleman referred— will be about £1·4 billion in the coming financial year. This represents a real terms increase relative to general inflation of about 6 per cent. compared with the curret year, and of about 11 per cent. since 1979.
  Internationally, our public spending on civil research and development does not compare unfavourably. The hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in what he said in this regard. Government spending on non-defence research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product is above that of the United States and Japan, although a little below that of France and West

  723
  Germany. I accept that there are arguments in favour of our aiming higher, but hon. Members are woefully misinformed when they claim that we trail significantly behind all other industrial countries.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: What about industry's investment in research and development?
  Mr. Baker: I shall come to that soon, and join in the hon. Member's condemnation.
  Within our public spending on science, the science budget for the research councils has fared well. In 1988–89 it will total £699 million, which is over 15 per cent. more in real terms than when we came into office in 1979. That reflects the £160 million extra for the science budget over the next three years that I announced in November, following last year's public expenditure survey.
  I am well aware that the ABRC put forward a reasoned case for an even larger increase, but there are many demands on the public purse and it was not possible to meet that bid in full. Nevertheless, we provided substantial additional resources which will ensure that scientific expenditure at least is held at the present level, and is at slightly more than that in the next two years. In the past two rounds I have been able to secure quite significant increases.
  The £155 million for university restructuring includes new appointments. That is not entirely appreciated. When a department is restructured, it is not simply a matter of easing people out. One has to make sure that new blood comes in.
  I must emphasise that our decisions on funding for science were taken in the knowledge that we shall respond later this year to the ABRC's discussion document, "A Strategy for the Science Base".
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) mentioned industry's spending on research and development. I am afraid that that is a far less satisfactory feature of the present scene. United Kingdom industry spends far less than our competitors on research and development as a proporton of gross domestic product. The latest figures available from the OECD are for 1985, and show that industry's funding of research and development as a proportion of GDP totalled 1 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 1·3 per cent. in the United States, 1·8 per cent. in Japan and 1·6 per cent. in West Germany. To be fair, we seem to be in about the same position as France and Italy, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied with that. I do not think that any hon. Member is. The Government believe that there is a prime need for industry to increase the amount of research and development that it funds. The hon. Member for Blackburn made broadly the same point.
  Our policies have transformed the British economy since 1979. It was one of the slowest growing in the 1960s and the 1970s, but it has been one of the fastest growing in the 1980s. Most companies are now much better placed to increase their investment in research and development than they have been for many years. During the past five years we have reduced corporation tax significantly—to 35 per cent. I hope that that will make companies keen to invest more in research and development, especially as they are nearly all showing increased profits. There has been a slight improvement. Figures published earlier this month showed that, after falling between 1981 and 1983, spending within industry as R and D rose by 12 per cent.
  724
  in real terms between 1983 and 1985, and by a further 7 per cent. between 1985 and 1986. However, one cannot afford to be complacent about such figures.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I appreciate that the Secretary of State will have to await the report of the ABRC, but in the meantime is there any comfort that he can give to good researches in good departments of small universities, who are wondering whether they have a future? Heriot Watt, for example, has a distinguished physics department. What is its future, and can any comfort be given to it in the interim?
  Mr. Baker: In my previous incarnation I happened to visit that physics department. It is an extremely good department and it has done some outstanding work on laser technology. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in common with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, raises questions about the RTX proposals, and it is important to discuss this matter. The question that arises is one of selectivity in research. That question must be faced head on, not only by us, but by other countries. No country can possibly maintain the full stretch of research in every possible discipline at full speed.
  Last summer, in its advice on strategy, the ABRC judged that present policy would not maintain the international competitiveness of United Kingdom university research. The board put great weight on the need for faster progress and suggested that there should be a differentiation of research roles between higher education institutions. That was contained in the so-called RTX proposal. Therefore, some universities would do research, some would offer a combination, with the balance towards teaching.
  Our consultations on that strategy advice have generated a considerable number of detailed and interesting responses. I have been impressed by the constructive way in which the scientific community has moved the debate forward — [Interruption.]—that is what my brief says. As hon. Members know, not many voices have been raised in support of the RTX proposal. Indeed, there has been a clamour of opposition to it. However, beneath that clamour there is a substantial ground swell in favour of greater concentrations of research provision, but focused on subjects rather than on institutions. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn.
  The ABRC has said that the science base is at a watershed. Britain's economic and social prosperity in the 21st century will depend significantly on whether our decisions about the organisation and funding of research are right. I assure hon. Members that I intend to make a considered statement later this year on the Government's policy objectives for the science base and the steps that we will be taking to achieve it. The hon. Member for Blackburn will learn from that statement that we will be considering especially the concentration on subjects.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I want to ask about the regional aspect of specialisation in science research. At the University of Wales, where research is subject to peer review, the university gets its fair share of funding. However, the system falls down when we consider the dual funding system of the research councils. No research council has ever willingly established itself within Wales. Clearly, there is a £20 million sum to be made up to ensure that Wales gets its fair share of the

  725
  science budget. Will the Secretary of State address that problem in Wales, Scotland and some of the English regions?
  Mr. Baker: Some good research is being done at the Welsh and Scottish universities. The distinction of certain departments of universities in both countries has been recognised by the UGC. We have had interesting debates in Committee about research council funding and the power that I have. It is an arm's length relationship, and I do not influence—nor did any of my predecessors— the exact amount paid in research council grants. I would not seek to do so. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairman of the ABRC.
  We must also consider the importance of collaborative research between universities, polytechnics and research councils and industry. I believe that everyone agrees that there must be closer links. I should like to commend two particular schemes that are extremely effective. The first is the teaching company scheme, which I first came across when I was at the DTI. It was then in embryo form. The scheme creates a link between a particular university or institution and a company. The graduates from the university, often research assistants of one sort or another, work with the company on its particular processes. That is excellent. At the same time, the company is encouraged to recruit outstanding graduates. The scheme works well and we are currently spending about £10 million a year on it in support of 270 programmes. Of that sum £7 million is provided from public funds, half by the Science and Engineering Research Council and half by the DTI. The SERC will increase its contribution over the next three years, with a matching increase from the DTI. We want to see that scheme expanded by about one third in the future.
  The second scheme is the Link initiative. About a month ago I attended a press conference with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on this matter. It is an important programme that links institutions with particular companies in a consortium. At the press conference we announced five programmes concerning molecular electronics, advanced semi-conductor materials, industrial measurement systems, eukaryotics — essentially non-bacterial genetics — and nanotechnology. These programmes cover many areas of research. The total expenditure on them will be £83 million, of which half will come from public funds. I hope that more such programmes will be announced in the coming months, because they are extremely important.
  A further example of collaborative endeavour, which is regional—it is not in Scotland or Wales, but it is in the north of England—is the new centre for exploitation of science and technology, which has been set up by industry and the City. We are providing £1 million over five years towards the cost of the centre and another £5 million is being contributed from industry. The centre will be located at the Manchester science park. I remember opening that park about five years ago when it was just a heap of rubble. The appointment of the chief executive of the centre has just been announced. He is Dr. Bob Whelan, formerly of PA Technology. The steering committee is composed of people with strong interests in industry and is chaired by Sir Robin Nicholson. I am especially glad that that centre is situated in Manchester, because it can draw upon the
  726
  considerable strength and technological excellence that is found in the Manchester conurbation, not only at the University of Manchester, the University of Manchester institute of science and technology, Manchester polytechnic and Salford university, but in other parts of the north-west.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is right in saying that few would disagree about the importance of collaborative research. It is something that should be welcomed. Is he suggesting that, in some way, additional spending on collaborative research should be offset by reductions in expenditure on what we have described as "curiosity-initiated research" through the dual support system? There is grave anxiety among the universities that the Government are putting too much emphasis on collaborative, attractive research, and not providing the environment in which curiosity-initiated research can flourish.
  Mr. Baker: I do not agree. It is extremely important to back research projects for which one can see no particular end—curiosity-orientated research. The hon. Gentleman quoted some examples, and there is a great deal of such research taking place in British universities. It is funded principally through UGC grants.
  The research councils have some contracts for such work, and industry occasionally funds such work. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to throw all the emphasis on the application end of research. That would be a narrow view, but we wish to make sure that some of the great inventiveness of British universities—there is still such inventiveness in many of our universities, as well as great talent and creativity—comes out to the market place. If that happens, it adds to the prosperity of the British economy and British companies.
  Over the centuries we have been rather good at that. Indeed, it was a Scot who invented the first television and demonstrated it in a room in Soho, which I believe is now an Italian restaurant. However, it is palpably true that other countries have developed the television industry much more effectively than we have. There are many examples of that sort, and we must ensure that more of our inventiveness comes on to the market.
  I praise the research councils for their work. British science has a worldwide reputation for excellence and has achieved large numbers of major scientific successes, some of which the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned. They include penicillin, monoclonal antibodies, which have important implications for medical research, synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, which are non-toxic to mammals, and the development of new types of radio telescopes. Since 1970, 15 United Kingdom scientists have received Nobel prizes, while the United Kingdom share of world science citations and publications exceeds that of France and Germany. The research councils also produce practical benefits for United Kingdom industry. For example, the Medical Research Council obtained 37 patents in 1986–87. The Agricultural and Food Research Council received six Queen's awards for industry between 1976 and 1984. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome such achievements.
  As the House will know, following the excellent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, we announced the strengthening of the Government's central machinery for considering science.

  727
  The first component is collective consideration under the Prime Minister's leadership of science and technology priorities across all Government Departments — some-thing that has hitherto been lacking. This is linked with the annual public expenditure survey and will influence the expenditure plans that my colleagues and I will announce in the autumn for 1989–90 and for later years.
  Mr. Dick Douglas rose—
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall get on.
  Secondly, we have established the Advisory Council on Science and Technology — ACOST—with terms of reference that embrace all science and technology and with a membership drawn broadly from industry and the universities. This body is expected to provide the Government with influential advice on priorities for science.
  Those developments have been welcomed and should contribute considerably to the value of the scientific debate in the coming years. I must stress, however, that, contrary to the belief of some commentators, the new arrangements do not imply a diminished role for the ABRC. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the advisory board and particularly to its chairman, Sir David Phillips.
  Let me deal with selectivity and concentration. As I said, it is very important that we should move towards more selective discrimination in deciding which aspects of science to fund. This is a difficult decision for any politician. Some progress has been made. The research councils have made good progress. For example, the SERC has doubled its spending on engineering research over the past decade—as a specific aspect of determined policy—largely at the expense of astronomy and nuclear physics. However, Britain has kept a world-class presence in both disciplines because research has been focused on institutes of established excellence.
  Similarly, the priority that the MRC has given to molecular biology in particular centres has paid handsome dividends. The hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned AIDS research. In money terms our AIDS research programme seems modest, but it is beginning to work very well and the scientists are optimistic, although any sort of cure or vaccine is many years off. We could not have mounted that programme without our outstanding virology and molecular biology departments, which, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, are Government funded.
  The swiftness of the response impressed me enormously. When the proposals from the MRC first reached the Committee under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, I thought that the process would take a long time to get under way. I am impressed by the speed with which we have responded, and I hope that our scientists will be able to contribute to doing something about this appalling disease.
  The UGC has grasped the nettle of selectivity in its famous list, produced last year, grading the research activities of various departments. Since then, grants to universities have explicitly reflected judgments about the quality of their research.
  One of the main proposals in the ABRC's strategy advice—the hon. Member for Blackburn said that I had never listened to Sir David Phillips; I talk to him often and value his counsel and in this matter I have accepted his advice lock, stock and barrel—was for the establishment
  728
  of university research centres focusing on new developments of potential interest to industry. That is very important. The university research centres will concentrate research effort. They will ensure more inter-disciplinary working, for example, of chemists with physicists, and biologists with engineers. They will forge strong links between higher education research and industry, and they will provide better co-ordination.
  The SERC has already announced the establishment of the first four centres. These will be for research on higher temperature super-conductors at Cambridge, research on engineering design by a consortium based at Glasgow university, research in surface sciences based at Liverpool, and research on molecular sciences at Oxford. Each involves an investment by the SERC of between £6 million and £10 million, and each will also be backed by significant UGC and industrial funds. They are intended as powerhouses in their fields and are being funded as such. Some of the funding has been provided by redeployment from other parts of the SERC's budget, but more than half is new money, drawn from the additional resources that I announced last November.
  I look forward to the establishment of other research centres. They are an important way of bringing together expertise in the established disciplines without constructing pillared buildings to house the project. It is difficult to bring together the different disciplines, but it is well worthwhile.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn asked about the strength of science in general terms. Tomorrow the report of an international study on science achievement in 17 countries will appear. It measures how well our children do in science. The report holds no comfort for us at all. It shows that although we do very well at the top end of the system, at 17-plus — this is because we are highly selective at that stage—the scientific performance of our pupils at 11-plus and 14-plus lags behind that of our competitors. The main reason for that is that many of our schools have low scores. This creates a long tail of low achievement which drastically lowers our average scores in science. We cannot be satisfied with that. The report shows the wide variation in our schools, but it is a clear signal for us to pull up our scientific socks in schools.
  In 1978 the inspectors issued a report on primary science which found that science was the least developed subject in the primary curriculum, We have done much since then, and if one wanted to single out a discipline in the primary curriculum that is doing well one might now single out primary science. We published our policy statement, "Science 5 to 16" in 1985 and set out the important objectives, that all pupils should be introduced to science in primary school, and that all class teachers should include some science in their teaching. Since 1985 we have followed up the policy statement by supporting expenditure of more than £16 million on the development of primary science and technology through education support grants, and we expect to support expenditure of a further £9 million next year.
  We have a long way still to go and I do not wish to appear complacent. Hon. Members who have visited primary classes in their constituencies will know that in the better schools interesting work is being done by six, seven and eight-year-olds.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend addressing this point to the teachers' training colleges, which I am sure is one way to improve matters?
  Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend, who brings to education matters considerable personal experience, is absolutely right. We shall not get science right in our universities and research councils unless we start in the schools. We must be concerned about the beginning of the flow through.
  Our success depends also on the availability of science teachers, which is a matter of some concern. We published a consultative document on the matter in 1986 and started to implement a comprehensive action plan. Within two years we secured a 100 per cent. increase in the recruitment of trainee physics teachers. Many are joining the profession from other careers, attracted to teaching by the challenges and rewards that it offers. In 1987 we came within 1·3 per cent. of recruiting up to our target number of physics places in teacher training institutions and had, as part of our shortages action plan, increased the number of such places by nearly 6 per cent.
  We are giving local education authorities £3·85 million in grants this year, and £4·4 million next year, to retrain and upgrade teachers of science who do not have adequate qualifications. There is no shortage of biology teachers, nor, as yet, of chemistry teachers. However, we are watching carefully a shortfall in recruitment to chemistry courses. Secondary pupil numbers will continue to fall until 1991.
  Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State is referring to England and Wales.
  Mr. Baker: I am responsible for the English education system. I have a high regard for Scottish education. It does very well. However, I am talking specifically about teacher training in England and Wales.
  I do not want the House to feel any sense of complacency in this matter. There is a great deal to be done. However, we do not want to sell British science short. We should be proud of what our scientists do. They work well in our universities, research councils and, in growing numbers, in our polytechnics. As I have said already, the quality of Britain's academic research is recognised across the world. The country is rightly proud of the outstanding record of its scientists. They have won honours out of all proportion to Britain's size and wealth. Britain has a reputation and strength in science which we must do everything possible to maintain and enhance. The quality of scientific research in our universities and research councils constitutes a major national asset. I welcome this opportunity to applaud the work of the men and women whose talent and dedication keep us at the frontiers of knowledge.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The speech of the Secretary of State comes at the end of three years of almost continuous protest from industry and the academic world about the Government's policies towards science. The right hon. Gentleman's speech showed some evidence of a small but late rethink. However, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has taken that into account and its advice note published in December said that the Government's revised expenditure plans for the science budget, those on which the Secretary of State has taken his stand tonight, do not provide
  730
  "the means to move our nation's scientific capability towards the 21st century. We remain precariously poised at the divide and are beginning to slip in the wrong direction. A great opportunity has been missed."
  The five research centres under the Link programme, to which the Secretary of State referred, the long overdue and still awaited search for a direction for the science base and the one and only collaborative research centre—at Manchester—between the academic world and industry serve only to emphasise the fact that the necessary structural and individual career links between basic, strategic and applied science do not exist and that the links between the science world of the university and the science world of industry are perilously weak.
  The changes announced by the Secretary of State are small and have, as he admitted, been financed by cuts elsewhere in the science budget. It is worth bearing in mind that in the next financial year, the first in which the measures will have any effect, the total sums of money involved amount to scarcely more than that provided for two research ships—one replacement and one new—in Antarctica, which were also provided for in the increase in the expenditure programme.
  Import penetration in our high technology industries is rising steadily and has risen throughout the life of the present Government. There is a £2 billion trade deficit from 1987 in a narrow group of important high technology industries concerned with electronics. The technology requirements board, set up by the Department of Trade and Industry, published its first report in the middle of last year. Its first statement was on the lack of industrial civil research and development. The Government's contribution to industrial civil research and development has fallen steadily throughout their life and the measures announced tonight by the Secretary of State go only a small way towards correcting that long-term decline. Two thirds of our industrial civil research and development is confined to a narrow range of industries. In fact, overseas funding of industrial research and development is now almost as great as the Government's contribution towards the science budget.
  Even in regions such as mine, where we have one or two high technology industries, the links between multinational companies and the academic world are often tenuous. Many of the industrial plants are branch plants where research and development does not take place. Our research and development facilities are often unconnected to the products produced in the plants in the region. The friction costs of creating and sustaining a proper basis of skills for science in the future are high, given that pattern of industrial disconnection, for which the Government are not providing a proper element of leadership. They have not provided proper leadership throughout their time in office. The Secretary of State has said that companies will be in a position to finance their research and development from their own resources. That is a policy of laissez-faire which will simply add to the problems that are accumulating in British science.
  The Government's tax take from industry is rising constantly and has risen steadily over the past three years. We are the only industrial country in which the tax take from industry has risen during that period. Every other major industrial country has been attempting to reduce the tax take from industry in the context of a planned advance of research and development. This Government are unique in not supporting those policies.

  731
  The Secretary of State does not pay sufficient attention to the regional effects of some of the Government's industrial policies. In order to create the links between basic, strategic and applied research and the world of production it is necessary to create sustained networks of interconnection between the academic world and industry. Too many of the industrial closures and mergers in the regions of Britain have broken the reality of those connections. My region has seen the virtual disappearance of Plessey as a major employer and the recent amalgamation of a major industrial ceramics producer, Thermal Syndicate, with a French company, which is clearly stripping its research and development capability. The Secretary of State has ignored that important aspect of the connection between science policy and industrial policy. The measures he has advanced for science policy leave the connections between science and industry to the work of the market. In his own comments on industry's performance in civil research and development he has made statements which suggest that we do not have an adequate policy.
  In the academic world we are still seeing measures by which Peter is being robbed to pay Paul. Universities are responding to the need for industrial sponsorship for their research programmes. However, many of the employment places created are of a short-term contract nature which cannot provide the career structure on which science needs to develop. The Government's policies towards universities mean that they must increasingly seek to place a considerable burden of their overheads on to the research funds that they are attempting to generate from industry. A collision between the universities' need for sponsorship and their need to provide for their own basic overheads will produce a crisis of sponsorship funding in the near future.
  The policies of the Health Service are also serving to undermine research in universities. Newcastle university has cut 38 posts in the medical faculty, many of them research posts. The National Health Service in the city cannot possibly take up the slack of funding that that represents.
  The Secretary of State should have sent out the message that he was committed to building proper, continuing links of research and science between the academic world and the world of industry. That clarion call has not come. In my region, there are a number of locally based initiatives which the Secretary of State could have used as a model and which, significantly, are often funded by the local branch of the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a worrying aspect of the Government's policies towards science that the spending programmes of the Departments which have a share in research spending are not well coordinated, so that the best use is not being made of the money available.
  Finally, I hope that there will be measures in the Budget through which the Government will seriously seek to link their belated efforts in funding for a science policy with a genuine restructuring and reconstruction of the base of civil research and development in industry through tax and other measures. Shortly, we are to have the promise of a new Companies Act. I hope that the Government will take advantage of that Act to respond to many of the requests from industry, to ask companies to identify their research and development spending and to provide for the links
  732
  that they ought to be making in terms of the skill and science base of their own activities. We must await those conclusions.
  It is clear that the Secretary of State has stuck narrowly to his departmental brief. We need a new approach in which the problems of science policy will be combined with a consideration of industrial policy and industrial planning. From the limited measures announced tonight, it is all too clear that that is not what we shall have.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the subject of the debate which the Opposition have chosen because it is vital to the future of the country, the economy and our reputation around the world. I was impressed by many of the statistics that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier, but I hope that he will remember that it is not just a matter of statistics and money.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) underlined the fact that our role in universities and research institutes is based upon human beings. Our biggest resource in science and research is the human resource. That resource requires to be motivated if we are to continue to produce the results and to maintain the reputation that we have in the past. From my contacts in universities and institutions, it is obvious that there is a sense of disillusionment and bewilderment and a need for direction. In that sense, the debate is particularly topical this evening.
  I understand the general thrust of policy. For example, the Government amendment referred to better value for money and better responsiveness. I understand the need for better co-ordination with industry. I have just spent four years at the Department of Energy where I endeavoured to mobilise the oil industry to put more into research and, at the same time, to obtain the co-operation of research establishments, universities and institutes. I was consulted when the Link programme was drawn up because, in many cases, the Offshore Energy Technology Board was already fulfilling many of the objectives of the Link programme.
  I support the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for better co-ordination and links between research, science and industry. However, I have a number of major concerns to which I hope the Government will pay attention and on which they will take action.
  First, despite the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State— I believe that he does not want to be complacent — there is a danger of complacency because we are becoming almost over-obsessed with the need for this greater link between industry, science and research. Development and technology are important in themselves, but we must remember that research is equally important, particularly fundamental research. This country has long had a reputation for fundamental research. The funding of that research is a public responsibility. It is the kind of research which only in a limited way can we be sure of getting simply through links between industry and research institutions and universities. We must remember that fundamental research has always been, and is likely to remain to a great extent, a public responsibility.
  Secondly, there is an urgent need for better understanding of the background against which our

  733
  policies are applied. The Government amendment refers to the progress made by the University Grants Committee. I make no apology for referring to that and to universities. In the light of the discussions that I have had with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently, I am sure that he will not be surprised at that. My right hon. Friend fairly said that he is at arm's length from the UGC. But the UGC puts into effect the Government's policies. It is a Government agency and, although it carries out those policies at arm's length, the general policy in relation to universities and research is the ultimate responsibility of the Government.
  Some of those policies do not fully take account of the traditions and histories of some of those institutions. Again, I make no apology for referring to my university, Aberdeen, which is an ancient university. In Scotland, we had four universities at a time when England had only two. That fact and the fact that we have a higher proportion of ancient universities means that, within our universities, there is a far wider range of disciplines than in many modern universities. At the same time, particularly in the case of Aberdeen, it has traditionally been the academic centre for a far wider geographic area of population than many of our modern institutions.
  Because Aberdeen is a university with a wide range of disciplines, departments and also an important medical school with a good scientific record, it tends to be a relatively higher cost university. Even though the medical school at Aberdeen is well recognised under the new kind of UGC rating system, within such a small university, the effect of this high-cost department has gone unrecognised. Aberdeen has probably been the worst hit in that respect. Because the background of this university has not been taken properly into account by the UGC or by Government policy, it has been fairly hard hit and there have been bad consequences for this university. Failure to apply appropriate policies will simply lead to political alienation. We hope to avoid that.
  Thirdly, the Government must be much more aware of the consequences of the policies which they are pursuing. Between 1980 and 1986 Aberdeen university suffered a 24·4 per cent. funding cut. I do not say that all was well in the university. There was room for improvement in particular departments but, because of the objectives of the UGC's plan, it now has had to shed 245 academic and non-academic posts. The Government have said, properly, that transitional and additional funds will be available—£155 million over three years for purposes that include transition where that is difficult—but the UGC has not made a commitment as to how it will achieve those objectives. One cannot run a business in that way, far less an academic or research institute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not be surprised at the growing disillusionment. There is compliance with difficult policies and remedies are being applied, but the means must be given—whether by the Government or through the UGC—to ensure that objectives are achieved in an orderly and sensible way. If that is not done, there will be disillusionment among all the human resources to which I have referred,
  Fourthly, there must be more consistency in Government policies. I make no apology for speaking from first-hand experience. The universities have been told to get money from industry for research, to relate their
  734
  activities to industry and to train their graduates better for posts in industry. I have already acknowledged how right that is.
  The geology department at the university of Aberdeen is to be decimated, in accordance with the advice of the Oxburgh committee looking into earth sciences, yet it has one of the best records for placing graduates, especially in petroleum geology, in industry. The department is on the doorstep of North sea oil. Where could one find a better place to expand? It is the only department in Scotland that teaches petroleum geology at BSc and MSc level.
  Scotland does not have polytechnics but petroleum geology, for example, is taught in polytechnics in England. If the Committee's proposals were followed through, the number of geology departments in Scotland would fall from six to three, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom there would be 57 departments, including 21 polytechnics, to which students could turn for training.
  There is no logic in these kinds of recommendations. This shows the inconsistent approach. I use the opportunity of this debate on an important aspect of science to demonstrate in practical terms what is happening. Fortunately, the news today is rather better. Apparently there have been second thoughts and there may be modifications in the proposals. I hope that there are modifications, but they will be judged when we see and hear them and I have not yet had an opportunity to do so. Even if the proposals are modified, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should not be surprised that there is disillusionment among people involved in research and among those who teach science in universities when proposals demonstrating such inconsistency come forward.
  I support much of what is being done in our science and university policies, but there is also much that is not well. I have pointed to four aspects where things are not going well. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pay attention to those points, otherwise many of us will find it difficult to support these policies.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome the speech of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who echoed the worries of many hon. Members. They many not be expressed by some hon. Members, but they do exist. Those worries have led to the motion. I welcome the fact that the Opposition have devoted time to this subject, especially as I made my second speech, after coming here as a Member almost exactly a year ago, on this subject and research council funding.
  We cannot ignore the fact that internationally—not just in this country—there is a shortage of scientists and technicians. If we are not able to offer the rewards, guarantees, excellence and facilities that other countries can offer, the prizes that go with individuals will be given not to this country but to others.
  Unarguably, Britain has spent less on civil research and development than France and Germany. It is even more important to consider our priorities. Some 50 per cent. of research spending in Britain is on defence, compared with one third in France, less than 10 per cent. in West Germany and just 2·5 per cent. in Japan. That difference in emphasis is far more telling than a juggling of figures, comparing expenditure under various Governments. The record not only of this Government but of successive

  735
  Governments has fallen short. More than half of Britain's £4·5 billion science budget goes on defence, compared with a NATO average of one quarter. A great deal of our military expenditure is not on research but on the development of military items. According to reports from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, the science budget of the University Grants Committee has been cut by 11 per cent. since 1981. That difference in emphasis is the key to many of our problems.
  The ABRC document "A Strategy for the Science Base" echoes the criticism of the Government's spending over many years. The report says:
  "Unavoidable increases in costs — under-indexation in respect of pay and international subscriptions, rising superannuation outlays and essential restructuring —constitute a major offset against the apparent real increase in the Science Budget in recent years. Together with the rising real cost of scientific equipment, these factors have almost certainly led to a reduction in the amount of scientific activity which the Councils have been able to fund. The Government's present expenditure plans offer no prospect of an end to this continuing contraction."
  The report continues:
  "Government expenditure on the science base has been significantly less in the UK as a proportion of GDP than in several European countries, and in contrast with other countries has been falling. The brain drain from the UK is symptomatic of the failure of our investment to keep up with that of our competitors."
  The report goes on:
  "The Government has a responsibility to create confidence in its plans for enhancing the strength and quality of the science base, in partnership with industry and the research community …Further consideration should be given to the introduction of a link between part or all of the Science Budget and growth of GDP."
  It is clear that the Government have continued to fail on each score. Despite the welcome news in November, they have not tackled the essential difficulties that are highlighted in the report. We await the Government's full response, which I hope we can debate in the House.
  The Government's response to these problems has been to increase the emphasis on private research. Although our companies have increased spending on research and development by one fifth over the past decade, the Secretary of State has been right to highlight his worries. In America, France and Germany expenditure has doubled and in Japan it has trebled. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say that he has worries and that he agrees with the Opposition that there are problems. He must go one step further and tackle them. In particular, he must tackle the difference in spending by our European partners on research in industry and technology compared with Britain. That point has been emphasised already by Members on both sides of the House. According to The Guardian today, Britain's universities are less dependent on Government grants than at any time in the past 20 years. Block grants accounted for only 55 per cent. of university income last year compared with 70 per cent. in 1974. It is a pity that it is not simply because private money has been flooding in; unfortunately, it is because Government money too often has been flooding out. It also adds to the real worries of which we have heard already about the emphases and the area on which the money is going and the kind of research that is taking place.
  Professor Robin Weiss, director of the Institute of Cancer Research, said:
  736
  "we were able to respond to the AIDS challenge only because of the excellent groundwork laid in the UK. But the erosion of our science base is so bad that the next virus along will beat us."
  Mary Warnock states in her article in New Society:
  "The universities do not exist solely to train managers or employees. They are not in business merely to provide statistical … backing for Government policies."
  There is a general concern, both in regard to broader university education and, particularly, to the Universities Funding Council. It will be chaired by an industrialist and the academics who become members are unlikely to he a majority. To put it again, not in my words but in those of Mary Warnock,
  "there is, therefore, real danger that the long-term academic duties of universities may come to seem less important than the delivery of short-term and wealth-producing results."
  We have had a whole variety of examples of where research which is not directed to any particular goal, not directed, in particular, to industrial goals, has paid off. To take an example that has not yet been mentioned, in the early years of the century Einstein was studying the movement of the planets, which resulted within 40 years, through the development of relativistic equivalence of mass and energy, in nuclear power, a jump that no one could have predicted at the turn of the century. Who knows what kind of jumps may yet be to come?
  That is the sort of thing that has led to the criticisms of the Government in their cutting-off of funding for space research and leaving it all to industry, which will look to short-term ends. It is the kind of criticism that we have about the devotion of Government research and development funds in energy policy almost exclusively to nuclear research, with very little left to other areas that are discounted as less likely to show a return.
  The result of all that has been a migration of scientists from this country—probably the most worrying statistic of them all. Incomes Data Services recently reported figures from American and British institutes of physics which reveal that technologists with 10 to 14 years' experience can expect to earn the equivalent of £36,000 in America in comparison with a little over £13.000 in Britain. Figures from the United States immigration services, analysed by the United States National Science Foundation, show that the United Kingdom contributed 9,500 foreign-born scientists who took up permanent residence in the United States in 1984.
  The science and engineering policy studies unit of the Royal Society demonstrated that the number of its British fellows living abroad had risen from 4 per cent. in 1960 to 13 per cent. in 1984. According to that report, fewer new doctors of philosophy who emigrate return than did 25 years ago, yet it is on them that our scientific future depends.
  At the moment we train good scientists and then we export them. Unfortunately, we do not get the foreign scientists who train here to stay. The Government should ask themselves why that is so. Only 20 per cent. of foreign scientists and engineers work in Britain for longer than three years. Four times as many British scientists and engineers who left Britain took up long-term jobs abroad.
  It is only by tackling this kind of problem that we will find a solution to the crisis that we see in British science. It is no wonder that such emigration exists, particularly among the youngest talent, because, predominantly, younger people are put on short-term contracts, with a hit-and-miss system of going on to further work. It may well

  737
  appear to many of them that by the time they have won one contract and ensured that that is going ahead, they barely have a moment's pause before going on to make sure that they have another contract to follow that.
  Paul Hare and Geoffrey Wyatt, in an article shortly to be published in Research Policy, say:
  "The application of financial pressure, in the absence of powers to hire and fire, is simply counterproductive, as many universities discovered to their cost after the 1981 cuts in British university funding: often the best people turned out to be the most mobile and promptly left the system."
  In the report published by the Royal Society, the reasons given for the exodus of top university talent were mainly better opportunity—20 per cent. —facilities—13 per cent. and financial rewards—14 per cent. Those are matters that the Government can be more positive about immediately. They need to address those issues if the problems are not to continue.
  Just a few positive notes before I finish. I pick on one because it is of particular interest to parts of the country such as my own. The Government have taken some welcome initiatives in getting new research establishments going, bringing together research talent and setting off new ideas in new directions, but one characteristic of these initiatives is that they have gone where such talent already exists, where there is already a resource base of these individuals, where people can already go if they want to get benefits in the United Kingdom.
  The Government have ignored the potential in spending such sums and bringing forward such developments for getting things going in areas that do not offer such resources and infrastructure to the local community—areas such as Cornwall where we lose far too high a proportion of our brightest youngsters. There is nothing in Cornwall or anywhere near it that they can go to. Exeter, for example, is two hours' drive from my constituency, and not an easy drive at that.
  That is the kind of problem that we face. It would be good if the Government would use the opportunity to take resources to the areas that can best utilise and benefit from them. We could create science parks around St. Austell and Camborne, based on the skills that already exist in mining and clay and the rest, and bring in new talent and resources which will allow such development to grow. There is no better way of bringing in new technology or taking advantage of the facilities that new technology creates — the opportunities created by there no longer being a need to have individuals based where other research and development is going on. Computer information technology has got rid of that need and we should seize with some imagination the opportunities that it provides.
  In addition, there is a desperate need for an immediate restoration of morale. The only way to do that will be to provide long-term commitments and the ability to plan ahead for at least five years with a rolling programme of commissioning, development and funding. We must expand education to reach the level of France, the United States, Germany and Japan. According to the Save British Science group, we need an expansion of at least 50 per cent. by the end of the century. We must tackle the problem of the shortage of qualified physics, mathematics and science teachers in our schools—something which the Minister has talked about but which he has so far railed to deal with. We must find quality research and stimulate
  738
  industrial research and development, perhaps in the way that I have suggested. But, above all, the Government need to raise their eyes to the next century, to the horizon and not keep looking at and stumbling over their own feet, and over the faults that admittedly exist in the system — faults which will be tackled only by a more far-sighted approach to the questions that British science raises.
  8.58 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting speech too closely, but time is short.
  As some of my right hon. Friends are aware, I have been pressing for this debate for some time. Therefore, I am obliged to the Opposition for securing it by using one of their Supply days, although I regret that the debate is only for half a day. It is symptomatic of the attention paid to science that we should have waited until 29 February for the debate. I wish only that it was a leap year for British science. However, we now have the time and whatever our views the debate is long overdue. If the Government wish us to accept, as some of us would wish to, that they pay more than lip service to the importance of science and Government decisions relating to science, we should have an annual occasion on which these matters can be discussed. It should not depend on the Opposition giving up one of their Supply days or on an Adjournment debate at 3 am. This is a prime subject of great national importance and it deserves prime time.
  The Government's policy and performance in this sphere is something of a curate's egg. There have been some excellent initiatives; some of them have been obscured by what might be described as the dance of the acronyms. Science policy has shifted from ACCORD, ACARD and others to ACOST, ABRC, STAO and CEST. It is not easy to keep up with the changes of policy that are associated with the changes of the acronym, and that is to say nothing of the changes in the EEC acronyms such as ESPRIT, BRITE, JET, FRAMEWORK and others.
  Nevertheless, there have been some excellent developments. I do not share the range of criticisms that have been levelled by the Opposition. The Link scheme has much to commend it. The CEST proposal will achieve important results, if only because Sir Francis Tombs is at the helm and it has adequate resources. Many of the initiatives described by the chief scientific adviser to the Cabinet office, Mr. John Fairclough, in his Midland bank lecture at Brunel, are important, significant and deserve support. Very few of the matters involved have been discussed here. I refer to the multidisciplinary research centres, on which the Secretary of State laid much welcome emphasis, the teaching company schemes and the development of science parks by English Estates, which has been a most successful venture.
  I share many but not all of Mr. Fairclough's conclusions and judgments. In particular, I am skeptical —this scepticism has already surfaced in the debate— about his conclusion that the
  "effective exploitation of science should always be our goal."
  It is a major goal, but something vital in the brilliance and uniqueness of British science may be lost or prejudiced if we allow too great an intrusion of market judgments. It is the market which must assess science, not science which must assess the market.

  739
  Much of the debate is bound to concentrate on the question of resources for science. Much of the disagreement on the matter is sterile, particularly if it rests on different interpretations of GDP percentages, defence research and development percentages and arcane mysteries such as the transatlantic flow of PhDs, fellows of the Royal Society and Nobel prize winners.
  I attach little significance to publication tallies in learned journals. One paper by Crick and Watson, Rutherford, Chadwick or Fleming is worth 1,000 that vanish without trace after publication. Quality in science is all important and it is quality that we must sustain, encourage and support.
  There are some sets of figures, however, that cause me, and no doubt others, great concern. The first is that the United States, which spends half the world's research and development budget, is immensely concerned about its scientific performance and its consequent loss of industrial leadership, particularly with regard to Japan. The scale is most significant. The United States spent $125 billion on research in 1987, $60 billion of which came from federal resources, and of that $11 billion was spent on basic research. Since 1980, as a percentage of GDP, that expenditure has increased from 2·3 to 2·8 per cent. In non-defence spending it has increased from 1·8 to 1·9 per cent. Between 1987 and 1994 its basic research expenditure will approach 16 per cent. of the total federal budget. Despite those trends, the United States, which is still possibly the worlds' most significant research and development base and leader in the higher technology sector, now imports 75 per cent. of its requirements for integrated circuits from Japan. In the most critical sub-sector, which is known as DRAMS, its share of world production is down to 5 per cent.
  Europe, despite substantial if not comparable research and development, is in a similar if not worse plight in this sector. We are almost out of it altogether. The report, "Silicon 200", said:
  "Mainstream memories … it argued … represent the very highest volume products typified by DRAMS … It is an area requiring the highest investment and a long term strategy. It is an area in which politics and economic considerations existing in the U.K. preclude U.K. Company involvement. The U.K. has withdrawn any pretence of involvement."
  The report calls for an investment of £255 million and warns that it will be largely wasted if
  "it is not complemented by a substantial commitment to build a more credible and viable semi-conductor industry within the United Kingdom".
  I would argue that the context should not be the United Kingdom but Europe, the finance should be European and the market worldwide if we are to succeed. The main conclusion is that, despite repeated warnings and millions of pounds spent in support of limited and ineffective policies, the United Kingdom and Europe have lost out to Japan.
  Money alone, even on the United States and European scale, is not the answer. So what is the answer? Perhaps one answer is that Japanese integrated circuit companies are investing 35 per cent., not of their profits but of their revenue in research and have done so since 1979. Their revenues are vast.
  This is not a debate about space, but the scale, vision and determination of the Japanese space programme leap out of reports and suggest a most intriguing relationship between priorities and results. If I may detain the House
  740
  for a moment, the latest Japanese project is to construct the largest international joint space centre in the world. They propose to form an international science and technology community for space and to create a parent body to provide international co-operation in space and to develop its utilisation. This is taking place at two places in Japan — at Tashei and Oybayashi. It is also developing the H2 rocket, which will have a launch capability of two tonnes. That really puts Japan ahead in space.
  Therefore, I accept and I ask the House to accept Professor Dennis Noble's conclusion in his Lloyd-Roberts lecture, where he summarises the reality when he argues that:
  "It is a gross oversimplification to suppose that the relation between science and wealth-creation is direct. It requires the integrity of many essential links, the blue skies research itself, the consolidation of fundamental discoveries into exploitable fields, the inventiveness to see how they might be exploited, the entrepreneurship required to risk capital development and the determination to market the product … fail at any of those stages and you will have failed to convert science into wealth creation".
  He made out a most powerful case when he argued in conclusion that
  "the political argument about the future of science in the United Kingdom is not a funny aberration that will simply go away … once we have solved the next round of funding crises. We have a long trek ahead … if we are to avoid a major cultural and economic catastrophy for our nation."
  I share that judgment. The nature of the catastrophe has never been better summarised than by Correlli Barnett's powerful book on Britain, "The Audit of War". It is precisely because we have done and are doing so well in other directions that this area of concern has been kept out of sight or swept under the carpet. We are indebted not to the House but to another place, as my right hon. Friend conceded, for bringing it back into the limelight where it deserves to remain.
  However much the Government may wish to disagree with some of the report's most powerful conclusions, they cannot disagree with the evidence, and the evidence discloses the mounting dismay and concern of some of the most informed and responsible people in science in Britain. The most recent report of the ABRC itself has already been quoted; I shall not quote it further. It is in the context of those and many other comments that I have found some of the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends disturbing.
  Lord Joseph is on record as saying:
  "It is not the role of Government to have a policy for science".
  My noble Friend is no longer responsible for science, but I fear that in certain areas that philosophy remains, and in this day and age it is utterly indefensible. The ABRC concluded that the Government's revised expenditure plans
  "do not provide the means to move our nation's scientific capability towards the 21st century,"
  to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy replied with the pious hope that
  "it will be possible to give greater priority to science in this year's public expenditure survey discussions."
  I have looked at the public expenditure survey volumes with some care. Science creeps in here and there. Coverage is diffuse and scattered. Research and development is treated at length on only 12 out of about 515 pages. Some major Departments do not mention it at all. Astonishingly, the Ministry of Defence, which spends just

  741
  under half of the annual total, gives research one line. The review volume includes an analysis of just over one page —that is it; one page. From all that, it is just possible to discover that there is a science policy in the United Kingdom. In responsible Departments, the policy is obscure, benign and peripheral. In Departments that have no responsibility—if I may put it bluntly—science sinks without a trace and there is an almost audible sigh of relief.
  Nevertheless, it is possible to discern some threads in the Government's science policy that have to be put together rather like a jigsaw. The words that appear most frequently these days are those such as "targeting", "direction", "selectivity", and "orchestration". The philosophy is based on the premise that, as we can hope to do only 5 per cent. of the world's research and development, central direction is necessary and unavoidable. "We cannot do everything" is the refrain. My right hon. Friend repeated it tonight. It is a plausible argument, but it begs many questions. The most important question is, "Who are 'we'?"
  The need for choice is understandable, but can or should the Government attempt to make it? Does the need to improve our application of science sustain the cohesion of the argument right through to the choice of strategic direction in basic science, which is what we do best, and which will always be the most crucial? I think not.
  What, then, can and should the Government do? They must clearly provide vital resources in major aspects of fundamental research. Industry cannot and will not do so. The Government must ensure that the education system rewards brilliance, especially eccentric brilliance in science. If that means differential rewards for scarce scientific skills, so be it. They must also provide moral support for that long overdue change in our national culture. Congressman Don Fuqua reported to the United States Congress on the subject. He summed up the situation in one sentence. He said:
  "Scientific illiteracy is a threat to the representative democratic system and ultimately to science itself."
  Government can and should do more to reinforce their own successes by ensuring that excellent systems such as the overseas technology information service are made more widely known and more generally used by industry. What they should not do is pursue the objective set out by Mr. Fairclough and others. Mr. Fairclough asked that scientists
  "be kept in touch with the market and commercial opportunities."
  In my judgment, our most valuable and original scientists should be preoccupied not with the market but with their subjects. Scientists should complete their research and publish it. It is up to industry and commerce to keep in touch with scientific endeavour and to equip itself to interpret and apply the results. The philosophy has never been better expressed than it was by the great French scientist, Pasteur. He said:
  "No. A thousand times no. There does not exist a category of science to which one can give the name applied science. There … are sciences and the application of sciences, bound together as the fruit of the tree which bears it."
  That statement is as true today as it was in the century when Pasteur uttered it.
  Where is the missing link? Will historians of the future, researching for the "Audit of Peace", the natural successor to Correlli Barnett's book, looking into the Olduvai gorge
  742
  of British scientific history, search in vain for a strong and powerful lead from Parliament? Here is, or should be, the major instrument of national policy criticism and formulation, yet, with the conspicuous exception of the Lords' Select Committee, we have no instruments of and little opportunity for policy discussion and formulation. No time is found for the discussion of major policy documents on science. We are too busy legislating, often to repair or remedy the consequences of major policy deficiencies in science and technology 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. As has been said recently in relation to some aspects of United States science policy, we have confused "who should mind the future and who should mind the factory."
  The key statistic is the 5 per cent. of world science that is done in Britain. That means that 95 per cent. is done elsewhere. What proportion of that is accessible? It could be 30 per cent. What proportion is in fact accessed by Government or industry or both? It could be 10 per cent. What proportion of that which is accessed is applicable? I believe that it could be half, which brings us down to 5 per cent. Finally, what proportion is applied? I suspect that that figure is about 1 per cent.
  If the Government have a positive role, it is to stimulate an upward movement in those percentages. That is the way to ensure that if the rest of the world takes advantage—as it will — of British science, we take a reciprocal advantage of science abroad. Here is a lake of the purest water surrounded by a vast herd of animals whose sensory perception is so poor that they appear to have no wish even to drink. We shall determine our future industrial rank not by using the national science output but by using the output of science as a whole, wherever it is done—and done well. That is the lesson that the Japanese have taught the world, and we must learn it.
  What can Parliament do? First, it can pay much more attention to the subject. Secondly, it can take steps to ensure that it is much better informed on such matters and on the scientific aspects of legislation. Thirdly, it can persuade the Government that an informed Parliament has a role to play and that it is worth substantial expenditure to ensure that Parliament is informed. That is the prime purpose of the Office of Technology Assessment in Washington, and of the Parliamentary Science and Technology Information Foundation that we have established at Westminster. But let us contrast the scale of the resources. The OTA has a budget of $15 million per annum, while our humble, but I hope successful, foundation has £50,000.
  One of my right hon. Friends with whom the project was discussed once remarked that Parliament has always been an ignorant place and that he hoped it would remain so. That is the most desperately sad and cynical comment on democracy that I have heard in a decade. If the nation is to have an informed and relevant science policy, we need an informed and relevant Parliament. At present, we have neither.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I join the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) in urging the House to find time to discuss this important subject annually. On this occasion, the Opposition have taken the initiative and introduced this debate.
  There is considerable significance in the agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about

  743
  the crisis in British science, and a symptom of the severity of the crisis is that since I told some colleagues in Oxford that I wished to take part in the debate I have hardly been able to get off the telephone because of the number of anxious and angry scientists who wished to give me information to draw to the attention of the House. Had they been here to listen to the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the few new points that he made, and although they would have noted his words of caution against complacency, they would have found his contribution complacent and a classic case of too little, too late.
  Is that any wonder when, by any fair standards of international comparison, British science is so chronically under-funded? The Sussex university science policy research unit has shown that Britain ranked bottom, or next to bottom, compared with the United States, France, West Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. Reports for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils by the Royal Society reveal that Britain shows the most marked decline in its share of scientific output of any major OECD country. What is worse, notwithstanding the small increase in funds that the Secretary of State says will be available in the next two years, the amount of scientific work that those who should know expect that that will fund will fall by 2 per cent. Meanwhile, the cream Of our scientists are going abroad, with 1,000 of our best scientists going to the United States alone. As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, the consequence is grave disillusion and a devastating effect on key areas of basic research work.
  Let me give a couple of examples. The total United Kingdom research budget for materials science is about £5 million. That is research into new materials with important implications for work in super-conductivity, new materials for construction and aviation, and so on. That £5 million is peanuts compared with the sums that other countries put into that area.
  My informant on the matter recently visited the United States, where he found that one department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was spending more on materials science than the total United Kingdom budget. He went to Japan, where he found one project that was bigger than the total amount being spent in this country.
  One of my informant's best-ever students has just completed his doctorate in material sciences. He failed to obtain any money for continuing his research, so he has now joined an accountancy firm in the City of London. That case and many others like it are a tragedy for this country.
  Similarly, another colleague in Oxford reported that a specialist in the central nervous system, doing incredibly important work on multiple sclerosis and so on, recently tried 500 United Kingdom companies and funding agencies in an attempt to obtain the resources that he needed to undertake an important new research project. No help was forthcoming. That support is now coming from a United States drugs company. It will have the options on any results of the research.
  The consequences for our universities and our students' future are catastrophic. The figures from Oxford university bear out other statistics that were given earlier in the debate. In 1985–86, compared with 1983–84, 10 per cent. fewer students went from Oxford university into industry. Over the same period, the proportion of students
  744
  going to commerce was up by 11 per cent. Despite, or perhaps because of, the 20 per cent. Government cut in funding, studentships in Oxford have been left unfilled —the first time in memory that that has happened.
  Universities are having to advertise to our students to apply for post-doctoral places. The best are simply either going into the City or on to scientific work in the United States. I dare say that in reply the Minister will claim that the brain drain figures can be interpreted this way or that way, and that the numbers coming in or going out are roughly equal. As other hon. Members have said, quality is crucial. Those who are coming here are coming to do short-term post-doctoral work for specific projects, whereas those who are leaving are the best people — senior academics, members of the Royal Society, prize winners and students who will be the leading scientists of the future.
  We must heed the words of Professor Sir George Porter, president of the Royal Society, who said:
  "You cannot have a successful manufacturing industry unless you have something good to sell. You cannot have a good product without continuing applied research and development.
  You cannot maintain good applied research and development without a good domestic science base."
  As well as recognising the importance of scientific research in its own right, we must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, recognise the connection between the strategy that needs to be followed in science and education and that which needs to be followed in industry.
  In the limited time available I wish to say a few words about the importance of research assistance for small companies, which is now generally recognised to be a critically important factor in exploiting the valuable links between university and polytechnic research departments and the work of entrepreneurs.
  A certain sleight of hand has been involved in the labelling of schemes. We cannot escape the conclusion that, if the energy that was put into relabelling and repackaging schemes had instead gone into obtaining additional funds for research, and if the DTI had taken the time that it took in making television commercials to expedite decisions, small high-tech companies and the innovation that they undertake would have been a great deal better off.
  For example, the support for innovation scheme operated by the DTI, providing funding of 33 or 35 per cent., had some defects, arid the system was relatively indiscriminate. Nevertheless, it was a route by which small companies could secure funding for research and development. When that scheme was superseded by the Eureka and Link schemes, the experience of firms on the ground has been that no new money has been made available. Funds that had been available in any case are simply being recycled under a new name.
  While the funding for the development phases of Eureka was heralded at 50 per cent., the fact that no new money was available meant that fewer projects or work were to be assisted. While Link is proclaimed to be assisting small companies, it does so only when they are in collaboration. At least two companies or a Government laboratory must be taking part. Those are silly conditions. If they are intended to establish the credibility of the project, they are a pretty sloppy substitute for the real work of evaluation that ought to be done.

  745
  More seriously — this is the real danger that small companies fear—if they have a brilliant idea that they are compelled to share at the so-called pre-competitive research stage, they risk losing the particular commercial benefit of the idea. They are put in an impossible dilemma. Either they must risk missing much-needed funds, or they must risk losing the financial benefits of the research to a larger competitor. Either way, operated in such a fashion, the scheme cannot but discriminate in the interests of larger firms, at the expense of small ones.
  Even more frustrating and self-defeating than the packaging of the assistance schemes and the terms under which they operate are the delays in decision-making, which can paralyse a small company. I wrote to the DTI only today about a firm in my constituency. It is a small firm, with a spectacular record of innovation, development and manufacture in electro-optics. It is poised on the threshold of an exciting research project to develop key filtration units for the new generation of industrial lasers.
  That work would keep Britain at the cutting edge of innovation in a vitally important sphere. The firm applied for assistance under the Eureka programme, and the final application went in on 25 September last year. While the DTI officials with whom it has dealt have been sympathetic, today the company is still waiting for a decision on whether the project can go ahead. That means that it has lost five months at a crucial stage.
  But it is worse than that. Under the terms of the assistance, the company cannot spend any of its own money on the work without prejudicing the funds that may be forthcoming from the Government in the future. In the meantime, its financial and staff budgeting and its work schedule are thrown into uncertainty, which, were it not for the enterprise and flexibility of both management and work force, would be crippling. In contrast, the company's competitors in the United States, under the small business innovation research programme there, can take in an application in the morning and come out with a cheque in the afternoon.
  Faced with such shortcomings in Government support, it is a tribute to the scientists and scientific entrepreneurs in this country that there are any subjects left in which we are world leaders. What is needed is clear: more funding, more straightforward and simple criteria so that firms can develop their own ideas, and, above all, quicker decision-making so that high-tech firms can compete on an equal basis with those abroad. There lies the way to success for innovation and for high-tech industry, and for a more prosperous future for the country as a whole.
  9.29 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Of all of those who have spoken, the Secretary of State has shown least understanding of the intense frustration articulated by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which he appointed to advise him. That frustration is shared by the whole scientific community.
  This is a time of unprecedented fertility and opportunity in basic science and its applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) spoke of the lack of strategy and leadership which the Government have brought to bear in response. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke about disillusionment in research
  746
  and teaching. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spoke about frustration throughout the scientific community. The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) spoke of the brilliance of individual scientists, which has been the glory of the scientific tradition, facing the catastrophe which he feels the Government are bringing about. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) spoke about the flood of representations that he has received in just the day or two in which it has been known that we were to have this debate.
  The Government's expenditure plans have the science budget reaching what appears to be a plateau or perhaps continuing on a plain. We are spending only 15 per cent. more than in 1979. We are failing to keep up with the 2 per cent. per annum sophistication factor, or the 17 per cent. growth of national income. That means, for those who understand the definitions of national income, no increase in scientists and no increase in science bought. To be fair, that represents a consistent pattern, with the science budget having dropped from 0·2 per cent. to 0·16 per cent. of GDP in the early 1970s with the onset of disillusionment about science at that time. Spending has remained at that level ever since. What has changed is the pace of development in science and the pace of its application in the rest of the world.
  After allowing for the welcome 7 per cent. increase in industrial research and development between 1985 and 1986, total research and development in the United Kingdom still fell from 2·39 per cent. to 2·36 per cent. of GDP last year because of Government cuts. After taking out defence research and development, the new OECD figures which are out this month show that spending on civil research and development in the United Kingdom has been static at 1·8 per cent. of national income since 1979 while that in all of our industrial competitors has risen steadily. I doubt whether the Secretary of State has even looked at the graphs.
  The rise in other countries has accommodated the growth in opportunities for science and its application. R and D continues to rise as a proportion of GDP—in Germany from 2·3 to 2·8 per cent., in Japan from 1·8 to 2·7 per cent. and, with a far larger volume of research, in the United States from 1·6 to 2 per cent. The freeze in Britain shows in the failure to fund alpha-graded research projects, in the paucity and obsolesence of equipment, in the diminished international standing of our higher education, in the lack of career opportunities for research scientists, in the poor status of engineers in industry, in the shortage of teachers of science and mathematics, in the cantankerous and obstructive role of the Government in international scientific co-operation, in the low level of research and development in industry, in the loss of so many of our best scientists abroad, in the continuing loss of technological competitiveness, and in the deteriorating balance of payments.
  So why bother with all this research and development business? Why not leave others to make the advances and pick up the science and technology from abroad? Why not have done with it all? What is wrong with the argument is that, first, in basic science, in as large an economy as ours, unless we work at the frontiers in high temperature superconductivity and developmental biology, molecular sciences, surface science and the rest, we will have no body of people who can develop, understand, produce or use the products and processes of tomorrow.

  747
  We have already had warnings from ICI, Glaxo, Wellcome, Smith, Kline and French, BP and the pharmaceutical industry that Britain is losing its viability as a base for applied research. That research depends on a ready supply of people and ideas from basic science. The new inter-disciplinary research centres are fine and necessary. However, with continued level funding and if each centre continues to be financed by sacrificing 30 or 40 of the project grants that get young scientists going and provide many of the new ideas and discoveries of which the hon. Member for Havant spoke, the IRCs will become small islands of excellence sustained by and communicating with the international scientific community but without any means of communicating with British industry, application, education and training in research, thus entirely defeating their purpose.
  No one knows better than the Treasury—on no day better than today—the debilitating effect, as the oil revenues pass their peak, of the grinding 2 per cent. per annum loss of non-price competitiveness, which needs to be appreciated to make sense of our deteriorating trade figures. January was a bad month, but the trend is inescapable.
  Industry needs to double its research and development if we are to match the present research intensity of German and Japanese industry. That funding is essential if we are to compete technologically. It means a £3 billion increase per annum in research and development funding, compared with the modest £100 million for the science base that was sought by ABRC and denied by the Secretary of State.
  There is no meaningful contribution that can be made to remedy the huge deficiencies in industrial research by denying or redirecting the far more modest needs of the science base. There is no hope of achieving the increases needed in industrial research from spontaneous allocations of increased profits such as the Secretary of State spoke of. Such profits have already occurred. Between 1981 and 1986, industrial profits increased by 70 per cent. in real terms, but industry's funding of research and development increased by only 20 per cent. The magnitude of the increase in industrial research and development that is required is too large to be brought about by discretionary grants. We need to bring about a step change in British industrial practice while we still have a science base to support it.
  Industry should be given a powerful fiscal incentive to increase its funding of its research and development. Britain is alone among the industrial countries in having had no such fiscal incentive scheme. The Inland Revenue survey of fiscal incentives for R and D spending did an honest job of reporting overseas practice and experience, but it stopped short of Mansfield's key paper in the 1986 "American Economic Review" that suggested how the American system could be improved. If we adapt Mansfield's suggestions, what we need, for a few years, is a high percentage grant for increments of R and D expenditure over a fixed base year, phasing into a grant to maintain the doubled level of expenditure for a further few years until firms have learnt the benefits of a higher level of R and D, which they will then sustain without the need for a continuing incentive. It is that step change that we must aim to bring about.
  In addition to the fiscal incentive that will change the climate, specific programmes will be needed in such areas
  748
  as space and telecommunications where considerable co-ordination is required. Such necessary and practicable advances in industrial R and D make heavy demands on the people and the ideas produced by Britain's science base.
  The increase in the science budget of £100 million recommended by the ABRC and rejected by the Government is needed in full and is needed this year. The ABRC is not "just another lobby", as the Under-Secretary described it. That is not something which a sensible Minister says to any lobby. It is certainly not something which one says to one's lawyer, doctor, fire brigade or plumber — to someone whom one has summoned to one's help, as the Government summoned the ABRC. Least of all should Ministers say that to the ABRC when, like the true mother, it has offered to centralise management—in a way quite alien to science but dear to the dictatorial heart of this Government—as the price for the funding urgently needed to save British science. But Solomon the Government are not. By refusing the funding the Secretary of State butchered the baby. He cannot reply to the ABRC report "A Strategy for the Science Base" because he has no strategy. A charade presided over by the Prime Minister is still a charade, albeit a prime ministerial charade.
  Science has always been in politics. Now the Government have pushed politics into science just as they have pushed politics into the universities, the Church, the courts, and the BBC because they can brook no challenge to their autocratic rule. The consequence is that the Government have demonstrated their total incompetence.
  Gone are the days when as the Minister responsible for information technology the Secretary of State boasted:
  "In this area we have a clear strategy". —[Official Report, 27 Nov. 1981; Vol. 12, c. 1150.]
  He said that information technology was,
  "the area of fastest growth in public expenditure … something that I proudly point out to the Prime Minister on every possible occasion." —[Official Report, 17 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 521.]
  Does the Secretary of State remember that? Gone is Information Technology year. Gone is the support for innovation programme. Gone is the Alvey programme, and its successor is never to come. "Automate or liquidate," cried the Secretary of State, whereupon Sinclair and Acorn computers, of which the Secretary of State justly boasted, did both.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Today I had a meeting with Olivetti-Acorn at which the company announced that it had sold more than 1 million Acorn computers to British schools and launched a new product—Archimedes. The hon. Gentleman really must get up to date.
  Dr. Bray: Did the Secretary of State ask Olivetti how much it had paid for Acorn—[Interruption.] They went bankrupt. The Secretary of State bought one Acorn computer and I bought two. The Archimedes machine is a splendid machine but it was an example of an industrial initiative denied backing by the Government in terms of the comprehensive increases in educational activity and in application needed to sustain that initiative.
  The Secretary of State was first recruited to the Government partly because on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee he was being too helpful to my colleagues and me in showing how the Government had, in two brief years, destroyed more British industry than Hitler managed to do in the war and partly to bring some

  749
  lighthearted showbiz to that ravaged industrial scene. Industry, the Health Service, even the education system can be rebuilt in a decade as the Germans and Japanese have shown. A peerless scientific tradition that has taken centuries to build will be destroyed and dissolved in 10 brief years if the Government are allowed to proceed any further on their present course. That crime would be remembered long after many other wounds, at the time apparently more grievous, have healed and been forgotten.
  I urge the House to reject the Government's amendment and support our motion.
  9.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): This has been a reflective debate in which we have heard some considered and thoughtful speeches addressing complex issues. Thankfully, in the process, we have sometimes eluded the customary acrimonies of party debates, although the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) did his best towards the end of his speech with some judicious misquotations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has an article in today's edition of The Independent in which he casts strictures on ministerial speeches, particularly the wind-up speeches made by luckless junior Ministers who he says gabble through their briefs scratching — I will not say what he says they scratch. I cannot promise high-flown rhetoric such as my hon. Friend would like, or indeed flights of fancy, and I do not think that they are particularly appropriate to this subject.
  I shall try to rise to the high level of the debate and the best way to do that is to set the debate in a wider international context, which is sometimes not sufficiently appreciated. However, I noticed that in his excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) emphasised the importance of that context, particularly in Europe. He stressed the need to develop strategies for Britain to exploit research and development at home and abroad.
  I should like to look first at the similarities in the position of science in Britain and that of other countries and then to look at the differences. Unfortunately, it is necessary to use some figures and statistics when making those comparisons and I apologise for that. However, in matters of science it is necessary that we strive for a degree of objectivity and logic and figures are helpful to that.
  I shall deal first with the share of the gross domestic product devoted to science. When looking at those figures, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South will see that he has gone over the top in some of his language. The figures show that Britain is in the middle of the league in terms of the share of the GDP devoted to science. The figure for Britain is 2·33 per cent., for France it is 2·31 per cent., in the Federal Republic of Germany it is 2·66 per cent. and in Italy, our nearest comparator in terms of the size of GDP, it is only 1·33 per cent.
  Mr. Douglas: What about defence?
  Mr. Jackson: I shall deal with defence in a moment.
  The next set of similar figures is the Government's research and development spend as a proportion of GDP. That is the proportion spent by Government, leaving aside
  750
  industry. It shows that Britain is near the top of the league. In spite of that, I will not follow the hon. Member for Motherwell, South in his argument that we should somehow fix an arbitrary percentage of GDP to be devoted to research and development. In 1985, 1·3 per cent. of GDP was spent on Government research and development. That compares with 1·13 per cent. in the Federal Republic of Germany and 0·95 per cent. in Italy.
  Another similarity—this is important because it has come up in various ways during the debate — is the percentage of GDP devoted by the Government to the advancement of knowledge. Some strictures were cast by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and it was referred to by the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). When one looks at the figures for the commitment to basic science they do not bear out the strictures. They show that Britain is in the middle of the league and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we achieve good results. In Britain the figure is 0·28 per cent. as compared with 0·05 per cent. in the United States of America, which has a huge GDP, 0·27 per cent. in Japan, 0·23 per cent. in Italy and 0·39 per cent. in France. That shows that Britain is in the middle of the league table. It is certainly not at the bottom.
  We agree with the analysis made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant on the importance of basic science. However, when deciding in which of the fundamental projects to invest, decisions have to be made. It must be right for the Government and the scientific community to keep an eye on the potential exploitability of science as well as its purely intellectual attractions, which are also important. It is relevant to ask questions about exploitability. That is what is now happening and we should welcome it.
  Mr. Dalyell: If all is as well as the Minister says and we are in the middle of the league table, how does he explain the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) referred whereby there are cries de coeur from many of our most senior science professors about their most brilliant students at post-doctoral level seeking posts abroad?
  Mr. Jackson: I shall deal with that because the subject has been raised many times during the debate and it must be answered. I shall do my best to answer it. The brain drain study, which was quoted particularly by the hon. Member for Truro, does not bear out the construction placed upon it by the hon. Members for Truro or for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). In 1962, which is when the last major brain-drain study was made, 30 per cent. of postdoctoral students emigrated, whereas in 1982, the year to which the present study relates, only 9 per cent. emigrated. There is a migration and immigration of talent in this area.
  I was going through a list of the similarities between the position of British science and that of science in other countries. I wish to deal with one similarity, which is crucial. In all countries, there is a tendency for the rate of spend on research and development to slow down. In Britain, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, Government expenditure has increased by 15 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That growth is continuing. However, if we consider changes in Government expenditure on research and development between 1981 and 1985 as a percentage of GDP, we see that the figure is minus 0·1 per

  751
  cent. In the Federal Republic of Germany the figure is precisely zero. In the United States, the figure is plus 0·1 per cent. and in Japan it is zero. France is the only country where there has been an upward lift of 0·2 per cent.
  Dr. Bray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jackson: I shall give way in a moment.
  We must recognise that, throughout the world, there is a shift away from the exponential rates of growth in investment. The golden age years of investment in science were the 1950s and the 1960s. Between 1959 and 1963, there was a 30 per cent. annual growth in science spending in Britain. That is not happening in any country nowadays. We have moved into a situation of steady state in most science. That is perhaps happening first in Britain, but it will happen in many other countries.
  Dr. Bray: With all respect, the Under-Secretary of State is behind the times. He is not taking account of the current mood. He should consider those graphs which show clear, continuing increases in all industrial competitors, while Britain has remained stagnant.
  Mr. Jackson: There has been a substantial slow—down in investment in science in all countries, compared with previous levels. In Britain, it has gone further than in many countries, but the situation is the same in all countries.
  What is flowing from that is something that we again find happening around the world—a focus on the need to manage science more effectively. In Britain, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, there is an emphasis on the exploitability of science and a move away from near-market science. We see the same emphasis on selectivity and concentration being brought forward with concepts such as university research centres.
  Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jackson: I shall not give way. I must get on.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in trying to intervene.
  Mr. Jackson: There is also a tendency throughout the world towards rationalisation of access to costly scientific equipment. The answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is that we are negotiating to stay in CERN, by seeking a reduction in the cost to Britain of our participation, in line with the Kendrew committee recommendations.
  So far, I have been talking about similarities between British science and science in other countries. I now wish to say a few words about the differences. First, there is the relatively low industrial investment in research and development, where we are substantially lower, in terms of the proportion of GDP, than either the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States or Japan, although we share the problem with France and Italy who invest even lower proportions of their GDP in industrial R and D than we do.
  Another difference is the relatively high commitment to defence in Britain. That is reflected in the share of GDP devoted to civil R and D. In Britain, this figure is 0.6 per cent. In France the figure is 1 per cent. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the figure is 1 per cent., but, on the other hand, in the United States and Japan, it is lower than in Britain. That reflects a long-standing pattern with deep
  752
  historical roots. The hon. Member for Truro was right when he said that the responsibility, or blame, for that falls equally on both Conservative and Labour Governments. The Government have reflected on this issue each year, in their decision on the balance between civil and military R and D, as the public expenditure process continues.
  There is another difference between science in Britain and science in other countries—the exceptional quality and range of British science. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the recent citation study. It showed that in 1982 Britain had 8·9 per cent. of world citations compared with 4·3 per cent. for France, 6·2 per cent. for Germany and 6·3 per cent. for Japan. My impression is that Britain fields teams of high quality in a wide range of activities.
  There is another difference between Britain and other countries. We have a relatively weak system of central management of science and an unusual degree of academic self-government. The contrast, especially between Britain and the continent, is important. In academic science in Britain, half the funding of science goes through the universities, where it is administered on the basis of academic self-government. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside failed to recognise the full extent of the UGC's autonomy in allocating resources between institutions. The other half of the Government's scientific expenditure goes to the research councils. There are separate research councils, run by peers who jealously guard their academic independence. As for departmental expenditure, there are separate Government Departments with a separation of responsibilities, with consequences that were criticised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
  Britain's model of diffused management, with a high degree of academic self-government, can be compared with the system in other countries — for example, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, where there are central science Ministries, single research councils and considerable scope for political override of scientific decisions. That is why there has been a recent move in this country—an overdue one—which was described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, towards a strengthening of the capacity to take horizontal as well as vertical decisions about the management of science. Changes are being made within the Government following the House of Lords report. Changes are being made within the research councils, and changes have been recommended by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils within the universities to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred.
  The conclusions to be drawn from this picture of the similarities with and differences between British science and science in other countries is that, first, the intellectual output of British science continues to be excellent and, secondly, our financial inputs as a proportion of GDP are broadly in line with those of our competitors. No one can say that those are out of line or that we are markedly under-performing in one of those indicators. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly within the scientific community a sense of unease, which has been reflected in every speech made in the debate, and we must recognise that. We must ask ourselves about the causes of that phenomenon. They are rooted in the analysis which I have made of similarities and differences in the position of British science.

  753
  Despite the fact that our GDP has been growing relatively fast in recent years, its size is relatively small. The total volume of British GDP is 75 per cent, of that in France and well below that in the Federal Republic of Germany. Consequently, the same proportion of GDP spent on research produces rather less money in Britain. We spend a great deal more than Italy, which is our nearest GDP comparator. We must set that fact against our scientists' high ambitions and high abilities based on their historic successes and the vitality of our scientific community.
  The Government's view is that it is not possible to bridge the gap between the reach of our scientists and their grasp by increasing public expenditure on the scale recommended by the Opposition. What Britain must do is what all countries must do, and what they are increasingly having to do — manage science more effectively without damaging scientific creativity. I am conscious that this is a very great challenge to the scientific and academic community because, in the British system, they carry a great burden of responsibility for rational, cost-effective and purposive direction of science. I stress the word "purposive", a word used by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
  The Government have a part to play in all this but the decisive factor will in the end be the energy, creativity and flexibility of our scientific community.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 249.

  Division No. 198]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Anderson, Donald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Darling, Alistair

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  Battle, John

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Douglas, Dick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Blair, Tony

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Blunkett, David

  Eadie, Alexander

  Boateng, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Buchan, Norman

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Buckley, George J.

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

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clay, Bob

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clelland, David

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Cohen, Harry

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Graham, Thomas

  Corbett, Robin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cryer, Bob

  Grocott, Bruce

  754

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Haynes, Frank

  Mullin, Chris

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Murphy, Paul

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Nellist, Dave

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Home Robertson, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Geraint

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Illsley, Eric

  Reid, Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Richardson, Jo

  Janner, Greville

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  John, Brynmor

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lambie, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lamond, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livsey, Richard

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Soley, Clive

  McAllion, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McCartney, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Stott, Roger

  McFall, John

  Strang, Gavin

  McKelvey, William

  Straw, Jack

  McLeish, Henry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  McWilliam, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Madden, Max

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wall, Pat

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Walley, Joan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Maxton, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michael, Alun

  Wilson, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Worthington, Tony

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morley, Elliott

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Allason, Rupert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amos, Alan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Benyon, W.

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Ashby, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Atkins, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  755

  Bowis, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brazier, Julian

  Hannam, John

  Bright, Graham

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

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

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Harris, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayward, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Chris

  Heddle, John

  Butterfill, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hill, James

  Cash, William

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Holt, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cope, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Irvine, Michael

  Curry, David

  Irving, Charles

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jackson, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evennett, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Fallon, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Farr, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Knox, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lang, Ian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Latham, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lightbown, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Lilley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gale, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gow, Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Madel, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Malins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mans, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maples, John

  Grist, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Ground, Patrick

  Marlow, Tony

  756

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Hal

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thorne, Neil

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trippier, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Neubert, Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Richard

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Squire, Robin

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Stokes, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the essential and increasingly important contribution made by the science base in higher education and the research councils to the nation's economic and social development; applauds the achievements of Britain's scientists which are second only to those of the United States of America with its vastly greater resources; welcomes the 15 per cent, in real terms increase in the science budget since 1979, the progress made by the University Grants Committee and research councils in promoting better value for money and responsiveness, and the new central machinery announced in Cm. 185 for considering science and technology priorities; and commends the Government's intention to take further steps to enhance the strength and quality of the science base and to ensure that research outcomes are better exploited to the United Kingdom's benefit.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day
  Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
    Clause 2

      FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY: GENERAL
      Lords amendment: No. 1, page 2, line 33, leave out from "to" to second "the" in line 34 and insert—
      "(a) the variations made by Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act; and
      (b) any variation made in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule;".
      10.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 10.
      Mr. Moynihan: The purpose of amendment No. 1, together with the associated amendment, No. 10, to schedule 2, is to give effect to undertakings respectively to the Great Yarmouth Court and Haven Commissioners and Associated British Ports during the Select and Standing Committee stages in the House. For technical and timing reasons the amendment could not be tabled before the Bill left the House.
      The purpose and effect of the two amendments is to remove from the map of the Broads, as defined by the deposited map, two separate small areas of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft respectively. In each case the area forms part of these two ports. After discussion with both harbour authorities we agreed that, at this time, there would be no real benefit to the Broads Authority from these areas—[interruption.]—including the areas within its jurisdiction.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members beyond the Bar please leave the Chamber, or come and join us?
      Mr. Moynihan: We in no way rule out the possibility, at some future date, of including Mutford Lock and Lake Lothing, not only in the Broads area, but within the navigation area of the Broads Authority. We believe that this could best be pursued in discussion with Associated British Ports, the owner, by the new authority when it is established.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: This is not a major amendment, but it covers the issue of designation and leaves out
      "any variation made in accordance wih the provisions of Part II of that Schedule".
      Clause 2 is important. It goes to the heart of the legislation in relation to the designated area. During the proceedings in another place Lord Belstead undertook to ensure that a code of guidance would be issued regarding commitments to long-term conservation. As a result of that undertaking, many amendments that would otherwise have been tabled by the Opposition were not tabled. We
      758
      still have not received any publication or statement of when such a code of guidance will be produced. The then responsible Minister has moved to another portfolio—a significant one. We are concerned that we will not be able to consider the amendments that we thought we might debate. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect the code of guidance on long-term conservation? Is it forthcoming? What will it entail? Will we have adequate time to debate it?
      Mr. Moynihan: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will be aware, we are not in a position to discuss whether it was right for certain amendments to be tabled by the Opposition, although I respect the strength of feeling of those Opposition Members who have urged further amendments. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about his specific request. The commitment was given in another place, and we intend to uphold it.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 11

      LICENCES REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 10, line 20, leave out "maintain".
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment makes a minor refinement to the original wording of clause 11. It exempts straightforward maintenance from the works licensing requirements. On reflection, we decided that it would be undesirable to require licensing of maintenance works, especially as failure to maintain waterside structures could affect safety of navigation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 11, line 14, after "any" insert "reasonable".
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment also makes a minor refinement to the works licensing procedure prescribed by clause 11. It is a technical amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 13

      NAVIGATION CHARGES
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 12, line 26, leave out "conservation" and insert
      "conserving the natural beauty of any area".
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 17.
      Mr. Moynihan: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 correct imperfections in the original wording of clauses 13 and 17. The intention has always been to exclude from the authority's navigational revenue account expenditure incurred for purposes of nature conservation, but carried out in exercise of the largely navigation powers conferred on the authority by part II. The original imprecise reference to conservation has been replaced by the phrase "conserving the natural beauty of any area",

      759
      thereby attracting the extended interpretation that clause 25(2) applies to the phrase wherever it is used in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 17 makes a similar change to the wording of paragraph 3 of schedule 5, where the less precise phrase "nature conservation" was originally used.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister seemed to suggest that the amendment represents an improvement. He will need no instruction on definitions, but the word "conservation" is much more wide-ranging that the words "natural beauty". Some years ago I took through the House a Bill to protect the natterjack toad and the smooth snake. Few hon. Members would regard them as especially beautiful or as adding to the natural beauty of an area, but their protection was a necessary step in conservation. Conservation must mean the survival of the species. Whether or not they are attractive, they may have an important place in the natural order.
      The replacement of "conservation" with words that seem to imply that something must be environmentally attractive is a dangerous step. I hope that the Minister will explain the advantage of the change, so as to make it acceptable to the House. The Bill is, by and large, not controversial, and it seems that their Lordships may have made a mistake, especially if they believe that, given recent decisions made in this Parliament, the House would retreat further from its proper commitment to the cause of conservation.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sorry that this debate is delaying another, but that is not the fault of those of us who wish to speak. It is the fault of those who arrange our business, and I hope that the blame for any inconvenience caused to hon. Members will be laid at the door of those who decided the running order, and not aimed at hon. Members who wish to debate the amendments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) put his finger on an important principle that has run through the lengthy discussions inside and outside the House on this important conservation measure. I am sorry that the Minister had to move the amendment, because I understand that it was moved originally by the Government in the filled-up Bill stage in the Committee of another place and was not debated.
      The Minister introduced the amendment as though it was a fair cop, saying that navigation charges should not go towards conservation. He is nodding his head. But not only navigation charges are involved here. Clause 14 deals with the authority's power to make levies on participating authorities. The amendment says that any expense incurred by the authority on conservation—as the Bill is worded now—must relate to preserving natural beauty. Those moneys will come from levies raised under clause 14, or any other funds which come from elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so. The amendment is much more important than it appears to be at first sight. I am sorry that it was not discussed in the Lords other than in Committee.
      This is a controversial issue because the amendment will constrict the discretion of the authority in expenditure on "conservation". It will not be conservation; it will be
      "conserving the natural beauty of any area".
      There is a big difference. I know that the Minister will say that clause 25(2) states:
      "References in this Act to conserving the natural beauty of an area include references to conserving its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features."
      760
      However, the Minister and his hon. Friends have withstood any means of ensuring that the Bill is truly a conservation measure. I can prove that to the House in respect of what happened in the other place.
      All the conservation interests clubbed together to suggest an amendment to this important Bill, to be discussed in another place. The amendment's importance can be judged by the fact that those bodies were the Council for National Parks, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Norfolk Naturalists Trust, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, and the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation. They said: let there be at the end of clause 2(1), which sets out the limited functions of the Broads Authority, the following amendment:
      "in such a way as to ensure their long term conservation"—
      that is, the conservation of the Broads. Most people think that that is what the Bill is all about and that the main object of the Broads Authority, to be set up under the Bill, is that very purpose.
      The conservation bodies went to the other place and said, "Please write that in. The provision does not supersede the three purposes mentioned in subsection (1), but those three purposes should be handled in such a way as to ensure the long-term conservation of the Broads." But the Government said no. The Select Committee summarised their case thus:
      "The Government argued that the proposed amendment was ambiguous. It appeared to give primacy to the needs of conservation, and would therefore fundamentally distort the careful balance, achieved by the Bill, of the three duties of the Authority. By giving greater priority to one particular interest, it would jeopardise the general agreement on the Bill"—
      hon. Members should notice these words—
      "reached after lengthy negotiations. On the other hand, if the amendment was held not to give primacy to one interest, it would have no substantive effect. In any case, the special character of the Broads would be well protected by the actions of the new Authority in pursuing their three joint aims—there was no possibility of conservation being sacrificed to one of the other interests. Ministers had declared that the Bill did meet their objectives for the Broads."
      The Bill may meet the Ministers' objectives, but they are not the objectives that many other people have in mind. I suggest to the House and to all those who may be listening to or may read our debate that the fact that the Government refused that modest and constructive amendment in another place puts a question mark over the effectiveness of the Bill and the Act that it will become.
      I shall not weary the House with many other detailed examples of the concern that is felt, but I shall refer to just two. In the third sitting of the Standing Committee, I moved two amendments. One was about water quality and flow. The Minister said that the Anglian water authority was not to be constrained by directions from him in respect of water quality and flow. We all know that the water quality and the water level are keys to the proper conservation of the ecology of the Broads.
      On the same day, I moved an amendment to ensure that there would be proper control of the water level. The Minister said that we could not have that because it would rehybridise the Bill. So the fear of many people is that the Bill is an inadequate instrument for carrying out what most people want the Broads Authority to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth said, one does not

      761
      conserve only natural beauty, because if that is the criterion, the microscope and the test tube are not as important as they might otherwise be.
      We fear that, if there is argument about the purposes of the Bill, and the powers that it gives to the new authority, the proper purposes of conservation will not be given the consideration that they deserve. It is a pity to end this important Bill's progress on a note of controversy. It is better, however, for there to be controversy here, and for the new authority to work properly and effectively, than for the reverse to happen.
      I fear that the Act will not be a proper and sufficient trust deed for the trustees of such an important area, which is perhaps under commercial pressures like no other area of ecological interest. It will be a defective basis on which to carry out conservation. We hope, however, that the ladies and gentleman who are appointed trustees, will, through the good will that is necessary to run the legislation, make up for any defects in it.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Michael Carttiss: I respect the observations that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made in Standing Committee, and on the amendment tonight. I must, however, take issue with his description of the Bill as an adequate instrument. I think that it represents a realistic consensus from within the county of Norfolk.
      One of the problems in dealing with the environment of the Broads over recent years has been the difficulty of reconciling the vast range of conflicting interests. It is not simply a case, for instance, of conservation versus navigation. Although I came to the House determined to oppose the establishment of yet more quangos — to which status the Broads Authority is in every danger of descending — I believe that the Government have the right solution to a problem that we have tended to regard as local but which, as the House has rightly recognised, has national significance.
      Those of us who represent the people of Norfolk — and who look to the Bill — have a responsibility to acknowledge that there is a wider national dimension to the issue. The Government have recognised it; the Lords amendment recognises it; and I believe that to go any further would be wrong. I hope that the House will accept the Government's stance, recognising in doing so that it would be wrong to give precedence to any one of the many conflicting interests in Norfolk.
      I welcome the amendment, and hope that the House will accept it.
      Mr. John Garrett: I shall not follow the course taken by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Cartiss), which I thought more appropriate to a Second Reading debate. This is a rather narrow amendment. Let me make some specific points about it.
      I understood the Minister to say that the amendment relates to navigation charges, replacing the words in the Bill—
      "Expenditure … in connection with conservation, shall not be taken into account"—
      with the words:
      "Expenditure … in connection with conserving the natural beauty of any area, shall not be taken into account".
      762
      Does that mean that navigation charges will not cover the damage caused by navigation traffic? Damage to banks may not affect the natural beauty of the area, but may greatly affect the flora and fauna of bankside areas. Is not the intention of the amendment to limit expenditure chargeable to navigation interests?
      The place of navigation in the objectives of the new authority has been subject to discussion throughout the many stages of the Bill's progress. The Government have continually refused to rank conservation above navigation. That attitude is likely to be borne out by the amendment. As Lord Melchett said on 1 February:
      "this Bill was introduced because of widespread and long-standing concern about the deterioration in the conservation and amenity interests of the Norfolk Broads. It was not introduced because of concern about navigation or concern for some other interest such as agriculture in that area. It was introduced because of concern at the appalling loss of wildlife and loss of the natural beauty of the area." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 1988; Vol. 92, c. 903.]
      Whenever the matter was raised in the other place—I read the debates this afternoon—the Government had recourse to the argument about the risk of rehybridising the Bill. Changes that would have reduced the primacy of navigation were turned down because, the Government argued, the Bill might be rehybridised because not all interests had been consulted.
      If the amendment is not the subject of consultation, presumably it also may rehybridise the Bill. It singles out navigation interests as exempt from a general charge of conservation when local authorities face a share of expenditure on general conservation—not conservation of natural beauty which, in the context of the amendment, seems to relate just to landscape. It does not relate to freedom from pollution or the conservation of habitat and flora and fauna.
      I shall not make any general observations about the Bill. We in Norfolk have waited 40 years for it, so we must welcome it, but it is very far from what conservation interests in the county want. It tries to strike a wholly impractical balance between navigation, conservation and commercial and recreational interests. I hope that a future Government will redress that balance.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I shall be brief. I want, however, to draw the House's attention to Lords amendment No. 17. Paragraph 13 of schedule 5 reads:
      "The Authority may, for the purpose of nature conservation—
      (a) close to navigation any area at the edge of any waterway within the navigation area; or
      (b) restrict navigation in any such area to specified classes of vessel."
      The phrase "nature conservation" is to be removed and replaced by "natural beauty". As it stands, the Bill could protect a rare species of bird that is nesting next to a waterway because it provides a power to close that waterway. The amendment refers more to the natural beauty of the area, however, and does not take enough account of the rare species that are to be found in the area.
      I take the point about conflicting interests, but we are aiming for a balance. In the original debate, the Minister said that the balance would be maintained by putting in the word "conservation", but it is now being taken out.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend reminds me of a case which the Minister might like to consider. The bittern is an

      763
      extremely rare bird which is found in the Broads area in small numbers. Unfortunately, it is rarely seen. It hides in the reeds. Because it is not likely to be seen, it could easily be argued that it is not part of the natural beauty of the broads environment and therefore the authority would not be able to close a waterway to navigation as schedule 5 suggests because that argument may be used.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that illustration. The Norfolk Broads is the only known breeding area of the European crane in the United Kingdom. It is extremely rare. On my reading of the amendment, the criterion of protecting such species is lost in the Bill. I believe that a balance between the three main interests should be struck, but I believe that it is being upset by the amendment, and I shall certainly vote against it.
      Mr. Moynihan: With the leave of the House, I hope that I may assist Opposition Members.
      The purpose of the amendments is to clarify exactly what is meant by conservation. We believed that the definition had been imprecisely drafted, and hon. Members will be aware, from studying the Bill closely, that by virtue of clauses 25(2), the words
      "conserving the natural beauty of an area"
      widen the effect of conservation rather than reduce those effects. They also cover
      "flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features".
      Therefore, the amendments widen and define more precisely what conservation means—namely,
      "concerning the natural beauty of any area."
      The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will be aware from the background notes and from our discussions that "conservation" in clauses 13 and 17 has always been intended to mean nature conservation. The definition in clause 25(2) is entirely acceptable to the Nature Conservancy Council and other conservation bodies that asked for the extended definition as in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968 and The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
      It would not be right and proper for me to comment on the other matters that have been raised with regard to primacy. These matters have been extensively debated and I do not believe that they arise again as a result of the amendments before the House.
      Special reference has been made to bank maintenance. In general, bank maintenance is the responsibility of the Anglian water authority. Bank maintenance incurred by the Broads Authority for navigational reasons might be chargeable to the navigational revenue account. However, the special maintenance of banks — for example the regeneration of reed beds—would not, and should not, be financed through tolls on boat users. Clauses 13 to 17 seek to ensure that the navigational revenue account, and therefore tolls, have to cover expenditure incurred genuinely for navigational reasons. Such expenditure must be met by tolls, and that is the distinction that we have tried to make. I hope that I have assisted in clarifying that point.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords.amendment No. 5 agreed to.

    Clause 25

      INTERPRETATION
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 19, line 13, at end insert—
      "'inland waters' has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1963;"
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 16A.
      Mr. Moynihan: These amendments make refinements to the original wording of paragraphs 34 and 35 of schedule 3, which was not entirely satisfactory in two respects. First, both paragraphs as originally worded talked in terms of the quality of water in any part of the Broads. That wording was too wide, since it would have included tap water and such like, with which the Broads Authority should not be concerned. Amendment No. 6, with amendments Nos. 14 and 16, substitute a more precise concept, making use of the term "inland waters", which is defined in the Water Resources Act 1963 and includes all, and only, those waters with whose quality the Broads Authority will properly be concerned — rivers, broads, dykes, ponds and such like.
      Secondly, neither paragraph, as originally worded, took proper account of the interests of the East Anglian Water Company. Furthermore, although paragraph 34 placed an obligation on the Anglian water authority to consult the broads authority before implementing proposals that could affect the quality of water in the Broads, paragraph 35 failed to place a corresponding obligation on the Broads Authority to consult the water authority or water company before exercising its powers in regard to water quality. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16A put those defects right.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 26

      COMMENCEMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 20, line 12, after
      "Section 1" insert
      "and sections 23 to 27".
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8.
      Mr. Moynihan: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are purely technical. They will ensure that the provisions of part IV, which consists mainly of the "nuts and bolts" needed for implementing the legislation fully, will be in force at the right time.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

    Schedule 1
      THE BROADS AUTHORITY
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
      THE BROADS AUTHORITY

        Authority chief officer
        The Authority shall not—

        765

        (a) a person to the office (by whatever name it is known) of chief officer of the Authority; or

        (b) determine, or vary, any of the terms and conditions on which he is employed by the Authority;

        without first consulting the Countryside Commission."
        10.45 pm
        Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Amendment 9 was tabled by the Government in response to the urging of the Countryside Commission. Each national park authority is required to appoint a national park officer and to consult the Commission before making that appointment or giving that officer any additional duties. The Commisson felt very strongly that in this respect, as in so many others, there was considerable merit in the Broads Authority following this precedent.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY
      Lords amendment: No. 11 in page 26, line 6, leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections".
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 13.
      Mr. Moynihan: These two amendments rectify minor imperfections in the way in which the Broads Authority had been written into other legislation, as the Bill's provisions were orginally drafted. In both cases the singular was wrongly used where the plural was needed.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 29, line 8, after "II" insert
      "and section 45(2) and (3)".
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment that rectifies a small oversight. In applying to the new authority the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, we originally overlooked the need to confer on it a power contained in part III of the Act, which will enable the authority to incur expenditure on archaeological investigations.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 16A and 17 agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      APPLICATION TO AUTHORITY OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS APPLYING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 47, line 15, leave out from "Authority" to end of line 17 and insert
      "and any member of its Navigation Committee".
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
      Mr. Moynihan: These three amendments put right minor defects in schedule 6, as originally drafted, in the way in which the Broads Authority was made a local authority for the purpose of existing legislation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20 agreed to.

    Schedule 7

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 49, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
      "(2) When the Secretary of State is satisfied that all of those members have been duly appointed, he shall, if he has not already exercised his powers under sub-paragraph (2A) below, do so.
      (2A) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that at least 27 of those members have been duly appointed, he may by order specify a date for the purposes of this paragraph.
      (2B) The Authority shall be deemed to have been duly constituted as from the specified date, notwithstanding the absence of some of its members."
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Amendment No. 21 is one of two amendments that are designed to facilitate the earliest possible establishment of the authority, by minimising the risk of delay in making appointments — particularly in regard to those about which my right hon. Friend will be required to consult interested bodies.
      Amendment No. 21 will enable my right hon. Friend to make a commencement order, prescribing the date on which the new authority is to be established, as soon as 27 members — just over three quarters of the full membership—have been appointed, instead of all 33 of the members to be appointed by the local authorities and other appointing authorities — including my right hon. Friend himself. This seemed to us a wise precautionary measure, to guard against the possibility of delay in making even one single appointment — for whatever reason—preventing the establishment of the authority.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: We are coming to the end of our consideration of the amendments. We welcome amendment No. 21 because we want the Norfolk Broads Authority to be established as quickly and effectively as possible. We want it to get on with the job that it has been given by Parliament. However, as Opposition Members have said throughout the proceeding on the Bill we shall watch carefully the body's work to try to assess whether it is as effective as the Minister claims it will be or whether our fears about the balance between navigation and conservation interests not having been properly established are justified. We fear that the commercial interests of those concerned with navigation have been given too much priority.
      As I said on Third Reading, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We welcome the establishment of the authority as quickly as possible, but we are not convinced that it has all the powers that it needs and that the legislation has been drafted so as to make the body as effective as it should be. We shall examine developments carefully and return to the subject, bringing forward our own proposals to strengthen the legislation and the authority's powers if we discover that our fears are well founded.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 5, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

        Consultation
        6. —(1) Consultations carried out by the Secretary of State before the coming into force of subsections (5) and (6) of section 1 of this Act shall be treated as satisfying the requirements in those subsections if they would have done so had those subsections been in force at the time in question.
        (2) Consultations carried out by the Authority before the coming into force of subsection (3) of section 13 of this Act shall be treated as satisfying the requirements of that subsection if they would have done so had that subsection been in force at the time in question."
        Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Like amendment No. 21, which we have just agreed, amendment No. 22 is designed to facilitate the earliest possible establishment of the authority. In that context I should like to confirm that we now intend that the operative date should be 1 April 1989.
        Question put and agreed to.

    Education (Scotland)
    10.50 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 107), dated 26th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.
    I hope that the House will agree that there is an important function to be served in discussing the regulations. The negative order procedure requires a prayer against orders to be tabled. That was the only way in which we could apply pressure on the Government, so that they would concede a debate on the Floor of the House. I fully recognise that under the statutory instrument procedure it would have been possible to table a "take note" prayer, seeking to persuade the Government to debate the matter in a Committee at some time. However, I do not believe that the Government would have responded seriously enough to such an attempt to deal with the position in which we found ourselves. As soon as I found out that the regulations had been tabled on 27 January and that they were to take effect on the same day, I immediately took steps to table a prayer to secure this debate.
    The regulations have significance in a strictly parliamentary context. If there was any doubt about that previously, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the recent report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments confirmed that these regulations — the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations—are a significant document.
    The Committee took the view that there were serious flaws in the regulations as laid. It concluded that there was a failure to comply with the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. That Act makes it clear, among other things, that statutory instruments should lie on the table for a minimum of 21 days prior to the implementation date. Of course, the 1946 Act gives specific exemptions for when the Government feel that they have to implement statutory instruments immediately. If that is necessary, the stipulated provisions are laid out in the Act. The Speaker should be advised, as should the equivalent authorities in the other place. The Government should make a statement saying why the legislation needs to take effect on the same day as the instruments are laid.
    The Statutory Instruments Committee took the view that there had been a failure to comply with that part of the procedure. The Government said that there was a need for haste—we could argue about that — in letting the Strathclyde regional authority know what the Government's view was. They never at any stage argued a case for enforcement to take place immediately. In that respect, the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was right.
    The Committee also took the view that the drafting of the statutory instrument was substantially defective. The figure of 80 per cent. in regulation 2 is the formula for defining capacity and is left to be decided by persons unknown and undetermined. That leaves a substantial area of doubt within the regulations and the Joint Committee asked the Government to clarify their view on that matter. The Government's view was that the

    769
    calculation would require to be made by the local authority, having regard to the three criteria set down in the regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments also took the view that that was an unsatisfactory way to proceed, which left a wide margin for error.
    The question of the retrospective provisions in new paragraph (c)(ii) left areas for substantial doubt. There are real problems, therefore, in terms of the parliamentary precedent that is to be set by those regulations. For that reason, if for no other, there was a need for a debate tonight.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned parliamentary precedents. Surely he is aware that the existing regulations, where the Secretary of State is involved in the closure of a primary school of more than five miles' travelling distance or a secondary school of 10 miles' travelling distance, he does not find it necessary to specify who should determine whether the route is five or 10 miles. Surely the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is a precedent.
    Mr. Kirkwood: There is surely a difference between geographical distance, which can be measured and about which there can be little argument, and these procedures and criteria, which are subjective. The analogy is not as exact as the Minister suggests.
    In the context of the comments made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Government have a duty to tell the House exactly what they are doing and why, and to give us an explanation of the procedure adopted.
    The politics of the situation is inextricably linked with the Strathclyde schools organisation. Alliance Members recognise that, prior to 1981, the closure of any secondary school required the sanction of the Secretary of State. At that stage, the Labour party claimed that that was an abdication of responsibility by the Secretary of State. For the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that it was an appropriate devolution of power. But 1981, it now appears, was a long time ago.
    In 1987, there was a further development of that policy, which was clearly in the direction of further devolution to local authorities. The regulations were further amended to increase local power. They gave local authorities the ability to put out options for consultations and enforce any of those options without further reference to the Secretary of State. The aim was also to increase the local authorities' power in respect of the closure of some nursery schools.
    Here we have in 1988—
    Mr. George Foulkes: Come on, put the boot in.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Putting the boot in is not my style. It may be something to do with why I am a Liberal.
    In 1988 we suddenly find the whole process being slammed into reverse. The House has a right to know whether the Government will pursue this policy further or whether it is a one-off reaction and a matter of reacting expediently to political events.
    770
    I was interested to note the claim made by the Secretary of State in announcing the new regulations that this intervention was necessary because the schools were so highly regarded by the parents that they happened to be full to capacity. Eighty per cent. capacity is an arbitrary figure. Such capacity can be affected by a series of factors, not just parental choice. Small schools can be 95 per cent. full, but, because they are small, they have fewer pupils and parents. Larger schools can fall below the 80 per cent. capacity rule. I should be interested to hear how the Minister arrived at that figure.
    It is surely also important to consider other factors, such as whether those on school rolls are attracted from within the catchment area of a particular school. That factor has been left out of the equation by these new regulations. It can be argued that the regulations are defective and that they will not even serve to bring about the Government's stated intention.
    Judging by the educational precedent in England and Wales, there may well be a case for a rational and well-thought-out process of appeal. The proposed system is certainly not rational. It is arbitrary, inconsistent and legally dubious, and it subverts the legitimate rights of local authorities.
    The House will, however, want carefully to consider the short-term practical effects. Although the regulations will apply throughout Scotland, there is a special concern, and hon. Members from Strathclyde constituencies will obviously want to take part in the debate. Opposition to the regulations is considered by some to imply unqualified support for the proposals advocated by Strathclyde regional authority, but that authority has carried out the procedures of consultation hopelessly inadequately. We are opposed to its lack of sensitivity, consultation and consideration of the parents' wishes and to the disregard shown for the quality of education. The authority has conducted itself in so blatant way that the Government's heavy-handed intervention may even be justified.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how long the consultation period by Strathclyde lasted? How long did it take over the consultation?
    Mr. Kirkwood: That depends on one's point of view. A lot of people in Paisley take the view that the Paisley proposals were cooked up by the Strathclyde education authority a long time ago and that the consultation process that it went through was something of a sham. But as far as I can make out, the consultation process started officially last summer, and has been continuing ever since.
    The relative merits of the area review groups and the way in which the regional review group operated in conjunction with the area groups left a great deal to be desired. The situation that we are left with is, to any rational, objective observer, one of Hobson's choice—between the devil of the Secretary of State and the deep blue sea of the local education authority, which can be accused of not properly conducting the consultation process necessary to give expression to the real wishes of the local parents, which have been largely ignored.
    The Minister has a difficult task in trying to explain how it is that he got himself into this situation and brought regulations forward in this way. We are anxious to hear just how the Government explain both their method of

    771
    procedure and the dubious technical legality of the regulations. It is with great interest that I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
    11.7 pm
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The best description of the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is that it was a fraction muted. A quieter call to the barricades the House has not heard for some time.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is legitimate to table a prayer against regulations for the purpose of having them debated in the House. These regulations may affect many schools. They may affect notably two which have been the subject of press comment — Paisley grammer school and Notre Dame. I had the probably unworthy thought that, in the past week or two, Liberals from the west end of Glasgow and the east end of Paisley, if such still exist, had perhaps been in touch with the hon. Member to express their views.
    I have no wish to be partisan. I wish to be helpful and constructive. Perhaps, first of all, I can be helpful to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who raised this issue first on 27 January, when he said,
    "The documents contain a letter which had been sent to the headmaster of a grammer school in my constituency". —[Official Report, 27 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 341.]
    In the spirit of comradely help, I will send the hon. Member a map of Paisley, South, because Paisley grammar school does not come into his constituency, and has never done so; it is very clearly in the Paisley, North constituency.
    The regulations, of course, raise a general issue, but the issue that concerns my constituents has been the treatment of a substantial number of parents whose sons and daughters attend Paisley grammar school.
    Mr. Donald Dewar: How many?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member asks how many. I have had just under 200 letters from constituents. I do not know the precise figure, but, as a reasonable indication, I have had just under 200 letters from constituents in Barrhead and Neilston.
    The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) will have the opportunity to express his views later in the debate. It is with some interest that one reads in his local press that he says of himself that silence must not be taken as a sign of inactivity. The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the hon. Member for Paisley, South and others had a meeting, on 16 January with the convenor of Strathclyde region. When the hon. Member for Paisley, North left the meeting, he said, "I defended my constituents' interests," but of the meeting he said,
    "I have to say at this point that I will not report what else was said as the meeting was largely confidential."
    He has an opportunity tonight to express his views.
    As hon. Members will know, I have been the subject of letters from the hon. Members for Paisley, South and for Paisley, North accusing me of interfering in an outrageous manner in the affairs of Paisley. Only one of those hon. Members bothered to sign his letter. Above the hon. Member for Paisley, North, it said "PP" and then there was a blank; what that signifies I leave to the imagination of the House.
    772
    The hon. Member for Paisley, South has made the motivation for the proposed closure of Paisley grammar school brutally clear to the House. Referring to the parents of Paisley grammar, he said that the Secretary of State
    "knows perfectly well why they are fighting against moving to a new school in Merksworth. It is because they would be sharing with kids from working-class housing estates." [Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 502.]
    I do not know whether the hon. Member for Paisley, North agrees with those sentiments, but it is outrageous for hon. Members so to describe the motivations of their constituents.
    Speaking for my constituents, I can tell the House that that absurd charge is not true. I shall give a flavour to the views of my constituents. One says:
    "I cannot believe that the Government would condone this apparently rigged closure of a full and very successful school serving all areas of the community including a large proportion of families either unemployed or single parent who will suffer greatly if this 'merger' goes ahead.
    One fact which is apparent in all this deviousness … is that the authorities seem totally against placing requests."
    Another letter says:
    "There is a political will to close Paisley grammar school".
    Another letter says:
    "My son attends this school through parental choice, a choice the Regional Council clearly intend precluding through the review process."
    Strathclyde region is determined to continue its social restructuring in spite of complete opposition from parents, teachers and pupils.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he say what criteria should operate for the retention or closure of a school?
    Mr. Stewart: When a clearly popular school is targeted for closure against the wishes of parents, it is right that the Secretary of State should review it, in precisely the same way as he reviews closure proposals for rural schools or, in certain circumstances, denominational schools.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden will have an opportunity tonight to tell us of the Labour party's attitude to the regulations. He may adopt the views of the hon. Member for Paisley, South—the chief Opposition spokesperson for Paisley on this issue—who, in his article in the Glasgow Herald, said of these fairly minor regulations:
    "I know of no such dangerously arbitrary action by any Government since the introduction of the emergency powers at the beginning of the last war."
    The mind boggles.
    That view is not universal among Labour Members. At Scottish Question Time last week, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), representing his constituents, said:
    "Why is the Minister not prepared to intervene and help out those schools?"—[0fficial Report, 24 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 291.]
    The hon. Gentleman wants more intervention; he wants my hon. Friend the Minister to go even further.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. Strathclyde has made an absolute mess of the consultation procedure. I am asking the Minister, why make flesh of one and fowl of the other? The children in Springburn are entitled to the same attention as the children in Paisley, even if Paisley does not want to come up to Springburn.
    Mr. Stewart: The House will recognise the voice of an hon. Member genuinely representing the views of his constituents.
    Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State should look at schools which are popular with the parents. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Saint Conval's primary school and Moss Edge primary school in my constituency, which are up for closure, are both excellent schools. The parents would love them to remain open. Strathclyde has been forced to close them because of the lack of funding from the Government. Will the Secretary of State intervene and support the parents by keeping those two schools open?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The debate should be confined to the particulars of the regulations before the House.
    Mr. Stewart: The schools mentioned by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) would not fall under the regulations. Of course, Strathclyde is right to pursue a general policy of schools rationalisation. It is a question not of resources, but of school numbers. The proposition before the House is simply that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State should review proposals where schools are, by any standards, very popular with parents, and are full or nearly full.
    A number of hon. Members wish to speak. Before closing, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that there is concern about the future. I shall read just a couple of Sentences from a letter from a constituent:
    "It is not possible to predict how the region will react when parents are forced to appeal to the Secretary of State under the regulations. Parents have doubt about support and funding from the educational department and the security of staff. For these reasons I consider that some form of legislation is necessary to provide parents with the right to opt out of regional council control."
    I have received more than 2,500 letters on this issue. It is an important general issue and it is important for the principles of parental involvement and parental choice which underlie so much of the Government's educational legislation.
    The proposition before the House is sensible and reasonable. I do not expect for a moment that the Labour party will not oppose it, despite the honest reservations about what has happened expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I hope that the House will reject the prayer and that we shall have the support of the Liberal party.
    11.17 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: The regulations are important, as they alter the boundaries of responsibility between local and central Government in regard to the closure of schools. Any school threatened by closure or by rezoning must be referred if its current roll is more than 80 per cent. of its capacity.
    The debate is not about a particular school; it is a debate of general application, which will affect every part of Scotland and an unknown number of schools as councils in every part of the land face up to the problems of falling school rolls.
    No one knows when these powers will be called into play in future. We are painfully aware why they are before the House now. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and
    774
    Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked, a little naively, why the Government had decided upon 80 per cent. The reason is, simply, that 80 per cent. was the neat figure that ensured that one particular school fell on the right side of the line. That is the basis on which laws are now being made.
    The regulations do not deal specifically with Paisley grammar school, but the educational policies of Paisley are dominating the debate. I must say to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that it is an extraordinary story of backstairs influence and intrigue, culminating in the Prime Minister's thunderbolt from on high. When Paisley grammar school was threatened with closure, the parents banded together—as they were entitled to do, and as parents from other schools had done — to try to influence the course of the debate. No one would complain about that.
    What was unusual, so far as we can piece the story together, was that Paisley grammar had some very unusual and powerful allies. In particular, Mr. Neil, the editor of The Sunday Times—whose precocious talents had been noticed at an early stage by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, who had therefore made him a great man—decided, with the aid of one of our ex-colleagues, Mr. Gerald Malone, to start a public campaign in The Sunday Times on behalf of Paisley grammar. Subsequently, the matter was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister, who decided to intervene. On that basis, the law was to be changed.
    According to The Sunday Times — I do not know whether it is accurate, although Mr. Neil is near to the centre of events—a dramatic tale then unfolded. A note was fired off to the Secretary of State, and a reluctant Minister was carpeted and sharply reminded of his duty. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has said that that is not so; he has asked us to reject the credibility of Mr. Neil. That is a dispute that they may conduct between themselves, but the Secretary of State does himself a disservice by trying to pretend that these regulations were his idea and that he wanted to act in the way that he has acted.
    It is not just The Sunday Times that has produced that version of the events. I shall quote a short BBC précis of what happened. There was a description on television of what happened. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but the précis says:
    "Mrs. Thatcher confronted her Scottish Secretary with the background and told him that she wanted a swift and positive solution. He returned to the Scottish Office to bang civil servants' heads together"—
    [Interruption.] Yes, it is comic, but all the evidence points to the fact that at least the general drift of this account is correct. That is why we find it alarming.
    "From then on the school's future was never in doubt. To make maximum political capital, the Scottish Office, No. 10 and the party political advisers planned that the decision would be announced in a letter to the school's rector, signed by the Prime Minister."
    I do not say that that account is accurate in every particular, but I believe that the general picture of the Secretary of State having been bounced in the way that I have described is right. It is a sad commentary on what is happening.
    I object to what has happened, because I believe that a complicated, difficult and often bitter process was under way. I believe that many people felt ill used by the local authority's decisions. I suspect that in the circumstances it was inevitable that people would feel ill used, but at least the Government and the Opposition have one thing in

    775
    common: given the enormous and dramatic fall in school rolls, which is particularly accentuated in the Paisley area, schools had to close. However, I do not believe that the Government were entitled, on a completely arbitrary basis, to pluck one school out of the whole system and say that, whatever the consequences for the other schools in the area, that school was inviolate and would be preserved. But that is what happened.
    I, too, have received many letters on this issue. Before the Prime Minister's intervention, I received many letters from parents whose children are at Paisley grammar school. I have also received many letters from parents whose children are at St. Aelred's, Merksworth, Stanley Green and a number of other Paisley schools. When the Prime Minister took that decision and signed the letter that went to the headmaster of Paisley grammar, I wonder whether she considered the implications for parents with children in those schools. That decision may have been right or it may have been wrong, and every hon. Member will make up his or her own mind, but what the Government have done will result in a bitter legacy. I see evidence of that bitter legacy almost every day in my mail bag, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Eastwood and other hon. Members have had the same experience.
    The hon. Member for Eastwood says that it is deplorable to suggest that people are talking in terms of class and social divisions, but let me quote one parent who is actively involved with the Merksworth school. He wrote to me the other day:
    "The main points of the arguments put up by Paisley Grammer School Parents are invalid when you consider what lies behind them. Essentially they do not want their children to mix with those from Shortroods or Ferguslie Park—two areas of deprivation. They also feel that their house values will decline without the magic ethos of Paisley Grammer School nearby. Both arguments are clearly absurd in the context of children's education … We ask for your support in righting this wrong. We are not fighting for house values, nor do we care about the class of our children's friends. We do care about the quality of choice for our children's education."
    The hon. Member for Eastwood may say that those are deplorable views, but he cannot deny that they are heartfelt and increasingly widespread, and are encouraged by what the Government have done. That will be the legacy of the Government's handling of this business.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: From what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Paisley, it appears that he believes that the regulations would apply only to Paisley grammer and Merksworth in Paisley. Is he aware that Castlehead and John Neilson high schools in Paisley will also be affected, and if he is, why is he making such intemperate remarks?
    Mr. Dewar: As I understand it, the only school in the Paisley area that will he covered by the regulations is Paisley grammer. I have spent the past few minutes pointing out that all schools will be affected by the knock-on effect of the regulations. Is the Minister saying that other schools in Paisley meet the 80 per cent. criterion?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that. The regulations will affect schools that are subject to rezoning, whose occupancy will be in excess of 80 per cent. More than 20 schools in Strathclyde will be affected, and those in Paisley include Paisley grammar school, Merksworth, Castlehead and John Neilson. Before the hon. Gentleman criticises regulations, he should try to understand what they mean.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister has said something extremely surprising. Is he saying that Merksworth's roll is more than 80 per cent. of its capacity? Is the Minister saying that other schools in Paisley have more than 80 per cent. of their capacity? If they do not, how are they covered?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman needs me to explain the regulations to him, I will. They are clear. They relate to the schools that will be subject to rezoning or closure, where the occupancy will exceed 80 per cent. He asked me about Merksworth, and he must know that, following the laying of the regulations, Strathclyde made three separate proposals involving Paisley grammar and Merksworth—
    Mr. Norman Buchan: What does this have to do with rolls?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am explaining it. One proposal involves the closure of Paisley grammar and its merger with Merksworth. The other involves the closure of Merksworth and its merger with Paisley grammar. Where there is rezoning of schools' catchment zones and their occupancy is more than 80 per cent., they will come within the scope of the regulations. In Strathclyde alone, more than 20 cases of closure or rezoning of catchment areas are likely to come before the Secretary of State as a result of the regulations.
    Mr. Dewar: The Minister is confirming the fact that this is total chaos and confusion. The regulations refer to
    "proposals to discontinue any school or any stage of school education in any school or to change the site of any school or to vary the delineated area of any school, where the number of pupils in attendance at any such school is greater than 80% of that school's pupil capacity."
    They refer only to a school whose roll is 80 per cent. or more of present capacity. That does not include Merksworth or the John Neilson institute. The Minister is talking arrant nonsense and he should be ashamed of himself.
    Of course, the Minister is right to say that not only Paisley grammar school will be affected. Other schools, some as yet unknown, will be affected, including Notre Dame, which is on the borders of my constituency. If it is to be saved on that basis — we do not know — what about the feelings of the parents of pupils who attend Our Lady and St. Francis, which falls just on the wrong side of the 80 per cent. criterion? What will be the impact on St. Thomas Aquinas, whose future was apparently secured by plans to amalgamate it with Notre Dame? I say that because there is bitterness and confusion in my area as well, although it is not so widely publicised. The situation has been made much more difficult.
    If the criterion is the popularity of a school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has said, other criteria might be thought to be equally valuable. Community needs, social considerations, and the deprivation strategy of the education authority should all be taken into account and, I hope, are taken into account by Strathclyde region in reaching those decisions. But the Minister has merely taken one arbitrary criterion of an alleged popularity rating, which he endorses only when it is convenient, as the recent history of the Inner London education authority debate illustrates. If there was a universal validity in that criterion, we would certainly shut down the Scottish Conservative party.
    I should like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions. Will he try to clear up the point that we have

    777
    been debating about how many schools are affected? If he is saying that schools that do not meet the 80 per cent. criterion are covered by the regulations, the situation is infinitely more complex than any of us, including the education authority, guessed. Are there schools in Grampian, for example, which will be covered by the regulations?
    The 10-year rule, in regulation 2(c) (ii), is as follows:
    "the maximum number of pupils in attendance at the school in any one year in the period of 10 years preceding the proposal".
    Is that merely a factor that has to be taken into account when the local authority judges the capacity of a school, with the 80 per cent. count being based on current rolls only? There has been some confusion about that.
    Will the Minister say a word or two about the time scale? Assuming that the Government go ahead, will there be a proper consultation process? At least on this occasion, will the Government observe the law as it is applied to education authorities when it comes to consultation? Will the Minister assure us that there will be consultation with other schools in the area that will be affected if the school that has been referred is to be preserved?
    We know that Mr. Corbett, the present rector of Paisley, wrote in a report on the building in 1976:
    "The rooms in the main building were handsome and fitting in 1898, but no longer meet the needs of the 1970s."
    Those rooms certainly do not meet the needs of the 1980s, so prima facie there is an argument on whether, if Paisley grammar is to be preserved, it should be preserved in the same building. That will affect other schools in the area. Will we look al the other schools' record and give them a chance to have their say in the decisions that will affect them?
    If we are to talk about success, the Minister should read the letter that appeared on 23 February in The Scotsman, which referred to Merksworth school. It stated:
    "in 1987 Merksworth High School students gained more 'A' passes in Higher grade science subjects than any school in Paisley".
    I make that point because Merksworth has been the target of some slighting remarks, particularly by Mr. John MacKay, an ex-Minister responsible for education, who referred to it as a school of
    "lesser merit … whose academic record has been far fom excellent."
    as he attempted to justify what the Government have been doing.
    As time is pressing, I shall not deal with the valid criticisms by the Statutory Instruments Committee. The House is well aware of the trenchant criticism that was rightly made of the drafting and the way in which the rules of the House have been observed by a Government in haste, cobbling together an unsatisfactory measure.
    This is a shabby little power play, based on political opportunism. It has been almost universally condemned. There has not been a kind word about it in any serious leader column of any paper that I have come across. It is an affront to the normal courtesies of the House. It is an arbitrary use of power. There is in it a strong dash of populism. Most importantly, it is a dangerous educational precedent, which commands no respect. The Government were right in 1981 when they decided that the matter should be left to the education authority, which could weigh up all the complicated and sometimes conflicting
    778
    factors. It is a tragedy that we have now rushed to a judgment that will be regretted and reflects no credit on those who are responsible for it.
    11.34 pm
    Mr. Allen Adams: The regulations show a disgraceful contempt for democracy. If any council decides, at any time on any issue, to take a policy decision which the Government do not agree with, the Government will abolish the council, take away its money, restrict its powers or do all three.
    Strathclyde regional council may or may not have been correct. However, it is an elected body, it has certain democratic rights and it took a decision. I do not necessarily agree with the decision completely, but the council had the right to take that decision. We are in great danger of obscuring the basic issue. A fundamental threat to democracy is involved. We cannot repeat that point often enough and many people stressed that point before the regulations reached the Floor of the House. This is a very serious matter, quite apart from the educational issues that are involved.
    The educational issues are complex and detailed and they are worthy of more than the pseudo-intellectual, petty, pedantic lower middle-class mentality approach shown by the Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and by the Minister. They know nothing of the detailed problems in Paisley. I suggest that they stop visiting my constituency because they are frightening the horses. Only yesterday I had to hide a copy of the Paisley Daily Express because it contained a picture of the hon. Member for Eastwood and we were frightened that the children would see it when they came home from school.
    This is a complex issue and no one is completely right or completely wrong. Paisley grammar school is located in the east end of the town and the local residents in the east end of Paisley have a right to a local community school. No one would argue about that. I believe that the grammar school should remain for the local people. The Government cannot get round the simple fact that 50 per cent. of the pupils attending Paisley grammar do not live in the east end of Paisley. Indeed, a substantial number of them do not live in Paisley at all, but come from the area represented by the hon. Member for Eastwood. People talk blithely about a community school. It must be a far-flung community, as it stretches almost 25 miles. Indeed, two pupils come from Kirkintilloch.
    The solution is simple and I want to put it on the record. Castlehead high school in the centre of Paisley should have been designated as the town's Catholic school, and it should have been renamed St. Mirren's—[Interruption.] This is very important. The name "St. Mirren's" is synonymous with Paisley and we want to retain that name in Paisley. There is no doubt that St. Ailwood's in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) should be retained because the alternative would mean that children would have to travel two or three miles to the other Catholic school.
    The two Catholic schools should be retained in Paisley. Castlehead should be renamed St. Mirren's and should be retained and we should also keep St. Ailwood's. The other obvious solution to the non-denominational problem is to keep Paisley grammer as a community school. We should also keep the John Neilson school in the west end. Many people say that that is not viable because the school has

    779
    only 250 pupils. However, those people tend to forget that 150 adults attend the John Neilson. The school is in a deprived area. It can be extended and developed as an educational facility in such an area. Camphill school—another old traditional Paisley name—is in the south of the town and should also be retained.
    My two daughters attend the Merksworth high school in the north of the town. I do not like to hear people denounce that school because I am proud of it and proud of what it has done for my children. Let me give an instance of the educational excellence of the school. My youngest daughter Kirsty is 16. She is in her fourth year at the school. Her English class has 20 pupils and two teachers. If some people do not wish to avail themselves of such educational facilities, I do not intend to force them to do so, but I will do so. It is a good school, and it needs to be said that it is a good school.
    Apart from that, however, the north end of Paisley is entitled to a centre of educational excellence. In this whole argument, one simple fact has been forgotten: the Government are not giving the council enough money to provide working-class children with a decent education. We want enough money to run the Neilson, the Merksworth, Paisley grammar and the Camphill, and to provide for the children in Fergusley Park and Shotroots the additional teachers and educational back-up that they need. They, more than anyone else, have never had that, and it is high time they did.
    Let us not get away from two fundamental issues. One is the denial of democracy by the Government. I repeat this without apology: the minute that any body does anything that the Government do not like, it is abolished. And—this is the second issue—if it is not abolished, it is underfunded. The basic problem is that Strathclyde regional council has not been given enough money to provide the education that children in the west of Scotland deserve and need.
    11.41 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), because he is the hon. Member for whom everyone should have the greatest sympathy. He is the man who backs a decision to keep Paisley grammar open against the decision of Strathclyde regional council, and who must in some way justify the defence against the regulations—which, oddly enough, are prayed against, not by the hon. Gentleman or by any Member of the Labour Opposition, but by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), whose speech defied comprehension. It had neither principle nor purpose; nor did it take sides. I can only imagine that the reason why the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire found it necessary to pretend to be both on all sides, and on none—I must say that he was better at pretending to be on none than at pretending to be on all—is that by the end of the week he may belong to a different party, whose name he does not yet know.
    It is important to remember that the hon. Gentleman is praying against regulations that would save Notre Dame—or, at least, could do so. The Liberal councillor in Strathclyde region is now claiming that he has already saved it. Here we have the Liberal spoke—I presume that they are called spokes — for education, praying against the very regulations that might do what the
    780
    regional council claims it has already done. He is praying against himself—and prayer might be a suitable matter for him this week.
    I was impressed when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garcadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Opposition care for the quality of choice for children's education. The purpose of the regulations is to give choice. It is no good the hon. Member for Paisley, North, who is in an impossible position, saying that he wants Paisley grammar school, but a different Paisley grammar school, which the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) cannot attend. That is apparently the hon. Member's definition of caring about choice. In other words, he would have it that only certain children should be forced to go to that school to change its nature. That is not parental choice.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the Opposition believe in parents' choice. The hon. Member for Paisley, North said that there should be no choice and that certain people should be forbidden from going to the school. What is the Opposition's rationale? I understand that they have been attempting to keep New Temple college open.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to New Temple college. That is an important matter, but I question its relevance to the debate, especially when there are projected closures in many of our constituencies — unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman's — and many of us are hoping to catch your eye.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will keep to the regulations.
    Mr. Fairbairn: That is exactly what I am doing. The regulations centre on the fact that any school or education establishment which is proposed for closure but is 80 per cent. full should be referred to the Secretary of State. The Opposition are saying that that is wrong. They want to rephrase that principle when it comes to a college which is only 10 per cent. full.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the 80 per cent. of capacity consideration is the only criterion on which closure or retention should be decided?
    Mr. Fairbairn: No, indeed, I do not believe that 80 per cent. of capacity is the only reason why such a decision should be made. I believe that if there is 80 per cent. of capacity that demonstrates that the school is popular and, in this case, immensely successful, and that very good reasons should be given for closing it, but the Opposition tell us that somewhere which is less than 10 per cent. full should be kept open for doctrinaire reasons.
    The Opposition may say that this is a doctrinaire proposal to keep Paisley grammar school open because it happens to have that word "grammar" in its title, although it is a comprehensive school. If that is so, one might equally argue that the reason why Strathclyde regional council decided to close a school was that it was also deceived by the word "grammar" and thought, "Let us get rid of that school."
    It is not the Labour Opposition who are praying against this matter, but no doubt they will get on the little go-cart of the Liberals. At least the Liberals have had the courage

    781
    to test the matter. It is not a real prayer, but a probing prayer, but no one on the Labour Benches has put his name to it.
    We should be clear that parents now have the choice of sending their children to any school. They have chosen to send their children to a school of immense success, which is what we want in Scotland. No local authority should be able, for doctrinaire reasons, to close a school that is popular and successful, unless the Secretary of State is entitled, taking all matters into account, to ensure that that decision is equitable and right.
    11.50 pm
    Mr. Bruce Milian: Naturally the debate has been dominated by Paisley grammar school, because it is the subject of the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) spoke with obvious detailed knowledge and great passion about Paisley. He made a case that the Minister must answer. However, given the Minister's intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) I do not believe that we will get an adequate answer or anything else from the Minister. We should not be debating the details of education in Paisley. We have heard the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) pontificating about the issue, but he knows absolutely nothing about it.
    It is absurd that such regulations were introduced. Before the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 was introduced, all school closures came to the Secretary of State for approval. At the time of the 1981 legislation, the Opposition believed that there was no need to change that provision — it had worked perfectly well. Why was it changed? At the time, the then Secretary of State said that it was being done to take the Scottish Office off the backs of local education authorities and to allow them to make their own decisions. However, even at that time the Government were urging local authorities to close schools, especially rural ones. They wanted schools to be closed, but they did not want to be associated with such unpopular decisions. For that reason, the 1981 legislation was introduced.
    We believed that there was no reason for change, but we argued that if the legislation were changed, it had to be done on a non-discriminatory basis. For that reason we objected to the provisions dealing with denominational schools that gave them certain additional protections unavailable to non-denominational schools.
    We also wanted to ensure that parents were properly consulted about any matters that affected their children's education. Under the old system, when the Secretary of State's approval was required for the closure of a school, such consultation took place. No Secretary of State—I did not, and I am certain the same was true of my predecessors—would agree to the closure of a school unless he was sure that there had been consultation with the parents before that closure came forward for approval.
    Before 1981, parent consultation used to take place. However, in 1981, the Secretary of State's excuse was that regulations would be introduced to provide for such consultation. That argument does not bear serious examination. The regulations went into considerable detail, and did not just deal with school closures, but other
    782
    proposals that could affect particular schools. That is the background against which we are considering the regulations.
    If there is a criticism of Strathclyde region in all this—I do not intend to go into detail about Paisley grammar—it is that the authority has evaded the issue of school closures for far too long. It has long been known that Strathclyde had an excess of school places and that sooner or later action would have to be taken to close certain schools. That is common ground on both sides of the House. From 1981 onwards Ministers — including the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was a junior Minister at the Scottish Office—have repeatedly urged Strathclyde and other authorities to close schools and reduce their capacity to correspond more closely to the number of pupils. Strathclyde failed to grasp the nettle early enough, and I do not particularly blame it, because every school closure causes local agitation and concern. Schools with no particular local reputation suddenly become schools of tremendous local reputation when there is a closure proposal. School closures are matters of acute local difficulty for any education authority, so one must not be too critical of Strathclyde.
    On the process of consultation, about which Strathclyde has been severely criticised, it is ironic that Strathclyde has done more in the way of consultation than is provided for by the regulations. The irony is that all the consultation so far has been in addition to the statutory obligation to consult that is laid down in the regulations. It is only when one produces a specific proposal that one has to go through the specific process of consultation laid down in the regulations. Until now, all that has happened has been outside the statutory obligations of Strathclyde regional council. It has not been provided for by the regulations introduced by the Government apparently to look after parents' interests. Let us not have any cant, hypocrisy or humbug from the Government about the regulations, because they have not been effective in Strathclyde.
    The regulations are about Paisley and about nothing else. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked how the 80 per cent. criterion was arrived at. It was arrived at simply to include, and save, Paisley grammar. Incidentally, when a proposal comes before him, the Secretary of State is supposed to behave, if not in a quasi-judicial manner at least objectively. But we know that the decision about Paisley grammar was already made when the Prime Minister wrote to the headmaster and wished the school well for the future. That was a complete abuse of central Government power. The regulations have been introduced cynically for populist reasons relating to Paisley grammar. They are arbitrary in their operation and essentially authoritarian — in line with the Government's authoritarian approach to education authorities and local authorities generally.
    Quite apart from all that, the regulations are the worst drafted that I have had the misfortune to read. The Select Committee criticised them not just because of the failure to observe the proper procedure — which may be considered a technical matter, although I consider that it is a matter of considerable importance—but because of the inadequate drafting. If I understood the Minister aright — it was difficult to understand what he was trying to say when he intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden—he was giving an interpretation of the regulations that I believe to be

    783
    fundamentally wrong. The regulations do not seem to bear the interpretation that the Minister attempted to put on them, although no doubt he will have an opportunity to clarify that matter later.
    Whatever the interpretation of the regulations, the fact is that they work in an arbitrary way. There is no objective consideration involved in the 80 per cent. criterion that has been adopted for the purpose of the regulations. The hon. Member for Eastwood talked about schools being popular with the local population and local parents. There are schools with only 50 per cent. capacity that are as passionately involved with the local community and about which local parents feel just as passionately as any school that has an 80 per cent. capacity. Therefore, considerations of that sort do not bear serious examination.
    This is an intervention in a sensitive local issue which, under the terms of the regulations as we have had them before and under the terms of the legislation introduced in 1981, should have been decided by Strathclyde regional council itself. It should not have been the subject of an intervention in this arbitrary and authoritarian way by the Government. That is why we shall vote against the regulations.
    12.1 am
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief, but, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which reported the regulations to the House, I feel that I owe the House an explanation in addition to the printed report. It is worth pointing out that there is a majority of Conservative Members on the Committee. The House lays a duty on the Committee to report measures which, in effect, are an abuse of the procedures of the House. We do not consider the merits of the measures; I shall be brief because I will not go into the merits of these regulations.
    The Committee was concerned that the 21-day rule, which applies to measures made under the negative procedure, was breached. No adequate explanation was provided by the Scottish Office. It was asked to provide memoranda and was given a full opportunity to provide information to the Committee. It claimed that it wished to make its attitude known to the Strathclyde regional authority. Of course, it could have written a letter. It did not have to produce regulations or bring them into force. In bringing the regulations into force, the Scottish Office was supposed to notify the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor of the reasons for doing so. It failed to do that and, therefore, was in breach of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
    I know that the Statutory Instruments Committee is not often much regarded in the House. In fact, by and large it does its work without much attention being paid to it. The Committee was established after an outcry led by a Conservative member of the judiciary. Lord Justice Hewart described the powers that the House was giving to Ministers as the new despotism. There is an obligation on Ministers not to abuse the powers they are given. If they do, it invokes descriptions such as new despotism or elective dictatorship. It is on such occasions that criticisms are directed at the Government because they are abusing the procedures of the House, which are designed to safeguard the powers given to them.
    The regulations have the force of law. They are not simply codes of conduct or notes for guidance. The Minister knows that they have the force of the law. That
    784
    is why the Committee drew the House's attention to the fact that there is no exact formula for calculating capacity. It is not clear in the regulations who will make judgments on the capacity. The memorandum says that it will be the local authority. However, the Committee looks at the regulations. The people who are carrying out the law as the Government expect them to will be guided by the regulations. They are required to follow the law, yet the law does not say how the capacity is being defined. Therefore, the regulations are defective in drafting. When the defective drafting is coupled with the rush to get the measure through, it is not surprising that the Statutory Instruments Committee reported it to the House.
    It does credit to all members on the Committee that they were aware of the shortcomings and agreed to the report. I can say only that, since a Liberal Member moved the prayer, it comes as something of a surprise to note that the place reserved on the Committee for the Member from the Social Democratic party has not been used since the general election, shortly after which the Committee was established.
    It is a convention that the Chairman of the Joint Committee is an Opposition Member. In scrutinising the work of the Government, it is therefore a considerable surprise that a member of the SDP has not considered it sufficiently important to participate to a greater extent.
    I have not dealt with the merits of the measure, but it is an important issue. I am grateful that Parliament has debated a statutory instrument and the report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It brings to light the way in which the Government are using procedures with scant regard for the democratic and accountable procedures of the House.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a debate of such importance, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) as the spokesman for the Liberal party and in which the principal spokesman for the Opposition in Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. McMillan), a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), have participated, is it right that, when the Secretary of State, who is the Minister responsible, is present, the speech on behalf of the Government should be made by an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Foulkes: Could we not have the regulations—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking up valuable time in this short debate.
    12.6 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have had an interesting debate, but, having listened to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I am still puzzled as to whether he was for or against the regulations. I shall do my best to convince him of their worth.
    The Government believe that parents have a right to be involved in schools and that the school system should take account of parental preference—
    Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.
    Mr. Forsyth: I say to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who said "Rubbish", that is not a principle that we have invented; it applies throughout our education system. We differ from Opposition Members because we have done something about the matter and have introduced measures to extend parental choice through the parents' charter, through our proposals which we will bring to the House on school boards and through the regulations.
    Mr. Tony Worthington rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will have regard to the strictures that I levelled at the House earlier, about the need to keep the debate to the regulations before the House.
    Mr. Forsyth: The regulations take account of parental choice in decisions on school closures. I make the point about the background, so that the House is fully aware that this is part of a continuing policy.
    Choice may be limited by the constraints of public expenditure. I fully accept the points made by the Opposition Members, that Strathclyde regional council and other educational authorities are right to seek to rationalise their school places and to seek to avoid keeping open half-empty schools, heating buildings and using money which would otherwise be spent on extra books and equipment.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make progress, I shall try to give way.
    The regulations provide that, if closure is approved for a school which is fully utilised, there should be an opportunity for a review. I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should find that so unreasonable. He referred me to a letter which appeared in The Scotsman last month.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way in a moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on that letter.
    That letter, dated 1 February, referred to the regulations and was from a Mr. Alex Wood. I believe that he will have some knowledge of the gentleman, who was the first Labour leader of Edinburgh district council and a former pupil of Paisley grammar school. He was critical of Paisley grammar. It was to be damned because it indulged in
    "Rugby in an overwhelmingly football-playing area, the school motto in Latin, `Disce Puer Aut Abi' (Work, Boy or get out!) hanging over the school war-memorial; a rigidly enforced and distinctive school uniform; a prefect system; and a constant wallowing in the school's 400-year history".
    [Interruption.] I am asked whether Mr. Wood is for it or against it. At the beginning of the letter, referring to Strathclyde's closure programme, he said:
    "It had, however, one plus-point. It threatened the closure of several of the magnet schools, archaic educational establishments which sought to maintain their old selective status in the comprehensive epoch and which, successfully, in this Parents' Charter age, drew countless students from local comprehensives in working class areas."
    That is the really damning thing to Mr. Wood and for the Labour party and many people on Strathclyde region.
    786
    The hon. Member for Garscadden may well make a lot of noise, but the fact is that he is saddled with a party that is opposed to those schools that are able to attract parents under the parents' charter.
    Mr. Buchan: I shall try to restrain my temper at that misuse of the time of the House. The hon. Gentleman referred to the crucial point of the 80 per cent. Will he explain what is meant by 80 per cent.? Clearly, an hour ago he did not know. The hon. Gentleman has again referred to the schools being fully utilised. What does he mean? Does he mean in any year in the past 10 years or does he mean now? Is it 80 per cent. as calculated by the local authority in terms of the capacity of the rooms, or can a school be fully utilised even if it is not at the 80 per cent. level, by using it also as a community school? Can the hon. Gentleman explain even that for us, because that element was grossly defective in the regulations?
    Mr. Forsyth: Of course I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it is a misuse of the time of the House for me to point out that a former Paisley grammar school boy, a leading figure in the Labour party — [Interruption.] I take it that Labour Members now wish to repudiate the first Labour leader of Edinburgh district council. That is a matter for them. I suspect that some of the thinking behind Mr. Wood's letter is behind the proposals in Strathclyde.
    I should be happy to explain the point about 80 per cent. capacity. It is very straightforward. Whether a school has 80 per cent. occupancy will be a matter to be determined by the education authority. Under these regulations, if the education authority thinks that the school is 80 per cent. full or more, it is required to present to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State any proposal for closure or any proposal to alter the catchment zone of that school. It is clearly spelt out — [Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen, they will know what the regulations are about and they can decide whether they are for or against them. I suggest that that is the proper way to go forward.
    If any school meets the 80 per cent. capacity rule, a proposal for closure or for alteration of the catchment zone will have to be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. That will mean in Paisley that the matter of the Castlehead and John Neilson schools, may have to be referred — [HON MEMBERS: "May?"]—will have to be referred — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—I say "may" because I am relying for my information on Strathclyde regional council. The proposal is to close the John Neilson school. That will result in a change in the delineated area of a school—Castlehead school—with a pupil population exceeding 80 per cent. of the capacity. So it will come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. For all those hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches who said that this was about one school in Paisley, it is true of the Brediland primary school, Paisley of South primary school, Paisley, of Bushes primary school, Paisley, and of a large number of schools in Strathclyde. Opposition Members have based their opposition to these regulations on a reading of them which clearly shows that they did not understand what the regulations were intended to achieve.
    Mr. Buchan: If the Minister claims, as he did just now, that Castlehead, because of the shift of roll, will be brought within the 80 per cent., does he base this on the present roll

    787
    or does he base it on the roll of any of the past 10 years—since that is part of the regulations? If it is on the present roll, how does he explain the non-inclusion in his remarks of John Neilson?
    Mr. Forsyth: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he needs to sit down and study the regulations. They are very clear. If there is a proposal to alter the catchment area of a school or to close a school with more than 80 per cent. capacity, it has to come to my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Hon. Gentlemen must allow me to make progress, so that I can try to answer the points made in the debate.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to adjourn the debate so that the Minister can be further advised by the Box over there?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Forsyth.
    Mr. Forsyth: What is in order is to debate these regulations. If the hon. Gentleman will not take the time to study the regulations, he will find himself at a disadvantage in debate.
    I was asked why the regulations came into force immediately. They were made on 26 January. We were aware that Strathclyde council would be meeting on 3 and 12 February, and we were anxious to avoid any question of the retrospective use of these powers. We believed that it was important that Strathclyde should be in no doubt that the regulations would hear on any decisions which it was to take at these meetings.
    I was asked why the regulations came into force before being laid. It is certainly true that they came into force at midnight and that they were laid 16 hours later, at 4 pm, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said. The Joint Committee acknowledged that the procedure required for this circumstance in section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 was followed, in that Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor were notified by letter that regulations had come into operation ahead of being laid. So the Government do not accept that there has been a failure to comply with the 1946 Act.
    Another criticism was that the regulations do not make it clear who is responsible for determining capacity. It was a point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in opening the debate. Section 22(b) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the context of schedule 2 to the principal regulations make it quite clear that the duty rests with education authorities to decide which proposals to put to the Secretary of State for his consent.
    I say to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who answered my intervention in his speech about the existing regulations—which are in respect of decisions which deem it necessary for the Secretary of State to decide, for example, whether a school is five or 10 miles distant — that they do not specify who is to take the decision on the five or 10 miles. The hon. Gentleman said that that was not a precedent. It was, he said, easy to decide whether a school was five or 10 miles distant. He has obviously never had that sort of case in his constituency, because there is considerable argument about the precise route followed by the child, and so on.
    The regulations do not say who is to decide that, but they clearly point, because of their context, to the education authority. These regulations are no different in that respect.
    Mr. Worthington rose—
    Mr. Forsyth: There have been a number of questions about the capacity of the school. Actual capacity depends on the curriculum, the teaching methods and upper limits on class sizes which may be negotiated from time to time. The fact that there is no unchanging yardstick does not mean that no measurement can be made.
    Mr. Worthington: If the way in which this has been done is even-handed, why did the Minister see representatives of Paisley grammar school twice but refuse to meet representatives of Merksworth high school?
    Mr. Forsyth: What is even-handed is that the regulations give Paisley grammar school and other schools an opportunity for their cases to be reviewed by my right hon. and learned Friend. By opposing these regulations, Labour Members are preventing parents from being able to have that review.
    It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [26 February].
    The House proceeded to a Division:
    Mr. Dick Douglas(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that one's vote must go with one's voice, and vice versa. I understand that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will not vote in the Division. I ask for your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on that posture.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The House must assume that the hon. Gentleman has been influenced by the course of the debate. It may be unusual, but it can happen.
    The House having divided: Ayes 173, Noes 199.

    Division No. 199]

    [12.20 am

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Cryer, Bob

    Anderson, Donald

    Cummings, John

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dalyell, Tam

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Darling, Alistair

    Barron, Kevin

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Battle, John

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

    Beckett, Margaret

    Dewar, Donald

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dixon, Don

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dobson, Frank

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Doran, Frank

    Blair, Tony

    Douglas, Dick

    Blunkett, David

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Boateng, Paul

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Boyes, Roland

    Eadie, Alexander

    Bradley, Keith

    Eastham, Ken

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Buchan, Norman

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Buckley, George J.

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

    Caborn, Richard

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Flannery, Martin

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Flynn, Paul

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Clay, Bob

    Foster, Derek

    Clelland, David

    Foulkes, George

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Fyfe, Maria

    Cohen, Harry

    Galbraith, Sam

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Corbett, Robin

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    789

    Graham, Thomas

    Morley, Elliott

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Grocott, Bruce

    Mullin, Chris

    Hardy, Peter

    Murphy, Paul

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Nellist, Dave

    Haynes, Frank

    O'Brien, William

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    O'Neill, Martin

    Henderson, Doug

    Patchett, Terry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Home Robertson, John

    Prescott, John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Randall, Stuart

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Richardson, Jo

    Illsley, Eric

    Robertson, George

    Janner, Greville

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    John, Brynmor

    Rogers, Allan

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lambie, David

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lamond, James

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Leighton, Ron

    Short, Clare

    Litherland, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

    McAllion, John

    Soley, Clive

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Spearing, Nigel

    McCartney, Ian

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Stott, Roger

    McFall, John

    Strang, Gavin

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Straw, Jack

    McKelvey, William

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McLeish, Henry

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Turner, Dennis

    McWilliam, John

    Wall, Pat

    Madden, Max

    Walley, Joan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Wilson, Brian

    Martlew, Eric

    Winnick, David

    Maxton, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Meacher, Michael

    Worthington, Tony

    Meale, Alan

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Michael, Alun

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Mr. Adam Ingram and

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Alexander, Richard

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bowis, John

    Allason, Rupert

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Amess, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Amos, Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Arbuthnot, James

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

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Ashby, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Atkins, Robert

    Burns, Simon

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Butcher, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Butler, Chris

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Butterfill, John

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Cash, William

    Benyon, W.

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Chope, Christopher

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    790

    Conway, Derek

    Latham, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Cope, John

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Lilley, Peter

    Curry, David

    Lord, Michael

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

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Day, Stephen

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Maclean, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Dover, Den

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Dunn, Bob

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Durant, Tony

    Madel, David

    Evennett, David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Mans, Keith

    Fallon, Michael

    Maples, John

    Farr, Sir John

    Marland, Paul

    Favell, Tony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Forman, Nigel

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Freeman, Roger

    Miller, Hal

    French, Douglas

    Mills, Iain

    Gale, Roger

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Gill, Christopher

    Moate, Roger

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Gow, Ian

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Moss, Malcolm

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Neubert, Michael

    Gregory, Conal

    Paice, James

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Grist, Ian

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Ground, Patrick

    Ryder, Richard

    Grylls, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Stern, Michael

    Hannam, John

    Stevens, Lewis

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

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Harris, David

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Sumberg, David

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Summerson, Hugo

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Heddle, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Holt, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Thorne, Neil

    Howard, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Trippier, David

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Walden, George

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Irvine, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Jack, Michael

    Ward, John

    Jackson, Robert

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Watts, John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Wheeler, John

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Key, Robert

    Wilkinson, John

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Wilshire, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Wood, Timothy

    Knapman, Roger

    Yeo, Tim

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Knowles, Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Knox, David

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Mr. Alan Howarth.

    Lang, Ian

    Question accordingly negatived.
    12.32 am
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like some guidance and advice from you over what has just happened. The prayer was tabled by Liberal Members of Parliament. In the event, they decided not to take part in the vote that followed the prayer. Is that customary, is it precedented, is it democratic and is it fair?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I dealt with this point of order during the Division. I see no reason to add anything to the ruling that I gave on that occasion.
    Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask you to confirm that, if the alliance Members had voted with the Opposition, the prayer would have been approved?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to indulge in hypotheses.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might this incident be remembered in future as "Holy Archy's Prayer"?

  PETITION

    A47 (Great Yarmouth)
    12.33 am
    Mr. Michael Carttiss: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 19,976 residents and visitors to my constituency of Great Yarmouth and to the constituency of Mid-Norfolk, represented here tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder). I quote from the prayer:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House acknowledges the urgent need to improve the A47 highway between Great Yarmouth and Acle, and asks the Secretary of State for Transport to include a dual carriageway scheme for this length of highway in the Government's roads programme at the earliest opportunity.
    The tragic death yesterday of an 18-year-old constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter)—killed in a head-on crash with a family of four who were seriously injured and who are represented tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who supports the petition — lends poignancy to the petition, because it is the sixth fatality on the eight-mile road between Acle and Great Yarmouth during the past three years, and the 40th personal injury accident since 1984.
    The petition, which I wholeheartedly support, has been organised in recent weeks by Great Yarmouth borough council and is presented tonight in the furtherance of the economic, commercial and industrial development of Great Yarmouth as a holiday resort, a port and an area of above average unemployment.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Schools Outreach Project
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    12.35 am
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am most grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the works of Schools Outreach. It fulfils a role which, so far as I am aware, is unique. It plugs a gap in preventive youth care that desperately needs to be filled. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is to answer the debate, because his Department has shown interest in and provided support for the project. I want that interest and support to be extended, and I look forward with great interest to what he will say.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they will do so with my full consent and encouragement. I have the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those who represent constituencies in and around Birmingham. I also have the support of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
    Schools Outreach is a charity that was established in 1973 to support and encourage the work that has been done for many years, and continues to be done, by Gordon Bailey in preventive care among schoolchildren. Its aims are to train, support and sustain preventive care workers, who will establish child-centred, long-term relationships with young people in schools; to encourage young people to recognise the need for values and responsibilities; to help young people to acknowledge, accept and achieve their personal, social, moral and spiritual potential; to stimulate their wisdom in every aspect of life, and thereby prevent problems that would otherwise occur; and to present them with a programme that will offer a whole, balanced concept of the human personality. That is achieved in co-operation with teachers and youth workers, by participating in creating links between schools and their surrounding communities and by concentrating on enhancing links between schools and the parents of their pupils. In summary, it seeks to help young people to grow into mature, whole, fulfilled and responsible citizens.
    The project arose from the work and experience of Gordon Bailey. While working as a volunteer youth worker at a youth centre in south-east Lancashire in the mid-1950s he became aware of the serious problems that some young people developed: involvement in crime, sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol and drug abuse, truancy and alienation from school and community. Gordon Bailey was convinced that most, if not all, of those problems were preventable. His first success was with the problems of a 15-year-old boy whose parents had thrown him out of his home.
    The conflict had arisen because of the boy's low sense of self-worth, combined with his parents' unrealistic expectations. Mr. Bailey was able to achieve a reconciliation between boy and parent. One month later, the boy's headmaster reported that, from being an extremely disruptive child who had been on the verge of expulsion from school, he had become responsible, and
    794
    could Mr. Bailey do the same for the rest of the fourth-year pupils at the school? Mr. Bailey continued to visit the school for one full day every week, and by working during class periods with groups of pupils he found that he was able to establish and build developing relationships with the pupils.
    By the early 1960s Mr. Bailey was able to see positive effects in the lives of the children. He had been able to create a classroom environment, made easier by his unofficial and informal approaches, within which children found themselves willing and able to discover the wisdom of becoming interested in and committed to their personal whole health and well-being. The core of the work is that it is child-centred and aimed at the development of the child's wisdom, so that problems that would threaten their well-being can be prevented.
    Word of mouth commendations of Mr. Bailey's work resulted in such pressure on him to extend his work that in 1960 he resigned from his job as a television technician with Independent Television and entered full-time preventive care. Working with children in junior and secondary schools, he rediscovered the concept of getting alongside a child very early, watching for any sign of a risk to the health and well-being of the child, maintaining involvement with pastoral teaching staff and local child care agencies, the parents and family of a child at risk, and co-operating with and complementing all forms of child care. In the late 1960s, the needs of people in inner cities came to Mr. Bailey's attention, and in 1972, at the invitation of several head teachers, he and his wife and their four children moved to Birmingham. In the following year, the Schools Outreach project was established as a charity.
    Mr. Bailey became linked informally with several schools, the local education authority and Winson Green prison in Birmingham. The link with the prisoners afforded an opportunity to assess the value of his work. Linked with 10 per cent. of the city's schools, as might have been expected, he came across several young boys from the schools in which he worked who passed through the prison on remand for assessment on their way through the penal system. Among the boys who were prison residents, he met about 10 per cent. from the schools he knew. By the late 1970s, however, he was no longer meeting in prison any former pupils from the schools where he had worked.
    The aims of Mr. Bailey's classroom programme have been, first, to offer friendship to children; secondly, to encourage them to develop a sense of self-worth; thirdly, to take them through a programme of learning that offers each child the opportunity to develop a sense of responsibility towards his own and other people's health and well-being; and, fourthly, to prepare each child for adulthood and parentcraft. That is done by open as well as private discussion.
    Preventive care, which Mr. Bailey and his team provide, is what most parents are able to provide for their own children, but in the inner cities of Britain today the environment is hostile. Good teachers and parents are often frustrated by the lack of time in which to establish and build deep friendships with their children. Lack of time results from distractions such as work, other children, the need for crisis management, and so on. I do not propose to say more about the responsibility of parents, except to observe that both the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for the

    795
    Home Department have recently made excellent speeches acknowledging the urgent need for positive parenthood to prevent problems that Schools Outreach is trying to prevent. Sadly, however, the need for preventive care provided by schools to inner-city children remains urgent.
    A pilot scheme has been established in the west midlands. It is encouraging that it has the support of so many hon. Members, on a cross-party basis. Eight workers are undergoing training in the skills that Gordon Bailey has developed over the past 20 years. Their basic training will end early in May. Between May and September, they will establish relationships with teachers and those who work in child care agencies. They will begin their full-time, long-term work with schoolchildren in September.
    Four of the eight workers are male, and four are female. Four were teachers, and between them the British, Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities are represented. All eight are committed to community based, child-centred preventive care on a long-term basis. A headmaster who was appointed in 1974 to the school in Birmingham where Gordon Bailey was working has taken early retirement to direct the training.
    It is difficult to evaluate any form of preventive care. However, there will be an independent evaluation of the Schools Outreach pilot scheme which will result in a report which should be completed and available in 1991.
    A number of companies from commerce and industry are helping to fund the project. Groups of people, particularly parents who care about their children's futures, are working together in different places to raise money for the project. The Schools Outreach programme needs funds, and this is clearly an area in which a partnership between the private and public sectors is required. The private sector has already committed £200,000, and more is being sought. The total cost of the project over three years will be more than £500,000.
    An application for funding for the pilot scheme has been considered by my hon. Friend the Minister. He turned the application down on its face value, but suggested that revised proposals could be made and that, on certain conditions, the Department would be willing to provide £150,000 towards the cost of the pilot scheme. I welcome what my hon. Friend has been able to offer, but I hope that there will be a continuing and increasingly positive approach to the project. I appreciate that the scheme does not fit neatly into the boundaries set by the Department's responsibilities, but that makes it all the more urgent that the project should receive support from central and local government.
    I understand that the Department is concerned about what will happen after the pilot scheme ends. Such concerns must exist about any pilot scheme. This pilot scheme will have to prove itself, and the Outreach team recognises that. To object, as the Department did, that Schools Outreach has not spelt out clearly how effective relationships could be established between preventive care teachers and local authority welfare agents, suggests to me that the Department has not examined adequately the way in which Gordon Bailey and his small team have been working.
    I appreciate that departmental money for new projects must be limited, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the funding of this pilot scheme. In doing so, I do not want to appear unappreciative of the support that the Department has already promised. Schools Outreach has been tackling problems that affect young people;
    796
    problems which established institutions are failing to tackle and with which parents feel helpless to deal. Many of us have put forward remedies in the House to tackle the problems of alienation, truancy and irresponsibility among young people that are manifest at football grounds, in inner cities, in classrooms and elsewhere. Schools Outreach is doing something about those problems.
    I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister some difficult questions. What does a teenage girl's pregnancy cost the community? How much does an abortion for a teenage girl cost? How much does it cost to keep young criminals in secure accommodation? How much does it cost to treat a drug addict? How much does it cost to treat an AIDS victim? What are the costs of legal aid for a young criminal going through the law courts? No doubt my hon. Friend will tell me that the costs involved are difficut to measure precisely, but it must undoubtedly be the case that for every pound spent on preventive care of the kind practised by Schools Outreach, hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds would be saved by the work that is carried out.
    I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to try a simple cost-benefit analysis of that approach. If he tries that, he will want to increase his support for this worthwhile, excellent and unique project. I thank my hon. Friend for his support so far and invite him, for the sake of our young people, to do even more in future than he has been able to do so far.
    12.49 am
    Mr. W. Benyon: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) managed to obtain this debate. Outreach is a wonderful organisation, and there is now sufficient proof of what it is doing to ensure its success.
    I wish to make only two points in the short time available to me. First, let me reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Minister in a letter in June last year about the partnership aspect. If we are to ask the private sector to help in matters such as this, we must gear up Government support or everyone will lose heart. The amount of fund-raising has been remarkable, and a great success, but if the Government do not come in behind it, all that will be lost.
    Secondly—time is far more important—I emphasise to my hon. Friend that every piece of legislation since the war has been detrimental to the family, and to the upbringing of young people in this country. The divorce laws, the fiscal operations, the social security regulations — all, in a sense, have been directed against young people's managing to make a success of their lives and having happy, stable family relationships.
    I warmly welcome, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, the speeches that have been made recently about the problem. If the Government mean what they say, this is the moment for them to put their money where their mouth is. I hope that the debate about this wonderful organisation, which is doing such good work, will be successful.
    12.51 am
    Dr. John G. Blackburn: The House pays a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) for raising this issue. I, too, have only two small points to make but they are important, and saturated with sincerity.

    797
    First, I have had the privilege of knowing Gordon Bailey for 35 years. I also know the work that he has undertaken, particularly in the west midlands, adjacent to my constituency. It is about time that we as a House determined that the quality of education also has a great bearing on moral teaching, and on the safeguards that will bring people up into responsible youth and manhood.
    I recommend my hon. Friend the Minister to view the case with the greatest possible charity. No, not charity; we are looking for justice, and we are looking for a figure at least to match that of the private sector. It is in that spirit that — because of my constituency involvement with Schools Outreach, and because of the work that it is doing — I commend it warmly to my hon. Friend.
    12.52 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): The House is most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) for raising this matter tonight. I listened with great interest to his speech, as well as to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn).
    The House will also note the presence in the Chamber of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) and for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). They have come to listen to the discussion of an important topic which is well worthy of debate in the House.
    The excellent work of Mr. Gordon Bailey and his Schools Outreach preventive care project has been ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North. He is one of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been persuaded by the merits of Mr. Bailey's work. I am well aware of that, not least because of the considerable number of letters received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, both from hon. Members and from their noble Lordships.
    The letters that we have received have given weighty support to the proposals from Mr. Bailey for my Department to provide funding for his preventive care project. We have also received a large number of letters from teachers, head teachers and others who have seen at first hand the value of the work carried out by Mr. Bailey, and have argued strongly for its replication in other schools. We do not need persuading, therefore, of the strength of feeling of those who know Mr. Bailey and are aware of his work in schools and elsewhere.
    Since we first made contact with Mr. Bailey and learned of his activities, both my right hon. Friend and I have been impressed with his level of commitment and of the possible long-term benefits that might accrue from the placement of preventive care workers in schools. We have therefore given him every encouragement to develop proposals which provide the opportunity to judge the success of preventive care workers in influencing young people and helping them to tackle the various difficulties and temptations that they encounter in adolescence.
    As my hon. Friend is aware, the intention of the Schools Outreach preventive care project is to place a preventive care worker in a school or a number of schools. Through their establishment of long-term relationships with young people, the care workers aim to discourage the
    798
    development of problems in relation to crime—including vandalism — truancy, drug and alcohol abuse, family disintegration and child abuse.
    The prime purpose of the work is to promote the physical and mental health and emotional well-being of young people, which will act as a basis for responsible and fulfilled citizenship in adult life. This is achieved through a blend of work in the classroom with groups of pupils, one-to-one counselling of individual pupils, and involvement in extra-curricular activities organised within the school. It is also intended that preventive care workers will seek, through links with parents, families, local youth centres and other local care agencies, to encourage strong ties between schools and the surrounding community. Over a period, it is hoped that care workers will be able to earn the respect and affection of the children, as well as the trust of parents and staff, helping each child towards his role as a worthwhile member of society.
    Preventive care workers aim to supplement, but not be a substitute for, the efforts of parents and the teaching profession, and help in particular where either the home or the school is unable for whatever reason to provide the necessary support a child requires. They will not assume the responsibilities of existing agencies such as educational welfare services the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, educational psychologists and others. Their role rather will be a long-term one in helping the development of young people and preventing their future involvement in a range of destructive activities, both to themselves and to society at large.
    Those aims are noble and worthy enough, but they bring with them the prospect of saving the public purse many thousands of pounds. The social and personal costs of a young person going off the rails during adolescence are of course enormous if that should lead to a lifestyle of delinquency, crime, or physical self-destruction through alcohol or drug abuse. The financial costs to society are also considerable. As Mr. Bailey has rightly pointed out in submitting his proposal for Government funding, if every preventive care worker succeeds in discouraging just one child from becoming involved in crime, or drug abuse, the financial savings to the taxpayer and to both local and central Government could be immense.
    As my hon. Friends are aware, there is something of a history to the proposals from Mr. Bailey for Government funding of his work. I think that it is worth explaining the background. Mr. Bailey first submitted an application to the Department for funding in April 1986 for a two-year pilot project based in the west midlands. The cost of the proposal amounted to £254,000. That was intended to cover the establishment of an administrative and training headquarters for the pilot project, as well as covering the cost of employing and training preventive care workers to be deployed in 25 schools.
    Given the pressure on the resources available to the Department, Mr. Bailey subsequently submitted a revised application with the cost scaled down to a total of £199,000, but despite the considerable sympathy which both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had for the aims of the proposals, the pressure on resources meant that we could not fund the project at that time. However, in writing to Mr. Bailey to explain our decision I made it clear that it was based primarily on financial considerations. He was therefore invited to resubmit an application for funding, beginning in the financial year 1988–89.

    799
    Given that the Department had not been able to find resources for the project in 1987, Mr. Bailey had to seek alternative funding from elsewhere if his project was to make a start that year. It is a testimony to his personal commitment and powers of persuasion that he was able to obtain funding from private sources amounting to more than £90,000 in 1987–88. He has also obtained private funding for subsequent years amounting to a further £80,000.
    Following discussions with DES officials, a revised application for Government funding was submitted by Mr. Bailey in August 1987. On that occasion the request was for a total of £566,000 to cover the final three years of a four-year pilot project. This application coincided with one from Mr. Bailey to the Department of Trade and Industry for funding of two preventive care workers in the Handsworth area of Birmingham as part of the inner cities programme. Having taken advice from my Department on the application, the Department of Trade and Industry were able to provide a total of £32,000 for the work proposed in Handsworth.
    A decision on the revised proposal for DES funding was finally issued in December last year. Consideration of the proposal, and indeed the original application, took much longer than I would have wished. I assure my hon. Friends that the prime reason on both occasions was the need to ensure that they received detailed and thorough consideration within the Department.
    As I am sure my hon. Friends will appreciate, the competition for resources within my Department has been particularly fierce of late, especially given the range of new initiatives resulting from the proposals contained in our Education Reform Bill. Many worthwhile proposals have been casualties of that competition. We have nevertheless been able to offer funding for the preventive care project, although at a reduced level and subject to certain conditions. We have been able to offer Mr. Bailey a total of £150,000 funding over three years. That is subject to certain conditions that we feel bound to impose, primarily to ensure that public money is well spent.
    The most important condition that we have had to impose is that Mr. Bailey should obtain a guarantee from a local authority that it would be prepared to make a financial commitment to the project over the three-year pilot period. The authority would also need to be willing—subject to a favourable evaluation of the project—to continue to provide finance at the level supported during
    800
    the pilot period to ensure the continued employment of preventive care workers for a minimum of three years after the completion of DES funding. We also sought further information from Mr. Bailey on the question of overlap between the work of other welfare agencies, teachers, and preventive care workers with regard to their role in pastoral care. Lastly, we had some concerns with regard to the plans for training of care workers prior to their going into schools.
    The most important condition is the question of local authority funding. The others are matters of detail that could, one hopes, be resolved by further correspondence between the Department and Mr. Bailey. Indeed, Mr. Bailey has already been in touch with the Department spelling out how he believes the work of preventive care workers will relate to that of other welfare agencies and to the pastoral work of teaching staff in schools. He has provided us with much of the reassurance we require on this point. As I have suggested, however, the subject of funding direct from a local education authority is more of a problem.
    Let me try to explain why that is such an important consideration for the Department. It follows from two elements of the proposals as submitted by Mr. Bailey. First, it has been presented as a pilot project, requiring DES funding for a limited period. By definition, a pilot project, if judged successful, is intended to form the basis of a longer-term exercise, normally on a much larger scale. There is no question of DES funding being available after the pilot project has been completed, so the finances for continued employment of preventive care workers would have to come from elsewhere.
    Although Mr. Bailey continues to be extremely successful in securing private funding for his work, I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that his work cannot be totally reliant on private funds. That brings me on to the second element of the project, which is the need for relationships with young people to be built up over a period. To be able to form close relationships with youngsters, and to influence their long-term behaviour and development—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock or Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at five minutes past One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers police forces are refusing to renew firearms certificates for self-loading rifles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A chief officer of police is empowered to refuse to grant or renew an application for a firearm certificate if the requirements set out in section 27 of the Firearms Act 1968 are not met. There is a right of appeal to the Crown court.

  Brixton Prison
  Mr. Stuart Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall concerning overcrowding in F wing of Brixton prison.

  Mr. Hurd
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 26 February.

  Television Licences (Handicapped Pensioners)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the introduction of a 5p television licence for those households where at least one member is a seriously handicapped pensioner.

  Mr. Renton
  There are no plans to do so.

  Exceptional Leave Criteria
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the criteria for granting exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  The circumstances under which persons who do not qualify under the immigration rules have been allowed exceptionally to remain in the United Kingdom were set out in the Home Office evidence to the Home Affairs Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in 1984 — "Minutes of Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration" HC72, Volume II, paragraph 44. If the hon. Member has a particular point in mind he may wish to write with more precise details.

  Blorg and Contango
  Mr. Tim Smith
  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 what progress the Metropolitan police fraud squad is making with its inquiries into the Liechtenstein subsidiaries of Lonrho plc, Blorg and Contango; and if he will make a statement.
  388
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is an operational matter which is the responsibility of the commissioner of police for the City of London. I understand from the commissioner that inquiries into these subsidiaries are continuing.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the fact that no petitions for leave to appeal to the House of Lords have yet been lodged in the Birmingham pub bombings case, he will reconsider his answers to eight hon. Members' questions on the 18 February,Official Report, column 708.

  Mr. Hurd
  No. My hon. Friend's replies to questions about this case on 18 February referred back to an earlier answer which dealt in substance with the issues that had been raised. I see no reason to reconsider that answer.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses in judging whether a case is sub judice for the purpose of answering parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is not for Ministers to decide whether a case is sub judice in the strict sense which, under the rules of the House, precludes reference to it in a question. Our responsibility is for the answer to be given, and it is not our practice to comment on matters which are in a wider sense awaiting or under adjudication by a court.

  Police Special Branches
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total number of police officers and civilians serving in, or responsible to, the special branches of police forces in England and Wales in each year from 1969 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The readily available information is as follows:

  Metropolitan Police

  Police officers

  Civilians

  1968

  366

  44

  1969

  370

  47

  1970

  382

  54

  1971

  398

  68

  1972

  400

  77

  1973

  399

  85

  1974

  393

  105

  1975

  397

  119

  1976

  405

  120

  1977

  405

  110

  1978

  395

  98

  1979

  386

  127

  1980

  400

  115

  1981

  427

  125

  1982

  396

  115

  1983

  374

  102

  1984

  380

  115

  1985

  393

  125

  1986

  405

  137

  1987

  437

  130

  The available information about other police forces in England and Wales is given in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

  Weapons (Amnesty)
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ask the chief constable of the Northumbrian police to introduce an amnesty for holders of knives, guns and martial arts weapons, along the lines of that recently introduced by the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers how campaigns like that run by the Metropolitan police encouraging the disposal of knives and other weapons might be instituted more widely.

  Prisoners (Temporary Release)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving adult prisoners in England and Wales were granted temporary release for attendance on a community-based employment or offence-related course during 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Records of the number of prisoners temporarily released under prison rule 6 are not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is planning any increase in the use of temporary release courses for adult prisoners in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sentenced adult prisoners may be granted temporary release for educational purposes. We have no immediate plans to increase the use of temporary release in this area.

  Settlers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has as to how many people from the Republic of Ireland settled in England, Scotland and Wales in each year from 1982 to 1987 inclusive, for each of the age groups 16 to 18 years, 18 to 25 years and 25 years and over;

  (2) what information he has as to how many people from Northern Ireland settled in England, Scotland and Wales in each year from 1982 to 1987 inclusive, for each of the age groups 16 to 18 years, 18 to 25 years and 25 years and over.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 18 February 1988]: British citizens, and Irish citizens travelling within the common travel area, are not subject to immigration control and Irish citizens do not need to apply to settle in Great Britain. Based on information from the labour force surveys, it is estimated that the usually resident population of Great Britain in mid-1986 included some 30,000 persons who had been born in the Republic of Ireland and had entered Great Britain since 1980. A corresponding estimate for persons from Northern Ireland, and the other information requested, are not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  State Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken to ensure that she is kept fully informed at all stages in future cases where an author or publisher 390
  approaches Her Majesty's Government through an intermediary to seek clearance for the publication of material about the security services; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Officials are aware of the appropriate steps to take in such cases.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she has any plans to introduce legislation to legalise wrongdoing by members of the security and intelligence services when such actions are undertaken in the defence of the realm;

  (2) if she has any plans to introduce legislation to legalise covert invasions of privacy by the security and intelligence services when such actions are undertaken in the defence of the realm; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 29 January, at column 397, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones).

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received correspondence from Lord Donaldson, Master of the Rolls, arising out of his "Spycatcher" judgment and correspondence between herself and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my usual practice to give information on correspondence from third parties. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, he wrote to me on 15 February and sent a copy to Lord Donaldson. Lord Donaldson subsequently sent me a copy of his reply to the hon. Gentleman.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the criteria used by Government Departments in judging parliamentary questions to be answerable only at disproportionate cost; if there are any guidelines in force to override financial restrictions if it is in the national interest; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 11 February, at column 297.

  Any parliamentary question which is likely to involve disproportionate expenditure — currently £200 — is referred to the responsible Minister before significant resources are committed. This amount is currently under review. It is not a rigid limit; it is for the Minister concerned to decide in each case whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify answering a question which would cost more than £200.

  Leak Inquiry Panels
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will list the names of members of all the Cabinet Office leak inquiries panels held since 1979;

  (2) what the criteria are for appointing members of Cabinet Office leak inquiries panels;

  (3) how many people are members of the Cabinet Office leak inquiries panel; how many inquiries have taken place during the last 11 months; and how many have taken place in each year since 1979;
  391
  (4) if she will list by name the current members of the Cabinet Office leak inquiries panel;

  (5) who appoints members of the Cabinet Office leak inquiries panel;

  (6) what was the cost of running the Cabinet Office leak inquiries panel during the present financial year and for each year since 1979;

  (7) how many civil servants have been (a) disciplined and (b) dismissed as a result of the findings of inquiries set up by the Cabinet Office leak inquiries panel since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the practice to comment on such matters.

  30-Year Rule (Information)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to review all statements made by Ministers in Her Majesty's Government since May 1979 in the light of information released under the 30-year rule to assess their accuracy regarding newly published information; and if she will seek to rectify any factual errors in statements or parliamentary answers made by Government Ministers since May 1979 which are identifiable from information made public at the Public Records Office on 1 January.

  The Prime Minister
  No. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind, I suggest he gets in touch with the appropriate Minister.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister what restrictions, other than statutory, Her Majesty's Government put on access by the National Audit Office to Government papers.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government do not seek to deny access to papers which, in the terms of the National Audit Office Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General reasonably requires for carrying out his examinations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline the specific requests recently made by the Irish Government at the Anglo-Irish Conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  Copies of the joint statements issued after the conference meetings on 2 and 16 February have been placed in the Library. These statements indicate the areas discussed at the meetings.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what arrangements have been made for the transfer of responsibility for homeless people from the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; and if he will issue a report on the steps which have been taken.

  (2) what new funding arrangements for voluntary organisations dealing with homelessness in Northern
  392
  Ireland he proposes after new homelessness legislation is introduced; and what consultation there will be regarding those changes.

  Mr. Needham
  Arrangements for the transfer to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive of responsibility for the temporary accommodation needs of homeless people will be included in a proposal for a draft housing Order in Council which is to be published in March 1988.

  Discussions on the practical issues arising from this proposed transfer are currently underway between the four health and social services boards and the Housing Executive.

  It is also intended to include a provision on the proposed draft order which would deal with funding arrangements for voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness. The legislation will be subject to the normal consultation process.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Gow
  to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland will come into being; and who are the members of the commission.

  Mr. Tom King
  I am glad to announce that the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland comes into being today. The membership of the commission is as follows:

  Chairman
  Mr. James Grew

  Deputy Chairman
  Mrs. Romayne Carswell

  Deputy Chairman
  Mr. Brian Garrett

  Members

  Mr. James Gardner

  Mrs. Denise Kennedy

  Mr. Kevin Murnaghan

  Mr. Brian Reid

  Mrs. Brenda Shiel

  The new commission which is being established under the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 reforms the police complaints system in Northern Ireland. The commission will have extensive supervisory powers in relation to complaints against members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The commission will be required to supervise any case involving death or serious injury and will have the power to supervise the formal investigation of any other complaint against the Royal Ulster Constabulary if it so wishes.

  An effective complaints system which has the confidence of the community can make a significant contribution towards strengthening the relationship between the public and the RUC. In this way the police will be better placed to combat terrorism and to maintain the rule of law.

  I believe that the new commission will make a material contribution to strengthening good relations between the RUC and the whole community in Northern Ireland.

  I should also like to express my appreciation of the very valuable work done by the outgoing Police Complaints Board.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present cost of(a) the renewal of and (b) application for a firearms certificate in Northern Ireland; and what percentage of the total costs involved these fees cover.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: The fee paid upon application for a firearms certificate is £33 and for the renewal of a firearms certificate £21. The fees are set at a level calculated to recover the full costs of operating the system of certification.

  31 December 1987

  31 December 1982

  31 December 1977

  Shotguns

  82,554

  77,392

  69,525

  ·22 Rifles

  12,219

  12,410

  12,491

  Other rifles

  1,195

  1,281

  1,423

  Handguns

  10,566

  10,288

  10,322

  Other firearms

  18,659

  16,431

  12,889

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the shotguns held on firearms certificates in Northern Ireland are semiautomatic.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Policy
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Britain's bilateral and multilateral overseas aid is currently committed on condition that recipient nations adhere to International Monetary Fund adjustment programmes.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The proportion of loans or credits in support of structural adjustment programmes provided by the international development institutions to which we contribute, such as the World Bank, is determined by the board of governors. Typically, the proportion is about 20 per cent.

  Programme aid expenditure in the current financial year in support of adjustment programmes agreed with the International Monetary Fund/World Bank, as a proportion of bilateral country aid expenditure, is expected to be 20 per cent.

  April 1987—February 1988

  Country

  Project

  Company

  Export Value

  ATP Element

  £ million

  £ million

  Belize

  Leyland Trucks

  British Leyland

  0·463

  0·117

  Burma

  Jute Carpet Mills

  Mackies

  0·040

  0·040

  Cameroon

  NW Electrification Project

  Balfour Beatty

  5·428

  1·362

  Cameroon

  Douala Port Telecoms

  Placons Ltd

  0·100

  0·100

  China

  Shandong Paper Mill

  Black Clawson International Ltd

  1·667

  0·502

  China

  Cosco Ships

  British Shipbuilders

  44·300

  13·578

  China

  Liaodong Bay Oil Training

  Global Engineering

  1·000

  0·080

  China

  Shanxi Mining College

  HSDE

  0·061

  0·061

  Cyprus

  Southern Conveyor

  SPP

  3·467

  0·870

  Djibouti

  Transhipment Study

  Ocean Mackenzie

  0·179

  0·179

  India

  India/UAE Submarine Cable

  STC

  24·450

  6·140

  394
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) shotguns, (b) ·22 rifles, (c) other rifles, (d) handguns and (e) other firearms are held on firearms certificates in Northern Ireland at the latest available date; and what were the numbers (i) five years and (ii) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  Ethiopia and Kampuchea
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will commit long-term development aid to Ethiopia and Kampuchea; and if it will be on a conditional basis.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on 11 January at column 3; and to the answer I gave the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 22 February at column 20.

  Aid-trade Provision
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the companies which have benefited from the aid-trade provision in each of the last five years, stating the amounts received, the projects and the developing countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 July 1987 at columns 73–76. Aid agreements signed with developing countries under the aid and trade provision in the current financial year to date are as follows:—
  395

  Country

  project

  Company

  Export Value

  ATP Element

  £ million

  £ million

  India

  HBJ Pipeline and Generators

  Toyo UK

  24·000

  6·060

  India

  Geological Appraisal

  Robertson Research International

  0·305

  0·305

  Indonesia

  Steel Bridging

  Mabey and Johnson

  10·702

  6·846

  Indonesia

  Navigational Aids

  Pharos Marine

  9·906

  7·007

  Indonesia

  Batam Island Power Study

  Kennedy & Donkin

  0·252

  0·252

  Indonesia

  Coal Fired Power Station Training

  BEI

  0·800

  0·800

  Indonesia

  Radio/TV Consultancy

  BBC

  0·250

  0·250

  Indonesia

  Batam Island Airport

  Technecon

  0·013

  0·013

  Jordan

  Walking Draglines

  Ransome and Rapier

  9·000

  4·654

  Kenya

  Rural Telecommunications

  Communication Supplies

  20·625

  7·300

  Malawi

  Power Transmission

  Balfour/HSPE/Kcnnedy

  8·080

  2·590

  Malawi

  UX D5 Telecoms Study

  GEC

  0·300

  0·300

  Malawi

  UX D5 Telecoms Stage I

  GEC

  5·580

  1·734

  Mozambique

  Trucks

  Leyland

  2·496

  0·661

  Malaysia

  Liwagu Hydroelectric Study

  Watermeyer Ewbank

  0·850

  0·850

  Malaysia

  Rural Water Supervision

  John Taylor

  3·000

  3·000

  Panama

  Gas Turbine Power Station

  JBE

  14·222

  6·727

  Peru

  Water Test Units

  Potopak

  0·088

  0·088

  Seychelles

  Mahe Water Consultancy

  Sir A Gibb

  0·122

  0·122

  Tunisia

  Polypropylene Plant Equipment

  Extrusion Systems

  0·188

  0·047

  Tunisia

  Sakmo II

  Froude Consine

  1·933

  0·584

  Turkey

  Circuit Breakers

  GEC Switchgear

  3·745

  0·940

  Zimbabwe

  Harare Airport Master Plan

  Sir A Gibb

  0·257

  0·257

  Pakistan
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost of the Government's contribution to the population welfare plan of the Pakistan Government.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Total commitments by the ODA to population programmes in Pakistan stand at nearly £8 million.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Maintenance Awards
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of total public recurrent expenditure on higher and further education has been attributable to student maintenance awards in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following figures relate to expenditure on further and higher education within the DES programme. The total of maintenance expenditure on mandatory awards in England and Wales and discretionary awards in England is shown as a percentage of recurrent expenditure on universities (Great Britain), voluntary and direct grant colleges (England) and on maintained colleges of further and higher education (England).

  Financial years

  Percentage attributable to student maintenance awards

  1979–80

  15

  1980–81

  15

  1981–82

  15

  1982–83

  15

  1983–84

  15

  1984–85

  15

  1985–86

  14

  Student Awards
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if a student seeking an award under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1987 who can demonstrate that his circumstances per se comply with Regulation 3(1)(b) needs also to demonstrate that his circumstances comply with one of the categories in Regulation 3(2) in order to qualify.

  Mr. Jackson
  No.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the interpretation of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1987, the categories in Regulation 3(2) are to be regarded as extending or limiting the face value application of Regulation 3(1)(b).

  Mr. Jackson
  Regulation 3(2) extends the circumstances which enable a student to qualify as independent under regulation 3(1)(b).

  National Leathersellers Centre
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he proposes to take in implementing his plans for the future funding of further education of the particular status of the national leathersellers centre at Nene college, Northampton with particular reference to the type of course provided and the type of students catered for; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what safeguards are proposed on future funding through the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to ensure that courses offered by the leathersellers centre at Nene college can continue, even though not all of them are designated advanced.

  Mr. Jackson
  Assuming the Education Reform Bill becomes law during the current Session of Parliament, Nene college will, under the Bill's provisions, become a free-standing corporate body and transfer from local
  397
  authority control to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector. The PCFC will be in funds to support all higher education courses at Nene college currently funded through the advanced further education pool. The Government have said that they will be open to local education authorities, as part of their continuing responsibility for non-advanced further education, to contract for the continued provision of FE courses at PCFC institutions. Authorities' continuing responsibility for such courses will be recognised in the assessment of grant-related expenditure for rate support grant purposes.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he has made for schools funded and run as joint shared facilities by district councils and county councils to opt out of the maintained sector.

  Mr. Dunn
  Under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill, any county or voluntary school, other than a primary school with fewer than 300 pupils, will be able to seek grant-maintained status. If the application is successful, property used or held by the former maintaining authority for the purposes of the school will transfer to the school. The Education Assets Board will be responsible for identifying and defining the property to be transferred and, by implication, the property which remains with the authority which previously owned it.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received seeking the addition to the Education Reform Bill of provisions to offer protection against possible abuse by any future Secretary of State of(a) the powers which the Bill grants to him over the content of the core curriculum, (b) the control which the Bill grants to him over the testing of children in schools and (c) the influence which the Bill grants to him on the dismissal of teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A number of organisations and individuals who wrote to us about our proposals for the national curriculum and assessment made points about the dangers of political control. We remain convinced that the safeguards built into the Education Reform Bill provide adequate protection against future abuse. The Bill does not grant my right hon. Friend influence over the dismissal of teachers, and my Department has not received representations on this matter.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment has been made of the number of children requiring conductive education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information is not available centrally. It is the duty of individual local education authorities to identify children in their area with special educational needs and to ensure that appropriate educational provision is available for them.

  "Your Choice for Life"
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total cost of production of the video "Your Choice for Life".
  398
  Mr. Dunn
  The total production cost of the AIDS video for schools "Your Choice for Life" was £103,902.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies of the video "Your Choice for Life" have so far been distributed to(a) schools, (b) youth groups and (c) other centres.

  Mr. Dunn
  Copies of the package, which contains the video and the users' guide, were distributed initially as follows:(a) schools, 5,897 (b) the youth service, 168; and (c) other centres, 702. Copies for the youth service were sent to national organisations and to principal youth officers, not to individual clubs. The figures relate to copies distributed free of charge in England only; further copies of the package are available for purchase.

  Departmental Videos
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that any future video produced by his Department stresses that those who are celibate before marriage and faithful within it and who do not use drugs are a virtually no-risk group as far as AIDS infection is concerned;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that any future video produced by his Department for use in schools does not promote the idea that practices other than normal heterosexual relations between husband and wife are acceptable.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that schools have a responsibility to inform pupils of the facts about AIDS and to encourage them to behave responsibly and to avoid behaviour which may place them at risk. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, it is the responsibility of governors of schools to decide whether and how sex education shall be given in their schools. Subject to that, pupils should understand how HIV infection may be passed on through sexual activity, both homosexual and heterosexual, and through the use of shared injecting equipment. They must also appreciate that the safest life style—and also the best—is to avoid casual or promiscuous sexual behaviour and to remain faithful to a single sexual partner, who is also faithful, and to avoid drug abuse.

  Far from encouraging youngsters to experiment sexually, any responsible programme of teaching about AIDS should alert them to the dangers. In particular, there is no place in any school in any circumstances for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the "norm", or which encourages homosexual behaviour by pupils. These messages are written into the DES/Welsh Office video package for schools, "Your Choice for Life", and will form part of any other initiatives from my Department to promote and support the education service's response to AIDS.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to ensure that any future video produced by his Department for use in schools does not promote the idea that sexual activity by children under the age of 16 is acceptable.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has made clear on many occasions the need for schools to ensure that pupils appreciate the physical, emotional and moral risks of early sexual experimentation and of casual or promiscuous
  399
  sexual behaviour. The threat posed by AIDS lends added urgency and importance to these aims. It is also essential that pupils understand the law as it relates to heterosexual and homosexual activity, including the respective ages of consent. These points were emphasised in the Department's circular 11/87, "Sex Education at School", and further stressed in the users' guide which forms an integral part of the DES/Welsh Office AIDS video resource package for schools "Your Choice for Life".

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to ensure that any future video produced by his Department for use in schools does not promote the idea that drug taking by non-injective means is acceptable.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department has a wide-ranging strategy to combat the drugs problem among young people: the aim is to prevent the misuse of drugs in any form. This is made clear in any materials produced.

  Proposls to establish voluntary aided schools

  Local Education Authority

  Name of school

  Denomination

  Size

  School type

  Gender

  Decision type

  Knowsley

  New St. Dom/St. Columba's RC Comprehensive

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Cleveland

  New CE Aided Primary

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved

  ILEA

  New mixed Secondary

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Rejected

  ILEA

  New mixed Secondary

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Rejected

  Gateshead

  New St. Edmund Campion RC Comprehensive

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Gateshead

  New St. Thomas More RC Comprehensive

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Surrey

  New RC First and Middle

  RC

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Leicestershire

  New RC Primary

  RC

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Derbyshire

  New Secondary

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Secondary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Kent

  New Primary

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved with modifications

  Berkshire

  New Ecumenical Middle

  Other

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Staffordshire

  New Primary

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Knowsley

  New Voluntary Aided Comprehensive

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Secondary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Buckinghamshire

  New RC Secondary

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Cheshire

  New CE Primary

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Dorset

  New CE Primary

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Enfield

  Latymer All Saints Primary

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Bury

  New Jewish Primary School

  Jewish

  240

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Manchester

  New RC Primary

  RC

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Bury

  St. Monica's RC Secondary

  RC

  975

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Rochdale

  New RC Secondary

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Staffordshire

  A New Primary School

  Non-denom

  210

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Coventry

  Cardinal Wiseman RC Secondary

  RC

  1,500

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Oldham

  New Mixed RC Secondary

  RC

  1,155

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Durham

  Shildon St. John's CE Infant and Junior

  C of E

  370

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Cheshire

  Winsford St. Joseph's RC Primary

  RC

  360

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Cambridgeshire

  William Law C of E Primary, Wessington

  C of E

  420

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Berkshire

  New Combined School

  RC

  420

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Berkshire

  New Combined School

  RC

  270

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Enfield

  New St. Ignatius RC Secondary

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Dorset

  Verwood CE Middle School

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  ILEA

  Lubavitch House School

  Jewish

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Rejected

  (segregated classes)

  St. Helens

  New RC High School

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  St. Helens

  New RC High School

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  St. Helens

  New RC Sixth Form College

  RC

  375

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Sefton

  New Primary School

  C of E

  350

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Bolton

  New Mount St. Joseph/St. Augustine RC Secondary

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  Bolton

  New Thornleigh/St. Cuthberts RC Secondary

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in the Official Report a table giving details of each application for voluntary aided status received since 1979, with details of the religious denomination, if any, involved, the size and character of the school, whether boys, girls or mixed, and whether the application was approved or rejected.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Details of applications decided since January 1985 are as follows. Those for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Most applications have been made to establish new aided schools in place of voluntary schools which have been closed.
  401

  Local Education Authority

  Name of school

  Denomination

  Size

  School type

  Gender

  Decision type

  Hertfordshire

  New Secondary School

  RC

  1,130

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Avon

  All Saints CE Primary School

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Rejected

  Waltham Forest

  St. George's RC Comprehensive

  RC

  1,000

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  Leicesterhire

  New Primary School

  C of E

  240

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Sefton

  Savio RC High School

  RC

  1,050

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Salford

  New Our Lady of Mount Carmel RC Secondary

  RC

  750

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  Trafford

  New RC Secondary School

  RC

  1,050

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Rejected

  Lancashire

  Our Lady's and St. John's RC High School

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  Lancashire

  St. Bede's RC High School

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  North Tyneside

  Wallsend CE Primary

  C of E

  240

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Berkshire

  New St. Ethelbert's RC Combined School

  RC

  480

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Harrow

  New St. George's First and Middle School

  RC

  560

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Dorset

  New CE First School Shaftesbury

  C of E

  120

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Kent

  New CE Primary School

  C of E

  224

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved with modifications

  Isle of Wight

  New Primary School

  C of E

  300

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Cleveland

  New RC/CE Primary School

  RC/C of E

  180

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Wirral

  New Comprehensive

  RC

  1,400

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Birmingham

  New CE Secondary

  C of E

  600

  Secondary

  Single-sex

  Rejected

  Staffordshire

  Great Haywood the Anson Primary

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Surrey

  New Secondary School

  RC

  930

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Rochdale

  New RC Secondary

  RC

  1,350

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  Dudley

  New Jesson's CE Primary

  C of E

  620

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Rejected

  Dudley

  New CE Secondary School

  C of E

  750

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Rejected

  Lancashire

  New Preston St. Bernard's RC Primary

  RC

  280

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Lancashire

  New Preston St. Maria Goretti RC Primary

  RC

  420

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Lancashire

  New RC Primary School

  RC

  84

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Norfolk

  New Primary School

  C of E

  80

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Lancashire

  New Primary School

  RC

  315

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Lancashire

  New Secondary

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Lancashire

  New Secondary

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Lancashire

  New Secondary

  RC

  900

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  South Tyneside

  New Jarrow St. Bede's RC Primary

  RC

  240

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Hertfordshire

  New CE Middle School

  C of E

  360

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Devon

  New Pinhoe CE Combined

  C of E

  280

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved with modifications

  Norfolk

  New CE Primary

  C of E

  80

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  North Tyneside

  St. Thomas More RC Comprehensive

  RC

  1,000

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Cambridgeshire

  New Inter-Church Secondary

  Unknown

  600

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Hampshire

  New CE Aided Junior and Infant School

  C of E

  n/a

  Primary

  Unknown

  Approved

  Ealing

  New Mixed High School

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Gloucestershire

  New 11–18 Grammar School

  Non-denom

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Durham

  New Tow Law Infant and Junior

  RC

  n/a

  Primary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Salford

  New Pope John RC High

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Knowsley

  New RC Comprehensive School

  RC

  n/a

  Secondary

  Co-ed

  Approved

  Aberdeen University (Funding)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the University Grants Committee to make a statement regarding the provision of transitional funding for Aberdeen university in the current and subsequent financial years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The University Grants Committee's initial allocations of recurrent grant to universities for 1988–89, and provisional allocations for 1989–90, were announced on 9 February. The provision of any additional transitional funding for Aberdeen is a matter for the UGC in the light of its continuing discussions with the university.

  Axe Valley (Secondary Education)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make a decision on the proposals from Devon county council on the reorganisation of secondary education in the Axe valley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The proposals are under consideration: my right hon. Friend will make a decision as soon as possible.

  St. George's Medical School
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to carry out an urgent inquiry into allegations of bias in the selection
  403
  of medical students at St. George's medical school; and if he will set up a general inquiry into discrimination against women and students from the ethnic minorities in selection for places in higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Commission for Racial Equality has carried out an inquiry into the allegations regarding St. George's hospital medical school, and published a report on 25 February. The school accepts that the allegations of bias are proven and has revised its admissions procedures.

  Admissions procedures are a matter for higher education institutions, within the law. My right hon. Friend considers that all institutions of higher education should monitor their applications processes to ensure that they are not acting in breach of their duties under Section 17 of the Race Relations Act 1976 by allowing either direct or indirect discrimination to take place. Discussions have already taken place with the relevent national admissions registries regarding possible monitoring of applicants to teacher training. The Department proposes to open discussions with the polytechnic central admissions system and with the Universities Central Council on Admissions on the possible introduction of such monitoring for their applicants.

  My right hon. Friend intends also very shortly to issue a consultative document regarding the monitoring of enrolments by ethnic origin in those institutions covered by the further education statistical record, including the polytechnics and colleges sector of higher education. He hopes that the universities will introduce a parallel system.

  My right hon. Friend has no evidence in general of discrimination against women, who constitute almost 50 per cent. of enrolments in higher education, a proportion which has increased in recent years.

  My right hon. Friend is committed to the development of a higher education system open to all those who are able to benefit from it, irrespective of gender or ethnic origin. He is confident that higher education institutions in general fully share that commitment.

  Inner London Education
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will indicate the number and the nature of responses from organisations and individuals involved in the field of adult education within inner London in response to his consultative document on the organisation of education within inner London, published in September 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many responses to the consultation document issued on 11 September 1987 indicated support for the retention of the Inner London education authority in its present unitary form;

  (3) if he will indicate the nature of responses from the churches within inner London to his document on the organisation of education within inner London, published in September 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) how many responses have been received since he issued his consultative document on the organisation of education in inner London on 11 September 1987; and how many of these relate to the inner London education authority in particular, and to education within inner London in general;

  (5) if he will indicate what the views of voluntary groups working in the field of special education were on his
  404
  consultative document on the organisation of education within inner London, published in September 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) if he will indicate the numbers of parents expressing concern about the future of nursery education within inner London in response to his consultative document on the organisation of education within inner London, published in September 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) if he will indicate the response of business interests, in particular the London Chamber of Commerce, to his consultation document issued on 11 September 1987 on the organisation of education in inner London; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) if he will indicate the views expressed by voluntary organisations within inner London in response to his consultative document on the organisation of education within inner London published in September 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department received some 5,500 responses on the proposals contained in the consultative document on the organisation of education in inner London, issued on 11 September 1987. Copies of the responses, other than those from individuals, have been placed in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we do not intend to publish analyses of these responses.

  Horniman Museum
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what additional resources will be made available to the London borough of Lewisham in the event of the Horniman museum being transferred to the borough;

  (2) if he intends to bring forward proposals to safeguard the Londonwide status of the Horniman museum;

  (3) what information he has on the average number of visitors to the Horniman museum over the last two years and the number of Inner London education authority schoolchildren who made visits during the same period and the division from which they came.

  Mr. Dunn
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) made it clear in the debate on the Inner London education authority on 17 February at column 1069 that the Government will be considering the arrangements that are most appropriate for securing the future of the Horniman museum. We will wish to consider all the possibilities. Information about visitors to the museum is published by the Inner London education authority in its annual report.

TRANSPORT

  M40 Extension
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth,Official Report, 23 February column 153, on the percentage of traffic using the M1 which will use the M40, what is the basis for his Department's calculation that a two-lane M40 extension will be adequate to meet expected traffic flows.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The M40 motorway extension between Oxford and Birmingham is proposed to he built as a dual three-lane motorway except for the section
  405
  between Waterstock and Wendlebury, where dual two-lanes are proposed. The forecast flows between Waterstock and Wendlebury in 2,006 are in the range 30,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day. This is well below the desirable maximum flow of 54,000 vehicles per day for a dual two-lane motorway. We await the inspector's report on the public inquiry into the proposals for the Waterstock to Wendlebury section.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 153, what is the evidence on which he bases his estimate that between 11 per cent. and 17 per cent. of traffic presently using the M1 will use the M40 when it is complete.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimates of the traffic effects of building the M40 extension, including the transfer of traffic from the M1, were based on forecasts derived from the Oxford to Birmingham route traffic model developed by the Department for use in designing the scheme.

  Travel Concessions
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the light of recent United Kingdom and European Community legislation forbidding sex discrimination, he will make an order under section 93(7)(f) of the Transport Act 1985 that would empower local authorities to grant travel concessions to men and women on a non-discriminatory basis.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to change the categories of persons eligible to receive travel concessions under the powers conferred on him by section 93(7)(f) of the Transport Act 1985.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for every EEC country, the vehicle excise duty or its equivalent, for(a) a 1,000 cc private car and (b) a 50-seat coach.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the United Kingdom, the vehicle excise duty for all private cars is £100, and for a 50-seat coach £84. Information is not available in a comparable form for other EEC states, some of which tax vehicles by reference to unladen weight or horse power rather than engine or seat capacity.

  Drigg (Development)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make additional transport infrastructure investment available in the Drigg area of West Cumbria, following the decision last year to make Drigg Britain's only low-level radioactive waste site.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We were already planning several major and minor schemes to deal with problem points on the A595/6 trunk route which serves Drigg. We shall take account of the volume of Drigg traffic as necessary in preparing these and any future proposals.

  Investment in local roads and rail access are matters for Cumbria county council and British Rail respectively.

  Roads (Capital Allocations)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total capital allocation for highway work allotted to London boroughs and the Greater London council for each year between 1983 and 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The total for each financial year is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1983–84

  91·0

  1984–85

  72·0

  1985–86

  104·5

  1986–87

  104·0

  1987–88

  108·8

  The figures up to and including 1986–87 include provision for parking. Expenditure requirements from 1986–87 onwards have been affected by the trunking of 72 miles of roads.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received from local authorities about the leaflet 1/87 "Measures to Control Traffic for the Benefit of Residents, Cyclists and Pedestrians"; and if he will make a statement on progress in implementing its proposals to reduce road deaths.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We received 16 written responses and a similar number of telephone inquiries from local authorities to traffic advisory unit leaflet 1/87. The main purpose of the leaflet was to publicise and exchange information on ways of controlling traffic in residential areas in the interests of improved safety and environmental improvement. Implementation is primarily a matter for local authorities.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish formal responses to replies received to the document "Road Safety: The Next Steps"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government's commitment to seek to reduce casualties by a third, and the report's range of ideas and suggestions for consideration have been generally welcomed. Discussions are continuing with a wide range of bodies on many aspects commented on in their memoranda, letters and at meetings with the Department.

  Action is being pressed ahead on urgent items such as vehicle safety improvements, research on road behaviour and attitudes, road engineering features and measures to improve the skills of young motorcyclists.

  We propose to take stock later this year of the directions and priorities that have emerged from the consultative process.

  M63 (Noise Insulation)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of progress in providing insulation for the homes and properties eligible for this assistance as a result of stage 4, junctions 3 to 5, of the improvements to the M63.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Insulation of homes which qualify because of construction noise is under way. When
  407
  the 90 or so houses in the priority category have been dealt with, we shall turn as quickly as possible to the 340 properties qualifying because of future traffic noise increases.

  Ferries
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to defray the cost of the weighing of freight before it is loaded on to class II and class II(A) roll-on/roll-off ferries in places which do not at present have weighing facilities.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department's consultative document No. 7, issued on 23 December 1987, proposed the individual weighing of all lorries before loading on to class II and II(A) roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries. Some of the responses to the Document drew attention to the cost of compliance with this proposal particularly in remote areas. These responses are now being considered.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Airbus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has received representations from British Aerospace or any of the Airbus partners or their Governments that additional launch aid may prove necessary for the A330–A340 programmes following the decline in the United States dollar; and whether such concerns have been aired in recent meetings between the representatives of these Governments.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom Government have agreed to provide up to £450 million in launch aid for the Airbus A330–A340 programmes. Senior representatives of British Aerospace have discussed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the effects on their Airbus business of the decline in the value of the dollar. They have not made any request for further launch aid for the A330–A340. Representatives of the United Kingdom Government have not discussed such a possibility at recent meetings with other Governments.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the implications of the United States dollar's fall for the prospects of economic and commercial viability of the A330–A340 projects.

  Mr. Atkins
  A full assessment of the A330–A340's economic and commercial viability, including the possible effects of exchange rate fluctuations, was made by the Government prior to its offer to British Aerospace of up to £450 million launch aid for these programmes.

  Consumer Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of caravans and parts (786.11,89), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information can be found in the "Business Monitor" series — copies of which are available in the Library. Sales data are in PQ 3522/3 for 408
  1981 to 1986 and PQ 381.2 for earlier years. The percentage exported and import penetration figures can be found in MQ 12 (previously M 12).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of electric lamp bulbs (778.21), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is as follows:

  £ million

  Sales1

  Imports (cif)

  Exports (fob)

  1975

  44

  8

  12

  1976

  51

  12

  17

  1977

  63

  17

  21

  1978

  75

  20

  22

  1979

  82

  20

  22

  1980

  87

  16

  23

  1981

  75

  18

  16

  1982

  76

  27

  16

  1983

  79

  29

  12

  1984

  79

  32

  13

  1985

  87

  37

  15

  1986

  94

  39

  16

  1 Sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25 up to 1980 and of 75 thereafter.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of car radios (762.1), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information can be found in "Business Monitor" PQ 365.2, "Broadcast receiving and sound reproducing equipment", for the fourth quarter of the years 1975 to 1977. This publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of electric kettles (775.86), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information is available in the "Business Monitors" PQ 368—Electrical appliances primarily for domestic use for 1975 to 1980 — and PQ 3460 — Domestic electrical appliances for 1981 to 1986 for the fourth quarter of each year. These publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of electric shavers (775.4), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of compact disc players (762.80), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output
  409
  of music centres (762.8), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information for 1981 to 1987 can be found in the fourth quarter issue of each year of "Business Monitor" PQ 3454, "Electronic consumer goods and miscellaneous equipment" (previously PQ 365.2, "Broadcast receiving and reproducing equipment"). This publication is available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of loadspeakers (764.2), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is published in "Business Monitor" PQ 3453, "Electronic sub-assemblies and active components" (formerly PA 364, "Radio and electronic components"), for the fourth quarter of each year. This publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of clock radios (762.2,8), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Clock Radios

  £ million 1979

  Sales1

  0·3

  Exports (fob)

  0·6

  Imports (cif)

  26·5

  1 Sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of amplifiers (764.2,92), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is as follows:

  Audio Frequency Amplifiers

  £ millions

  Sales1

  Exports (fob)

  Imports (cif)

  1979

  4·2

  11·1

  16·4

  1980

  5·2

  9·3

  17·7

  1981

  6·4

  n.a.

  22·4

  1982

  6·5

  8·4

  19·4

  1984

  4·6

  8·6

  19·3

  1985

  5·6

  12·2

  19·4

  1986

  6·5

  10·0

  14·7

  1 Sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25.

  n.a. Not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of alarm clocks (885·12 + 885·22), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is as follows:
  410

  Alarm Clocks

  £ millions

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  Sales1

  6

  7

  7

  8

  Imports (cif)

  5

  5

  5

  9

  Exports (fob)

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1 Sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total domestic output of automatic data processing machine parts (759·9), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975;

  (2) what was the total domestic output of automatic data processing machines, systems and units (752·0), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is published in the "Business Monitor" PQ 3302, "Electronic data-processing equipment" (formerly PQ 366, "Electronic computers") for the fourth quarter of each year, which is available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of domestic electric cookers and microwaves (775.86), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is as follows:

  Domestic electric cookers and microwave ovens

  £ million

  Sales1

  Imports

  Exports

  1975

  44

  2

  3

  1976

  54

  5

  4

  1977

  65

  5

  5

  1978

  79

  23

  8

  1979

  89

  17

  9

  1980

  98

  18

  9

  1981

  104

  54

  9

  1982

  98

  57

  8

  1983

  129

  111

  8

  1984

  143

  203

  10

  1986

  179

  257

  20

  1Sales data relate primarily to units in the United Kingdom with a minimum employment of 25 up to 1980 and of 100 thereafter.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of computer disks, tapes and cartridges (898,31,32), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total domestic output of motor cycles (785.1), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken up by imports in each year since 1975;

  (2) what was the total domestic output of bicycles (785.2), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information can be found in the "Business Monitor" seriesb — copies of which are
  411
  available in the Library. Sales data can be found in PQ 3633/34/50 for 1981 to 1986 and PQ 382 for earlier years. The percentage exported and import penetration figures can be found in MQ 12 (previously M 12).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output

  Sales, Exports and Imports of the Products of SITC 895.21 (Pens, Propelling Pencils and Parts)

  Sales

  Exports

  Imports

  Apparent consumption

  Exports/sales ratio

  Import penetration

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  Percentage

  1975

  25·3

  7·0

  12·5

  30·8

  28

  41

  1976

  29·1

  11·0

  17·6

  35·7

  38

  49

  1977

  37·2

  15·1

  22·9

  45·0

  41

  51

  1978

  49·0

  19·3

  24·8

  54·5

  39

  46

  1979

  52·6

  21·0

  29·9

  61·5

  40

  49

  1980

  60·7

  25·9

  32·9

  67·7

  43

  49

  1981

  46·0

  29·4

  32·1

  48·7

  64

  66

  1982

  35·7

  22·3

  38·1

  51·5

  62

  74

  1983

  43·8

  38·6

  41·9

  47·1

  88

  89

  1984

  —

  53·7

  55·0

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  54·5

  43·7

  56·6

  67·4

  80

  84

  1986

  68·9

  44·0

  58·9

  83·8

  64

  70

  19861

  47·6

  31·0

  40·9

  57·5

  65

  71

  19871

  55·2

  36·7

  51·3

  69·8

  66

  73

  1 January to September.

  Sources:

  Business Monitor PQ495 (up to and including the fourth quarter of 1982) and PQ4954 (from the first quarter of 1983).

  Overseas Trade Statistics for exports and imports.

  Definitions:

  Sales: Propelling and other mechanical pencils, and parts of fountain and stylographic pens, propelling and other mechanical pencils are excluded for the fourth quarter of 1983.

  Figures are not available for 1984 because of disclosure.

  Rolling ball pens are included from 1986 and refills for rolling ball pens are excluded throughout.

  Exports and imports
  SITC 895.21.

  Coverage: Sales figures relate only to firms employing 25 or more people up to and including 1980 and to firms employing 75 or more people from 1981. Therefore, the exports/sales ratios and import penetration figures are likely to overstate the true position.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total domestic output of electric food mixers and processors (775.73), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not available.

  Patent Royalties
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the latest figures for spending on patent royalties for the United Kingdom and the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Maude
  No information is available on expenditure on patent royalties within the United Kingdom, but figures are compiled and published annually on the United Kingdom's overseas royalties and similar transactions. An article in British Business of 4 September 1987, page 24, gives the most recent data.

  Information compiled by the OECD from reports by national authorities on foreign expenditure on intellectual property by OECD countries is given in the table. Information on expenditure within each country on intellectual property is not available for OECD countries.
  412
  of ball point pens, pencils and parts (859.21), the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information for SITC code 895.21 is as follows:

  OECD countries: Foreign expenditure on intellectual property1 in 1985

  US $ million

  United Kingdom

  598

  United States

  847

  Japan

  2,361

  Germany

  1,207

  France

  979

  Italy

  1,533

  Canada

  2753

  Austria

  115

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  388

  Denmark

  161

  Finland

  107

  Netherlands

  546

  Norway

  76

  Portugal

  33

  Spain

  236

  Sweden

  285

  Australia

  256

  Source: OECD.

  1 The amounts relate to foreign transactions in patent royalties, licences, trade marks and copyrights. There are variations in coverage between countries.

  2 Relates to 1984.

  London Regional Passenger Committee
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, pursuant to the reply of 18 February to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett),
  413
  Official Report, column 745–46, he will list in the Official Report the occupations of each of the 28 members of the London regional passenger committee.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information, which in some cases may have changed since appointment, is as follows:

  Dr. E. C. Midwinter (Chairman)
  Director of the Centre for Policy on Aging.

  Mr. S. J. Beavan
  Research Director.

  Mrs. B. E. Carroll-Brown
  Civil Servant (retired).

  Mr. R. J. Caton
  Secretary of a national charity.

  Mr. D. Chaney
  Switchboard Operator.

  Mrs. H. M. Fogg
  Housewife and part-time English language teacher.

  Mr. R. P. Govindia
  Education Officer.

  Miss J. Harvey
  Charity worker (retired).

  M. C. S. Heaps
  Solicitor.

  Mr. M. J. Kilker
  Postman.

  Miss F. C. Lawson
  Local Authority Housing Needs Manager (retired).

  Mr. L. A. Mack
  Employee of Methodist Church.

  Mrs. D. Manley
  Employed in publishing.

  Mrs. S. C. May
  National Treasurer of Women's Institute.

  Mrs. J. Phillips
  Housewife.

  Mrs. F. M. P. Rea
  General Secretary, national charity.

  Mr. M. J. Seddon
  Data Processing Executive.

  Mr. D. J. H. Senior, OBE
  Deputy Director, London Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. G. P. Theobald
  Company Director (semi-retired).

  Mrs. J. Williams
  Secretary at a national charity.

  Ms. M. Winterbotham
  Housewife, previously employed by local authority Health Council.

  Mrs. K. Wood
  Speech Therapist.

  Since the list of membership was first recorded in the Official Report at column 746 one member of the Committee—Mr. S. Bradshaw—has resigned.

  Exports
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing the value of exports from each standard planing region of the United Kingdom to the other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Data of value of exports on a regional basis are not processed.

  House of Fraser (Holdings) plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser (Holdings) plc have been made aware of a possible breach by Lonrho plc of section 204 to 206 of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to share dealings in House of Fraser plc during the period from the 414
  date of the inspector's interim report into share dealings in House of Fraser to the date of its acquisition by Al Sayed Investment and Trust (UK) Ltd.

  Mr. Maude
  The inspectors are aware of representations made in relation to an alleged breach of sections 204 to 206 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Consarc (Exports)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's involvement in the export by the Consarc company to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of furnaces capable of making carbon carbon for nuclear war heads.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In February 1985 the Government amended the Export of Goods (Control) Order to prevent the export of some equipment needed to complete a contract undertaken by Consarc in the USSR. The action followed an assessment that the Soviet plant might be used to manufacture carbon-carbon for strategic uses. The equipment to be supplied under the contract was not at the time subject to multilateraly agreed COCOM controls and therefore not controlled by national export licensing of the United kingdom or other COCOM partners. Subsequently, COCOM partners agreed to amend their controls similarly.

  Outward Direct Investment
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the totals of outward direct investment by Britain in the Third world and by the Third world in Britain in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The latest available information was given in my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry's reply to the hon. Member on 4 November 1987 at columns 717–720. Information for 1986 will be published shortly.

  Belgian Textile Industry
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the investigation by the European Commission of the Belgian Government's proposed £34 million aid scheme for its textile industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The European Commission has yet to announce its decision concerning the proposed aid.

  Turkish Acrylic Yarn
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the level of imports of acrylic yarn from Turkey for each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom imports of acrylic yarn from Turkey were: 1985, £1·6 million; 1986, £8·1 million; and for the 11 months to November 1987, £9·8 million.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to how many workers employed by United Kingdom acrylic spinners are on short-time working as a result of imports of acrylic yarn from Turkey; if he has received any representations on this subject; and if he will make a statement.
  415
  Mr. Alan Clark
  I understand that no official statistics are available. However, I have received information from the industry that there is now extensive short-time working in this sector. I have received many representations from hon. Members and the industry, and I met representatives of the Confederation of British Wool Textiles on 9 February. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on 26 February 1988.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to encourage the European Economic Community to place greater restrictions on imports of Turkish acrylic yarns.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is nothing I can add to the Answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on 26 February 1988.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the aid received in each of the last three years by textile companies, man-made fibre companies and clothing companies under the following categories(a) regional development grants, (b) regional selective assistance and (c) other assistance, under the Industrial Development Act 1982; and how many of the companies involved had less than 500 employees.

  Mr. Atkins
  Payments to these industries1 in the last three calendar years were as follows:

  £ million

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Regional development grants (RDG)2

  8·0

  21·5

  11·3

  Regional selective assistance

  7·2

  9·4

  9·7

  Other schemes3

  0·5

  0·2

  0·4

  1 Payments have been categorised by reference to the 1968 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) in respect of the original RDG scheme (textiles, including man-made fibres—order XIII; clothing and footwear—order XV). For all other schemes of assistance including the revised RDG scheme data has been provided by reference to the 1980 SIC (textiles—class 43, man-made fibres—class 26 and clothing—class 45, excluding footwear).

  2 Consists of original and revised RDG payments.

  3 Other assistance has been defined as payments under the Support for Major Projects, Innovation Linked Investment, and Advanced Manufacturing Technology schemes.

  Information on the proportion of these payments made to companies with fewer than 500 employees is not available.

  GATT
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of the general agreement on tariffs and trade working party on trade and workers' rights.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The proposal by the United States Administration for the establishment of a GATT working party to examine the relationship between labour standards and trade was discussed at the GATT council on 4 February. No conclusions were reached. Informal discussions are continuing to find a consensus solution, but opposition remains widespread, particularly from developing countries.

  Post Office (Delivery Service)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will meet the chairman of the Post Office, to raise the subject of increasing complaints about the deterioration in the Post Office's delivery service.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has discussed the quality of the Post Office's service regularly at his meetings with the chairman. We agree with the chairman that the service needs to be improved and are in no doubt about his commitment to improve it.

  Commercial Arbitration
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress the departmental advisory committee on arbitration is making in its consideration of the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration and the Arbitration Acts.

  Mr. Maude
  The departmental advisory committee on arbitration put out a consultative document on the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) model law on international commercial arbitration in October last year. Responses are presently being received. It is hoped that the committee will be able to put forward a recommendation on the model law in the near future. The committee has already reported on a number of other matters concerning arbitration law and practice. I have arranged for copies of the committee's recommendations to date to be placed in the Library.

  Child-resistant Closures
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will include bleach in the regulations requiring child-resistant closures for certain types of household products.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: I am not prepared to extend the Child Resistant Packaging (Safety) Regulations to cover household bleach, since the best medical advice available from leading paediatricians shows that it rarely if ever causes actual injury to children who ingest it. Indeed, the Scobie committee, which made the case for child-resistant closures for hazardous household chemicals, recommended them for bleach only with over 10 per cent. active chlorine. All household bleaches contain less than this.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what would be the cost to the balance of payments of closing the Scottish coalfield and importing the equivalent amount of coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  Colliery closures are a matter for British Coal. But the best defence against the situation described is for the industry to produce reliable supplies of coal at prices which are competitive on the world market.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Cheque Encashment Service
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any proposals to change the
  417
  arrangements for the cheque encashment service at the Post Office in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are at present no proposals to alter the long-standing arrangements for cheque encashment at the post offices in the Members' Lobby and the Central Lobby. However, following representations from the Post Office, the Services Committee recommended on 2 February that the fee for cashing non-standard "club" cheques should be increased to £1·25 from 1 April 1988. Normal cheques will continue to be charged at the present rate of 20p per cheque. The increased fee for club cheques was approved by the House of Commons Commission on 8 February 1988, on the basis of the long-standing policy that Members and others should pay the going rate for this service.

  Veal
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he takes to satisfy himself that no veal sold in House of Commons restaurants has come from calves killed by methods of ritual slaughter.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am satisfied that the General Manager of the Refreshment Department, who has responsibility for purchasing veal for the restaurants in the House, has been given the necessary assurances by his suppliers to this effect.

DEFENCE

  Consultants
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the cost to his Department of employing management or computer consultants for each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on management and computer consultancies are as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  2·0

  1985–86

  3·8

  1986–87

  14·5

  1987–88

  114·8

  1 Estimate.

  Figures for earlier years cannot be produced without disproportionate effort.

  Stand-off Nuclear Missile
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the current discussions on the possible development of a stand-off nuclear missile envisage the use of existing warheads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Any weapon system acquired by the United Kingdom as a successor to the free fall bombs which currently provide our independent sub-strategic nuclear capability, would be armed with a new British nuclear warhead. However, no decisions on this have yet been taken.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the current discussions on the possible 418
  development of a nuclear stand-off missile flow from the Montebello decisions on the modernisation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's nuclear inventory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The development of a tactical air to surface missile for NATO's aircraft was among the measures recommended by SACEUR in his 1985 proposals for implementing the Montebello decision.

  Ionising Radiation
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his reply of 25 February to the hon. Member for Davyhulme in regard to the levels of ionising radiation to which members of Her Majesty's forces were exposed in the course of the British atmospheric nuclear weapons test and experimental programme(a) what proportion of those participating were issued with personal dosimeters, (b) what was the highest dose to which any individual was exposed, (c) how this level compared with the maximum permitted dosage and (d) how this level compares with the current maximum permitted dosage.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  About a quarter of participants were issued with dosimeters. The highest exposure recorded, for two individuals, was 30R, equivalent in modern dosimetric terms to 200 milliSieverts effective dose equivalent. The current United Kingdom limit for radiation workers is 50 mSv per annum. ICRP recommends that planned special exposures above the annual limit should not exceed 250 mSv in the lifetime of any individual. The most recent NRPB guidance suggests that the risks associated with an average of 15 mSv per annum, corresponding to about 300 mSv in a working career of 20 years, are not unacceptable, although it recommends that all exposure should be "as low as reasonably practicable", the ALARP principle.

  International Commission of Historians
  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has taken steps to assess whether the report of the independent international commission of historians is consistent with the earlier findings of his Department.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 February, the Ministry of Defence, in conjunction with other interested Departments, is conducting a review of the results of the investigation which it carried out in 1986 into the fate of captured British service men and the involvement, if any, of the then Lieutenant Waldheim in the light of the report of the independent international commission of historians. The commission had access to a wider range of sources than was available to the team which carried out the investigation in 1986, and we therefore wish to reconsider the question taking account of the commission's findings.

  It is our intention that the review, which will re-examine all aspects relating to the fate of the captured British service men, should be as thorough and comprehensive as possible. Anyone who has concrete evidence that might be relevant to the review is encouraged to submit it to the Ministry of Defence for examination by the review team.

  The review will be pursued as quickly as is consistent with proper consideration of the evidence and the need for accuracy. When it had been completed, it is the intention that a report should be published.
  419
  I am grateful to Professor Sir Harry Hinsley, the master of St. John's college, Cambridge, for agreeing to scrutinise the results of the review in order to ensure its objectivity and thoroughness.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the review team to report to me on the conduct of the review. I very much hope that anyone who has information to give will do so without delay so that the review can be completed as soon as possible.

  Volunteer and Reserve Forces
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on his Department's consideration of the outstanding recommendations of the National Employer Liaison Committee for the Volunteer and Reserve Forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  Careful consideration has been given to the central recommendation made by the National Employer Liaison Committee that a major publicity campaign should be set in hand covering a number of years to win and maintain employers' support for the volunteer reserves. I am now able to announce that this recommendation has been accepted and work is now proceeding on its implementation.

  Red Cross Sign
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of the Red Cross sign for party political purposes, by the Labour party in a pamphlet about the National Health Service; and if he will instigate immediate proceedings to protect the rights to the use thereof residing with his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 17 February 1988, the British Red Cross Society drew to the attention of my Department a pamphlet and a leaflet published by the Labour party about the National Health Service which appeared to bear the Red Cross emblem or an emblem closely resembling it. Under the terms of the Geneva conventions, Her Majesty's Government are under an obligation to take measures to prevent unauthorised use of the Red Cross emblem or any sign or designation which constitutes an imitation of it. The Geneva Conventions Act 1957 makes it an offence for any person to use the Red Cross emblem without the authority of the Defence Council, or, without the authority of the Board of Trade, any design so nearly resembling it as to be capable of being mistaken for it. As no such authorities have been given, the matter has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Army Medical Board
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards the Army has to prevent false information being given to the Army medical board.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Army medical board considers both the clinical assessment and information provided by the patient. The clinical assessment may be confirmed by a second opinion, where this is considered appropriate, by the doctor treating the patient.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which type of Army medical board sat on the case of Captain (retired) Fred Holroyd in June 1975.
  420
  Mr. Freeman
  No medical board was held on Captain (Retd) F. Holroyd in June 1975. However, a full medical board was held on 1 July 1975, following a special confidential report written in June 1975.

  Castledillon (Troop Deployments)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a Royal Engineer survey troop or a Northern Ireland training and advisory team was stationed at Castledillon in 1974–75.

  Mr. Freeman
  A Royal Engineer survey troop was stationed at Castledillon at that time. There was no Northern Ireland training and advisory team stationed there.

  Northern Ireland Training and Advisory Team
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role and composition of the Northern Ireland training and advisory team.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are two Northern Ireland training and advisory teams responsible for advising and assisting in the training of all units, due to deploy to Northern Ireland in the internal security role; a team of 41 officers and men for units of the United Kingdom Land Forces and a team of 43 for units of the British Army of the Rhine.

  Captain Holroyd (Allegations)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police carried out their investigation into the allegations of Captain (retired) Fred Holroyd; what conclusions were reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 8 February 1988, at column 83.

  Service Personnel (Downgrading)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1987,Official Report, column 311, he will specify the exact regulations under which the downgrading of Army service men and women may be recommended.

  Mr. Freeman
  The regulations under which medical downgrading of Army personnel may be recommended is contained in the following Service publications: "A Joint Service System of Medical Classification 1976" (JSP 346); The PULHEEMS Administrative Pamphlet 1987; Regulations for Army Medical Services 1975; Queens Regulations For the Army 1975 and where relevant, the Army Commissioning Regulations 1981.

  Medical Reports (False Information)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards there are to prevent false information being given in non-adverse medical reports.

  Mr. Freeman
  The terms "adverse" or "non-adverse" are inappropriate to medical reports. The medical report is exclusively a clinical summary of the patient's condition which recommends an appropriate fitness/health grading. It does not comment upon the character or ability of the individual to perform his duties.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment (Calculations)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, in the light of the recent figures for unemployment in Durham compiled by the unemployment unit, a copy of which has been sent to him, he has any plans to review his Department's method of calculating those figures; and if he will made a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no such plans. The count of claimants at unemployment benefit offices remains the only reasonable means of obtaining monthly unemployment figures, including figures for local areas such as Durham.

  YTS
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the number of YTS places needed in order to ensure that there will be enough suitable places for every individual in every area; and if he plans to provide more places than there will be entrants to ensure that entrants have a choice of places.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government have given an undertaking that a YTS place will be made available for all 16 and 17-year-olds who want one. The Manpower Services Commission will provide 545,000 YTS places in 1988–89. This figure is over 100,000 more than the expected number of YTS trainees, and sufficient to ensure that young people do not necessarily have to take the first place offered to them.

  Percentage change over:

  Region

  One year

  Two years

  Three years

  Four years

  South East

  -23·1

  -24·6

  -22·6

  -17·2

  (Greater London)

  (-18·3)

  (-18·9)

  (-15·7)

  (-9·3)

  East Anglia

  -25·4

  -25·9

  -21·6

  -18·3

  South West

  -20·7

  -22·8

  -19·9

  -13·5

  West Midlands

  -19·2

  -21·4

  -21·5

  -19·4

  East Midlands

  -17·5

  -18·2

  -17·0

  -11·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -15·8

  -16·6

  -12·3

  -7·0

  North West

  -15·5

  -17·5

  -16·9

  -14·9

  North

  -14·0

  -17·4

  -15·9

  -10·8

  Wales

  -16·3

  -21·1

  -19·0

  -13·5

  Scotland

  -12·2

  -8·3

  -5·6

  -2·5

  Great Britain

  -18·1

  -19·4

  -17·5

  -13·3

  Northern Ireland

  -7·1

  -1·4

  4·9

  5·6

  United Kingdom

  -17·6

  -18·7

  -16·7

  -12·5

  Employment Service
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the new employment service.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), on 28 January, at column 333.

  Since then, the Government have set out in the recent White Paper, "Training for Employment", on priorities for the Employment Service; in particular to help unemployed people, and especially long-term unemployed people, to get back into work. An important part of this task will be to serve as a gateway to the new training for employment programme through jobcentre applications and restart interviews.

  YTS (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 18 years in the Leeds, West constituency and in the Leeds metropolitan district council area, will be offered a YTS place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1988–89, about 2,400 young people in the Leeds metropolitan district area are expected to be offered a place on YTS. A separate figure for Leeds, West is not readily available.

  The Government have given an undertaking that a YTS place will be made available for all young people under the age of 18 years who want one.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage January's unemployment figures have changed in each region of the United Kingdom over the last(a) year, (b) two years, (c) three years and (d) four years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is available from the Library. The table shows in percentage terms, the change in the numbers of unemployed claimants, excluding school leavers, adjusted for discontinuity and seasonality, in each standard economic planning region of the United Kingdom, over the periods requested by January 1988.

  The Government have identified the employment service as a possible candidate as a departmental agency under the approach described in the efficiency unit report "Improving Management in Government — The Next Steps". We shall be looking closely at how agency status for the employment service could help to improve efficiency in the use of resources and in the delivery of services to the public.

  Tourism (North-West) England
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss the promotion of tourism in the north-west of England.
  423
  Mr. Lee
  I have met the chairman of the British Tourist Authority a number of times in the past few months to discuss matters relating to the promotion of tourism in all parts of the country.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  ANC and SWAPO
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends meeting representatives of(a) the African National Congress of South Africa or (b) the South West Africa People's Organisation of Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union will take place; and what guidelines are to be discussed on co-location and the future work of the Western European Union.

  Mr. Eggar
  The next ministerial Council of the Western European Union will take place in the Hague on 18–19 April. Our approach to the issue of co-location remains as set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) on 5 November 1987. The meeting will consider how to implement the platform on European security interests which was adopted at the last ministerial meeting.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken and what statements have been made, by the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union, in response to the exchange of views on European security between the presidential committee of the Western European Union and the committee of the supreme soviet of the Soviet Union in Moscow; and what proposals there are to further these exchanges of views in Paris.

  Mr. Eggar
  The visit to Moscow in April 1987 by a delegation from the Western European Union Assembly was not discussed by the Western European Union ministerial Council at its meetings in that month or in October. It is for the Assembly itself, not for the Governments of WEU member states, to decide whether and how to pursue the contacts made during it.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Western European Union, in the light of changing nuclear defence policy, and on the part it has to play in the verification processes.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no change in our nuclear defence policy, nor in that of the North Atlantic Alliance. The Western European Union does not have a role to play in verification of nuclear arms control agreements reached between the United States and the Soviet Union.

  Weapons Limitation
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to 424
  examine the evolution of relations between Eastern and Western Europe and to report to Parliament at regular intervals on satisfactory systems of verification, the balance in negotiations in the context of the three baskets and the progress towards an early conclusion of an agreement on the limitation of conventional weapons and chemical weapons.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is already policy to keep East-West relations continually under review, and we report regularly to the House on the topics mentioned.

  Belize
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Government about the sudden ending of military assistance to the Government of Belize; and with what result.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have expressed our concern to the United States Government about the ending of the United States military assistance programme to Belize.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy, in the current New Zealand discussions on the future of Antarctica, to give scientists a central role in future policy forming and decision taking in relation to Antarctica.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Antarctic treaty meeting in question was the most recent round of the negotiations aimed at establishing an Antarctic minerals regime. Within the treaty and the successful system of agreements which has developed from it, we and our treaty partners seek independent expert scientific advice (eg from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) as part of the regular policy-formulation process. The minerals regime currently being negotiated would continue that practice, through the establishment of an advisory committee to ensure the availability of relevant scientific, and other, advice at all important stages.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the assessment of environmental impact in Antarctica.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the XIVth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting (Rio de Janeiro, 5–16 October 1987) the United Kingdom tabled a recommendation reflecting work already done by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and by the United Nations environment programme. This recommendation, which was adopted, sets out guidelines for carrying out environmental impact assessments in advance of any scientific and logistic activities likely to have a significant impact on the Antarctic environment. This is already the practice of the British Antarctic Survey.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to protect unique life forms in Antarctica.

  Mr. Eggar
  Protection of all Antarctic life forms is already provided for under the Antarctic treaty agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna 1964, the convention for the conservation of antarctic seals 1972, and the convention for the conservation of antarctic
  425
  marine living resources 1980. Both conventions have been ratified by the United Kingdom, while effect was given to the agreed measures by the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the need for tighter controls for the preservation of the ecosystem of Antarctica.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since the inception of the Antarctic treaty in 1959 the United Kingdom has been a prime mover in negotiating a progressive series of environmental protection measures for Antarctica. We continue to be guided by scientific advice as to any necessary precautionary measures concerning the preservation of the Antarctic ecosystem. We shall be taking full account of such advice in our preparations for this year's Antarctic living resources meetings.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of disturbance in Antarctica on the regulatory efect on the global climate.

  Mr. Eggar
  As part of the international programme of environmental research in Antarctica, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey and the Meteorological Office have been actively involved with other Antarctic treaty countries in experimental studies of the Antarctic ozone hole, most recently in September 1987. The results of their studies will be presented at an international meeting in Colorado in May.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for legal safeguards for mining in Antarctica.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Antarctic treaty 1959 makes no mention of minerals resources, but the consultative parties, including the United Kingdom, have recognised that unregulated minerals activity would be undesirable. We are consequently participating in the negotiation of an Antarctic minerals regime which would ensure that if minerals activity ever takes place it should do so within a legal framework of operational control and environmental protection.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the regulatory committee of 10 nations about the future of mining in Antarctica.

  Mr. Eggar
  No regulatory committee of this kind yet exists. Such bodies are envisaged as part of the future Antarctic minerals regime currently under negotiation by the Antarctic treaty consultative parties.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Bulgarian authorities about the denial of human rights to the ethnic Turks in Bulgaria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We share the hon. Member's concern about reports of human rights abuses in Bulgaria. We have discussed the position of the ethnic Turks with the Bulgarian authorities on several occasions and will continue to do so until it is clear that there is no longer any problem. My right hon. and learned Friend raised the 426
  matter with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister during his visit to this country in September 1987. The United Kingdom and others have also raised the question at CSCE meetings and in other international forums, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Turkey
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of the increased trade with Turkey, he proposes to increase diplomatic representation in that country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following a recent inspection of Her Majesty's diplomatic posts in Turkey and in the light of our increased trade with Turkey, the commercial sections at Her Majesty's embassy in Ankara and at the consulate-general in Istanbul have been significantly strengthened.

  Currently staffing levels are considered to be sufficient to meet exporters' present requirements, but we are keeping the situation under constant review.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of(a) the steps taken to speed up the interview relating to the application for entry clearance of M.A., (ref. Imm 63217) about whom the hon. Member for Stretford wrote on 10 November 1987 and subsequently and (b) the expected date of interview; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 26 February 1988.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he gives to entry clearance officers concerning those applicants for entry clearance who do not have to provide information about accommodation and funds and who are not subject, on acceptance, to an initial 12-month restriction on first arrival in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. Entry clearance officers consider applications in accordance with the relevant provisions of the immigration rules (HC 169, as amended).

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for the different parts of the Indian sub-continent the latest information he has on the length of time from application for entry clearance to first interview for those now being interviewed, and the expected time for those applying now for(a) fiancés, (b) fiancées, (c) husbands, (d) wives and (e) dependant children.

  Mr. Eggar
  The waiting time in the Indian sub-continent as at 31 December 1987 were:

  Actual waiting time (in months)

  Expected (estimated)

  New Delhi

  Fiancé(e)s

  7

  7

  Spouses

  3

  3

  Dependent children

  3

  3

  Q1

  0

  0

  Bombay

  427

  Actual waiting time (in months)

  Expected (estimated)

  Fiancé(e)s

  9

  9

  Spouses

  6

  6

  Dependent children

  6

  6

  Q1

  2

  2

  Dhaka

  Fiancé(e)s

  8

  8

  Spouses

  8

  8

  Dependent children

  8

  8

  Q1

  3

  3

  Islamabad

  Fiancé(e)s

  18

  16

  Spouses

  8

  10

  Dependent children

  8

  10

  Q1

  3

  3

  Karachi

  Fiancé(e)s

  10

  10

  Spouses

  5

  5

  Dependent children

  5

  5

  Q1

  2

  2

  There are no queues in Madras and Calcutta.

  Applications from persons with a claim to the right of abode are placed in queue 1.

  Terrorism (Nuclear Materials)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to raise at the NATO Ministers meeting on 2 and 3 March NATO initiatives against prospective illicit use of nuclear materials by terrorist groups.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy at the NATO Ministers meeting on 2 and 3 March to raise the issue of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty article VI obligations of NATO member states in the context of the 1983 Montebello NATO agreement on nuclear force modernisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The decisions taken at Montebello, including the agreement to remove 1,400 nuclear warheads from NATO's stockpile, are in keeping with NATO members' obligations under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty. The recent conclusion of the INF agreement and our commitment to a START treaty are further illustrations of NATO's desire to bring about reductions in the level of nuclear weapons. However, nothing in the non-proliferation treaty requires the nuclear weapons states to allow their existing nuclear weapons to decay into obsolescence.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy at the NATO Ministers meeting on 2 and 3 March to raise the issue of the re-use of nuclear materials, including plutonium and highly enriched uranium, from warheads dismantled under the intermediate nuclear forces agreement of December 1987, in support of future NATO nuclear weapon modernisation programmes.
  428
  Mr. Eggar
  The INF treaty does not provide for the elimination or dismantlement of warheads. Re-use of fissile material from such warheads is entirely a matter for the United States and Soviet Union, not one for the Alliance.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to raise at the NATO Ministers meeting on 2 and 3 March the implications for the continued adherence by NATO member states to the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty of United States research and development outside land-based laboratories of technologies in the strategic defence initiative star wars programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty is a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union only. The United States strategic defence initiative is aimed at conducting research which is permitted by the treaty. The Soviet Union is also conducting an extensive research programme into ballistic missile defence.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Malaysia concerning the detention of prisoners without trial.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representatives of the Twelve have discussed the recent detentions under the Internal Security Act with the Malaysian authorities and have made known our collective concerns.

  UNESCO
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the Government's policy towards contacts with UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received no formal representations.

  New Zealand
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit New Zealand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to visit New Zealand.

  Hong Kong (Crown Service Employees)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the categories of employees of the Hong Kong Government who are regarded as being in Crown Services for purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Eggar
  For the purposes of registration of certain British nationals as British citizens under section 4 of the British Nationality Act 1981,"Crown Service under the Government of a dependent territory"
  includes service by all persons employed as Hong Kong civil servants or as members of the Hong Kong judiciary.

  International Committee of the Red Cross
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the significance of the worldwide services of the Red Cross in relieving suffering in all its aspects; and what recent contact he and his officials have had with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Mr. Eggar
  We consider that the International Committee of the Red Cross has a vital role to play in promoting the 1949 Geneva Conventions and offering humanitarian relief to civilians and military victims in times of armed conflict, internal strife and other man-made disasters.

  The President of the ICRC, Mr. Sommaruga, paid an official visit to the United Kingdom shortly after his appointment in June 1987. He called on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development and myself. I met the vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mr. Aubert, in Geneva on 18 February. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in Geneva and London enjoy regular contact with the ICRC.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial contribution the United Kingdom makes towards the Red Cross in Geneva; and when the figure concerned will next be reviewed.

  Mr. Eggar
  We gave approximately £7 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1987. Of this, £240,000 went to the regular budget. This contribution is reviewed annually and the estimate for 1988–89 has been submitted for parliamentary approval. In response to ICRC special appeals, we contributed £6·75 million in 1987.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations from(a) the United States administration or (b) the United States Congress concerning plans to air freight British Nuclear Fuels Limited or United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority origin plutonium to the United States for onward shipment to Japan.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United States Administration approached us in 1986 about guidelines for the return to Japan by air of plutonium recovered after the reprocessing by British Nuclear Fuels plc of Japanese spent nuclear fuel. The guidelines subsequently formed an annex to the United States-Japan nuclear co-operation agreement signed on 4 November 1987. The United States Congress has made no representations to us on this matter.

SCOTLAND

  Consultant Surgeons
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, for each consultant surgeon in receipt of a merit award, he will give statistical information on(a) the level A + A, B and C, (b) their average waiting time for in-patient treatment, (c) the length of their waiting list for in-patient treatment, and (d) their average waiting time for an out-patient appointment.
  430
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The names of award holders are confidential, subject only to their being available in confidence to consultants generally within their board on request to the chief administrative medical officer.

  Medical Posts
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of medical posts unfilled in each Scottish health board area, in junior and senior grades.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of medical posts currently vacant is not available centrally.

  Translucent-roofed Buildings
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to exempt translucent-roofed buildings up to 30 sq m in ground area from building regulations.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A public consultation paper on the reform of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations, issued on 30 November 1987, has invited comment on the proposals to exempt consevatories, greenhouses, carports and covered areas of up to 30 sq and porches of up to 8 sq m.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications were received in the last year for which figuers are available from registered fishing ports in Scotland for grants for modernisation or construction of fishing vessels; and what proportion were successful.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The new national grants scheme for the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels came into force on 4 July 1987. Between that date and 31 January 1988, a total of 45 applications for grants towards the costs of construction of fishing vessels from fishermen based in Scotland was received and 15 of these have been approved to date. The corresponding figures for modernisation projects are 688 and 634.

  No-fault Compensation
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been carried out into the feasibility of a no-fault compensation scheme to replace the present law of negligence in cases of medical accidents in Scotland; and what information he has as to in which other countries such a scheme is operating.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been no studies relating only to Scotland. The British Medical Association recently submitted the report of a working party on no fault compensation to the Department of Health and Social Security and Scottish Home and Health Department. The introduction of no-fault compensation was examined by the Royal Commission on civil liability and personal injury which reported in 1978. The commission considered that there would be serious difficulties in designing and administering such a scheme and concluded that it should not be introduced. The Government accept that view.

  No-fault compensation schemes operate in New Zealand and Sweden.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money has been spent by the Inverclyde initiative in Inverclyde since its inception.

  Mr. Lang
  Since inception of the Inverclyde initiative in March 1985, £8·75 million of public money has been spent in the area.

  Scottish Fire Service Training School
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the subject of allegations of malpractice at the Scottish fire service training school at Gullane, in the light of new material published recently by the Lothian and Borders fire board and submitted to him; if he will review the procedures of his Department's fire service inspectorate; and if he will order a fresh inquiry into these allegations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The allegations were the subject of an independent inquiry by Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services and a senior officer from Strathclyde fire brigade well experienced in disciplinary matters.

  The inquiry team interviewed those named in the original letter of allegation and, when some time later Lothian and Borders fire brigade decided to release their statements, they interviewed recruits from that brigade. The inquiry team also interviewed all other instructors named in the statements. Taking into account the oral and written evidence, the inquiry team concluded that the allegations of humiliation and degradation had not been substantiated. I am satisfied that a balanced picture emerged, allowing the inquiry team to come to reasonable conclusions. I am also satisfied that the inquiry was carried out in a proper manner; and that those said to be complaining and those against whom allegations were made were given the opportunity to provide full explanations to the inquiry team, which enabled the incidents complained of to be seen in context.

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services made certain recommendations and suggestions for the improvement of teaching techniques at the school and in liaison arrangements with brigades. These were accepted by the Department. Those affecting the day-to-day running of the school have been put into effect. Further consideration is being given to how best to improve liaison arrangements and proposals will be put to brigades soon. In addition, improved access arrangements have been offered to and accepted by the Fire Brigades Union.

  The Scottish Home and Health Department received no complaints from any other brigade; and I am not aware of any other brigade receiving any complaints from any of its recruits who had attended the course in question.

  Scottish Development Agency investments in companies by Scottish constituencies and districts: November 1987 to January 1988

  Scottish Constituencies

  November 1987

  December 1987

  January 1988

  Total

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Angus East

  2

  35,000

  1

  15,000

  —

  —

  3

  50,000

  Argyll and Bute

  1

  25,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  25,000

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  —

  3

  305,000

  —

  —

  3

  305,000

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1

  9,300

  —

  —

  1

  5,525

  2

  14,825

  432
  I see no need to review the procedures of the fire inspectorate or to order a fresh inquiry.

  Special Branches
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total number of police officers and civilians serving in, or responsible to, the special branches of Scottish police forces in each year from 1968 to the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available in the form requested. The available data are as follows:

  Police officers

  Civilians

  30 June 1978

  72

  Not known

  31 December 1979

  112

  Not known

  31 December 1980

  117

  Not known

  31 December 1981

  118

  Not known

  31 December 1986

  164

  21

  31 December 1987

  164

  24

  Salmon Net Fishing
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to lay the order concerning the extension of the weekly close time for salmon net fishing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is intended that an order will be made shortly and laid before the House under the negative resolution procedure as soon as possible thereafter.

  Firearms Incident (Mull)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the appropriate procurator fiscal will instigate inquiries into the incident in early February in which foreign gunmen fired shots at an alleged poacher on Mull; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The procurator fiscal at Oban has already received a report in relation to the incident, which he is presently considering.

  SDA Investments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list Scottish Development Agency investments in companies in(a) Scottish constituencies and (b) Scottish districts since November 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The information is as follows:
  433

  Scottish Constituencies

  November 1987

  December 1987

  January 1988

  Total

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  —

  —

  1

  17,800

  2

  24,251

  3

  42,051

  Clydesdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  1

  10,000

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  Cunninghame North

  —

  —

  2

  75,000

  —

  —

  2

  75,000

  Cunninghame South

  —

  —

  3

  550,000

  —

  —

  3

  550,000

  Dumfries

  2

  20,000

  1

  70,000

  —

  —

  3

  90,000

  Dundee East

  1

  250,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  250,000

  Dundee West

  —

  —

  1

  7,500

  —

  —

  1

  7,500

  Dunfermline East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  1

  10,000

  Dunfermline West

  —

  —

  1

  40,000

  —

  —

  1

  40,000

  East Kilbride

  1

  10,000

  2

  50,000

  2

  286,746

  5

  346,746

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  1

  150,000

  1

  25,000

  2

  175,000

  Edinburgh Central

  1

  5,000

  3

  169,999

  1

  477,473

  5

  652,472

  Edinburgh Leith

  —

  —

  2

  31,000

  —

  —

  2

  31,000

  Falkirk East

  —

  —

  2

  27,000

  —

  —

  2

  27,000

  Falkirk West

  —

  —

  1

  15,000

  —

  —

  1

  15,000

  Fife North East

  2

  50,700

  1

  8,500

  —

  —

  3

  59,200

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  1

  6,000

  2

  16,000

  Glasgow Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  60,000

  2

  60,000

  Glasgow Maryhill

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  Glasgow Pollok

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  Glasgow Shettleston

  —

  —

  1

  20,000

  —

  —

  1

  20,000

  Gordon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  35,000

  2

  35,000

  Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  150,000

  1

  150,000

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  1

  2,500

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  2

  12,500

  Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  100,000

  1

  100,000

  Linlithgow

  3

  150,000

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  4

  160,000

  Livingston

  —

  —

  1

  250,000

  —

  —

  1

  250,000

  Monklands East

  —

  —

  1

  31,585

  1

  22,561

  2

  54,146

  Moray

  1

  18,750

  1

  6,250

  —

  —

  2

  25,000

  Motherwell North

  —

  —

  1

  25,000

  —

  —

  1

  25,000

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  7,500

  —

  —

  1

  7,500

  Stirling

  1

  5,000

  —

  —

  1

  6,000

  2

  11,000

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  1

  10,000

  Total

  19

  601,250

  34

  1,902,134

  20

  1,238,556

  73

  3,741,940

  November 1987

  December 1987

  January 1988

  Total

  Scottish districts

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Number

  £

  Roxburgh

  —

  —

  1

  7,500

  —

  —

  1

  7,500

  Falkirk

  —

  —

  2

  25,000

  —

  —

  2

  25,000

  Stirling

  1

  5,000

  —

  —

  1

  6,000

  2

  11,000

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2

  20,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  20,000

  Nithsdale

  1

  10,000

  1

  70,000

  —

  —

  2

  80,000

  Wigtown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6,000

  1

  6,000

  Dunfermline

  —

  —

  1

  40,000

  1

  10,000

  2

  50,000

  North East Fife

  2

  50,700

  1

  8,500

  —

  —

  3

  59,200

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  —

  3

  305,000

  —

  —

  3

  305,000

  Gordon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  35,000

  2

  35,000

  Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  100,000

  1

  100,000

  Moray

  1

  18,750

  1

  6,250

  —

  —

  2

  25,000

  Inverness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  150,000

  1

  150,000

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  1

  150,000

  1

  25,000

  2

  175,000

  Edinburgh City

  1

  5,000

  5

  200,999

  1

  477,473

  7

  683,472

  West Lothian

  3

  150,000

  2

  267,000

  1

  10,000

  6

  427,000

  Argyll and Bute

  1

  25,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  25,000

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  1

  10,000

  Clydebank

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  24,251

  2

  24,251

  Clydesdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  1

  10,000

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  1

  10,000

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1

  9,300

  1

  17,800

  1

  5,525

  3

  32,625

  Cunninghame

  —

  —

  5

  625,000

  —

  —

  5

  625,000

  East Kilbride

  1

  10,000

  2

  50,000

  2

  286,746

  5

  346,746

  Glasgow City

  1

  10,000

  2

  30,000

  2

  60,000

  5

  100,000

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  1

  2,500

  1

  10,000

  —

  —

  2

  12,500

  Monklands

  —

  —

  1

  31,585

  1

  22,561

  2

  54,146

  Motherwell

  —

  —

  1

  25,000

  —

  —

  1

  25,000

  Angus

  1

  25,000

  1

  15,000

  —

  —

  2

  40,000

  Dundee City

  2

  260,000

  1

  7,500

  —

  —

  3

  267,500

  Total

  19

  601,250

  34

  1,902,134

  20

  1,238,556

  73

  3,741,940

  434

WALES

  Roads
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding of road improvements in rural areas of Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288) published on 25 January 1988 sets out the Department's proposals for funding of road improvements throughout Wales.

  East Dyfed Health Authority
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider giving extra funds to the East Dyfed health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The authority's recurring revenue allocation has increased by £4,989 million or 9·7 per cent., by comparison with 1986–87, and next year will increase by a further £3·4 million, or 6·1 per cent. In addition, in the current financial year it has received supplementary non-recurring revenue allocations amounting to £0·43 million. Its capital allocation has increased by over £0·2 million, or 14 per cent., over 1986–87 and will increase by a further £0·4 million, or 21 per cent., in 1988–89. The authority has also been given loans amounting to £0·534 million this year, mainly in relation to capital schemes. Further allocations in 1988–89 from funds earmarked for centrally funded developments will be announced in due course.

  NHS (Funding)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from health workers concerning funding of the National Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received no direct representations from NHS staff about the overall funding of the NHS in Wales. However, I met representatives of the Welsh board of the Royal College of Nursing on 11 February to discuss its general concerns about the NHS. Arrangements are in hand for a similar meeting with other trade unions representing Health Service staff in Wales.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has completed his review of the current guidelines for opencast mining in Wales, as contained in his Department's circular 13/84.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend expects to do so soon.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh water authority; and whether he intends to issue any change in the guidelines or priorities laid down by his Department for the authority's activities.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of the Welsh water authority on 4 December. He wrote to the chairman on 19 February 1988 setting out the 436
  Government's financial targets for 1988–89. Other than circulars, the only guidelines presently proposed are those referred to in paragraph 37 of the document "The National Rivers Authority" published last December.

  University Hospital, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects building work(a) to start and (b) to be completed on the paediatric cardiology department proposed for the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand from South Glamorgan health authority, the managing authority, that work on site is expected to commence this year and to be completed in 1990 subject to satisfactory progress in design and construction.

  Housing (Senior Management)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is prepared to re-examine the efficacy of his Department's circular 30/86.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  South Wales Coalfield
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has discussed recently the south Wales coalfield with the area director of British Coal.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The area director was present when I met the deputy chairman of British Coal on 21 January. We discussed a range of issues affecting the coal industry in south Wales.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received over the proposed test at Trawsfynydd power station.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received a number of representations expressing concern about the proposed test at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. The test has since been postponed.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many three and four-year-old children in each local education authority in Wales are in(a) full-time and (b) part-time, nursery education, in nursery schools and nursery classes of primary schools, excluding any children in reception classes in primary schools and any children in private schools; what percentage of the estimated three and four-year-old population in each local education authority area this represents; and what is the average hourly attendance, per week, of these children in (i)full-time, and (ii) part-time nursery education for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information as at January 1987 is as follows:
  437

  Pupils in nursery schools

  Pupils in nursery classes in Primary schools1

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Pupils as percentage of three and four year old population

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Pupils as percentage of three and four year old population

  Clwyd

  —

  372

  3·8

  112

  3,623

  38·5

  Dyfed

  147

  109

  3·2

  935

  914

  23·1

  Gwent

  289

  835

  10·0

  429

  2,263

  24·0

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  901

  560

  27·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  783

  440

  5·5

  3,639

  1,467

  35·7

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  784

  34

  31·5

  South Glamorgan

  94

  669

  7·3

  142

  2,198

  22·5

  West Glamorgan

  —

  222

  2·5

  114

  4,602

  52·4

  1 Data relate to pupils of all ages; three and four year olds are separately identifiable.

  Figures for average hourly attendance are not available.

  Grants (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of regional development grants and regional selective grants made in Alyn and Deeside for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Expenditure on regional development grants and regional selective assistance in the Alyn and Deeside parliamentary constituency for the financial years 1980–81 to 1986–87 was as follows:

  £ million

  Regional development grant1

  Regional selective assistance2

  1980–81

  1·4

  0·3

  1981–82

  6·1

  0·7

  1982–83

  6·5

  1·8

  1983–84

  6·7

  1·8

  1984–85

  11·4

  1·5

  1985–86

  13·1

  2·7

  1986–87

  8·2

  3·5

  1 Regional development grant expenditure represents payments under the original scheme (RDG I) and since 1985–86, the revised scheme (RDG II). Records of RDG I expenditure at a sub-Wales level are kept on the basis only of individual payments exceeding £25,000 and by employment office areas. RDG I expenditure has been apportioned to the Alyn and Deeside parliamentary constituency are on the most accurate basis consistent with these records.

  2 Regional selective assistance expenditure represents payments of industry and training grants. Expenditure on exchange risk losses on European loans and payments under the business improvement services scheme cannot be broken down to a sub-Wales level and is therefore excluded.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of rate support grant paid to Alyn and Deeside council and Clwyd county council in the financial years 1979 to 1987 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms in 1987–88 prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The amounts of rate support grant expressed in cash terms and in real terms at 1987–88 prices are given in the table. The basis for paying rate support grant was changed in 1981–82 and so figures for individual local authorities before that year are not comparable with those for 1981–82 onwards.

  £ thousands

  Alyn and Deeside

  Clwyd

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  1979–80

  6,541

  11,381

  28,341

  49,311

  1980–81

  6,938

  10,182

  33,829

  49,644

  438

  Alyn and Deeside

  Clwyd

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  1981–82

  3,621

  4,839

  76,600

  102,361

  1982–83

  3,222

  4,015

  84,833

  105,710

  1983–84

  3,220

  3,833

  84,772

  100,913

  1984–85

  3,297

  3,757

  85,582

  97,529

  1985–86

  3,217

  3,460

  89,887

  96,673

  11986–87

  3,360

  3,503

  93,200

  97,161

  11987–88

  3,495

  3,495

  101,423

  101,423

  1Provisional.

  Shopping Centre (Dee Estuary)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the proposed shopping centre on the Dee estuary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations both for and against the proposed redevelopment, of which the shopping centre is but a part. However, as he may be called upon to exercise statutory planning functions in respect of this proposal, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further on the matter.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the projects for which the decommitted European regional development fund grants, referred to in his Department's press notice of 23 February, had been intended; and if he will make a statement about the future of the projects.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since 1975, at total of £18·1 million of European regional development fund grant has been decommitted, involving some 188 projects. These projects have either been partially decommitted because they have not reached the maximum eligible expenditure level estimated at the time of application or they have been wholly decommitted because they have not proceeded as originally envisaged by the applicant.

  The detailed information requested about these projects could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Brussels (Secretary of State's Visit)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the programme for his recent visit to Brussels; and if he will list the names of the officials he met.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I went to Brussels on 3 February 1988 for a meeting about integrated operations
  439
  programmes. I had talks with Commissioner Varfis, who is responsible for the co-ordination of structural instruments, Mr. Camhis, his deputy chef de cabinet, and Mr. Schutz of directorate XXII, who is head of the section dealing with integrated approach operations and co-ordination. I also had discussions with the office of the United Kingdom's permanent representative to the European Communities.

  A55 (Expenditure)
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the dualling of the A55 expressway across North Wales to be completed; and how much has been spent and is to be spent on the A55, giving the amount for each individual bypass and improvement scheme, together with the dates when they have been or will be completed.

  2. Under Construction

  Scheme

  Started

  Estimated completion

  Estimated gross cost

  Expenditure to date1

  £ million

  £ million

  Penmaenbach-Dwygfylchi

  1986

  1989

  24·129

  16·646

  Conwy Crossing

  1986

  1991

  163·932

  59·831

  Penmaenmawr bypass

  1987

  1989

  32·251

  9·915

  Llanfairfechan bypass

  1987

  1990

  20·769

  5·216

  Northop bypass

  1987

  1989

  11·845

  1·400

  1 February 1988.

  3. Planned

  Scheme

  Estimated start

  Estimated completion

  Estimated gross cost

  Expenditure to date1

  £ million

  £ million

  Travellers Inn improvement

  1988–89

  1989

  3·862

  0·283

  Pen-y-Clip

  1988–89

  1991

  30·427

  2·927

  Aber improvement

  January 1988 to December 19902

  —

  8·360

  0·510

  Rhuallt Hill improvement

  —

  8·628

  0·498

  1 February 1988.

  2Roads in Wales timeband.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Sport and Recreation (Tax Exemptions)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking the conferral on non-profit distributing governing bodies of sport and recreation of tax-exempt status without charitable status, on lines analogous to exemption under section 362 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Representations have been received from the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the British Olympics Association.

  Retirement Gratuity
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the lost income tax revenue if the tax-free retirement gratuity limit were raised to(a) £30,000, (b) £40,000 and (c) £50,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that information is not available centrally on the number of recipients or amounts
  440
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The upgrading of the A55 is expected to be completed in the early 1990s, subject to the completion of statutory procedures and availability of financial resources. Information on individual major schemes since 1979 is as follows:

  1. Completed

  £ million

  Scheme

  Opened

  Estimated gross cost

  Expenditure to date1

  Holywell bypass stage I

  1980

  3·175

  3·175

  Diversion east of Abergele

  1981

  7·330

  7·330

  A5/A55 Bangor bypass

  1983

  28·393

  28·393

  Hawarden bypass

  1984

  32·463

  32·429

  Colwyn Bay bypass

  1984–85

  133·475

  132·024

  Holywell bypass stage II

  1986

  22·049

  22·049

  Bodelwydden bypass

  1986

  7·427

  7·246

  1 February 1988.

  of retirement gratuities. The direct revenue costs, in 1987–88 terms, of increases in the tax-free limit for payments made on termination of employment are shown in the table. These estimates assume that the increase in the limit would not affect the distribution of termination payments.

  Tax-free limit

  Cost

  £

  (£ million)

  30,000

  2

  40,000

  5

  50,000

  6

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he has any estimate of what a 1p, 2p, 3p, 4p, 5p, 6p and 7p cut in the standard rate of income tax would represent as a percentage increase in gross pay for a man on average national earnings;

  (2) if he has any estimate of what a cut of 1p, 2p, 3p, 4p, 5p, 6p and 7p in the standard rate of income tax would represent as a percentage increase in gross pay for a man

  441
  on 75 per cent., 80 per cent., 90 per cent., 125 per cent., 150 per cent., 175 per cent and 200 per cent. of national average earnings.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is in the table. The calculations assume that the man's earnings are his only source of income. Average earnings are those for men in all occupations paid at adult rates who work a full week

  Reduction in basic rate of income tax

  Increase in Income after Tax as a Percentage of Gross Earnings for a Married Man, 1988–89

  pence

  Gross earnings as a percentage of average earnings

  75

  80

  90

  100

  125

  150

  175

  200

  1

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  0·7

  0·7

  0·8

  0·8

  0·7

  2

  1·2

  1·2

  1·3

  1·4

  1·5

  1·6

  1·6

  1·5

  3

  1·8

  1·8

  2·0

  2·1

  2·3

  2·4

  2·5

  2·2

  4

  2·3

  2·4

  2·6

  2·8

  3·0

  3·2

  3·3

  2·9

  5

  2·9

  3·1

  3·3

  3·4

  3·8

  4·0

  4·1

  3·6

  6

  3·5

  3·7

  3·9

  4·1

  4·5

  4·8

  4·9

  4·4

  7

  4·1

  4·3

  4·6

  4·8

  5·3

  5·5

  5·8

  5·1

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the manner of the answer given on 11 February 1986,Official Report, columns 427–28, he will update and publish the table detailing the breakdown of the costs or yields of reinstating the 1978–79 tax regime, taking the 1987–88 income tax base.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: If the 1978–79 income tax regime were indexed to 1987–88 levels by reference to the statutory formula and applied to the 1987–88 income tax base, the direct revenue effect would be an additional yield of £11·7 billion in a full year.

  The levels of the main allowances and thresholds, compared with the actual 1987–88 values would be:

  Personal allowances

  Indexed 1978–79 regime

  1987–88

  £

  £

  Single and wife's earned income allowance

  2,055

  2,425

  Married man's allowance

  3,205

  3,795

  Additional personal allowance

  1,150

  1,370

  Aged single allowance (over 65 but under 80)

  2,720

  2,960

  Aged single allowance (over 80)

  2,720

  3,070

  Aged married allowance (either partner over 65 but neither partner over 80)

  4,335

  4,675

  Aged married allowance (either partner over 80)

  4,335

  4,845

  Aged income limit

  8,400

  9,800

  Bands of taxable income

  Rate of tax (percentage)

  Indexed 1978–79 regime

  1987–88

  £

  £

  25

  0–1,600

  —

  27

  —

  0–17,900

  33

  1,601–16,700

  —

  40

  16,701–18,800

  17,901–20,400

  45

  18,801–20,900

  20,401–25,400

  50

  20,901–23,000

  25,401–33,300

  55

  23,001–26,200

  33,301–41,200

  60

  26,201–29,400

  Over 41,200

  65

  29,401–33,600

  —

  70

  33,601–38,900

  —

  75

  38,901–50,400

  —

  83

  Over 50,400

  —

  442
  and whose pay is unaffected by absence. This figure is projected to 1988–89 in accordance with the assumptions given to the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contribution in paragraph 3.02 of the Autumn Statement 1987. The married man's allowance and higher rate thresholds for 1988–89 have been calculated by reference to the statutory formula for indexation.

  Investment Income Surcharge: Indexed 1978–79 regime

  Non-aged

  Aged

  Rate of surcharge

  £

  £

  (percentage)

  0–3,550

  0–5,250

  Exempt

  3,551–4,700

  5,251––6,300

  10

  Over 4,700

  Over 6,300

  15

  Investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984–85.

  Taking the 1987–88 income base as given, the direct revenue costs of the 1987–88 tax regime compared with the indexed 1978–79 tax regime can be broken down as follows:

  Yield (+) Cost(-)

  £ million

  Increases in personal allowances

  -3,970

  Abolition of reduced rate band at 25p

  + 2,850

  Decrease in basic rate of 6p

  -7,980

  Increase in basic rate limit of £1,200

  -400

  Changes in higher rate thresholds up to 60 per cent.

  -800

  Abolition of higher rates above 60 per cent.

  -590

  Abolition of investment income surcharge

  -830

  Total

  -11,720

  In the table above, the effect of each change has been calculated on the assumption that each of the changes which precede it has already been made.

  Sporting Rights
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revaluation is currently being undertaken of sporting rights; and whether the revised assessments of the value of sporting rights over particular areas of land will be included in a document accessible to the public.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Sporting rights are currently being revalued as part of the general revaluation of all non-domestic properties in England and Wales. The revaluation, which will take effect from 1 April 1990, will be based on the levels of rental values as at 1 April 1988. The new valuation list will be accessible to the public.

  Luncheon Vouchers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider allowing luncheon vouchers to be tax-free in the hands of employees up to a minimum of £1 per day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend considers a wide range of matters in the run-up to the Budget.

  Nominal Income Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the lowest rate of nominal income tax, and the date on which each such rate was set, in(i) Italy, (ii) Luxembourg, (iii) the Netherlands, (iv) Portugal, (v) Spain, (vi) Japan, (vii) Denmark, (viii) the United States of America, (ix) New Zealand, (x) Canada, (xi) Australia, (xii) Belgium, (xiii) West Germany, (xiv) France and (xv) Greece; and what assessment he has made in each case of the effect on the international competitive position of the United Kingdom economy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Below is a table of countries showing in each case the lowest rate of nominal income tax and the date on which such rate was set.

  Country

  Lowest nominal rate

  Effective from year

  Per cent.

  Italy

  12·0

  1986

  Luxembourg

  10·0

  1987

  Netherlands

  14·0

  1988

  Portugal

  4·0

  1979

  Spain

  25·0

  1988

  Japan

  10·5

  1984

  Denmark

  22·0

  1987

  United States of America

  15·0

  1988

  New Zealand

  15·0

  1987–88

  Canada

  17·0

  1988

  Australia

  24·0

  1987–88

  Belgium

  24·2

  1987

  Federal Republic of Germany

  22·0

  1975

  France

  5·0

  1973

  Greece

  6·0

  1985

  Explanatory Notes:

  (a) In Luxembourg, Spain Australia, Belgium, France and Greece the lowest bracket on the tax table is actually 0 per cent. For these countries the first figure appearing after 0 per cent. has been chosen.

  (b) In some countries local income tax is also charged.

  (c) In Germany it is proposed to reduce the lowest rate of nominal income tax to 19 per cent.

  This Government's policy of reducing income tax rates has increased incentives and encouraged enterprise, thereby improving the international competitive position of the United Kingdom economy.

  Farming (Taxes)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review the effect of capital transfer tax and capital gains tax on the farming industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot anticipate the Chancellor's Budget Statement.

  Fraud
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions were brought in the Durham constabulary area for income tax fraud offences in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret the Inland Revenue does not keep records of tax prosecutions by locality.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average amount of money recovered annually by(a) a senior Department of Health and Social Security fraud inspector and (b) a senior investigation officer in the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1988]: The yield from DHSS investigations is not a matter for me. As regards the yield from Inland Revenue investigations, I have nothing to add to my replies to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 29 January 1988 at column 371.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to the answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 425, he will give the information requested about cases of tax fraud for such categories as can be provided without undue cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 February 1988]: I have nothing to add to my answer of 20 January at column 725. This is because smaller cases include investigations by local offices. Such information could not be collated without very substantial cost.

  "Paying for Local Government"
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) were distributed free to right hon. and hon. Members; and how many were sold to the general public.

  Mr. Brooke
  On publication in January 1986, 800 copies of "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) were supplied to the Vote Office. A further 4,022 copies have been recorded as official issues, which include sales to Government Departments and may include further supplies to the Vote Office. All other sales total 6,949 copies: it is not possible to say how many were bought by the general public, as Her Majesty's Stationery Office's retail customers include local authorities and other public bodies.

  HMSO Publications (Prices)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to reduce the general level of prices of Her Majesty's Stationery Office publications, particularly Government Green and White Papers and Hansard.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am satisfied that Her Majesty's Stationery Office is taking all reasonable steps to keep the prices of its publications as low as possible while still meeting its financial targets as a trading fund. In recent years the average price of parliamentary publications, except Hansard, has risen much less than the increase in the RPI for books.

  Hansard is treated exceptionally in that it has long been supported by an annual Vote from Parliament which

  445
  enables the prices to be set at a lower level than would be necessary to recover the high costs of overnight production. It is this Government's policy to reduce dependence on this subsidy and, while Her Majesty's Stationery Office continues to take steps to reduce the costs involved, recent increases in the price of Hansard have been steeper than for other Her Majesty's Stationery Office publications.

  Less Developed Countries
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of United Kingdom-registered banks' claims on less developed countries for 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  An analysis as at end-June 1987 of the claims, by country, of United Kingdom registered monetary sector institutions and their branches and subsidiaries worldwide can be found in table 15 of the February 1988 edition of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.

  Government Telecommunications Network
  Mr. Terry Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the new switch SL100 for the interface between Government telecommunications network numbers was installed; when the switch failed; and what action is being taken by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency as a result of this failure.

  Mr. Brooke
  The SL100 switch on the Government telecommunications network was brought into operation on Monday 27 July 1987. Major problems have occurred on two occasions since then. The first was due to the severe storm on 16 October 1987. As a result of the interruption to the mains power supply throughout Greater London, and the failure of the emergency standby power supplies, the switch ceased to function for some 4½ hours until the mains power supply had been restored. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency subsequently worked closely with the Property Services Agency to determine and implement improvements to the emergency standby power supplies.

  The second problem occurred on the morning of Thursday 11 February 1988 and continued for most of that day. This seriously affected the majority of telephone calls passing through London on the Government telecommunications network. The CCTA worked closely with the company maintaining the switch to ensure that full service was restored as rapidly as possible, but some random intermittent difficulties on the GTN have persisted since then. The fault was due to corruption of software within the switch and urgent detailed investigations are continuing to determine the cause of this and to clear up the remaining difficulties.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what amount the private medical insurance premium tax offset rule reduced the revenue received from income tax in 1985–86 and 1986–87; and what is the estimated figure for 1987–88;

  (2) how much the medical insurance premium tax offset rule would yield in the current years if it applied (a)for earnings of less than £12,500 per annum, (b) for earnings
  446
  of less than £15,000 and (c) for earnings of less than £20,000; and whether he has available any estimates of the yield in previous years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 8 and 9 February 1988]: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the £8,500 earnings threshold below which employees are not in general taxable on benefits in kind provided by reason of their employment. These rules have applied since 1982–83 to private medical insurance.

  It is tentatively estimated that the cost of exempting employees who earn less than £8,500 from tax on employer-provided private medical insurance premiums is of the order of £10 million in each of the years 1985–86 to 1987–88.

  The table shows the estimated direct revenue yield in both 1985–86, the latest year for which data are available and the projected yield in 1987–88 arising from the taxation of the benefit of employer-provided medical insurance received by directors and by employees with earnings above the thresholds shown.

  Earnings threshold

  Estimated yield 1985–86

  Projected yield 1987–88

  £

  £ million

  £ million

  8,500

  58

  80

  12,500

  49

  70

  15,000

  45

  65

  20,000

  29

  50

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the average medical insurance premium paid per taxpayer in receipt of private medical insurance as a fringe benefit for the years 1978–79 to 1987–88; and how many taxpayers have been in receipt of such benefit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: I regret the delay in answering this question.

  Information is available in respect of the years shown. The benefit of employer-provided private medical insurance premiums was taxable for all employees up to 1981–82 but only for directors and for employees with earned income of £8,500 a year or more from 1982–83 onwards. The estimates of the number of recipients relate to the number of taxpayers liable to tax on the benefit and exclude employees earning below £8,500 per year where appropriate. The average premium is net of any contribution made by the employee to the employer.

  Numbers

  Average net premium £

  1980–81

  1315,000

  100

  1983–84

  1530,000

  150

  1985–86

  625,000

  250

  1987–88

  2735,000

  300

  1 Excludes married women in receipt of the benefit.

  2 Projection.

  These estimates are derived from the surveys of expenses and benefits. I regret that information is not available for the intervening years.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost of providing tax relief on private medical insurance.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in receipt of medical insurance as a fringe benefit are currently eligible for tax
  447
  relief on the premium; what is the cost to the Exchequer of this relief; and what estimate he has of the projected cost to the Exchequer of extending eligibility to tax relief to all those covered by private medical insurance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 29 January 1988]: I regret the delay in answering these questions.

  The direct revenue cost, at 1987–88 levels, of giving relief at marginal rates of income tax on private medical insurance premiums, including contributions made by employees towards employer-paid premiums, is estimated to be about £150 million. If the benefit of employer-paid premiums paid on behalf of directors and of employees with earned income of £8,500 per year or more were also exempted from income tax, there would be an additional cost of £80 million. These estimates make no allowance for any behavioural changes. Granting tax relief on private medical insurance would be expected to lead to an increase in the number of subscriptions and to an increase in the cost of relief.

  It is tentatively estimated that, in 1987–88, about 150,000 employees receive the benefit of private medical insurance from their employer but are not taxed on the benefit because their earned income is below £8,500 a year. The cost of this exemption is of the order of £10 million.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87 by the Treasury from taxpayers earnings(a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b) more than £50,000 as a result of employee contributions to approved pension schemes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: I regret the delay in replying to this question.

  The latest estimate of the cost of tax relief in respect of employees' contributions to approved pension schemes in 1986–87 is £1·6 billion. I regret that it is not possible to provide an analysis of this amount by range of earnings.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87 by the Treasury from taxpayers earnings(a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b) more than £50,000 as a result of employer contributions to approved pension schemes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: I regret the delay in replying to this question.

  The latest estimate of the cost of tax relief in respect of employers' contributions to approved pension schemes in 1986–87 is £3 billion. I regret that it is not possible to provide an analysis of this amount by range of earnings.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic and econometric evidence he has which indicates(a) the effects of cutting the higher rates of income tax on the work effort and efficiency of those high paid workers affected by the cuts and, (b) the effects of cutting the standard rate of income tax the effects on the national work effort.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 February 1988]: Cutting marginal tax rates undoubtedly gives a stimulus to enterprise, initiative and effort. The effect inevitably takes some time to build up. Econometric studies identify a positive incentive effect, though they tend to look only at short term effects. I know of no recent United Kingdom studies specifically on the effect of reducing higher rates of income tax.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each of the six cases of tax evasion in 1987 in which more than £1 million was recovered, whether the evasion involved a company or an individual; and what was the amount of(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) capital gains tax, and (d) inheritance tax owed.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1988]: It is not the practice to give information that may be related to the affairs of a particular taxpayer. Of the total tax involved, almost 80 per cent. was corporation tax; almost 18 per cent. was income tax: and the remainder capital transfer tax and capital gains tax.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for each of the 19 cases of tax evasion in 1987 for which more than £500,00 was recovered, what was the proportion of the sum recovered that was(a) tax, (b) interest, and (c) penalty.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 17 February 1988]: It is not the practice to give information about individual cases. Of the 19 cases for 1986–87, the proportions for the total of the net settlements were:

  Tax

  Interest

  Penalties

  Penalties as percentage of tax

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  64

  21

  15

  24

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Budget)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the average amount each taxpayer in the United Kingdom contributed through direct and indirect taxes to the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for each year since 1978–79; and what will be the contribution in 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 February 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Expenditure by Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food1

  Number of taxpayers2

  Contribution per taxpayer

  £ million

  million

  £

  1978–79

  340·5

  21·4

  15·9

  1979–80

  469·8

  21·6

  21·8

  1980–81

  550·7

  21·0

  26·2

  1981–82

  537·6

  20·8

  25·8

  1982–83

  580·4

  20·8

  27·9

  1983–84

  535·3

  20·5

  26·1

  1984–85

  549·1

  20·2

  27·2

  1985–86

  531·7

  20·4

  26·1

  1986–87

  522·3

  20·5

  25·5

  1987–88

  3464·8

  20·9

  22·2

  1 Source: Appropriation Accounts

  2 Source: Inland Revenue Statistics, 1987. Married couples are counted as one unit. Figures for 1985–86 and subsequent years are provisional.

  3 Forecast outturn—Expenditure in Northern Ireland excluded.

  The figures exclude expenditure by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and other agriculture departments. They also exclude costs of agricultural support borne by consumers through higher prices.

  Funeral Insurance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking tax relief to those who take out simple and inexpensive insurance to cover the cost of their own funeral and to plan for their own funeral arrangements.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer Monday 22 February 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received no such representations.

  Revenue Contributions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the average contribution to total Exchequer revenues which would, on average, be made by an individual during the course of his life.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 February 1988]: An individual's lifetime tax contributions will depend on a large number of factors, including date of birth, marital status, pension provision, lifetime profile of earnings, assumptions about public expenditure; fiscal policy, and changes in the tax system. CSO figures (Economic Trends November 1986) suggest that in 1985, the latest year available, the average individual paid £744 in income tax and employee's national insurance contributions and £528 in taxes on final goods and services.

  Public Bodies (Audits)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a list in the Library of the auditing arrangements for each public body.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 February 1988]: Government Departments are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and his counterpart in Northern Ireland. The nationalised industries are audited by commercial auditors. Local authorities are audited by the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales, the Commission for Local Authority Accounts

  December 1983 = 100

  Australian dollar/£

  Finnish mark/£

  Norwegian krone/£

  Austrian schilling/£

  1984

  January

  97·6

  93·1

  100·2

  100·3

  April

  96·7

  95·7

  97·5

  95·1

  July

  99·3

  94·6

  97·9

  94·9

  October

  91·6

  92·5

  97·7

  94·7

  1985

  January

  86·9

  89·1

  93·5

  90·4

  April

  118·2

  95·2

  99·8

  96·8

  July

  123·8

  99·8

  105·0

  101·4

  October

  127·0

  96·2

  101·5

  95·0

  1986

  January

  127·7

  91·7

  97·0

  87·8

  April

  130·1

  91·3

  96·7

  85·9

  July

  150·3

  91·0

  101·7

  82·2

  October

  140·3

  83·1

  94·8

  72·4

  1987

  January

  143·2

  83·1

  97·5

  70·9

  April

  143·9

  85·6

  99·6

  74·6

  July

  142·7

  85·9

  98·2

  75·2

  450
  in Scotland and the Local Government Audit Service in Northern Ireland. For details of the audit arrangements of the health authorities, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on 13 January at columns 330–31. Information about the audit arrangements for other public bodies is set out in column 5 of "Public Bodies 1987", a copy of which was placed in the Library on 2 December.

  Appropriation Accounts (Certification)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what statutory authority accounting officers seek certification by the Comptroller and Auditor General of appropriation accounts.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 February 1988]: The statutory authority for the Comptroller and Auditor General's certification of appropriation accounts is contained in section 22 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an index of currency movements against the pound sterling, with a base of December 1983 = 100, for each quarter since January 1984, relating to United States dollar, Canadian dollar, yen, Swiss franc, Australian dollar, Swedish krona, Finnish mark, Norwegian krone, Austrian schilling, French franc, Belgian franc, Dutch guilder, Spanish peseta, deutschmark, Danish krone, Italian lire and Irish punt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 February 1988]: Movements of the £ sterling against the Australian dollar, Finnish mark, Norwegian krone and Austrian schilling are set out in the table. For the other currencies, I refer my hon. Friend to Table 13·1 in "Financial Statistics" published monthly by the Central Statistical Office, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.
  451

  Australian dollar/£

  Finnish mark/£

  Norwegian krone/£

  Austrian schilling/£

  October

  146·6

  86·60

  99·3

  75·9

  1988

  January

  158·8

  82·9

  103·1

  75·3

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many firearms, shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 1 as part of the personal baggage of passengers that are(a) held on a Great Britain firearms or shotgun certificate, (b) the Northern Ireland or (c) the Republic of Ireland equivalent;

  (2) how many firearms, shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 4 as part of the personal baggage of passengers (a) that are held on a Great Britain firearms certificate, (b) with a Great Britain shotgun certificate and (c) not held on either a Great Britain firearms or shotgun certificate;

  (3) how many firearms, shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 2, as part of the personal baggage of passengers which were held in the United Kingdom and out of compliance with the Firearms Act 1968;

  (4) how many firearms, shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 1, as part of the personal baggage of passengers, which were held in the United Kingdom and out of compliance with the Firearms Act 1968;

  (5) how many firearms, shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 3 as part of the personal baggage of passengers (a) that are held on a Great Britain firearms certificate, (b) with a Great Britain shotgun certificate and (c) not held on either a Great Britain firearms or shotgun certificate;

  (6) how many firearms, shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 2 as part of the personal baggage of passengers (a) that are held on a Great Britain firearms certificate, (b) with a Great Britain shotgun certificate and(c) not held on either a Great Britain firearms or shotgun certificate;

  (7) how many firearms and shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 1, as part of the personal baggage of passengers (a) that are held on a Great Britain firearms certificate, (b) with a Great Britain shotgun certificate, and (c) not held on either a Great Britain firearms or shotgun certificate;
  452
  (8) how many firearms arid shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 3, as part of the personal baggage of passengers, which were held in the United Kingdom and out of compliance with the Firearms Act 1968;

  (9) how many firearms and shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act 1968 have been entered, for each week in 1987 and in 1988 to date, in the register at London Heathrow airport terminal 4, as part of the personal baggage of passengers, which were held in the United Kingdom and out of compliance with the Firearms Act 1968.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answers 25 February 1988]: Customs and Excise keeps no register of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. However, firearms, shotguns and other items covered by the Firearms Act are liable to seizure by Customs if they are imported in contravention of import licensing restrictions. In the calendar year 1987, 39 firearms, two shotguns, and 58 other items covered by the Firearms Act were seized at Heathrow, together with a substantial quantity of ammunition.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Medical Students (Statistics)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of(a) women and (b) men medical students who qualified in (a) 1958, (b) 1968 and (c) 1978 were found to be practising 10 years later.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Department is funding a long-term project of research on doctors' careers. A survey of doctors five years after qualification has been published(British Medical Journal volume 285, 14 August 1982); a survey 10 years after qualification is about to be completed by the medical careers research group at Churchill hospital, Oxford.

  Hospital Patients (Costs)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the average cost per patient treated over each of the past three years in(a) each of the Birmingham hospitals, (b) the Burton upon Trent hospitals and (c) the other South East Staffordshire district health authority hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information could not be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, in 1986–87, costing returns submitted by the five Birmingham health authorities and by South East Staffordshire health authority show average costs per patient treated in major acute hospitals were as in the table. My hon. Friend may like to contact the West Midlands regional health authority for further information.
  453

  Health Authority and Hospital

  Cost per in-patient day

  Cost per in-patient case

  Cost per out-patient attendance

  Cost per new out-patient case

  Cost per A & E attendance

  Cost per new A & E case

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Central Birmingham

  Queen Elizabeth

  126·38

  1,289·55

  57·75

  359·67

  1N/A

  1N/A

  General

  97·98

  800·40

  18·75

  92·11

  27·95

  42·67

  East Birmingham

  East Birmingham

  105·74

  835·49

  28·16

  153·94

  18·91

  24·79

  North Birmingham

  Good Hope DGH

  87·99

  632·89

  28·11

  114·31

  20·70

  26·39

  South Birmingham

  Selly Oak

  95·16

  796·60

  25·33

  107·97

  20·34

  23·38

  West Birmingham

  Dudley Road

  l08·29

  762·80

  26·32

  128·95

  21·96

  24·39

  South East Staffordshire

  Burton General

  97·43

  513·97

  52·08

  331·74

  49·33

  49·33

  Burton District Hospital Centre

  105·66

  833·47

  29·40

  124·98

  20·13

  22·01

  Regional average: Acute

  Hospitals over 100 beds

  100·56

  694·04

  26·53

  117·35

  21·28

  27·18

  1 This hospital had no A & E patients.

  Notes: Other identified costs are: Good Hope DGH:Cost per day patient attendance £25·76

  Cost per new day patient case £449·76

  Cost per day case attendance £54·92

  Dudley Road: Cost per day case attendance £41·40

  Burton District Hospital Centre: Cost per day case attendance £40·55

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for(a) the numbers of families with children dependent on supplementary benefit and (b) the number of children dependent on supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  In February 1986, the latest date for which information is available, the number of families with children under the age of 16 years dependent on supplementary benefit was 1,137,000. The number of children under the age of 16 years dependent on supplementary benefit was 2,123,000.

  Source: Annual Statistical Enquiry 1986.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the difference between the £8 special payments made to severely disabled war pensioners and the sum forgone as a result of the computer error on the retail prices index; and will he make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The £8 special payments fall short of the benefit lost by severely disabled war pensioners as a result of the error by amounts ranging from a few pounds to over £50, although cases of the latter are few in number. The position is complex and it will take some time to identify members of the high loser groups. We shall, however, be making additional compensation payments in the summer to those war and industrial disablement pensioners who have lost significantly more than £8.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the gross and net cost of raising 454
  child benefit in a full financial year in line with the rise in tax thresholds in 1988–89, assuming that they are uprated according to the statutory formula.

  Mr. Scott
  The rise in the retail prices index between December 1986 and December 1987 was 3·7 per cent. If child benefit were to be uprated in April 1988 by 3·7 per cent. the rate would be £7·50 per week. In 1988–89 the additional gross cost of this would be £156 million and the additional net cost would be just over £100 million.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning proposals by some employers with occupational pension schemes to withdraw death-in-service and other benefits from employees who opt for a personal pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am not aware of any such representations. Any employee considering leaving an occupational scheme should, of course, weigh any benefits which might be lost against any advantages that might be gained from making alternative arrangements, and seek expert advice as necessary.

  Consultants
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the number of sessions worked by consultants in the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen hospitals, Liverpool; and what is his estimate of the number of additional sessions which could be worked if all consultants worked full-time for the National Health Service.
  455
  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of the Liverpool health authority, who may be able to provide the information requested.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to reach a decision on the possible redefinition of repetitive strain injury for the purpose of compensation, in the light of research now being funded by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Scott
  We are advised on matters relating to the industrial injuries scheme by an independent body, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I understand that the council expects the results of two research projects on repetitive strain injuries to be available by mid-1989 and that further consideration of this matter will be deferred until then.

  Kaltostat Dressings
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when Kaltostat dressings will be agreed for use by by general practitioners; and what estimate he has made of how much will he saved annually by their use.

  Mr. Newton
  No decision has yet been taken on whether this product will be added to the list of dressings which general practitioners may prescribe.

  Irish Nationals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the circular to his Department's offices relating to the vetting of benefit applications by Irish nationals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not the Department's policy to vet benefit claims on the basis of the claimants nationality. Guidance on the verification of identity as part of the process of establishing entitlement to benefit was published in Circular S50/85.

  Central Register
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which other Government Departments have access to the Department of Health and Social Security/National Health Service central register list of patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department's benefits staff have access to the Department of Health and Social Security/National Health Service central register list of patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department's benefit staff do not have access to the list of patients maintained by the National Health Service central register.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many deaths from hypothermia-related causes were registered in(a) the Leeds West constituency and (b) the Leeds metropolitan district council area since 1983, by month of registration.
  456
  Mrs. Currie
  The Leeds, West parliamentary constituency is wholly contained within Leeds metropolitan county district. The table shows the number of registrations of deaths to usual residents of both areas which contained a mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, by month of registration from 1983. Ward (and thereby constituency) data for 1987 are not yet available.

  Number of deaths by month of registration to usual residents of (a) Leeds metropolitan county district and (b) Leeds, West parliamentary constituency which contained a mention of hypothermia on the death certificate 1983 to 19872

  Year and month

  Leeds metropolitan country district

  Leeds, West

  1983

  January

  1

  0

  February

  2

  0

  March

  2

  0

  May

  1

  0

  November

  1

  0

  December

  1

  0

  1984

  January

  2

  0

  February

  2

  0

  March

  2

  0

  April

  1

  0

  June

  1

  1

  October

  1

  0

  November

  1

  0

  1985

  January

  1

  0

  February

  3

  1

  September

  1

  0

  October

  1

  0

  December

  1

  0

  19862

  January

  4

  2

  February

  3

  0

  March

  4

  0

  May

  1

  0

  June

  1

  0

  19871 2

  January

  2

  n/a

  February

  4

  n/a

  April

  2

  n/a

  May

  1

  n/a

  1 1987 is for January to September data only.

  2 Provisional.

  Housing Benefits
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many one-parent families are in receipt of housing benefits; and how many are in receipt of(a) standard housing benefits, (b) certificated housing benefits and (c) housing benefit supplement, in Bristol, South and nationally.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Nurses
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of nurses presently employed by Leeds West district health authority; and what the numbers have been for each year since 1979.
  457
  Mr. Newton
  Such figures as are available are shown in the table.

  Because of the 1982 NHS reorganisation figures on a consistent basis with those for later years are not available centrally for the years prior to 1982.

  National Health Service nursing and midwifery staff (including agency) Leeds western district health authority at 30 September

  Whole time equivalent1

  1982

  3,290

  1983

  3,250

  1984

  3,330

  1985

  3,380

  1986

  3,360

  Source: Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 Figures are rounded to nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of the total funds made available for each year between 1983 and the present for the post-basic training of nurses for neonatal intensive care and the number of nurses trained, by regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on the funding made available by health authorities for post-basic training of nurses for neo-natal intensive care nursing is not held centrally. It is for health authorities to determine their post-basic training needs, and the resources which can be allocated, in the light of local needs and priorities.

  The numbers of nurses who completed training for special-intensive care of the newborn in each region during the year ended 31 March 1987 were:

  Number

  Northern

  Nil

  Yorkshire

  Nil

  Trent

  47

  East Anglian

  24

  North West Thames

  51

  North East Thames

  21

  South East Thames

  12

  South West Thames

  11

  Wessex

  10

  Oxford

  23

  South Western

  45

  West Midlands

  47

  Mersey

  Nil

  North Western

  14

  Similar information for earlier years is not readily available.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the levels of spending on mentally ill people in the Leeds, West district health authority for each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on health authority expenditure by type of patient is not collected centrally. Hospital costing returns submitted to the Department show expenditure on hospitals of different types, and costing returns in respect of community health services show expenditure relating to the major areas of activity only. Thus we have information on expenditure by hospitals categorised as mental illness but not on expenditure on the growing volume of activity in psychiatric units in general hospitals etc.
  458
  Following is information derived from the hospital costing returns submitted by Leeds, West district health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982:

  Revenue expenditure on hospitals categorised "Mental Illness"

  £

  1982–83

  10,394,187

  1983–84

  10,652,452

  1984–85

  11,028,507

  1985–86

  11,314,123

  1986–87

  11,309,706

  Note: The figures exclude expenditure incurred on the mentally ill within psychiatric units in general hospitals and so on and within the community health services. Such costs are not separately identifiable centrally.

  Benefit (Training)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether 16 and 17-year-olds who are unable to obtain a YTS place will be paid the same rate of benefit as those receiving training.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government have guaranteed that all persons aged 16 and 17 who want a YTS place will be offered one before the end of the extended period of entitlement to child benefit. Once a YTS place has been obtained a training allowance of £28·50 per week will be payable (£35·00 per week in the second year). After the extended period of child benefit a bridging allowance of £15 per week will be paid by the Department of Employment for up to eight weeks a year to young people who apply for a YTS place having left or lost a job or a previous YTS place.

  Freeline Social Security
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) when he established the Freeline Social Security service on 0800–666555; for what purpose; whether it has been in continuous service since that date; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many staff are employed to answer Freeline Social Security on 0800–666555; how many calls are dealt with on an average working day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Freeline Social Security which succeeded Freefone DHSS was introduced on 6 April 1987 to provide a free advice and information service on general social security matters for members of the public and to supplement the service provided by DHSS local offices. The 10 Freeline Social Security centres which employ 90 staff have been in continuous service during normal working hours since their inception. In the year to 9 February 1988 they dealt with, on average, 3,073 calls a day.

  The Department regards Freeline as a significant and successful enhancement of the service that it provides to the public.

  Meals Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report details relating to the meals allowance payable to people in boarding accommodation but who do not have all the meals provided, showing (a) the percentage increase in

  459
  such meals in each year from 1982 to 1987, (b) figures available for each constituent within the United Kingdom and (c) regional variations in the cost of such meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Statistics on the number of people in boarding accommodation who do not have all meals provided are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on the regional variations in the cost of such meals is not collected.

  The maximum payable by way of meals allowances has remained at £29·40 a week since November 1984. Percentage increases from 1982 to 1984 are set out in the table.

  Percentage increase in Supplementary Benefit Meals allowance

  Per cent.

  1982

  7·35

  1983

  6·85

  1984

  7·69

  RHAs (Clerical Officers)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the number of clerical officers employed by each regional health authority for each year since 1979 until the latest year for which figures are available, together with the estimated number of clerical officers required by each regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible. Information on the number required by each regional health authority is not available centrally.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the average salary of a clerical officer in each of the regional health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that earnings information at this level is not available centrally.

  Manchester Royal Eye Hospital (Cataract Unit)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 23 February, when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the outcome of the recent discussions between the Central Manchester health authority and the regional health authority about the possible establishment of a day care cataract unit at the Manchester royal eye hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  This matter, along with a range of other proposals for new patient service development in the region, will be considered by the regional health authority at its meeting on 22 March.

  "Firecode"
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stretford of 3 February,Official Report, column 663, what information he has about steps taken by district health authorities to follow the advice given in the "Firecode" documents;

  (2) what steps he takes to monitor the compliance by district health authorities, with the advice given in the document "Firecode"; and if he will make a statement.
  460
  Mrs. Currie
  We regard fire safety in all NHS units as very important particularly as many patients are frail or immobile. Circular HC(87)24 asked health authorities to ensure that the fire precautions set out in the "Firecode" were scrupulously observed. Regional health authorities were asked to monitor district health authorities' observance of the precautions. During 1988–89 the Department's health building directorate will be reviewing each RHA's performance on fire safety in the premises for which it is responsible and its monitoring of DHAs. Any major shortcomings will be taken up in the National Health Service Board's review of the RHA and, if appropriate, in the ministerial review. As a result we should have significant information on compliance with the new "Firecode" by the end of the year.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what contingency funds and arrangements exist for use in the event that a local office's social fund allocation for grants and loans appear unlikely to last the full financial year.

  Mr. Scott
  As the Secretary of State's directions and guidance to social fund officers in the "Social Fund Manual" make clear, social fund officers are expected to manage their local office budgets to meet needs of highest priority throughout the financial year and so as to remain within their budget for that year. There are some contingency arrangements at national level to meet, exceptionally, demands which were unforeseen and unexpected, for example, local disaster leading to extra demands for crisis loans.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give financial support to independent research to monitor the effects of the social fund on claimants, and to make the report of such a study publicly available.

  Mr. Scott
  We propose to commission independent research later in the year into the extent to which the social fund is meeting its objectives; the question of publication will be decided in due course.

  Invalid Care Transfer
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why invalid care allowance is not payable by credit transfer.

  Mr. Scott
  Payment by automated credit transfer requires a computerised database of claimants. Although it is the aim eventually to provide such a facility for the payment of all benefits, I regret that the necessary computer facilities are not yet available for invalid care allowance.

  Speech Therapists
  Mrs. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what difficulties are being experienced in the recruitment of trained speech therapists in(a) Wolverhampton and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on the recruitment of speech therapists is not collected centrally. The position in a
  461
  particular district is a matter for the district health authority. Numbers of speech therapists in post in the NHS nationally have been increasing by about 8 per cent. on average per year.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, what steps he is taking to ensure that there is adequate representation of black, and ethnic minorities on(a) the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and (b) similar bodies for which his Department is responsible.

  Mr. Newton
  We are aware of the concern to increase the number of members of ethnic minority origin on the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. In making appointments to the council, and to similar bodies, efforts are made to identify members of ethnic minority groups who are able and willing to undertake public work.

  Administrators
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the ratio of administrators to beds in(a) the National Health Service, (b) the South-West regional health authority and (c) the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority on 1 January 1965, 1 January 1975, and 1 January 1985; and what is the projection for 1 January 1988.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 December 19871]: Full information is not available in the form requested. For 1965, there are no comparable data with the later years. Projections for 1988 are not available centrally.

  The work of administrative and clerical staff spans the whole range of health authority activity, not just hospital in-patient services, and a substantial number are engaged in direct clinical support roles. Crude ratios of administrative staff to available hospital beds, therefore, are misleading and do not provide helpful comparisons. The available information as requested, however, is shown in the table.

  NHS Administrative and Clerical staff in post at 30 September per average daily available bed in NHS hospitals over calendar year

  1975

  1985

  England

  0·24

  0·34

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  0·21

  0·30

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly District Health Authority

  n/a

  0·22

  Number of cases on in-patient waiting list with ranking of District Health Authorities/Special Health Authorities by percentage change September 1982 to March 1987

  Change September 1982 to March 1987

  District Health Authority/Special Health Authority

  September 1982

  March 1987

  Number

  Percentage

  Milton Keynes1

  6

  2,614

  2,608

  43,466·7

  Halton

  7

  141

  134

  1,914·3

  Islington

  1,098

  2,826

  1,728

  157·4

  Huntingdon

  471

  922

  451

  95·8

  Benefit Offices (Staff Safety)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been made by trade unions representing staff in local offices about the safety of staff following benefit regulation changes in April.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 25 February 1988]: No written representations have been received, but discussions have taken place about the safety of staff at departmental Whitley council meetings.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the percentage of patients awaiting operations in the Leeds, West district health authority who have been waiting for(a) under one month, (b) under two months, (c) under three months, (d) under six months, (e) under nine months, (f) under 12 months and (g) between 12 months and two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the September 1987 figures for in-patient waiting lists, urgent and non-urgent, for each district in the Yorkshire region.

  Mr. Newton
  The September waiting list figures are being compiled now and will be published as soon as possible.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when Her Majesty's Government intend to publish the quarterly waiting list returned filed by all district health authorities and special health authorities on 31 June 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: The returns for 30 June were seriously incomplete, due to initial difficulties in some places in switching to the new and more detailed information system. Putting these figures into a form in which they might usefully be published requires extensive work, and we are currently giving priority to the returns for September, which I hope to be able to publish shortly.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table for each district health authority and special health authority, showing for each the total numbers of people waiting for treatment in September 1982 compared with the numbers at March 1987, the numerical change and the percentage increase or decrease, listed with the biggest increase first and the largest decrease last.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply 18 January 1988, c. 570]: The information requested is given in the table.
  463

  Change September 1982 to March 1987

  District Health Authority/Special Health Authority

  September 1982

  March 1987

  Number

  Percentage

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  3,127

  5,863

  2,736

  87·5

  East Surrey

  1,257

  2,327

  1,070

  85·1

  West Essex

  2,555

  4,645

  2,090

  81·8

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  5,335

  9,341

  4,006

  75·1

  Bexley

  1,123

  1,953

  830

  73·9

  Dartford and Gravesham

  2,916

  4,846

  1,930

  66·2

  Harrogate

  1,274

  2,059

  785

  61·6

  City and Hackney

  4,586

  7,140

  2,554

  55·7

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  2,167

  3,247

  1,080

  49·8

  Kidderminster and District

  1,070

  1,585

  515

  48·1

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  4,474

  6,488

  2,014

  45·0

  The Hospital for Sick Children

  1,456

  2,110

  654

  44·9

  Mid Essex2

  3,246

  4,672

  1,426

  43·9

  Bloomsbury

  9,632

  13,446

  3,814

  39·6

  Redbridge

  1,719

  2,392

  673

  39·2

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1,475

  2,052

  577

  39·1

  Waltham Forest

  3,271

  4,504

  1,233

  37·7

  West Suffolk

  2,027

  2,762

  735

  36·3

  West Lambeth

  6,038

  8,111

  2,073

  34·3

  North Warwickshire

  1,944

  2,576

  632

  32·5

  South East Staffordshire

  2,026

  2,679

  653

  32·2

  Worcester and District

  2,651

  3,477

  826

  31·2

  Tower Hamlets

  6,003

  7,865

  1,862

  31·0

  Hillingdon

  6,009

  7,867

  1,858

  30·9

  Wolverhampton

  3,677

  4,802

  1,125

  30·6

  Herefordshire

  2,272

  2,945

  673

  29·6

  Lancaster

  1,784

  2,312

  528

  29·6

  Eastbourne

  2,552

  3,298

  746

  29·2

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  3,708

  4,763

  1,055

  28·5

  The National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  441

  564

  123

  27·9

  South West Surrey

  2,385

  3,005

  620

  26·0

  North West Surrey

  2,315

  2,915

  600

  25·9

  Rochdale

  2,342

  2,933

  591

  25·2

  Winchester

  2,309

  2,880

  571

  24·7

  Airedale

  1,686

  2,100

  414

  24·6

  Kettering

  2,848

  3,546

  698

  24·5

  East Dorset

  4,361

  5,424

  1,063

  24·4

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3,288

  4,074

  786

  23·9

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  1,688

  2,088

  400

  23·7

  Paddington and North Kensington

  2,813

  3,459

  646

  23·0

  West Berkshire

  3,256

  3,999

  743

  22·8

  Central Manchester

  5,358

  6,543

  1,185

  22·1

  Cheltenham

  1,782

  2,157

  375

  21·0

  Trafford

  1,301

  1,542

  241

  18·5

  Chorley and South Ribble

  651

  770

  119

  18·3

  Canterbury and Thanet

  4,136

  4,889

  753

  18·2

  Wycombe

  1,134

  1,333

  199

  17·5

  Southend

  3,248

  3,788

  540

  16·6

  Bromley

  1,931

  2,242

  311

  16·1

  Leicestershire

  7,177

  8,278

  1,101

  15·3

  Rotherham

  3,871

  4,461

  590

  15·2

  Bristol and Weston

  7,142

  8,213

  1,071

  15·0

  East Cumbria

  3,323

  3,796

  473

  14·2

  Greenwich

  2,362

  2,687

  325

  13·8

  Hastings

  2,547

  2,882

  335

  13·2

  Swindon

  2,825

  3,194

  369

  13·1

  Maidstone

  2,190

  2,461

  271

  12·4

  Northallerton

  623

  699

  76

  12·2

  Sandwell

  1,721

  1,927

  206

  12·0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6,831

  7,644

  813

  11·9

  Basildon and Thurrock

  5,888

  6,541

  653

  11·1

  Peterborough

  3,770

  4,176

  406

  10·8

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  4,117

  4,546

  429

  10·4

  West Birmingham

  4,269

  4,699

  430

  10·1

  South Birmingham

  6,878

  7,569

  691

  10·0

  Leeds Western

  4,330

  4,758

  428

  9·9

  464 465

  Change September 1982 to March 1987

  District Health Authority/Special Health Authority

  September 1982

  March 1987

  Number

  Percentage

  Somerset

  4,949

  5,436

  487

  9·8

  Brent

  1,737

  1,903

  166

  9·6

  East Suffolk

  3,097

  3,381

  284

  9·2

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  2,313

  2,521

  208

  9·0

  North Devon

  1,558

  1,693

  135

  8·7

  Bradford

  6,663

  7,172

  509

  7·6

  South West Hertfordshire

  1,986

  2,136

  150

  7·6

  Exeter

  4,436

  4,737

  301

  6·8

  South Cumbria

  1,152

  1,217

  65

  5·6

  Stockport

  4,430

  4,668

  238

  5·4

  Shropshire

  8,441

  8,842

  401

  4·8

  Brighton

  3,863

  4,022

  159

  4·1

  Medway

  3,273

  3,393

  120

  3·7

  North Hertfordshire

  3,155

  3,267

  112

  3·5

  South West Durham

  803

  831

  28

  3·5

  West Lancashire

  2,433

  2,495

  62

  2·5

  North Staffordshire

  8,862

  9,058

  196

  2·2

  West Dorset

  2,015

  2,057

  42

  2·1

  Isle of Wight

  1,349

  1,368

  19

  1·4

  South Bedfordshire

  2,382

  2,415

  33

  1·4

  Ealing

  1,489

  1,504

  15

  1·0

  Mid Surrey

  2,150

  2,157

  7

  0·3

  Enfield

  3,068

  3,074

  6

  0·2

  The National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  1,073

  1,065

  -8

  -0·7

  Southport and Formby

  1,373

  1,360

  -13

  -0·9

  Salisbury

  4,770

  4,717

  -53

  -1·1

  Plymouth

  5,897

  5,800

  -97

  -1·6

  Leeds Eastern

  6,169

  6,064

  -105

  -1·7

  Hull

  7,050

  6,911

  -139

  -2·0

  Barnet

  3,628

  3,545

  -83

  -2·3

  Oldham

  5,071

  4,925

  -146

  -2·9

  East Berkshire

  8,244

  7,905

  -339

  -4·1

  Wigan

  4,677

  4,458

  -219

  -4·7

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  1,458

  1,387

  -71

  -4·9

  York

  2,710

  2,575

  -135

  -5·0

  Salford

  5,371

  5,101

  -270

  -5·0

  Riverside

  5,888

  5,590

  -298

  -5·1

  South Lincolnshire

  4,428

  4,190

  -238

  -5·4

  North East Essex2

  3,510

  3,296

  -214

  -6·1

  Chester

  2,940

  2,759

  -181

  -6·2

  Bolton

  3,348

  3,138

  -210

  -6·3

  North Bedfordshire

  2,657

  2,421

  -236

  -8·9

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  9,080

  8,217

  -863

  -9·5

  Hartlepool

  1,841

  1,661

  -180

  -9·8

  Liverpool

  8,553

  7,704

  -849

  -9·9

  Chichester

  2,786

  2,464

  -322

  -11·6

  Northumberland

  1,896

  1,668

  -228

  -12·0

  Mid Downs

  2,621

  2,288

  -333

  -12·7

  Preston

  5,287

  4,586

  -701

  -13·3

  Camberwell

  3,388

  2,913

  -475

  -14·0

  Wandsworth

  3,239

  2,768

  -471

  -14·5

  Calderdale

  1,166

  996

  -170

  -14·6

  Harrow

  1,370

  1,168

  -202

  -14·7

  Gateshead

  1,661

  1,412

  -249

  -15·0

  Gloucester

  4,959

  4,214

  -745

  -15·0

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5,238

  4,434

  -804

  -15·3

  Oxfordshire

  7,003

  5,901

  -1,102

  -15·7

  Walsall

  3,324

  2,740

  -584

  -17·6

  South Warwickshire

  3,194

  2,631

  -563

  -17·6

  The Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  128

  105

  -23

  -18·0

  Worthing

  3,756

  2,058

  -698

  -18·6

  Croydon

  3,093

  2,518

  -575

  -18·6

  Newcastle

  11,524

  9,363

  -2,161

  -18·8

  Merton and Sutton

  3,639

  2,946

  -693

  -19·0

  Pontefract

  2,569

  2,079

  -490

  -19·1

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  4,194

  3,364

  -830

  -19·8

  South Derbyshire

  6,322

  4,991

  -1,331

  -21·1

  South Manchester

  8,120

  6,408

  -1,712

  -21·1

  Scarborough

  2,200

  1,724

  -476

  -21·6

  Doncaster

  6,132

  4,686

  -1,466

  -23·6

  466 467

  Change September 1982 to March 1987

  District Health Authority/Special Health Authority

  September 1982

  March 1987

  Number

  Percentage

  Darlington

  3,140

  2,397

  -743

  -23·7

  Rugby

  864

  659

  -205

  -23·7

  Kingston and Esher

  3,194

  2,418

  -776

  -24·3

  Wirral

  4,714

  3,564

  -1,150

  -24·4

  Sheffield

  14,678

  11,051

  -3,627

  -24·7

  Sunderland

  4,889

  3,659

  -1,230

  -25·2

  Bury

  979

  731

  -248

  -25·3

  West Cumbria

  1,870

  1,396

  -474

  -25·3

  East Yorkshire

  1,924

  1,429

  -495

  -25·7

  Cambridge

  6,708

  4,945

  -1,763

  -26·3

  Newham

  2,222

  1,638

  -584

  -26·3

  Tunbridge Wells

  6,220

  4,566

  -1,654

  -26·6

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  3,294

  2,404

  -890

  -27·0

  North Derbyshire

  3,511

  2,520

  -991

  -28·2

  East Hertfordshire

  1,847

  1,325

  -522

  -28·3

  Dudley

  5,441

  3,889

  -1,552

  -28·5

  Central Birmingham

  7,635

  5,427

  -2,208

  -28·9

  Wakefield

  3,216

  2,241

  -975

  -30·3

  South Tyneside

  1,047

  727

  -320

  -30·6

  Durham

  1,489

  1,032

  -457

  -30·7

  Solihull

  2,278

  1,578

  -700

  -30·7

  Central Nottinghamshire

  7,154

  4,955

  -2,199

  -30·7

  Bath

  8,079

  5,570

  -2,509

  -31·1

  Crewe

  5,128

  3,512

  -1,616

  -31·5

  North Lincolnshire

  4,129

  2,819

  -1,310

  -31·7

  Torbay

  2,368

  1,602

  -766

  -32·3

  Mid Staffordshire

  2,440

  1,648

  -792

  32·5

  Barnsley

  3,934

  2,600

  -1,334

  -33·9

  Huddersfield

  3,308

  2,175

  -1,133

  -34·3

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  3,698

  2,411

  -1,287

  -34·8

  South East Kent

  3,946

  2,564

  -1,382

  -35·0

  East Birmingham

  4,600

  2,865

  -1,735

  -37·7

  Scunthorpe

  4,609

  2,832

  -1,777

  -38·6

  Warrington

  3,037

  1,864

  -1,173

  -38·6

  Northampton

  6,793

  4,144

  -2,649

  -39·0

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  3,542

  2,148

  -1,394

  -39·4

  North Tyneside

  1,721

  1,043

  -678

  -39·4

  Nottingham

  10,988

  6,625

  -4,363

  -39·7

  Grimsby

  2,355

  1,400

  -955

  -40·6

  Frenchay

  5,855

  3,458

  -2,397

  -40·9

  Haringey

  1,708

  1,004

  -704

  -41·2

  Norwich

  10,980

  6,377

  -4,603

  -41·9

  Tameside and Glossop

  2,866

  1,645

  -1,221

  -42·6

  North West Hertfordshire

  2,697

  1,544

  -1,153

  -42·8

  Coventry

  8,759

  4,813

  -3,946

  -45·1

  South Sefton

  6,332

  3,409

  -2,923

  -46·2

  North Manchester

  4,726

  2,528

  -2,198

  -46·5

  South Tees

  10,319

  5,519

  -4,800

  -46·5

  North West Durham

  1,325

  683

  -642

  -48·5

  Aylesbury Vale1

  6,450

  3,300

  -3,150

  -48·8

  Southmead

  2,958

  1,415

  -1,543

  -52·2

  North Birmingham

  2,723

  1,300

  -1,423

  -52·3

  North Tees

  1,958

  930

  -1,028

  -52·5

  Bassetlaw

  1,185

  535

  -650

  -54·9

  Dewsbury

  1,181

  429

  -752

  -63·7

  Macclesfield

  2,302

  760

  -1,542

  -67·0

  The Royal Marsden Hospital3

  331

  n/a

  -331

  —

  The Eastman Dental Hospital4

  n/a

  250

  250

  —

  Hampstead3

  1,979

  n/a

  —

  —

  1 The waiting list for Milton Keynes was formerly held by Aylesbury Vale Health Authority but was taken over by Milton Keynes Health Authority in 1984 following the development of Milton Keynes General Hospital. The above table shows a comparable reduction in the Aylesbury Vale figures.

  2 The waiting list figures for March 1987 are affected by the transfer of Black Notley Hospital from the North East Essex District to Mid Essex DHA on 1 April 1986.

  3 No March 1987 figures available for Hampstead Health Authority and the Royal Marsden Hospital.

  4 In September 1982 the data for the Eastman Dental Hospital was collected by another unit.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures showing the numbers of people waiting for treatment in March 1978 468
  and March 1987; and if he will break this list down by regional health authority, district health authority and special health authority.
  469
  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 570]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of cases on in-patient waiting list at 31 March 1978 and 31 March 1987

  District health authority

  March 1978

  March 1987

  Northern Region

  Hartlepool

  1,523

  1,661

  North Tees

  1,360

  930

  South Tees

  4,543

  5,519

  East Cumbria1

  ..

  3,796

  South Cumbria1

  ..

  1,217

  West Cumbria

  999

  1,396

  Darlington

  2,088

  2,397

  Durham

  1,286

  1,032

  North West Durham

  1,080

  683

  South West Durham

  907

  831

  Northumberland

  1,477

  1,668

  Gateshead

  1,787

  1,412

  Newcastle

  8,903

  9,363

  North Tyneside

  991

  1,043

  South Tyneside

  646

  727

  Sunderland

  2,917

  3,659

  RHA Total

  30,507

  37,334

  Yorkshire Region

  Hull

  5,076

  6,911

  East Yorkshire

  1,361

  1,429

  Grimsby1

  ..

  1,400

  Scunthorpe

  2,062

  2,832

  Northallerton

  562

  699

  York

  2,290

  2,575

  Scarborough

  1,238

  1,724

  Harrogate

  2,213

  2,059

  Bradford

  3,019

  7,172

  Airedale

  1,049

  2,100

  Calderdale1

  ..

  996

  Huddersfield

  1,852

  2,175

  Dewsbury

  829

  429

  Leeds Western1

  ..

  4,758

  Leeds Eastern1

  ..

  6,064

  Wakefield

  1,873

  2,241

  Pontefract

  1,840

  2,079

  RHA Total

  25,264

  47,643

  Trent Region

  North Derbyshire

  2,768

  2,520

  Southern Derbyshire

  4,685

  4,991

  Leicestershire

  8,252

  8,278

  North Lincolnshire

  4,344

  2,819

  South Lincolnshire

  4,628

  4,190

  Bassetlaw

  1,467

  535

  Central Nottinghamshire

  4,090

  4,955

  Nottingham

  6,222

  6,625

  Barnsley

  2,998

  2,600

  Doncaster1

  ..

  4,686

  Rotherham1

  ..

  4,461

  Sheffield1

  ..

  11,051

  RHA Total

  39,454

  57,711

  East Anglian Region

  Cambridge1

  ..

  4,945

  Peterborough

  2,760

  4,176

  West Suffolk1

  ..

  2,762

  East Suffolk1

  ..

  3,381

  Norwich

  5,887

  6,377

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  3,661

  3,364

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  3,221

  2,088

  Huntingdon1

  ..

  922

  RHA Total

  15,529

  28,015

  North West Thames Region

  470

  District health authority

  March 1978

  March 1987

  North Bedfordshire

  1,516

  2,421

  South Bedfordshire

  2,805

  2,415

  North Hertfordshire

  2,317

  3,267

  East Hertfordshire

  1,426

  1325

  North West Hertfordshire

  2,412

  1,544

  South West Hertfordshire

  2,830

  2,136

  Barnet

  3,085

  3,545

  Harrow

  955

  1,168

  Hillingdon

  7,263

  7,867

  Hounslow and Spelthorne1

  ..

  5,863

  Ealing

  1,298

  1,504

  Brent1

  ..

  1,903

  Paddington and North Kensington

  2,280

  3,459

  Riverside1

  ..

  5,590

  RHA Total

  28,187

  44,007

  North East Thames Region

  Basildon and Thurrock

  5,708

  6,541

  Mid Essex2

  2,837

  4,672

  North East Essex2

  3,314

  3,296

  West Essex

  2,506

  4,645

  Southend

  2,267

  3,788

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  4,436

  6,488

  Hampstead1 3

  ..

  ..

  Bloomsbury1

  ..

  13,446

  Islington1

  ..

  2,826

  City and Hackney1

  ..

  7,140

  Newham

  1,312

  1,638

  Tower Hamlets1

  ..

  7,865

  Enfield

  2,539

  3,074

  Haringey

  1,885

  1,004

  Redbridge

  1,128

  2,392

  Waltham Forest

  3,402

  4,504

  RHA Total

  31,334

  73,319

  South East Thames Region

  Brighton

  3,964

  4,002

  Eastbourne

  1,624

  3,298

  Hastings

  2,963

  2,882

  South East Kent

  2,716

  2,564

  Canterbury and Thanet

  3,660

  4,889

  Dartford and Gravesham

  2,913

  4,846

  Maidstone

  2,387

  2,461

  Medway

  2,192

  3,393

  Tunbridge Wells

  6,298

  4,566

  Bexley

  707

  1,953

  Greenwich

  1,992

  2,687

  Bromley

  1,416

  2,242

  West Lambeth1

  ..

  8,111

  Camberwell

  3,061

  2,913

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  5,781

  9,341

  RHA Total

  41,674

  60,168

  South West Thames Region

  North West Surrey

  3,099

  2,915

  North Surrey and North East Hants

  3,015

  4,763

  South West Surrey

  2,698

  3,005

  Mid Surrey

  940

  2,157

  East Surrey

  1,059

  2,327

  Chichester

  1,518

  2,464

  Mid Downs

  1,780

  2,288

  Worthing

  2,439

  3,058

  Croydon

  2,535

  2,518

  Kingston and Esher1

  ..

  2,418

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton1

  ..

  2,521

  Wandsworth

  3,260

  2,768

  Merton and Sutton

  3,069

  2,946

  RHA Total

  25,412

  36,148

  Wessex Region

  East Dorset

  4,549

  5,424

  West Dorset

  2,282

  2,057

  471

  District health authority

  March 1978

  March 1987

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6,364

  7,644

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  5,267

  8,217

  Winchester

  2,725

  2,880

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  2,368

  2,411

  Salisbury

  3,407

  4,717

  Swindon

  1,404

  3,194

  Bath

  4,701

  5,570

  Isle of Wight

  1,184

  1,368

  RHA Total

  34,251

  43,482

  Oxford Region

  East Berkshire

  7,962

  7,905

  West Berkshire

  3,012

  3,999

  Aylesbury Vale1

  ..

  3,300

  Wycombe

  1,195

  1,333

  Milton Keynes1

  ..

  2,614

  Kettering

  4,027

  3,546

  Northampton

  4,895

  4,144

  Oxfordshire

  6,800

  5,901

  RHA Total

  27,891

  32,742

  South Western Region

  Bristol and Weston

  8,090

  8,213

  Frenchay

  5,977

  3,458

  Southmead

  1,200

  1,415

  Cornwall and Isles of Stilly

  3,510

  4,434

  Exeter

  3,484

  4,737

  North Devon1

  ..

  1,693

  Plymouth1

  ..

  5,800

  Torbay

  3,369

  1,602

  Cheltenham1

  ..

  2,157

  Gloucester

  ..

  4,214

  Somerset

  5,233

  5,436

  RHA Total

  30,863

  43,159

  West Midlands Region

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1,201

  2,052

  Herefordshire

  2,135

  2,945

  Kidderminster and District

  813

  1,585

  Worcester and District

  1,884

  3,477

  Shropshire

  6,134

  8,842

  Mid Staffordshire

  2,347

  1,648

  North Staffordshire

  8,325

  9,058

  South East Staffordshire

  1,383

  2,679

  Rugby

  764

  659

  North Warwickshire1

  ..

  2,576

  South Warwickshire1

  ..

  2,631

  Central Birmingham1

  ..

  5,427

  East Birmingham

  3,727

  2,865

  North Birmingham

  3,969

  1,300

  South Birmingham1

  ..

  7,569

  West Birmingham1

  ..

  4,699

  Coventry

  5,254

  4,813

  Dudley

  5,562

  3,889

  Sandwell

  1,899

  1,927

  Solihull

  ..

  1,578

  Walsall

  3,841

  2,740

  Wolverhampton

  3,618

  4,802

  RHA Total

  52,856

  79,761

  Mersey Region

  Chester

  2,137

  2,759

  Crewe1

  ..

  3,512

  Halton

  0

  141

  Macclesfield1

  ..

  760

  Warrington

  2,623

  1,864

  Liverpool

  7,704

  7,704

  St. Helens and Knowsley1

  ..

  4,074

  Southport and Formby

  1,703

  1,360

  South Sefton

  3,916

  3,409

  Wirral

  3,168

  3,564

  472

  District health authority

  March 1978

  March 1987

  RHA Total

  21,251

  29,147

  North Western Region

  Lancaster

  1,867

  2,312

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  3,771

  4,546

  Preston1

  ..

  4,586

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  4,978

  2,404

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  3,864

  2,148

  West Lancashire

  2,466

  2,495

  Chorley and South Ribble1

  ..

  770

  Bolton

  3,599

  3,138

  Bury

  1,075

  731

  North Manchester

  4,549

  2,528

  Central Manchester

  5,769

  6,543

  South Manchester

  5,281

  6,408

  Oldham

  3,024

  4,925

  Rochdale

  2,629

  2,933

  Salford

  3,669

  5,101

  Stockport

  4,191

  4,668

  Tameside and Glossop

  2,051

  1,645

  Trafford

  1,821

  1,542

  Wigan

  2,824

  4,458

  RHA Total

  57,428

  63,881

  Special Health Authorities

  The Hospital for Sick Children

  2,128

  2,110

  The National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  257

  564

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  915

  1,387

  The Bethiem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  77

  105

  The National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  921

  1,065

  The Royal Marsden Hospital3

  158

  ..

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  319

  3,247

  The Eastman Dental Hospital4

  ..

  250

  Special Health Authorities Total

  4,775

  8,728

  1 Comparable figures not readily available because of National Health Service restructuring on 1 April 1982.

  2 The waiting list figures for March 1987 are affected by the transfer of Black Notley Hospital from the North East Essex District to Mid Essex district health authority on 1 April 1986.

  3 No March 1987 figures available for Hampstead Health Authority and The Royal Marsden Hospital.

  4 In September 1982 the data for the Eastman Dental Hospital was collected by another unit.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Surplus Commodities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect on output of wheat, rapeseed and other commodities in surplus of the measures which the German Government have said they will introduce to cushion the effect of the decisions taken by the EEC at the meeting of the Council of Ministers and whether he expects other countries are likely to take similar measures.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I assume the hon. Member refers to set-aside. It is not possible to predict its effect on output, as this will depend on the uptake of the scheme in the individual member states.

  EC (Depreciation of Stocks)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his statement on the meeting of the EEC Council,Official Report, 15, February, columns 705–17, why the cost of depreciation on

  473
  EEC stocks has not been written off under the guideline; and under what provision of the treaty of Rome the Commission decided not to include such depreciation in the annual budget.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 22 February by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at column 17.

  Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the General Synod of the Church of England to discuss the social and economic prospects for agricultural tenants.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such meeting has been requested by the General Synod, nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales been approached by the Church in Wales, but I frequently meet representatives of landlords and tenants to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Negative Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the result of the representations to the European Commission on the subject of negative monetary compensatory amounts as barriers to the efficiency of the United Kingdom's agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect this to be considered in the context of the forthcoming price-fixing.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research Her Majesty's Government are sponsoring into alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None. Although one chlorofluorocarbon (dichlorodifluoromethane) is currently permitted as a food contact freezant under the Miscellaneous Additives in Food Regulations 1980, its usage is very small, and alternative liquid freezants (carbon dioxide and nitrogen) are already permitted by the same regulations. The latter materials are already used preferentially by quick-frozen food manufacturers, as the processes utilising them are both more cost-effective and environmentally acceptable.

  Houses (Land Slippage)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to how many houses, by county, have been affected in the last five years by land slippage through land drainage problems and coastal erosion.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Bass Fishery
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take for the long-term management of the bass fishery.

  Mr. Gummer
  On 24 July 1986 I announced, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) at 474
  column 500 that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I were undertaking consultations on measures recommended by the Ministry's directorate of fisheries research for the management of the bass fishery in England and Wales. Those consultations produced a full and detailed response from both commercial and recreational fishermen.

  Following careful evaluation of this response and further investigation by our scientists, my right hon. Friend and I have reached conclusions about the sort of measures needed to protect young bass, safeguard recruitment to the spawning stock and maximise yields to the fishery. Although alternative options have been considered, we are of the view that the general line of the approach recommended by our scientists is the correct one, with an increase in the minimum landing size for bass, together with the introduction of mesh size controls for gill and other specified nets and the closure of nursery areas.

  Our conclusions are therefore that the following measures would be appropriate:

  (i) minimum landing size
  to increase from 1 January 1989 the national mimimum landing size for bass from 32 to 36 cm
  to prohibit from the same date the carriage of bass under 36 cm by British vessels
  to ask the EC Commission to propose a corresponding increase in the Community minimum landing size

  (ii) mesh size controls
  to prohibit from 1 January 1990 the use of gill and other specified nets with mesh sizes of between 60 and 99 mm by British fishing vessels within British fishery limits, south of lines of latitude drawn through Donna Nook in Lincolnshire and Havering Point, Cumbria, subject to an exception for certain types of net between 60 and 99 mm used to catch grey mullet in specified fisheries

  (iii) nursery areas
  to establish from 1 January 1990 24 nursery areas to protect juvenile bass stocks, in which only fishing activities which are not considered detrimental to juvenile bass stocks would be permitted.

  The intention would be to apply the minimum landing size throughout Great Britain. The prohibition on the carriage of under-size bass would apply to all British fishing vessels. The mesh size controls would not be applied to waters off Scotland, north east England, Cumbria and Northern Ireland, where the numbers of bass taken are negligible. Within the area in which the mesh size controls would apply there would also be a ban on the carriage of gill and other specified nets with mesh sizes of between 60 and 99 mm unless properly lashed and stowed in such a way that they could not be readily used.

  Full details of these proposals are being sent to organisations representative of the commercial and recreational fisheries and other interests and copies are also being placed in the Library of the House. Written comments are being invited by 31 May. My officials will be looking to discuss the local implications of the proposed measures, and in particular the proposals for individual nursery areas, in detail with representatives of local fishing interests before final decisions are taken.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the exact date and time when he first became aware of the high level of rainfall at the time the Chernobyl nuclear accident plume was over West Yorkshire in early May 1986.
  475
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the last sentence of my previous reply to this matter on 10 February 1988, at column 240. The exact date of receipt was 30 June 1986; the time of receipt was not recorded.

ENERGY

  Energy Subsidies
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has commissioned or intends to commission, studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the subsidies, both direct and indirect, including tax reliefs, given to(a) the nuclear industry, (b) the oil and gas industry, (c) the coal industry and (d) the energy efficiency-renewable energy industries; what these are in 1987 prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department's current support for the areas in question is described in volume II, chapter 6 of the public expenditure White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91", Cm. 288, published in January 1988. The cost-effectiveness of this support is kept under regular review.

  Nuclear Research
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current percentage levy by(a) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and (b) the Energy Technology Support Unit on (i) nuclear and (ii) non-nuclear research work to fund underlying nuclear research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department of Energy's contribution to the UKAEA's funding of the underlying research programme is made through a 10 per cent. levy on the majority of its nuclear programme letters, and smaller levies on contracts for non-nuclear work, including a charge of 6 per cent. on the work undertaken by the energy technology support unit. The balance of programme funding comes from levies on work for the UKAEA's other customers, and other arrangements designed to produce comparable levels of funding.

  Imported Coal
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the level of direct or indirect subsidy enjoyed by imported coal from: South Africa, the United States of America, Poland, Colombia, Australia and China.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government do not collect information about any subsidies which may be paid to overseas coal producers, as few coal-producing countries publish such information.

  Scottish Coalfield (Work Force)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what would be the net cost of making the work force of the Scottish coalfield redundant and paying them benefits instead of wages.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This information is not available.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels Limited to discuss the future of Sellafield and the effects of reprocessing of nuclear waste on the inhabitants of the east coast of Ireland and west coast of Britain.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of BNFL regularly. I shall meet him next on Monday 29 February when I open the company's exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. Reprocessing is a proven and safe technology which keeps open the possibility for recycling valuable uranium and plutonium as fuel.

  Nuclear Policy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the Irish Government and their Minister for Energy regarding nuclear energy policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 15 February 1988 at column 516.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any nuclear material of any kind has been transported to the Drigg or Sellafield sites from the Mol site in Belgium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am informed that irradiated fuel from a joint United Kingdom/Belgium irradiation test programe in the BR3 reactor at Mol was returned to Sellafield on completion of the programme. The last receipts were in 1984–85.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress the Government have made towards clarifying guidelines for the use of third party financing in the public sector, for energy efficiency investment provided by private sector energy management companies.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The guidelines issued by the Treasury and the Energy Efficiency Office last May clarified the use and assessment of contract energy management in the public sector, and these still apply. A number of public sector projects are under way or in development.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he is making towards launching a suitable scheme for labelling the energy efficiency of homes; and when he expects to launch such a scheme.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department's Energy Efficiency Office jointly funded (with the Department of the Environment) the development of the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model, which provides the technical basis for the Milton Keynes energy cost index for new houses. Meanwhile, the EEO continues to advise and encourage private sector firms seeking to stimulate market demand for home energy labels in new or existing homes.

  Private Sector Energy Producers
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the Government expect to resolve the difficulties in relation to establishing a rating system for private sector electricity power stations and combined heat and power producers, which will permit them to be assessed for rating on an equitable basis with power stations operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I will be making a statement on the rating of independent electricity suppliers very shortly.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many projects are now operating under the neighbourhood energy action home insulation scheme; how many homes have been insulated; what is the estimated target for the current year; and what is the total level of support from public funds through the Government and their agencies.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are now 434 such projects operating; the number of homes insulated to date is estimated at 450,000; the target number of homes to be insulated is 200,000 in 1987–88 and a further 300,000 in 1988–89. Total Government funding (for start-up costs, wage costs, and for the draught-proofing work of projects) is estimated at £45 million in 1987–88 rising to £55 million to £60 million in 1988–89.

  Energy Labelling Scheme
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to launch an energy labelling scheme for electrical appliances; when discussions with the industry first started on a voluntary scheme; and what progress has been made.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have no plans to launch an energy labelling scheme for electrical appliances.

  My Department has, since before 1980, been in discussion with the manufacturers of electrical appliances, and a pilot energy cost labelling scheme was developed by the John Lewis Partnership and Eastern Electricity in collaboration with the Energy Efficiency Office. As a result of this study, all John Lewis Partnership stores and all electricity board showrooms now display simple energy cost labels on refrigeration goods on a voluntary basis. Many other manufacturers and retailers as a matter of course provide energy consumption data for electrical appliances, either in their sales brochures or in the form of "energy labels".

  In the period 1986–87, the Energy Efficiency Office produced two leaflets: one for consumers which explains the basis for energy cost labels on refrigeration goods, and one for retailers and manufacturers explaining the standard method of estimating the annual energy costs for refrigeration goods, washing machines and dishwashers from the basic energy consumption data provided by the manufacturer. Any retailer or manufacturer who so wishes may draw upon these leaflets to produce a simple energy cost label. Copies of these leaflets are available from the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Electricity (Private Producers)
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to satisfy himself, in the light of the 478
  conclusions of the Price Waterhouse Report on electricity tariffs available to private producers, that the existing tariffs offered by the electricity boards comply with the provisions of the Energy Act 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no reason to believe that in setting tariffs in the light of the Price Waterhouse report, the electricity supply industry has acted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Energy Act 1983.

  Tariffs fixed under the 1983 Act have to be based on the "avoided cost" principle, must not show undue preference and should be published; they must also be set after consultation with the consultative council and the Electricity Council.

  Spent Magnox Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the average percentage of each batch of spent Magnox nuclear fuel processed at BNFL b205 factory deemed to be accounted as a process loss; and what covering agreements there are with customers to accept such process losses.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Processing of spent Magnox nuclear fuel at Sellafield releases both uranium and plutonium for future use. I am informed that up to 3 per cent. by weight of waste is produced; which is isolated for safe storage.

  There are arrangements with overseas customers for the eventual return of such waste.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the European Commission has fully informed(a) the United Kingdom Government and (b) other Governments of the partner countries in supply and co-operation agreements or contracts, of the safeguards convention applied to the accounting of nuclear materials subject to these agreements in mixed civil-military installations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Government participate in the negotiation of arrangements for the application and implementation of Euratom safeguards in the mixed civil-military installations in the United Kingdom. Other Governments are not involved in these negotiations.

  Power Stations (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas),Official Report, 11 February, columns 346–47, on European Economic Community environmental impact assessment regulations, which of the projects (c), (e), (f), (g) in the original question are to be subject to applications for planning consent on or before 2 July under current Departmental plans.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  An application for outline planning consent for the European demonstration reprocessing plant at Dounreay (project C), which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, was submitted on 30 May 1985. The CEGB sought my consent to construct the proposed coal-fired power station at Fawley (project E) on 3 February this
  479
  year. I am advised that those concerned have no plans to submit planning applications for projects F or G before 2 July 1988.

  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost of supplying the statement and White Paper on privatising electricity to every employee of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The cost of supplying the statement and the White Paper was met by the Electricity Council. I have therefore asked the chairman of the council to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of non fossil-fuelled generating capacity the proposed privatised electricity distribution companies will be required to contract for.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I will be consulting the industry on this question. I anticipate that the level will be set to reflect, first, the existing level of nuclear power generation and, secondly, an appropriate level of other non-fossil fuel sources.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to introduce legislation to(a) provide powers to restructure and privatise the electricity supply industry, (b) establish a regulatory system for the electricity supply industry and (c) modernise the law on electricity supply.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the power stations that he proposes should form a new private generating company comprising 30 per cent. of existing capacity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The new company will own a broad spread of plant of various sizes and ages to enable the new company to compete at all levels of system demand. The precise allocation of plant is a matter for consultation with the industry.

  Nuclear Materials
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) in how many nuclear installations in the Unietd Kingdom nuclear materials from the safeguarded and unsafeguarded nuclear cycle are processed simultaneously;

  (2) in how many, and at which, nuclear installations in the United Kingdom civil safeguarded and military unsafeguarded nuclear materials are processed or stored simultaneously.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: There is one facility at British Nuclear Fuels Springfields where some civil natural uranium is co-processed with defence uranium. Both safeguarded and unsafeguarded material is present at various BNFL and Atomic Energy Authority sites.

  Sellafield (Safeguards)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many installations at British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield site are open to continuous physical inspection by either:(a) Euratom or (b) International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards inspectors;

  (2) how many installations at the British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield site contain civil and military materials together, either simultaneously or sequentially.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) on 4 June 1986 at columns 594–95.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) for each of the installations under particular safeguards provisions at British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield, if he will list the date on which the reporting to Euratom of isotopic data on plutonium was begun;

  (2) for how many installations at British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield all plutonium stocks and flows recorded for and reported to Euratom include the plutonium isotopic data;

  (3) for how many of the installations at British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield the particular safeguard provisions to which reference is made in Commission regulation 3227/76 have been brought into force;

  (4) whether the inspection reports, without giving specific details, of meetings to discuss implementation questions regarding the Euratom safeguards provisions agreed in June 1986 for Sellafield, have identified any areas where British Nuclear Fuels plc recording or reporting systems require improvement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newport. West (Mr. Flynn) on 20 July 1987, at column 19. The meetings referred to in my reply are continuing and include discussion of particular safeguards provisions for Sellafield, none of which are yet in force, and the reporting of plutonium isotopic data.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many installations on the British Nuclear plc, Sellafield site are designated for civil use only.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: The facility for the production of fuel for the Dounreay prototype fast reactor is used exclusively for civil purposes as will be the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) which is currently under construction.

  Nuclear Facilities (Safeguards)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for how many, and which, nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom facility attachments, pursuant to the 1978 United Kingdom-International Atomic Energy-Euratom tripartite safeguards agreement are in force.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: There are facility attachments in force for the prototype

  481
  fast reactor and its associated reprocessing plant at Dounreay and the centrifuge enrichment plants at Capenhurst.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what formal agreements there are between Japan and the United Kingdom concerning the physical protection of reprocessed plutonium being transported from Sellafield to Japan in the 1990s;

  (2) what formal agreements there are between United States of America and the United Kingdom concerning the physical protection of reprocessed plutonium being transported from Sellafield to Japan in the 1990s.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: All exports of nuclear materials are made within the guidelines set out in the statement by the then Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan, on 31 March 1976 at columns 514–516. This includes the requirement for adequate physical protection.

  Detailed arrangements for these shipments will be agreed nearer the time.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for the last calendar year or 12 months for which figures are available, the total number of planning applications submitted to local authorities, the number refused, the number appealed against, the number of appeals subsequently upheld, and the number of times costs were awarded; and what the comparable figures have been in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The tables include the information requested.

  Figures for planning applications are taken from Government statistical service news release number 52 dated 1 February 1988. The figures for planning appeals are published in the chief planning inspector's report April 1986 to March 1987. These documents are in the Library of the House.

  Planning applications

  England

  Decisions

  Applications refused

  1982–83

  382,000

  48,000

  1983–84

  404,000

  51,000

  1984–85

  399,000

  54,000

  1985–86

  402,000

  58,000

  1986–87

  426,000

  66,000

  Appeals under sections 36 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971

  Received

  Decided

  Allowed

  1982

  13,900

  12,915

  4,003

  1983

  13,699

  11,221

  3,633

  1984

  16,192

  11,643

  3,773

  1985

  17,053

  14,639

  5,477

  1985–86

  17,839

  14,130

  5,581

  1986–87

  19,856

  15,613

  6,208

  Approximately 13 per cent. of planning appeals are withdrawn by appellants before any decision is reached.
  482

  Applications for the award of costs (all categories of appeal)

  Awards against

  Year

  Decided

  Local authority

  Appellant

  Cases where no award made

  Per cent.

  1982

  355

  87

  18

  250

  70·4

  1983

  277

  53

  20

  204

  73·6

  1984

  310

  43

  15

  252

  81·3

  1985

  351

  94

  7

  250

  71·2

  1985–86

  360

  102

  8

  250

  69·4

  1986–87

  569

  174

  18

  377

  66·3

  Homelessness
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest numbers of homeless people in the London borough of Newham; and what is the cost to the borough.

  Mrs. Roe
  The number of households accepted as homeless by the London borough of Newham in July to September 1987 appears in "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Supplementary tables".

  The latest information available from the borough on the costs incurred in the operation of the homelessness provisions appears in "Homeless Statistics, 1984–85 actuals", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Newham did not respond to the 1985–86 and 1986–87 surveys. The figures cover all the costs falling outside the Housing Revenue Account and the hostel and lodging house costs falling on the HRA: the costs of HRA dwellings used either permanently or temporarily to house the homeless are not included.

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Planning Appeals
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration is being given to introducing legislation whereby individual members of the public, singly or collectively, would have the right of appeal to him where a local authority grants planning permission.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In our response (Cm. 43) to the fifth report from the Environment Committee, Session 1985–86, we endorsed the Committee's view that it would not be appropriate to give to third parties rights to appeal against the grant of planning permission.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) official cars and (b) other vehicles operated by his Department use lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Chope
  There are 16 cars in the Department of the Environment running exclusively on unleaded petrol. There are a further 700 vehicles capable of running on unleaded fuel where it is available.

  Planning Permission (Appeals)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many cases a local authority's refusal of planning permission was(a) the subject of an appeal

  483
  to him and (b) upheld by him in the last year for which figures were available; and what equivalent figures he has for the city of Durham.

  Mrs. Roe
  In 1987, the number of appeals received against planning decisions of local authorities, or their failure to determine applications, the number of such appeals decided by the Secretary of State or inspectors appointed by him, and the number dismissed were as follows:

  England

  City of Durham

  (a) Received

  21,548

  15

  Decided

  17,113

  15

  (b) Dismissed

  10,589

  5

  Lambeth (Housing)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing investment programme approvals have been given to Lambeth council in 1987–88 under the estates action programme; and how many he estimates will be given in the following year.

  Mrs. Roe
  Lambeth Council did not apply for estate action funding in 1987–88 but have submitted four outline bids for 1988–89. These are now being considered. We will tell Lambeth shortly which of these bids we should like them to work up more fully. Any approvals and additional allocations will follow as soon as the council can give us firm information on costs, phasing and other details of the schemes.

  Water
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the location of public water supplies in the area of the Anglian water authority which failed to meet the bacteriological standards set out in the EEC drinking water directive in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am not aware of any public water supplies in the Anglian water authority area failing to comply with the bacteriological standards in the EC drinking water directive in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the households currently housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England and Wales are one-parent families; and what percentage this is of the total number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mrs. Roe
  At 30 September 1987, there were about 11,300 households temporarily placed in bed—and—breakfast accommodation by English and Welsh local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act. Information on the number of one-parent families placed in such accommodation is not collected.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest estimate for the number of homeless people in Leeds; how many are under 21 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Numbers of households accepted as homeless are reported by local authorities, but not 484
  information on ages or on numbers of people. The households accepted by Leeds city council in the third quarter of 1987 appears in the latest issue of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Supplementary tables", which is available in the Library.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any nuclear waste material of any kind has been transported to the Drigg or Sellafield sites from the Mol site in Belgium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Irradiated fuel from a joint United Kingdom/Belgium irradiation test programme in the BR3 reactor at Mol has been returned to Sellafield on completion of the programme. The last receipts were in 1984–85.

  Drigg (Development)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make additional infrastructure investment available in the Drigg area of West Cumbria, following the decision in 1987 to make Drigg Britain's only low-level radioactive waste site.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is for BNFL and the local authorities to make additional infrastructure investment available in the Drigg area.

  BNFL has already contributed some £10 million towards the development of infrastructure in west Cumbria.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Drigg Action Group, Cumbria, concerning the status of, and future developments at, the Drigg site; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have received representations from the organiser of the Drigg Action Group about the Drigg site. A copy of the reply has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Sports and Leisure Management
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to bring sports and leisure management within the class of defined activities as set out in the Local Government Finance Bill; and what timetable he proposes for the implementation of the provisions relating to all such defined services.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department issued consultation papers on both these issues last autumn. We are still considering the responses.

  Rating Reform
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take on the introduction of the new community charge to ensure that the inequalities of the grant-related expenditure formula for Harborough and similar large rural type authorities are not perpetuated in the new system of local government finance, either in the transitional period or in the longer term.

  Mr. Howard
  The needs assessment to be introduced in the new community charge system will continue to reflect
  485
  the real disparities in the circumstances of different areas which affect authorities' need to spend in order to provide a standard level of service efficiently, but they will be simpler and more stable than at present. The details of the methodology will be decided after discussion with local authority representatives.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 19 November 1987,Official Report, column 671, if he is now in a position to list the precise parts of a farm business liable to pay the non-domestic rate; and if he will make a statement.
  486
  Mr. Howard
  A farm business may take many forms. However all such businesses are liable to be rated unless they come within the terms of section 26 of the General Rate Act as amended by the Rating Act 1971.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his definition of agricultural buildings in the context of the proposed uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to section 26 of the General Rate Act 1967 as amended by the Rating Act 1971. The Government have tabled amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill which would replicate those provisions in the new non-domestic rating system.

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

Fixed Penalty Offences in Scotland
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton, on behalf of Baroness Phillips, asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which offences are included in the list for fixed penalties now operating in Scotland.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, procurators fiscal may offer fixed penalties for those road traffic offences listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Transport Act 1982 and also in terms of Section 56 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 for any statutory or common law offence, in respect of which an alleged offender could competently be tried before a district court.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that reply. Can he say anything about the offence of shoplifting in respect of these matters? Can he also tell us how extensive is the consultation process as regards fixed penalties, taking into account the fact that there are distinctions between Scottish and English law? For instance, are the views of magistrates taken into account, because I undertstand that the pressure on the courts could be considerably relieved under the fixed penalty system?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, in response to the second part of the noble Lord's question, such decisions are taken by the procurator fiscal. They will depend on the particular circumstances of the case and whether he considers such a disposal, rather than a prosecution, to be appropriate in the public interest.
2
Certain cases of theft by shoplifting would fall within the ambit of the 1987 Act. Depending upon the circumstances, they may be considered appropriate for such a disposal rather than for prosecution by a procurator fiscal.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the penalties are fixed without any reference to the income and financial standing of the defendant.
Lord Cameron Lochbroom: My Lords, the noble Lord is in one sense correct. Penalties are fixed by the statute under which they were permitted; namely, by the Act of Parliament. The £25 penalty is one of the matters which a procurator fiscal will take into account in determining whether he considered such a disposal to be appropriate in a particular case.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether he has given directions or guidance to procurators fiscal in respect of the circumstances under which a fixed penalty should he offered rather than prosecution?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I have given certain instructions as regards the circumstances under which the power of an offer of fixed penalty may be used. My concern is to ensure that it will be used correctly. For that reason the present provision is monitored, involving procurators fiscal, clerks of the court and Scottish Office statisticians.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken in answering the Question. However, will he comment on the point that I raised? Prior to the powers being exercised, to what extent do consultations take place with magistrates, courts and their representatives? I understand that the courts are under great pressure and that the fixed penalty system may well be one way of easing the pressure.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the noble Lord can be certain that procurators fiscal are well

3
aware of the pressures that exist on the courts to get through the business as quickly as possible. The use of the discretion is related to the terms of the individual case. I hope that that will be the ruling matter, rather than the question of the pressure on the courts. I can assure the noble Lord that I am particularly concerned with that.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, as a result of the monitoring to which reference has been made, is it possible to publish the statistics in the various categories for which they are available showing the proportion of cases which have been dealt with by fixed penalties?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, as regards road traffic offences this scheme has been in existence for some time. I believe that 61,000 fixed penalty offers were made in 1987 and that there was a 90 per cent. take-up. Of course noble Lords will be aware that if the offer is not accepted, the matter is taken to court by way of a prosecution.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell me whether one consequence of the positive use of discretion is that the offender will escape all publicity?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, one consequence certainly is that no conviction will be recorded against the offender and, at the end of the day, that means that there will be no publicity.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, with regard to shoplifting which was raised previously, are we to understand that a fixed penalty can be imposed and accepted whatever the value of the goods?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, as in any other case it will depend on the circumstances of the particular report. However, I assure my noble friend that the value of the goods would be one of the circumstances of which the procurator fiscal would take account before determining the proper disposal.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord able to say whether the Government have it in mind to legislate along similar lines for England and Wales?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, no, I do not have any such information. I have no doubt that the Government will watch the operation of the scheme in Scotland as a successful means of having an alternative to prosecution which may, at the end of the day, find a response South of the Border as well.

London Traffic
2.46 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they are making to improve the movement of London traffic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we are giving priority to improving London's trunk roads and traffic control arrangements. We are supporting an increasing number of borough road and traffic schemes. We are conducting studies into ways of tackling transport problems in four areas with the most acute difficulties. We are encouraging better control of parking. We are also encouraging efficient and attractive rail and Underground services, which are helping to relieve road congestion.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive Answer and offer my congratulations on what has been done. With regard to parking offences is my noble friend aware that we now find the kerbside of London streets full of illegally parked cars which forces double parking by local delivery vans? Is he aware that that is one of the worst offences because it may completely stop the traffic? Will the Minister extend the beginnings of a system of wheel-clamping and car removal which is the most effective means of deterring the illegal parker?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, wheel-clamping is being extended to further parts of central London. Since wheel-clamping was introduced it has reduced illegal parking on yellow lines by 40 per cent. and in residents' bays by one third. It has reduced journey times by between 8 and 14 per cent. providing an estimated saving of between £11 million and £18 million a year. Therefore, I believe that in that direction wheel-clamping has been a success.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether any decision has been made about the future of the Victoria Coach Station? Is he aware that during the peak periods 1,000 coaches a day pass through narrow residential streets in a conservation area? Does he think it makes any sense for coaches going to the north of the capital to pass through London's heavy traffic?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's interest in the future of the Victoria Coach Station. The situation has been going on for some time now. I am not entirely sure what stage we have reached at the moment but perhaps I can write to the noble Lord with the latest information.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend think that clamping vehicles in itself may be hindering London traffic and, therefore, might it not be better to tow them away if possible? Secondly, is it not slightly upsetting that most of our yellow-capped friends who try to prevent the obstruction of traffic tend to check on areas where there are already cars parked on meters and not on single or double yellow lines?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously clamping must be done very carefully and vehicles which are an obstruction to traffic should not be

5
clamped. Those would obviously be candidates to be towed away. Normally clamping should be done only where a vehicle is parked for too long in an area where it is not actually causing an obstruction. Therefore, I believe that clamping should be done very carefully.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that London Transport Underground services still show all the signs of being acutely under-staffed and, as the Government are enforcing financial targets on the authority, do they still refuse to accept any responsibility for the inconvenience forced on the public?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, not at all. Investment by London Regional Transport will be a record £300 million this year and we propose to authorise an increased expenditure of £1 million a day for the next year. Therefore, we have not neglected investment by London Regional Transport which is carrying record numbers of people at the moment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has consideration been given, following the example of certain European cities, to banning the entry into the central area of very large vehicles?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, very large vehicles are banned at certain times of the day from certain parts of central London. I believe this is a question for the local highway authorities which are responsible for that.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the problems of London traffic congestion have been aggravated by the abolition of the Greater London Council and the break-up of its transportation unit? Members may smile, but is it not a matter of concern that there has been failure to agree among the London boroughs and hence there is now a five-year agency agreement for a traffic control unit controlled by the smallest local authority in Greater London; namely, the Corporation of London? Is that not a matter for concern?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should hate to disagree with the noble Lord but since the GLC disappeared expenditure has risen quite sharply as regards both central government and major borough schemes. The department has approved 38 major borough schemes worth about £400 million in supplementary grant for the coming year.
As regards traffic control, I do not see that it matters very much that the City of London Corporation has agreed to take this over. It is a very valuable tool in traffic control. At present 120 traffic signals are controlled in the system and a further 60 signals are being added to the system every four months. That is certainly going ahead much faster than in the unlamented days of the GLC.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reply to the second half of my question on whether parking enforcement officers are
6
concentrating too much on meters and not on parking on single or double yellow lines?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, traffic wardens operate under the auspices of the police and it is, of course, a question for the police to decide how best the resources should be used. I have not noticed any discrimination being made between metered spaces and yellow lines.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, has consideration also been given to the practice in certain continental cities where, if the pavements are empty and the roads are full, parking is allowed on one side of the road on the pavements thereby enabling traffic to flow more readily?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that on the whole pavements should be reserved for pedestrians and other users such as people in wheelchairs, with prams, and so on.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that in certain areas where there is a large area of pavement it might be possible to use some of the space. I have seen one such area near where I live. However, in general terms pavements must be reserved for pedestrians.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that enforcement is essential in all traffic control? Will my noble friend review the bus lanes in London which were sprinkled everywhere by the late Greater London Council? They often operate during hours when there are no buses using them, to the detriment of other traffic.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point but with the exception of trunk roads within central London that is a question for the local highway authorities and not for the Government.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord unaware of the fact that, like many of the Government's so-called improvements, what he has been talking about seems to have made the situation worse rather than better? The noble Lord referred to towing away. Is the noble Lord unaware of the fact that towing away was much more effective than clamping? Will he not consider reintroducing it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is not a question of reintroducing it. Towing away occurs to a considerable extent. Clamping and towing away are complementary measures.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I think perhaps the House feels that we should pass on to the next Question. It is possible to have too much of a good thing.

Caravans: Illegal Parking on A/
2.54 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to prevent the illegal parking of caravans on the A.3 at Potters Lane, Send.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my right honourable friend is seeking an order through the county court for vacant possession of the highway land. He hopes to obtain a hearing early in March and in the event of an order being granted the land could be vacated within a few weeks.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend urge upon his right honourable friend not to make the link, which he has done in correspondence to me, between Section 143 of the Highways Act and the Caravan Sites Act 1968? That is the excuse which the department has been using. This matter has been going on since 1985 and the local authority and local people are becoming extremely irked and cross because nothing has been done. After all, we did manage to remove 11,000 Argentinians from the Falkland Islands in three months and it seems a little ridiculous not to be able to get rid of three caravans in five years.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's concern but I can reassure him that the order we seek at present will be under Order 24 of the County Court Rules, 1981.

Zebra Pedestrian Crossings: Lighting
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy asked Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the lighting of zebra crossings is adequate for the safety of pedestrians during the hours of darkness.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is satisfied that the provisions of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulations, supported by advice on the design of pedestrian crossings published by the department, are adequate for safety during the hours of darkness.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but there is a respectably held opinion that pedestrians are difficult to see in bad weather, even where there are spotlights. Is it intended gradually to install at the busiest of these crossings the push-button traffic lights which give much more certain protection?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we believe that there is a role for both the pelican-type crossings and the zebra crossings. In the department's advice notes which are sent out to local highway authorities we
8
give guidance as to when one sort or the other should be used.
As regards supplementary lighting in the form of white lights above pedestrian crossings, that is a very good idea and should improve visibility for drivers.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would it be of interest to the Minister to learn that, since the noble Lord tabled his Question, in travelling home from this House every night I have been checking the number of pedestrian crossings where one or both orange globes have been destroyed? I am shocked by the number that are in that state. Can the Minister say whether or not police motor patrols are informed that they should notify the local authority when such breakages occur? Should there not be emergency teams, doing other work, who can speedily replace the lights?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion. I am not at present aware of who is responsible for reporting such breakages to the local highway authority responsible for replacing them. Indeed, I hope that the police who are on patrol do report such breakages. However, I will draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that it would be much better if pedestrians wore light clothing or a light arm band? I have had several nasty experiences involving dark-clothed people on well-lit pedestrian crossings. On a bad night one cannot see them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion, but it is a matter for people to decide for themselves. Nevertheless, I should say that the incidence of accidents on pedestrian crossings, both during the day and at night, is not that high though I do not wish to be complacent. However, it would indeed be useful if people wore more visible clothing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the point made by my noble friend Lord Underhill concerning beacons being destroyed, may I point out that there is also the growing habit of motorists parking on the zig-zag lines? As a result, the official safe crossing becomes a greater hazard than any other part of the road which has no zebra crossing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have always understood that parking on the zig-zag lines next to a pedestrian crossing is practically a capital offence. I hope that other road users also take that into account.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that push-button operated lights have another advantage in that they assist traffic flows and the flow of vehicles round squares, so returning to the points raised during the second Question?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is one of the aspects included in our guidance notes for highway authorities when they decide between pelican or zebra crossings. Pelican crossings are, of course, more expensive to install, and are not necessary everywhere, but they do have an important role to play.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, frequently street lights of all kinds burn brightly in the midday sun and not in the midnight darkness. Does the Minister not consider that it would be a contribution to road safety if local authorities were liable to be prosecuted in the same way as motorists for not having their lights on after dark?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that all local authorities try to keep their street lights operating at the correct times. Many are now automatically controlled, and however much we advance in technology we cannot avoid the occasional breakdown.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, on safety for pedestrians, may I draw the attention of the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Wallace of Coslany: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the disastrous and chaotic conditions which apply due to building work in Villiers Street, between the Embankment and the Strand. The pedestrian not only needs light clothing but he needs to carry hazard lights because of the terrible conditions, particularly in wet weather.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that am not aware of the instance to which the noble Lord draws my attention. What I can be fairly sure of is that it is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the local highway authority.

Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Foreign Marriage Act 1892 and to repeal certain enactments which are spent relating to the validation of marriages of British subjects solemnised outside the United Kingdom.
I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Purpose of this Act.
The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for the provision under Parts II, III, IV, V and VI of advice, assistance and representation which is publicly funded with a view to helping persons who might otherwise be unable to obtain advice, assistance or representation on account of their means.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is a response to an undertaking which I gave at Committee stage to try to produce in the simplest terms that could be devised a statement of the purpose of the Bill to be settled at its outset. Your Lordships will remember that I gave that undertaking in response to the amendment put down by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord McGregor of Durris. The inclusion of a purpose clause was supported by speakers from all sides of the Committee and I took note of the feeling of the Committee on that occasion. I have now brought forward my amendment in response.
Your Lordships will see that it is drafted in the form of a statement of the purpose of the Bill. I said at Committee that I would be unable to accept a clause which sought to impose a duty on the Lord Chancellor. I was supported in this view by several of your Lordships. If I remember correctly, I was supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Renton and Lord Morris. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seem also to have come to this view, since their amendment at Report spoke in terms of purpose rather than of duty.
The amendment is self-explanatory and I hope that it meets with your Lordships' approval. It contains elements of the amendments put down on this subject at Committee and Report. It sets out clearly that the Bill is about establishing a system of publicly-funded advice, assistance and representation for those who might otherwise be unable to obtain such legal services because of their means. I hope it provides the appropriate fanfare to start the Bill that many of your Lordships thought was needed.
With it comes the consequential amendment, No. 3. This removes what would otherwise be a repetition of parts of the new clause and thus maintains what I hope is the general elegance of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 1, leave our ("establish a framework for the provision under Parts II, III, IV, V and VI of") and insert ("provide under Parts II, III, IV, V and VI").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may at once express the regret of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones that he is unable personally to move this amendment. He is at the moment sitting judicially. He has in me a very inadequate junior who is asked to present this amendment to your Lordships.
The noble and learned Lord, as one would expect, has been extremely gracious in regard to this

11
proposed amendment. If I may say so, the wheels were set in motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, at Committee stage. When the wheels looked as if they needed a little oiling, the Report stage amendment was moved by my noble and learned friend.
As the noble and learned Lord said, it is desirable that the purpose of this Bill should be expressed. It is quite understandable that the noble and learned Lord was very careful to make it clear that to impose duties was a very dangerous thing, especially in this day and age, when the remedy of judicial review is available in order that the citizen may go to the courts and say that a duty imposed upon the Crown has not been fulfilled.
That point was taken on board. My noble and learned friend and I tried our best at Report stage to table an amendment which we hoped would escape the judicial review procedure and at the same time deal with the points that the Lord Chancellor had made at Committee stage. At col. 1202 of our proceedings at Report stage on 4th February, having looked at that amendment of ours, he said this:
"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".
Then came the sentence which put optimism in the hearts of my noble and learned friend and myself:
"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".
The optimism that filled our hearts at that time was that at Third Reading the noble and learned Lord would come forward with something which was 99 per cent, of what we had tabled.
The amendment which comes before your Lordships at Third Reading and which has just been moved by the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack is one that deserves these comments. It is differently worded from the amendment at Report stage. It carefully uses the word "purpose" and not "duty" and therefore deals with the point in regard to judicial review. For the rest of the clause, when detailing the purpose in regard to advice, assistance and representation which are publicly funded, it deals with the matter in a perfectly acceptable way.
There being no pride of ownership in the words that occur in the amendment which we moved at Report stage, that part of the proposal in this amendment of the noble and learned Lord is accepted by us with gratitude. However, our real difficulty in accepting the amendment is one that I hope your Lordships—and indeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—will share. It is now some 39 years since the first Legal Aid Act was passed in 1949 and we have evolved and progressed over 40 years. Instead of dealing with the history of legal aid and
12
with the purpose of the Act in fulfilling certain aims of legal aid as have evolved, the curious words occur:
"The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for the provision under Parts II, III, IV, V and VI of advice, assistance and representation".
We presented that framework 40 years ago. At the Committee stage, when we were dealing with the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, so correctly quoted the Lord Chancellor as saying at Second Reading of the Bill:
"The legal aid system in this country is one of the best in the world. The provisions in the Bill not only preserve all that is best in our legal system; they enhance it".—[Official Report, 15/12/87; col. 614.]
We have reached an advanced stage along our journey in regard to legal aid. To talk in terms of this Bill as though it were the very first time that builders had started the job of erecting legal aid and had merely reached the stage in the Bill of providing the framework for it seemed to us not only to be a wrong use of words but to signal something that was historically incorrect and quite undesirable.
Our amendment accepts every single sentiment and word of the Lord Chancellor in regard to this Legal Aid Bill and its purpose but asks for the omission of the words,
"establish a framework",
so that the amendment, if passed, would read
"The purpose of this Act is to provide under Parts II, Ill, IV, V and VI advice, assistance and representation which is publicly funded with a view to helping persons who might otherwise be unable to obtain advice, assistance or representation on account of their means".
I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord McGregor of Durris, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his amendment. It is straightforward, and will be understood by people using legal aid and organisations such as the law centres and Citizens' Advice Bureaux. It will help them realise what the Bill is for. We are grateful to have this purpose clause set out by the noble and learned Lord. I have not had time to discuss with my noble friends the alteration put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, it seems to me that there is not much between the amendments. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the word "framework" and we are happy with it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I prefer the words of the Lord Chancellor's amendment to those of the alternative. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that his historical point is a bad one because it affects his own amendment equally. The provision of legal aid is 40 years old and has gradually advanced during the years. To pretend that the purpose of the Bill is to provide something which does not already exist is historically far more inaccurate than any criticism that could he levelled at the words of the Lord Chancellor.
Quite apart from that it is inaccurate because the purpose of the Bill is in fact to provide a framework. It sets up the Legal Aid Board which is structure. It

13
provides for committees and for various kinds of other structure. It gives to parliamentary subordinate legislation, either by way of affirmative or negative resolution, an enormous part, as has been pointed out repeatedly during the course of our debates. Again, structure. This is a Bill for the structure of legal aid. I prefer the word "framework" to be in the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble and learned friend for a valuable purpose clause. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham I prefer Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 2 for the reasons that he gave; namely, that from the very beginning of legal aid we have relied greatly—almost preponderantly—on subordinate legislation. And so it is here. Therefore it is perfectly correct to say that the purpose is to establish a framework, a framework which will be fleshed out in due course when your Lordships see the regulations.
I have noticed in certain of the remarks that have been addressed to your Lordships—notably by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—a certain wary attitude to the remedy of judicial review. That development is entirely salutary. This country has for many years been disgracefully behind other jurisdictions in developing an administrative law. The system of judicial review is a valuable beginning— indeed, it has now developed beyond a beginning—in which the courts can review the activities of administrative bodies. That has been welcomed in all except the very citadels of bureaucracy. As no doubt we shall be discussing judicial review later, I hope that it will not be in any way looked at askance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Indeed I wonder whether I may use the word "thrilled". It was a principal recommendation of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, of which some years ago I had the honour to be chairman, that there should be purpose clauses. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and others have frequently pressed for purpose clauses, and this is one of the first that we have seen of a comprehensive kind. I attach great importance to the fact that it is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself who has had it drafted and has moved it before the House.
This purpose clause, like others, will be valuable for interpretation. When I say that, I mean that it will be especially valuable in assisting the courts. Of course it is of value to all readers of the statute as well. I wonder whether I may make a brief reference to the Lord Chancellor's second amendment. He has referred to it and so I believe it will be in order for me to do so.
He points out that Clause 1 is for purposes of interpretation; that would be the effect of his amendment. Strictly speaking—and I hope I am not being pedantic in suggesting this—the new amendment which he moved will be equally valuable for the purpose of interpretation. Therefore Amendment No. 3 might well have covered the new Clause 1 (as it would be) as well as the present Clause 1 which my noble and learned friend is amending.
14
I do not think I need add anything to the powerful arguments that have already been used by my noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I respectfully agree with both of them.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I should like to express another concern that I have about the amendment tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. My concern is that the wording requests an Act of Parliament to do something that it cannot possibly do. The wording is:
"The purpose of this Act is to provide".
No Act can provide those goodies which are suggested in the Long Title or indeed in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is obviously the administration of that Act and the framework under which the Act is administered that provide such matters. For that reason I believe, although I am no draftsman or lawyer, that the amendment of the noble Lords opposite would not be workable. I believe it is useful in terms of interpretation, although I think the new wording is a reiteration of the Long Title. Just as the Long Title is used by the courts in the interpretation of any Act, so this further purpose clause can likewise be used. It is for that reason that I am grateful.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has just said. I do not see the difference in English between an Act to make new provision and an Act which provides. The meaning is the same.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it was the Long Title that I referred to.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I seem to detect some amount of opposition to the amendment that I moved. Whether that opposition is due to extreme sensitivity or not, I am not sure. However, because I regard it as being very important, I should like to say at once that I do intend, at the end of what I have to say, to test the opinion of the House.
First, I should like to pay tribute (although I thought I had done so previously) to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for coming forward with this amendment at all. I say that because when the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was courageous enough to move the amendment in Committee the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was reflective but not entirely supportive. Therefore it shows his openness of mind, if I may say so, and that he was convinced in the course of the debates that putting a general purpose into the Bill might be a sensible thing to do.
However, he did sound, as did others in the debates, a note of caution which was a very proper one: if you impose a duty which is enforceable in our courts, then quite obviously you have to be extremely careful because of the doctrine of judicial review. Those words were not spelt out, but everybody knew what they meant. Of all the people who knew what those words meant, the noble and learned Lord, Lord

15
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, certainly knew what they meant.
I mention this point only because of the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. From these Benches we have upheld, supported, encouraged and praised the remedy of judicial review. The only reason that I mentioned the remedy was in order to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House shared the care of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in wanting to see that we did not put anything into a statute which enabled the remedy of judicial review to be applied for in circumstances that would be quite unreasonable and unfair. That is why we adopted the words "the purpose"; and, indeed, "the purpose" are the very words that start off the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
It may well be that I am extremely faulty in expressing what one wants to express in language. However, I find it difficult in the course of a debate to deal with an argument which says that it is wrong to express a purpose in words which appear to show that you are erecting a building; but that it is absolutely right to say that you are doing it as a framework. Therefore it is wrong for one to do it historically (to pretend that you are erecting a building) by virtue of the fact that 40 years ago you started it; but it is perfectly correct, in accordance with the argument, to say 40 years afterwards that you are presenting the world with a framework. I do not follow the logic of that argument. If this were merely an argument on semantics, I would take my seat and not waste your Lordships' time any further; but it is not just semantics. It gives the purpose of the Bill quite inaccurately and falsely historically to say that Parts II, III, IV and V provide a framework. That framework was supplied—and I repeat it—in the first Act which dealt with legal aid in 1949. A matter of principle is involved, and one wants the correct words to go to the other place.
I am reminded and I hope I have not been discourteous to the House—that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not yet replied to my amendment. He will therefore be speaking after me. If I have said anything which seemed to suggest that the noble and learned Lord had nothing more to say on the matter, then I apologise.
I merely say to the House that, subject to what the noble and learned Lord has to say in his reply and with the openness of mind that he himself has shown in regard to this matter—which may therefore surprise your Lordships in that reply in accepting the amendment—I feel I must pursue the amendment as a matter not just of historical fact but, as I have already said, of principle.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry if I gave the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the feeling that I have nothing to say on the amendment. I was seeking to give a full opportunity to anyone else who had not yet taken part in the debate to speak before I responded to the noble Lord's amendment.
First, I am grateful to all of your Lordships who have spoken commending the amendment which I
16
moved. It is true to say that there are not many such purpose clauses in statutes. It is also true that my noble friend in his committee recommended this provision. I have found the recommendations of his committee from time to time to be most useful, and have sought to follow them where possible—although perhaps not always entirely to his satisfaction—but at least I have gone some way into doing so.
It is important if one has a purpose clause to make sure that it is accurate. One of the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has often made about the Bill is that it contains many powers for secondary legislation. It is only a framework. It is not all the statutory provisions that are required even to make provision for legal aid. I must say that one does not need to consider long to see that there is a distinction between providing and making provision under which something can happen. To provide legal aid is one matter; but to make provision under which it can happen is something different.
The important point is that the Bill provides a framework. It establishes as a statutory provision a framework under which legal aid in the various aspects of Parts II, III, IV, V and VI are to be provided. It recognises in the scheme the scope for subordinate legislation. Therefore, I do not claim, and the amendment does not claim, that that has happened for the first time. I am not trying to put back the clock to 1949; I am trying to say that the Bill establishes a statutory framework for legal aid. In that, it is entirely accurate. The suggestion that it is more than a framework, and that it is something that provides legal aid itself, without the necessity of any intervention by subordinate legislation, which seems to be the emphasis of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is in my judgment inaccurate.
I adopt the arguments to the same effect that have already been put more eloquently than I can put them. That is essentially why—I hope not with undue modesty—I prefer my amendment to that moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my response should be courteous and short. I respect the view put to the House by the noble and learned Lord. It has not affected my view that for the reasons that I have given the amendment should be put to the opinion of the House.
3.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2), as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 141.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birk, B

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bottomley, L

David, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

17

Ennals, L.

Milford, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fitt, L.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swingdon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McCarthy, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hesketh, L.

Airedale, L.

Hives, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hood, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Allerton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Amherst, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Iddeslesigh, E.

Arran, E.

Jessel, L.

Attlee, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Joseph, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bathurst, E.

Kearton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kennet, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Killearn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Benson, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B

Luke, L.

Blyth, L.

Lyell, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce-Gairdyne, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Manton, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Clinton, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Morris, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cowley, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Dudley, B.

Newall, L.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Effingham, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Faithfull, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ferrers, E.

Porritt, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Raglan, L.

Gainford, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reilly, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodney, L.

Haddington, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seebohm, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hayter, L.

Sempill, Ly.

18

Shaughnessy, L.

Teviot, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Stockton, E.

Trumpington, B.

Strange, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Wigoder, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wynford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to Amendment No. 1 disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
Clause 1 [Basic definitions and other preliminary provisions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("section") to ("of") in line 8 and insert ("has effect for the interpretation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I should perhaps say one word in answer to the comment which my noble friend Lord Renton made upon it. I think it is true that all clauses in a Bill are capable of being used for interpretation. In a sense, therefore, if one is to be entirely consistent one would have to say that after every clause. But in many cases the connection of the clause with the structure of the Bill is clear. In Clause 2 of the Bill as it will now be, there is a list of words and phrases which are defined. As a consequence of the change by inserting the new clause to which your Lordships have just agreed, that would be an inelegant way of introducing Clause 2 of the Bill. We have changed it in the way proposed, and therefore I would not feel it right to alter Clause 1 in the way in which my noble friend has proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, of course I accept the explanation of my noble and learned friend. Indeed one could reinforce it by saying that when there are definitions in any clause it is often referred to as an interpretation clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Legal Aid Board]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("other than proceedings on an appeal from the decision of a juvenile court to the High Court").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the later government amendments on the treatment of legal aid for child care proceedings. I should perhaps indicate that with this amendment I am taking Amendments Nos. 15 to 25, 47 to 49 and 51.
Your Lordships will remember that under the former framework for legal aid, legal aid in child care proceedings was dealt with as being included in legal aid for criminal proceedings. We decided, in establishing this framework, that the child care provisions should be taken out and dealt with separately. We now have a part of the Bill which deals with the legal aid relating to child care proceedings.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, moved an amendment designed to

19
question whether there were some other provisions or situations dealt with under civil legal aid which should also be grouped with child care legal aid. Ours had originally only been that part of child care legal aid which had formally been dealt with along with criminal matters. I considered and said at the time that that would appear to be an improvement. But there were a lot of rather disparate situations covered in rather different ways and we needed to look into the matter fairly closely. That we have tried to do now and to make consistent arrangements for child care legal aid to be dealt with under the child care legal aid provisions.
However, I saw the problem that might arise if any of the proceedings that were to be moved from Part IV to Part VI of the Bill involved proceedings in the High Court or the county court. This is because neither of these has the administration to deal with the grant or refusal of legal aid and Part VI at present requires that decision to be made by the court. The only proceedings which, on examination, have turned out to fall into this category are appeals from the juvenile court to the High Court. The handling of legal aid applications in these cases will therefore rest with the legal aid administration—that is, the board. So Clause 2(4), which deals with the legal aid functions not currently carried out by the legal aid administration but which might be transferred to the board at some later stage, has to be amended.
Clause 2(4)(c) refers to functions relating to care proceedings under Part VI. Since, as I have said, the decisions on legal aid for appeals from the juvenile court will rest with the board from the start, the amendment will be necessary to make that clear. It is part of a group which seeks to carry out the policy which I have just endeavoured to describe fairly briefly. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon. My Lords, if I may say so this all seems very sensible.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as an ex-children's officer and speaking also for the voluntary organisations and for the director of social services, I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful for that support. As I have said, the problem was originally highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in his amendment. All we have sought to do is to carry forward that thinking in detail. Therefore I am grateful that your Lordships feel we have reached the right conclusion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Powers of the Board]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The power to secure the provision of representation under Part IV by means of contracts with other persons shall only be exercisable in the classes of case prescribed in regulations.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of amendments which deal with
20
what is sometimes referred to as the "class action" problem, but that is not particularly accurate. I shall endeavour to show in a little more detail what I seek to deal with. Together with this amendment I shall take Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, 26 to 35, 46 and 50.
Following the discussion that we had at Committee stage on the question of class actions, I have been giving further thought to the problems raised generally by multi-party actions and to ways in which the Legal Aid Bill might be amended to allow publicly-funded representation to be given in different ways which would meet the problems that arise in such multi-party actions.
I undertook at Committee stage to consider whether some sort of contracting provision similar to that in Part II of the Bill might help here. I had intended to elaborate on this a little at Report stage, but the amendment raising that matter was not brought forward for discussion. What I am now proposing in these amendments is that the board should have the power to enter into contracts with a particular firm or firms of solicitors for them to provide representation in categories of civil proceedings specified in regulations by the Lord Chancellor. The way I see this working is that the board would identify particular groups of cases—possibly all cases relating to a particular action or perhaps a more general category—which could with advantage be dealt with in this way.
Perhaps I may take as the leading example the multi-party action. This could take place because there were particular issues common to all the cases involved and no likelihood of a conflict of interest. Once such a category had been identified in regulations, the board could contract with particular solicitors with a view to their providing representation, and assisted persons with a case coming within the category would be directed to those solicitors. This would involve some restriction necessarily on the freedom of choice of solicitor by individuals involved in those cases, but that is a price that I think must be paid for greater co-ordination of multi-party actions anyway in order to secure the strength of a common representation.
These arrangements could, if the board and the Lord Chancellor thought it appropriate, provide for special arrangements for eligibility and means testing for some or all of the group. Separate provision could also be made, by means of the power given in Clause 32(2)(f) to enable the statutory charge to be taken from the totality of the money recovered.
It might also be necessary to have a rather different merits test, though it could well be possible to achieve this through guidance on how the existing test is to be applied. It might well be possible, for example, to justify taking an action which had as its purpose recovering perhaps comparatively small amounts of damages for a large number of people when the cost involved for each of them taken separately would not justify proceeding with the action.
These are matters which will have to be considered in the light of whatever court procedures, including class actions if such a procedure is introduced, can appropriately be dealt with in this way. This is a matter I shall invite the board to keep under review.
I venture to think that this approach deals with a good amount of the difficulty which presently arises and to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred in Committee about applying legal aid in its present form to actions where one legally aided person, perhaps without a contribution, was selected as the leading case to determine a whole lot of similar cases. Under the present system all he recovers is subject to the statutory charge in respect of all the expenses and costs incurred on his behalf.
The amendments proposed here enable the Legal Aid Board to in effect apportion between the various parties whose cause is espoused as part of the unit the cost so that the statutory charge, even if it was operating at its full force, would operate only on the proportionate part of these costs.
It is worth pointing out that this proposal is not the same as that for contracting out advice and assistance. There contracted out advice and assistance under Part II will replace advice and assistance under Part III. Here the contracts will merely be a different way of providing legal aid under Part IV. For contracted out advice and assistance, things like eligibility conditions will be spelt out in the contract. Here, unless specifically changed by means of the powers in Clause 32(2)(f), the normal means and merits test would apply, as would the normal provisions on the award of costs.
The important point to bear in mind is that this is a variant on civil legal aid rather than a replacement for it. The essential difference is that in these cases the applicant would be directed to the solicitor under contract to the board, thus ensuring proper co-ordination of all the relevant cases.
There will obviously be a great deal of detailed work for the Legal Aid Board to do on the administration arrangements for the contracting system. I believe it represents a useful way forward, not only for multi-party actions, but also for civil legal aid generally where it might well be both appropriate and cost-effective to establish contractual arrangements for handling certain categories of work. For example, apart from the multi-party type of case that we have perhaps been thinking about primarily the kind of situation which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, figured in relation to the development risk defence might be one that would be appropriate for treatment under this kind of provision.
I have endeavoured to meet the prescription that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, laid down in Committee. He said that he did not want the Lord Chancellor to say that he would go away and consider this, then initiate some kind of study and many years later possibly come back with something. He said that he wanted something done now.
When I get orders like that, if I can meet them I try to do so. It is quite plain to me from what I know about the position that it is quite out of the question for any kind of rules relating to class actions to be formulated in the timescale that the noble Lord has in mind. Therefore the best that can be done—I believe it is quite an improvement and quite a step forward—is to introduce the possibility of flexibility
22
into the legal aid arrangements, which would provide for the strength from unity which this kind of amendment provides.
In my judgment it is not appropriate in the Legal Aid Bill to seek to introduce procedural adjustments of a general character for the court. That is something for other legislation and for the rules of court themselves to provide. I am considering as an ancillary to that whether something should be done to consider further the idea of the class action.
In a sense, if this works it makes less necessary the class action concept, because in this it would be possible at least on the merits of the matter for a case to go forward that would take forward the interests of a large number of people together, whereas the class action requires in effect that a person is taking the whole of a class forward while there is only one nominal plaintiff. So it may be that the strict idea of the class action, which is I think current in the United States, might not be so necessary here if this system which I have sought to describe were to work.
There are further detailed amendments which seek to work out this scheme and these details are all self-explanatory as elaborations of the idea which I have explained. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my only respectful quarrel with the noble and learned Lord is that he has paraphrased precatory words into making them mandatory. I prayed him not to inquire further into this matter and so delay some kind of remedy. I would never do anything else other than that. Certainly in the light of the century which he scored against me by way of a majority on the last amendment, it is necessary for me to be extra humble.
We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having taken this problem very much on board and for having conveyed it into this Bill now by way of an amendment in a way which certainly goes quite a distance in dealing with a problem which we ventured to bring before your Lordships at previous stages of the Bill.
As the noble and learned Lord said, there is a grave injustice to which the Master of the Rolls drew attention very recently—I quoted him rather extensively in Committee and I shall not do so again—where one gets an action in the courts with a number of plaintiffs involved, with the same issues in regard to liability but obviously different issues in regard to damages very often, and where of necessity one selects, from the point of view of contributions to the legal aid fund and the financial burden that might fall, a plaintiff who does not in fact because of financial means become liable to make any contributions or very small ones. They are known as lead actions.
The injustice, which was emphasised in the recent pronouncement of the Master of the Rolls, is that when that plaintiff is successful the legal aid fund pounces upon any damages that might be awarded in that case in order to satisfy the costs. That poor plaintiff may well find that every penny of the damages awarded is taken in fighting the case, which

23
may have been fought on behalf of a great number of people who had expert evidence called and so on. In that context I have in mind the recent Opren case.
We brought that point to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, who bravely wrestled with the problem (if that is not a mixed metaphor) and came forward with this solution. If one looks at Amendment No. 11, it will be seen that the Law Society also tried to wrestle with the problem and deal with the perfectly just criticism of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; namely, that trying to secure a class action within the boundaries of the Legal Aid Bill when class actions have not yet been brought into our judicial system and procedure is—to use the noble and learned Lord's phrase—putting the cart before the horse.
We considered the matter and settled on something very different from a class action. We utilised an existing procedure under Order 15, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which states:
"Where numerous persons have the same interest in any proceedings … the proceedings may be begun and, unless the court otherwise orders, continued by or against any one or more of them as representing all except one or more of them".
Taking advantage of that rule, we tried to introduce what we thought was a fairly easy procedural concept; namely, that one of Her Majesty's judges in the High Court, nominated by the Lord Chief Justice if he was not able to deal with the matter himself, would issue a certificate in an appropriate case. That certificate would result not only in what perhaps I may call a representative action being brought, subject to the directions of the court, but would also rule out the question of the statutory charge in such circumstances. We thought that that was a very good way of getting over the problem.
The amendment of the noble and learned Lord deals with the problem in rather a different way. To describe it in simple language, it provides for a contract system with a firm of solicitors, who presumably are mentioned in a specific list and who are nominated to act in that matter. The costs are kept down by those solicitors, who are presumably acting for a number of people who have similar cases, and by contract the statutory charge provisions are either varied or dealt with in some way by agreement. That agreement, of course, will be with the Legal Aid Board.
We considered that amendment and, frankly, we found certain disadvantages. From a professional point of view there are two difficulties. First, how are those solicitors to be selected? Are they to be selected by choice, by tender, or in what way? It seems to be a little undesirable, whichever way they are chosen. However, of far more importance is the fact that the proposed amendment does away with the principle of the person who is ill being able to a large extent to choose his or her general practitioner—the person who thinks he suffers from some malady in regard to the law or an injustice that he wants to put right is robbed of the opportunity to choose his own lawyer. That is the first difficulty that this amendment presents and it is one which is not presented in our amendment.
24
The second difficulty is that very often the Government themselves are concerned in such actions. Indeed, a government medical board was concerned in the Opren case. To the public the Legal Aid Board seems like a government institution. Its members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and, as I said, it appears to be a government agency. If that government agency turns down a request of this kind, is it not somewhat inappropriate that the Legal Aid Board and not a court should make the decision?
Stemming from that argument is another. Is the Legal Aid Board, which contains as a minimum a couple of solicitors and a couple of barristers, a suitable body to look into the complicated issues that may be involved and give directions for a contract of this kind to be entered into? Is it an appropriate body to look into the issues and decide whether there is a good case and who may be the appropriate people to be involved in it? One would have thought that the court was very appropriately the tribunal to deal with very difficult matters of that kind and give appropriate directions.
The noble and learned Lord said that there was a great desire to deal with this problem in some way and to deal with it quickly. I immediately salute that sentiment and acknowledge that he has produced a partial solution—with the disadvantages that I have mentioned—which does deal with the matter quickly. In opposing the amendment one puts back a possible solution and delays it. Moreover, one takes the risk of whether the alternative procedure adopted in Amendment No. 11 will be accepted by your Lordships. Rather than run that risk I believe that the appropriate course to take, which may commend itself to the House, is not to oppose the amendment of the noble and learned Lord and in due course not to move Amendment No. 11, to which I have already spoken. Perhaps then the disadvantages that I have respectfully pointed out to the noble and learned Lord will be considered and no doubt another place can take a decision upon these matters when this Bill, as will inevitably happen, goes to that Chamber. I believe that to be the best way of dealing with the matter in order to ensure that at all events some solution emerges from the Bill as a result of a situation which nobody wants to see continue and which is unjust from the point of view of the class of cases about which we have been talking.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am sorry to take up more of your Lordships time but I do so merely in order to ask a question; namely, is it the Government's intention to make similar provisions for Scotland for these multi-party or class actions? If so, would this Bill not be the proper vehicle for that course, because in Clause 42 and Schedule 4 there are amendments proposed to the Scottish Legal Aid Act? It would appear appropriate that the two countries and the two jurisdictions should go hand in hand on this matter, as certain of these cases, such as drug cases and vaccine damage cases, have the same point on both sides of the border, and there is perhaps a waste of money if two sets of actions are undertaken.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend—to whom we are all grateful for this

25
initiative—mentioned, this is a new departure in our legal procedures. It is a very important and very great one. I hope that I am not being disrespectful to your Lordships' House when I say that in a way we are fortunate that we can consider such amendments at Third Reading. That is not possible in another place where such an amendment, if it came up at Report stage, would be the subject of a recommittal Motion; it would be necessary to be back in Committee just for the purpose of this one item. That might have been an advantage but, as it is, we are confined to one speech and cannot explore the matter much further. It is with that in mind that I can make only very general comments.
My first general comment is that, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, this splendid new procedure is to be introduced for legal aid purposes only. At any rate there has to be a legal aid element; as I understand it at least one of the plaintiffs has to be a legally aided person before this procedure can come into force. Again, as my noble and learned friend mentioned, for actions on product liability there is a very strong case. That is an area in which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has shown such a great interest. He presided over the Committee and several times addressed your Lordships' House on the subject. There may be other strong cases for making this new procedure a general part of our rules of procedure for civil actions. That would also be a very welcome departure.
My next point is a matter purely of the use of words. I believe that these actions first became known in the United States as "class actions". I consider that to be a misnomer. In this context it is not a statutory term in this country. The expression "class" does not appear in the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend and I do not consider that the expression "class action" is a good description. We use the word "class" in this country to describe differences between social classes and in relation to education, and we talk about classifications of all kinds of things. However, the people who will get together in such actions in my opinion are not well described as a class; they are better described as a group.
At one moment my noble and learned friend used the expression "group" in passing. I also noticed that in an introductory letter which was sent to some noble Lords, the Law Society referred to a "group" rather than a "class". Therefore, I hope that before it becomes consolidated into our legal practice, procedures and thinking we can get away from the word "class" to describe such actions and describe them as "group actions".
Lord Goodman: My Lords, perhaps I may venture to introduce a little reality into this discussion, if it is not impertinent to suggest it. My noble friend Lord Mishcon, who has practised law, as I have for something over 50 years, must realise that it is unreal to suggest that anyone has total choice of his lawyer. To begin with the very best solicitors are not on the legal aid panel. When I say the very best I mean the most prestigious and certainly the most expensive. I think the question of perfection is at the root of a
26
great deal of trouble in our legal system. Is it not better that someone should be able to proceed with a solicitor chosen for him than as so often happens, week after week, day after day, to have to advise people that they cannot be represented at all because they cannot afford the risks of an action?
About two years ago I was called upon to represent some 40 or 50 doctors who unfortunately had all been poisoned at a professional dinner—to them it was not a laughing matter although it has a certain element of humour. Not one of those doctors was eligible for legal aid and not one of them had the means to prosecute an action on his own account. That is the kind of situation with which one has to deal. I think that only a perfectionist would say that it is a terrible thing not to be able to select your own solicitor. It is an even more terrible thing not to be able to bring an action at all to redeem a serious loss. It is on that score that I strongly support this amendment, which appears to me to have a note of realism.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first of all perhaps I may say that I referred to a "class action" simply because that was the way in which the problem was originally introduced. The phrase "class action" is nowhere used in these amendments and I certainly did not intend to use it to describe what is covered by the amendments.
Secondly, these amendments do not require that the persons concerned should necessarily be eligible for legal aid under the ordinary criteria. There is power to alter the criteria by reference to particular classes of case which could be used in conjunction with that power. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has touched the heart of this amendment. I am particularly grateful that someone of his great experience should support the amendment in this way. When thinking round the problem I felt that I was moving into an area in which theoretical difficulties about choice might be thought to be involved. I agree thoroughly with the view that one has to be realistic about this matter. I believe that it may well be possible to implement these amendments in a way, for example, that would cope with the type of case to which the noble Lord referred.
As I said earlier, I think that this amendment could also be used to cope with the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, raised—I think at Report stage—in relation to the development risks defence.
Perhaps I may turn to what I think it would be fair to say was the hesitation of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in accepting these amendments. The first point related to choice. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has dealt with that in a way to which I would not presume to add.
His second doubt related to the fact that many of these actions would be against the Government and the possibility that the Legal Aid Board would be seen as involving a government agency in deciding cases against the Government. I hope that the stature of those who will be appointed to the Legal Aid Board will ensure that they are independent. The Bill

27
makes it clear that the Government will have no right to intervene in the decision whether to grant or to reject any particular application. The day-to-day running of the legal aid system in so far as it is within the board's power—and this amendment deals with that particular area—will not be subject to interference by the Government. It would be quite wrong that the Government could say whether legal aid was to be granted in any case and particularly in a case that was against the Government. If that were a good point it would apply to every type of case against the Government. There are many cases in which legal aid is applied for in cases against the Government which are quite outside the scope of this particular amendment. If that was a good point it would prove much too much.
The third matter was that the Legal Aid Board, with a minimum of two solicitors and a minimum of two barristers on it, is unlikely to have the kind of expertise to understand what sort of arrangement should be made in this type of case. That is a criticism in advance of the people who are to run the Legal Aid Board which I hope will be completely disproved by the event. So I certainly hope that we shall be able to secure persons to take on the responsibility of membership of the Legal Aid Board who have the necessary qualities to take the right decisions on matters of this kind.
Possibly on a slightly divergent note from that, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked whether the privilege of these amendments will be extended to Scotland. That is a matter on which I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will have a point of view, and it is one which I am sure those responsible for legal aid in Scotland will consider.
I think I also detected in what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked, the question whether, if an action could be raised on both sides of the Border, it would not be wise to have only one, in which case would it be the Legal Aid Board or the Scottish Legal Aid Board which should have the initiative. I hope that in this we shall have an outstanding example of cross-border co-operation if, in fact, these powers are granted to the Scottish Legal Aid Board. To those of your Lordships who have welcomed this amendment—and I think that probably applies to all who have spoken, though perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had reservations—I should like to express my gratitude.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down and with the permission of the House, he has perfectly fairly expressed the view that I put to the House that it would be desirable, subject to what I said, that this amendment should be agreed to. I know he will forgive me if I say that he did not quite interpret my proper views, possibly because I did not express them as I should have done, when I talked about difficulties which would confront the Legal Aid Board which would be more appropriately dealt with by a court. I was dealing with a separation of issues, seeing whether there were common issues and giving certain directions which quite obviously
28
would be more appropriately given by the court. Nothing that I said was meant to be at all disrespectful to the personalities who would be making up the judicial board and their competence. I only wanted to make that abundantly clear before the amendment was put to the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Obviously I was seeking to summarise as fairly as I could what he had said and I had made rather an inadequate note of it. So if it was not entirely fair, that is my fault, not his. One can see that procedural directions might well be required from the court in actions of this kind and nothing in this amendment is intended to preclude that. As to whether there are common issues in actions, I should have thought that that was something which the Legal Aid Board would be capable of identifying, and it is that kind of question that it might have to face.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, indicated that he might not be proposing his Amendment No. 11 today. Obviously there are a number of difficulties about his Amendment No. 11 which I could enlarge upon. But if he is not minded to move it today, I could perhaps reserve my statement on those difficulties to some more appropriate occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Scope of this Part]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 33. after ("Part") insert ("including making a will or other instrument").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes to make an addition to Clause 7 of the Bill by making provision that advice and assistance under the green form scheme shall also be provided for the making of a will or other instrument. It is an important part, alas, in this finite world, of our human duties, if we are responsible, to make wills. For those who do not, the result is often very unfortunate for the survivors—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: So it is if they make them.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: And sometimes it is if they make them, my Lords. That is why it is important, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me, that they should get good advice. He has made my point for me, as he often does in his interruptions—not always intentionally perhaps. But there is need for the provision of legal advice in the making of wills. I have little doubt that the noble and learned Lord will be greatly impressed by the information, which he no doubt knows already, that in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act there is specific provision in Part II, dealing with advice and assistance, as to any steps which a person seeking advice might appropriately take with regard to making a will or other instruments.
So making a will is expressly provided for there, for good reason, even though I understand from my noble friend, who speaks with great expertise in these matters, that in Scotland making a will is somewhat simpler than it is in England. All the more reason,

29
therefore, for making provision for legal advice in the making of a will in this part of the United Kingdom. I do not think I need dwell at any length upon this matter. It is a clear, simple but, if I may say so, desirable amendment to make to the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Morris: My Lords, this amendment will be particularly attractive if the person making a will makes provision in that will to leave a sum of money to reimburse the Legal Aid Board for the cost of the advice received from that body.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before preparing the White Paper, consideration was given to the effective use of the money available for legal aid, and one of the areas that was considered was that of making a will or other instrument. It was thought—and I entirely agree with this approach—that in the generality of cases, if one was making a will disposing of property, on the whole that property should bear the cost of the will.
There are, however, some exceptional cases which were referred to in Committee stage. I think at that time the amendment under consideration was being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He pointed to some particular cases where a will might be made which had the effect, for example, in a single parent family of nominating someone to look after the child or children in the event of the death of the single parent. There might not be any property in question but it might be very important that someone should have that responsibility, as nominated by the parent. Therefore, I recognise that there may be exceptions to the generality proposed in the White Paper.
This is a matter which is best dealt with in regulations. Regulations under the relevent power will now require, as a result of the effort of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones and others, an affirmative resolution. Therefore, your Lordships would be furnished with the detail and would have an opportunity to consider that detail before the provisions came into force.
I am bound to say that this amendment, which appears to have the purpose of precluding giving effect to the proposal in the White Paper, is not acceptable. I am certainly open to considering exceptions and circumstances where such a rule as we had proposed in the White Paper might have a harsh effect and to limit the proposal so as to exclude such cases. However, I certainly cannot accept that it would be wise to make it compulsory in all circumstances to include advice and assistance for this purpose without exception, which is what I understand the purpose of this amendment to be. I therefore have to suggest to your Lordships that this amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is naturally somewhat disappointing to receive that reply. The Scottish provision is, I understand, without exception. I do not quite see why the circumstances south of the Border are so different that help in the making of a will is not needed in the South as well as
30
north of the Border. It is a trap stage in the life of so many people. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Hailsham (more in jest than in gravity I think) suggested that getting a lawyer to make a will was as capable of producing confusion. Nevertheless, assistance is greatly needed.
I used to practise the law in the part of these islands where will disputes were very exciting. I will not say they were lucrative, but an important part of a lawyer's existence. The frequency with which lack of testamentary capacity was raised, for instance, was very great indeed.
However, this is an important part of responsibility and I am accordingly extremely disappointed that the Lord Chancellor is not disposed to make a change. I do not know whether, by talking on, I might be able to persuade him to change his mind, but an indication suggests that is not so. I cannot say that I would go to the stake about the amendment; but in the unfortunate circumstances of the adamant refusal of the noble and learned Lord, I can only hope that when the matter is considered in another place, for once they will show a better example to us than we have been able to give to them. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Availability of and payment jar, advice and assistance]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 12, 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 in proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners, subject to any other prescribed exceptions.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which I hope may attract the approval of the noble and learned Lord, bearing in mind that he has indicated in Committee that he takes a sympathetic view of the provisions of advice and assistance by way of representation under the green form scheme in proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners. Those commissioners are the body to whom appeals on a point of law are referred from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. They are dealing, by virtue of the work that they have to do, with complex law. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself indicated in Committee that he felt that the Social Security Commissioners was a tribunal which should have high priority in having some form of legal representation. That was perhaps at a time when we were seeking full legal aid and advice, but it may well be that the noble and learned Lord will be disposed to accept the amendment. In case he has not already decided that (and as I do not have another opportunity to speak as I understand it) I shall say a little more about this.
The noble and learned Lord said that the commissioners are at the very top layer of the statutory authorities in social security. At the Committee stage I think he was inclined to favour representation by means of assistance. As things

31
stand, in any proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners, the DHSS is always represented by lawyers with particular expertise in that field of law. One asks what chance an unrepresented claimant would have to pursue his or her case against the knowledge and expertise of lawyers so instructed by the DHSS.
My understanding is that extension of ABWOR to the proceedings would cost very little. The appeal to commissioners applies on points of law only and there is no question of lengthy witness proceedings. In the circumstances therefore, and in view of the crucial importance of this matter to the potential claimants who will be from the poorest section of the community, least able to afford assistance and most deserving of it, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to this modest proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, might I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I do so on the grounds, as he has indicated, that if there is to be any extension of legal assistance to cover people appearing before any tribunals, then the Social Security Commissioners are clearly the first tribunal that should be borne in mind for a possible extension, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself said on a previous occasion.
I support the proposal that it should be so extended, first, because the proceedings before the Social Security commissioners are frequently very complex; and, secondly, because there is very often case law involved which it is difficult for an unrepresented applicant to discover for himself. Indeed, it is a matter of great difficulty for a represented applicant to discover, unless the lawyer is a person who is accustomed to appearing before these tribunals and knows exactly where to find authorities.
In those circumstances, I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that in principle it is desirable that some steps should now be taken to extend representation to this particular tribunal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must say that I have some doubts about the amendment. I agree that the proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners can sometimes be complex, but so can many other proceedings. I should have thought that within the general framework of the Bill—if one may dare to use such an expression—it would be wrong to make an exception just for that particular type of proceeding. We are here talking about advice and assistance, not representation; and in that connection I think we need to consider subsection (4) of Clause 8, which says:
"Approval under subsection (3) above may be given with or without limitations and may be amended, withdrawn or revoked."
I think that is taken from the previous legislation and I do not think that there was any adverse comment on it at any earlier stage of the proceedings in this House.
32
It seems to me that assistance by way of representation—because that is what the amendment refers to—would seem to be outside the scope of Clause 8. In any event, even though it is considered to be within the scope of Clause 8, there does not seem to be a strong reason for differentiating it from the kind of advice, assistance or indeed representation that might apply to any other type of proceeding. Therefore, I should be surprised if my noble and learned friend were to accept the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not propose to surprise my noble friend on this occasion. The Social Security Commissioners in certain circumstances appear to me, as I said at Committee and repeated on Report, to be in a situation where perhaps a high priority exists if there is to be an extension of the scope of legal aid. On the other hand, a research project has been commissioned by my predecessors, to be carried out on behalf of the department, into the effect of representation in tribunals fairly generally. It is also possible that the board itself might have a view on this subject.
There is also of course the question of resources to be borne in mind. Your Lordships may take it, as I said at the outset, that I personally am very sympathetic to extending some form of legal aid to hearings before the Social Security Commissioners, but I do not believe the time is ripe to put that into statutory form now. It may well be that at some time in the future I may have the privilege of doing something about this, but there are many other competing situations so I do not hold out any particular promise as regards that matter. However, I certainly do not believe it would be right to do it in this way at this time. If an opportunity offered, the framework is sufficiently flexible to enable the extension to be made and I hope that your Lordships might agree to leave the matter on that basis.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, confident though I am in the long survival of the noble and learned Lord, time is of the essence and one would like not to have to wait. My information is, in regard to the research that was referred to by the noble Lord, that it does not cover proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will examine that when these proceedings are over.
The submission which I make—and I am grateful for the support from the Alliance Benches—covers what we conceive to be an important omission in the present provision of legal advice to those in need. In view of the basic goodwill expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and his own earlier view that Social Security Commissioners are a tribunal which has high priority in having some form of legal representation before it, the time to improve the law in this important field is now. For that reason, I think it is desirable to test the opinion of the House upon this matter.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Ardwiek, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Milford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Raglan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Galpern, L,

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Allerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Haddington, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Beloff, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Hayter, L.

Benson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Blyth, L.

Hood, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ironside, L.

Caithness, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Killearn, L.

Carnock, L.

Kimball, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cowley, E.

Lawrence, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Luke, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Digby, L.

Mansfield, E.

Dundee, E.

Manton, L.

Eccles, V.

Margadale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Erne, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Faithfull, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

34

Milverton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Moran, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Morris, L.

Shannon, E.

Mottistone, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Slim, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Somers, L.

Nelson, E.

Stockton, E.

Newall, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Norrie, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathspey, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney, E.

Terrington, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Teviot, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Teynham, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Porritt, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Westbury, L.

Rodney, L.

Wolfson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Sandford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
Clause 14 [Availability of, and payment for, representation under this Part]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
Page 11, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Where the case is one in which the Board has power to secure the provision of representation under this Part by means of contracts with other persons, the grant of representation under this Part may be limited under subsection (4) above as regards the persons who may represent the legally assisted person to representation only in pursuance of a contract made with the Board.")
Page 11, line 23, at end insert—
("(5A) The Board's obligation under subsection (5) above is—

(a) in the case of representation provided in pursuance of a contract between the Board and the legally assisted person's solicitor, to make such payments as are due under the contract; and

(b) in the case of representation provided otherwise than in pursuance of such a contract, to make such payments as are authorised by regulations.")

Clause 15, page 12, line 27, at end insert—
("(10) Where a legally assisted person has been represented in any proceedings in pursuance of a contract made with the Board on terms which do not differentiate between the remuneration for this and other cases, the reference in subsection (9)(a) above to the sums paid or payable by the Board on his account in respect of the proceedings shall be construed as a reference to such part of the remuneration payable under the contract as may be specified in writing by the Board.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos 8 to 10 which carry out the policy I outlined in connection with Amendment No. 5. With the leave of the House, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Availability of representation under this Part]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 16, line 13, at end insert ("and section (Criteria for grant of representation for trial proceedings) applies for the interpretation of this subsection in relation to the proceedings to which that section applies.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage I indicated that I would agree to incorporate into the Bill the "Widgery criteria" as they have been called in affectionate remembrance of the Lord Chief Justice. Amendments Nos 12 and 14 have that effect. However, Amendment No. 14 has been drafted by a parliamentary counsel to incorporate the Widgery criteria in language judged to be appropriate for primary legislation. That was not what the Lord Chief Justice had in mind when he laid out the criteria. I have also incorporated a power to vary the factors in line with the Scottish Act in the light of experience. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling these two amendments. In the circumstances, we shall not move Amendment No. 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Criteria for grant of representation for trial proceedings.
.—(1) This section applies to proceedings by way of a trial by or before a magistrates' court or the Crown Court or on an appeal to the Crown Court against a person's conviction.
(2) The factors to be taken into account by a competent authority in determining whether it is in the interests of justice that representation be granted for the purposes of proceedings to which this section applies to an accused shall include the following—

(a) the offence is such that if proved it is likely that the court would impose a sentence which would deprive the accused of his liberty or lead to loss of his livelihood or serious damage to his reputation;

(b) the determination of the case may involve consideration of a substantial question of law;

(c) the accused may be unable to understand the proceedings or to state his own case because of his inadequate knowledge of English, mental illness or other mental or physical disability;

(d) the nature of the defence is such as to involve the tracing and interviewing of witnesses or expert cross-examination of witness for the prosecution;

(e) it is in the interests of someone other than the accused that the accused be represented.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may, by order, vary the factors listed in subsection (2) above by amending factors in the list or by adding new factors to the list.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Representation in care proceedings: scope and competent authorities]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 25:
Page 20, line 18, leave out ("before a juvenile court").
Page 20, line 20, leave out ("before a juvenile court").
Page 20, line 22, leave out ("and").
Page 20, line 23, leave out ("on appeal before the Crown Court").
Page 20, line 25, at end insert—
("(d) proceedings under section 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (application by parent or guardian for an order directing a local authority to take proceedings under section I of the 1969 Act);
(e) proceedings under section 3, 5 or 67(2) of the 1980 Act (proceedings in connection with resolutions by local authorities with respect to the assumption of parental rights and duties); and
(f) proceedings under Part IA of the 1980 Act (access orders);").
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("courts") and insert ("authorities").
Page 20, line 37, at end insert—
("(c) as respects apppeals from decisions of juvenile courts to the High Court, the Board;
(d) as respects proceedings before a justice of the peace under section 12E of the 1980 Act (applications for emergency orders), the justice of the peace.").
Page 20, line 40, after ("of") insert ("any").
Page 20, line 40, leave out ("before any court").
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("court") and insert ("authority").
Clause 26, page 21, line 5, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 13 and insert ("any person, other than a local authority, who is a party to the proceedings.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 15 to 25 are detailed amendments giving effect to the policy I described when speaking to Amendment No. 14. With the leave of the House, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 29 [Act not generally to affect position of legal representatives or other parties]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 35.
Page 23, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 3 and insert—
("(2) A person who provides advice, assistance or representation under this Act").
Page 23, line 4, after ("is") insert ("made by the Board or").
Page 23, line 8, at end insert (", arising otherwise than under a contract,").
Clause 30, page 23, line 10, leave out ("subsection (2) below") and insert ("the provisions of this section").
Page 23, leave out line 14 and insert ("from among the solicitors and counsel willing to provide advice, assistance or representation under this Act.").
Page 23, line 15. leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Where the Board limits a grant of representation under Part IV to representation in pursuance of a contract made by the Board, it may, as it thinks fit, assign to the legally assisted person a solicitor or a solicitor and counsel or direct that he may only select a solicitor from among those with whom such a contract subsists.
(2A) A person's right to select his solicitor or counsel is subject, in the case of representation under Part V, to regulations under subsection (6) below.
(2B) Subsection (1) above does not confer any right of selection in relation to proceedings under section 27 for the purpose of proceedings for contempt.").
Clause 31, page 24, line 19, at end insert ("and (5A)").
Clause 32, page 25, line 44, leave out ("(f) modify this Act for") and insert ("(2A) Regulations may also modify this Act for the purposes or').
Page 26, line 1, leave out ("subsection (1) and (2)") and insert ("subsection (2A)").
Page 26, line 2, leave out ("under this section may") and insert ("may also").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 26 to 35 are tabled in pursuance of the policy I sought to describe in relation to

37
Amendment No. 5. With the leave of the House I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 26, line 37, at end insert ("and").
Page 26, leave out lines 39 to 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are brought forward in the light of my consideration of comments made at the Report stage by a number of your Lordships as regards a similar amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. He found the wording of paragraph (g) to be obscure. I sought to explain the matter at Report stage. Having considered that explanation and the fact that not only the noble Lord, Lord Benson, but also my noble and learned friends Lord Ackner and Lord Griffiths found the wording obscure—although that is, I believe a less harsh description of the amendment than the one they used—I have considered whether it is absolutely essential to retain the paragraph. Having taken advice, I have concluded that it is not necessary to retain the paragraph. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are intended to delete it from the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for removing that paragraph. My noble friend Lord Benson did not expect the other amendments to be moved so fast. As he was the mover of the amendments on Report, he intended to be here to express his gratitude. However, I shall do so now on behalf of us both.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33 [Advisory Committee]:
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40:
Page 27, line 12, after ("recommendations") insert ("or furnish comments").
Page 27, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) It shall be the duty of the advisory committee to provide to the Lord Chancellor, as soon as possible after 31st March in each year, a report containing any advice, recommendations or comments of theirs on questions or matters arising during the preceding twelve months.").
Page 27, line 25, leave out from ("any") to end of line 27 and insert ("the annual report of the committee made to him under subsection (3A) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 are intended to give effect to considerations which I have had as a result of matters raised in the course of the discussions on this Bill about the functions of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee and also as a result of a meeting which I had with it at its request, I think I am right in saying, during the course of the Bill's proceedings when we had a very constructive discussion.
It has been my view that to have flexibility when the committee presented its report would be an advantage, but having discussed the matter the
38
committee felt that there was merit in having an annual timetable. I feel it right to give effect to that and also to make it clear that whatever is said in the report will be laid before Parliament. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 are intended to give effect to that. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 en bloc.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to support Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 and to say how much the committee is appreciated by all the voluntary organisations, particularly the National Consumer Council and the Citizens' Advice Bureau. The committee is looked upon very much as an independent body to whom one can apply. Although the Legal Aid Board will, I am sure, do its work extremely well, it is good, at any rate to start with, to have a guarder of the guardians.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her observations. I also value the work of the committee and, as I have said, I certainly intend it to remain in operation and functioning as well as hitherto, at least through the transistional provisions.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34 [Orders and regulations: general]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 27, line 40, after ("2(4)") insert ("and 33(5)").
Page 27, line 43, after ("2(4)") insert ("or 33(5)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on Report, I undertook to consider making the power to stand down the advisory committee dependent upon an instrument passed by the affirmative procedure. These amendments are intended to have that effect. Since they are so closely related, with the leave of your Lordships, I propose to move them en bloc.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the word "and" in line 41 should not be "or"? However, there may be a good reason for that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord is probably correct in the circumstances. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to proceed with this without commitment and we can have it corrected in another place.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [Restriction of disclosure of information]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45:
Page 28, line 13, after ("furnished") insert ("for the purposes of this Act").
Page 28, line 14, leave out ("for the purposes of this Act") and insert ("upon whom functions are imposed or conferred by regulations and so furnished").
Page 28, line 46, at end insert ("or a person upon whom functions are imposed or conferred as mentioned in subsection (1) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this relates to a matter raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the provisions relating to the disclosure of information. I have considered what he said and have decided to bring forward these amendments to make the position absolutely clear. The first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, make it clear that the clause covers only information furnished to the board or to other courts, persons or body of persons for the purposes of the Act. The third amendment corrects a defect in subsection (6). At the moment information furnished to counsel or a solicitor is defined as not being information furnished to the board. The amendment more correctly reflects the position set out in subsection (1).
I should perhaps mention, in order to allay any anxiety on the matter, that the specific example of a journalist, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised in Committee, does not seem to fall foul of this clause even as it stands, though these amendments make that position even clearer. Since these amendments are all closely connected, with the leave of your Lordships, I propose to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38 [Adaptation of rights of indemnity in cases of advice, assistance or representation in civil proceedings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 29, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Where a person's right to be indemnified ensures for the benefit of the Board under subsection (3) above in a case where he has been represented in pursuance of a contract made with the Board on terms which do not differentiate between the remuneration for his and other cases, the reference in that subsection to any expenses incurred by the Board on his account shall be construed as a reference to such part of the remuneration payable under the contract as may be specified in writing by the Board.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 5 to which I have already spoken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Civil proceedings: scope of Part IV representation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49:
Page 35, line 3, leave out (". section 3 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963").
Page 35, leave out line 14.
Page 35, line 24, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 47,48 and 49 go with the policy to which I spoke in relation to Amendment No. 4. As they are closely connected, with your Lordships' leave, I shall move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 42, line 34, after ("14(5)") insert ("and (5A)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 5 to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 44. line 50, at end insert—
("1986 c. 28. The Children and Young Section 3(3).") Persons (Amendment) Act 1986.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 4 to which I have already spoken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in indicating our intention not to oppose the Motion, it does not mean that it has met with our general approval. On the contrary, the Bill has perhaps proved to be more notable for its omissions than its content. The major problem that the House has had to meet is that in many respects it is an enabling Bill and we do not know what its precise shape and future content will be. The significant change is the setting up of the Legal Aid Board and that has been generally welcomed. That does not imply basic criticism and disapproval of the administration conducted by the Law Society. On the contrary, the House has acknowledged its gratitude for the valuable work done. However, the quantum of work now to be dealt with in the legal aid and advice field has increased enormously and it is right that this independent—as we hope it will be—authority should be set up.
A great deal of its value will no doubt depend upon the degree of the independence it will enjoy. It will be under rigid financial control and one of the important features that remain for the future to indicate is the readiness of the Government to provide adequate financial resources for this work. We had long debates over the financial provisions of the Bill and there was clear warning from many quarters of the House about the risk of having a second-class legal aid service with insufficient remuneration to attract those of ability and competence to conduct the work required in the courts, which is very often of a most grave character in both the criminal and civil fields.
The composition of the Legal Aid Board is as yet undecided, but much will depend upon its quality. We know that it will extend from 11 to 17 in number and we were reassured during the discussions on the Bill that there would be not only two solicitors but

41
also two representatives of the Bar on the board. What other choice will determine its composition will be at the discretion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but he has indicated that a wide range of competence and ability, and representation of the community at large, will be included. We look to the realisation of the promises that it will be a reliable and independent board representing the kind of persons and bodies that ought to be represented in its administration. If possible there should be a good presence of those representing the potential consumers as well as the professional experts who will be required to manage the board and its work successfully.
I venture to say that a great deal of the content and future shape of the Bill remains uncertain, partly because of the mass of secondary legislation which the noble and learned Lord announced would be necessary and which we have not yet seen. No doubt we shall see it in due course. I would be less than gracious if I did not recognise the important changes which he has made in this field, indicating that certainly for the most important parts of the secondary legislation the affirmative resolution of both Houses will be necessary in respect of measures of importance in principle and in substance. Of course we are grateful for that important concession.
However, in my submission there has been a considerable omission in the failure to extend legal aid to more statutory tribunals. The particular lack is with regard to industrial tribunals dealing with important matters such as unfair dismissal, redundancy, equal pay and sex discrimination. It is wrong that cases in those categories should take place with employers and government departments in the proceedings having a panoply of lawyers on their side but in many cases with no adequate representation for the claimant. That is quite wrong and unjust. It is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to advance in that field. I am informed that last year there were over 4,000 contested cases in the employment field and there was gross inequality in representation. That cannot be right and we shall have to return to this subject again in future debates and future legislation.
Finally, there is one aspect where there is still a great deal of anxiety; that is, the provision of adequate resources for advice and law centres. The position still is, to put it mildly, uncertain. We have tried from various parts of the House to obtain the provision of more finance for the advisory bodies, but they still feel a sense of insecurity. The Lord Chancellor has refused to accept responsibility for them, as has the Secretary of State; and local government authorities have been reluctant to accept full responsibility, though many have been good.
The Legal Aid Board will have an important role in this sphere and one can only hope that it will fill the gap. In the legal aid set-up, where so much depends on the advice of bodies often run by volunteers or by those in law centres on the most modest of remunerations, we look to the Lord Chancellor, who has overall responsibility, to make sure that in this vital area the provision of legal aid and advice is adequately financed and provided for. However, for
42
the concessions that the Lord Chancellor has made, we express our gratitude.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I rise to congratulate my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack on passing through this House this important and valuable measure. I think it does a great deal more for both the profession and the recipients of legal aid than the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken was prepared to concede. As one who had some part in the preparation of the earlier phases of the legislation last year, I was gratified and perhaps a little flattered to learn that in many respects my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack supported the difficult judgments that at times I had to make.
I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will not mind my complaining mildly of the phrase "a second-class service". I hope that we shall never hear it again.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I said I greatly hoped that we would not have a second-class service.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it is the expression that I object to and that is what is being repeated. I intend no commercial plug but I run a Maestro car. It is not a Porsche; it is not a Rolls-Royce; it is not a Bentley but it does what I want it to do. I use the names of people deceased for fear of giving another commercial plug, which would not be acceptable, but it is not every case that requires a Pat Hastings, a Norman Birkett, an Edward Carson or a Rufus Isaacs. The general run of the legal profession is perfectly capable within the bounds of the existing scheme of providing the service that is required. I hope we shall hear no more of this awful phrase "a second-class service" for those who choose not to have antimacassars behind their backs in a railway carriage or who have little cars instead of big ones.
As regards the question of tribunals, I should like to repeat words which I have used before. Obviously any Lord Chancellor in administering legal aid is faced with the fact that he is presiding over a branch of the social services upon which demands are being made faster than any other. In those circumstances it is inevitable that the service itself should be subject to a good deal of scrutiny from rival postulants as regards the moneys of the taxpayers. It is not surprising that the service should also be suffering from a number of growing pains because it is growing very rapidly indeed. The reasons for its growth are not altogether desirable; namely, the increase in crime, the high rate of divorce and road accidents.
As regards the question of tribunals, since the late Aneurin Bevan in another place started them off in one field after another just after the war, I have seen develop a sort of Rake's Progress. First of all we had tribunals usually with three members, one of whom was a lawyer, another was supposed to represent the employers or the landlords and the other the initiator of the proceedings for unfair dismissal or diminution or increase in rents; whatever the case may be. When they were introduced we were told that there would

43
be no more beastly legal formalities and no more beastly lawyers to put up the cost and to create delays with quibbling arguments. After about six months we heard the legal profession in its majesty say that the employer was legally represented so the applicant must equally be legally represented. We return to a kind of Rake's Progress. We create these tribunals to avoid legal intervention and we end with the lawyers moving in in a big way—in a trade union way—and getting in on both sides.
It is true that to a cobbler there is nothing quite so good as leather. That is right. Advocacy is an art and when practised skilfully it can produce results. We must not forget that essential fact. Nonetheless, a Lord Chancellor who presides over legal aid is bound to face a dilemma. Either he spreads his money thickly where it is most needed and the money is limited, or he spreads it thinly over a wider field which does not do much good for anybody. I am perfectly sure that above all in this area of work which is rapidly increasing the money ought to be spread thickly and where it is most needed rather than spread thinly over a wider field.
I believe that the Lord Chancellor has made a pretty wise choice about the way it should be spread. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, knows very well, I am not in any way an enemy of law centres and that kind of thing. If I had to choose between spreading my money thickly on the green form scheme and proper legal advice for the individual and increasing the ambiance of law centres, I believe I would go for the first. On the whole I do not regret either having retained those law centres which the noble and learned Lord supported, I believe rather piratically, or having gone in for the green form scheme, which has justified itself even more so over the years.
I believe the legal profession has every reason to be grateful to my noble and learned friend for supporting the abolition of the deduction of the percentage from what was a fair fee. It was a feature from the first of the scheme in civil litigation. I always thought that to be unjust and I believe my noble and learned friend is to be congratulated for removing it.
He has also chosen the right balance on remuneration. There is one factor that I hope will remain in the minds of the legal profession. There has always been an element of sheer idealism in the services that we provide. There are occasions when a Pat Hastings or a Norman Birkett is needed by a poor man and perhaps occasionally lawyers ought to provide their services at rather less than their commercial value. I should be very sorry if the tradition of the legal profession in that way did not persist into the present age.
Perhaps I have detained the House too long. I rose really to congratulate my noble and learned friend.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, from the Cross-Benches perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack on having piloted through the House what
44
I regard on the whole as an extremely valuable Bill and on showing considerable responsiveness to the suggestions that have been made.
Before I come to those who have opposed the Bill or parts of it, I hope I am forgiven for mentioning my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in view of our long companionship. Obviously his position was to some extent a delicate one, since he has had much to do with the genesis of the Bill. It seems to me that his contributions have been admirably timed, always constructive and helpful.
Finally, I come to those who have opposed parts of this Bill. They have been the spokesmen of the Law Society in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and three of my noble and learned friends who have been chairmen of the Senate of the Bar and of the Inns of Court. I agree entirely with what has just been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. There are fears of a first and second-class service. A first-class service is that of counsel and solicitor who appear for paying clients and the second-class service is for those who appear in cases financed by legal aid. That suggestion is entirely or very largely misplaced. I do not believe that there will be any division of the profession in that way.
I say so because I do not believe that the profession will allow it. I do not believe that it will allow it for the reason that was indicated earlier and has just been repeated by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. The legal profession has always acknowledged its duty to see that justice is prosecuted. Until 1949 we had a legal aid scheme in which the procedure was in forma pauperis. Eminent solicitors and counsel always regarded it as their duty to see that that system worked. Famous cases were pursued up to the Bar of your Lordships' House by solicitors and counsel appearing without any fee. I am sure that that spirit will be pursued in relation to legal aid.
It will be more difficult these days because the Bar is much larger than it was. It is no longer the Bar of Pendennis. The solicitors' profession has enormously proliferated. It is no longer the solicitors' profession that was pictured in that classic of Hine's, Memoirs of an Uncommon Attorney. However, I am quite sure that the problem is manageable. Just as counsel and solicitors managed to make the proceedings in forma pauperis work by acknowledging their supervening duty to make it work in the interests of justice, just as they helped to launch the legal aid scheme by accepting a percentage cut in what would be the normal emolument, I am quite certain that what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham described at Report stage as that spirit of idealism (a point that was taken up nobly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon) will prevail, will be organised and will prevent any kind of division into a first or second-class service.
The opposition of those who opposed the Bill in the way I have described could not be justified, certainly in so far as many of the amendments amounted to drawing an open cheque on the Exchequer and having open-ended financial commitments in this narrow field. It is not the only field in the administration of justice: my noble and

45
learned friend on the Woolsack wants more courts and more judges in order to speed up the administration of justice. In addition, there are all the competing fields of national health, defence and so on. That line could not be justified and will not work out to the mischief that even my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones painted just now.
Nevertheless, although I welcome this Bill and although I would have stopped at this point were it not going to the other place, I should like to mention two serious defects as I see the Bill. One is the defect in Clauses 12 and 17 that has been pointed out; namely, what is by statutory definition an injustice to the unassisted party who succeeds in an action which has been financed by the Legal Aid Board. Loss will be suffered. Who should bear that loss? Should it be the public body which has forced the successful defendant into court to vindicate his right; or should it fall on the unassisted party even though it is just and equitable—that is the phrase in the statute—that he should get his costs? If it had not been an assisted case he would have got his costs. As it is, he will not get them; not even if he shows hardship—he has to show severe hardship. That is a major injustice that will have to be considered—and I do not doubt will be considered—in another place.
It might be justified if the rectification were extremely costly; but even though my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had been alerted to this point in Committee he could put no price on it when we came to the Report stage. He thought that it would be expensive. I venture to take quite a different view. I presided over a division of the High Court where the litigation was a great consumer of legal aid funds. I came across only one case where this point arose. I do not doubt that there were others but they must have been very few. Moreover they will be minimised by the provision which will be in regulations whereby the unassisted party can be heard when the Legal Aid Board considers the merits.
There is one final blemish which is diffused in the Bill. I refer to the use of the ridiculous phrase "with the consent of the Treasury", which appears several times. On each occasion it appears quite unnecessarily. The terms "consultation with the Treasury", "the consent of the Treasury" and "the concurrence of the Treasury" are used indiscriminately; but they will be taken care of by the ordinary administration of government.
There were years of complaints that our statutes were over-complicated, unintelligible and inflated. Those complaints came to a head in a notable debate in another place which led to the setting up of the Renton Committee. It was a very powerful committee and it made a number of valuable suggestions. What have we seen? I have looked at the statute book. The Renton Committee reported in 1975. In 1976 there were 86 Public and General Acts running to 2,096 pages. A decade later there were only 68 Acts but they ran to many more pages. The figure was 2,780. That is because no notice has been taken of the proposals of the Renton Committee and because we continue to stuff an overblown statute book with flatulent phrases like "with the consent of the Treasury" and many others.
46
I do not doubt that that issue too will be considered in another place, because the argument in that respect came to a head on what has now become Clause 40, which is concerned with finance, and finance is, of course, a particular concern of the other place. I trust that when the Bill comes back to your Lordships' House every one of those phrases will have been struck out, as well as the injustice that I have ventured to identify in Clauses 12 and 17.
Lord Meston: My Lords, although improved, the Bill remains, as the noble and learned Lord. Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, essentially an enabling Bill which confers wide powers and promises a great mass of as yet unseen regulations. Throughout the Bill's passage, that state of affairs and method of legislation has been justified by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the name of flexibility. Therefore the concern must remain that such flexible and wide powers could be used, or misused, in the future in ways that are restrictive of the legal aid service—that is, restrictive of the availability of legal aid or restrictive of the type of representations to be made available. I hope that those fears are misplaced.
As a practising lawyer I should like especially to pay a respectful tribute to the great efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others, in their debates upon the provisions relating to remuneration. However, it remains a matter of regret that at the end of the day the Government were shy of an explicit statement on the concept of fair remuneration. But it will at least be thanks to the cogent advocacy of' the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the Treasury will be aware of the message which he sought to convey: that the continuing confidence and goodwill of the legal profession, which is essential to a future functioning of the legal aid system, must he retained because it is ultimately in the public's interest.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, your Lordships may think that the less I say the better it will be. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to say that this is the first major Bill that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has presented to the House. It is a Bill which he inherited and is now an even better Bill than it was when he first introduced it. In my opinion the fact that it is an improved Bill is largely due to his open-mindedness. He has not been able to accede to all the proposals that have been put forward for the Bill's improvement but he has been able to do so in respect of some important ones. I should especially like to acknowledge the importance of the "purpose clause" which has just been accepted. I should also like to acknowledge, especially in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, that the Lord Chancellor has provided that there should be not less than two members of the Bar on the Legal Aid Board.
As regards the general effect of the Bill upon our profession, I shall obey my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone in not repeating the phrase that he wishes never to hear again. However, I should add this point to the arguments already used. Not only will the profession not allow

47
itself to become divided between "superior" and "inferior" but I do not think that the Legal Aid Board, the Lord Chancellor or Parliament could allow the scheme to be marred by the profession not being adequately rewarded for the work that has to be done. It is upon that principle that the success of the scheme will depend.
I support the plea made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the use of the expression, "consent of the Treasury". The Lord Chancellor has shown wonderful initiative, and, if I may say so, fertility of mind in handling some of the problems which have been put before him. I express the hope that such initiative and fertility of mind may one day be directed towards eliminating not only that phrase but many other unnecessary phrases from the statute book.
The Bill is intended to create, in the light of forty years' experience, a better legal aid scheme and an expanded one. In my opinion it has every likelihood of so doing. But we shall await with interest—I hope with not too much anxiety—the 50 or so regulations that have to be placed before Parliament, some of which we shall have the opportunity to discuss in this House.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am compelled to rise on this occasion not only because, as a Spaniard once said, "In the heart of every peasant there lies a lawyer; and in the heart of every lawyer, however urbane, there lies a peasant", but also because I feel justified in speaking as I have read every word of the proceedings thoughout the Bill's passage. I must say that I have been deeply saddened. The reason for my sadness is that there is no distinction in principle, as your Lordships are aware, between the Bill and a national health service Bill; save inasmuch as this Bill provides its customers with a learned legal service as opposed to a learned medical service. If, during the passage of a national health service Bill, the only people who took part in the proceedings were doctors, nurses and paramedics, the first people who would be on their feet saying, "Oh, well they would say that, would'nt they?" would be the lawyers. I make that point but I recognise that there are many exceptions. The noble and learned Lord who spoke on the Bill looked at it thoughout the proceedings from the point of view of the customer as, in many respects, did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Therefore I put forward the following pleas to my noble and learned friend. First, I ask that, when the Bill proceeds to another place, he should do everything in his power to ensure that the committee considering the Bill does not contain too many lawyers. Secondly, he should ensure that, when consideration is given to the commissioning of the committee the majority of people on it should be those who are concerned with the benefits that the Bill is intended to provide rather than those who are only concerned with the provision of those benefits. I do not think that the functioning of the committee would be harmed by so doing.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not wish to take up much of your Lordships' time because your Lordships have been most generous in your remarks about the Bill. However, I should like to say at the outset, in reference to the point just raised by my noble friend, that, for my part, when the Bill passes from this House I am happy to commit it to the wisdom of those in another place and leave to them the choice of who may consider it there. I do not think it would be wise for me to express any view upon the matter. All I can say is that I am sure it will be considered with wisdom.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. I say that whether noble Lords have spoken in support or against a position that I have taken up; my thanks are equally warm. I am glad that I can say that it was not only lawyers who took part in the proceedings. It is of course true that the discussions were largely in the hands of lawyers but we were fortunate enough to have interventions from time to time from those who are not lawyers. I shall not mention particular names because there are many of them and I might miss someone out. However, I am glad that those who took part who were not members of the legal profession came from all parts of the House.
The Bill, as the purpose clause that your Lordships have just approved now makes clear, is to provide a framework. It is that framework which justifies and makes necessary the number of regulation-making powers that have been a feature of legal aid legislation from the start. The way the matter has been addressed in your Lordships' House has sometimes suggested that that was a novel and rather poor invention of mine. Far from that being the case, the legal aid system has always proceeded by having primary legislation which provided for a great deal of subordinate legislation. I suspect that whatever government are in power, however unexpected the result will be very much the same.
I believe that the framework provided by the Bill is excellent. Those who talk, as some have done, about a second-class service are doing a great disservice to the honour and reputation of those solicitors and barristers who over the years have provided and still provide an excellent legal aid service to the less well off. I can think of nothing more likely to damage the morale of legal aid practitioners than that suggestion.
I believe that in sending the Bill to another place your Lordships can do so confident that the legal profession as a whole, including those whose services may be much in demand for commercial purposes and for others, will be willing to participate in providing a level of service under the legal aid framework that will continue to command the respect of all who require it.
A number of important changes and improvements have been made to the Bill with your Lordships' assistance. I am grateful for all of that. I am grateful for the kind things that have been said about me. I have not yet mentioned anyone specifically. I propose to make an exception in the case of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. He has a special place. As my noble and learned friend said, he had responsibility for a good deal of

49
the Bill when he held the office which I now have the honour to hold. I am grateful for the fact that he has been willing to play such a constructive and helpful part in these proceedings. It must be difficult for him to see someone as inexperienced as I am trying to pilot through the Bill. He has shown no such feelings. On the contrary, he has shown the magnanimity of spirit, help and support that we have all come to know and expect of him.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, also a predecessor of mine in this office, has always been extremely helpful. I am grateful to him for that. His support has in no sense been a second-class service but one I have much appreciated, although, of course, we do not see eye to eye on everything.
I mention those two noble and learned Lords especially because the position from which they speak is, in a sense, special. However, I wish to extend my thanks to all your Lordships whose efforts, I hope, will bear fruit in an even better legal aid system for the future than we have had in the past.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Bill
5.54 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Defined activities]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("or if it is work carried out by the caretaker of a primary school where he is the only member of staff employed on caretaking and cleaning duties.").
The noble Lord said: When we dealt with this issue on Report, the Minister indicated what I then thought was considerable movement. I think that he will appreciate that one had to read and digest what he said. The issue has been debated a number of times during the Bill's passage, most recently and extensively on Report on 15th February. The Association of County Councils' concern about the effect of compulsory competition for cleaning on the role and supply of caretakers in small schools was then referred to. The ACC seeks an exemption from Schedule 1 in respect of the cleaning function in primary schools where the caretaker is the only member of staff employed on caretaking and cleaning duties.
The problem was then stated; but it is perhaps worth repeating. As currently drafted, the Bill will catch the work of caretakers in most primary schools although caretaking itself is not a defined activity. That is because caretakers in many primary schools normally spend more hours cleaning than on other duties, although caretaking is the most important part of the job. Because, quantitatively, they spend more hours cleaning, their work is not exempt from compulsory tender.
On Report, a number of examples were given of the extent to which primary schools in shire local education authorities will be affected. The need to
50
combine the roles of caretaker and cleaner in one person in primary schools and the undesirability of contracting out the work of caretaker/cleaners—the solution then advocated by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—was also argued.
The ACC welcomes the noble Earl's statement that the Government propose,
"to exempt from competition work carried out by people who are required as a condition of their employment to live in particular accommodation".
In doing so, the Government recognised that some school caretakers are required to live in tied accommodation and thus could face a potential loss of both job and home. The noble Earl went on to say:
"I believe this concession that I have offered to the House will go a long way to helping with the issue that this amendment seeks to address".—[Official Report, 15/2/88; col. 464.].
Unfortunately that is not the case. As the following details will show, few small primary schools have tied accommodation. I shall give details of some of the authorities which are in difficulty over the Bill, even with the concession that was made.
For example, Devon has 448 primary schools. In 447 of them the caretaker spends over 50 per cent. of his time cleaning; so 447 are caught by competitive tender. In 151 of those schools the caretaker is the only member of staff employed on caretaking and cleaning duties. And in only one of those 151 schools is the caretaker in tied accommodation. So the concession, although welcome, helps in one case only in the situation about which we are most concerned—the sole caretaker/cleaner in small schools.
Kent, as mentioned on Report, will have 234 of its primary schools caretaker/cleaners caught by tendering because the caretaker/cleaner spends more than 50 per cent. of the time cleaning. Only 33 of those 234 caretaker/cleaners live in tied accommodation; so the concession will again not help the problem.
Norfolk is another county much affected by the absence of exemption for sole caretaker/cleaners owing to the number of small rural primary schools it has. Only a handful—perhaps 10 or so—of its 412 primary schools have a caretaker who does less than 50 per cent. cleaning and is therefore exempt. Norfolk has 38 primary schools with tied accommodation for its caretaker/cleaners. It is understood that a handful of exempted caretakers occupy tied accommodation anyway. So the net effect is that about 374 primary schools in this county will still have their caretaker/cleaners caught by the Bill's provisions, despite the concession.
I think that enough examples have been given to show that the concession, useful and welcome though it is, does not really address the problem of the need to safeguard the caretaker in the primary schools from competitive tendering on the one hand, or the splitting off of the caretaking/cleaning job on the other. The Minister said on 15th February 1988:
"I would not claim that it would make sense to split up such caretakers' jobs and expose part of them to competition."—[Official Report, 15/2/88, col. 464.]
Therefore we have no hesitation in urging your Lordships' House once again to amend the Bill to

51
exempt a primary school caretaker from competition where he is the only member of staff employed on caretaking and cleaning duties. We are not asking for all primary school caretakers to be exempt; this is just an amendment to tackle the most severe problems of the smaller primary schools.
I said at the outset that I was grateful for the concession that was made at the Report stage. But I think that the details which have been sent to us by the Association of County Councils on behalf of some of their constituent members indicate a rather more widespread difficulty than some of us had imagined at Report stage. On that basis, I should hope that even at this late stage the Minister may be able to look sympathetically on what my colleagues and I feel to be a reasonable request. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said that we had debated this type of amendment a number of times before. Indeed, I think at Report stage, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that we had cantered over this course at an earlier stage and I presume that we can now go around it blindfold. We had ample evidence at the Report stage, and indeed again today, from the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that there are quite large numbers of primary school caretakers who spend more time on cleaning than on security and other duties. Despite the undertaking which I gave at Report stage and which was not given lightly, I can say to the noble Lord that there was lengthy consideration within the department and with my right honourable friend about giving such an undertaking. But we felt that in the circumstances it was right to give it.
Notwithstanding that residential caretakers will be exempted, there might remain many caretakers whose work will not be exempt from competition. I have to say, as I have said previously, that I simply do not understand why this should be regarded as unacceptable by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Education authorities are perfectly capable of setting down clearly what they require caretakers to do, whether or not the job involves elements of cleaning, locking and unlocking, attending to heating systems and so forth. I suggest that the outcome of the competitive process is not likely to be the splitting apart of these employees' cleaning and caretaking functions which various education authorities have no doubt rightly said would be inefficient, but the more efficient carrying out of the combined function. That is exactly what the Bill sets out to achieve for all the services listed. It sets out to achieve better value for money in the carrying out of the work which each authority decides it wants carried out.
Finally, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will not mind me pointing out just one matter of detail. If the amendment is to be added to Clause 2(b), I believe that the line reference should be to line 14 rather than 19. That is a small matter of drafting. On the principle of the amendment, I hope that the
52
House will not give its support to the noble Lord, Lord Dean.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the detailed and courteous reply which we have come to expect from him. I am sorry however that he could not go a little further as we had requested. It is my belief that the worries which have been highlighted on behalf of these authorities during the various proceedings in your Lordships' House, both in Committee and on Report, will manifest themselves.
I think that the Bill as it stands will create difficulty of a personal nature in some of the rural areas where the caretaker is tied almost into the fabric of the building as one of the staff whom everybody knows. Personally, I think that when the Bill becomes an Act and is applied in these areas it may well founder as regards some of these local interests and the interests of the community as a whole. However, I have no desire to press the amendment to a Division. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2.
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Power to carry out works contracts for other persons.
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation authorise a local authority to enter into contracts for the provision by that authority of work or services within a defined activity (not being works contracts within the meaning of section 5 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980) with any other person whether or not being a public body within the meaning of section I of the local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 in circumstances where he is satisfied that—

(a) the direct labour organisation of the authority carrying out that work or providing those services is no larger than is necessary having regard to the functions of the authority and the circumstances of its area, and

(b) the carrying out of such contracts is desirable or necessary for the purpose of facilitating the efficient use of the resources of the organisation.

(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) specify the types of contracts to be authorised and may include such supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and

(b) modify the conditions specified in section 4 above or provide that the said section shall not apply to any specified class of contract authorised under this section.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would accept that it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together, because he may find that of value. The new clause which is suggested in Amendment No. 2 gives total discretion to the Secretary of State in determining to what extent he allows local authorities to conduct work with persons who are not public bodies—that is, work outside the local authority and other public body spheres.
The wording of this amendment is based on Section 38 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. I believe that it provides quite a useful precedent. Although it specifically deals with computers and computer time, the wording could quite easily be altered to deal with other types of direct labour work and also to show that the

53
precedent is certainly there. I would suggest that there is a case for the full and economic use of equipment and staff of local authorities other than just the computers and computer time.
In a perfect world, the balance would be perfect: the amount of staff and equipment and the capital which was expended on the equipment would all balance out completely and the local authority would have no spare capacity whatever at any time. If this were a perfect world, it would be the same for those who were contracting for local authorities. But it never is the case; it cannot be. Sometimes one finds that in order to use up equipment and staff time for short periods, contractors will occasionally pick a contract and will be willing to give a very sharp and keen price for that contract.
So I believe and hope that the Minister will look favourably at the idea that the local authority or the direct labour should have some flexibility which would be circumscribed by the Secretary of State. The rules will be circumscribed by him to allow the local authority direct labour to compete with outside contractors.
Amendment No. 3 is perhaps not quite as wide ranging as Amendment No. 2. It deals with the ability and the right of the local authority direct labour to engage in open competition for certain activities outside. However, as regards activities which are normally done by the local authority—we are not talking here about breaking new ground and starting new types of activities—the local authorities should be able to break into the outside field if their expertise, abilities, staff and equipment allow them to do so.
The amendment is not seeking carte blanche for local authorities to set themselves up as trading organisations in any or all fields of the economy. The intention of the Bill is to expose to open competition certain activities normally undertaken by the staff of local authorities in order to ensure that the local authorities are achieving value for money in such activities. That is fair enough. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the local authorities themselves perhaps to check back on the contractor to see whether they are getting a fair deal from him. It is not always in the field of public works particularly where arrangements are made among contractors to submit one tender that is preferable to another by agreement. That may not be legal but it is frequently done and almost on a weekly basis.
But this amendment will permit authorities to seek contracts for cleaning, vehicle maintenance or catering, for example, outside the net of defined authorities if they so wish. I hope that the Minister will give this serious consideration. If local authorities are denied that freedom to seek and obtain work for this purpose they are being deliberately placed at a disadvantage, because that freedom is of value only if local authorities can win work on price and performance in fair competition.
As regards competition for local authority work, the Bill is certainly based on the principle of fair competition. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply but I hope that he is sympathetic to
54
at least the second amendment that I have tabled, which is Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will indeed seriously consider these two amendments. I express that hope because when I served on a local authority one of the actions we took was to set up a direct labour building department. We also had a printing department. So successful was the building department that on its first tender in 1968 for the building of 79 houses to sell, not to rent, it was able to tender for a contract at £500,000 less than the nearest private tenderer.
The people who bought the houses did very well. The building department carried out the works to price and to time. Indeed so well-known did its success become that the electorate at large demanded of the councillors that the direct building department should do private work for the electorate. But as the law stands, and as it then stood, we were unable to say to those people that we had a very efficient department and of course it could carry out works of improvement. Therefore the department which was set up by the ratepayers and which was welcomed by the ratepayers was unable to carry out work for those very same ratepayers.
This is a very valuable amendment which has been moved by my noble friend. As 1 say, we also had a printing department which was very competitive and which would have welcomed being able to do work from outside because that would have spread the overheads and made the jobs that it did even cheaper than they actually were. In any event its prices were highly competitive compared with the private sector.
The Minister is a very fair man. Therefore I should have thought that he would have understood that one can have competition both ways. This amendment enables the Government, so to speak, to have their cake and eat it too; so I hope that the Minister will welcome it with open arms.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, to have one's cake, eat it and welcome it with open arms seems an extraordinarily agile performance. Although none of your Lordships would deny the quality of agility to my noble friend, I am not sure that it is a wholly appetising prospect which we are offered.
I very much hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment because it seems that it would have the effect, and no doubt is intended to have the effect, of driving the proverbial coach and horses through this part of the Bill. As I understand it, it would, for example, be perfectly possible if Amendment No. 2 were carried into law for two local authorities to get into cahoots with each other and for each to contract with the other and the other's direct labour organisation for work which otherwise under the terms of the Bill would have to be put out to contract for general bids by all concerned.
It is well known that local authorities, particularly adjoining local authorities of the same party political connection, sometimes have very close links. That is certainly so of some of the boroughs of East London whose goings-on have rightly attracted a great deal of attention in recent months.

55
It would be slightly absurd if the work of a local authority were to be done not only by a direct labour organisation but by the direct labour organisation of its neighbour, while at the same time that authority did the work for the neighbour. I hope that we shall not make nonsense of the Bill in that way. It is bad enough to have, as we have in this same political connection, the practice under which elected councillors of one local authority are employed often in jobs of no particular practical value by an adjoining authority. We certainly do not want to add to such activities between local authorities. I hope that we shall reject this.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I first of all should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to the discussion on this Bill. I think it is the first time that he has taken part and his participation is extremely welcome. I shall have to be more on my mettle than usual as the Opposition seem to have a regular supply of bowlers on this subject.
Amendment No. 2, which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has moved, is clearly designed to provide an escape valve where an authority may find that it has temporary surplus capacity which for good management reasons should be usefully and productively employed. I approve of the principle of making efficient use of available resources but that can already be achieved without the introduction of this new clause. The answer lies in existing legislation. Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives subsidiary powers to local authorities, which could authorise the use of temporary surplus capacity by any person as being incidental to one of the authority's functions. Indeed there is a complementary provision for Scotland in Section 69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
I would also make clear, however, that such implied powers do not permit an authority to hire staff surplus to requirements solely or principally for the purpose of providing services to others. If the use of direct labour operatives is merely subsidiary, utilising genuine temporary spare capacity, no additional power is necessary. If more than that is envisaged, the DLO would soon be in the business of establishing itself as a public trading organisation. That would be clearly undesirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, quite rightly drew the attention of the House to Section 38 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, because that gives an express power in respect of utilisation of excess capacity in computers. The noble Lord will know better than I do that that power was, however, deliberately confined to computers, because it was considered that in some circumstances it was probably economically sound for local authorities to purchase computers with capacities greatly in excess of immediate needs. I understand that some authorities with large amounts of surplus time available in their computers were doubtful whether Section 111 of the Local Government Act
56
1972 would cover the sale of so much time and they were anxious to be given a specific power for the sale of this surplus capacity. It is not considered that similar uncertainties arise in the situation covered by this amendment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 3. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, argued persuasively for allowing local authority direct labour organisations to compete for work in the private sector. But I would say to him, why not go the whole hog? Surely if there is a situation such as that, those direct labour organisations should be turned into genuine companies that will sink or swim in the private sector, where they will be unsubsidised by the taxpayer and the ratepayer and will compete on a truly genuine basis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Earl. I understand the point that he has made. However, one of the benefits of creating the direct labour organisation was that a local authority would be able to compete with the private sector and put in realistic tenders. As a result not only did a local authority obtain cheaper work from its direct labour department but the price of private sector building in the whole area came down. That really was competition. What the Minister is suggesting would not be competition at all, because one way or another the private sector could set up its own cartel, as it has in the past.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if one takes the situation referred to by the noble Lord to its proper conclusion, and if it had been a true private sector company, would it have been able to submit the prices that it put forward? The complaint that we most commonly receive about local authorities is that they are favouring their in-house DLOs. Clause 33 of the Bill bears witness to that. Amendment No. 3 offers the prospect of private contractors being placed in an unequal position by the subsidised operations of local authorities. I believe that this amendment is designed to create more jobs for local government empire builders rather than to improve competition, which is the aim of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was right to say that at the moment private contractors cannot compete because of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. We are trying to allow private enterprise into what has become a local authority monopoly in order to obtain better value for money for the ratepayer.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that his reply is rather disappointing. First of all, I should like to welcome to the House my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who has been liberated from the Front Bench. We are not happy about the reasons for that but we know that on the Back Benches he will be extremely active and pertinent and even show the aggression that we expect and enjoy from him.

57
it is an extremely valid point that local authorities have a right to check whether private contractors are being competitive. The idea that there are no cartels is nonsense. The Minister asked why local authority direct labour departments did not become private companies and move into the private sector. The chances are that they would join the private contractors in some form of syndicate when it suited them and be part of the cartel. I am not saying that it is a major problem now. A great many steps have been taken to stop outside contractors putting in tenders that are agreed beforehand. But the situation had got so out of hand that I wonder whether it has been entirely cleared up.
1 remember on one occasion contracts were put out to tender for many thousands of yards of drainpipes. The cost of supplying them submitted by half a dozen different companies was the same to the last penny—for thousands upon thousands of yards of drainpipes. It is not true that competition of that kind will necessarily produce the best price, the best conditions and the best job. That is why we wanted these amendments included in the Bill.
I am glad that the Minister says that no special powers are required to use excess capacity in certain cases. I wonder whether at some point—perhaps not today—he could give me an indication of the parameters of that additional capacity. Perhaps he could write to me about that.
We are disappointed in the reply but, recognising that in the Government's view the purpose of the Bill would not be strengthened by this amendment— although we believe that the hands of the local authority and of the people who ultimately pay would be strengthened—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Local authority publicity]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 27, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A local authority association may, within a period of six months after the date of passing this Act, issue (whether or not jointly with any other such association) a code of practice with regard to publicity for the guidance of its members, and section 4 of that Act shall not have effect in relation to any authority to whom such a Code has been issued until after the making of an order under subsection (2A) below.
(2A) The Secretary of State may, after considering any Code issued under subsection (2) above, and after consultation with the local authority associations, make an order to give effect to section 4 of that Act in relation to any authority to which an association has issued a code under that subsection, provided—

(a) that he shall first provide any authority affected with a written statement of his reasons for making the order, and

(b) that no order shall be made before a date nine months after Royal Assent; and

(c) that no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2B) In section 4 of that Act (issued by Secretary of State of Codes of recommended practice on publicity)—
(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted—
"(1) This section shall apply to a local authority where

(a) no Code has been issued to that authority by a local authority association of which it is a member under section 26(2) of the Local Government Act 1988; or

(b) an order has been made in respect of that authority under section 26(2A) of that Act."

(b) in subsection (1) for the words "local authorities" there shall be substituted "a local authority to which this section applies." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 returns to a subject which has been debated in earlier stages of the Bill. However, I think that it does so in a different way and one which justifies its reconsideration here.
This amendment does not—I repeat "does not"—affect the definition of publicity for political purposes. For the purposes of this amendment we have not sought to challenge the Government's intention to prohibit publicity by local authorities which could be thought to be of a political nature. We still have worries about the wording of that but Third Reading is not the time for this House to go over those concerns again.
What we are concerned about today is the nature of the codes of practice to which the Bill, and of course the Local Government Act 1986, refers. I should explain that the amendment we are putting forward has the support not only of Labour local authorities assembled together in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities but also of local authorities of all political persuasions, and of none, in the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. It also has the support of outside bodies such as the Institute of Public Relations, the Campaign for Freedom of Information, the Association of Free Newspapers and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom.
The issue is that since 1986 the Government have made consistent and, to do them credit, persistent attempts to draw up a code of practice for local authority publicity following the requirements which were introduced by the 1986 Local Government Act. We are now on the fifth draft of that code of practice. Each one has been subjected to criticism—I think constructive criticism—by local authority associations and by others who are concerned with local government and publicity. After a period of well over a year and half we have still not achieved a code of practice which has proved to be acceptable and agreed to be properly worded for the purposes of giving guidance to local authorities as to the way in which they should conduct their publicity.
There are those on the government side who say that that is because local authorities are being difficult about their criticisms of the wording and intentions of the code of practice. I do not believe that that is the case. By their nature, and it is not in any way to their discredit, civil servants are not close enough to the problems of local authorities (and the way in which local authorities ought to be communicating with the people in their area) to be able to produce a suitable code of practice. That does

59
not mean that they are not good at their job as civil servants. It means that this should not be their job. The code of practice could and should be drawn up by the local authorities together with their local authority associations. Towards the end of last year they drew up a draft code of practice which in my view forms a very good basis for the implementation of this clause.
This amendment says that they will have a further opportunity six months after the Bill is passed to present that or a similar code of practice to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may—not "must" but "may"—then bring it into effect as the appropriate code of practice under this Bill. There is no compulsion on the Secretary of State.
There is no criticism of the objectives of the code of practice as defined in subsection (1) of the clause. What is given here is an opportunity to short-cut what has appeared to be an interminable procedure of drawing up codes of practice. This can be dealt with relatively quickly and to the satisfaction both of government and the local authorities and we have the oportunity to do it in this relatively simple and certainly modest amendment. I hope that it will command the support of the Government and those who have felt and still feel strongly about the issues of local authority publicity. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment. At one stage when we were discussing Clause 27 of this Bill the Chamber divided against the Government on the status of the code of practice. That is now no longer in issue. By their very nature codes of practice are fairly difficult for a Secretary of State to formulate in any event, and they must always be formulated after due consultation. To that degree I go along with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
However, if I am not mistaken the noble Lord referred to "interminable" negotiations. Certainly from my scant knowledge I know of some very detailed negotiations and have come across strenuous efforts to agree upon the content of a code. None of them has borne fruit and, with respect to the little that I know about the matter, none of them is likely to do so. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it is not necessarily the fault of the civil servants nor of the local authorities; it is not necessarily a question of' want of accommodation nor lack of goodwill. In this area it is simply a very difficult result to achieve.
Because of those difficulties, once the principle of the clause has been accepted it is up to the Secretary of State to settle the code, having taken into account all relevant consultations—and, my word! there have been some consultations over the years. To require that he should:
"first provide any authority affected with a written statement of his reasons for making the order".
is to impose a wholly inappropriate fetter on the way in which a Secretary of State should discharge his duties in accordance with the intention of this clause.
60
Very briefly, for those reasons I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, your Lordships will know as well as I do that sometimes the Chamber has to deal with an amendment which consists of changing only one word—probably "shall" or "may"—and that such an amendment has a desperate effect on the Bill as a whole. On other occasions there may be a fairly long amendment such as the one that we are now discussing, which may appear to be very complicated. However, the amendment can be summed up in a few words: to allow a voluntary code of practice to operate for a trial period. That is the aim.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow local authorities through their associations to draft and work to their own code of practice on local government publicity before the Secretary of State issues his own and imposes it if he so wishes. There is no need for me to go into the background of this topic. There has been a long history of the government believing that local authorities are anxious and willing to push forward party-political publicity on each and every occasion. However, they are wrong. They are pushing against an open door; a fact which the Widdicombe Committee bore out. Of course there have been no cases heard since 1986 of any such attempts which have been bruited abroad.
When it addressed itself to the question of a code of practice, the Widdicombe Committee stated that there should be guidelines covering the tone and presentation of local government publicity. It considered a number of ways in which that could be done but was not happy with them. However the committee was very clear on one point in particular; namely, that the structure of the guidelines should be based upon self-regulation. When one thinks about it, that is logical. The Widdicombe Committee concluded:
"We believe that tone and presentation is important, but it would undoubtedly be best if it were the subject of self-regulation".
It is perfectly true that the Government have published five drafts of' a code of practice and that each draft has been commented upon by the local authorities, but they still have not come up with anything that has been acceptable to both sides. There are one or two specific problems, of which I shall mention but one. There is still a provision in the Government's draft code of practice that:
"publicity should not attack, nor appear to undermine, generally accepted moral standards".
I do not know what that means. Although I am quite sure that the Minister's moral standards are the same as mine and so we would get on together very well, in a general sort of way I do not understand what is meant by that wording. I think that it is only reasonable to ask the Minister to give some definition of' what is implied.
I have with me a chronological summary of all the attempts that have been made in this respect. The Government claim that that is an indication of their willingness to take local government with them, but the truth of the matter, as has already been referred to in different contexts by both speakers on this

61
amendment, is that civil servants are not persons engaged in the work of local authorities, just as persons in local authorities are not civil servants. The truth is that the two find it very difficult to come to a common agreement.
We believe that local authorities should be allowed to draw up their own code of practice. In a way they have been asked to do so and we feel that that is the right course to pursue. Should they not be successful, the Minister will retain the right to introduce his own code of practice, which is perfectly proper. There has been no abuse by the local authorities of their publicity powers, as I mentioned previously, and we feel that the Government should let the authorities get on with the job of drawing up the code of practice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if local authorities were prepared to get on with the job of restraining the activities of a good many of them who use public funds for party political purposes, there would not have been any necessity for the clause as a whole or for this part of the Bill. However, the very fact, at any rate in the view of Her Majesty's Government and Parliament so far, that it is necessary to legislate to restrain those activities surely indicates that one cannot leave to a local authority association the drafting of the code of practice. If local authorities were so well disposed, so responsible and as public spirited as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, seems to suggest, it would not be just a question of a code of practice but of whether it was necessary to legislate at all on this matter. I know it is something about which some of your Lordships take different views, but so far we have proceeded on the basis that it is necessary to legislate on this matter.
Therefore there does not seem to be any reason to believe that, by handing the duty of drafting the code of practice to the local authorities, one would not merely have the whole operation of restricting their party-political activities frustrated.
I have also two points to make about the drafting of this amendment. The amendment states that:
"A local authority association may"
draw up a code of practice. As your Lordships will know, there are a number of local authority associations. What will happen if several of them go into the business and draft different codes of practice? What will happen then? What is the Minister to do when an almost embarrassing flow of alternative codes of practice come to him from the different local authority associations? The one thing that is perfectly clear to all of us who have any experience of local authority associations is that they very rarely agree inside themselves and hardly ever agree with each other. So it really is making a nonsense of this part of the Bill to put this proposal forward.
I am also a little surprised to see it proposed that,
"no order shall be made before a date nine months after Royal Assent".
This is postponing again the very necessary introduction of a code of practice if that quite unnecessary artificial delay is to be imposed. I never like using the phrase "wrecking amendment" because
62
it is thought, though I do not think it is generally intended, to be somewhat discourteous to those who put it forward. But this amendment, if adopted, would do very severe damage to this part of the Bill and I hope, for that reason if not for many others, that my noble friend will with his usual politeness and firmness reject it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to intervene very quickly about the phrase "with regard to publicity". I do not know how much local authorities spent. They were spending money before the abolition of the metropolitan counties and of the GLC. But as regards publicity, the most marvellous publicity that has appeared on television—I do not know how much it cost but it must have cost many thousands of pounds—was when the Government were selling off British Airways. There was the most spectacular advertising, no doubt without a code of practice, putting forward a political party's philosophy with taxpayers' money. British Airways belonged to the taxpayer and that money was used for political publicity.
The same is true in the case of British Telecom. The advertising was not quite as spectacular, but we saw people abseiling and that was publicity paid for by public money, just as local authorities' money is public money, being used to put over a political philosophy. So I have the greatest difficulty in following the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his arguments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she allow me to say that she has given me my case, because what she is saying is that she is against the promotion of party politics on the rates and therefore supports this amendment. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, first I must say that 1 was a little surprised and disappointed to see the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This amendment was first tabled by the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, at Committee stage. During the debate on Amendment No. 113ZA, which was taken to a Division, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made it clear to the Committee that he was also presenting the case for this and a number of other amendments. He then gave full expression to his arguments for this amendment and I duly responded to the points he made.
I should, however, like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the purpose of Clause 28(2). It seeks to require local authorities to take account of the code of recommended practice which the Secretary of State is authorised to issue under Section 4 of the 1986 Act. It proposes therefore that local authorities should be required to have regard to the provisions of the code. In other words, it reinstates

63
the force of Clause 4 of the earlier Bill before it was amended by your Lordships.
The main purpose of this amendment appears to be to remove the Secretary of State's responsibility to set out principles of good practice on publicity for local authorities to take into account. This responsibility was given to him only two years ago with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, which accepted the basic justification for his involvement.
The reasons for placing the responsibility for the code in the hands of the Secretary of State are just as valid today as they were when Section 4 was first debated. Some local authorities, I regret to say, remain determined to use their position and their access to public funds to produce publicity of a type and on a scale which is impossible to justify. The Government have no doubt that in this highly sensitive area it is right for them to seek to ensure that principles of good practice are laid down and matters of bad practice discouraged.
No one can deny the onslaught of political propaganda in some areas. One has only to look at a recent edition of Ealing Council's house magazine which provides a clear example of such abuse. But the code will not extend or interpret the ban on party political publicity in Section 2 of the Act. That is entirely separate and free-standing. Nor will it fetter the legitimate use of local authorities' publicity powers. What it will do is to set out clear principles of good practice reflecting the conventions that should apply to all publicity at public expense, and which traditionally have applied in both central and local government.
To summarise the position, noble Lords opposite are making the claim that the use of public money by local authorities for publicity is not a matter which Parliament and central government should seek to influence. The fact that large sums of public money have been used on controversial publicity in recent years, a large percentage of which is taxpayers' money, gives central government a clear and important remit. History proves that some local authorities—and I stress "some local authorities"—have not been very good at maintaining the accepted conventions. They have used a very sensitive medium in regrettable ways.
What the Government are now seeking to ensure is that local authorities have regard to the practice which Parliament recommends in the field of publicity. It seems only sensible to us that this requirement should be imposed in a form that all local authorities are fully familiar with, so that account is taken of the recommendations approved by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rightly drew the attention of the House to the fact that some local authority associations have produced a satisfactory code. I am pleased that my view on these matters is reinforced by the draft code on publicity prepared by officers of the main associations in December.
64
At first sight, this draft code bears some resemblance to the Government's draft code, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. I do not think it would be right to take up the time of the House with a line by line critique of the document. Suffice it to say that, although it appears to cover some of the matters included in the Government's draft, it excludes a number that we believe to be essential. Perhaps that is due to the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, there is more than just one local authority association.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, that that is why we believe that the voluntary code is the wrong approach. More importantly, its provisions are written in such vague terms that we see no prospect that local authorities would be pointed towards good practice in any meaningful sense. That is the purpose of having the code in the first place.
I think it is right that I should explain to your Lordships once again why a code has not yet been issued. I explained in Committee, and I repeat, that there are two reasons why no code has yet been put to Parliament. These are, first, that we have endeavoured as far as possible to take local government with us on the drafting of the code. The history of the drafting demonstrates that we have been prepared to listen to their point of view and, where appropriate, to make amendments designed to allay their concerns. It will be for Parliament to decide whether to approve the final product of this consultative process.
Secondly, and I think perhaps more importantly, we did not think it was right to ask Parliament to approve a code the status of which would not be clarified until your Lordships and those in another place had had time to consider what is now Clause 28(2). I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment before us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose we must be grateful for the fact that we have achieved two things in this little debate. The first is that at last, after consistent refusal to do so both in this House and in another place, the Minister has given an example of abuse of local authority publicity powers since the passage of the 1986 Act. He has given the example of Ealing Council's house magazine, which I shall certainly look into. Perhaps he will be kind enough to send me a copy of it—not in the middle of my speech. It is a fact that ever since this Bill came before Parliament the Minister of State in another place and Minister here have always refused to give any examples. A Minister of State in another place refused on principle because he said it was not relevant to the argument for the clause, and Ministers in this House perhaps gave less objectionable reasons.
The second thing we have achieved is that the Minister has described the local authority code which was produced last December as satisfactory. I am sure that those who have taken part in drafting it will be pleased to hear that description. That leads me to think that perhaps we are not as far apart as we might be. Indeed, if it had not been for the speech of the

65
noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I might have been tempted to withdraw the amendment. However, the misconceptions contained in it were so profound that I think it is necessary that they should be corrected or that the House should have an opportunity to attempt to correct them.
The first misconception was exactly this question of examples. The noble Lord referred again, without giving specific examples, to abuse of the code. There have been (with this exception, which I look forward to seeing) no examples of abuse of the provisions of the 1986 Act since it came into force. Ministers have not been able to give any examples. The fact of the matter is that the 1986 Act has been working. It has been working partly because it was amended and improved by your Lordships' House against the wishes of the Government.
The second misconception is the idea that there is an indefinite number of local authority associations that would be in constant dispute about the contents of a code. There are four local authority associations. They are all in agreement with this amendment whether they are Conservative controlled, as is the Association of District Councils, whether they are under the control of no one party, as is the Association of County Councils, or whether they are Labour controlled, as are the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of London Authorities. If they can achieve that form of agreement on this amendment, as they have achieved agreement on the draft code that they have produced, there is no reason why they should not continue to achieve a draft code which would be acceptable to the Secretary of State.
The third reason why I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is that he refers to no order being made before a date nine months after Royal Assent. If it were indeed the case that there were continued abuses of local authority publicity powers and that we were questioning the objectives of the clause, which is to restrain unjustified political publicity by local authorities, that point might have some force. However, we have the opportunity here to do something which is not only better in itself as regards publicity but is also better because it restores a relationship of mutual confidence between local authorities and government. On that basis, if on that basis alone, I think it is right to take the opinion of the House.
6 53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 91.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale. L.

Birk, B.

Ampthill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ardwick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Barnett, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

66

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Galpern, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Raglan, L.

Grey, E.

Ripon, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Bathurst, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marley, L.

Beloff, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Bledisloe, L.

Morris, L.

Blyth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bramall, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Carnock, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Quinton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rees, L.

Colwyn, L.

Renton, L.

Cowley, E.

Ridley, V.

Cox, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Sandford, L.

Deedes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

Slim, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Stockton, E.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swansea, L.

Hertford, M.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Killearn, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kimball, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Wynford, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.1 p.m.
Clause 29 [Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 27, line leave out ("it sees fit") and insert ("may reasonably he drawn from the evidence before it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather smaller matter than the one we have just decided. It is an amendment to a subsection of the clause that prohibits the promoting of homosexuality. The subsection says that the court,
"shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as it sees fit".
I do not think any judge reading that will feel any the wiser. I cannot believe that the decision in any case is going to be different whether this subsection goes in or is left out. Nor can I believe that any change is here intended in the familiar practice of the courts in drawing inferences as regards people's intentions. I cannot believe that such a change would be slipped into a subsection of a clause in a miscellaneous provisions Bill about local government. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on Report, moved to leave out this subsection. We argued for sparing the statute book a subsection which really does not carry the matter any further. But the Government seemed quite determined to have their subsection. So now we say, "Let us at least state the position correctly". It simply is not correct to say that the court may draw such inferences as it sees fit, just like that. The Minister stated the position correctly at col. 640 of the Report stage on 16th February when he said that,
"the court will he obliged in the normal way to consider the facts of the case, to weigh the relevant factors and to come to an objective view about the authority's purpose on the basis of those factors".
That is what the amendment says very much more than the subsection says as drafted. I hope that your Lordships will consider the amendment an improvement on what has been drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and your Lordships will think it right to accept this amendment. Everyone knows that the phrase "as it sees fit" does not really mean what it appears to mean; and the fact that it is there will not alter in any way the correct judicial approach to the drawing of such inferences from the primary facts on the evidence. And, of course, if they are not properly drawn by a tenable process of deduction, then the decision would be reversed on appeal. Everyone knows that. However, if one is drafting a statute it is preferable to use an expression which means what it appears to mean.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether a non-lawyer may intervene in this debate, but it seems to me that the noble Lords who have just spoken have a good case. Although to some extent I took a back seat on this amendment—after our attempt to have the whole clause thrown out was
68
rejected by your Lordships— I was somewhat taken aback by the phrase:
"such inferences … as it sees fit".
It did not seem to me that that was what courts were in the business of doing. As a layman, it had always seemed to me that they were in the business of looking at the evidence and assessing it. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, every single amendment we have dealt with today seems to have underlined the value of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. This one is no exception. I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have always been rather shy of the words, "reasonably" and "reasonable". They are rather vague words, are they not? Some people will think something is reasonable and others will not. I have mentioned this point on previous occasions. In spite of that. I would personally support the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, say that everyone knows that the words "as it sees fit" do not mean what they appear to mean. That recalled to me the extraordinary word "pretended" used elsewhere in the Bill, which clearly does not mean what everyone thinks it does. I wish that the word "pretended" had been amended. In seeking to amend the expression now being discussed the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has hit on a very happy solution. He has received support from all sides of the House and I very much hope that the Minister will accept this improvement.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords. I should also like to support the amendment. I confess that I am not sure that it really is as unworrying a point as the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, suggested. I confess to not being aware of any other statute which appears to suggest that a court may draw inferences "as it sees fit". If one were to have such a provision in this statute I venture to suggest there is a risk that the court might think that somethng new and novel was meant and therefore might think that it had a greater liberty to draw inferences, or to draw inferences without evidence, other than in the normal way.
Unless the noble Lord the Minister can point to other examples where these words have been used, I think it is not only an improvement to have the amended wording but also that it would be a positive menace to leave the wording as it is.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with his customary clarity and concern for clarity, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has proposed this amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 29 to spell out more fully the court's duty in any proceedings against a local

69
authority under this clause. As I explained in reply to an amendment moved at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, the Government are confident that the present formulation would be understood by the court. Its effect would be precisely that intended by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with his present proposal. A court would naturally base its conclusions about an authority's intention on factors that could reasonably be drawn from the evidence and the circumstances of the case.
However, I do not want to be obstructive. I entirely accept the noble Lord's desire to be helpful in this matter and to clarify a point that has troubled a number of your Lordships. There is really nothing between us and therefore I am content to recommend to the House that the amendment he accepted.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, that if he wishes to know what is reasonable he must ask the gentleman on the Clapham omnibus, because what he thinks is reasonable is reasonable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Local authority companies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 29, line 31, leave out ("11th February 1988") and insert ("the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to Clause 34, which concerns local authority companies and was introduced by the Government in this House. It has not yet been considered by another place. In introducing this amendment we are concerned not with the content of the provision on local authority companies, which has already been debated, but with the issue of retrospective legislation. Clause 34 as drafted provides that the clause should come into effect on 11th February; that is the day after the Government's new clause was published and before the matter had been debated in your Lordship's House.
On occasions, there may be cases for retrospective legislation. However, I suggest first that they should be kept as few as possible and, secondly, that this is not such a case. If retrospective legislation were to be justified in this case there would have to be overwhelming evidence not only that local authorities had in hand plans to create local authority companies which would circumvent the proposals in the Bill, but also that those local authority companies could be legally enforced before the date of Royal Assent of the Bill. That cannot be more than two or three weeks away if, as we expect, the Bill is passed in this House this afternoon and goes immediately back to another place.
No evidence has been produced to show that any local authorities have set up, or have advanced the process of setting up, local authority companies
70
which will have the effect of circumventing the Government's intention in the Bill. There are examples of local authorities seeking to set up local authority companies. Most of the examples of which I am aware concern Conservative controlled councils. I have seen only one referred to publicly and it is Rochford Borough Council in Essex, which is Conservative controlled. According to the Local Government Chronicle of 29th January it is proposing to set up a company not merely in advance of the Housing Bill so as to transfer properties to housing associations, but as a separate company running a £10 million leisure centre with 200 employees. I do not know whether the authority has been able to set up that company between 29th January, when the report was made, and 11th February, the date when the Bill, as drafted, would make it impossible to circumvent the provisions of the Bill. I believe that it is most unlikely that there will be a significant number of local authorities which will act in any way to frustrate the Government's intentions and I am aware of no such Labour controlled authorities.
If we introduce into a Bill at a late stage, as we now have, what is claimed and justified as an emergency provision in order to deal with a particular case, we must have much better evidence than has been produced showing that something will go wrong between now and the middle of March, or whenever the Bill is granted Royal Assent. Here the case for retrospective legislation has not been made. If the Minister has other examples that he wishes to quote I should be delighted to hear them. If he has other examples which he would like to communicate to me privately I should also be delighted to hear them. However, as the matter stands at the moment I do not believe that the House should approve this piece of retrospective legislation on the evidence that it has heard. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot resist drawing to the attention of the House what appears to be a change of view among noble Lords opposite regarding the significance of Clause 34. In commenting on it originally the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, seemed to doubt very much whether the potential abuse at which the clause is aimed actually existed. He commented that there were shadows which have not really appeared.
I made it clear that the Government had become aware that a minority of authorities had indeed been looking into the possibility of using the company device and that we did not regard ourselves as bringing forward a provision which was merely of academic interest. It would now appear that noble Lords opposite have come to share the Government's view or there would be little point in their seeking to have the effective date of the clause's operation the date of Royal Assent. If no authorities arc likely to have their plans affected by the decision, why bother with the amendment? Surely it contains the seeds of its own destruction.
From the point of view of the Government, the effect of the amendment would be to create a much worse situation than that which would exist if the

71
Government's measure never had been introduced. It would be the equivalent of saying to authorities "Look the Government have allowed you several weeks to take advantage of an anti-competitive loophole which avoids the provisions of Part I of the Bill altogether". That would be a sure-fire way of translating into a reality the possibility of using the company device.
I carry no brief for retrospective legislation in general but from time to time many governments have had to agree that a degree of retrospection is necessary under limited circumstances. I quite clearly believe that this is one of those limited circumstances.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that after a distinguished career as a spokesman on environment matters, the noble Earl has, in dealing with this amendment, given one of his weakest replies. At an earlier stage we said that we did not like the amendment because we thought that there were no good examples of the abuse which the Government claimed as justification for the new clause. Our sceptiscism about the abuses still exists. It is even more strong because the Minister has failed to take another opportunity which has been given to him to set out the abuses justifying not only introducing a new clause at a late stage in the Bill, but justifying the retrospective elements of the clause. We are saying exactly the same as was said by my noble friend Lord Dean at an earlier stage. We are saying that as we have failed to persuade the Government to take out the clause they should at least remove one particular objection to it; namely, that it is retrospective legislation without adequate justification being given. The Minister has given no further justification for the clause whatever.
I am unhappy with that situation. I do not believe that we should extend the application of retrospective legislation in that way. However, this is not a matter which will in any way shatter the bonds between local authorities and central government. No companies would have been set up between 11th February and Royal Assent and therefore it becomes a theoretical rather than a practical point. Although I disagree with the Government's arguments I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 7:
Line 6, after ("purposes") insert ("to prohibit the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and, for the convenience of the House, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. These three amendments would all add references in the Long Title to provisions which have been added since the Bill was introduced. The first adds a reference to what is now Clause 29, which, as all your Lordships know, deals with the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities; the second adds
72
a reference to the provisions on dog registration. The Government are still considering what attitude they should adopt to Clause 38, but since the clause will be in the Bill as it leaves the House, it is right it should be referred to in the Long Title.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 8:
Line 8, after ("administration") insert ("the powers of auditors").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 9:
Line 12, after first ("and") insert ("dog registration").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in speaking to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, first I must express, despite my comments on the last amendment which I moved, my deep appreciation to the Minister and his colleagues for the way in which they have progressed this Bill through your Lordships' House. It must have been a shock to the Minister to have been brought so suddenly into the Department of Environment from the Home Office, where he had distinguished himself. However, he certainly earned the respect of those of us who have been working in local government matters for a number of years for his understanding of the issues involved, his unfailing courtesy in dealing with the arguments put foward and, on occasions, for his understanding of the validity of the arguments put forward, although inevitably those occasions were less frequent.
I must also express my appreciation to my noble friends who have taken part in the debate on this Bill, to my noble friend Lord Underhill, who spoke so ably on Second Reading, to my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Graham, who undertook duties particularly while I was absent, to my noble friend Lord Carmichael, who dealt with the Scottish aspect and, indeed, to my noble friend Lord Irving, who accepted an extension of his duties as spokesman on defence to duties as spokesman on defence of postmen when we dealt with the amendments on dog licences. There were also notable contributions from the Opposition Back Benches, notably from my noble friends Lord Longford, Lord Peston, Lord Gifford, Lord Rea and many others present and absent whom I should not be able to list.
As it entered your Lordships' House, this Bill was unsatisfactory in detail and undesirable in objective. We still feel that that is so today, although there have been some changes to it. The Bill arose partly because—and I acknowledge this —of the bad behaviour of some local authorities, many of them Labour local authorities. One might say that the tricks played by some local authorities made it possible for the Government to achieve a wider

73
measure of acceptance for parts of this Bill than would otherwise have been possible. To that extent we are culpable and are responsible for the restrictions on local autonomy which have been brought forward by the Government.
However, those abuses, which have been acknowledged by all sides to be the abuses of a small minority of local authorities, have led to a gross over-reaction by the Government. In almost every case with which we have dealt in this Bill, whether competitive tendering, contract compliance or the different bits and pieces which have been added to the Bill at various stages, the result of this Bill has been the extension of detailed central government control of local autonomy and democracy. That can only be undesirable, whatever the motivations of the particular government in putting them forward. For that reason, we deeply regret that this Bill has gone through your Lordships' House with so little amendment when so much needed to be amended.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Clause 29 on homosexuality. As your Lordships know, that has not been a matter on which my noble friends have been whipped. There has been a free vote throughout our consideration of the matter although I am grateful and impressed that so many of my noble friends have felt in the same way as I about this matter. In my view and that of many of my noble friends, it is not a matter which should have been the subject of legislation at all. It arose from a very small number of abuses and is a great over-reaction to those abuses which will, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said at an earlier stage, be damaging to the civil rights of our people. The effect of any attempt to introduce legislation on this subject in a Bill of this kind must be damaging to our legal system and to our civil rights.
I am bound to say— and perhaps it is only safe to say it now when all amendments have been considered—that Clause 29 does not have the kind of restrictive effect which was intended by its promoters in another place or which was feared by many of those, particularly in the artistic world, who have been so worried about it, because the clause as now drafted refers only to the intention of local authorities to promote homosexuality. I do not believe that there is a clear legal definition of what is meant by promoting homosexuality, just as, like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I do not believe there is any clear definition of what is meant by "pretended family relationship". To that extent, the clause is still objectionable but we know from the series of legislative restraints on local authorities and the legislative restraints on what they can do to promote anything that in fact there will be very little practical effect. What can a local authority do to promote the teaching of any subject in a classroom? Even under existing legislation, it can do very little because a local authority is restricted by the Education Act to a general statement of policy which would have to he approved by the governing body if it were to get anywhere in a school. Even then, it would have to be accepted by the teachers.
74
The Borough of Haringey, which is of very great renown, attempted to introduce as a positive policy the promotion of positive images of gays and lesbians. It did not succeed in finding a single governing body of any of its schools which accepted that policy and was prepared to put it into effect in the school. Therefore, it could not have happened then and the prohibition on a general policy of that kind is not a meaningful change. That is not to say that, because it will not have the same effect as its promoters intended, this is a good clause. It is still an abuse of the legislative procedure and is the introduction of moralising into our legislation in a way which ought not to be allowed. However, we can be thankful that the amendments which have been introduced by the Government and now by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the further explanations which have now become available about the powers of local authorities and education authorities in particular have meant that the fears of the artistic community will not be realised.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that, while no governing body of any school was able to support the policy of positive images, a way round that has been found by funding with ratepayers' money organisations such as the Reading Matters bookshop, which does all the promotion that the positive images policy would have done within the local authority?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I do not agree at all. The clause is about teaching at schools and there is nothing anybody who wants to promote homosexuality in Haringey can do to affect teaching in schools. Many of the activities of the Gay and Lesbian Committee I very much applaud and, indeed, many of those activities will not come under the provisions of this clause. Neither do I agree positively with the noble Baroness in the example that she gave and nor do I agree that it would be undesirable to have the alternatives she suggested.
I am sorry to have gone on at length about this clause but it took up an inordinate amount of time in your Lordships' House. It is necessary that we should state as clearly as possible where we stand at the end of our consideration of the matter. The clause ought not to have been included in the Bill and it still should not be there but it is important that the outside world should know as clearly as possible the restrictions that exist as a result of the wording of the clause and the ability of the moralisers and the Grundys to affect the behaviour of consenting adults in private.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I too, briefly on behalf of these Benches, thank the Minister for the very agreeable way in which he has conducted the Bill through this House—a way to which we have now become familiar in respect of the various Bills loaded upon the noble Earl.

75
However, having said that I find myself to an unusual extent in agreement with much of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. We regard this as a thoroughly bad Bill. We very much regret that Clause 29, as it now is, is on the statute book. I personally echo what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said about the intrusion by government, by legislation, into what is taught in the classroom. In our view it is an extremely dangerous precedent. We are also extremely sorry that the Government took a very narrow view about the extension of contract compliance to women, allowing it for ethnic minorities but, on a narrow legal argument, not for women.
Above all, it is yet another extension of government power over local authorities. We shall be discussing this matter at greater length in the debate on Wednesday so I do not propose to say anything about it now except that I wonder whether the Government realise the extent to which they are concentrating power at the centre and the potential dangers that lie with that concentration.
We thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has handled the Bill but we find nothing to thank him for in the Bill itself. However, we very much hope that at least the change in relation to dog licences will remain in place. I think he hinted that even that might not be so.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to read out a short extract from a leading article in the Daily Express of last Monday, 22nd February:
"Some critics of the Government's proposal to ban the promotion of homosexuality in the classroom—Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill"—
now Clause 29—
"—say that legislation is unnecessary. Teaching children about homosexuality is not promoting it, they believe.
Well, actor Ian McKellen has news for them. And has confirmed the fears of millions of parents.
Addressing a 'homosexual rights' rally to protest against Clause 28 he said: 'We must he out and about in pubs and clubs and classrooms, talking about homosexuality. In fact, in that sense, promoting it.'
We should he grateful to Mr. McKellen for his honesty. No one can now claim that lessons projecting homosexuality as just another 'lifestyle' are not meant to promote it…McKellen's words amply demonstrate that Clause 28 comes not a moment too soon."
Clause 28, now Clause 29, for the most part started in December 1986 as a Private Member's Bill in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, drafted for him by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It passed through this House unopposed just over a year ago and went to another place under the auspices of Dame Jill Knight but was a casualty of the general election. Those people, parents in particular, whose anxieties it meets have special reason to be grateful to the noble Lords I have just mentioned and to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, all of whom devoted a great deal of time and effort to giving it birth and to cherishing it to maturity; as well as to Mr. Wilshire who moved it as a new clause to this Bill in another place and to the Government for
76
accepting it. Those of us who have supported it, in particular the noble Lords I have mentioned, are especially grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his unfailing help, patience and courtesy through the long hours during which he has sat and listened to the debates.
Finally, on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers I convey to the noble Earl the same sentiments for his patience and help throughout all the long drawn out stages of the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I very much regret the necessity for the introduction of this Bill. It was introduced because of certain abuses and certain things going wrong in local government. I am afraid it is an example of the well-known principle that if those in public positions and public authority over a long period abuse their powers, do wrong, then sooner or later a change has to be effected; and responsibility for that change lies with the national government and with Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, and the electorate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right, and the electorate. Indeed, the approach which lies behind this Bill was only as recently as last June endorsed by the electorate.
It is in that sense that the Bill is a necessity and in the view of many of us an unwelcome necessity. The same principle applies to the famous, or if your Lordships prefer it, the notorious, Clause 29.1 do not want to add to the enormous amount of controversy that there has been about this clause save only to say that to some of us, faced with the evidence that in a limited number— not a great many—of local authorities children in schools and young people with activities outside schools were being exposed to the promotion of homosexual ideas, something had to be done. Faced with that situation, I suggest that no government could fail to take action. To take the line so blandly taken recently by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and suggest that government should let it be is not acceptable to the minds or indeed, to the consciences of a very large number of people in this country.
I have no doubt at all, having had some experience of government, that the Government were reluctant to get into this. The Government know well the heat, the passion and the correspondence which a measure of this kind generates. No government, faced with all the tasks of government, want to add to their labours in that respect. However, I still feel convinced and, I think, the bulk of the people in this country remain convinced, that a government faced with this practice, this evil practice, could do no less than they have felt bound to do.
Above all, I want to express the warmest congratulations and admiration to the Minister. As

77
the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in his very generous tribute pointed out, my noble friend was translated from the calm pastures of the Home Office to the more rugged hillsides of the Department of the Environment just at the beginning of this Bill.
He was, as I believe I said to him at the time, thrown in at the deep end. He has swum extraordinarily well and has now swum finally through, as far as this House is concerned, to the landing place. Your Lordships owe a great deal to the good temper, the quickness, the adroitness and, above all, the incredible stamina of the noble Earl in the conduct of this Bill. It certainly would not have reached this stage by tonight had we not had the advantage of an exceptional Minister who has handled the Bill with the very greatest of skill. I should like very warmly to express to him the gratitude of, 1 believe, all of us in all quarters of the House.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, we have already had a list of credits as long as one sees at the end of a popular television programme. I am not sure whether it will help if I add mine. The Minister does not deserve some of the unpalatable tasks he is given to do. He is a willing horse and an able worker. At least, it is my impression that he is; and if he is not, then he should he. But I believe that he pays dearly in peace of mind for some of the tasks imposed upon him.
I wish to comment on the way the Government carry out their business on a Bill of this kind. It is fight that we should be concerned with what the Government are proposing to do. I believe it is also important that we should take an interest in how it is done. This is a striking example of the misuse of a piece of legislation with provisions which were never intended for it. Matters that were slung into it have given rise to very tiresome consequences.
I remind your Lordships of the two clauses which have caused so much bother. Neither was really intended for the Bill. It is regrettable that the Government tend on occasions to be pushed by their militant tendency. They include in Bills dealing with important but less controversial matters questions which give rise to a great deal of emotion. As a result a great deal of time needs to be spent discussing them.
I have frequently referred to a previous local government miscellaneous provisions Bill which had thrown into it at the Report stage in another place clauses relating to sex shops and pornography together with schedules that were longer than the original Bill itself. We had to deal with those matters at length in your Lordships' House.
We have another example in what is now Clause 29. I remind your Lordships of how this came about. The Bill was introduced into another place and read for a second time on 6th July last year. The Standing Committee in another place began on 16th July. The clause prohibiting the promotion by local authorities of homosexuality was introduced at the Standing Committee stage by a private Member as late as 8th December. It passed through the Standing Committee in one sitting and without a
78
Division. It is extraordinary. The noble Baroness spoke a moment ago about what this House had done on a similar theme earlier. I believe this to be a striking example of reaction to proposals in a Bill that are sometimes slow to move to a groundswell and to a realisation of the deeper implications of what is proposed.
On 8th December the clause went through the Standing Committee in another place. Within the week on 15th December, it came to the Report stage and Third Reading. Two days later, on 17th December, it came here. We began with the Second Reading of the Bill on 11th January. That is no way to deal with a highly emotive and complex matter such as the promotion of homosexuality. It is no way in which to deal with any moral issue. It is upon moral issues that the Government are most easily pushed by their militant tendency.
Probably all parties have a militant tendency. The Labour Party has one with views which are near to communistic, but it refrains, fights shy or hesitates to embrace all the disciplines and the suppressive instincts of a communist regime. On the Tory side the militant tendency consists of an authoritarian, puritanical and highly illiberal group of people who pursue a political and a moral philosophy which stops just short of donning a uniform in order to show the public where it stands. That can be called neo-Fascism. I believe it to be present in some elements of the Conservative Party.
We received a Bill that is ill-drafted. I do not know who drafted it, and I do not mind. It is ill-drafted, ill-considered and ill-intentioned. That is hardly a recommendation for any Bill to come to your Lordships' House. I will not dwell on the issues involved. I merely say that I regret that the Government lend themselves to this kind of legislative process. In my opinion the Government ought to take a firmer line in order to ensure that these matters are not just the result of catch-as-catch-can in our parliamentary processes but the outcome of careful consideration.
All the issues in Clause 29 merit the deepest consideration by Parliament because they go to the root of the liberty of the subject. They deal with moral issues and the behaviour of individuals. These issues go to the very root of our culture, our society and of our libertarian instincts. They also affect our freedom of thought and activity short of doing harm to the rest of the community. I deplore the manner in which the matter has been dealt with. It seems to me that so far this Bill has received very little praise from either side of the House.
The next subject I come to is that of dogs. This is more pleasant for me because I have long been associated with the dog problem. I remind the House that it is 10 years since two important investigations and studies were made into the problem of dogs in our society. One of these investigations was mine; the other was an inter-departmental committee appointed by the government of the day soon after I began my work. Both committees came to similar conclusions but failed to receive any serious attention

79
from subsequent governments. There has been more shilly-shallying by more Ministers on the question of dogs than any other subject in the parliamentary calendar. Now we have reached the point of slinging into this Bill the question of the abolition of the dog licence fee but with nothing else proposed about it. That is really what happened when the Bill began its process through this House.
Clause 40 is certainly an advance on what we had before. It contains part of the proposals made in the two previous reports for dealing with this matter. The powers in the hands of the police should be transferred, or should be available, to local authorities on similar terms. I am glad that this has been done.
I come to how we are leaving the question in the Bill. We have got rid of the dog licence fee. The decks are cleared as regards dogs and the taxation system. The matter is open to further review of what should be done without the encumbrance of a long-standing and inadequate form of taxation. What are we going to do, what is Parliament going to do and what are the Government going to do about the clause which is now Clause 39? It proposes the introduction of a registration system. Registration is probably part of the solution of the growing problem of how dogs are treated in society and how they can be given a more satisfactory place in our midst, but it is by no means the whole solution. Many other aspects fall to be considered when the Bill goes back to another place. The Government will have to decide what they are going to do about the amendment passed by your Lordships. I do not think that they can feel very happy about leaving the Bill in its present form.
The Government have to consider whether they will broaden their consideration of this matter by appointing yet another advisory committee on this complex question. I am sure that it would have some very important contributions to make towards a solution. There are many factors: there is health; there is the discipline of the dog; there is the companion animal which is now becoming an integrated part of human society, and so on. With the very best wishes to the Minister, I sincerely hope that he can resolve the dilemma with which this House leaves him. I offer my humble suggestion, without volunteering for the job, that another advisory committee might do well to find answers to current questions on the dog problem.
Democracy is supposed to be the final word of the people. A great many students of the principles of government believe that when the people have spoken in a democratic society that represents their final judgment upon any issue. That is the theory that we apply to our actions and our deliberations. We say that Parliament is sovereign. We have no constitution to provide a check upon the excesses, the follies and indeed upon the evil of the majority. We say that the people have spoken. There is no divine being and no monarch to decide and no final arbitrament on the wisdom of what we do.
80
We claim as a Parliament to be the judges of what is done in subordinate institutions (if "subordinate' is the word) which are exercising the system of democracy that we have here. This is a salutary thought. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that no government can let this go on and that no government can ignore the excesses and indiscretions of other institutions in our democratic system. But they in their way are just as sovereign in a democratic sense as we are here and yet we claim to have the superior judgment upon them.
I see that the noble Lord is shaking his head. If we are a democratic society, and if we give local government powers to exercise the democratic system within the terms of reference of local government, then it should be free to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is ignoring the fact that in a unitary system of government such as ours the sovereign power is the Crown in Parliament. That means (does it not?) that unless Parliament is prepared to acquiesce in wrongdoing, wrongdoing will flourish, but it gives to that sovereign Parliament the ultimate duty of putting it right.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, wrongdoing can also be perpetrated by Parliament. There is nobody to put it right. If you concede democratic control, you have to accept its verdict. I cannot put the noble Lord to more vigorous exercise in shaking his head. We shall just say that we differ about this.
I do not want to carry my philosophy about democracy too far because I do not think that Parliament is any more representative of the people of this country than many local authorities are representative of their electorates. We talk about representative government and then talk about unrepresentative local authorities. The truth of the matter is that we feel ourselves to be mighty superior in the art of democracy and we look down upon those who exercise it in their own way but from a different point of view.
That is where I shall leave it. A few thoughts on what we are doing, how we do it and what is the plan of the future of our system should never be very far from our minds. There is something gravely wrong with a parliamentary system in which the Government, elected, so they think, on a clear mandate by a huge majority, are unpopular the day after, become more unpopular as the days go by and become thoroughly unrepresentative of the majority of the people probably throughout their whole period of office. That is the end of my lecture and no doubt the House will be greatly relieved. However, as other people are not incommoded by our being detained in the House at the moment I thought it not inappropriate that I should offer a few observations upon some of the issues.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is beyond doubt that there have been abuses in the past. Nevertheless the 1986 Act went a long way to correct them and I therefore regret that the Government seem to have used a sledgehammer to crack one or two rather small nuts.
Perhaps I may say something about the drafting of the Bill. I hope that the remarks made earlier today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the Legal Aid Bill will be deeply pondered by the Government and pondered in relation to this Bill as well as the previous one. It is beyond doubt that the drafting of what is now Clause 29 is still unsatisfactory. If the Government can take further steps in another place to improve it, that would be welcome. I say that following and in spite of the helpful amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Airedale, and passed by your Lordships.
Before I sit down I should like to point to the speed with which this complicated and intricate piece of legislation has been taken through your Lordships' House. I think I am right in saying that it has occupied 30 working days for all its stages. That I suggest is too short a period.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the House can fairly congratulate itself on its thorough examination of a Bill which, though not particularly lengthy, deals with a range of complex and contentious issues. We have spent more than 25 hours at Committee stage and more than 14 at Report and very few stones have been left unturned.
In the course of very full debates on Part I of the Bill I tried hard to persuade all your Lordships that the test of competition was one that should be welcomed. Many of my noble friends- in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin—helped me greatly in this endeavour as in many others. I am not sure whether we succeeded in persuading every one of your Lordships but nevertheless I am grateful that the House decided to support the principles of competition.
On the details, my noble friend Lord Mersey and other Members of the House presented a strong case, which the Government accepted, for the exemption of the maintenance of fire service vehicles. The noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Dean of Beswick, persuaded the Government that the work of employees in tied accommodation should also be exempted. We accepted amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to exclude work such as that associated with national plant collections from the definition of ground maintenance. I am sure all your Lordships will share my expectation that competitive tendering will work better as a result of those changes.
The Government are in no doubt that Part I will greatly increase value for money in the local authority services listed. An article in the New
82
Statesman recently confirmed this by pointing out that:
"the shameful point for municipal socialists is that it has taken Tory legislation to force them into examining their councils' records as a service provider".
As your Lordships know, we have not yet decided whether to proceed with the addition of sport and leisure management to the list. The many points made on this by noble Lords on both sides of the House have added greatly to the advice which the Government will consider before coming to decisions.
With one notable exception, the House has accepted the principle behind the Part II provisions. Two minor amendments, including one typographical error spotted by my eagle-eyed noble friend Lord Balfour, have only served to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Those provisions, which are concerned with public supply and works contracts, were subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny. Clearly, there remains a fundamental difference of opinion between the Government and noble Lords opposite as to the factors which it is proper for authorities to take into account during the contractual process.
I have tried to state the Government's position clearly throughout, ably helped by many of my noble friends such as Lord Beloff and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We do not believe that authorities should set themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies on matters which are already the subject of existing statute and which already have appropriate enforcement provisions.
The one significant amendment to these provisions which your Lordships saw fit to make was in the field of disabled employment. Unlike many of the other amendments put forward by noble Lords opposite, this amendment did not seek to give authorities a role in law enforcement. Instead, it allowed authorities to refuse to do business with a contractor because, in their view, he did not have proper regard to a non-statutory advisory code—the Manpower Services Commission's Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People. I have to say that the Government will consider the implications of this amendment carefully, as it clearly runs counter to the basic principle behind the Part II provisions which your Lordships have otherwise consistently endorsed.
Your Lordships decided not to debate Part III of the Bill at any great length, though not because the provisions on housing assistance are unimportant. I should like to reiterate the Government's firm belief that, far from stifling local authority initiative as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and others have suggested, the provisions in Part III will result in a variety of new schemes involving a genuine mix of public and private finance. This must benefit those wishing to live in rented homes.
I turn now to Part IV. I hope that in the useful debates we had on publicity I succeeded in demonstrating to your Lordships that the first subsection of the clause will clarify and thus improve the existing statutory restatement of the common law

83
ban on party-political publicity issued at public expense. The second subsection will ensure that the Secretary of State's code of recommended practice will be among the factors a local authority must take into account in exercising its publicity functions.
We have spent a good deal of time debating what has now become Clause 29. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was one of those who contributed to the 11 hours-plus of debate that we have given to this clause. The Government have brought forward amendments which made it clear that it is the intention of the local authority that is crucial to the judgment of whether it has promoted homosexuality, or promoted a certain form of teaching in schools.
Claims have been made that the clause will lead to discrimination; bring about censorship of the arts or material in libraries; stop teachers dealing with homosexuality in an objective way; and stop local authorities providing legitimate counselling and care services. Those claims cannot be substantiated, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, so rightly reminded us. Unless it can be demonstrated that a local authority set out deliberately to promote homosexuality in carrying out its functions, there will be no problems of the kind that have been widely alleged. We believe that the terms of the clause are clearly set out, so that there is no question of legitimate services being adversely affected. I acknowledge the great concern of all your Lordships who took part in the debate on the clause, and I should like to express particular thanks to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his help on the matter.
The other matters dealt with in Part IV of the Bill may be miscellaneous but they are certainly not trivial. Clause 30 provides improved powers for the local government ombudsman, and has been significantly improved by the provisions for direct access brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Clause 31 makes important amendments to the auditor's powers, to allow them to act quickly to stop authorities incurring unlawful expenditure or loss. This will reduce the risk of authorities getting into financial difficulties as a result of their failure to comply with the law. It will reduce in future the need for long and difficult surcharge actions which at present provide the only way of resolving those abuses.
Clause 34—another new clause added in your Lordships' House—puts it beyond doubt that even if authorities wish to form their direct labour organisations into separate companies this does not absolve them from the duty to seek competition for work which would otherwise fall within the provisions of Part I of the Bill.
With that, I should like finally to move on to the infinitely debatable subject of dogs. The House has agreed with the Government that the continuation of excise duty on dogs, raised by licensing, is indefensible and should go. But our discussions ranged far wider, encompassing issues of dog control
84
and welfare at large. A modest but significant proposal emerged which commanded general support, as a result of which the Government introduced Clause 40, which gives local authorities the same powers as the police to control stray dogs. There was far less consensus about the many other ideas that were suggested, but despite the Government's reservations your Lordships decided to give discretionary powers to the Secretary of State in Clause 38 to introduce a dog registration scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for whom the whole House has immense respect, complained about the powers being accumulated in the centre. Indeed, the Liberals bounded into the Lobby to give my right honourable friend powers that he did not want. In view of the noble Baroness's remarks and her concern, and, indeed, what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said, the Government will have to consider this matter again most carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that there had been little amendment to the Bill. I must tell your Lordships that the House had agreed some 38 amendments to it. That leaves us with six more clauses and one more schedule than when the Bill was introduced. The fact that it has achieved that amount of amendment is due to the great care and courtesy that all your Lordships have given to our consideration.
I should especially like to thank my noble friend Lord Hesketh who has bounded to and fro to bring me notes when I have run into difficulties. I thank too my noble friend the Leader of the House who took the Second Reading on the Bill. I think particular thanks are due to the Opposition Front Bench who have been extremely kind to me in my initiation ceremony on local government: namely, the noble Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. They have been extremely courteous, as, indeed, has the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who came refreshed from Australia with a lot more googlies to bowl at me.
Finally, it would be wrong of me not to thank the civil servants who have helped me in my task. It has been a job very well done on their part. I am therefore most grateful to them for everything they have done. I believe that the House has played its traditional revising role extremely well in this instance. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Drug Trafficking Offences (Enforcement in England and Wales) Order 1988
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [l5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Order in Council would complete the arrangements by which the courts are able to recover the proceeds of drug

85
trafficking throughout England, Wales and Scotland. The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
I have no need to remind your Lordships of the grave menace posed by drug trafficking, nor of the misery and squalor inflicted by those unscrupulous people who seek to profit from it. We believe that to deny the drug trafficker the proceeds of his trade is one of the most effective weapons against this evil.
The necessary powers to do that were first introduced in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which has been in force since 12th January 1987. Soon after its enactment my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced legislation to enable the courts in Scotland to exercise comparable powers in their Jurisdiction. Like the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, this legislation was welcomed on all sides of the House. My right honourable friend intends to bring these provisions into force on 1st April 1988.
This order contains the provisions needed to enable orders made by courts in Scotland under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 to have effect and, if necessary, to be enforced in England and Wales. The order has been drafted so as to mirror very closely the provisions already in operation for giving effect in Scotland to orders made by the courts in England and Wales. The essence of the scheme is that orders in one jurisdiction should have automatic effect in the other but should be enforceable in the other jurisdiction. This ensures that cross-Border arrangements can operate without unnecessary inhibition, while at the same time the independence of each jurisdiction is respected.
Article 3 is the key provision. It provides that restraint orders and other orders connected with the restraint or realisation of property made by the Court of Session in Scotland are to have automatic effect in England and Wales. Thus for example, where the Court of Session makes a restraint order preventing a suspected drug trafficker from disposing of his assets, that will automatically apply to his property in England and Wales as well as to any in Scotland. However, for the order to be enforced in England and Wales it must first he registered in the English High Court, which then has the power to enforce the order as if it were an order of its own. For example, the High Court could take proceedings for contempt of a registered order made by the Court of Session. The provision for registration of orders is contained in Article 4.
Article 5 is worth pausing on for a moment. It ensures that the important safeguards governing the Court of Session's powers to restrain and realise property will also apply when those powers are given effect in England and Wales. The High Court will be bound by the principles set out in Section 23 of the
86
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. Those require the power to be exercised with a view to securing the satisfaction of a confiscation order and, in relation to third parties who have received gifts from the defendant in a drug trafficking case, to realising from them no more than the value of the gifts they received.
I commend the order to your Lordships. If approved and made, the Order in Council will complete the arrangements whereby court orders for the restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking will he effective throughout Great Britain, no matter whether they were made originally in England and Wales or in Scotland. That is an objective to which I am sure your Lordships will lend full approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, anything that we on this side of the House can do to punish, in justice, those who indulge in the evil trade of drug trafficking will be done, and the Government are assured of that. The order sensibly means that cross-Border orders can be made effective in regard to the confiscation of the ill-gotten gains made in this dreadful trade. It is a sensible order. We also commend it to the House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am obviously grateful that the noble Lord is in full agreement with the order. I should just like to conclude by saying that the chances of defeating the menace of drug trafficking can only be improved by the Order in Council. It will ensure that measures to deprive the traffickers of their proceeds are effective throughout England, Wales and Scotland. That is a most important objective. Therefore, I am sure that your Lordships will give it your full assent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Saint Bennet Fink Burial Ground (City of London) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter-past eight o'clock.

  UNDERGROUND TRAINS: GRAFFITI
  UNDERGROUND TRAINS: GRAFFITI
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING POWERS: STUDY
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING POWERS: STUDY
  COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: INTERNATIONAL MODEL LAW
  COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: INTERNATIONAL MODEL LAW