Sitting of 15 January 1988

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

  Protection of Official Information Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I must tell the House that many right hon. and hon. Members have said that they wish to take part in this important debate, including no fewer than eight Privy Councillors, and that is unusual for a Friday. I hope that hon. Members will make short speeches today, so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.
  9.35 am
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  There has been much publicity in recent weeks about the nature of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and I guess that every hon. Member who has served in this House over a number of years will have witnessed its progress and its effect on our national and social life. It has been well reviewed over those years during our debates and its deficiencies have been commented upon very effectively. Therefore, I will not overly trouble the House with such observations, because I have no doubt that many hon. Members will be able to cite their own instances of the way in which it has affected our society.
  Any reading of the legislation will show that hardly any Minister or former Minister has expressed any support for section 2 as it is written now. There is almost universal recognition that it must go and be replaced by narrower, better defined and better targeted legislation. In that spirit, the sponsors of the Bill have tried to gather together the threads of the intellectual ideas that have been assembled over the past 15 or 16 years to identify the issues with which we have to grapple in our proposed reforms of section 2.
  The wide drawing of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 means that the release of every piece of official information could possibly lead to prosecution. That has laid an appalling pall over our national life and has had certain consequences. It has affected the standards of the press in a curious way. A newspaper may take a stance on an issue every time an investigative journalist examines and discusses the very nature of our society. By implication, he must touch on those issues that affect our daily lives which are generated by information. Therefore, there is a stand-off with respect to section 2.
  That was well put by Mr. Chapman Pincher in his evidence to the Franks committee, in which he cited the instance of a leaking radioactive plant in the north of
  564
  England. He said that, at the time, the story was a considerable scoop for him and he wanted to publish it. However, he was approached by the permanent secretary to the Home Department and was blocked. His newspaper decided that the possibility of a prosecution under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, for which there is no defence if it involves official information, meant that it could not publish the story. I recount that example because right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the very curious use of section 2 in its failure to make distinctions between matters that clearly involve national security and the generality of information affecting every area of life.
  I begin with the proposition that, to have accountability in a democratic process, Members of Parliament and our electors who are equal to us as citizens must have information to judge the instances and views to which we can hold the Government to account. Against that background, and in that spirit, my right hon. and hon. Friends have proposed the measures in the Bill, that we are discussing today.
  I want to run through the points contained in the Bill with close attention to the notes. Some of those are points of considerable principle. Under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, the unauthorised disclosure of any official information, significant or trivial, harmful to the nation's fundamental interests or not, is a criminal offence. The Franks report recommended, and succeeding Governments have agreed, that a more discriminating approach is needed with criminal sanctions applied only to disclosures of defined classes of information whose release would involve specific harm.
  That was the basis of the Bill that the Government introduced in 1979, and it is the basis of the present Bill. We wish to distinguish between that information which should lead to criminal prosecution, and general information, which needs lesser disciplinary controls. Without that distinction, we will not have a free society.
  The Bill applies only to specified classes of protected information. Disclosures of other information would not be a criminal offence. That is not to say that such information would become freely available. Much of it will continue to require protection, but that protection would not include the threat of prosecution.
  The sanctions against improper disclosures are well understood in the Civil Service. A civil servant who does not show appropriate discretion in the handling of information cannot expect promotion; one who is negligent or deliberately leaks information may expect disciplinary proceedings and perhaps dismissal. The importance of those sanctions was stressed by the Franks Committee who, in paragraph 58 of its report, thought them "of greater practical consequence" than Section 2.
  Information which is or has been held by a Crown servant or Government contractor by virtue of his official position is protected if it falls into one of the classes described in clause 1 of the Bill.
  The clause protects information relating to defence, international relations, and security and intelligence whose unauthorised disclosure would be likely to cause serious injury to the interests of the nation or endanger the safety of a British citizen. The 1979 Bill that the Government introduced in another place adopted a similar approach, although the "serious injury" test was applied only to the first two of those categories. The Bill reflects the Franks report which recommended that, even in the fields of

  565
  security and intelligence, criminal law should apply only if unauthorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the interests of our country.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does paragraph (c) of clause 1(1) cover income tax inspectors who are currently under a lifetime vow of silence? If they are not advised to keep silent, they will have a field day with their memoirs, which would make recent disclosures look like chickenfeed.
  Mr. Shepherd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her elevation to "Dameship". I shall deal with her intervention as I go through the provisions of clause 1.
  Information is also protected if it is likely to be useful in committing a crime, helping an escape from custody or otherwise impeding law enforcement.
  Finally — I hope that this will answer my hon. Friend's question — certain personal information supplied to the Government, such as the details of someone's income declared to the Inland Revenue or information supplied by a person applying for social security, would also be protected. Those classes of protected information are based on those in the 1979 Bill, although they are narrower in certain respects. They do not include a separate class of offence relating to disclosures of information about telephone tapping, the interception of post, or communications received from other Governments.
  However, disclosures of any such matters would be offences under the Bill if they were likely to result in serious injury to the nation's interests. No doubt we will come to the concept of serious injury during the course of the debate. It was dealt with in the Franks report and in the White Paper and is a concept well understood by right hon. and hon. Members.
  Nor does the Bill include among its protected classes information received from or relating to companies and nationalised industries, as did the 1979 Bill. To do so would be to protect a vast amount of information on subjects such as nuclear and environmental pollution, food additives, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and consumer product safety. The fact that such information is covered by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 is one reason why there is general resentment and much disquiet about section 2.
  Certainly, some civil servants handle commercially sensitive information obtained from private concerns, but so, too, do local authority officials who have never been subject to section 2. Should an official improperly disclose a company's trade secrets, no doubt he or she would be open to an action for recovery of damages under common law, which might involve potentially enormous personal liability.
  Under clause 2 a civil servant who intentionally or recklessly discloses information contrary to his official duty commits an offence punishable — as under the Official Secrets Act—by up to two years imprisonment. Clause 3 contains similar provisions in relation to Government contractors. Anyone who obtains protected information — that includes journalists and ordinary citizens such as hon. Members and their constituents—commits an offence under clause 4 if he intentionally discloses information, knowing it to be protected.
  566
  Under clause 5, a person who improperly retains protected information contrary to his official duty, or after officially being asked to return it, commits an offence. However, the existing section 2 offence of merely receiving official information would no longer exist.
  These provisions provide a considerable deterrent against the improper disclosure or publication of protected information. However, the Bill creates uniform defences, and that is an element that we consider to be an important contribution to the debate, on which we would like to hear the Government's views.
  Under clause 6 it would be a defence for a person to show that the information he was charged with disclosing had already become publicly available, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. That reflects one of the basic premises of the measure — that only disclosures which are likely to cause actual harm should attract criminal penalties. That was the Government's view on some of those issues when the 1979 Bill was introduced in the House of Lords.
  A disclosure that merely repeats information which has already been provided would not be an offence, as the harm would have been done by the original publication—the contention of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. However, the person responsible for the original disclosure would be liable to prosecution under the Bill.
  Clause 7 contains a defence for disclosures which are in the public interest, although I must stress that it is very carefully limited in several respects. First, the defence is available only on specific matters: crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of an official duty, or other misconduct. It would not be available to someone who merely disagreed with Government policy or claimed that Government policy was not in the public interest. In Britain, we settle such matters at a general election and the Government are entitled to maintain that the will of the people, expressed through a general election, affects policy matters. Moreover, the misconduct would have to be serious—sufficient to justify, in the public interest, the disclosure of information which should normally be kept confidential.
  Secondly, there would have to be reasonable grounds for believing that such crime, fraud or misconduct existed. Suspicion or conjecture would not do. The defence would be available only in circumstances in which, faced with the same evidence, any reasonable person would be likely to reach similar conclusions.
  Finally, in the case of a civil servant or Government contractor, although not in the case of a journalist, the defence would be available only if the person in question had previously taken all reasonable steps to draw the misconduct to the attention of the appropriate authorities, using established internal procedures, and those had failed. Disclosure could be justified only as a last—not a first—resort.
  The principle of a public interest defence is, of course, not new. It is taken from the existing common law of confidence which has long held that a person cannot be bound to respect an obligation of confidentiality to conceal serious wrongdoing. In a 1968 judgment, Lord Denning held that the defence
  "extends to any misconduct of such a nature that it ought in the public interest to be disclosed to others."
  He went on to say:

  567
  "It should extend to crimes, frauds and misdeeds, both those actually committed as well as those in contemplation, provided always—this is essential—that the disclosure is justified in the public interest."
  In 1981 the Law Commission made proposals for a new statutory law on confidence and the draft Breach of Confidence Bill which it published incorporated a statutory public interest defence. The Attorney-General's consent would be required for any prosecution in which serious injury to the nation's interests was alleged.
  In any prosecution involving information about defence, international relations, security or intelligence, a certificate signed by the Minister would be required under clause 8. The certificate would show that at the time of the alleged offence the information was properly classified and that its disclosure was likely to cause serious injury to the interests of the nation or to endanger the safety of a citizen. If the defence wished to challenge the assertion that serious injury was involved, that would be done before the trial took place by referring the matter, under clause 9, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose decision on the matter would be conclusive. That is the only matter that would go before the Judicial Committee. The question of justification in the public interest or any other defence would be heard at the trial itself in the normal way.
  It is curious that, as we have advanced through those years since 1911, charges under section 1—this Bill does not touch on section 1, which deals with crime, treachery, spying, espionage and so on — has been referred to a court of the land and tried in front of a jury of fellow citizens. That was considered appropriate in 1911. We have somehow retreated from the principle that we should be judged in matters of honour and integrity that affect our liberty by procedures other than by trial by jury of our fellow citizens. It is a matter of personal regret that the judgment of the sponsors was that that could not be met in the clause dealing with section 2, which involves much lesser offences. We have tried to look for a satisfactory route that would retain the confidence of the House and the confidence of the public beyond.
  Clause 11 contains penalties for offences. These are identical to those in the 1979 Bill. We saw no reason to differ from the judgment of the Government. Of course, in the ordinary course of events, penalties or judgments can be altered to meet the requirements of the House as its perceptions alter. The Bill's provisions on classification are generally similar, although not identical, to those of the 1979 Bill. Ministers would be required, under clause 12, to classify documents whose unauthorised disclosure would be an offence involving serious injury to the national interest under this Bill. Regulations on the classification and marking of documents would be made under clause 13 and there would be an annual report to Parliament on the application of the regulations.
  The second part of the Bill is different in intent. It contains two limited duties of publication. Under clause 15, Government Departments and certain other public authorities would be required to make available for inspection, copying and purchase the guidelines and rules they use in administering schemes affecting the benefits or penalties to which individuals may be entitled or subject. They may charge a fee to cover any administrative costs entailed. The object is to provide individuals with information about the rules under which they may be dealt with and allow them to satisfy themselves that they have been treated fairly. I must acknowledge that the
  568
  Government are moving forward in that line and that that movement is appreciated by the public and by many colleagues on both sides of the House in that it makes it easier for us to judge cases in the instance of individual constituents.
  Clause 16 requires Departments and authorities to make an annual report to Parliament on the steps they have taken to improve and increase public access to information within their control. The Bill does not, however, impose a duty on them to take such steps, but the publication duty may provide a modest incentive for them to do so.
  The remaining clauses deal with miscellaneous matters. The definitions are, on the whole, based on the 1979 Bill, as are the provisions relating to acts done abroad and the schedule of repeals, which includes section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
  I have gone through that so that I have discharged my duty in trying to bring before the House the major instances and clauses to which the Bill relates. The sponsors and I approached the matter bearing in mind that it concerns every one of us as citizens and that it is appropriate that these issues should be discussed on the Floor of the House. We do not take the absolutist view that the Bill has everything and has to stand as is. However, we thought that it was an appropriate vehicle for a proper discussion of certain issues that deal with the relationship of the citizen to the state and the House of Commons to the Executive.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the Ponting case? Does he believe that the prosecution would have been successfully brought against Clive Ponting had this Bill been legislation at that time?
  Mr. Shepherd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall try to deflect requests to make a specific judgment on legal matters that have come before a court. However, one of the reasons why section 2 has not been used by the Government is that they do not have confidence in the fact that juries would take the same view as they do. In all fairness, that has confronted Governments of all sorts. When a jury of free English men and women are presented with an issue that does not involve national security and they are considering what may perhaps be only dishonourable conduct, which is essentially a disciplinary matter and could be dealt with in other ways, they look nervously on the possibility of finding a fellow citizen guilty, with the possible implication that someone may go to prison. That has caused great difficulties for all Governments. Juries now have difficulty in discerning the distinction between what is injurious to national security and what is merely inconvenient to Governments or bungling.
  The former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), is present. His repudiation of the charges on the Floor of the House was wholly convincing as to the line of Government, and I also thought that the identification of the principles of confidentiality and the duties of civil servants within the internal disciplinary arrangements of Departments of State was convincing. Perhaps that was an instance when that route should have been pursued. However, I claim no great wisdom on the detailed legal arguments that came before the House. I reiterate that no issue of national security was involved.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman consider a situation where the dishonourable conduct may be less that of the civil servants than the behaviour of the politicians involved?
  Mr. Shepherd: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dalyell: The dishonourable conduct may be less that of the civil servants than that of the politicians involved who may have misbehaved.
  Mr. Shepherd: We all have our own views on specific cases. I have tried to identify the reasons why I do not want to make a judgment on a particular issue without having had sight of all the documents available within a court.
  The sponsors were kind enough to see me though, and we are grateful for the advice of a wide range of outside individuals, including the press, and a whole series of organisations and citizens.
  I want to identify the three matters of principle that we believe should be brought to the attention of the Houses of Parliament. The first is the question whether a Minister should be both judge and jury in an issue concerning a certificate. That goes to the heart of our sense of what is right and proper. When it was in opposition, the Conservative party's position was that that was inappropriate. Lord Havers, then Sir Michael Havers, speaking as the shadow Attorney-General, identified that as the one issue that would not be satisfactory to our party. I hold by that still. It is one of those ironies of history that when we introduced a Bill we omitted that safeguard and it brought about considerable criticism in the House of Lords and from the general press as to our intentions.
  The fundamental principle is that, if one is to retain public confidence in the fact that a Minister has not simply found in someone's favour — surprise, surprise — one must show the public that good and solid citizens with experience in such matters have looked at the issue, and in that way validate the judgment of a Minister of the Crown. I do not think that that is an unreasonable contention. It goes to the heart of our relationships in those matters. If a man is facing the possible loss of his liberty, he should be able to challenge the basis of that contention.
  I know that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the then Home Secretary will be well able to tell us something about the doctrine of time and distance—that something of crucial interest to the nation in 1939 may have no validity today. Something of great injury to the state just two weeks ago may cause no injury today. The House should fully discuss this matter and I hope that the Home Secretary, when he at long last responds to these points, will say a few words about a principle which goes to the heart of any view of how we identify something which causes serious injury.
  We now come to a more difficult concept, which has caused grave anxiety to myself and to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—a doctrine which seems to be propounded through the courts, of a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the grave. The Bill reinforces the duty of confidentiality. It makes it clear to a civil servant that he will be dismissed, and possibly prosecuted, and, if so, that he may well face a criminal sentence and imprisonment of up to two years. Civil servants know where they stand. At present, because the law is so unspecific and because juries are failing to convict or accept the Government's views,
  570
  there have been several cases—of which Ponting may be an example—in which a jury has taken a view different from that of the Government.
  I regret that the Government will be in great difficulty as they pursue this matter through the courts. We have had the benefit of Mr. Justice Scott's views on it. He has considered specific issues and said that the triviality of information, the concept of public interest, is not so loose as is sometimes said. It is understood fairly specifically by the courts. He challenged the contention of Lord Armstrong, as portrayed before the courts — this instance is relevant in the present circumstances in respect of a particular book—by asking, if a group of servants of the Crown conspire to destabilise a legitimately elected Government, what would be our view on whether we should be informed of that. Mr. Justice Scott's verdict was clear, that we can never enjoin anybody to a lifelong duty of confidentiality.
  My own instincts and judgment of who I am as a citizen would be outraged if we so bound a civil servant. Civil servants are often loyal, committed citizens, who well understand the constraints under which they work and who fully honour their obligations to society. By and large, they are honourable people. We are asking them, when confronted with something that goes to the very heart of our democratic processes, which talks to us about the form of our democracy, that they should in no circumstances reveal such information. I hold that to be a dangerous proposition.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Although I agree with my hon. Friend, does he not conclude that that is why it is vital for the House to have all the appropriate scrutiny and surveillance of those matters, even within the framework of confidentiality and of Privy Councillors?
  Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend echoes what I hold to be an extraordinary proposition, that this House may not consider any matter which affects our national life, our society and who we are. We struggled for 300 years to make this the forum of our nation's interest, so that we could hold Governments to account. Without access to information, we can hold no Government accountable. Without access to information for our fellow citizens, we can hold no accountability of Government. That goes to the heart of our jobs and duties as citizens.
  I am always nervous of the contention that somehow we, as Members of Parliament, are different. We are citizens of the state, but we have the privilege and honour to have the opportunity, as I have this morning, to express some of the feelings of our society. This society changes all the time and the balance of a fair, open and progressive society is to try to relate the needs of the Government to the needs, passions and observations of ourselves as citizens.
  That is why I hate the distinction so often made between class and form, as if there were something special about what the House of Commons may or may not consider. It goes to another theme of the debate. I strongly believe that if the House can be waylaid with any assertion that there are matters so confidential and secret — in terms of framework and the enunciation of general principles, not the detail of the application or the specific case— that a Minister of the Crown, the Executive, is not accountable to the people of this country, we have lost a sense of our most fundamental duty. I find it

  571
  extraordinary that anybody takes a contrary view. This is a Chamber in which contrary views are argued, and I have no doubt that I shall hear some from my hon. Friends and from Opposition Members. I believe strongly in the importance of our asserting ourselves in these matters. That is why this lifelong duty of confidentiality contradicts our ability to hold an Excutive or a Minister accountable.
  When information is out, can there be a defence for citizens who pass it on? When a piece of information has become common knowledge, or is knowable, because it is no longer protected — when the horse has bolted, however regrettable and however disgraceful the conduct of the citizen responsible—what do we do? That is what we must all ask ourselves. That is what people outside and the press must ask themselves. There is a great folly in trying to deny citizens information that is commonplace. Are we saying that there is something so special about us as citizens that we must not know this information? The French, the Germans and the people 2 in across the Irish border may know this information. The United States may know this information. Citizens of this country may even have access to this information if they are rich enough to have purchased it from abroad. We can listen on the radio to broadcasts in English from Denmark and Sweden.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Or from the Kremlin.
  Mr. Shepherd: Are we to say that an embargo and an injunction on us forms our judgment on that information. It may have been absolutely criminal that that information escaped. It does not mean that the citizen who gave that piece of information should not be subjected to the rigours of the law. But, when the information is out, what do we do? I beg the Government to reflect seriously on that principle, because it has caused extraordinary difficulties for them.
  I wish to go further. We must consider the relationship, because this affects the press deeply. I genuinely believe that the Government have a difficult case to convince the higher courts that a lifelong duty of confidentiality and enjoinment to the press that it may never repeat information, which goes to the heart of our democratic processes, will come to grief. By and large, our courts are regarded by most judiciaries in the English-speaking world with similar legislative instincts to our own as a conservative judiciary. The mere mention of the words "national security" tends to make them bend over in favour of a Government to accommodate a different course of action than is presently being pursued through injunctions.
  I am also nervous that, if we do not take a step back and consider these issues reasonably, we shall end up in the European Court of Human Rights, and article 10 will be reinforced. I say that for two reasons. The press is an essential ingredient of freedom of discussion and holding the Government to account. By and large, we have a trivial and silly press. That is partly a reflection of the restraints placed upon it by section 2. It is important for individual citizens who are serious-minded to examine the contentions and proposals of the Government, which have come out into the open legitimately, but can be covered under section 2. It makes it too easy for Administrations to manipulate the information available to journalists and therefore has acted as a curb on a reasonable appraisal of legitimate information.
  572
  I shall cite a distinct difference in the press. Generally speaking, the quality of our financial and economic reporting is wildly superior to that of our general political reporting. There is a reason for that. I shall say it, but it will not endear me upstairs. We have manipulated our press for too long. A hallelujah chorus rejoices at every Government handout that is put their way, repeats it as though it were a masterful piece of investigative journalism, and passes it off as though there were veracity in it. That practice has been reinforced over many years. [Laughter.] Opposition Members are laughing, but they know that there have been moments when they themselves have rushed to confide secrets—if I had any they might be stymied by an embargo — to that little hallelujah chorus, who have related it to their newspapers.
  By and large, financial and economic journalists are not interested in the procedures of the House. They work diligently, publish statistics and make judgments. That is a reflection on the Government's liberalisation of our economic life. We have an increasingly improving and superior press in relation to economic information. I applaud the Government for that. But, in regard to political information, we have created almost a vehicle for relaying untested political propositions. I have probably been guilty of that over the past few weeks. In the haste of a moment, I have given a particular account of how I stand and where I go.
  It is easy to succumb to such a temptation. The press should stand up to it. It discredits them. Many serious journalists will not become lobby correspondents because of the symbiotic relationship between the hallelujah chorus, Government, Ministers and senior Back Benchers. They pass off untested propositions and we see them reported in the press as though they were one of the twelve commandments cast on stone and repeated to us by Moses.
  We all know that "sources close to Government" invariably means the Minister himself. We know the code, but the public do not necessarily know it. "Sources at the heart of Government" invariably means a press officer from a Department or even, possibly, the Department. They are passed off as if it were of greater veracity and less challenged than any other piece of information. I hope that I have shaken that tree up there a little and that there will be more spunk and fight to bring to the people knowledge about the behaviours and proceedings of the House.
  Over many years, the uncritical and slavish following of Government press handouts has done our country great injury. We see it on both sides of the House. It has trivialised important issues beyond belief. When riveting political issues are to be discussed in the House, a challenge to the authority and accuracy of Government is of interest to citizens.
  Section 2 relates to the control of information. Every hon. Member has encountered instances of the way in which it has inhibited proper discussion. I shall recount some aspects that do not serve the interests of my party or of Government. I was on the first Committee dealing with British Telecom. The proposition was that we were liberalising and creating a competitive market for telecommunications. One essential evaluation—just for a judgment on it; an ability to improve a Bill—was of the creation of Mercury. It was cited as the nature of the competitive framework, in which, henceforth, British Telecom would have to operate.

  573
  That was a State secret. It was embargoed as being commercially confidential to, supposedly, the second competitive force. It eventually leaked out in response to parliamentary questions, long after the events when it would have been important. We learned that Mercury's share of the market was to be restricted to 3 per cent. of British Telecom's revenue. There is no way in which one can construct an argument for competition on that basis. As a consequence, what emerged, in my judgment—others may make their own judgment — was a thoroughly bad Bill. It could have been better made, could have better served the interests of the consumer, and better served the Government's concept, to which I fully subscribe, that a competitive market place serves us better than does a monopoly which is regulated or otherwise.
  In the context of the spheres in which they have expertise, all hon. Members have encountered such reluctance to make available knowledge that would serve citizens and enable the press to hold to account. If we are to have respect for our institutions, we need the best forms of information. If we can get that information, we can hold Governments to account. They are general themes. I invite the House to support me and to examine the Bill at a later stage.
  10.15 am
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I support the Bill. I compliment the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the way in which he presented our case. I shall remember what he said about the role of the House. Since I have returned to the Opposition Back Bench, I have often thought that, if we are treated like office boys, we shall behave like office boys. On the important topic of official secrets, section 2, we should be allowed to participate in the changes that must take place. They have been discussed for at least 30 years. Many of us can be blamed for the fact that we did not succeed. The issues are too complicated to be dealt with in the same way as, for example, an education Bill to bring in a national curriculum — it may not be well thought out, but the party of the day has won the election and will proceed with it.
  Many of the issues in the Official Secrets Act 1911 are too complicated to be left to Ministers and to the meetings that take place in the Privy Council Office and the papers that come from them. The Government saw what happened to their Bill, which was different from the one that I hoped to have ready. Their Bill included clauses that civil servants had been pressing on me. The Government were new in office.
  The Opposition want to participate in the reform of section 2. I suggest to my hon. Friend who introduced the Bill—I use that term deliberately—that, perhaps, this year, many of the issues that have been raised need to be thought out and teased out before they are translated into legislation. We can do that to the benefit of us all.
  I have a few queries about the Bill, which I happily sponsor, but that is not surprising. I question some aspects of the Franks report. I was a member of the Franks committee, which was appointed by the then Prime Minister in 1972. As a former junior Minister at the pitch, I was pleased to spend a year or two with that great man,
  574
  Lord Franks, as I was later to sit under his chairmanship of the committee on the Falklands war. He had a formidable mind, and both reports bear his imprint.
  I also query some of the words that I used a few weeks after becoming Home Secretary. I hoped that there was one thing that I could do in that curious office—not much, as the Secretary of State knows. I hoped to reform the Official Secrets Act, but I did not do so. Perhaps I have learnt from the experience of the past few years. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will change their three-line Whip approach. There is a way in which the Bill, which I happily sponsor, can be used this year in advance of a White Paper. It would be a better White Paper if it were done in the light of discussions on the Floor of the House. There is a wealth of experience in the House.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: We are paying great attention to the right hon. Gentleman as he is a former Home Secretary. As the debate pans out, much will depend on the judgment that the House places on the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in former times we have been in Opposition, and he will recall the Agee and Hosenball case, when my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw said:
  "I believe that in the end, in cases like this we have to trust the judgment of the Home Secretary. I am prepared to do so because I believe that it is part of our constitution to trust the judgment of any Home Secretary in these circumstances …I cannot conceive that he would have taken this decision unless he had been totally convinced that it was in the interests of this country and its people".—[Official Report, 3 May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 407.]
  Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he and the Opposition should show the same courtesy and belief in the judgment of the Home Secretary today when he advises the House—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hope that interventions will be interventions and not speeches. Will the hon. Gentleman come to a conclusion?
  Mr. Baldry: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he and the Opposition should show the same courtesy to the Home Secretary as was shown to the Labour Government by the Conservative party?
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about a quite different issue. I was not operating the Official Secrets Act. If it had concerned that Act it would have been taken out of my hands and would have been in the courts. We are talking about legislation. The Home Secretary is a lonely man or woman—
  Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point.
  Mr. Rees: Agee and Hosenball related to the immigration laws. Daily, the Home Secretary is making decisions under the new immigration legislation, which is much the same in essence. He made a decision last week for example, that was reported in the newspapers, to deport someone under the same terms as I deported Agee and Hosenball. If the attitude of the hon. Gentleman is the way that we are to deal with the reform of the Official Secrets Act, no wonder it has been kept under the hat of the Government—it is irrelevant.
  We should use the Bill for the benefit of the House and, eventually, for the benefit of the country.

  575
  It is interesting to note how attitudes have changed since the White Paper of the 1966–67 Wilson Government on information policy. The Franks committee took evidence from a wide group of people and officials, including the security services, about who will do the prosecuting, how prosecutions under the Act should take place, what is the duty of the citizen and who controls prosecutions. The main point—it is what I want to talk about today—concerns classification. It is on the basis of classification that any new law will have to operate.
  I have had a quick look at chapter 2 of the Franks report. One of the main problems that the Law Officers and the Home Secretary face is that section 2 is a catch-all. I got into trouble when I was first Home Secretary, having come from the Northern Ireland Office, when I used the phrase, to describe my reform, "We are moving from the blunderbuss to the armalite." I meant that one was sharper with regard to targeting. Many people took a dislike to that analogy, but I believed it to be true. Section 2 of the Act catches everybody—all Crown servants, every civil servant and every Minister of the Crown.
  When one reads the memoirs of eminent former Prime Ministers and others, one notes that the Official Secrets Act is broken all the time. They keep classified papers—there may be some present today who have done so—and in so doing they are breaking the law. Many of those papers concern aspects of national security. Many civil servants feel a little angry that they are treated in one way and politicians in another.
  How does section 2 work? I remember being surprised when the Franks committee was taking evidence from senior civil servants. Despite the catch-all nature of section 2, in the report we said;
  "Nevertheless governments regularly reveal a great deal of official information. These disclosures do not contravene section 2.
  A Crown servant who discloses official information commits an offence under the section only if the information is disclosed to someone other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it, or a person to whom it is in the interest of the State his duty to communicate it."
  We continued:
  "The Act does not explain the meaning of the quoted words."
  We did not know what they were on about. We were told that people from the Treasury went to lunch every day in the City — those were the days of fixed exchange rates; a different world, maybe—and broke the Official Secrets Act. Why? It was because they were authorising themselves.
  When a Minister leaves the Cabinet meeting—this goes on all the time—he says, "Yes, I told the old chap where I stand", or, nowadays, "Yes, I told her where I stand." They give information to what is now called, the hallelujah chorus, tell it what went on in Cabinent and give details of who said what to who. They are not breaking the Official Secrets Act because they are authorising themselves.
  The Government are going up a blind alley about this new concept—it is not new because many civil servants have signed a document referring to a lifelong duty of confidentiality—because they are ignoring the question of authorisation. The information will not be locked up for ever. Thus, there is dispensation from lifelong confidentiality.
  We decided that too often the Official Secrets Act was used to protect not the interests of the state or the country,
  576
  but to protect the political interests of the Government of the day. This does not relate to section 1; this is not the spying clause arising from spying in the dockyards before the first world war. I should say to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that one part of clause 2 should he in clause 1. It is akin to the spying aspect of clause 1, and that can be considered in Committee.
  So, because it is important to what we do to show the change that takes place, by the time that I announced' legislation in November 1976, I said that the Government would move only to prosecute "secret and above". Below that, the matter would have to be dealt with by the discipline of the organisation. We decided, unlike the Franks Committee, that Cabinet documents should not be protected. The Franks report, based on the experience of Oliver Franks, felt that Cabinet documents, whatever was in them, should be protected by the Official Secrets Act. I wish that I had had more experience at that time because that was not the way to go. When I became Home Secretary I said that Cabinet documents would be protected only if the information in them was "secret or above". In other words, it was on the basis of classification.
  We said that economic information would not be protected per se, as recommended in the Franks report.
  I went to speak for Mr. Ponting, who deserved to be dealt with within the Department, but who certainly should not have be dealt with under the Official Secrets Act. The then Labour Attorney-General kept his distance, as I am sure the present one does, from Ministers. When he heard what I was to say he said, "Will you remind the House on the basis of the position in the 1950s when the House voted in principle against capital punishment and the death penalty was not used afterwards?"
  Whatever the law was, after the vote in the House the Home Secretary would not allow people to be hanged. He intended to proceed with prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act on information classified as secret and above. We operated in that way for the next two or three years.
  The question was: why did I not introduce legislation? There were two reasons, which show the benefit of this legislation. First, most of my colleagues on whom I depended wanted a Freedom of Information Bill attached to any such legislation. I saw no way of coming to the House with a reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act plus a Freedom of Information Bill showing how information should be made available and getting them through, not least because I did not think from our discussions that we were clear about what we meant. I wanted reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act providing for only "secret and above" and a Freedom of Information Bill later.
  There could be an examination in Departments such as the Department of Education and Science—which have probably never seen a document marked "secret" — to find out how information could be made available, unencumbered by the question whether to make it available.
  Secondly, it was the time of the Lib-Lab pact. I was not prepared to come to the House of Commons under the control of the Liberal party on important issues. Not many members of the Liberal party had any experience of Government — rather like today — of writing a constitution. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the issue?"] The issue was that the Liberals did not know what they were talking about.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman must allow me to continue. It was an important Bill which I would have had to take through the House. I remember my experiences when we used to sit with Liberals in a little room near the Chamber. When we were considering a Post Office Bill the Liberals said, "We shall not support the Bill if there are three worker directors instead of two", or something like that. Well, OK, I could afford to take a couple of winks while that was discussed. But I was not going to be controlled by the Liberals on official secrets. All I am saying is that we were a minority Government. It is a fact that the Liberals had no experience of Government. That is not meant to be basically offensive.
  I proposed other changes in the White Paper. The issue is so complicated that the more one looks at it, the more, as time goes on, one sees the further changes that should be made. Of course, we had to do something about freedom of information, but there was no way in which we could get legislation passed, and a Green Paper was published. The then Clement Freud, now Sir Clement Freud, proposed a private Member's Bill in 1978–79. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), handled it on the Floor of the House. In our Green Paper we said:
  "Some aspects of the reform have recently been discussed in Standing Committee on the Official Information Bill now before Parliament, and the Government will be making further proposals at the Report Stage which will reflect the White Paper policy."
  But we had run out of time—a general election was approaching and we could not have gone any further.
  While in office we produced a Bill, which I shall willingly make available. I think that I could authorise that. Legislation was being prepared, albeit hastily because we were not in a position to do otherwise. Ministers should look at it. That legislation should be made available. The Bill which the new Government then produced was not exactly the same, and it failed. I asked the Library to find comments on why the Bill failed. A Press Council release said:
  "Contrary to the Franks Committee's proposals it severs the link between classification and protection."
  For that reason, the media were apparently not happy. Some people, including the Labour party, said that under the new legislation there could not have been a full discussion of the Blunt case. I do not know about that; I only know that the Blunt statement which the Prime Minister read out was the one that we had ready to read out, had we still been in office.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Why was it not revealed?
  Mr. Rees: The Blunt affair had not broken then. I did not regard the Blunt issue of 20 or 30 years ago as important. But the hallelujah chorus loved it, even though it was about 30 years old. I thought that the important issue was what was happening at the present time. I sometimes think that a good leak is the best way of dealing with the hallelujah chorus.
  There has been a drift in this Government. That drift occurred not because the Government did not have a majority — they can do almost what they like—but because of events. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) asked me about Agee and Hosenball, a different issue. I would have supported the Government had they prosecuted Chapman Pincher under section 2 of the
  578
  Official Secrets Act for "Their Trade is Treachery", which contained much of the same information that was in the Wright book. Pincher now says that he was authorised by a senior official of the security services, but my view is that the Government made a grave error in not prosecuting him.
  Mr. Benn: Is my right hon. Friend now saying that he thinks that the Government were right to prosecute to try to prevent publication of the Wright book?
  Mr. Rees: I did not say that.
  Mr. Benn: I am asking my right hon. Friend to make this clear. He has admitted that, as a Minister, he knew things about national security — notably on the Blunt case—about which he kept quiet.
  Mr. Rees: On the Blunt case, I thought that, unless it was necessary, it should not be said that the man, who had been found out 20 or 30 years before, had been a spy. What was the point of revealing that news if his former masters did not know that his cover was blown? That is all. It was not a very important issue. I did not think that the Blunt case was important years after the events occurred and was prepared not to say anything about it.
  Parts of the Chapman Pincher book should have been prosecuted under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Some relevations in the Wright book should have been dealt with under section 2. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] The question is how could that have been done, because he had gone away. Of course, that could not be done with Wright, but it could have been done with Chapman Pincher, whose book contained the same information from the same source as the Wright book. As for the part of the Wright book about dirty tricks, I will never let go. But other aspects on the time basis could easily be published. Some should not have been published. There will always be some aspects of the policies and actions of the security services that should not be published. The Bill does not say that everything should be published. We say that crimes concerning "secret and above" should be prosecuted, and not anything below. Because of the Government's dilatoriness, the Ponting events occurred. I am clear about Ponting: he should not have been prosecuted under criminal sanction.
  Mr. Buchan: I am slightly disturbed by what is being said. Is my right hon. Friend saying that Chapman Pincher and not just Wright should have been prosecuted? I should have thought that he should say that instead the allegations should have been immediately investigated, hearing witnesses under oath, and that if any people were to be prosecuted it should be those who carried out the subject of the allegations.
  Mr. Rees: I am making a distinction between the two. I have argued on the Floor of the House for an inquiry into the allegations.
  Mr. Buchan: True.
  Mr. Rees: I have. It is not a question of saying, "True". I am not talking about the allegations. I am merely saying that some aspects of the book plainly contravene section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
  Mr. Benn: But my right hon. Friend wants to amend it.
  Mr. Rees: Prosecution would still take place in some circumstances under the Bill that my right hon. Friend and I support.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Let me intervene just so that we will not be at daggers drawn over what may be a misunderstanding. I understand my right hon. Friend's assertion that they were infringements of section 2, but is he saying that it would necessarily have been in the public interest to have prosecuted under section 2?
  Mr. Rees: That is a different matter. I am saying that, prime facie, the Attorney-General would have to examine aspects of the book and decide whether to prosecute. That would remain true under the Bill, which does not sweep aside prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act.
  Mr. Michael Mates: The right hon. Gentleman also said—if I heard him aright—that there were parts of the Wright book that he would never let go. That means that he would have had to take exactly the same measures as this Government to try to prevent those very parts of the book from entering the public domain.
  Mr. Rees: Let me give the hon. Gentleman a reply as blunt as the reply that I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The answer is no. The information is half-way round the world; it is everywhere. What is the point of locking the stable door now? I refer only to certain parts of the book, because it does not matter whether the greater part of the book is published.
  On serious injury, classification and national security, I would like to suggest how the Bill might be handled. I have just read a brilliant book about Rab Butler by Anthony Howard of The Observer. It refers to a private Member's Bill that came up on a Friday, which sought to loosen the bonds of literary censorship:
  "Rab, to the surprise of those used to the Home Office's obscurantist ways, had directed that the Department should not oppose the Bill but instead had authorised one of his junior Ministers to suggest that it should be passed to a Select Committee so that it could be put into a more workable form."
  That took a year, and all aspects of the Bill were questioned.
  Let me tell the Home Secretary what I think should be questioned in this Bill. On classification, evidence should he taken from civil servants. I query the way in which we have been dealing with classification. On television last night the former Lord Chancellor said that this was not the judges' role. He said that they were not very good at constitutional matters, although I am not sure that classification is a constitutional matter. Evidence should be taken from senior Civil Servants on how classification is carried out.
  What about time? I saw all the papers of the second Franks Committee on the Falklands war, which, so the committee said, dated back to 1965. I went through all those papers from the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence on behalf of my colleagues as part of our analysis. It was interesting to note that all the papers had been taken in when the Government changed, on the ground that the new Government must not see the documents of the previous Administration. Exactly the same paper was put forward to the new Government. They were not allowed to see the paper that had gone to the previous Government; they just saw the same information. Would that some of that information had been published. It would not have been to the detriment of the services had much of the information on the Falklands been published earlier.
  580
  How do civil servants deal with the time aspect? If I gave someone some of the classified documents that I have at home now, it would not matter a tinker's cuss. Those documents date from 20 or 25 years ago, but they are still classified. There is more to classification than what appears at the top of the paper. Sometimes classification depends on whether there has been time to look at the documents and on whether civil servants have been available to downgrade them. Let me give an example. After the Ulster workers' strike, I commissioned a paper in the Northern Ireland Office on what might be done in Ireland. It dealt with dominion status—whatever that meant—and the whole range of options. It was time to reassess. A heavy classification was placed on that document, quite properly, because people's lives —especially in the security forces—would have been put at risk if people had thought, "My God. They are considering pulling out." That document could be published now. Indeed, it could have been published a year afterwards. It is a very interesting little document, although it does not get one very far.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Exactly.
  Mr. Rees: Nevertheless, I bet that that document is classified as secret in the Northern Ireland Office, and it need not be.
  I have mentioned the role of the judiciary. Let me make one point to the Home Secretary about something that has cast doubts on the Government's injunctions and so on to deal with lifelong confidentiality. In The Times on 10 December, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, taking the context of the Civil Service, Sir Robert Armstrong and the leading article of the day before, wrote:
  "In this context the issue of lifelong confidentiality is a red herring: what that argument is about is unauthorised disclosure."
  Yet the Government are pursuing that line. Why should not a Select Committee of the House have a chance to question Lord Hunt — to ask him why, as a distinguished former Cabinet Secretary, he takes that view?
  We need to examine the role of the Law Officers and the Cabinet Secretary. I make no personal comment about Lord Armstrong, with whom I worked for many years; I am not talking about him. However, over the past year, I have thought that we need to examine the role of the Cabinet Secretary in relation to the Official Secrets Act. We need to examine the role of the permanent undersecretary in each Department. How do permanent undersecretaries view their role? It was handled badly in the Ministry of Defence at the time of Blunt. Something went wrong in the Ministry of Defence, I presume before the matter reached the Law Officers. It does not normally work that way.
  Let me give an example from Northern Ireland. A man was giving documents to a member of the hallelujah chorus. The documents were dropped through the door of a house in Bangor. The lady who cleaned there was the wife of a policeman and she took the documents, which were marked confidential, to the police. Eventually, the permanent secretary told me about the case. He said, "It is a matter for the police, but what about the Official Secrets Act?" I asked what the files were about. They were about a committee that I had set up to end black propaganda on the part of the Army. I considered them not to be so important and when the question arose

  581
  whether there should be a prosecution I expressed the view to the Attorney-General that there should not be, but that it was a matter for him to decide. No prosecution took place. Disciplinary actions were taken but that did not mean that the case warranted the application of the Official Secrets Act.
  The Government should set up a Select Committee. By all means, let them publish their own White Paper while the discussions are taking place, but let them give the House a chance to discuss the issues. If they do not, we shall end up with a White Paper but there will be no legislation this year and I would be astonished if there were legislation next year. The questions on a number of these issues will be far too difficult. The arguments will take place on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We could have such discussions now, on this Bill. At the end of the day, the Government will have control of the proceedings. They could kill the Bill today or at any stage in Committee. They have a majority of more than 100, even given that Conservative hon. Members will vote against them. But let them give the House of Commons a chance to discuss the matter by setting up a Select Committee, as Rab Butler did many years ago to deal with a Bill. If they did that, they would be doing the House a service, just as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has done us a service, particularly in the manner in which he presented his Bill.
  10.48 am
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department Mr. Douglas Hurd): It may help the House if I set out at this fairly early stage in the debate the Government's views on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for providing us with the opportunity for a debate—[Laughter.] I have always said that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the full, lucid and engaging way in which he set about his task today.
  The question in the debate is not whether section 2 is acceptable, for we all know that it is not. Section 2 is too wide and too weak. It tries to cover too much ground and, partly for that reason, does so ineffectively. Of course, in practice, prosecutions are not brought against civil servants who disclose the colour of the carpets in their offices or what was on the menu in the staff canteen. But it is wrong in principle that the criminal law should, even in theory, deal with such trivia. As the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, the catch-all character of section 2 has serious practical consequences. It means that people are uncertain about the circumstances in which they are at risk of prosecution and conviction. Because section 2 is potentially oppressive, since it covers such trivial matters, it has come to be regarded as oppressive in all circumstances, and the misleading impression has got about that section 2 is concerned only with trivial matters.
  For those and other reasons, the conclusion that section 2 needs reform has been common ground, at least since the Conservative manifesto of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1970. That thought underlay the report in 1972 of the Franks committee, which was appointed by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues. It underlay the White Paper, whose proposals were based on the Franks report, which the right
  582
  hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and his colleagues published in 1978. It underlay the Bill that the Conservative Government introduced when they took office in 1979. My right hon. Friend is right to say that, as it stands, section 2 has no defenders.
  In 1979, it was widely expected that a Bill to fulfil the long-held ambition of narrowing the scope of section 2 would be received with reasonable enthusiasm. It was hoped that the proposals in the Bill, which were based on the Franks report and the 1978 White Paper—the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South now says that he would have acted differently — would be widely supported. That was reasonable, but it turned out to be wrong. The 1979 Bill was lost in a thicket and had to be withdrawn. Some parts of it attracted very strong opposition. I am thinking especially of the fact that it would have protected all information relating to security and intelligence and would have provided for the tricky question whether the disclosure of information relating to defence or international relations was likely to cause serious injury to the interests of the nation to be decided by a Minister of the Crown. The Bill ran into trouble on those and other grounds.
  Since 1979, the Government have put no proposals to Parliament. That was a reasonable stance for my right hon. Friends to take for some time after the collapse of the effort in 1979. After long consideration by different Governments, a substantial effort had been made and a major proposal put forward. The debate that followed in 1979 showed the difficulties but did not provide the answers. It was legitimate for my right hon. Friends, especially those who had had a hand in that enterprise, to make the distinction between criticising section 2 and reforming it. The first was easy — it was common ground. The second had been genuinely attempted and found to be dauntingly difficult.
  When, early last autumn, my hon. Friend first contemplated his Bill, he might reasonably have thought that that was still the Government's position. He may have thought — although, as he knows, I went as far as I could as fast as I could to enlighten him — that the choice lay between a private Member's Bill and the inertia of a Government still nursing their burnt fingers, still fearing the fire and refusing to do anything sensible or effective about section 2.
  That is not the position today. The question before the House is not whether a further effort should be made to improve the Act. As I shall try to show, the choice is between taking this Bill forward and waiting—not for very long — for fresh proposals from Government on which Parliament can decide.
  On 3 February last year, we had an interesting debate in the House—I rather think that it was a Supply day of the late, lamented Alliance—in which I made it clear that the matter should return to the agenda. Since April 1987 — I gently underline that date — Ministers and officials have been working on a thorough and deep review of section 2 to establish whether the difficulties can be overcome and the Act reformed. By the end of last year, we had reached a point which enabled me to announce to the House on 15 December that we had made enough progress to be able to promise a White Paper in the summer and to work towards early legislation thereafter. So—trying to put it fairly—we had the coincidence of my hon. Friend gaining first place in the ballot and being keen to take forward a subject of major importance on

  583
  which he felt strongly, but on which, unknown to him when he began to think about it, the Government had already embarked.
  That has created a tactical position which is painful for my hon. Friend and for me and the Government, although it is not the fault of either of us. We are faced with my hon. Friend's Bill, yet we have not reached conclusions on several of the matters that it covers. I make no apology for that and, especially after the fascinating speech of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, who talked about the murky confusion that prevailed in 1978–79, it is not open to the Opposition to chide us for taking more than 10 months on a matter which took them five years with no legislative result. I regard the right hon. Gentleman as the hare who has bounded about in this race for some time and myself as the tortoise, who started much later. We shall see who reaches the winning post first.
  As any reader of the Franks report can see, this matter goes to the heart of government. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not a matter on which Ministers can take a general decision to legislate and officials of one Department can go away and work up a proposal. This involves many agencies and Departments. Not only the principles, but the details are crucial to them. That is why it is not sensible to scratch and scramble at the issue. It is not sensible to take at a gallop the necessary detailed work to get round a tactical difficulty. It would not be sensible for Parliament to plunge into the subject without having before it the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister answer a simple question? Is there anything in this Bill which he would not have in his?
  Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman has been following my exposition, he will understand that I cannot answer that question — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I should try to explain it again. In 1979, following a period of Government by the Labour party, which made no such major effort, the Conservative Government made a major effort which was defeated. For some time after that, the view was that the subject was too difficult. That view no longer prevails, and since April 1987 a major effort has been under way. I suppose that we are about two thirds of the way through that effort, but it would not be sensible to set before the House, as a critique of my hon. Friend's Bill, the two thirds of the ground that we have covered and our provisional conclusions. Hon. Members will accept that, once we have covered all the terrain, Ministers will consider the full picture and ratify the provisional decisions that have been made. It is precisely to avoid such confusion that the Government are taking the line that I advocate on the Bill.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: This is a small question, but one on which the entire debate may turn. As I understand it, the Home Secretary is saying to the House, with as much authority as the Government possess, that the Government believe that the House should wait until June; however, they will not tell us what we should wait for.
  Mr. Hurd: What the right hon. Gentleman is being asked to wait for is a White Paper in June, followed by a debate in the House before the summer recess, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House committed us yesterday. That will be followed, we hope, by early
  584
  legislation, which will be considered and decided in the House. It will then be for the House to decide whether it likes the proposals.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What does "early" mean?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for long enough to know what "early" means in this context.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has tried to be helpful. He has offered to take on board any specific points, and has been ready to negotiate changes. But, as he knows, and as I have just explained, we are not in that position. We have worked out our own ideas on some points, but not on others. It would be silly for Ministers to start pronouncing on part of their work until they can consider the whole. The Committee stage of a private Member's Bill can, of course, be interesting and fruitful, but equally it can be unpredictable and confusing, because neither the private Member who is sponsoring the Bill, nor his hon. Friends, nor the Minister is in effective charge. I am sure that it is much better to proceed instead in the orderly way that is traditional for important legislation on the machinery and methods of government. There should be a Government Bill on which Parliament should pronounce. The Government should propose, and Parliament should dispose.
  Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he does not realise that he is being condescending— accidentally or unwittingly — which is not normally characteristic of him. Does this not make matters more difficult for the House? Can he not even give some putative, theoretical examples of the difficulties of reaching final conclusions at this stage? Otherwise he is saying, in effect, what hon. Members on both sides of the House will resent: that the subject is not suitable for parliamentarians.
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is simply not following my argument. Not only is the subject a matter for parliamentarians, but it is a matter on which only Parliament can decide, and which Parliament will wish to discuss in detail. I am merely suggesting that is better for that detailed discussion, and those decisions by Parliament, to take place on the basis of proposals put forward by Government.
  I was flattered by the constitutional doctrine advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), but I am not asking the House to accept a blank cheque on the basis of trust in my judgment. We are not implying that these are matters for dictation by Government, rather than for discussion in Parliament. I certainly would not ask the House to accept my views on how the law should be changed without discussion, as though the fact that they were my views, or those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, settled the matter. That could not conceivably be proper.
  Parliament, not the Government, will decide whether section 2 is to be reformed, as we were reminded bitterly in 1979. What the House must decide today is whether, on a matter that lies at the heart of government, to proceed with a private Member's Bill or to wait for a short time—we have defined a short time—until the House can analyse and consider the Government's proposals. It is plain to me which of those two courses offers the greater opportunity for reflection, discussion and a good outcome.

  585
  Another fairly dotty notion going the rounds is that the Government intend simply to propose some tyrannical tightening of the Act. That would suggest that we would have no regard to the Franks report, to the 1979 experience or to today's debate. It surprises me that anyone should take such a charge seriously. After all that has happened, it would hardly be sensible for us to suppose that either House of Parliament would accept such a measure.
  Mr. Buchan: If the Home Secretary is taking that view —if, indeed, he takes a view indicating basic agreement with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—,why in heaven's name should a senior civil servant of this country, and indeed the country, be put into the ludicrous position of pursuing past tales from one court to another throughout the world? If that is the intention, it does not add up.
  Mr. Hurd: The House has had a full account of, and debate on, the attitude that the Government have taken during the different "Spycatcher" trials, and I do not wish to be diverted to that subject now. I am merely saying that it is dotty for any serious critic or commentator to suppose that we would see any point in putting forward to either House a substitute for the Bill that simply presented some tyrannical tightening of the Act.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose——
  Mr. Hurd: I want to get on, because, as you, Mr. Speaker, have warned us, many hon. Members wish to speak, and the speeches so far have taken up a certain amount of time.
  Let me go over the terrain to illustrate the point that I have just made. We want legislation that is effective, enforceable and reasonable. "Effective" means clear and intelligible. "Enforceable" means that the legislation should not pose undue challenges to the prosecuting authorities or the courts. "Reasonable" means that new legislation should not just bring about a narrowing of the scope of the criminal law, but should command the confidence of juries. That involves taking into account the criticisms made of the 1979 Bill.
  Anyone who wishes to narrow the "catch-all" range of section 2 faces the same set of complex and sensitive issues. Once we decide that it is wrong for the law to penalise all unauthorised disclosures of official information, we have to tackle the problem of deciding what disclosures of what information should in future be unlawful. That sets off a series of interrelated questions. We have been steadily working our way through those questions since last Easter, and we have not yet finished the work. They are the questions addressed by the Franks committee, the Labour Government and now my hon. Friend.
  What are those questions? First, we must ask to what categories of information the legislation should apply. The Franks committee recommended, for example, that all Cabinet papers should be protected, as should all information on currency and the reserves. We concluded that it was not necessary to cover those categories in the 1979 Bill. Should we now go back to Franks, should we stick with the 1979 categories, or should we narow the field still further?
  Everyone would agree that security and intelligence information should be covered, but, in our view, that is not
  586
  enough. For one thing, sensitive defence information must clearly be protected. But how much more information needs the safeguard of a criminal sanction? Should it just be Government papers, or should it also be information provided in confidence to the Government?
  Once we have got through that filter, we are faced with another set of questions. Should the disclosure of any—I stress the word "any" — information in certain categories be an offence, or should it be an offence only if the disclosure is likely to cause damage? If we decide that there should be some test of the damage likely to be caused by disclosure, should there be one general test, or different tests relating to different categories of information?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am one of the Bill's sponsors. When the Bill was first put forward, none of us knew that the Government were proposing legislation.
  My right hon. Friend said earlier that the House had a choice between this Bill and Government legislation later. Surely, however, the result of today's three-line Whip is that the Bill cannot proceed to a Committee stage. Therefore, the points that he says are at the heart of the proposals for his legislation cannot be discussed now. Would it not be very much to the Government's advantage if the Bill went to Committee and the issues were fully explored? That would give us a clearer indication of what the Government should do before my right hon. Friend puts forward his legislation.
  Mr. Hurd: That is the difficulty. My hon. Friend has put it very well. I do not deny that there is a difficulty. I am illustrating the wide terrain that a measure has to cover, to show that we are not after some quick snatch at the issue—some tyrannical measure that simply buttons up the mouths of officials. We are covering that ground, but we have not yet finished covering it. The difficulty of going into Committee at this stage is that we are not ready with our proposals on all the points involved.
  I have pointed out the new development since my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills started his initiative. We have been at work on the matter since Easter, and have committed ourselves to producing a White Paper with our proposals by June. Of course there will be a Committee stage; of course it will be a detailed examination. However, I feel that that Committee stage should be on the basis of Government proposals.
  Dr. David Owen rose——
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way—I think for the last time —to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Owen: Surely the time for a three-line Whip, if such a time ever exists with a private Member's Bill such as this, is on Third Reading.
  Mr. Hurd: I have tried to explain why I believe that the procedure that we are proposing is sensible and orderly. The choice before the House is whether to follow the procedure that we have outlined during the past few weeks or to give the Bill a Second Reading and sent it into Committee when Ministers have not cleared their minds on their ideas on answers to some of the questions that have been raised.
  The facts are that since last Easter we have had in hand a serious enterprise to find an acceptable replacement for section 2. That work is taking us over the issues that I have

  587
  described, many of which are addressed in the Bill, and a White Paper with a view to legislation at the earliest opportunity is a commitment — I repeat that I hope to lay the White Paper before Parliament in June and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear yesterday, the House will have an opportunity to debate it before the summer recess—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I am coming to an end. I believe that this is the orderly path to a reform of section 2.
  My colleagues and I will listen attentively to the rest of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has had his success and nobody can or, in my judgment. would want to take away that success. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has had his success. He has had his debate. He has taken his initiative and secured from the Government assurances which I think most people would regard as adequate. The orderly path now is to wait — not much longer, but a little longer — to digest and discuss the Government's proposals and any amendments proposed to them and for Parliament to decide in a measured way whether those proposals are ones which it wishes to take forward.
  Nothing will be lost except a little time. After 76 years, that is a small price to pay for the chance of putting to rest an issue which, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South so clearly illustrated, has troubled successive Parliaments and Governments.
  This is not a languid, academic or spoiling exercise on my part. Perhaps I could add a personal word. I have worked as a Crown servant for 14 years and as a Member of this House for another 14. From both angles I have watched this problem deteriorate. The morass has become muddier, the thicket more impenetrable.
  Many Governments, including this one and the Labour Government, have put out more and more information, but they have found it more difficult to protect that small portion of what one might call official information which has to be protected. I have believed for some time that the task of reforming section 2 has now become crucial for the proper functioning of modern democratic government in Britain. We now have a choice of procedures. I believe that we have set about the issue in an orderly and sensible way. That is what we intend, and it follows with regret that I must recommend that the House does not give the Bill a Second Reading.
  11.14 am
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I congratulate him on many things; on having coined a new phrase for the political lexicon—some of us have attempted to do that for 25 years and failed, but he has done it this morning — on his demeanour during the past month, and on the content of his Bill.
  I feel just as warmly about the content of the hon. Gentleman's Bill as, apparently, does the Home Secretary. Indeed, the only thing that divides the Home Secretary and me in our admiration for the proposals is that I propose to vote for them and the Home Secretary proposes to vote against them. I confess that I would go further than the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I should like there to be a
  588
  freedom of information Bill which requires, rather than allows, the publication of information which is not damaging or potentially damaging to national security but which it would be in the public interest to publish.
  The Bill has the overwhelming advantage of reforming section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Although it has been tolerated for so long, it ought not to be tolerated any longer in a free society. The section allows the suppression of whatever official information the Government may choose to keep secret. The information may be suppressed for wholly legitimate reasons or simply because the Government find it inconvenient to allow the British people to know what they ought to know and have a right to know. That is our complaint and has always been the complaint about section 2.
  Since the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills published his Bill, the 30-year rule has presented us with an overwhelming example of the misuse of section 2 by Governments. I refer, of course, to the way in which, 30 years ago, the Government dealt with the Windscale disaster. We now know, simply from the publication of Government papers, that the Cabinet of the time decided to conspire against the British people to keep two things secret. The first was the nature and cause of the disaster and the second was the inability of the Atomic Energy Authority as then constituted to ensure that another disaster would not occur.
  It seems to me self-evident that such action was deeply against the national interest by any standards. It was deeply against the welfare and interests of people who lived in the vicinity of Windscale, and it was in a real sense a conspiracy. Any civil servant, however, who chose to protect the people of the area by telling the truth, which the Government would have suppressed, would have been prosecuted. That is self-evidently preposterous and immoral and a situation which we can begin to change by voting for the Bill.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that those of us who support the Bill do not believe for one moment that anything in it poses any real threat to those secrets which need to be kept secret in the name of genuine national security. I go even further. I do not believe that the omnibus power which allows the Government to suppress anything that they choose to suppress, has done any real service to security or the security services' record.
  One of the reasons why the security services have had such a deplorable record, especially in the 25 years which followed the war, is that they concerned themselves far too much with irrelevant trivialities and not enough with the central issues of national security. If there were more sensible and sensitive powers, and if the security services were under some control through the House, I believe that they would operate more efficiently as well as more democratically. They have nothing to lose from the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
  I repeat and emphasise that I do not think that there is any disagreement in any part of the House about the need to keep secret that information which might benefit an enemy or potential enemy. The argument concerns the Government's right to keep secret from the British people information which an enemy or potential enemy almost certainly already knows and which it is in the interests of the British people to be told.
  The Bill draws the proper line between necessary secrets and news manipulation dressed up to look like the needs of national security. It defines the classes of information

  589
  which are protected by criminal sanctions, it offers as a defence against prosecution the national interest and the previous availability of published information, and it offers an independent authority — the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council — as an arbiter of security classification. Those are the bones of an acceptable official information Bill.
  I do not believe that many of the hon. Members who will vote for the Bill today will do so in the belief that it is perfect in every particular. Indeed, as I understood the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills when introducing the Bill, he is not making that claim. If the Government are sincere in the belief that they are to build on what he Proposes, the Government's clear duty is to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee and to try to make the necessary technical alterations and improvements there. Even at this late hour, I urge the Home Secretary to consider that possibility.
  I do so especially in the light of two criteria which, according to newspapers—I do not know whether they were press leaks, unauthorised briefings or simple speculation—were regarded by the Government as the stumbling block. I understand from those newspaper reports that the Government's objections to the Bill centred on two areas of defence: the public interest criterion and the criterion that the information is already in the public domain.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that, in the present situation, we regard the second criterion — that the information is already available from other sources—as of crucial importance to the freedom of this country and this Parliament. Prosecuting for the production and dissemination of information that is already available is not intended to keep the information from a potential enemy but it is, by definition, intended to keep that information from the British people.
  If one considers the Government's record during the past two years, when they used vast amounts of taxpayers' money to launch vastly expensive actions against newspapers that want to do no more than publish what is generally and genuinely known, one knows that the Government are doing so in the knowledge that, even if the newspapers win in court, the delay and the costs will have penalised them. The Government's pursuit of newspapers for wishing and intending to publish information that is already known has been used in a deeply unscrupulous way as an attempt to bully and blackmail newspapers into a code of conduct that the Government cannot support by any more logical or acceptable means.
  The Home Secretary's response to the Bill was to ask the House to wait until June. He said, "Wait for a definable time," but he could not define for us what we had to wait for. I cannot believe that this House of Commons is so supine as to buy the Home Secretary's pig in a poke, because we would be doing so in the most extraordinary circumstances. I do not want to say anything about the Government that would deter their opponents on the Government Back Benches from voting for the Bill, so I am using my words carefully. However, to say to the House, "Trust the Government over official secrets; trust the Government over news manipulation; trust the Government over their attitudes towards television; trust the Government over their performance and proposals for
  590
  manipulating or suppressing the news," is, in the light of recent events, to make an unreasonable request to say the least.
  Let us consider recent events that might lead some hon. Members to feel that the request to wait until June, without any assurance of what June will bring, is unreasonable. We are asked to trust the Government who, for two years, have been engaged in the black comedy of the "Spycatcher" affair. The Cabinet Secretary has been humiliated and the Attorney-General made to look ridiculous to limit the sales of a publication, or of extracts from a publication, which has already sold 500,000 copies in the United States and which has, I suspect, already reached the shelves of the Kremlin. I find it very difficult to trust the Government when I think of the way in which they have behaved over that affair.
  We are asked to trust the Government who, almost exactly a year ago today, either sanctioned or authorised —they certainly approved—a night raid on the BBC's studios in Scotland. They defended the removal from the BBC of large amounts of BBC property. Then, 10 months later, they blandly announced that the BBC had done no wrong and there were no grounds for prosecution or for any action. I find it difficult to trust that Government by waiting until June.
  We are asked to trust the Government, who have prohibited the broadcasting by the BBC of a series of documentary programmes which, it is generally agreed, have been produced by responsible producers and which were approved by the D-Notice committee. I do not feel able to trust that Government by waiting until June without knowing what they propose.
  Most absurdly of all, we are asked to trust the Government which prohibited the circulation of Mr. Cavendish's Christmas card. The fact that the Government have behaved ridiculously over those affairs should not prevent us from understanding that it is possible to be ridiculous and tyrannical simultaneously. The fact that the Government have made an ass of themselves over the Cavendish affair should not obscure the fact that to tell a man who produces a brief work, a novelette or novel — which, having read it, does not seem to me to contain much significant information—that when he sends his Christmas card to a group of friends, it will be illegal if any newspapers were to reproduce its messages, does not seem the action of a Government whose attitude to the Official Secrets Act in June will be something on which we can place absolute reliance and to which we can give absolute credit.
  From the point of the Cavendish affair, it is important to understand exactly the Government with which we are dealing. I repeat that I do not think that Mr. Cavendish's Christmas card contained much of significance. It is important to remember that Mr. Cavendish is not, as Mr. Wright is said to be by Government sources, "a disgruntled failure", who wants to get his own back on the security services for paying him an inadequate pension. He is a man who thinks that he has something to say. In the context of the Bill, it is worth noting exactly some of the things that he does say and that the Government wish to suppress.
  There was a time when every word of Mr. Cavendish's Christmas card would have resulted in the editors of The Sunday Times and The Observer going to prison if it had been reproduced in their newspapers. If they had reported, for instance, Mr. Cavendish's view that

  591
  "May is always a beautiful time in Berlin—a time for picnics",
  that would have been an offence that would result in a criminal prosecution.
  However, there is more to the Christmas card than that. Mr. Cavendish went on to "confess"— I use his words exactly—that when he read stories that were already currently in circulation and already published in newspapers of MI5 complicity in events in Northern Ireland, of the so-called Loyalist strike in particular, they "tie in with many events to which I have been privy over the last ten years".
  Indeed, Mr. Cavendish is explicit about Ireland:
  "MI5 were bitterly jealous of MI6's move into Ulster, since they believed that Northern Ireland was clearly their territory as part of the United Kingdom, and information which is now emerging seems to confirm that MI5 took active steps to `sabotage' the work of SIS … Smear campaigns were being organised against anybody of consequence who appeared to be sympathetic to the position of the Catholic minority in Ulster or who showed that he believed in a settlement based on radical changes in the Northern-Southern Irish relationship. Among those targeted were Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, Edward Short, roughly twenty other MPs and also the first Catholic Chief Constable of the RUC".
  It seems to me, as it will seem to many of my hon. Friends, that these are matters not so much for suppression as for investigation. It seems to me—as, I think, it will seem to many hon. Members of all parties and, indeed, to the country—that a Government who choose to suppress such charges are not a Government who can legitimately say to the House, "Wait until June. We shall produce something that is acceptable in that particular."
  Nor has the Government's conduct concerning the Bill done anything to increase confidence in the Government's integrity over this matter. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will deeply resent the notion that there are some subjects that are too important for the House of Commons to discuss on Fridays. This is an ideal subject for private Members' legislation, for it is a classic—
  Mr. Hurd indicated dissent—
  Mr. Hattersley: By blowing his exasperation, the Home Secretary demonstrates my point exactly. It is ideal for the purpose on this occasion, because it is a classic example of Parliament attempting to restrain an authoritarian Executive. Whether the Home Secretary knows it or not, that is a large part of what the House of Commons is for.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that he found some irony — or perhaps he used the word paradox — in the distinction of attitudes between individuals when they moved from one side of the House to the other. Irony or paradox was a charitable way of describing it. I am sure that he is no more surprised by the change in attitude than I am, because the nature of the problem is that Governments — I freely admit, all Governments—are over-inclined to secrecy. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that it is a party issue. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, when he talks of wanting to curtail Governments, it is not this Government whom he wants to curtail, but Governments in general. On a private Members' day, the House of Commons should say that there are some things that are for the House of Commons and strong occasions when the House of Commons insists on imposing its will on the Government.
  If any of the weaker-minded members of the 1922 Committee are here, I shall provoke a small groan by
  592
  saying the words, "when we are next in government." Let me explain my point. When next the Labour party is in government, I have no doubt that there will be times when Ministers curse under their breath the passing of this Bill through all its stages, because there will be things that we shall want to suppress. Looking at the matter with the objectivity of Opposition, we realise that it will be the same in the future as it was in the past. We shall often want to suppress things that we should not be allowed to suppress. The House of Commons should prevent us from doing that when our time comes, as it should prevent the Government from doing it now.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it is based mainly upon pouring scorn on the Government for trying to bolt the stable door after the horse has shot away, particularly pouring scorn on the handling of the Cavendish and the Wright cases. He has not suggested that it would have been wrong to bolt the door in the first place and to have stopped the horse from leaving. If that is so, will he point to any part of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that deals with bolting the door in the Wright or Cavendish cases? If it does not, would it not be better for the House to wait until Government proposals appear, which would bolt the door?
  Mr. Hattersley: Had the hon. and learned Gentleman not intervened, I should not have been so unkind as to say that on Sunday morning on television he promised me, my hon. Friends and the British people that the Home Secretary would describe his proposals for a Bill in this morning's debate —
  Mr. Lawrence: I said that the Home Secretary would describe his reasons for opposing the Bill, as he has done.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman promised us that we would be told what the alternative was.
  Let me answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question directly. The point about the bolting of the stable door is covered in the Bill in two ways. First, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhill does not touch section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, which has an enormous and direct influence on security matters in general, and in some of the terms — not all — that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, by defining and differentiating between those which are genuine secrets and those which are not, he makes a group of secrets still subject to penalties, were they to be revealed.
  There is nothing now in section 2 that prevents the horse leaving the stable with the same alacrity that it will be able to leave if the Bill is brought into operation. All the secrets that I have listed this morning as being subject to attempts at Government suppression have left the stable. The Government have been trying to bolt the door, not because they thought the horse could be retained within the premises, but because they wanted to stop the British people knowing what was going on — not the alternative, which is to stop those who may be our enemies or potential enemies.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of Cavendish as against the issue of Wright? Is it not true that the Government, in trying to prevent Mr. Cavendish from publishing, misunderstand

  593
  the position? Mr. Cavendish has not worked for the security services for a long time—for decades. All that he has said about what happened in the 1970s is based on hearsay. He has no evidence—he has simply purloined the material from others and put it in a Christmas card. Why are the Government so sensitive to what he has to say, when he does not back it with evidence?
  Mr. Hattersley: As I hope I made clear, I was not enormously impressed by what Mr. Cavendish wrote. In a sense, that makes the Government's attitude in suppressing him all the more absurd. I repeat that the Government have behaved absurdly over Cavendish and Wright. When my next book comes out, I hope that the Attorney-General is prepared to promote its sales in America in the way that he promoted the sales of Mr. Wright's book. I do not think that half a million copies would have gone into American homes had it not been for the Government's activities.
  While the Government have made asses of themselves, or a single ass of their collective self, over these matters, it is enormously important for the House and the country to understand that simply because the Government behaved foolishly does not mean that they did not behave tyrannically. They were absurd to do what they did, and in a democracy that was wrong. Today we are considering not the absurdity but the iniquity of Government. Because of that record, I could not say that everything will be all right in June when the Government introduce their new proposals.
  As I understand it, and certainly as I understood the Home Secretary on the radio this morning, when he was so emollient that for a moment I believed he would support the Bill, one of the Government's principal objections is not the context of the Bill, about which the Home Secretary was remarkably eloquent during his speech, but the occasion on which the Bill was presented to Parliament. That raises a third question of principle. The first is the content of the Bill, which I support on principle. The second is the Government's record on those matters. I am not prepared to cast a vote that suggests that I trust the Government on that.
  The third is the Government's attitude towards Parliament. At 2.30 pm we are voting not simply for a free press but for a free Parliament, a Parliament that is not prepared to be told by the Executive that this is not a subject that we should discuss, and upon which it is not prepared to be told by the Prime Minister that it is too complicated, technical and important for us to deal with on this occasion. For all those reasons, I hope and believe that my hon. Friends will support the Bill.
  11.37 am
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The issue on which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) ended is extremely important, and I shall return to it in a moment.
  I am proud to be a sponsor of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), which he introduced so ably. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. I shall not lavish compliments on him, because it would embarrass him in more than one way. But I am not sure that his high qualities were necessarily an advantage to the Government
  594
  this morning. Asquith was a Prime Minister who has been much in the news lately. I think that it was Balfour who once said of him that Asquith's lucidity was a positive disadvantage when he had nothing to say. I feel that my right hon. Friend's shining integrity is somewhat of a disadvantage to the Government when he has to defend an essentially shabby case.
  Since the gravamen of the case is that the Government claim, in effect, a unique and exclusive right to deal with these matters and that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is badly out of step and out of court in attempting to do so himself, it is relevant to consider the Government's handling of those matters over the past few months, to see how justified that claim is, particularly in the light of the principles that my hon. Friend has put into his Bill.
  Like, I imagine, every other Member of the House, I have read "Spycatcher", and there is no question but that it is a shocking book, written out of malice and spite. It should never have been written, and it should never have seen the light of day. I entirely sympathise with the Government's original attempt to stop its publication. And of course, I entirely agree that the secret services should be kept secret. But the question is how or from whom those secrets should be kept. It is surely hostile powers from which we wish to whithold knowledge of the security services and other matters, not the people on behalf of whom the security services are supposed to be operating. Indeed, a good working rule would be this—that if the Russians know something, the British people can know it too. As we can confidently assume that the Russians are capable of reading the Australian newspapers and of buying "Spycatcher" in America, they obviously know all that is contained in it. If the Government had followed tht simple rule, they would have saved themselves a great deal of trouble and the taxpayer a great deal of money. There are three principles or tests in these matters, and my hon. Friend's Bill contains them.
  The first applies only to a Government of a free, democratic society, and the second two apply to Governments of any society. The first is that, however desirable the end, there are limits to the means that a Government can use to attain it, because to go beyond those means would endanger the basis of the freedom of our society. In a free society, the end does not justify the means.
  The two principles that should apply to any society, democratic or not, are, first, that a Government should act at least in accordance with common sense and, secondly, that the means employed should have some reasonable chance of attaining the desired end.
  To prevent the press from doing its proper job of reporting — not, I emphasise, disclosing — matters of great public interest, the Government have resorted to the indiscriminate use of injunctions. That is a reversion to the practice that obtained before the Licensing Act came to an end in 1695, and is quite unacceptable in a free society. One of the greatest prides of our society during the past 200 years has been that, unlike practically every other country, we have had no prior restraints on publication. Unfortunately, the Government have broken with that tradition, and both Lord Bridge and Lord Oliver pointed out what a perilous path the Government were going down by doing so.
  The Government may say, "We have only asked for injunctions; it is the courts that have granted them". That

  595
  is true, but it is no part of a Conservative Government to makes asses of the judiciary or to persuade its members to make asses of themselves. The humiliating subservience of the judiciary to the Executive in the 17th century is well known. I hope that the current judiciary will take a careful look at the 17th century.
  The second principle — that a Government should show proper common sense in their actions—has not been adhered to either. For the Government seriously to argue, and for the courts seriously to accept, that British newspapers should not publish what has been written about and is common knowledge in Australia, the United States and many other countries, is not just a defiance of common sense but a groteque absurdity. Why should the British people be singled out as the only people in the world to be kept in ignorance of what everyone else knows? Both Lord Bridge and Lord Oliver made that point well. One of them spoke about the idiocy of trying to create a cordon sanitaire around the country.
  On the third principle—that the means used by the Government should have some likelihood of attaining the end—the Government have again fallen down. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, we all hope that the Attorney-General will shower injunctions on any books that we might write. I have always enjoyed rather modest sales of my books, but obviously that can easily be remedied with the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General. Saatchi and Saatchi could not have promoted Mr. Wright's book better than the Government have done. The only result they have achieved so far has been the promotion of his book. It is rather fortunate that the rules that apply to the improper use of expenditure by local government councillors do not apply also to central Government, because if they did some of my right hon. Friends would face a rather hefty bill.
  The secrecy laws should be directed against hostile Governments, not the British public. The Bill is a courageous and successful attempt to deal with that. If the principles of the Bill had been followed, the Government would not be in such serious trouble in these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills outlined his Bill so carefully and fully, and defended it so well, that I do not need to take up the time of the House by discussing it further.
  I wish, instead, to concentrate on the Government's attitude to the Bill. We all know that for many years—and for long before this Government came to office—the House of Commons has been a pretty poor thing in many ways. It has lacked independence and has been bound hand and foot to and by the Executive. However, usually the conventions of politeness and courtesy prevail, and the House is flattered and cajoled into thinking that it enjoys some power and decides matters of moment. We all know perfectly well that it enjoys nothing of the sort and that matters of moment are decided in Whitehall, not Westminster.
  The Executive does not usually flaunt its power over us, however, and the decencies are preserved. Today, those conventions have been abandoned and what Burke called the decent draperies of life have been torn asunder. The Executive is dictating to the House in all its naked crudity. I do not understand why the Government are so frightened of the House of Commons. We all know that that is a much better way of producing legislation than by the Executive sitting around in secret.
  596
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the House will have to discuss these matters when he brings his Bill forward — unless the Government shower Mr. Speaker with injunctions. I daresay that that will probably not happen—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, one cannot be too sure of anything these days. The Government today are doing what they have been doing in the courts during the past few months. They are still wearing the same bovver boots that they wore in the courts. Their imposition of a three-line Whip is the parliamentary equivalent of the injunctions that they have taken out against almost all our serious newspapers. In both cases, the procedure is wholly misconceived and authoritarian and a sorry display of Executive arrogance. I shall certainly oppose that this afternoon.
  11.47 am
  Dr. David Owen: This could be a day on which the House exerts its control over the Executive, and that would be a day of pride. Instead, it will probably be a day of shame. The Home Secretary has given the game away. I did not expect him to tell us specifically when the Government intended to make up their mind, but he has told us that it will be in June. He said that there would be a White Paper, and that is a Government decision.
  If the Bill is committed to a Standing Committee, it will have moved on to the House of Lords when the Government make up their mind on the issue. At that time, the Government will tell us their view of a Bill that has already been discussed. It is not necessary for the Home Secretary or a junior Minister to pronounce definitively on all the Bill's clauses during its Committee stage. It would be an advantage, of course, were they to do so, but the Bill can go through its stages without the Government giving their definitive view of it.
  The Government's view about the Bill could be made clear in another place where it could be amended and brought back to this House. I will come later to the reasons why many of us are concerned about the Government's position. The reasons relate to the whole question of closing the stable door or blocking the mechanism. Under the current position, if the House refuses to give the Bill a Second Reading, we accept that at the very least, we will continue with the present fiasco of the Official Secrets Act 1911 for at least another year. That is an extremely important year to lose.
  The Home Secretary was not able to tell us what the Government feel are the sticking points on the Bill. He was not able to say whether they were concerned about the judicial review of the over-classification of documents or the public interest defence for the public disclosure of confidential information. The Home Secretary glossed over the facts that his immediate predecessor gave an undertaking, in the wake of the decision taken by the European Court of Human Rights in the Malone telephone tapping case, to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission on the remedies for the breach of confidence and the fact that the public interest defence in the Bill is modelled on the Law Commission's recommendations.
  It would not have been too hard for the Home Secretary to tell us whether he agreed with his predecessor and the Law Commission. After all, the Government have been aware of the recommendations for many years.

  597
  However, we must wait until June. We are content to do that. We will receive the Government's view in June. If the Government agree to impose fundamental stops on this legislation, they will have to go to Conservative Members and explain the case for a three-line Whip. However, to apply a three-line Whip on a private Member's Bill in this way is an utter disgrace and ought to be rejected decisively.
  Mr. Marlow: What is a little confusing for many of us on the Conservative Benches who wish to support the Government is why the Government take the view that it would not be helpful to them, if they are going to make up their mind in June, to have had the views of the House in a Committee stage before June. Surely that would be helpful for the Government?
  Dr. Owen: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, at least on this occasion. I confess that I for one would be ready to serve on the Committee. Indeed, it would be unusual because in Committee on this Bill there might be many right hon. and hon. Members who have held office as Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary. They would be ready to give their judgment on this private Member's legislation. That would be immensely valuable for the House.
  We have all been down this secrecy path before. Those of us who have been Ministers are all sinners. The ABC case, which was brought in good faith, turned out to be a complete disaster. The Attorney-General at the time was careful to consult, but made the point that he had taken the decision himself to pursue the trial. I initially said no, and I wish to hell that I had continued to say no. There was a most extraordinary exchange during the trial. A witness was asked to look at a photograph of a sign at the entrance to the military base. The exchange went like this:
  "Is that the name of your unit?
  I cannot answer that question, that is a secret.
  Is that the board that is up outside the door of your unit?
  Yes.
  Read it out to the jury.
  I cannot do that, that is a secret."
  Indirectly I was a party to that farce. We have all been party to such farces and it is high time that the farce was ended.
  I have concluded that the Government are not the best body to end the farce. When we enter Government, we begin to accept all the advice of officialdom and begin to believe the case for secrecy and to a great extent we lose our common-sense. We need the common-sense and common wisdom of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is to be congratulated on bringing forward his Bill. It is an honour to be a sponsor of that legislation.
  I want to consider the most serious reason why I believe that legislation is important now. I have read "Spycatcher" and I was appalled. I did not expect to be, and I was rather lulled into believing that it was a book that might be acceptable. The book contains information which should not have seen the light of day under any circumstances. I have watched as invaluable secrets have been disseminated over the past eight years in an appalling way. We have seen secrets pouring out of GCHQ—the ABC trial related to GCHQ — and we have seen the effect of the Government's good intentions in trying to keep things secret. However, they have allowed massive
  598
  amounts of secrets to come out. The real problem is that we have lost very valuable secrets because we have failed to grapple with this issue.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I believe that "Spycatcher" should have been prevented from being published. However, more important, Chapman Pincher's book "Their Trade is Treachery" should have been prevented from being written. I wish that some investigative journalism had been carried out into that. Economy with the truth was not practised only by Sir Robert Armstrong in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Sir Robert was a victim of the security services of Her Majesty's Government being economical with the truth.
  It is now clear from the evidence that Sir Robert Armstrong gave recently in a United Kingdom court to Mr. Justice Scott that he had not been informed when he gave evidence in Australia that there was an intermediary between Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd., the publishers of Chapman Pincher's book "Their Trade is Treachery" and an anonymous member of the security and intelligence services. Nor was Sir Robert even informed that Sidgwick and Jackson had been told, through the intermediary, by the security services that they were not asking for any action to be taken to prevent publication of the book, or suggesting any modification to the text or any deletions. Sir Robert knew of that only when, a few months ago, he saw an advance copy of Chapman Pincher's most recent book "A Web of Deception".
  The House of Commons must have an explanation. It is inconceivable that senior members of the security and intelligence services did not know of the meeting chaired by the Prime Minister at 10 Downing street that was attended by Sir Robert Armstrong—and probably by the Home Secretary—to discuss the statement that the Prime Minister should make on publication of "Their Trade is Treachery". That meeting had been preceded by a decision not to seek an ex-parte injunction to prevent publication of the book "Their Trade is Treachery". That decision was based on an examination by the Government of the page proofs that Sir Robert Armstrong saw on or before 12 February 1981. Did Sir Robert ask where the page proofs had come from? Did he believe that they had been stolen? And why was he not told that they had been given to the security and intelligence services?
  That is a classic example of secrecy within the Government machine preventing serious and sensible decisions. We have that farce. The old boy network still operates. That informal mechanism for clearing a book in those circumstances has been used before. The trouble is that the old boy network excluded the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Armstrong and, presumably, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. That raises serious questions. Who did know? What did senior officials in the security and intelligence services know about it? It is clear that they wanted Sir Roger Hollis to be named in that way. Why did they let that book out? They must have known that the source of Chapman Pincher's information was Peter Wright.
  A good book has been written about the ABC trial called, "Ferrets not Skunks". There are some ferrets and some skunks. Peter Wright is a skunk. Let us not mince our words. He is no hero. It is outrageous that everyone seems to want to publish every petty piece of gossip from anyone who has ever worked in the security services, as if

  599
  there is some honour about it. It is an outrageous breach of honour. We cannot legislate for honour, but at least let us put some legislation on the statute book which provides some way of getting to grips with this serious and massive problem.
  The problem is no longer what to do about "Spycatcher". That book has long been in the public domain and everyone has copies of it. If the House had a proper scrutiny of the security and intelligence services, we would be examining why the security and intelligence services, who are paid effectively and directly by us, did not tell their responsible Ministers about what was happening. Are they still holding office, or have they been sacked, as they should have been? It is an outrage that nobody seems to have discovered the evidence that Sir Robert Armstrong gave in the courts a few months ago. That is far more serious than anything that came from New South Wales. It reveals that the security and intelligence services are not even telling the Prime Minister about what is happening. I do not believe that that can be tolerated any longer.
  The House has been totally excluded from any form of scrutiny of the intelligence and security services. In the debate that was instituted on these Benches the Home Secretary seemed to be more open-minded about the question of scrutiny. He wanted time to take it away and look at it. It is high time that he came back to the House with detailed proposals.
  Mr.Dalyell rose——
  Dr. Owen: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I will not give way.
  It is high time we grappled with the absurdity of the Official Secrets Act. It is pretty pointless making party political points on both sides of the House. We have all failed to carry out our responsibilities in Government. It is now time for the House of Commons to take this issue on, and today is the day. Today is the day, above all, because we are debating a private Member's Bill and all hon. Members can say goodbye to the Whips. It is a day when the Patronage Secretary can get stuffed, and that is what he should have done.
  12 noon
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the first non-Privy Councillor permitted to take part in the debate, may I start by saying that I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) very interesting. He said that it was time the Home Secretary took on board possible scrutiny of the security services. He will remember the rather pleasant four years that he and I spent on the old Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee. It met in private and, in a limited sense, performed the duties the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. The problem of the present Select Committee on Defence is that it meets in public and cannot, therefore, do the same sort of work as the Committee on which we served. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from the fact that the more that comes into the public domain in that way, the less one actually knows.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill should be allowed to proceed and that it should go into Committee. However, I think that his timing might have been a trifle awry. He said that, by the time the Government White
  600
  Paper was published, the Bill would be in the other place. I have a feeling that it might not have got as far as that. He said that he would then expect Government draftsmen to start changing the Bill dramatically in time for it to come back for the overspill Session. He knows from his ministerial experience, as I do from mine, that parliamentary draftsmen cannot work at that speed on something as complex as this. Therefore, whatever happens, this Bill will not get through in this Session. Therefore, we will be no worse off if we accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall explain why I think that we should do so.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) made a fascinating comment. He said that, if the Russians know about it, the British people can too. Has he never heard of double agents or disinformation? Does he not recall the story that was fed to the Germans about D day, the mock landing or Enigma? We cannot accept that simple statement. It is a very dangerous proposition.
  I am here not because there is a Whip but because I happen to believe that this is not the sort of Bill that a private Member should try to get through the House of Commons. That is in no way a reflection upon the integrity, common sense or motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The usual purpose of a private Member's Bill is to fill a gap in legislation. It is not to be, and has not been, a vehicle through which a private Member should start producing legislation that is complex and which interweaves with security right across the board. That is why I do not believe that this is the right way to do it.
  The other purpose of a private Member's Bill is to carry forward a vehicle in which the Government are interested. [Interruption.] This may be a matter that is causing some uneasiness. I am trying to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was not wrong to consider the concept, but a private Member's Bill is not the right way to deal with a subject such as this.
  Mr. Frank Cook rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  The Government cannot permit the Bill to proceed when they have said very firmly that they intend to produce a White Paper and to legislate.
  I wish to take up a point made by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who put forward an interesting proposition which is worth considering. The House may remember that there is a procedure for a Bill to have a Second Reading and then to go to a Special Standing Committee. When I was a junior Minister, that procedure was used for a mental health Bill. It provided an opportunity for a very close examination. But it has a drawback: it is time-limited. The Committee may have only a limited number of sittings, and it must report within a limited period.
  Perhaps we should consider the other concept put forward by Lord Renton when he was a Member of the House—the idea of providing an opportunity for the production of a White Paper, allied to a draft Bill—that is how the Law Commission works—and then referring it to a Select Committee. That might be the more practical way forward and would take up the points raised by the right hon. Members for Devonport and for Morley and

  601
  Leeds, South. That would provide the opportunity for everyone to give the evidence needed. It would give Parliament a chance to consider what the rights of Parliament were against the rights of the Executive. I put that thought into my right hon. Friend's mind to see whether he would like to consider it. That would still give us the opportunity to have the Act of Parliament in the next Session.
  Mr. MarlowMay I put the same point to my hon. Friend? What would be the disadvantage to the Government if the House, through a Standing Committee, could discuss and debate the issues in the Bill before the government come forward with their own proposals?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I would very much resent being a member of a Committee, sitting week after week and blocking the private Members' list, unless the Leader of the House opens up a second Committee, and, after three months or so, finding that all my work has been negated because there is a totally new Bill. I would rather proceed in the way suggested, because it is a more open way of proceeding.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a rather inflammatory statement last weekend. He said that he hoped that Conservative Members would have sufficient guts to come and vote for the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has a greater knowledge of guts than I have. Having listened to his speech, I know why it is apparently rumoured that he will no longer be a contributor to Punch.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman manages to find that comment inflammatory, but I hope that it has illuminated something for him. He seemed to be suggesting that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) had no right to introduce such a Bill. Is he really suggesting that there is any subject, or group of subjects, that we, as elected representatives of parliamentary constituencies, must consider to be outside our care or outside our specific, individual influence? If that is so, it is clearly running counter to any idea that I have ever had about representative parliamentary democracy.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because, clearly, there is a misunderstanding. I was trying to draw the distinction between a Bill and a discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, quite rightly, three times that we should discuss this matter. Clearly, I did not get my point over to the hon. Gentleman. I am entitled to my view, and my hon. Friend is entitled to his view. We may both be right, but, in my view, this is not an occasion for a private Member's Bill which requires such detailed legislation. The subject is different. One may have debates willy-nilly, and as often as one wants.
  I wonder why there is such sudden interest in the subject. We knew that there was a long gap. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South made the point that he was not able to proceed because the Liberals wanted too high a price to leave the Government in power to produce legislation. That is understandable and acceptable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the point that this
  602
  Government tried, but got their fingers burnt. A Bill is now two thirds of the way forward. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that there is a little uneasiness about the word "early". He may be following the convention that one must not anticipate the contents of the Gracious Speech. If that is what he says, we can accept the word "early".
  What is the Official Secrets Act? The trouble is that there is a blurring in the public mind and the media between sections 1 and 2. On taking office, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and I signed a document under the Official Secrets Act, which is binding lifelong. He and I have no right at our discretion to say that, in the national interest, we should reveal something that has come into our possession. If one does not accept that concept, one should not accept office. There is a duty in accepting office.
  During my period in office, particularly at the Department of Health and Social Security, more and more documents appeared in the public domain. Such documents were restricted or confidential. Copies appeared. They were not leaked, they were clearly stolen and, perhaps, sold to the press. There is a real danger. When they are considering ideas for policy, Ministers in effect play ping-pong. They bounce ideas to and fro to try to find out the facts and to determine reactions. If every concept were to appear in the public domain, Ministers would become much more wary about even putting ideas forward. Ministers may meet and discuss without the benefit of the knowledge and advice of the Civil Service. Such knowledge and advice are of enormous value. The overwhelming bulk of the Civil Service produces impartial advice on which Ministers can draw and test their opinions. That process is at risk if matters get into the public domain, unless something can be released because there is no further value in its being kept secret.
  I have one piece of advice for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I only wish that there might be a clause in a piece of legislation that would retrospectively cancel the pensions of those who break their oaths, whether they reside in the United Kingdom or in Australia.
  Where is the massive demand coming from? Let it be clear that it is not coming from our constituents. On average, I receive 60 letters a day. Hampstead and Highgate is a rather literate area. I have received five letters on this subject, two of which have come from journalists.
  I wonder whether we are not being pushed into believing that there is a demand for a major change that might go beyond the removal of the section that has worried us for a long time.
  In a debate about the press in another place this week, Lord Longford said:
  The popularity and credibility of the British press has never been at a lower ebb … Many of its employees behave routinely in a fashion more appropriate to wild beasts than professional writers … A significant portion of the tabloid press is wholeheartedly devoted to peddling fantasies, often malevolent ones."—[Official Report, House of Lords; Vol. 491, c. 1314.]
  We must be cautious before we give in to any sort of pressure.
  If we are to change something that has existed for over 60 years, slightly amended — at least one Government found it difficult to do so, and a second were rebuffed—

  603
  it would be sensible to wait a further three months for the White Paper. I shall certainly vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  12.16 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I shall support the Bill to prolong the debate—not that I think that the Bill goes anything like far enough.
  We have had an interesting debate and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) made a powerful case for the cancellation of Hansard, because if people were to read what was said here hon. Members might be nervous of speaking. Then when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) offered to go on the Committee I thought that that would be another little group that he could split into five parts.
  We have had a marvellous debate, but the House should be candid with the public, who will be reading Hansard, probably with some interest.
  Why are we having the debate? It is because certain public servants, for one reason or another and in many cases honourably, have spoke the truth on matters about which the Government did not want the truth to be known. Sarah Tisdall was betrayed by The Guardian, which is supposed to be a liberal newspaper, and served a sixth-month sentence. In my opinion, that woman was moved by conscience. Clive Ponting came out with information that was embarrassing to the then Secretary of State for Defence. Cathy Massiter said that people who were active in the peace movement were having their telephones tapped. We have also had the case of Peter Wright, and I shall return to him later. There was the 30-year rule on Windscale and the fire of 1957. The only leak that the Government are afraid of at Windscale is of information about what happens there. They do not mind radioactive leaks, but if information gets out it could be damaging to their nuclear policy.
  That latter point matters very much because as Secretary of State I received claims for compensation from people who died of leukaemia as a result of working at Windscale. As Secretary of State, I did not know that the Prime Minister of the day had suppressed information that would have been relevant to people who had a claim.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Mr. Ponting and the embarrassment that it might have caused the Government. When I was head of the Overseas Information Department and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was Foreign Secretary, information came across my desk many times that would have been deeply embarrassing to the Government if I had published it or used the Ponting method. For example, the conduct of the then economic policy of this country. Would the right hon. Gentleman have approved of my leaking that information?
  Mr. Benn: I am talking about people who were motivated by conscience to reveal what they thought should be in the public domain. I am not arguing about other examples—that information would have come up if something had happened.
  An interesting factor in the debate is the way in which alliances have run. As the right hon. Member for Devonport said, this is not a party matter. We have seen an alliance of former Home Secretaries—who have been
  604
  involved to some extent and who do not want the degree of freedom of information that, on the whole, the public want, even if they do not write to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate about it. The public are not fools. They have watched Colonel Oliver North being grilled before the American Senate under what I would call the 30-minute rule, whereby the news comes out as soon as the event has occurred. Here it is concealed. People want to know more about what. Government do. Of course they do. Why else was there such a struggle to elect people to Parliament in the first place?
  I must say one thing for the Government: I understand why they have a three-line Whip. I understand why they sent Sir Robert Armstrong to Australia and ruined the end of his Civil Service life. I understand why they brought injunctions against the newspapers. The Government do not want what the security services are doing in Britain to come out. There is no point in saying that the Government have been silly and absurd and made people look ridiculous. In a limited way I can confirm, from my knowledge as a Minister in a Government whom Peter Wright tried to destabilise, what he said happened. Who benefited? The Conservative party. That is why the Prime Minister defends MI5. It helped to get rid of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I have evidence of that as well. The right hon. Gentleman must know—this appears to have come out of the Cavendish Christmas card, which I have not read because I am not on his mailing list—that efforts were made to discredit him as leader of the Conservative party. I have evidence of some of the reasons.
  Of course the Prime Minister does not want to bring to light the process by which Wilson was removed and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup discredited. MI5 is still doing it. Does anyone think that it ended when Peter Wright resigned? MI5 is still discrediting people whom it regards as acting contrary to the national interest, as MI5 defines that national interest. Does anyone think that the fabrication of false information and its publication in the foreign press ended when the Labour Government left office? Of course it did not. It still continues. That is what the three-line Whip and the threats in the press are about. Any Conservative Member who wonders how such a nice Government could do such a horrid thing had better think about the reality behind the argument.
  Then we come to this marvellous principle about confidentiality — whatever one's position in the public service, until one dies everything learnt while there must remain secret. The whole idea is absurd. The hallelujah chorus does not rely on press releases; it relies on Bernard Ingham, who is paid to issue confidential information daily to benefit the Prime Minister. Whatever damage Clive Ponting did to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was nothing compared with the damage done to the right hon. Gentleman by Bernard Ingham on the Prime Minister's instructions. A Prime Minister who talks about keeping everything secret but who, using a civil servant, pumps out secret papers to get rid of a Cabinet colleague is an absolute disgrace.
  There has always been a highly selective leaking of confidential information. I must confess that I have rather less sympathy than perhaps I should with all the pompous editorials about the freedom of the press. The warnings about what the security services have been doing in Britain have been given time and time again over the years by my

  605
  hon. Friends. But when we said it, those editors said it was the paranoid Left talking about those wicked "conspiracies."
  But when there is interference with the papers' right to publish what they want on a Sunday they are on their high horses and talking about the need for a free press. They know what we ought to tell the public through Hansard today: government is lubricated by the selective leaking and briefing that go on all the time. Therefore, it is in the interests of the press to support the wider question.
  I did not quite understand the allusion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to Chapman Pincher; perhaps he will explain it later. My right hon. Friend thought that Chapman Pincher should be prosecuted. Chapman Pincher has been the press officer for the Right wing of MI5 for years.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: He admitted it.
  Mr. Benn: I do not know whether he admitted it, but it makes no difference to what is happening. We all know what is going on. The service is being protected on the basis of confidentiality.
  I shall now deal with the legitimate questions that the House should discuss when this matter arises. Who wants to know the individual secrets? But the question of what is and should be secret is a policy matter. For example, on defence, everyone accepts that one does not want to let out information about the performance of one's latest aircraft or missile, but the policy of the Ministry of Defence is a matter of public concern. It is the same with commercial information. No one wants to make available to our competitors abroad information that could damage British industry. Nobody thinks that the Budget should be announced by the Financial Times the day before— except Hugh Dalton, who had a little arrangement with the London Evening Standard, which managed to get the information out a little earlier than Hansard. Everyone accepts that if one leaks one's intention to devalue the day before, one has devalued from the moment of the leak. No one thinks that personal information should be available, although the Government have never answered the point that MI5 is wired into the Department of Health and Social Security computer in Newcastle. Personal information is made available to the security services, but the Government wish to conceal that.
  It is for Parliament to decide the categories of secrecy. For my part, I do not want to know any of the secrets that the security services know, if those secrets would impinge upon national security. If one hears that there is to be a bomb attack tomorrow, one does not want Parliament to discuss it today because that means that one can do nothing about it. However, the security services are part of the defence of the nation. We know the identity of the chiefs of staff and we should always know who are the heads of the security services. We know the defence budget ; we should know the security services budget and we should certainly know and discuss and decide who is a legitimate target for surveillance. In the Prime Minister's view, it is the "enemy within". Anyone who takes a view contrary to hers in industrial matters is now undoubtedly the subject of inquiry by the security services.
  In the end, those who work in the security services have to rely on their consciences. It is very important for us to
  606
  say, and for every generation to repeat, that conscience is above the law because the law is man made. Whether at the time of Nuremburg or long before or today, people are sometimes so deeply moved by what they think is being done secretly that they are prepared to break the law and take the consequences, as Sarah Tisdall did. That is the foundation of the liberties of the people of this country and it has to be said.
  The underlying question is, "What is the real issue?" As has emerged from the debate, it is the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. What are the powers that Prime Ministers use—be they this Prime Minister or the other Prime Ministers to whom I shall come in a moment? The powers of the Royal Prerogative, are abused by Prime Ministers to preserve the security services from public scrutiny. Ministers are appointed by the prerogative, as are the heads of the security services. The security services have the power to bug and burgle under the prerogative, just as the Postmaster General had the power to open letters under the prerogative. With that power, the Prime Minister decides on classification, defines security —through her Ministers — prosecutes, or orders injunctions, appoints the judges and then appoints the chairman of the BBC to ensure that there is no public discussion of matters that she does not want to be discussed.
  The BBC is supposed to be an independent agent. When its programme on the security services was banned, it should have broadcast 45 minutes of silence, punctuated by a statement that the Government had banned the programme. Through the powers of patronage, the Prime Minister has reduced the BBC to a crawling, creeping servant of Government policy. She has followed that today with a three-line Whip designed to do to Tory Members what she has done to the BBC.
  To be fair, I should say that all Prime Ministers have been the same. In case hon. Members cannot wait for it to appear in my diaries, I should tell the House that James Callaghan was passionately opposed to a Freedom of Information Act. He loathed the idea of anyone knowing anything. There was a hint of memories of the armalite coming from the recesses of the mind during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South. No Executive wants Parliament, the public or the press to criticise it effectively. People should also think carefully about the deafening silence from Wilson and Callaghan on the revelations in Peter Wright's book—
  Mr. Martin Flannery: And on Chevaline.
  Mr. Benn: There were other matters, too. The most important matter is the relationship between Prime Ministers and the security services. We do not know whether Prime Ministers know too much about the security services, or whether the security services know too much about Prime Ministers, but neither position is satisfactory.
  I understand why the Government believe that, but I do not understand why Parliament accepts it. Today, we have the power, if we choose, to carry this Bill into Committee — no more than that. Not even the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who introduced the Bill with a lucid speech, honestly believes that he will get it through with the entrenched power of the Premier against him. After all, the final reserves of

  607
  prerogative power of any Prime Minister is the witholding of honours from Tory Members who do not vote according to a three-line Whip. Peerages do not come so easily to those who have been difficult. I warn Conservative Members who might be influenced by the arguments that I understand they may not be invited to the royal garden parties if they are a bit rebellious.
  But the House has the power to enforce its will today. By enforcing its will, it will not be endorsing the Act that would emerge from this Bill, but enforcing the right to debate the central questions at greater length. I have been in this place for far too long for my good, although that has been compensated for by the benefit which the House has received from my sacrifice. I did not think that I would live to be a Member of Parliament where clerks are vetted, research assistants are vetted, members of the press are vetted, Members are vetted and Mr. Speaker receives a briefing on behaviour from the Serjeant-at-Arms. I did not think that I would live to serve in a Parliament vetted by Government. We were elected by the people to check and control the Government. Until we get that right, we cannot complain if we continue to have the problems from which we have suffered in recent years.
  12.34 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: Let me join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the Bill that he has introduced today, and also on the way in which he has presented it. It displays a workmanship that is thorough, detailed and worthy of admiration. I therefore regret all the more that the Government have introduced an entirely separate question which, certainly in the press and probably in the rest of the media, detracts from the debate that we are having here on what is a central issue in modern politics : the display of information.
  By decreeing a three-line Whip today, the Government are challenging the whole basis of private Members' time. This is the first occasion that anyone can recall, or find in history, on which a Whip of this kind has been issued. Having been a Whip for eight years, and Chief Whip for four of them, I remember well that we always set out to respect private Members' time — simply because the pressure of private Members on us was so great. That seems to have changed today. In that regard, I find myself in some sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has been saying.
  If we allow this to pass today, it will be cited in future by the Government as a satisfactory precedent for imposing three-line Whips on private Members' debates and legislation. That is entirely unacceptable, to me at any rate and, I hope, to the great majority of my colleagues on the Back Benches.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used a phrase that I used just before him on the radio this morning: that it is not for a Government to decide issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that the Government could not permit the Bill to be passed today. There is no question of the Government permitting or not permitting a Bill to go through: it is the House that does that. But my hon. Friend's words epitomise the attitude that the Government have only to decree something for it to happen.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that it was for the Government to propose and for the House to
  608
  decide. That is quite correct. What he did not say was that, on a private Members' day, it is for private Members to propose as well as for the House to decide. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was entirely right to propose a Bill of this kind, to which he attaches the greatest possible importance.
  Like my hon. Friend, I regret that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was not able to deal with particular issues, and to say which of them he regarded as going in the right direction and which he would like to change. We shall accept my right hon. Friend's view that he is not in a position even to say that. However, let me tell him, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip that, if a three-line Whip had not been imposed, they would have stood an infinitely greater chance of persuading us to tell my hon. Friend that—in view of the commitment to deal with the matter in June with a Bill in the next Session of Parliament — it might be best, after a full debate, to withdraw the Bill. However, the imposition of the Whip is a challenge to all of us to say, "Of, course we shall not ask you to withdraw the Bill. We shall not try to defeat it; we shall support it."
  I believe that today's debate is valuable as well as important. It is said that the issue is very complex, and that we are such simple people that we cannot possibly deal with it; only the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary can do that. However, let me point out that, on the Floor of the House, there are many more people who have had to handle security matters, from the highest level downwards, than there are in the Cabinet or among junior Ministers. Those with any experience of such matters can now be numbered on fewer than the fingers on one hand. It is in the House that we can make a contribution, and, therefore, a debate in Committee would be extremely valuable. The timetable has been described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
  If the matter had been looked at from a rather different viewpoint, a more acceptable solution might have been found. It is said that my hon. Friend was told early on that the Government were going to carry out this programme, but I can find no trace of that in the correspondence that has passed. I have not handed that correspondence to the press or to anyone else, although it is not particularly secret or confidential.
  There is no trace there of either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary saying, "We give you this assurance that the Government are so far advanced with their plans that the White Paper will be published in June and there will be a Bill in the next session, so perhaps you might like to take some other subject." Firm undertakings have now been given. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friends will be able to carry them out. I have had some experience of dealing with this subject in a White Paper and legislation, and I know what the difficulties are.
  Another possible arrangement, although it is too late for it now, would have been the procedure which was followed in, I think, 1952 or 1953, when we had to reform the Army Act. Instead of going through the normal procedure, we set up a special Committee. I recall that Sir Patrick Spens was the chairman. All parties took part, and the sole purpose was to make agreed recommendations on what the new Army Act should be. It worked extraordinarily well. The result was that the Government felt able to accept all the recommendations without controversy. The matter came to the House and the Bill

  609
  passed through quickly. If we had gone through the other processes, the Bill would have gone on for endless nights and we might never have reached an agreed solution. That is another means of dealing with a situation such as this if it is approached with the right attitude at the right time.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and for Chesterfield dealt at considerable length, based on their own knowledge, with what is essentially the internal control of the security services. I am the first to agree that this is a matter of vital importance, particularly because of some of the information that has emerged in the past two or three years. It is not, however, covered by the Act which is being amended, or by the Bill. It is an entirely separate issue which deserves serious consideration by the House.
  We are in an extremely silly position — we do not even admit the existence of the security services. There is no such thing as MI5 or MI6. There is no budget for them, because the House never discusses them. What a contrast that is with the United States. One year ago, I was asked to take part in a television programme in Washington. Sitting on one side of me was the head of the Central Intelligence Agency and on the other side was the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were both fully known, they both fully accepted their position, and they answered questions from us and the press. That is at least realistic.
  As for control, I am still not absolutely convinced that the House, or representatives of it, are capable of controlling the security services. From my discussions in Washington, it is apparent that neither the leaders of the press nor Congress are satisfied that they control the inner workings of the security services. I should have thought that it had emerged clearly from the Irangate hearings that they do not control the inner workings of the security services.
  Mr. Benn: Leaving aside parliamentary control, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, when he looks back on his experience, is he satisfied that there was adequate ministerial control of the security services when he was responsible for the Administration?
  Mr. Heath: As far as I know, yes, because that was one of the matters on which I took a firm stand. I instituted machinery which dealt with these aspects. I have always believed that there must be severe limitations on the work of the security services internally, to say nothing of their activities overseas. I am perfectly prepared to consider any evidence which may be brought forward suggesting that that was not the case. So far, I have not seen any. From 1970 to early 1974, I believe that control was firm through the institution that I had established.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the right hon. Gentleman made a telephone call to a solicitor acting for Mr. Colin Wallace about developments which took place during that period in relation to him?
  Mr. Heath: My solicitor? What is his name supposed to be?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Acting for Mr. Colin Wallace.
  Mr. Heath: No. I shall look up my telephone account.
  This is a separate question of the inner control of the security services. Secondly, we come to the question of
  610
  clause 1 of the existing Act, which must be enforced—although, as we realise full well, we are not always effective in achieving our aims by it.
  The third part is the question of information and clause 2 of the existing Act. As has already been mentioned, in the election manifesto of 1970 I pledged the party to eliminate unnecessary secrecy concerning the workings of Government and the operation of the Official Secrets Act. We put that in hand immediately by establishing the Franks committee in the spring of 1971. It reported in 1972. We then had discussions preparatory to introducing a Bill in 1974 if we had been re-elected. Those discussions were not especially helpful.
  I invited the editors of all the press to No. 10 to discuss with them the Franks report and the way in which we could amend section 2 to meet the need for an open society and a free press, while at the same time safeguarding such national interests as were natural. I am afraid that the only reply that I received was that section 2 should be wiped out, nothing should be put in its place and everybody should be free to publish everything, except what came under section 1. That was not acceptable to us. Indeed, I do not think it would be acceptable to any Government, or to the House of Commons. However, that is as far as we got in those discussions, which I regarded as important.
  On the second part, to eliminate unnecessary secrecy concerning the workings of Government, I believe that this is where we have all failed to move into the present decade. I asked Sir Donald Maitland, my press officer, to discuss with the lobby the abolition of the lobby. I have always regarded the lobby as a pernicious system, and still do. The only way in which we shall achieve open discussion is by abolishing the lobby system and by the press having access to officials and Ministers and having to declare, and being able and free to declare to whom they have spoken and what people have said. Of course, that idea met enormous resistance from the lobby, which obstructed it — or rather it flatly said that it would not accept abolition. We had not reached the stage of finally saying, "You are abolished."
  I had open conferences on the two main measures for incomes policy, which were by open invitation to the world's press. The lobby reaction was, "We shall not come." However, when its members found that the world's press was there, they said, "Yes, we shall come but we shall not ask any questions." However, when they were there and the world's press were asking questions, their resistance slowly ebbed and those journalists jumped up to ask questions.
  I am absolutely convinced that the abolition of the lobby is the answer to the question of handling information. After all, it is only trying to maintain the situation in which, initially, Parliament was never reported but now it is reported only by the lobby, with its own selection and its own juicy bits — [AN HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman is upsetting them."] I am not aware of upsetting the lobby. That is not quite so necessary for me as—[Laughter.] This is a serious point.
  My next point relates to our position in Parliament, in connection with Government and Whitehall. The United States' constitutional system has many disadvantages, which have become more and more apparent, especially the difficulty of obtaining a suitable President. But it has one advantage, that Congress is not beholden to the President. It is not beholden to the Administration in any

  611
  way. Therefore, its debates are free and it searches out its information from every quarter. It has a statutory right to that information, as individuals as as well as a whole.
  Irangate has been mentioned. In a similar situation, can one imagine an Irangate inquiry here? Not for one moment—not carried out openly, in front of television, with officials being made to answer and people not being told by the Prime Minister, "No, you can't have him. You'll have Sir somebody or other or Lord somebody or other because he is my choice." That would not happen. There is a difference between the American open system, with all its faults, and our system. That is what I believe we must move on to.
  One aspect of the matter is the 30-year rule, which has also been mentioned. I confess that I did not see the relevance of either the question or the answer yesterday afternoon to the Prime Minister as to whether it was true that Hugh Gaitskell's file had been suppressed under the 30-year rule. We are now in 1988, and if we go back 30 years that takes us back to 1958. Hugh Gaitskell did not die until 1961. The Prime Minister said that everybody in the House would understand the reasons. I confess that I am so ignorant and uneducated that I do not understand the reasons, on any point. Perhaps there is a reason, in which case I should like to know it.
  Soon after I became Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister, now Lord Wilson, said to me that his view was that the 50-year rule was far too long and asked whether I agreed. I said that, personally, I did, but I had to consult my predecessors, Sir Anthony Eden and Mr. Harold Macmillan, about their views before I gave him a substantive answer. I discussed the matter with both of them and they agreed with me that it was better to come down to 30 years. The Prime Minister decided that there would be a 30-year rule, with exemptions, not a 50-year rule. I now believe that it should be changed this time. Perhaps with advancing service in the House, I am beginning to realise that there is a period of history in which I moved, about which I shall never know the truth. I find that disconcerting and, to say the least, worrying. I therefore believe that, in so far as we move into much more open information, the 30-year rule should come down.
  What has emerged about our own nuclear or atomic problems must make one or two people think again about the harsh words that they uttered over Chernobyl. It is not only such societies that do not give immediate answers to questions. It has taken the House 30 years to get an answer to questions. Therefore, in future we might be a little more careful about our own attitudes towards the problems of those outside these shores.
  I shall support the Bill because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has produced a workmanlike job and we can benefit by having further discussions in Committee. I want to establish firmly that the Government cannot issue a three-line Whip on a private Members' day.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on this matter at the end of his speech. Legislation can do only a certain amount. It cannot deal with the whole problem. The problem is that of people. To talk about silence for life is not realistic for people. They say that, by the time they have retired, those things are just history. Other people have written about them — Ministers and Prime Ministers have all written about them. Journalists to whom others have talked have all written about them.
  612
  Those people ask why they are in that exceptional position. It is a matter of people's feelings and their views about their lives.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend has good reason to know that I have just started reading the Colville diaries. The first thing that I read was that he was not entitled to keep a diary. Is that not a good illustration of the point that my right hon. Friend is trying to make?
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has touched on a rather delicate question for those of us who are acquainted with the matter. It was always understood that Sir John gave an undertaking to the other private secretaries that diaries would not be published. Indeed, a large number of such very delicate situations still exist.
  We are dealing with people, and it is the choice of people that matters. In the inner control of the security services, the first point to remember is the selection of people and their admission to them. They contain some admirable people. Unfortunately, I have had to disappoint some of them. They came to me and spoke about some of their great achievements. I said, "Admirable; you have done very well and produced great advantage for the nation." "We can popularise and publish them, can't we?" they asked. "No," I said, "I am sorry, but you cannot. No one is to hear a word about them. They are your achievements and you must be satisfied with that and keep them within the security service."
  However, I also met people in the security services who talked the most ridiculous nonsense and whose whole philosophy was ridiculous nonsense. If some of them were on a tube and saw someone reading the Daily Mirror, they would say, "Get after him, that is dangerous. We must find out where he bought it."
  The second point about people is that we must treat our public servants well. Many harsh words have been said about Mr. Wright. I must confess that I have not read his book. A friend of mine in America sent me a copy by special messenger as soon as it was published, but I was told that I should not read it. I was also told that if my housekeeper wanted to stand by the fire and read it to me, that would be all right. I have not run any risks from the security services or anyone else by reading that book.
  There was a stage when Mr. Wright felt that, having given years of hard service faithfully, he was not well treated. My judgment is general—that one must look after one's public servants properly. With the country in its present state, the morale of the public service is low in almost every sphere, and it must be raised. That can be done only by looking after our public servants properly and by showing them that we respect their work. Some of them may occasionally go wrong, but the number is minute compared with other countries.
  I support new legislation in this area, and the Bill is well on the way to providing that. I do not doubt that other matters must be considered—for example, whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is qualified to take decisions. All such issues can be argued, and that is where the complexity lies; it does not lie in the principles of greater information and security for the nation that we are trying to achieve. Such principles are clear and the complexities lie in the machinery for achieving them. That is where this House can contribute a great deal. Above all, we must always remember that the final answer will rest with people, and will turn on our relationships with them.
  12.58 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) referred to the principals of the CIA and the FBI sitting shoulder to shoulder with him on television. Together with many dozens of other people, I was shown around the White House by a gentleman who described himself as "Wilbur C. Eisenstein of the US secret service uniform branch". That is another example of the different attitude of regimes in other countries.
  As a humble Back Bencher, I want to commend the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his determination and courage in bringing this Bill before the House. I commend him also for the manner of his presentation today. He was very erudite and good-humoured. I contrast that with the discomfort displayed by the Home Secretary with whom I have great sympathy. In allowing himself to strike the posture that he has shown today, he has created a "knight's fork" for himself later this year. Clearly, he will have difficulty delivering if the Government's attitudes remain the same as they have been over the past two or three years. The Home Secretary is offering assurances that all will be well come June, yet those assurances are offered by a Government who have already behaved badly in the Tisdall case and are now behaving in a quite cretinous fashion over the issues of Cavendish, Wright and Duncan Campbell.
  My right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) referred to Windscale and the 30-year rule. It is true that we now know that certain matters were kept out of the public eye 30 years ago. Those matters have now been released under the rule. However, we also know that three areas of that issue are still kept secret by the Government today. At least one of those could have a direct bearing on any medical assessment of the biological effects on the Windscale community and those immediately adjacent to it.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) asked where the pressure was coming from for the measures that we are considering today. He said that the pressure was not coming from the constituents. How on earth can we expect constituents to apply pressure on matters about which they are kept ignorant? People cannot apply pressure about something until they know that a situation exists. Once again we must commend the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for bringing the proposal forward today.
  I do not intend to deal in detail with the proposals as I want to be brief. Hon. Members who have spoken, and others who wish to speak, are wiser, more experienced and certainly more eloquent than I can ever be. I take heed of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) who counselled the Government to take a careful look at the 17th century. We are not talking about anything new today. As we have already heard, all Governments have readily been anxious to keep secrets. To highlight that, I want to refer briefly to William Fordyce's "The History and Antiques of the County Palatine of Durham Volume 2" published in 1857. It has been in the Library for some time. It states:
  "The Speaker has issued a warrant against the printers of the Gazetteer and the Middlesex Journal, two of the papers of the day, on a charge of misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House."—
  614
  the House of Commons.
  "As the printers refused to appear at the bar, a royal proclamation was issued for their apprehension, and they were brought before Alderman Wilkes and Oliver, by whom they were not only discharged, but bound over to prosecute the person who made the capture."
  So the two aldermen were charged to prosecute the decision of Parliament, but refused to do that and asked the victims to prosecute the person pursuing them.
  "Mr. Miller, printer of the London Evening Post, had likewise been taken into custody by a messenger from the house on a similar charge … The sarjeant-at-arms consequently attended at the Mansion House, to demand the bodies of both printers and publisher; but as he had not applied to a magistrate to back the warrant, or to any peace officer of the city to assist him, his lordship informed him `that as long as he held the office of lord mayor, he was the guardian of his fellow citizens' liberties, and that no power on earth should seize a citizen of London without authority from him or some other magistrates of the franchise'. He accordingly declared Miller at liberty, made out a warrant to commit the messenger for an assault and false imprisonment."
  That is an example of Parliament at that time being thought to be exceeding its responsibilities. Perhaps we can see some similarities today. It goes on to say:
  "The House of Commons was indignant at this defiance of its authority and ordered the Lord Mayor and the Alderman Oliver to attend in their places (together with Alderman Wilkes)".
  It would appear that when they appeared before the Bar there must have been a three-line Whip in operation. The archives tell us that on a Division of 282 to 39 the Lord Mayor was committed to the custody of the lieutenant of the Tower and was imprisoned, together with the two others.
  The result of that imposition of a three-line Whip, much later on, was that
  "The excitement out of doors was very great."
  The committal and imprisonment of the Lord Mayor of London was felt to be an event of peculiar and extraordinary importance—so much so that when they were committed to the Tower, to the people of London picketed this place. That must have been one of the original lobbies. When the Lord Mayor was taken from here by the Deputy Serjeant at Arms for incarceration in the Tower, the crowd removed the horses from the coach and drew the coach themselves, by manpower, to the gates of the City and ordered its contents to disembark. The Lord Mayor and aldermen—
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I am falling asleep.
  Mr. Cook: I am giving the House a history lesson. If you care to sleep—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am very wide awake.
  Mr. Cook: I was not referring to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When the crowd had ordered the travellers in the coach to disembark on the way to the Tower, the Lord Mayor had to protect the Deputy Serjeant at Arms by assuring the crowd that a friend was simply taking him home for a cup of Horlicks before he went to bed. The Lord Mayor spent the evening not in the Tower, to where he had been dispatched, but in the Mansion House and had to walk along to the Tower quietly the next day and turn himself over. It said:
  "He was … honoured with the freedom of the city of Worcester, and of the town of Bedford"—
  I hope that hon. Members are taking note of these places—

  615
  "and addresses were forwarded from the counties of Carmarthen, Pembroke, and Cardigan, the towns of Newcastle, Stratford and Honiton, the common councils of every ward in London and many patriotic clubs."
  The decision to release the Lord Mayor was popular and the decision to incarcerate the Lord Mayor for defending the freedom of publication of the proceedings of the House was very unpopular.
  He remained in prison until the prorogation of Parliament. When the Lord Mayor left the Tower there was a 21-gun salute from the members of the Honourable Artillery Company and 53 carriages followed him in his train to celebrate, and there were loud huzzas. It continued:
  "The feeling of the nation was unequivocally shown on the occasion; and the fact that, since that period, the proceedings and debates in Parliament have been regularly printed and published, which before they were not, is sufficient to secure — the gratitude of prosperity as well as the plaudits of his contemporaries."
  I do not apologise for reporting that with some degree of pride. The person responsible for all that was Brass Crosby, Lord Mayor of London, Alderman and Member of Parliament for Honiton but born and bred of parents in Stockton-on-Tees of a mother born and bred in Blackhall, county Durham.
  In the spirit of that time and of some efforts since, and in the spirit that is true of the north-east and other areas of the country, that freedom of access to information and freedom of comment that is supposed to be an inalienable right within this country, we should resist the ill-timed and misplaced efforts of the Government to seek to defend in a poor and frail fashion the mistakes they have made in the past two years. I, together with many of my hon. Friends, will gladly be supporting the private proposals of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills by going through the Lobby with him.
  1.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: The first point that seems evident from the comments of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber is the near-universal praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his introduction of the Bill, the way in which he did that and the thoroughness with which he addressed the entire exercise. Nobody has sought to question that, and I should like to add my words of admiration for all that is involved therein.
  I take a slightly different view from some hon. Members who have spoken about the scale of the achievement of my hon. Friend. He can argue that he faces a three-line Whip from the Government and that in the way of things the chances have to be that the Government will secure their will. However, I do not see that as a defeat for my hon. Friend, but a remarkable personal victory. I take the view that, however the coincidences may have worked out, the initiative of my hon. Friend and the fact that he pursued his determination to the point at which he introduced his Bill cannot be dissociated from the assurances that the Home Secretary has given that the Government intend to introduce their own legislation.
  During the course of the morning, we have ranged over fundamental constitutional issues as to whether this is a matter that should have been raised by a Back Bencher at all. I want to make my view absolutely clear. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is fully entitled, as a Member
  616
  of this House, to raise this matter. He has done an excellent job and it would be a constitutionally impossible approach to suggest that he did not have the right to raise such an issue.
  The second issue that flows from this is whether my hon. Friend was right to want the reform in the first place. That is no longer controversial. The Government have conceded that that is so. They began to consider reform in 1979, and in earlier reincarnations they set up inquiries to precipitate such action. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right to want reform, as he is right to take the initiative to secure that reform. I believe that he has achieved a substantial personal victory, and I want to congratulate him on it.
  It has emerged over the past few months that my hon. Friend was not alone. Indeed, the Government had already begun the process of reform before my hon. Friend began his endeavours. While most of us were preoccupied with preparation for the general election campaign of 1979, the Government were preoccupied with preparing a new Official Secrets Act. If that was an official secret, it was one of the most effectively kept official secrets that I remember.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: This official secret emerged from its shroud in one of those constitutional coincidences that charm the sceptic some months later, and after my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills had made known his intention to proceed in this way.
  What cannot be ignored is that, however we interpret the history, my hon. Friend has secured a very full commitment from the Government. To him the credit; to him the victory. I very much hope that, whatever may happen in the Lobbies this afternoon, he will remember the scale of what he has achieved.
  My hon. Friend knows my views. In all the circumstances and for all the reasons that I shall try to explain, I hope that he will content himself with that achievement for the time being. In practical terms, it is apparent that the Government cannot stand back from this legislation. Those who have listened to the debate will have realised that the journey of this legislation, whether this Bill or the Government's Bill, will be no easier this time than it was in 1979.
  It is obvious what reforms the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) wants. He wants a regime wherein civil servants see it as a reasonable part of their approach to leak, sometimes publicly and sometimes covertly. He sees as a virtue the behaviour of Sarah Tisdall. He sees Clive Ponting as an example of a legitimate way in which civil servants should behave.
  I was close to the events which surrounded those two prosecutions. Everyone knows that Ministers are not themselves responsible for initiating those prosecutions. That is done by the Law Officers. If there is one memory which I shall always hold of those times, it is that the people who felt most strongly that they had been betrayed were not the Ministers, but the civil servants.
  If the views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield ever gain sway, the standards of the British Civil Service, who I happen to think are world leaders, will be destroyed, because they will become politicised. Of course, we know that many people in the Labour party have already begun the process in local government of recruiting people for their political views.
  Mr. Buchan rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: That is the logical step, if it is believed that what is today perceived as secret may be merely a stepping stone to public disclosure of ministerial dialogue. I have the highest regard for the British Civil Service and treasure the fact that a Minister could say more or less whatever he liked to civil servants. He could even make stupid mistakes in front of them and they would remain confident to him and would not abuse that trust.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: The day that one feels that, every time one is indiscreet or one makes an error of judgment or is plain wrong, it will be in the public domain, that day we shall recruit people who are politically loyal to us and we shall not have the wider discussion on which the proper government of the country depends.
  The idea that these issues will be easy to deal with or that, even with the eloquence of my hon. Friend, he would find it easy to steer private Member's legislation through the House on so complex a matter, does not stand up. It is the right of the House to insist, in the extreme, that it should be done. The most effective way, although not the only way, of doing so, is for the Government to proceed with the legislation because their rules, secrets, relationship to their civil servants and decisions about censorship are at the heart of the debate.
  The better way is for my right hon. Friends to conclude their deliberations, produce a White Paper, and then, in the light of the dialogue that will ensue, introduce a Bill for proper parliamentary consideration. It will have to proceed within the traditions of Government legislation, which means that the Government will use the whipping procedure to ensure progress. There will be no progress with the legislation unless there is access to the whipping mechanism. There are too many people whose views are irreconcilable. There are those who want to toughen the legislation to make more things open and available, and there are those who want to change the legislation to preserve greater secrecy. Such an irreconcilable position will be resolved only by the Government using their majority.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is all very well, on the assumption that Ministers are telling the truth. Moving on from the Ponting matter, what would the right hon. Gentleman say about the selectively leaked Law Officers' letter on Westland, of which he was the victim? Is not the central issue that Sir Brian Hayes, Sir Robert Armstrong—this is according to Sir Kenneth Clucas, not just to me—were put in an impossible position and therefore were forced to behave unethically?
  Mr. Heseltine: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simple. I shall say not a word more and withdraw not a word from what I have already said.
  The issue is whether the Home Secretary's offer should now be accepted. I do not think that I flatter my right hon. Friend when I say that if he, of all members of the Government, tells the House that there will be a White Paper that will lead to a Bill at an early date, that will be the case. I have not the slightest doubt that that is his intention. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills may say that it will not be the Bill that he has introduced. That will be the case. The Bill will be based upon the Government's assessment of how we should
  618
  introduce reform. It will not change the outcome. Even if the Government seek to amend my hon. Friend's legislation, as opposed to introducing their own different legislation, the end result will be that the Government will allow the passage only of legislation with which they agree.
  Although there is a time loss for my hon. Friend of what probably amounts to 12 months, that is the only loss that he is being asked to incur. There is another loss, of course. It has been referred to by many right hon. and hon. Members. It is the loss that is involved in the use of a three-line Whip to deny a private Member access to time in the House. That is a disgraceful decision. It should never have been taken.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The House recognises that the right hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience in government. I do not know whether he has ever introduced a private Member's Bill. In my limited experience, Government assurances on such matters have been worthless. In that case, if the right hon. Gentleman considers that there is little difference between the positions taken by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the Government, should he not urge the Government to withdraw the three-line Whip and table amendments as the Bill makes its way through both Houses?
  Mr. Heseltine: I accept the Home Secretary's assurances that he intends to deal with the matter, that deliberations are under way, and that the Government are not yet ready to conduct a proper debate. It is not in the best interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for there to be a procedure whereby the Government are not able to answer the questions that all members of the Committee will rightly put, clause by clause, about the Government's views. That would make a nonsense of an orderly Committee procedure.
  The use of a three-line Whip was a considerable misjudgment by the Government. It can do nothing but excite the arguments of those who regard the Government as authoritarian or stretch the loyalty of a significant number of supporters of the Government, in what will not be an easy parliamentary session. The warning that the House has given the Government on the issue of the three-line Whip is clear, and I hope that it will be recognised.
  The next step is a dilemma for all those who are supporters of the Government, and there is a particular issue for Conservative Members. The Government — rightly and, in almost every case, unavoidably — have pursued, through courts in Britain and overseas, a range of issues arising out of the existing Official Secrets Act. Looking at the options that faced Law Officers and Ministers, I do not see any easy alternatives to the steps that the Government took. If they had not taken the decisions to prosecute, which were often difficult and unattractive decisions, in virtually every case less attractive options would have flowed from their doing nothing. The Government were fully entitled, in the exercise of their legal judgment, to pursue the issues of the Official Secrets Act through the courts.
  The Government are still deeply immersed in that process. The issue for Conservative Members, faced with the mistake of a three-line Whip, is whether we should vote against the Government — in theory, overwhelm the Government — in a context of which the only message could be that we are anxious, dismayed or, even worse,

  619
  opposed to the steps that the Government have taken in upholding the existing Official Secrets Act. That message will flow directly if Back Benchers behind the Government overwhelm the Government's three-line Whip on this issue. That is the interpretation that would be placed on it.
  With the most profound admiration of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and with the clear view that the victory of today's deliberations is his and that of his colleagues—he is entitled to the credit — I hope that he will not proceed with the Bill. If he does, with the greatest reluctance, I shall support the Government in the Lobby this afternoon.
  1.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has expressed, with great eloquence, a point of view which he is entitled to hold. He has advanced a number of propositions that I would have been interested to hear debated in Standing Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman said that he does not want that debate to take place; he wants the matter to proceed in the Government's good time and on the Government's agenda. He does not want to see his hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) as an honest broker, he wants the Government to have control. I suspect that that is one of the matters of principle which are in dispute today.
  Yet the right hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed what was already apparent from the debate — the Bill gives expression to a real concern which transcends not only party divisions in the House, but the distinction between those who have held high office and those who glory in being professional Back Benchers.
  I should add my congratulations for the fair and balanced way in which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills introduced the Bill. He introduced a new expression into the political dictionary, which will be with us for many years. I hope that he will also introduce a new addition to the statute book.
  The debate has been a fair and balanced one. It is not always true that, outside the House, the debate between those who see the free flow of information as a vital part of democracy and those who prefer to see the truth dispensed economically has always been conducted in quite such moderate terms.
  The Government must have perceived this as a disastrous and damaging debate. There have been times when I have felt sorry for the Government. Today, my heart did not bleed for them because their difficulties are entirely of their own making. They must have known that no one believes that any Government are motivated purely by a concern for security. They are not necessarily as coldly rational as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said. Any Government know that the more the public learn about their activities, the more likely the Government are to be criticised. Anyway, if the public learn the facts, they might misunderstand them. The Government say, "It would all create alarm and despondency, so is it not better to keep it discreet?".
  It is not always a matter of the Government deliberately setting out to conceal what is discreditable. Among any elite, not least among Ministers and governmental officials, part of the tradition and culture that holds them together, part of what they have in common, is knowing what other people do not know. Letting in the uninitiated
  620
  is breaking the code in more senses than one. I remember, as will my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), that one of the witnesses to the Franks committee quoted the words of a permanent secretary in 1873 who said:
  "The unauthorised use of official information is the worst fault a civil servant can commit. It is on the same footing as cowardice by a soldier."
  That is the very nature of Government. The Home Secretary's valiant attempt to persuade the lambs to await the convenience of the lion was impressive. But surely he did not believe that we could have confidence in a Government with a record such as the one canvassed today. Even the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that, in deciding how far we trust the Government, we are entitled to take account of their relationship with the BBC, their attitudes towards the BBC's property and their use of injunctions to ensure that the people of this country, and only the people of this country, are kept from knowing what is available to every foreign secret service and what is on the bookstalls everywhere else in the world.
  Part of the picture is the way in which the Government have dealt with this debate. One can almost imagine a Government committee saying, "How will we deal with this? Let us have a three-line Whip. It will be unpopular, people will be horrified and it will break all the precedents, but we will ride it. Tell them that we will do something about it, only be careful not to tell them what we will do." That is the picture against which the House is asked to decide whether to await the Government's convenience and time before proceeding.
  Of course, there is another side to the picture—no picture is wholly one-sided. Not all of those who campaign for freedom of information are motivated solely by a quest for truth. A good scandal sells more newspapers than any dissertation on political principle. Of course the public's right to know is sometimes invoked in aid of a right to bombard the public with trivialities. As we all know, there is no better incentive to report and to seek information than the knowledge that someone finds it embarrassing. William Randolph Hearst used to tell his reporters:
  "News is what someone, somewhere, doesn't want reported: all the rest is advertisement."
  Two hundred years ago, Sheridan put words to that effect into the mouth of Mr. Puff, "If you really want to sell a book, you must get home two things about it: the first is that everybody is reading it; the second is that nobody ought to read it." The Government have learned the hard way in the case of "Spycatcher". As we have all said, we are all on the list, we hope, for the next injunction.
  The Government do not learn from history. I am old enough to remember when people who had never heard of D. H. Lawrence were queuing up at bookstalls to buy "Lady Chatterley's Lover". I suspect that many of them never read it.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: My right hon. and learned Friend bought one.
  Mr. Archer: I was given one.
  Mr. Buchan: Such is the effect of these actions that a friend of mine discovered that his son had hidden on the top shelf of the wardrobe an expurgated version of "Lady Chatterley's Lover."
  Mr. Archer: Presumably, he had arrived by it legally, which is even stranger.

  621
  The Bill must compromise, as any Bill must, between the secretive and the plain nosey. It also has to maintain a balance between the views of those who insist on dealing tidily with a group of related subjects in a package and those who would be happy for all the talk about the whole matter to run into the sand.
  There has been much common ground in this debate. It is common ground, for example, that some restrictions on free speech are inevitable, as the right of one individual to speak freely may conflict with the rights of other individuals. We need laws governing defamation, obscenity, contempt of court, breach of copyright and invasion of privacy and we need to safeguard the prevention and detection of crime. The present limits on any of those matters would be a suitable subject for debate. I can name about a dozen reports of commissions and committees that must be propping up rickety tables in Government Departments at this moment and which may never see the light of day again. It is easy to show that almost any of those topics has implications for all the others, including the subject that we are debating today.
  I remember when some of us thought that the best way to treat the reform of what was then called media law was to try to agree a package after a series of trade-offs. We now know better. We know that it would be an achievement to secure the most limited of reforms and that to wait for a comprehensive review would be to petrify matters as they stand for our lifetime.
  In any event, I am not sure that we ought to think of this as media law. The right that we are discussing is not primarily the right of the media. It is not even primarily the right of anyone else to disclose information. It is the right of the public to be informed. The right of the press to sell newspapers seems to me less important than the right of the electors to have before them the material on which they can make informed judgments. Indeed, what we seek to do may actually diminish the number of scandals on which the media can thrive. The knowledge that the public may discover what is happening as a matter of course may ensure that discreditable things do not happen. It was Mr. Justice Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court who said that sunshine was the best disinfectant.
  This is understandably and properly a modest Bill concentrating on a single topic—the freedom of official information—and its objectives are modest even within that topic. The Bill might have set about seeking to repeal the 61 other statutory provisions identified by the Franks committee which help to conceal official information. I was grateful to Penguin Books for directing me to an article in New Scientist by Jon Tinker in 1972. Jon Tinker analysed the veil of secrecy over the control of pollution. It transpired that the owners of a factory emptying cyanide into a river would face a maximum fine of £100 but that if the river inspector mentioned the results of his analysis—not to members of the press but to any member of the public — he would face up to three months' imprisonment. That is all of a pattern with the information—if we are to believe all that we hear—that an inquiry is proceeding into a leak of the report on foam-filled furniture. That report was not even classified at the time because everyone thought that it was a sensible plain warning about the danger to life. The United States has its Freedom of Information Act, its Privacy Act, its
  622
  "Government in the Sunshine Act" and its "Whistle-blowers (Civil Service Reform) Act". Sweden has a Freedom of the Press Act. Most countries have now made some attempt to solve the problem. The United Kingdom has section 26 of the Clean Air Act and section 59 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, which make it a criminal offence to disclose the fact that a criminal offence has been committed. We are still in the age of Ibsen's play "An Enemy of the People", in which the enemy was the man who was trying to warn the public of the danger.
  The Bill maintains a balance between the views of those who want no reform and those who will not settle for anything short of complete reform.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills recognised, properly, that the best must not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. We should not reject half a loaf because it is not a feast. Section 2 was the most obvious place to begin because it is indefensible. It is not only unjust; it is so unjust that juries will not convict anyone prosecuted under it. Juries have a strong instinct for what is fair and sensible — a proposition which some Opposition Members will put to the Government, in a different context, on Monday.
  The draftsmanship of the section is unique. In one sentence, it contains so many alternatives and disjunctives that the Franks committee calculated that it created more than 2,000 separate offences. I have tried to spell out one of the offences, leaving out the words which are not relevant to that offence, and I wonder whether anyone would have included the section if these words alone had been starkly in the original draft:
  If any person having in his possession … any … information … which he has obtained owing to his position as a person who holds office … under His Majesty"—
  that would mean a lift attendant in a block of Government offices who has discovered the colour of the wallpaper in the canteen—
  "communicates the … information to any person, other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it … that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
  It is clear that we are not discussing security. Security is irrelevant to the section.
  There are two genuine problems about security. When the Government invoke security as a reason for secrecy, how is the public to know that that is genuine? Few Governments have earned the unquestioning trust of the public, and if the Government say, "Not only can we not tell you the information, but we cannot even tell you why we cannot tell you, because that involves security, too," we have a problem. We could have an infinite regress: the Government cannot tell us why they cannot tell us why they cannot tell us, and so on ad infinitum. If the public are to have confidence that secrecy is directed to a genuine security problem, we need someone who can be trusted to adjudicate on whether the alleged security need is genuine.
  The second problem is that our security depends upon the reliability of the security services which, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) reminded us, do not even exist according to the statute book. We do not know whether the allegations made in "Spycatcher" and the other publications are true. My guess is that the problem lies less with controlling the security services than with their control over their members. I get the impression that every member of the security services has a little policy of his own. But not since the Napoleonic wars have the security services been the

  623
  subject of so much public disquiet, yet the Prime Minister loftily brushes aside the allegations about which we heard today and the calls, from many responsible quarters, for an investigation. After all, it is none of the public's business and she knows best.
  But none of that concerns section 2, because it is not about security. It was not even designed to protect security. The first draft of the Official Secrets Act 1889, on which section 2 was based, was headed the "Breach of Official Trust Bill". It said nothing about security. The Government of the day were compelled to include a public interest defence. During the spy scare of 1911, the House was very much involved in discussing the Parliament Bill and could give only half an hour to the entire Official Secrets Bill. They introduced a section that went much wider than the 1889 Act and which eliminated the public interest defence.
  Section 2 does not discriminate about the sort of information which it seeks to protect. It creates offences irrespective of whether the public would benefit from disclosure. It punishes someone for disclosing or possessing information, irrespective of whether the information is already publicly available, and it makes guilt or innocence dependent upon authorisation without specifying who can authorise what and how many people can authorise themselves.
  The Bill addresses itself specifically to those problems, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  1.44 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Let me begin, in common with many other hon. Members who have spoken on this important parliamentary occasion, with a genuinely warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). His speech amounted to a proposal for—in the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary — an effective, enforceable and reasonable Bill. Admittedly, my right hon. Friend claimed those words for his own, as yet non-existent, Bill, but, in my judgment, they apply admirably to the Bill presented today.
  My hon. Friend made a first-class speech. At least one part of it, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) suggested, might well pass into the lexicon of political terminology. He referred to the Hallelujah Chorus. It must be said, however, that the Hallelujah Chorus can sometimes be conducted in such a way as to produce music that is a long way from the dulcet tunes of George Frideric Handel. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on standing firm against some of the pressures imposed by the conductors of this Hallelujah Chorus.
  An insight into those pressures was revealed in a long article about my hon. Friend in The Independent on Saturday, 9 January, which contained the following remarkable paragraph:
  "Some of those involved in the current and unsuccessful attempts to persuade him to drop his latest crusade claim that they are beginning to doubt his personal balance and stability."
  Those of us who heard my hon. Friend put forward his lucid view of the Bill will feel that perhaps the most appropriate answer is to quote the remark of George II about General Wolfe:
  "Mad, is he? Then I hope he will bite some of my other generals."
  Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman quoted what was said in The Independent. Does he know whether it emanated, as usual, from the Prime Minister's press office?
  Mr. Aitken: With unattributable briefings, the authorship is always invisible. But what it means, in all seriousness — and this is why it was a disgraceful comment—is that the Torquemadas and the Flashmans of the administrative information spreaders have gone around saying that my hon. Friend is going mad. Although a joke can be made of that, it was a serious arid disreputable piece of briefing.
  The debate has two major themes: the contents of the Bill, and the issue of principle about the rights arid freedoms of Parliament and Back Benchers. I suspect that, in times to come, today's debate and the events that preceded it will be viewed as something of a watershed in the history of contemporary relationships between Parliament and the Executive.
  The lessons of history tell us that executive Governments from time to time get too big for their hoots. They trample too hard on the rights of individuals an .d parliamentarians, and must be halted in their tracks. The hon. Member who does the halting — in this instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—honours a long parliamentary tradition that stretches all the way back to John Hampden, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done this afternoon.
  I hoped that I would be called late, so that I could answer the criticisms made of the Bill. I have here a page which I was ready to fill up with answers to the serious criticisms made of the various clauses and the points made in them. My page is completely blank. The amazing element of today's debate is that there has been not a single serious criticism of the Bill's contents. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke so emolliently from the Dispatch Box that I suspect that, if someone met him at dead of night and said, "Psst! Are you really in favour of this Bill?" his answer would be yes. He could not find a single objection to put forward.
  The absence of any criticism of the Bill from any hon. Member who has spoken in the debate is, perhaps, the most telling measure of support. I suspect that, if we were to have a free vote, at least two thirds of the House would be willing to vote for the Bill. I therefore feel that it is hardly necessary to say anything about its contents, and I shall make only two brief points.
  First, as everyone has agreed, the Bill is serious and responsible. It narrows down the categories of information that need to be protected by the criminal law. It would, incidentally, probably make it easier for the Crown to obtain convictions against disloyal civil or Crown servants who breach their trust in matters of sensitive information. That is something that the prosecutors need.
  I am not a paid-up member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Attorney-Generals, but I sometimes feel that, under the Official Secrets Act, they have had an impossible job because of the uncertainty. The Bill would give prosecutors, or those thinking of breaching the law, much more certainty.
  I should like to put down a marker for the Home Secretary's invisible, non-existent Bill of the future. It concerns reviewing a ministerial certificate, or the Minister's fear that an offence has been committed. We cannot have absolute offences. We cannot have crimes committed just because a Minister says so. One of the

  625
  things which worried me about the 1979 legislation was the fact that a Minister could just certify that a serious breach of secrecy had occurred. There was no way in which to challenge it.
  One of my hon. Friend's most important proposals is the introduction of a review by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This is not a brilliant innovation, although I commend it. It has its genesis in what Lord Havers committed the Opposition, as we then were, to on 15 June 1978. I hope that Home Office Ministers will look up what was said then. Many good reasons were given, but basically they amounted to a proposition with which few would disagree. It was that a Minister should not be judge and jury in his own court and that there therefore had to be some form of independent review. My hon. Friend suggests the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Lord Havers suggested a Law Lord accompanied by two Privy Councillors. A mechanism for review is vital.
  I should like to give a personal example of how necessary it is to have an independent check on Ministers' assertions that a secret has been breached. Seventeen years ago this month, I was sitting not on these comfortable green baize Benches, but rather uncomfortably in the dock of the Old Bailey with the editor of the Sunday Telegraph, being tried for an offence which was alleged to have been committed under section 2. The Crown opened its case in dramatic tones saying that "major military secrets" had been revealed. That statement was made by the prosecutors on, of course, the submission by Ministers.
  Two days later, after some cross-examination, of the chief prosecution witnesses, it was revealed that every military fact in the document concerned had already been published and that the British defence attaché, whose document had been leaked, had himself read out the document to a press conference of journalists on an unattributable basis. Halfway through the trial, therefore, the Crown had to go into reverse and say, "Very sorry. There are actually no secrets here." If Ministers' decisions cannot be reviewed, a future defendent might be unable to argue about the assertion that secrets had been revealed.
  I must consider the case, if one can call it that, which has been deployed by the Government. They have asked us to respond to their three-line Whip and vote down my hon. Friend's admirable Bill. The message from the Treasury Bench was that, until the Government have made up their mind, Parliament should not get a look in. It is the Alice in Wonderland "sentence first, verdict afterwards" approach. The only sop that we are thrown in the face of that unacceptable doctrine is the Home Secretary saying, "Trust me and trust my future Bill."
  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with trusting as fine a Minister as the Home Secretary. It is the kind of request which, in commercial life, one gets all the time. There is a problem, the company or organisation needs some time to sort it out, so we are told, "Trust us, trust the management, we will draw up a plan and issue a prospectus in a few months' time. Just give us a bit of time to get the small print right." It all sounds very reasonable like that but, in commercial life, when shareholders or voters agree to such a request, they do so after hearing at least some bare bones of an outline of what the plan might be. They do not sign blank cheques for plans or prospectuses which are still too secret even to be described.
  626
  The notion that plans to reform the Official Secrets Act are themselves still an official secret is something which, as parliamentarians, we cannot swallow. That script is too silly even to be produced in the "Yes, Minister" series. We must reject the extraordinary idea that we should buy a pig in a poke. In fact, if one pokes the pig, one cannot get a grunt out of it. The Government are not saying a word about what will be in their Bill and they are not saying a word of criticism against my hon. Friend's Bill. Talk about dialogue of the deaf—this is a dialogue of silence on the two key issues that the House should be debating.
  There are two other good reasons for not giving the Government a blank cheque on Official Secrets Act reform. First, the Government's handling of official secrecy and confidentiality matters in recent months does not inspire universal confidence. Injunctions against the media have been thrown about like confetti in the hands of an excitable wedding guest. One need only consider the Government's extraordinary behaviour over Mr. Cavendish's Christmas card. The notion that there is a privileged magic circle of 500 chums of Mr. Cavendish who can receive such documents with impunity, with the Treasury Solicitor saying, "That's all right. I have received satisfactory assurances from Mr. Cavendish", but when newspaper editors try to publish the same information to a wider circle, they are told that they are acting unlawfully and hit with injunctions, is a double standard that does not inspire confidence about the Government's handling of official secrecy matters. Why should we trust a Government who act in what appears to be such an erratic and strange way?
  One can also consider the Government's judgment on the BBC as to whether matters in which it is in conflict with the Government are secret or confidential material. After all, the programme, "My Country — Right or Wrong?" was cleared by the D Notice Committee. The MI5 organisation knew perfectly well that people who had formerly been on its staff had contributed to the programme. I can reveal that the Director General of MI5 sent a memorandum to MI5 staff saying that he knew that the BBC's programme, "My Country — Right or Wrong?" was coming out and that the service had nothing to fear from it. The fact that the Government have issued injunctions in the light of that, shows that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
  In that context, I refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who raised the deeply serious issue of Sir Robert Armstrong's most recent evidence to the court and its implications for the Security Service. I do not want to go into that in any great depth now, but from some background knowledge of Chapman Pincher's book "Their Trade is Treachery," I understand only too well that it is absolutely clear that that book could have been produced only either with the knowing connivance or with the full co-operation of certain key MI5 officials. That that information should have been withheld from the Prime Minister, the Secretary to the Cabinet and other key personnel is nothing less than a national scandal. I wholeheartedly support what I understood to be the call from the right hon. Member for Devonport that there should be some kind of investigation into that because it is a worrying a feature as any that have come out of the strange shenanigans and developments of recent months.
  Mr. Dalyell: I support the hon. Gentleman. Sidgwick and Jackson, in the form of William Armstrong, asks, "Is it not true that 'Their Trade is Treachery' could have been stopped by one telephone call?" Why was that call not made?
  "If the Prime Minister says that she did not know, why and how did the chain of communication fail?"
  Who was responsible? Was it the rivalry between MI5 and MI6? Why were neither Pincher nor Rothschild called to give evidence? That failure cost the British taxpayer £2 million.
  All the major points in Chapman Pincher's "Web of Deception" were confirmed in the High Court in November by Sir Robert Armstrong. That means that he was kept in ignorance of the fact that "Their Trade is Treachery" could have been suppressed by one telephone call; that Pincher received no first-hand information from MI6, but was briefed only by MI5 officers, who kept information from Armstrong and who were not fully briefed themselves; and that he was told nothing about the role of the arbiter.
  Mr. Aitken: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not expecting me to be a spokesman on security matters on behalf of the Government. Therefore, I am unable to deal with his fascinating intervention, but it is well to have it recorded that across the Floor of the House there is concern on that particular issue, which is of considerable importance.
  Although the debate is about the Bill, it has raised the deeper issue of Parliament's rights. One of the most attractive features of the Bill was that its careful construction could attract a broad consensus of parliamentary support. An official secrets reform Bill needs a broad consensus of support. It needs to have the support of people such as the right hon. Members for Devonport and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—people of all parties—because only then will it stand the test of time and not be regarded as partisan and devisive Government-introduced legislation, which will be immediately challenged by an incoming Administration of a different political colour.
  Therefore, I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was able to construct such a consensus. One of the saddest aspects of the Government's approach is that they have destroyed that consensus. They have made the task of future official secrets reforms infinitely more difficult because it will now be seen to be hijacked into the area of party politics, which is a great pity considering that the Bill needs the bipartisan consensus to which I referred.
  The widest issue of all is whether parliamentarians, particularly private Members, have the right to introduce such Bills and submit them to the judgment of the House of Commons. Speech after speech, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), has highlighted the sinister and authoritarian development of an attitude emanating from the Treasury Bench, which comes down to the words, "Back Benchers shut up and know your place." That is unacceptable. I was glad that even those who will support the Government in the Lobby, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), were strongly critical of that aspect of the Government's handling.
  I recall that when the Conservative Government came to power in 1979 after the winter of discontent, they were
  628
  rightly proud to portray themselves as the champion of the individual and his freedoms and the opponent of over-mighty subjects. Times seem to have changed. Today we are seeing an over-mighty subject, an over-mighty Executive, determined to reject a good Bill without explanation, without an alternative and with contemptuous disregard for the rights of private Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has been right to fight his corner and to expose the Government's tactics as bearing an uncanny resemblance to the stories of the dog in the manger and the emperor who has no clothes. Let us remember the words of Edmund Burke:
  "One man with conviction makes a majority."
  Let those who care about Parliament follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby and give him and his Bill the majority that they deserve.
  2.2 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am proud to follow the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) who made a courageous and interesting speech. His reputation and track record on the subject are well known and much appreciated in the House. I link my congratulations with those that have been heaped on the shoulders of the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) by all those who have spoken. I had great pleasure working with him as a sponsor of the Bill. He has done himself great credit, arid he has done the House a service by introducing this subject.
  The Home Secretary said that he thought that the hon. Gentleman had had his success, but it would be more accurate to say that the Home Secretary effectively said that the hon. Gentleman had had his chips. The position taken by the Government has been disgraceful. I agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, South that perhaps one of the most surprising turns of events during the debate has been the absence of any effective and constructive criticism of the detailed proposals in the Bill. With some marginal qualifications in some other hon. Members' speeches, the only two that fell into the category of being critical were those of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). I hope that the Government will take that to heart when they are formulating the White Paper that they intend to bring forward in June.
  It is clear that there is a sense of urgency throughout the ranks of all parties that something must be done. The Home Secretary's speech was complacent, especially as it was 16 years ago that the Frank's committee said:
  "the only satisfactory treatment for a law suffering from so many defects is to sweep it away entirely."
  Sixteen years is a long time to leave on the statute book something that Lord Franks said in 1972 was most unsatisfactory.
  Section 2 catches all information, regardless of subject matter, importance or whether it is genuinely secret. That is most disturbing. The scope of section 2 has not been properly addressed today. The House should be aware that it is not only journalists and civil servants who are caught by it but, technically, anyone given information in confidence who then repeats it without permission. Simply receiving information — unless so authorised or unless one can prove that it was forced upon one—it is subject to section 2. Persuading an official to divulge information

  629
  is, technically, subject to section 2. Under section 7, it is an offence even to allow on to one's premises someone whom one has grounds to believe has disclosed information without authority.
  To leave such a piece of legislation on the statute book for 16 years, especially against the background of Lord Franks' report and subsequent criticisms, is quite ridiculous.
  Mr. Allason: I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's clarification of the scope of section 2, but I believe that it goes beyond that. It covers those who might be guilty of offences overseas and who could be prosecuted in this country. Furthermore, it is not limited to those who have signed the Official Secrets Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) seemed to imply that it was so limited, but that is not the case.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I can confirm that that is not the case, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is a widespread potential for abuse, and the House should bear that heavily in mind — especially as the Government are asking us for further time so that they can bring forward their own measure. My former colleague Sir Clement Freud said:
  "Section 2 gives the Attorney-General more power than a bad man should have or a good man should need."
  We have properly spent time today debating lofty ideals, issues and profound matters such as the duties of the House and the Government. I want to bring the debate to more mundane but very important issues that affect our citizens daily. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that, within the past 24 hours, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—Lord Young — had ordered a fire report leak inquiry within the Department of the Environment.
  We are told that yesterday, a team of investigators visited the Crown Suppliers. The leaked memorandum was highly critical of the Government's stance on foam-filled furniture, and warned that the proposed code of practice would be retrograde and only window dressing. It accused the Department of Trade and Industry of creating a code based on what the furniture industry thinks that it can afford and what it believes that the customer will expect. The Minister appears to have ignored that advice, as well as that of many others because it was secret. The publication of the advice has helped to persuade him to do what he should have done in the first place and he has now banned dangerous foam.
  A leak inquiry would be a disgrace. The House should be calling for an inquiry into why the Minister ignored the safety advice that he received in the first place. However, as the inquiring is taking place, what are the consequences? The person who leaked the document may have committed an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1911. If so, The Guardian which first published the extracts will also have committed an offence. In theory, although I hope that this will not happen, both parties could be prosecuted. That could not happen if the Bill that we are debating became law. Categories of protected information are defined in clause 1 and could not conceivably apply to information of that kind. Even if by some chance the information were covered, the person responsible might be able to plead justification in the public interest under clause 7.
  630
  I believe that in cases where there is a substantial risk to people's lives, it is right that such a defence should be available. We must bear that issue in mind as well as the more arcane, but perhaps intriguing, issues of spies, national security and secrecy that are covered by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
  Ministers claim that they tried to reform the Official Secrets Act in 1979. The Government's view is that they failed to get a consensus on an alternative. The reverse is true. The 1979 Bill failed because everyone agreed that it was a draconian and oppressive measure which would have given Ministers even more unacceptable powers than those contained in section 2. I remind the House of some of the quotes that appeared in the newspapers at that time in response to that measure. The Daily Telegraph called it:
  "in many respects truly appallingly."
  The Spectator called it:
  "A deplorable Bill, so bad that it is impossible to study it without a sense of shock."
  The Sunday Express called it "disastrous". The Daily Mail called it:
  "A Bill devised by the establishment for the establishment to save its own face as much as to defend the country."
  The Times called the measure:
  "a grave threat to the freedom of the press."
  It is wrong of the Government to say that they tried in 1979 to reform the Official secrets Act with good faith and with their best endeavours, but could not get a consensus. The truth is that the 1979 Bill was completely unacceptable across a broad spectrum.
  The Government's position that we should trust the Home Secretary and allow him to bring forward his measure via a White Paper in June is incredible, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. The way in which the Government are having recourse to injunctions and interdicts and using the law of confidence and circumventing the jury system is disgraceful. That gives us no confidence at all. Indeed, the recent quote from the High Court judge considering the most recent interdict suggested that the Government were moving towards imposing a doctrine of absolute confidentiality which he believed was unobtainable this side of the iron curtain.
  For the Government to ask for the trust of the House in this matter is ironic to say the least. The Home Secretary's failure to give us even a hint of what his White Paper might contain — the hon. Member for Thanet, South referred to this — leaves the House very little alternative but to support the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
  What is the case now for the Government refusing to confirm at least the notion and assurance that they will bring forward a public interest defence? The Bill is a measured alternative. It contains extremely necessary safeguards. I would go further and reverse the onus by requiring all official information to be made public through a freedom of official information Act and reserve only certain categories that relate to safety. I believe that, in the fullness of time, we should move in that direction. It has been proved to work in other countries.
  On the balance of the argument, I believe that the House should accept the proposals that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills put forward so ably, and I shall support him in the Lobby.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked us to wait until the summer. He has asked us not to support the Bill today and to vote it down. I would have been more inclined to listen to his advice if he had told us more about how his mind was moving, and if the handling of official secrets cases during the past few months had been better.
  The Government's attitude in the cases of Mr. Wright, Mr. Cavendish and the BBC programme has been to rely on a doctrine and a principle of total, life-long confidentiality. This is a rather new approach in regard to books and programmes. The old convention was that an author would show his text to the authorities, and if the authorities wanted any change, they negotiated with the author and changes were or were not made. If changes were not made, the author concerned could have been liable under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
  Mr. Wright's lawyer claimed that Mr. Wright was prepared to reveal his text. Mr. Cavendish and his publishers did reveal their text. The Government's decision was not to try to preserve secrets, but to lay down a principle that, if it was applied to secret agents, officers or Ministers, would kill for good the publication of memoirs which are a great help in the education of all of us. When I was involved in covert operations, the memoirs of Sir Paul Dukes, Sir Robert Bruce-Lockhart and Sir Compton MacKenzie taught me a great deal. The doctrine of total, life-long confidentiality is unreasonable, undesirable and unenforceable. That it is unenforceable has been demonstrated in the exchanges of Mr. Wright and Chapman Pincher showing that it is quite easy to give information to somebody else, and that somebody else does not appear to be liable to prosecution.
  I do not understand the distinction. The Government claim that the experience of a former official is their property. If that property is purloined by someone else, it would come close to purveying stolen goods, but that is not the Government's view.
  My hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have shown a singular lack of sense of humour in their handling of these matters. It was devastatingly humourless that they sent Sir Robert Armstrong to Australia. Anyone but another lawyer could have told them that the judge in Australia, a good, solid, Australian a well-balanced man with a chip on each shoulder, would not accept the idea that something that was generally known all over the world could remain an official secret. It was singularly humourless when the Government tried to gag the press at home while the printing presses were rolling as fast as they could on the other side of the Atlantic. It has been humourless for the Government to try to force the House by a three-line Whip to throw out the Bill today. There are better and more subtle ways of doing that just as there are subtler ways of killing a cat than drowning it in cream.
  We have to recognise that that lack of sense of humour on the part of the Government is going a long way towards bringing about the result that they want to avoid. I have never been a crusader for open Government when matters of defence and foreign affairs are involved. However, there is a movement that would like to see the secret services brought under parliamentary control, and I understand that that is something the Government wish to avoid.
  632
  However, if they continue to adopt such a rigid stance, over lifelong confidentiality I suspect that in the end that is what they will buy and I would regret it.
  2.20 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  We have had nearly five hours of debate in which we have ranged over many important issues in support of the Bill. However, the interesting thing that has arisen is that the Government have found only two Members to speak on behalf of their propositions. It is appropriate for me to refer to what I thought were the themes of those who did speak against my Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) advanced a constitutional doctrine which I did not understand. However, he convinced me that I would not turn to him for constitutional advice. The other person who spoke in support of the Government, if my understanding is correct, was my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He was extraordinarily kind to me and for that I am grateful. I accept the kindness and return it in this way. My right hon. Friend was promoting an extraordinary proposition. First, he said that I had won, "Hallelujah, you have done well." Secondly, he said that the Government are right to say that this is not a matter which should be originated by the House and looked at in this way because the issue is too complex. Thirdly, he said that Back Benchers are right to be upset and agitated. On that basis we are all right. That is great. Let us face it, we have resolved all the difficulties.
  On the matter of trusting the Government, after a conversation yesterday afternoon with the Head of that Government, I am anxious about that concept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley was a member of the Government. He has an understanding of the machinery of government. He advanced the proposition—he was in the most powerful position to do so—that there was a flawed rating system. I remember that very well. He looked at the issues involved and came to the conclusion that we could never consider a poll tax. He left the Cabinet, but we are still committed to the idea that something has to be done to reform the domestic rating system. We are all agreed about that principle. What happens? The Government come up with a poll tax and the most vehement opponent of that poll tax is my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley. I give him all my loyalty and support in terms of his right to express his opposition. That must be right. Yet, I am asked now, in a sense, to trust the Government in this matter.
  All that my sponsors and I are trying to do is to say that great matters of principle are involved. There is the relationship of the citizen to the Government of the country and the relationship of the House of Commons to the Executive. Those matters go to the heart of our responsibility as Members of Parliament.
  We cannot necessarily call upon the Press Gallery always to express our views. We do not control the resources of the nation, which are at the Government's disposal. We know that our job is to support and succour the Government. The Queen's business must go on and we all take that very seriously. We are negotiating and trying to identify matters of principle and trying to state them

  633
  clearly. Will there be a review of a ministerial certificate? Can a Minister be judge and jury in his own case? We have wanted to know that all along the way.
  The second principle that we have been enunciating and about which we have tried to elicit information from the Government — we are not being unreasonable — is whether we can have a public interest defence. We have gone over these issues again and again today. My feeling, and the sentiment of the House, as I understood it, was that these issues are appropriate for the House to discuss.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he has dealt with me courteously. Unfortunately, he has not always been authorised to tell me what he has been authorised to tell other people. I must pursue this because if I have any value in the House it is to state as clearly and as loudly as I can how I see government and to try to raise these issues as we have done today.
  I knew officially that we were to have a White Paper only on the Tuesday before we went into recess, yet I heard from colleagues, including the executive of the Select Committee on Home Affairs — although I am not supposed to reveal that—that the Government intended to work on a White Paper. I could not be told that; my sponsors could not be told that; but other people could be told that. It is such a trivial matter. Of what importance can it be to the conduct of great public affairs? The House, and particularly Back Benchers, are entitled to assert that we sometimes want to affect important matters — the way in which the decision is taken—by identifying the principles on which we shall operate. That is all that I have asked by bringing this measure before the House for its full consideration.
  Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister if she would withdraw the three-line Whip, but was told that that was not possible. I asked whether it was possible to identify these matters of principle and whether there was any response to them, but was told that that was not possible. I asked whether it was possible to refer them to a Select Committee, but that also was not possible. Nothing was possible, but the Executive holds unto itself what has been said repeatedly; that this goes to the heart of government. But it goes to the heart of the House of Commons, too.
  It is impertinent for the Government to say, "We have to originate all these ideas on this matter and we have to present them fully formulated to the House." Why can we not have our say about the principles? The fact that the Government have all the instruments and power at their hands to try to dispose of private Members' business is another matter. However, surely we in the House have a right to ascertain the central issue. I hope that my colleagues will remember that right and that it is certainly not just a matter of reviewing what the Government present on a plate, a la carte.
  I mentioned my experience on the Telecommunications Bill. Hon. Members will recall that the BT licence was a take-it-or-leave-it document. We could not alter a word. We had to say either yes or no. It was a desperately flawed document. No one who has had experience of the telecommunications business since we passed a badly thought out and constructed Bill would doubt the accuracy of my comments.
  On the basis of the proposition that we are not allowed to consider this Bill, we must wait until the Government
  634
  produce a Bill. It is not respectable. We are citizens of public affairs. We ought to reject this nonsense, not because the Bill is of the most magnificent integrity, but because we want to discuss the issues involved.
  Let the Government come back and say what is wrong with our Bill, but the proposition that, "There ain't nothing wrong with this Bill, but we shall produce something at some other time and our Bill will have greater integrity than anything that you, from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, can raise" is a dangerous and silly concept which we should throw out. It is important that we should consider that. I ask the House to vote for the Bill.
  Question put, That the Bill he now read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 271.

  Division No. 140]

  [2.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Crowther, Stan

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cryer, Bob

  Allason, Rupert

  Cummings, J.

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Alton, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Alastair

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

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

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dewar, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Doran, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Dover, Den

  Battle, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Beith, A. J.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bell, Stuart

  Eadie, Alexander

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Blair, Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Buchan, Norman

  Galloway, George

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Buckley, George

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  George, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gorst, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cartwright, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clay, Bob

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Corbett, Robin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Holland, Stuart

  635

  Home Robertson, John

  Prescott, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Howells, Geraint

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoyle, Doug

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Reid, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Ingram, Adam

  Robertson, George

  Janner, Greville

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rost, Peter

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Leighton, Ron

  Salmond, Alex

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Livsey, Richard

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAllion, John

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

  McAvoy, Tom

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

  McFall, John

  Snape, Peter

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Squire, Robin

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Strang, Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Meale, Alan

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Michael, Alun

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wall, Pat

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wallace, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliott

  Wareing, Robert N,

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Worthington, Anthony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wray, James

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Tony Marlow.

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Amess, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bright, Graham

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Bellingham, Henry

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Burns, Simon

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Burt, Alistair

  636

  Butcher, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Butler, Chris

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cash, William

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Irvine, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jack, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Jackson, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Janman, Timothy

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Colvin, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cope, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Cran, James

  Knowles, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Curry, David

  Lang, Ian

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

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Day, Stephen

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Dicks, Terry

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lord, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Favell, Tony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  MacGregor, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Maclean, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Madel, David

  Forth, Eric

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mans, Keith

  Franks, Cecil

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gardiner, George

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Miller, Hal

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grist, Ian

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Ground, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heddle, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Holt, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  637

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Summerson, Hugo

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Portillo, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Price, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Raffan, Keith

  Thurnham, Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trippier, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Ryder, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waller, Gary

  Scott, Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wells, Bowen

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Woodcock, Mike

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stern, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Sumberg, David

  Question accordingly negatived.

Private Members' Bills

  COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day? No day named. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly, because there is still business to discuss.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the noise, I did not hear you read the title of my Bill. Is it possible to repeat it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member did not hear me read the title of the Bill, no doubt for two reasons, the first being that I did not read it; the Clerk did. In any case, objection was taken. Does the hon. Member wish to give a date for Second Reading?
  Mr. Faulds: I should like to give a date, if that can be chosen. If the Bill has been objected to, what is the procedure?
  Mr. Tony Banks: You give another date, you fool.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member gives another date. If he wishes to do that, will he kindly do so now, so that we can proceed? Second reading what day?
  Mr. Banks: Tomorrow, Sir. Mr. Faulds: Tomorrow, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did I hear the hon. Member say Friday next?
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is difficult to proceed with the proper business when on my right I have a young colleague who has diarrhoeic loquaciousness on every occasion and when there is such a hubbub in the rest of the House that I cannot hear what is happening. I should like to pursue the Bill on the first convenient date available.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

DISQUALIFICATION FROM OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly because there is still business to discuss.
Although the Clerk read the title of Bill No. 3, the Disqualification from Ownership of Animals Bill, I must tell the House, that, because the Bill has the same effect as clause 1 of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, which received its Second Reading on 11 December, I cannot propose the Question on Second Reading.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to make it clear that, having had the contents of my Bill — the Disqualification from Ownership of Animals Bill—safely

639
subsumed into the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, I do not propose to move the Second Reading of the Bill today. I shall strongly support the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill.

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
To be read a Second Time upon Friday next.

CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR STATE RETIREMENT PENSIONERS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not printed.
Miss Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for anonymous Conservative Members to shout "Object" and deny the pensioners of this country the right proposed in the Bill?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The point of order does not arise because——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, when I am on my feet, he must keep his seat. Points of order do not arise, because, as the Bill has not been printed, the Question cannot be proposed.
Miss Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You did not offer me a date for the Second Reading of my Bill. You did not give me the chance to give one.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I thought that she had to have the Bill printed first. I am in error. Would the hon. Lady please name a day for Second Reading?
Miss Mowlam: Friday next.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

SLAUGHTER OF DEER BILL
Order Read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [11 December].
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 January.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (IMPROVED PROVISION OF SERVICES) BILL
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken; Second Reading what day?
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is cowardly of Conservative Members to hide behind anonymity on a matter as crucial as the National Health Service and I wish
640
that Conservative Members shouting, "Object", could be named. I would like to name the next available date for Second Reading—Friday next.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the last Parliament, many disagreements arose on Friday afternoons about the blocking of private Members' Bills by hirelings of the Government who hide behind the Dispatch Box and the Front Bench and refuse to stand up and say on what basis they object and who they are.
The Chair has been approached on this subject on many occasions and many hon. Members have expressed concern that it is an abuse of the procedures of the House that the blocking mechanism is used behind the cloak of anonymity — in this case blocking a very effective measure to improve the Health Service. Would you, Sir, be prepared to rule that, for the duration of this Parliament, you will always insist that the hon. Member blocking a Bill stands up and records his or her objection to it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This matter has been dealt with on several occasions on Friday afternoons. The position has been made quite clear. What has happened this afternoon is not unusual. It happens frequently on Friday afternoons, especially when private Members' Bills are before the House.
Mr. Greville Janner rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Secondly, I remind the House that the shout of "Object," is no different from the collection of voices when a motion is put to the House. Under those circumstances, it is quite impossible for the Chair to ask or insist that hon. Members expressing their view through their voice he identified by being asked to stand, or in any other way. The matter has been dealt with on previous occasions. I have it in mind that I must follow the practices and conventions of the House, and if hon. Members feel sufficiently strongly about the matter, any changes should be pursued through the appropriate Committee of the House.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a way out of this problem, as you are probably aware. From time to time, there are deliberations, in what is known as a Speaker's Conference, on all sorts of matters appertaining to the business of the House and to electoral considerations. In view of the abuse that is taking place, with people refusing to stand up and be named, it is high time that the matter was put before that Conference. For instance, in relation to the Concessionary Television Licences for State Retirement Pensioners Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking any "for instances"—not at 2.50 pm on a Friday.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one at a time, please. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very familiar with our proceedings and knows that the right place to discuss this matter—if there is substance in it — is the Procedure Committee. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is substance in his

641
complaint, no doubt he will consider referring the matter, through the appropriate channels, to the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not in a new position with regard to this procedure? The voices of Conservative Members that were raised in objection to the National Health Service (Improved Provision of Services) Bill, which was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), of which I am a sponsor, and which seeks to improve health care services for every person in the United Kingdom—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make a point of order.
Mr. Madden: How can we know whether those who objected to this important measure have interests in privatising the NHS—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going over well-trodden ground. It has been made clear many times that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to try to identify those who may have expressed an objection, or to question their motives. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since some hon. Members have been named, it is important to put on record the fact that one may object to a Bill, not because of its contents but because—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think we can start having a discussion about reasons—
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is becoming increasingly discourteous. Hon. Members know that they should not rise when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet dealing with a matter which has been raised. I should tell the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) that this afternoon is not the time to discuss the reasons why hon. Members may have expressed objections.
Mr. Janner: I raised this matter last Session because it was extremely important to know whether an hon. Member was entitled to address the House unless he or she was standing. Mr. Speaker ruled that the matter should be considered by the Procedure Committee. The vast majority of Back-Bench Members believe that it is wrong for an anonymous person to be able to object to a Bill. In view of the strong views of hon. Members on both sides of the House—we accept your statement that the matter should go to the Procedure Committee — will you be good enough to say that the Chair will seek guidance from the Procedure Committee about a procedure which is wholly unsatisfactory and extremely wicked?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remember that point being the subject of discussion last Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that it was pointed out then that expressing an objection from a sedentary position is no different from occasions when the Chair puts a Question to the House and collects the voices. If it was thought
642
necessary for those registering an objection to be identified or to stand when they made that objection, we would have to follow a similar practice when a Question was put. The House should consider the difficulty that that would have posed to the Chair and the House this afternoon when more than 500 hon. Members were in the Chamber.
However, let me add that it is my recollection that the Chair did not rule that the matter be referred to the Procedure Committee. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for the Chair to seek to do that. The Chair would have suggested on that occasion that, if the hon. Gentleman felt it appropriate to do so, he or his hon. Friends could seek to have the matter discussed in the Procedure Committee. That was what I was suggesting this afternoon to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I was not expressing a view other than the one that I have expressed in dealing with points of order.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot sit here indefinitely on a Friday afternoon listening to multiplying points of order.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to call six hon. Members, and an hon Member has the Adjournment debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can help you. The matter has been referred to the Procedure Committee. It has been debated at length, and the Procedure Committee has produced a report. The report has not been debated by Parliament, because the Leader of the House has not found time for it.
We want the matter debated. If it is the view of the House, or of Members of it, that we have not dealt with it satisfactorily, hon. Members are free to amend the report and to move resolutions that may be carried by the whole House.
Secondly, as we found in Committee, there are reasons why Back Benchers might wish to intervene and prevent the development of proceedings on the Second Reading of a Bill. One reason is that they do not want the Ballot to be jumped, so that Bills that come after other Bills manage to secure positions in Committee—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been helpful, until the point that he is now raising. I said earlier that I did not consider it right or useful for the House to try to discuss the motives that lead hon. Members to shout "Object" on the proposed Second Reading of a Bill.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that the hon. Gentleman had been helpful, and I think that the information that he has given us should be borne in mind by hon. Members. However, he must recognise that the question of debating in time for the debate on a particular report from a Committee is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Leader of the House. If hon. Members feel strongly about the matter, no doubt they will pursue it with him. Now, can we get on?
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would we not have had far

643
fewer points of order this afternoon if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) had admitted that it was he who objected to the Concessionary Television Licences for State Retirement Pensioners Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with in the course of earlier points of order.
Mr. Madden: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also ask for inquiries to be made into the denial of drafting assistance to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) in the preparation of her National Health Service (Improved Provisions of Services) Bill? I consider it disgraceful that she has been prevented from receiving such assistance in bringing forward that important Bill, and I think that insult has been added to injury by the fact that it has been blocked today by unnamed people. Because we do not yet have a Register of Members' Interests, we do not know who is speaking for whom—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now seeking to raise a whole string of matters, some of which are certainly not matters for me. Questions of drafting of Bills and drafting assistance are not a matter for the Chair, and will no doubt be pursued through the appropriate channels.
Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is serious concern about the issue of people who object to ten-minute Bills not having to identify themselves to the Chamber. The debate is not being prolonged simply to waste time; we are asking for your assistance to sort out a procedural issue that causes great disgruntlement in the House. As I understand it, that is part of your role, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
You argued earlier, Sir, that it was common practice to take the voices before deciding whether a vote should be taken. I put it to you that that is quite a different issue. If a vote is taken, everyone who votes has his vote recorded, and has to stand up for the position that he takes. In this case, the hon. Member who blocks a Bill is deliberately not identified. This is a serious procedural issue. We need your assistance to resolve it. It is not enough for you to say that we may refer the matter to a Committee. I should like to ask for your help to sort the matter out.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it is the task of the Chair to ensure observance of the Standing Orders and the practices and conventions of the House. It is not my task to create procedure, merely to apply it. Its creation is a matter for others. The hon. Lady might reflect on the advice that I have already given and see whether it might not be the best advice to pursue.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to the point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I took a close interest in this matter in the previous Parliament and I have suffered the same fate as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) seems to have suffered. When she rose to move
644
that her Bill be read a Second time, there was a great deal of noise on both sides of the Chamber. In some cases the noise might have represented support for the Bill, and it might have represented opposition in others. It was not clear whether anyone was objecting. It was not clear who was objecting. Can you be certain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who objected to the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, no. Order. The hon. Gentleman is going over ground that we have already covered. I have made it clear on several occasions that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to identify individuals. It is sufficient that the voice be heard and the voice was clearly heard calling, "Object."
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. I am in somewhat of a sad quandary. When I introduced—when I attempted to get some progress on — my Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill, which was got through the Chamber in the previous Parliament by an admirable hon. Friend of mine and only fell because of the election intervening before it could go to the Lords and become law, I had understood from the Government Whips, who were extremely helpful, may I say, that this Bill would go through on the nod. I am very, very surprised to find that the discipline behind the Chief Whips on those Benches is so appalling that some uninformed, unintelligent, unhelpful hon. Gentleman has wrecked what was a quite valuable little Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's resentment. Doubtless he will have another opportunity. I have to say again that it is not for the Chair to try to identify those who shout, "Object."
Mr. Frank Dobson: If it would help, I could tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition intend, through the usual channels, to press the Leader of the House to bring to the House the report of the Procedure Committee on this matter in an effort to protect the rights of Back Benchers from Government Whips getting people to object to Bills. We are not very hopeful of the outcome, however, on the day of the unprecedented action of the Government in putting a three-line Whip on a private Member's Bill.
Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I declare an interest in taking part in that debate, as I had a private Member's Bill which was blocked by Labour's objections and which would greatly have facilitated the education of children in Britain?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been helpful and showed how the House might make progress in these matters. I hope that the House can feel content with the advice that he has offered, and that we can now make progress.

Birmingham Children's Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
3.3 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The whole country is hoping and praying that my constituents' child, four-year-old Matthew Collier, will win his battle for survival after 10 hours' major heart surgery on Wednesday. All our hopes go out to Matthew and his parents.
My Adjournment debate is about the intensive care unit at the children's hospital, Birmingham. Everyone in the west midlands knows about the splendid job that the hospital does and the kind of work that the surgeons do, including the most complicated heart operations such as that performed on Matthew two days ago. The utmost praise should be given to the surgeons, consultants, nurses and the other medical and non-medical staff at the children's hospital.
The hospital faces financial problems, and as far as major heart surgery is concerned, there are nowhere near sufficient trained nurses for the intensive care unit. That is the part of the hospital to which the child goes after major surgery and where he or she may spend weeks being cared for, before being allowed home. It was the lack of bed availability in the intensive care unit that led to the position where my constituent's son, Matthew Collier, could not be admitted. Moreover, no date was given for admission.
Matthew had already had three operations. In September last year, his parents were told by the hospital that major heart surgery was urgently necessary. An appointment was given—I stress only an appointment—for 24 February. All that happened because beds were not available in the intensive care unit. Matthew's parents were told that he could be admitted only if he became an emergency case. In all the circumstances, what could the parents do except go public over their beloved son, especially since, although Matthew's health was deteriorating, he was not considered an emergency case? We are, of course, pleased that a bed became available this week and that Matthew has had his lengthy operation.
When I visited the hospital last week, I was shown round the intensive care unit. Although in total there were six beds, only five were in use. I stress to the Minister that only five beds are serving the entire west midlands region. It is reported that over 90 children are waiting for major heart surgery at the children's hospital in Birmingham.
One of those children is another Matthew—in this case Matthew Mulhall, who is eight months old. He has a serious heart condition and his parents have been told that major surgery is required. In a letter to her Member of Parliament, his mother wrote:
"I cannot sleep at nights worrying about the cutbacks and the effects it could have on our son".
It was that case in Coventry which led my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) to make his protest in the Chamber on Monday. I cannot and will not condemn a colleague who feels, as a religious person, so strongly about the position of his constituents and their child that he made the protest that he did. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not make his protest lightly.
I received a prompt reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for
646
Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to the letter that I wrote to the Minister for Health at the beginning of this month about Matthew Collier's case and the intensive care unit at the hospital. In her reply, the Under-Secretary referred to an intensive care nursing course that is apparently due to commence next January. However, I should like to ask the Minister about the position in the meantime, before the proposed course produces the further trained nurses who will be employed in the children's hospital intensive care unit.
Moreover, as we know, the chairman of the regional health authority responded to the spotlight on the hospital by suggesting six courses of possible action to deal with the position. Of course, any action that can be taken, even on a temporary basis, which could assist the children who are urgently in need of major heart surgery, is to be welcomed. All hon. Members would welcome that. However, the four heart consultants at the hospital were somewhat sceptical about some of the suggestions. The local press in Birmingham reported that, in the consultants' view, some of the chairman's proposals demonstrated a limited appreciation of the special needs of children with heart diseases. The four said, for example, that it is impracticable and inappropriate to move children from region to region.
Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend will be aware that that hospital is in my constituency. There are grave shortages throughout the hospital, not just in the intensive care unit, as a direct result of the Government's underfunding of the Health Service.
In the regional health authority's plan, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, one of the proposals is that money should be given to private hospitals, to assist. I hope that my hon. Friend shares my deep objection to that. We want the children's hospital in Birmingham, which is loved and respected throughout the region, to be properly funded and to function properly. We do not want money to be creamed off to build up a private hospital, while we fail to resolve the problems in the children's hospital.
Mr. Winnick: The point made by my hon. Friend is one which all Labour Members share.
The position of the intensive care unit is part of the current crisis in the NHS, no less in the west midlands than elsewhere. It is not acceptable to the large majority of people, no matter how they vote, that children requiring major surgery on the NHS, such as the two children whom I mentioned, should have to wait literally months before they can be admitted. That is unacceptable. If it is unacceptable to the large majority of people, it should be no less acceptable to the Minister and his colleagues.
Neither should the parents have to undergo the anxiety and stress of wondering whether a bed can be found for their child, in addition to all their constant worries and fears over the child. Can one imagine what it must be like for parents, knowing that their young child requires major heart surgery, and wondering whether that child will survive? They have all the constant worry and, in addition, at least in the west midlands and, no doubt, in other parts of the country, there is the problem such as the one faced by Mr. and Mrs. Collier and Mr. and Mrs. Mulhall, of whether a bed will be found in time. That is why, in those two cases, the parents decided to go public.

647
At the end of my brief speech, I should like to leave a few minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) to speak. She will then have to leave for an urgent constituency engagement.
The Government must take urgent action now to try to resolve the crisis and the need for more nurses at the intensive care unit in the children's hospital, Birmingham. It is no good saying that next year there will be a course. It is no good for the Minister to say that suggestions have been made by the chairman of the regional health authority. Nothing less than urgent action will do. It should never again be necessary for parents such as my constituents or other parents to have to go public to draw attention to what is happening.
I quoted this on Monday, and I repeat, that the Prime Minister has said that she wanted to go to hospital
"on the day, at the time and with the doctor that I choose."
That is fine. That is the Prime Minister's wish. If it is fine for the Head of the Government to have that wish, should it be any less right for our constituents and their children to be able to have operations in the same way, without a lengthy delay, and to be able to have them on the NHS?
I plead with the Minister to understand what is happening, to understand the difficulties and the need for more funding and more nurses in the intensive care unit. Let us try to resolve the problem. Let us hope that never again parents have to contact the media and so on before there is an understanding of such cases by the Government. I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly.
3.13 pm
Ms. Joan Walley rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) have the consent of the Minister to speak?
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes.
Ms. Walley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for allowing me a short time to put across these views, about which I feel strongly. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I have to leave before the end of the debate because of urgent constituency business.
I speak on behalf of families in North Staffordshire with children who need that treatment, especially the parents of Clare Wise, who lives in Kidsgrove. Clare needs her shunt operation urgently. She needs it now while she is still well. Will the Minister give me a date when she can be admitted for her operation?
On Tuesday this week we heard that Sir James Ackers made an announcement. He has at least and at last acknowledged that we have a problem in the west midlands. However, will the Minister take note that extra money is needed to provide the proper levels of intensive care, not just five beds? That extra money must be spent on the NHS so that everyone can benefit, not just the private sector. Clare's family do not want her to have a private operation, even though money has been raised locally to pay for it. Her parents want the consultant who has treated her throughout to do the operation. They want to know that there will be a bed available in the intensive care unit if it is needed.
I would be grateful if the Minister will say how he intends to make extra money available for this very
648
important service in the west midlands, so that when the "Young at Heart" lobby comes here on Monday, it can be assured that the intensive care unit will be fully staffed in a matter of only days or weeks.
3.15 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I associate myself with the opening words of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who expressed his good wishes to Matthew Collier and his parents, and also the hopes of us all that the operation yesterday will succeed.
I wish to record the advice that I have been given about the position of Matthew Mulhall, who was also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and who was the subject of comments in the House earlier this week. I understand that his parents, with their Member of Parliament, met the consultant — Eric Silove — yesterday. Matthew has a leaking heart valve and I understand that Dr. Silove has advised Matthew's parents that it would be best to allow him to grow so that the largest possible replacement heart valve can be used. It is envisaged that his operation will take place in four to six months' time, although his condition will be kept under regular review in the meantime.
I thought it important to place that information on the record because, in the light of the apparent clinical advice, it places the case in a rather different context than might have been assumed from some of the remarks made earlier. Having said that, I stress that I fully accept that those remarks were made in good faith.
Ms. Short: It now appears that only if one goes to the media, or forces a child to be named in the House, can one obtain attention. Delays for operations, even when dates had been set, have been occurring at the Birmingham children's hospital for years. It is important that that point is made clear. If the Minister says that he cannot solve the problem this week, the question must be: why was a solution not sought when the problem first arose years ago?
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's sincerity. The point I made about Matthew Mulhall was intended to help the House to understand the position in the light of the advice given to me. It was not intended to minimise the anxieties that we all feel when delays occur.
I well understand that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has to leave the House shortly. I do not have sufficient information about the case of Clare Wise to feel it right to make any comment. Obviously, I have noted the hon. Lady's remarks and will make inquiries. I am sure that she and other hon. Members will understand that I cannot dictate to clinicians the order in which their patients should be treated.
I had intended to say a word or two about the fact that, obviously, I do not accept everything that the hon. Member for Walsall, North said about the National Health Service. However, rather than extend that argument, I shall say something about the particular problems of Birmingham children's hospital. I do not intend to minimise the concerns that have been expressed, but I want to remind the House of the very real achievements of that hospital in recent years.
The number of in-patients treated in the hospital in the past seven years for which I have figures has risen by 15 per cent. The number of out-patients has risen by 16 per

649
cent. and the number of day cases has more than doubled to 121 per cent. Since the cardiac unit, which is the focus of our debate, was designated by the Department in 1984 as a supra-regional centre, which protects its funding, as I am sure that hon. Members are aware, 569 open-heart operations have been performed by surgeons. I know that all hon. Members, whatever their current concerns, would want to join in acknowledging the achievement which that represents.
Many of the treatments that now take place at the hospital were not available a few years ago, and that is one of the causes of the hospital's current difficulties. More than a dozen highly specialised treatments are provided, and that has placed additional pressure — I clearly acknowledge this — on some key services and, in particular, on the hospital's intensive care unit. To put the matter clearly, the pace of medical advance has run ahead of the hospital's ability to recruit and retain enough trained nurses, and the intensive care unit has not been able to operate at full capacity. Even so, admissions to the paediatric intensive care unit have risen from 207 in 1977 to 470 in 1986. The figures have much more than doubled in just under 10 years. However, I recognise that, despite that very large increase in the amount of work, some operations have had to be postponed, as we are all aware.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, North is aware from the recent letter to which he referred from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we have been taking a very close interest in the matter in response to the concern expressed inside and outside the House. The issues have been explored at a series of talks between officials and officers from the West Midlands regional health authority and the Central Birmingham health authority. The outcome of those talks and the work of our officials, as well as regional and district officials, enabled Sir James Ackers the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority to make his statement earlier this week in which he outlined six areas of action intended to ease the position and ensure that in future children do not wait for cardiac surgery for long periods.
The first priority relates in some ways to the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. The priority is to ensure that children currently awaiting an operation are treated as quickly as possible. The regional health authority is therefore considering urgently whether arrangements can be made with other regions or private hospitals to improve the immediate position. While I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said about the use of the private sector, as a matter of practical concern for those who are awaiting operations if it is possible to obtain those operations within the capacity that currently exists in the private sector, it would be wrong to stand in the way of that, whatever long-term view the hon. Lady may take. At any rate that option, and the possibility of making arrangements with comparable centres in other regions, are among the ideas being considered urgently by the regional health authority.
I know that some doctors at the children's hospital have said that it would be impractical to send children out of the region for treatment. I want to make it clear that it is not the intention to impose a solution that is unacceptable to the children's doctors or their parents. If such a solution were acceptable to the clinicians and parents, I would fully
650
support the regional health authority's objective to ensure that all the necessary arrangements for a possible transfer were in place. If that is the right practical solution to a particular practical problem, no one would want to stand in its way.
A number of other initiatives are under way to improve the recruitment and retention of nurses who have the range of special skills needed by the children's hospital including—the hon. Member for Walsall, North fairly referred to this — the establishment of a new training course in Birmingham for paediatric intensive care. Work is in hand for the course—the first of its kind outside London—to start later this year. I have made very clear my concern that every possible step should be taken to get that course into place as early as possible.
Mr. Winnick: The second paragraph of a reply that I received from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) states:
"It is anticipated this course will commence in January 1989."
Mr. Newton: That was the position when my hon. Friend wrote that letter. Part of the purpose of our exercise, and of the statement from the RHA chairman during the week was to show that further steps are being taken to accelerate that process. It is my direct concern, as a Minister, to ensure that no step fails to be taken to accelerate the introduction of that course. As the House knows, the principal problem at the Birmingham children's hospital intensive care unit is not a shortage of money but a shortage of intensive care nurses. We need to focus on that problem beyond anything else at this stage. There is no question of the introduction of that course being delayed due to lack of money. We would not allow that to happen.
Ms. Short: That is good news. Another suggestion by the hospital is that there should be a special course for returning nurses who are resident in Birmingham and who would not be attracted to other regions. That has enormous potential. I have written to the Minister about it, but I have not yet received a reply. I hope that the Minister will comment on that suggestion, which may be more fruitful than a fresh course for new young nurses.
Mr. Newton: I am sorry if the hon. Lady has not received a reply. The two courses are complementary. The idea emerged from the work done jointly by the Department and the region, and I very much hope that it will prove possible to pursue that course as well as the new paediatric intensive care course. Both courses are needed.
In the short term and in the longer term both those efforts will be reinforced by what we are doing at national level in the profession with the nurses and midwives negotiating council to advance a review of the clinical grading structure which, to a significant extent, will aim at ensuring that the skills of nurses in key specialties are better reflected in their grading and, therefore, in their pay. As the House is aware, there has been agreement in the negotiating council about new grading definitions. Proposals are going to the review body for pricing in its report that is due later this year.
The hospital building programme to which I referred is currently under way in the west midlands. Apart from the objective of providing a modern hospital service in the parts of the region that historically have had fewer facilities — the constituency of the hon. Member for

651
Walsall, North is among those benefiting from the building programme— another important feature is the replacement of the old single specialty hospitals in Birmingham, including the Birmingham children's hospital, by new facilities on district general hospital sites.
Despite its hugely increased capital programme, the region has had to make difficult decisions in recent months between competing priorities. Clearly such decisions have to be taken at regional level. At present, it is planned that the Birmingham children's hospital will be rebuilt on the site of the Queen Elizabeth hospital beginning in 1994–95. That will include an expanded intensive care unit.
As Sir James Ackers made clear in his statement, which I welcomed, he is considering whether there is a speedier alternative to that proposal. I should very much welcome
652
it, and I should be anxious to support the region. It would be wrong of me and of hon. Members—who have not sought to do so— to pretend that a complex problem such as that at the Birmingham children's hospital can be resolved overnight, but I hope that I have given the House and hon. Members a measure of assurance, and indeed reassurance, that not only is no obstacle being put in the way of finding an early solution to that hospital's difficulties but that we shall be doing everything possible — and have already taken action — to support and encourage the west midlands region to overcome those difficulties.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Three o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was his Department's total expenditure on the arts in England and in Wales during the 1986–87 financial year.

  Mr. Richard Luce
  My Department's total expenditure on the arts in the financial year 1986–87 was £285.7 million, largely in the form of grants in aid to arts bodies. Of the grant in aid of £135.6 million to the Arts Council for Great Britain, £7.6 million was provided for the Welsh Arts Council. Responsibility for the provision of grants in aid to the National Museum of Wales and the National Library of Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students with special educational needs regularly attend courses run by colleges of further and higher education in England and in each of the English counties.

  Mr. Jackson
  A survey by the National Bureau for Handicapped Students was commissioned in 1985. Its report "Catching-Up?" and DES statistical bulletin 7/87 summarise the results and are in the Library of the House. Figures are not provided for individual counties, but about 44,000 students with special educational needs were attending various courses run by public sector institutions of further and higher education in England. Of these, 17,600 were on mainstream college courses or courses specifically provided for students with special educational needs, 12,500 were enrolled at another institution but attended a college for part of the week, and 13,400 were attending outreach courses run by college staff at other centres. Some of the data are to be updated annually.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service which was published by the Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work 406
  is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures. Specific guidance on reporting alleged sexual harassment is included in "Women in the Treasury; a guide to personnel management policies" which has been issued to all Treasury staff. There have been four complaints reported in the past five years; in the two proven cases, formal written warnings were issued.

  Manor of Northstead
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the Exchequer of the Manor of Northstead in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Lawson
  Nothing. The stewardship of the Manor of Northstead, like that of the Chiltern Hundreds, is a nominal office of profit under the Crown; no salary actually attaches.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated total cost of the Central Office of Information in 1987–88; and what it was in 1978–79 and 1982–83.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The estimated total running costs of the COI in 1987–88 and comparable actual costs for 1978–79 and 1982–83 are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash prices

  Constant 1987–88 prices

  1978–79

  10·7

  21·5

  1982–83

  17·6

  22·0

  1987–88 (estimated)

  19·0

  19·0

  At constant 1987–88 prices the total expenditure for the COI in 1978–79 was £71·4 million, in 1982–83 was £60·5 million, and in 1987–88 is estimated to be £141 million.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of Central Office of Information work put out to private consultants and agencies in 1987–88; arid what it was in 1978–79 and 1982–83.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The COI does not hold records of expenditure with consultancies and agencies in the form requested. In 1987–88 the department estimates that it will spend £104·5 miilion on goods and services with the private sector as a whole. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  BP Shares
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to meet the Kuwaiti Government or the Kuwaiti Investment Office in order to discuss the Kuwaiti Investment Office's shareholding in British Petroleum plc.

  Mr. Lawson
  It is not my normal practice to disclose details of possible discussions with other Governments or their agencies.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Development Administration (East Kilbride)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the actual or estimated costs of office rentals for the Overseas Development Administration's accommodation in East Kilbride in each of the last three years, the current year, and in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The annual rental cost per square metre of the Overseas Development Administration's office accommodation for its East Kilbride headquarters is as follows:

  £

  Actuals

  1984–85

  37·92

  1985–86

  39·44

  1986–87

  70·59

  1987–88

  73·06

  Estimated

  1988–89

  75·98

  1989–90

  78·64

  1990–91

  81·00

  Overseas Development Administration Headquarters
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Overseas Development Administration has for accommodation for its London headquarters when it eventually leaves Eland house.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The matter is being kept under review by officials of my Department and the Property Services Agency.

  Overseas Development Administration (Accommodation)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the actual or estimated costs of office rentals for the Overseas Development Administration's accommodation in London in each of the last three years, the current year and in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The annual rental cost per square metre of the Overseas Development Administration's London headquarters—excluding its scientific units—is as follows:

  £

  Actuals

  1984–85

  156·20

  1985–86

  164·45

  1986–87

  149·97

  1987–88

  172·20

  Estimated

  1988–89

  179·09

  1989–90

  185·36

  1990–91

  190·92

  The charges are those paid to the Property Services Agency under property repayment services arrangements.

  Overseas Development Administration (Dispersal)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what would be the estimated net annual recurrent cost savings if the London-based Overseas Development Administration jobs were dispersed to the Glasgow-East Kilbride area.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The main recurrent saving from moving the Overseas Development Administration London-based posts to East Kilbride would be on accommodation costs and would be approximately £1·9 million a year at January 1988 prices. Other recurrent savings, for example on London weighting, would probably be broadly offset by the additional recurrent costs of relocation, including travel.

  This estimate takes no account of unquantifiable efficiency losses arising from the separation of such a significant element of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from the remainder of that office. Nor does it take account of the capital and other non-recurrent costs of relocation, or of costs which would accrue to other Government Departments and public bodies.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place in the Library copies or summaries of the reviews and studies that the Overseas Development Administration has made into further dispersal of its work to East Kilbride since the initial dispersal exercise in 1981.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The matter has been kept under review on a continuing basis since 1981, as part of the wider exercise to ensure that the Government met their commitment to disperse to the west of Scotland functions providing at that time 2,050 jobs, and as part of a regular programme of internal Overseas Development Administration management reviews. The conclusion has always been that there were no further major blocks of work which could be dispersed without unacceptable loss of efficiency, although minor changes have been made. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House on 3 November 1987, I re-examined the question last year as a result of representations from the Overseas Development Administration's local trade union sides in London and East Kilbride, but concluded that there was no case for a further major dispersal programme.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of Overseas Development Administration posts dispersed to East Kilbride as a result of the reviews and studies which the Administration has carried out since the initial dispersal exercise in 1981.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  One hundred and sixty-seven posts in the Crown Agents pensions division were dispersed to East Kilbride in 1982. The Crown Agents pensions division was incorporated in the Overseas Development Administration's pensions department on 1 December 1987. Three posts dealing with arrangements for joint funding of projects with non-governmental organisations were transferred to East Kilbride from London in 1983. It was decided last year that consultancies department (10 posts based in London) should form part of overseas manpower department (based in East Kilbride). The implications of this for the structure of the department and location of jobs are currently being examined.
  409
  In addition we have nine staff in new posts created in East Kilbride since 1981 in specialist areas such as information technology and internal audit.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Staff Appraisal
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from civil servants on the new staff appraisal system in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  No representations have been received. However, the recently completed evaluation of the new staff appraisal system has shown that the system has been well received by civil servants, who are especially pleased with its openness.

PRIME MINISTER

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to remove from the Property Services Agency its current responsibilities in defence work either(a) in full or (b) in part; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The responsibilities of the Property Services Agency are among the matters kept under review as part of the Government's efforts to improve efficiency and enhance value for money in the provision of Government accommodation. In the event of changes in those responsibilities, an announcement would be made at the appropriate time.

  Nuclear Forces
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her answer of 7 December 1987,Official Report, column 9, whether she will convert the comparison she provided in terms of estimated fire power or throw weight intensity and provide comparable figures for NATO as a whole.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not known what quantities and types of missiles the Soviet Union would retain to meet a 50 per cent. cut in strategic systems. Furthermore, information on missile throw weight and warhead yield is classified.

  Africa (Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of her visit to Kenya and Nigeria; what was her method of travel and who was the carrier; and how many civil servants accompanied her.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) at columns 352–53. I travelled by Royal Air Force VC10.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the charge to journalists who travelled with her to Africa in official transport.

  The Prime Minister
  Journalists who travelled with me to Africa were charged £1,000. This sum was based on commercial rates.

  Government Decisions (Lawyers)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library the memorandum to Government Departments about the inclusion of lawyers in key Government policy decisions.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to place documents dealing with internal Civil Service management procedures in the Library.

  State Security
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration has been given to prosecuting under the Official Secrets Act those individuals who sought to induce Peter Wright to disclose information from MI5 files concerning Lord Wilson; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Any such matter would be for the prosecuting authorities.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has caused inquiries to be made into the identity of individuals who sought to induce Peter Wright to disclose information from MI5 files concerning Lord Wilson; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It would be inappropriate for me to comment on matters at issue in the proceedings concerning the Peter Wright case while those proceedings continue.

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she has taken to ensure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), has complied with the rules governing ministerial conduct, with particular reference to the divestment of financial interests, in so far as they relate to his dealings with the Housing (Scotland) Bill; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have been advised of the facts and am satisfied that no breach of the rules governing ministerial conduct has occurred.

  Conduct of Ministers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library the rules regarding the conduct of Ministers, with specific reference to their financial and other interests.

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to make Cabinet documents public or to release them to Parliament. So far as Ministers' financial interests are concerned, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 26 November 1987 to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) at column 261.

DEFENCE

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 13 November 1987,Official Report, column 333–34, why the British Army equipment exhibition, scheduled to be held at Aldershot from 27 June to 1 July, will not be open to the public.
  411
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The British Army equipment exhibition is designed for professional and technical experts, not for the general public.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses and flats owned by his Department are surplus to requirement; in how many cases the Property Services Agency has been instructed to sell such properties; and how many properties remain unsold(a) more than four months, (b) more than eight months and (c) more than 12 months after the Property Services Agency was instructed to sell them.

  Mr. Freeman
  At 30 November 1987, the most recent date for which statistics are available, a total of 2,397 houses and flats had been declared surplus to MOD's requirements and were still owned by the Ministry of Defence. Of these, PSA had been instructed to sell 844 and a further 384 were in the process of sale through the discounted sales scheme which offers houses (but not flats) to servicemen at a discount of 30 per cent. The remaining 1,169 properties were still being processed by the PL(Lands) division at the Ministry of Defence as part of the normal process prior to sale. Each year PL(Lands) processes about 2,000 properties.

  I regret that the information required to identify the number of the properties remaining unsold after four, eight and 12 months is not available to the PSA and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Flying
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn of 16 November 1987,Official Report, column 452, he will place copies of the standing instructions relating to military flying in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The document in question, the "United Kingdom Military Low Flying Handbook," is classified.

  Ship Disposals
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what grounds he decided to dispose of HMS Chrysanthemum and HMS President, and what consultations he undertook prior to reaching that decision;

  (2) what publicity he gave to his decisions to dispose of HMS Chrysanthemum and HMS President; by what means their prospective sale was publicised; and how many tenders were received for each vessel;

  (3) how many tenders he received for the sale of HMS Chrysanthemum and HMS President, respectively, and what was the price received for each.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  HM ships Chrysanthemum and President currently house the London division royal naval reserve. It was decided to dispose of them, as the headquarters is due to move to new shore accommodation next month and no alternative use within the Royal Navy had been identified.

  Normal disposal procedures were followed. A number of representations concerning their possible future use after disposal were received from organisations outside the Ministry of Defence.
  412
  The sale of HM ships President and Chrysanthemum was advertised in Lloyd's List on 17–18 July 1986. In addition, invitations to tender were invited from a standard panel of ship repairers-breakers. A total of 27 inquiries were received, following which three tenders were submitted for each vessel. As a result the sale price agreed with the highest bidder covering both ships is over £100,000.

  RNAD Coulport
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to the answer given on 8 December 1987,Official Report, column 142, how many jobs will be lost each year as the facilities progress towards the elimination of Polaris and the installation of Trident;

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 8 December 1987, Official Report, column 142, how many jobs he anticipates could be generated by the alternative forms of employment under consideration for workers at RNAD Coulport; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) pursuant to the answer on 8 December 1987, Official Report, column 142, what types of alternative employment are actively being considered for those workers who presently service the Polaris missiles at RNAD Coulport and who will be affected by the demanning involved in the changeover to Trident; and what steps have been taken to research the feasibility of these alternative jobs.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 December at column 142. The phasing out of Polaris is currently the subject of detailed planning within MOD. Until this work is completed, it is not possible to be specific about the timing of any resultant job losses at RNAD Coulport. Assessments of how many new jobs are likely to be created at the depot are similarly dependent upon the outcome of this work, which, because of its complexity, will not be concluded for some considerable time. The investigation into any other possible employment will similarly take a considerable time to complete.

  Vacant Properties
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many empty houses and flats were owned by his Department on the latest available date; and how many were owned on the same date in each of the past eight years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Statistics showing the number of empty service houses and flats and the number of empty MOD owned civilian houses and flats are held separately.

  As at 30 November 1987 (the latest date for which figures are available) the total number of service houses and flats vacant was 15,801. Statistics showing the number of empty service houses and flats throughout the last eight years are only available for each year as at 31 July. This information is:

  Number

  31 July 1980

  19,400

  31 July 1981

  14,850

  31 July 1982

  13,200

  31 July 1983

  14,670

  31 July 1984

  14,527

  31 July 1985

  14,235

  31 July 1986

  14,381

  31 July 1987

  15,529

  413
  The number of MOD civilian houses and flats vacant on 31 March 1987 (the latest date for which these figures are available) was 353. Figures for the previous seven years are shown below:

  Number

  31 March 1980

  313

  31 March 1981

  421

  31 March 1982

  334

  31 March 1983

  678

  31 March 1984

  496

  31 March 1985

  427

  31 March 1986

  361

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Thefts
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, how many items have been reported as stolen from the(a) offices, (b) corridors, (c) family room, (d) Library and (e) refreshment rooms of the Commons section of the Palace of Westminster in 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date; and how many items have been recovered for each period.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Cases of theft from areas in the House of Commons which were reported to the head of security were as follows:

  1986

  1987

  Offices

  10

  4

  Corridors

  1

  Nil

  Families' Room

  Nil

  2

  Library

  Nil

  Nil

  Refreshment Rooms

  5

  2

  One item, stolen in 1987 has been recovered, but investigations into the remaining cases are continuing.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken through the Council of Ministers to condemn police repression in Romania.

  Mr. Mellor
  Romania's observance of its human rights commitments is unsatisfactory. My right hon. and learned Friend had a detailed discussion of this with the Romanian Foreign Minister, during his visit to London in November. Both the United Kingdom delegation and the European Community Presidency have referred to these issues frequently at the Vienna CSCE meeting. We shall continue, with our Community partners, to draw attention to the need for Romania to respect human rights.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. We are concerned at human rights violations wherever they occur. While there continue to be 414
  occasional reports of ill treatment of prisoners, we have noted a recent general improvement in the human rights situation in Zimbabwe as reflected in the Amnesty report itself, particularly the release of large numbers or opposition detainees. Significantly the African Association on Human and People's Rights in Development was established in the presence of a Zimbabwe Minister in Harare on 31 August 1987.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zambia regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in Zambia, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The importance we attach to respect for human rights is well-known to the Zambians arid is regularly expressed at the United Nations, and other international fora.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Uganda regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in Uganda, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Amnesty International's 1987 report noted a "significant" improvement inrespect for human rights in Uganda. The Government of Uganda are publicly committed to respect for human rights. We have regular contacts with them.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in Nigeria, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has made to the Government of Ghana regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in Ghana, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to monitor closely the human rights situation in west Africa as elsewhere and regularly make clear in appropriate fora our view that human rights must be respected in accordance with internationally agreed standards.

  In respect of the 1987 Amnesty International report, no representations have been made to the Governments of Ghana or Nigeria. In general, the human rights situation in these countries has improved over recent years.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in India, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
  415
  Mr. Eggar
  None. We have noted the contents of Amnesty International's 1987 report. We regularly make clear our views on the need for all governments to respect human rights.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in Bangladesh, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have noted the contents of the 1987 Amnesty International report. We regularly make clear our views on the need for all governments to respect human rights and have on several occasions raised with the Bangladesh Government at the highest levels the concern felt in this country for human rights in Bangladesh.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya regarding the affront to civilised values revealed in the recent report by Amnesty International on the abuse of human rights in Kenya, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Kenya's human rights record has been good since independence. In the context of the Amnesty International report, President Moi has given a number of public undertakings that human rights will continue to be respected. In his speech at the official banquet for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 5 January he said,"Our law is clear on the question of protection of human rights … we cannot betray our struggle for Independence by denying our people the very same rights we fought for so hard".

  We have made our view clear on this issue.

  Council of Social Affairs Ministers
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the main decisions of the European Community Council of Social Affairs Ministers in the last five years.

  Mr. Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the six-monthly White Papers on developments in the European Community, which have been laid before Parliament and debated in the House of Commons. For the decisions of the Council of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers from June 1983 to June 1987, the references are set out in the table.

  Council of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers White Papers

  2 June 1983—Cmnd. 9043 September 1983.

  2 December 1983—Cmnd. 9214 March 1984.

  7 June 1984 Cmnd. 9348 September 1984.

  13 December 1984—Cmnd. 9485 May 1985.

  13 June 1985—Cmnd. 9627 September 1985.

  5 December 1985—Cmnd. 9761 March 1986.

  5 June 1986—Cmnd. 9911 October 1986.

  11 December 1986—Cm. 122 April 1987.

  26 May 1987—Cm. 205 September 1987.

  Joint Council of Education and Social Affairs Ministers

  3 June 1983—Cmnd. 9043 September 1983.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply of 17 December 1987 of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment to my hon. Friend the
  416
  Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), decision of the Council of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers held on 1 December 1987.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report those countries for which his Department recommends visitors to take any special precautions to avoid contracting the AIDS virus.

  Mr. Eggar
  AIDS is a worldwide problem: 130 countries had reported AIDS cases to the World Health Organisation as of 12 January 1988. The DHSS leaflet, "Protect Your Health Abroad" gives general health advice (including advice on AIDS) for people travelling overseas.

  The travel inquiries unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's consular department can provide similar advice, and where available official information issued by other countries. Travellers are advised to contact the mission in London of the country which they are visiting for more specific information or on arrival to contact the nearest British mission which can usually provide a list of local medical practitioners, but cannot, of course, provide medical advice.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all members of staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Eggar
  Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action for equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service which was published by the Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and may be dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual diplomatic service or home Civil Service complaints procedure.

  Guidance on reporting complaints has been made available to all staff in the diplomatic and aid wings. There have been no official complaints in the past five years in the diplomatic wing. In the aid wing, one complaint resulted in the offender's being reprimanded.

  Kenya and Nigeria (Prime Minister's Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional costs were incurred by Her Majesty's high commissions in Kenya and Nigeria arising from the visit to those countries by the Prime Minister.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Costs incurred by British high commissions in Kenya and Nigeria are as follows:

  £

  (a) Kenya

  563

  (b) Nigeria

  2,500

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to what discussions have taken place to ensure that representative sections of the Mujahideen will participate in the peace proposals for Afghanistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is clear that the peace process cannot succeed without participation by the Mujahideen. The European Council statement of 5 December 1987 called on the Soviet Union to recognise that the participation of the Afghan resistance is essential to a comprehensive political settlement.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the timing of withdrawal of Soviet troops stationed in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  We regularly raise these issues with the Soviet Government, most recently on 7 December when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed to Mr. Gorbachev the hope that there would be a Soviet withdrawal in 1988.

  Kenya (Detentions without Trial)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made, or intends to make, to the Government of Kenya on the arrest in May 1986 and again in July 1986 and the subsequent detention without trial of Dr. George Katema Mkangi;

  (2) what representations he has made, or intends to make, to the Government of Kenya on the arrest in March 1986 and subsequent detention without trial of Francis Kariuki Gathitu;

  (3) what representations he has made, or will make, to the Government of Kenya on the arrest in July 1986 and again in October 1986 and the subsequent detention without trial of Wanyiri Kihoro;

  (4) what representations he has made or will make to the Government of Kenya on the arrest in May 1986 and again in July 1986 and the subsequent detention without trial of David Mukuru Ng'ang'a.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Kenya's overall human rights record has been good since independence. The Kenyan authorities are well aware of our view on the importance of maintaining this record and our concern over prolonged detention without trial. We raise such cases with them on appropriate occasions.

  Peter Karanja
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made, or will make, to the Government of Kenya on the seven-hour interrogation on 11 January of Judge Marvin Frankel and Dr. Robert Kirschner, both international observers at the inquest into the death in custody of Peter Karanja.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to raise this matter with the Government of Kenya.

  Mr. Ozker Ozgur (Libel Damages)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the implied threat to the legitimate activities of a legal opposition party and those who oppose the integration of northern Cyprus into mainland Turkey, he will make an official protest to the Turkish Government over the award of £100,000 damages against Mr. Ozker Ozgur, the leader of the Republican Turkish Party in Cyprus, for an alleged libel of Mr. Rauf Denktash.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It would not be appropriate for us to make representations over a civil case of this kind. Nor do we believe that the Government of Turkey are involved in this matter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radio Call Signs
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reasons the indentities of the holders of radio call signs are secret; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The identities of civil radio licensees are not classified, but many users of radio such as the police and security firms have very good reasons for not wanting to make unauthorised reception of their transmissions easier. There are also commercial reasons for many other users not wishing to have their call signs made available. Radio amateurs are specifically asked upon issue of their licence whether they wish to have their call sign details published; I respect their decisions.

  All licence details kept on computer are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on the economic prospects for the north-west.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer to the Autumn Statement given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3 November 1987 Official Report, columns 783–86, when he forecast that for the United Kingdom as a whole there was likely to be a continuation of steady growth, low inflation and falling unemployment in 1988. I would expect the economy in the north-west to share in this increasing prosperity. Unemployment in the region is already falling steadily and there is much evidence of rising investment and output from an increasingly competitive industrial base. I am confident that, thanks to the sound fiscal policies and measures to promote enterprise adopted by the Government, the economy of the north-west now has better prospects for sustained growth than for many years. I am also sure that the enterprise initiative which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 12 January, Official Report columns 145–47, will give an added impetus to economic growth in the north-west by allowing the talents arid energies of companies and people in the region to be harnessed even more effectively than in the past.

  Courtaulds
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total of grants paid by his Department to Courtaulds in respect of its Belmont factory since its inception: when the last grant payment was made; if, in view of the closure of the factory, Courtaulds will be repaying grant; what advance notice was given to his Department of the closure of the factory: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Details of assistance paid to individual companies are published in "British Business" in accordance with established procedures. Assistance paid to Courtaulds in respect of its Belmont factory has been mainly by way of regional selective assistance, most of which was paid in 1975 and 1976. No assistance has been paid since 1986. The question of any repayment of grant is a matter for consideration by my Department in negotiation with the company. My Department was notified of the proposed closure the day before the press announcement on 11 December. While the closure is, of course, regrettable, it is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the levels of regional development grant to private licensed mines and opencast mines in the counties of Durham and Northumberland in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Mining is not a qualifying activity for regional development grant.

  Corby (Advanced Manufacturing Projects)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the total payments made of support for advanced manufacturing project planning and implementation in each year since 1980 within the Corby travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following payments have been made under the support for advanced manufacturing project planning and implementation studies scheme within the Corby travel-to-work area:

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  20,320

  1987–88

  2,835

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the measures outlined in his publication "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm 278) will be applicable to areas which do not at present have either regional or assisted area status.

  Mr. Atkins
  Many of the measures outlined in "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm 278) apply throughout Great Britain; such measures include those on competition policy, and improving business and education links. Innovation programmes, including the new collaborative research initiatives in superconductivity and information technology, apply throughout the country,420
  with the exception of the new innovation grant for small firms which will be available only in the development areas.

  Independent firms with fewer than 500 employees are eligible for support of half of the cost of consultancy projects to improve marketing (including export marketing), design, quality management, manufacturing systems and, from April, business planning and financial and information systems. The rate of support is two thirds of the cost in assisted areas and urban programme areas.

  The English Industrial Estates Corporation is giving priority to a programme of managed work space primarily in inner city locations.

  Counterfeiting of Goods
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to make counterfeiting of goods a criminal offence whether done by way of trade or not; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  In the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill which has now completed its Committee stage in another place, we have already proposed a new trade mark offence, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, to deal with counterfeiting. The offence would apply in any case where a trade mark is fraudulently applied to goods, packaging, labelling or advertising material, either for gain or with intent to cause loss to another person.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC in 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Figures for the whole of 1987 are not yet available. The latest information is in the table.

  United Kingdom Balance of Trade in Manufactures' with the European Community

  £ billion

  BOP basis

  OTS basis

  January to September 1987

  -7·7

  -8·4

  January to November 1987

  ֵ

  -10·5

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 5 to 8.

  ֵ Not available.

  Figures on a balance of payments basis are available only quarterly. On the overseas trade statistics basis, imports, but not exports, include the cost of insurance and freight charges.

  Source: United Kingdom overseas trade statistics, Department of Trade and Industry.

  Photovoltaics
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of his Department's future plans for the support of the growing export market in photovoltaics.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: United Kingdom companies in the photovoltaic industry are generally of small to medium size and are, therefore, well placed to benefit from the recently announced enterprise initiative, including the marketing initiative which assists companies to develop a comprehensive marketing plan at home and overseas. All United Kingdom firms,

  421
  irrespective of size, will continue to be helped to succeed in the export market through my Department's new export initiative.

  Within this framework, my Department will continue to encourage collaboration in research and development including by means of the international photovoltaic energy project established as a result of the Versailles (1982) and Williamsburg (1983) economic summits, participation in European Community-funded research, development and demonstration programmes, and the development of international standards, all of which will contribute to the ability of United Kingdom firms to compete effectively in overseas markets.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures of the support given by the Department of Trade and Industry and any other Government Departments towards the development of photovoltaics during the past five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: Over the past five years Government Departments have granted financial assistance of £3,320,000 for the development of photovoltaic devices and systems.

ENERGY

  NUM Elections
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what facilities British Coal will give during the next National Union of Mineworkers elections in particular in the Nottingham area of British Coal.

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

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick),Official Report, 16 December 1987, column 518, if he has any plans to publish previous annual production figures for plutonium from electricity from electricity board safeguarded reactors for the period May 1979 to 31 March 1986.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no plans to publish this information as it could be produced only at disproportionate cost. It is our intention that from now on information on plutonium produced at Britain's civil nuclear power stations will be published annually.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 26 November 1987, column 279, on nuclear safeguards, if he will give the period judged by his Department that would not incur disproportionate cost; and if he will publish the information in the format previously requested for the period from May 1979 to 31 March 1986.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Each year safeguards inspectors from Euratom and-or the International Atomic Energy Agency make frequent visits to United Kingdom civil nuclear facilities.

  British Coal, Nottingham
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what information he has about the numbers of workers employed in British Coal workshops and garages in the Nottinghamshire coalfield area for the years 1979 until the present, inclusive;

  (2) if he will list the numbers and categories of workers employed by British Coal in the Nottinghamshire area for the years from 1979 until the present, inclusive.

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

  Reprocessed Fuel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) on what basis the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority contracted to reprocess fuel from the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board in terms of fixed fuel volumes, duration of contract and linkage to lifetime of nuclear power stations;

  (2) whether the original contracts between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board were concluded on an individual power station basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The UKAEA has no contracts with the CEGB and SSEB to reprocess nuclear fuel. The reprocessing contracts between the authority and the boards which existed before the creation of BNFL were transferred to the company.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether the contracts between British Nuclear Fuels plc and the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board for reprocessing are fixed price contracts; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the contracts between British Nuclear Fuels plc and the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board provide for contingent costs to cover the additional costs arising out of improvements in waste technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The terms under which business is conducted between BNFL and the United Kingdom generating boards are a commercial matter between the parties involved.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost to date of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Recorded expenditure to date on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is in the order of £700 million.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportions the Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant Thorp base load is expected to be provided for by overseas business from Japan.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Some 38 per cent. of the Thorp base load of 6,000 tonnes is expected to be provided for by business from Japan.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  State Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's action over "Spycatcher" in the New Zealand courts.

  The Attorney-General
  The proceedings before the New Zealand Court of Appeal are part-heard and stand adjourned during the court's long vacation in New Zealand.

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act since 1979 have not been proceeded with due to lack of evidence.

  The Attorney-General
  Separate records are not kept of prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act which are not proceeded with due to lack of evidence, and the information could not be collated without incurring disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Barlinnie Prison
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of working days lost by prison officers at Barlinnie prison during the last year due to stress-related illnesses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  NHS (Administrators)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to reduce the number of administrators in the National Health Service in Scotland below the level pertaining in 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We keep tight control of the proportion of total health board revenue which is applied to management and administration; since 1979, it has fallen from 5·5 per cent. to 4·5 per cent. Many administrative staff work directly in support of clinical staff and make an important contribution to patient care. In addition, effective managers make a vital contribution to the efficiency of the Health Service.

  Women Civil Servants
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of civil servants at grade 5 level and above in his Department is female.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The proportion in my departments, excluding the prison service, is 6 per cent.

  Breach of Confidence
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what importance he attaches to the early 424
  implementation of the recommendations of the Law Commission for reform of the law governing breach of confidence.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The report by the Scottish Law Commission on breach of confidence (Scot Law Com. No. 90) made no conclusive recommendation on the need for legislation in this area. I am keeping the law governing breach of confidence under review, but have not yet decided whether to legislate to supplement the common law or to leave development of the law to the courts.

  School Rolls (East Kilbride)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the East Kilbride projected school rolls for the primary and secondary sectors, broken down by denominational and non-denominational category, for each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about projected school rolls in individual schools is not prepared centrally.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) of 17 December 1987,Official Report, column 723, how much of the funds for the environmentally sensitive areas will go to the Scottish areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The level of expenditure in Scottish environmentally sensitive areas will depend on the number of farmers wishing to join the scheme. In 1988–89 when three new areas will be introduced, it is estimated that expenditure could be about £1·5 million.

  Scottish National Meat Centre
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support Her Majesty's Government will give to the Scottish national meat centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Proposals for setting up a Scottish national meat centre are at a very early stage and the extent of private sector support is not yet clear. It is not, therefore, possible to say at present whether any public financial support is required or appropriate.

WALES

  Social Workers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to how many social workers are employed in each of the eight counties of Wales; and what is the average number of social workers per 100,000 head of population for the latest date and for each of the last four years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information about the number of senior social workers, social workers, community workers, trainee social workers and social work (welfare) assistants is given in the table:
  425

  Social Workers Employed at 30 September

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Local authority

  No. of WTE

  Rate per 100,000 population

  No. of WTE

  Rate per 100,000 population

  No. of WTE

  Rate per 100,000 population

  No. of WTE

  Rate per 100,000 population

  No. of WTE

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Clwyd

  141·8

  36·0

  159·3

  40·3

  169·0

  42·6

  161·0

  40·5

  165·0

  41·3

  Dyfed

  13·41

  40·2

  144·0

  42·9

  149·0

  44·5

  148·0

  44·1

  159·1

  46·9

  Gwent

  210·5

  47·8

  209·6

  47·6

  213·6

  48·6

  205·6

  46·7

  225·6

  51·1

  Gwynedd

  97·9

  42·2

  97·9

  42·2

  101·5

  43·6

  107·7

  46·1

  110·4

  47·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  278·0

  51·6

  294·5

  54·9

  311·8

  58·4

  324·3

  60·7

  331·0

  61·9

  Powys

  44·5

  40·2

  44·0

  39·8

  43·7

  39·5

  43·8

  39·3

  41·1

  36·6

  South Glamorgan

  217·5

  55·8

  230·9

  58·9

  243·3

  61·7

  236·1

  59·8

  250·1

  63·2

  West Glamorgan

  171·5

  46·6

  179·0

  48·8

  184·0

  50·5

  197·0

  54·1

  194·5

  53·5

  Wales

  1,295·9

  46·2

  1,359·2

  48·4

  1,415·9

  0·4

  1,423·5

  50·6

  1,476·8

  52·4

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a special financial allocation to Clwyd county council to enable it to recruit more social workers.

  Mr. Grist
  The total amount of rate support grant made available for 1988–89, and the principles underlying its distribution between authorities, are published in the Welsh rate support grant report 1988–89. The allocations were approved by the House on 15 December, and there is no scope for extra allocations.

  It is for individual authorities to determine spending priorities for their areas. However, in setting current expenditure provision for Wales for 1988–89, an increase of £9·9 million or 7·1 per cent. was allowed for personal social services (including port health).

  Trainee Nurses
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of trainees entering nursing for the state registered nurse and registered general nurse course in Wales for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. The Department holds information only on the number of people in training at any one time. Information on the number in training in September in each year is given in the following table:

  State Registered Nurse

  State Enrolled Nurse

  1978

  2,168

  1,284

  1979

  2,347

  1,227

  1980

  2,306

  1,294

  1981

  2,676

  1,378

  1982

  2,641

  1,256

  1983

  2,661

  1,080

  1984

  2,670

  983

  1985

  2,639

  852

  1986

  2,693

  776

  1987

  2,769

  879

  Trainee Therapists and Midwives
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of (i) trainee physiotherapists, (ii) trainee speech therapists, (iii) trainee occupational therapists and (iv) trainee midwives (Royal College of Midwives) entering courses in Wales during each of the past 10 years.
  426
  Mr. Grist
  The information requested for trainee physiotherapists, trainee occupational therapists and trainee midwives is not available centrally on an all-Wales basis. Information on the number of first year entrants into speech therapy courses at colleges of higher education is available for Wales from 1979–80 and is as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  10

  1980–81

  14

  1981–82

  14

  1982–83

  15

  1983–84

  17

  1984–85

  15

  1985–86

  15

  1986–87

  15

  Cardigan Bypass
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest developments regarding the Cardigan bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Following the public inquiry held in July 1987, line, side roads and compulsory purchase orders were made in December. Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and engineering design and the availability of resources, the scheme is expected to start in the period January 1988 to December 1990.

  Welsh Language Bill
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the submissions made to his Department during his consultation exercise on the case for a new Welsh Language Bill during 1986–87 to be made available to the public for inspection.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  As soon as my right hon. Friend and I have completed our further consideration of issues related to the Welsh language.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many offers there have been, and of what total value, against which a first payment was made of(a) regional selective assistance of (i) less than £5,000 and (ii) £5,000 or more by his Department in each financial quarter since 1985–86 in (1) Holyhead, (2) Bangor/Caernarfon, (3) Pwllheli, and (4) Portmadog Ffestiniog travel-to-work areas, respectively; and (b) regional development grants of (i) less than £5,000 and (ii) 5,000 or more in the Holyhead travel-to-work area.
  427
  Mr. Peter Walker
  There have been no offers of regional selective assistance since 1985–86 against which a first payment has been made in the travel-to-work areas of Holyhead, Pwllheli and Porthmadog and Ffestiniog. In the Bangor and Caernarfon TTWA, there have been no such offers of less than £5,000. Details of those for £5,000 or more are set out in the table.

  In the case of regional development grant, details of offers in the Holyhead TTWA against which a first payment has been made are given in the table for the period 1 April 1985 to 31 December 1987 as a whole. In order to protect confidentiality on individual projects which do not meet the standard criteria for publication, the information is not broken down into financial quarters.

  I envisage more regional development grant during 1988–89 and thereafter an increase in demand for regional selective assistance in the area.

  (i) RSA offers—1.4.85 to 31.12.87 (where a first payment has been made).

  Bangor and Caemarfon TTWA

  Offers of £5,000 or more

  Period

  Number

  Total Value

  £

  1 April 1985–30 June 1985

  1

  5,000

  1 July 1985–30 September 1985

  1

  24,000

  1 October 1985–31 December 1986

  —

  —

  1 January 1987–31 March 1987

  2

  54,000

  1 April 1987–31 December 1987

  —

  —

  Total

  4

  83,000

  Persons on the register of handicapped people at 31 March 1987

  Handicap

  Deaf with speech

  Deaf without speech

  Hard of hearing

  Blind

  Partially sighted

  General classes2

  Total

  Clwyd

  Number

  61

  138

  709

  1,077

  688

  29,804

  32,477

  per cent. of population1

  0·015

  0·034

  0·177

  0·270

  0·172

  7·458

  8·127

  Dyfed

  Number

  78

  44

  195

  1,375

  755

  8,052

  10,499

  per cent. of population

  0·023

  0·013

  0·058

  0·406

  0·223

  2·375

  3·097

  Gwent

  Number

  182

  187

  184

  1,475

  1,070

  15,249

  18,347

  per cent. of population

  0·041

  0·042

  0·042

  0·334

  0·242

  3·452

  4·153

  Gwynedd

  Number

  44

  57

  351

  801

  339

  6,116

  7,708

  per cent. of population

  0·019

  0·024

  0·150

  0·341

  0·144

  2·607

  3·286

  Mid Glamorgan

  Number

  173

  194

  437

  1,849

  1,271

  36,162

  40,086

  per cent. of population

  0·032

  0·036

  0·082

  0·346

  0·238

  6·766

  7·500

  Powys

  Number

  60

  35

  232

  249

  144

  2,985

  3,705

  per cent. of population

  0·053

  0·031

  0·206

  0·222

  0·128

  2·656

  3·296

  South Glamorgan

  Number

  169

  103

  222

  807

  516

  10,400

  12,217

  per cent. of population

  0·043

  0·026

  0·056

  0·204

  0·130

  2·628

  3·087

  West Glamorgan

  Number

  221

  274

  355

  870

  833

  10,710

  13,263

  per cent. Of population

  0·061

  0·075

  0·098

  0·239

  0·229

  2·947

  3·650

  428

  (ii) RDG offers—1 April 1985 to 31 December 1987 (where a first payment has been made).

  Holyhead TTWA

  Offer Value

  Number

  Total Value

  £

  Less than £5,000

  14

  30,961

  £5,000 or more

  28

  1,005,791

  Total

  42

  1,036,752

  Access Groups
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which planning authorities in Wales regularly consult access groups concerning the needs of physically disabled people;

  (2) if he will list those Welsh planning authorities which have appointed access officers either on a full-time or part-time basis.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on those Welsh planning authorities which have appointed access officers and those which regularly consult access groups is not held centrally.

  Physically Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales and in each of the Welsh counties have physical disabilities; and in each case what percentage of the population they represent.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the table:
  429

  Handicap

  Deaf with speech

  Deaf without speech

  Hard of hearing

  Blind

  Partially sighted

  General classes2

  Total

  Wales

  Number

  988

  1,032

  2,685

  8,503

  5,616

  119,478

  138,302

  per cent, of population

  0·035

  0·036

  0·095

  0·301

  0·199

  4·235

  4·902

  1 Based on Registrar General's mid-year population estimates for 1986.

  2 Excluding those whose sole disability is a mental disorder.

  Disabled and Visually Handicapped People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department has issued to planning authorities in Wales concerning the needs of the disabled and visually handicapped in planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Separate guidance to planning authorities on the provision of access for the disabled is given in development control policy note No. 16 "Access for the Disabled" and in Welsh Office circular 21/82 "Disabled Persons Act 1981".

  Students (Special Educational Needs)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students with special educational needs regularly attend courses run by colleges of further and higher education in Wales and in each of the Welsh counties.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Artificial Limb and Appliance Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he hopes to announce the results of his Department's consultation process on the consultative document on the future of the artificial limb and appliance service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Our decision to confirm the preferred option, set out in the consultation document, was announced on 26 November 1987; management responsibility will be vested in the Welsh health Common Services A uthority from 1 April 1988. For north Wales our proposals in respect of the limb service remain as set out in Welsh health circular 87/11.

  Horne Committee
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation in Wales of the recommendations of the Home committee.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and confirm that such legislation would apply equally in Wales.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is considering commissioning a survey of disabled students in higher and further education in Wales similar to the survey commissioned on the situation in England by the Department of Education and Science and published in 1987.
  430
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It is not intended to commission a survey on this subject in Wales, but plans are being developed to collect information on students with special educational needs at Welsh institutions of further and higher education in the public sector annually, commencing in academic year 1988–89.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to prevent, contain and treat outbreaks of meningitis in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Facilities for treating patients with meningitis exist in all district general hospitals and there are well-established procedures for contact tracing and the provision of prophylactic antibiotic treatment. In addition to advice that the Chief Medical Officer issued in June 1987, the consultant regional epidemiologist has reviewed the literature and has recently provided detailed professional guidance to all specialists in community medicine in Wales. Further professional guidance will be issued shortly.

  Speed of treatment is crucial in dealing with cases of meningococcol meningitis and this can be a major determinant of the outcome. It is important, therefore, that the symptoms and signs are known to all and, the Department will be making available urgently supplies of a suitable information leaflet.

ENVIRONMENT

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes an immediate or tapered cut-off of benefits when the enterprise zone period comes to an end; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  When the period for which an area is designated as an enterprise zone comes to an end, the financial benefits arising from enterprise zone status will cease immediately.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to announce the conclusions of the study of provision of caravan sites for gipsies under the Caravan Sites Act 1986: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 6 February last at column 856.

  Hostels
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are his estimates of the effects of the abolition of the hostel deficit grant on the occupancy of hostels which have been in receipt of the grant;

  (2) what are his estimates of the effects of the proposed abolition of the hostel deficit grant on the cash flow position of small voluntary groups running hostels;

  (3) what are his estimates of the effects of the proposed abolition of the hostel deficit grant on the financial position of voluntary organisations responsible for the management of special needs housing and hostels;

  (4) what plans he has for consulting voluntary organisations directly responsible for the management of special needs, housing and hostels over the proposed abolition of the hostel deficit grant;

  (5) what transitional arrangements are planned following the proposed abolition of the hostel deficit grant.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to abolish hostel deficit grant. The Housing Bill will enable payments of such grant to continue as a form of revenue support for registered housing associations.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations will be held on redesigning the hostel finance system and reassessing proposed board and lodging ceilings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We intend to issue a consultation paper on possible future arrangements for the funding of hostels run by registered housing associations. The paper will be widely distributed and the views of interested organisations and individuals will be welcome.

  Board and lodging payment levels are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service, which was published by the Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through departmental complaints procedures. Guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff. No central record of complaints was kept until mid-1986. Since then there have been four complaints which have been fully investigated. It is not the Department's practice to publish the disciplinary action taken in individual cases.

  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to bring into force the remaining sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
  432
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We aim to make a further commencement order in March 1988 for parts II, III and IV (dealing respectively with the appointment by the court of managers, the compulsory acquisition of the landlord's interest in certain circumstances and the variation of leases) and to bring the remaining provisions into force as soon as possible thereafter.

  Nature Reserves (County Durham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions he is making to privatise Castle Eden Dene, Hawthorn Dene and other nature reserves in the county of Durham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has asked the Nature Conservancy Council to consider whether there is scope for national nature reserves to be held in private ownership under appropriate conservation safeguards. The council's advice is expected later this year.

  Hawthorn Dene site of special scientific interest is already in private ownership. I understand that part of the site is managed by a local conservation trust, but it is not designated as a national nature reserve.

  Recycled Grant, Hertfordshire
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing the amount of rate support grant-recycling received in 1987–88 by Hertfordshire county council and each district council in Hertfordshire; and whether that recycled grant was spent.

  Mr. Chope
  There was no recyling in the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement.

  Rating Reform
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish, for every London borough, metropolitan district and non-metropolitan district, the proportion of income which would be taken by community charge in 1987–88 consistent with his figures of 17 November 1987 for community charges with no safety net for a married couple whose joint gross income was(a) £4,000, (b) £5,000, (c) £7,500, (d) £10,000, (e) £15,000, (f) £20,000, (g) £30,000, (h) £50,000, and (i) £100,000, on the assumption in each case that the couple was not entitled to any social security support;

  (2) if he will publish, for every London borough, metropolitan district and non-metropolitan district, the proportion of income which would be taken by community charge in 1987–88 consistent with his figures of 17 November 1987 for community charges with no safety net, for a single person with a gross income of (a) £3,000, (b) £4,000, (c) £5,000, (d) £7,500, (e) £10,000, (f) £15,000, (g) £20,000, (h) £30,000, (i) £50,000, and (j) £100,000, on the assumption in each case that the individual was not entitled to any social security support.

  Mr. Howard
  I am writing to my hon. Friend.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many employees of the Property
  433
  Services Agency (full-time equivalents) are engaged in selling real property (leasehold or freehold) owned by Government Departments.

  Mr. Chope
  PSA controls the disposal programme estimated to bring in £124 million in 1987–88 for all surplus MOD and Government civil estate property. A central disposals unit of eight professional estates staff handles major MOD cases. Other disposals work is the responsibility of regional estates staff as part of their management activities. The time spent on disposals represents the equivalent of about 45 of these staff. Actual marketing of property is conducted by appointed agents.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list those clients other than Government Departments, for whom the Property Services Agency carried out work during the year ended 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Chope
  Following is a list of organisations other than Government Departments which paid in the year ending 31 December 1987 for works and estates services provided by PSA. Services for most of these clients were incidental to PSA's normal operations and the payments were small.

  The Oil and Pipeline Agency

  Hensol Hospital District

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Crown Agents

  Plymouth Navy Days Committee

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  Birmingham International Airport

  Oftel

  Building Services Research and Information Association

  Royal Commission, Environmental Pollution

  Government Communications Bureau

  Royal Mint

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  British Board of Agrément

  British Gas

  Hong Kong Government

  Brunei Government

  Gibraltar Government

  Royal Navy Museum Portsmouth

  RAF Museum Hendon

  Fleet Air-Arm Museum

  North West Regional Health Authority

  Liverpool Airport Merseyside County Council

  North Yorkshire Area Health Authority

  TAVR

  Council of Medical Education

  REME Training Centre Aborfield

  Federal German Armed Forces

  PAN AM

  Services Sound and Vision Corporation

  Inland Revenue Sports Association

  NAAFI

  Royal Scottish Academy

  The Sailors Fund

  West Yorkshire Police

  Air Training Corps

  Falkland Islands Government

  HQ Air Cadets

  Falkland Islands Development Commission

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Local Government Boundaries Commission

  Civil Service Sports Council

  Roe Motors

  BBC

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  Humberside Communications Equipment Ltd.

  Automobile Association

  Kilnwick Agrochemicals

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  Bristol County of Avon

  434

  Post Office

  British Telecom

  Wessex Water Authority

  Carrick District Council

  Greenwich Hospital

  Royal College of Art

  Western European Union

  Scottish Research Reactor Centre

  WRVS Ltd.

  UKAEA

  NATO

  Forestry Commission

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Royal Ordnance Factories plc

  Royal Society of Chemistry

  United States Armed Forces

  Fire Insurers research and Test Organisation

  Scottish Health Service Common Services Agency

  European School Culham

  Royal Hospital Chelsea

  Hydraulics Research Station

  Remploy

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

  Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust

  Armouries HM Tower of London

  National Army Museum Chelsea

  Trox Bros Ltd.

  Portways-Vitaluscin

  ACE Filtration Ltd.

  Spantile Ltd.

  The Associates of the V and A

  P and S Speritex SRL

  The Law Society

  British Academy

  The Keep Britain Tidy Group

  Bondina Industrial

  Camfil Ltd.

  ITN TV

  BBC (Outside Broadcasts)

  Westminster City Council

  Epping Forest District Council

  Automet Filtration Ltd.

  TCA (UK) Ltd.

  Macbream Investments Ltd.

  Hunter International Ltd.

  Eastern Elecricity Board

  AJEX

  London Docklands Development Corporation

  Tesco Stores Ltd.

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  Windsor Festival Society Ltd.

  Glasfloss Europe SA

  Social Security Appeals Tribunal

  Universal Filters

  Interfilter Ltd.

  Filter Supply and Manufacturing Co Ltd.

  Derbyshire County Council

  Vokers Ltd.

  Catt Ewater Harbour Commissioners

  County of Cambridgeshire

  British National Oil Corporation

  Audit Commission

  British Airport Authority

  British Aerospace Ltd.

  25 Next of Kins for War-Grave Headstones

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed by the Property Services Agency on 31 December 1987 and on the last day of each of the preceding eight years.

  Mr. Chope
  On 31 December 1987 25,743 non-industrial and industrial staff were employed by the Property Services Agency (including staff in the Crown Suppliers and engaged on work for the United States forces). I regret that it is not possible, in the time available, to provide staff

  435
  numbers for the last day of each of the preceding eight years. The numbers employed on 1 April in those years, however, were:—

  Number

  1979

  40,095

  1980

  36,626

  1981

  34,763

  1982

  31,512

  1983

  30,077

  1984

  28,747

  1985

  27,779

  1986

  27,009

  1987

  26,379

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to reduce the numbers employed by the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  From 1 April 1988 the number employed by the agency will depend on changes in the workload for client Departments and the money voted for resource costs, of which manpower costs are a part. The agency will continue to seek opportunities to reduce staff by contracting out more work to the private sector where that would result in better value for money.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many employees of the Property Services Agency have been prosecuted for fraud, theft or corruption during each of the past eight years; how many of those have been convicted; and how many have been disciplined but not prosecuted for such offences.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested (in respect of both non-industrial and industrial staff) is as follows:

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Year

  Number of Officers Prosecuted

  Number of Officers Convicted

  Number of Officers Disciplined but not Prosecuted

  1979

  4

  4

  2

  1980

  5

  5

  6

  1981

  1

  1

  6

  1982

  11

  10

  8

  1983

  2

  2

  10

  1984

  5

  5

  9

  1985

  6

  4

  19

  1986

  5

  3

  4

  1987

  3

  3

  9

  1988

  1

  1

  —

  Notes:

  1. The year in column 1 is that in which action on the cases was completed. There are six outstanding cases where officers have been charged but the prosecutions are not completed.

  2. Column 4 includes a number of minor cases where the offence involved travel and subsistence claims or abuses of working hours rules etc.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to eliminate fraud, theft and corruption in the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  The Wardale report, published in 1983 drew attention to a number of weaknesses in the agency's436
  defences against fraud and corruption. In 1984 there were allegations of major contractual irregularities in certain PSA London district works offices which culminated in the recent conviction of a number of PSA officials and contractors at the Central Criminal Court. Further trials relating to those allegations are pending.

  In the period since 1984 the agency has taken a number of steps to combat both contractual and other forms of fraud, theft and corruption. In the contractual field detailed contract audits have been carried out across the whole of the agency's organisation and new procedures, including computerised records of all tenders, have been set up in key areas. Systematic and regular monitoring and inspections now take place in all district works offices. A special unit has been established to investigate suspected cases of fraud, theft and corruption and to undertake random inspections of individual PSA offices. A restructuring of the agency's regional organisation has included the strengthening of management control of district works offices.

  By these various means I am sure that the agency has improved its defences against fraud, theft and corruption, but continued vigilance is essential and will be maintained.

  Sale of Property
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of how many houses and flats which Property Services Agency has received instructions from Government Departments to sell contracts for sale have not yet been exchanged; and how many of those houses and flats remain unsold more than(a) four months, (b) eight months and (c) 12 months after instructions to sell were received by the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  As at 31 December, 43 dwellings on the Government civil estate accepted for disposal by the Property Services Agency had not yet reached an exchange of contracts. The breakdown of this figure is:

  Number

  With PSA for less than 4 months

  3

  With PSA for more than 4 months but less than 8 months

  17

  With PSA for more than 8 months but less than 12 months

  3

  With PSA for more than 12 months

  20

  Information about dwellings on the defence estate is being provided separately by the Ministry of Defence.

  Water Authorities (Sale of Land)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether water authorities are required by him to sell freehold or leasehold land which is surplus to operational requirements; and how much surplus land has been sold by each of the nine water authorities in each of the past eight years.

  Mr. Moynihan Yes. The sales of unused or underused land in each year from the land register in acres are as follows. Disaggregated information is not available before 1984.
  437

  1981–82 (inclusive)

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Anglian Water

  270

  221

  10

  178

  74

  7

  Northumbrian Water

  3

  17

  3

  15

  North West Water

  14

  25

  1

  10

  Severn Trent Water

  3

  nil

  27

  nil

  Southern Water

  4

  nil

  nil

  nil

  South West Water

  2

  21

  10

  21

  Thames Water

  7

  44

  nil

  65

  Wessex Water

  6

  nil

  10

  nil

  Yorkshire Water

  nil

  12

  1

  nil

  Water Authorities (Surplus Land)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land suplus to operational requirements are owned, whether freehold or leasehold, by each of the nine water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The acreage of unused or underused land on the land register held by each English water authority at 31 December 1987 was:

  Acres

  Anglian Water

  242

  Northumbrian Water

  126

  North West Water

  390

  Severn Trent Water

  185

  Southern Water

  344

  South West Water

  22

  Thames Water

  542

  Wessex Water

  9

  Yorkshire Water

  422

  Sir Christopher Wren (Museum)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to initiate or provide funds for a museum to commemorate the life and work of Sir Christopher Wren; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no plans to set up such a museum, and am not aware of proposals from others to do so.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all members of staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service which was published by the Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures. Guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff.

  Three formal complaints have been reported centrally to personnel division in the last five years; all were investigated and disciplinary action was taken as appropriate.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific steps he is taking to make sure that farmers and agricultural workers are aware of the new controls on the use of pesticides, as from 1 January.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department has distributed some 200,000 copies to date of the leaflet "Pesticides—Guide to the New Controls", which will continue to be made available at suitable agricultural shows and events. This will be supplemented before this year's spraying season with a further publication drawing particular attention to the measures coming into force in both 1988 and 1989. We plan to publish at about the same time a revised list of centres providing training appropriate to certification requirements for pesticides users. We will also be publishing a new draft of a code of practice for the agricultural and horticultural industry.

  The Ministry's publicity efforts are not being carried out in isolation. The Agricultural Training Board and the proficieny tests councils are giving prominence to the training requirements and many sections of the industry are helping to get the message across.

  Citrus Fruits (Chemical Spraying)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce the labelling of EEC citrus fruit coming into the United Kingdom which has been sprayed with the chemicals thiabendazol or ortophenilphenol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: Strict controls on the levels on which these chemicals may be used as preservatives on fruit are laid down in the regulations following advice from independent experts. There is no requirement in the food labelling regulations that such fruit should be labelled and I have no plans at present to alter that situation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service which was published by the Cabinet Office (Management
  439
  and Personnel Office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures. The DE group's policy was agreed on this basis. It was issued to all staff in December 1984 with guidance on the reporting and handling of complaints. We have monitored this policy since July 1985 and in the 18 months to December 1986 (the last date for which figures are available) 31 cases have been reported. Appropriate action has been taken in all cases. Disciplinary penalties imposed have ranged from a written warning to a transfer at the offending officer's own expense.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the effect of the community programme in competing with private building companies for work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Following representations from the building industry in 1986, the Manpower Services Commission agreed procedures for ensuring that existing jobs and activities are not put at risk by community programme objects.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the number of persons out of work and claiming benefit in each parliamentary constituency in (a) August 1984 and (b) April 1987 and the percentage charge revealed by these figures for each constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  I am sending my hon. Friend the information requested which is also available in the Library.

  Local Enterprise Agencies (Corby)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the total payments made under the programme of assistance to local enterprise agencies in the Corby development area in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Cope
  None. No agency in the Corby development area has applied for a local enterprise agency grant, nor for approval under the terms of section 48(4) of the Finance Act 1982.

  Settle to Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the joint report for the Manpower Services Commission-Jarvis plc study into job creation and promotion along the Settle to Carlisle railway corridor to be received; whether it will be circulated to all interested parties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The final report of the feasibility study is expected at the end of January. Ministers and those with an interest will be sent a copy.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the joint report of the Manpower Services Commission-Jarvis plc study into job creation and promotion along the Settle to Carlisle railway corridor; whether copies will be made available for all the 440
  local authorities assisting in financing the local service along the Settle to Carlisle railway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Copies will be made available for comment to local authorities, and I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Disabled Workers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the percentage of disabled workers employed in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector.

  Mr. Lee
  [pursuant to the reply 3 December 1987, c. 600]: I regret that there was an error in line 4 of the original text and the figure 8 per cent. should read 0·8 per cent. The correct text should read as follows:
  "The only information available is about the extent of which employers covered by the quota scheme meet their obligation under that scheme. On 1 June 1986, 0·8 per cent. of public sector employees, and 1 per cent. of private sector employees, were registered disabled."

  Fit for Work Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector have gained the Manpower Services Commission's Fit for Work award in each year of the award to 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on Wednesday 2 December,Official Report columns 600–1

  The Fit for Work award is now a Department of Employment responsibility adminstered by the employment service.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the 1987 awards in the Manpower Services Commission's Fit for Work scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  The Fit for Work award scheme is not a Department of Employment responsibility administered by the employment service. The national reception for the 1987 award winners took place at Lancaster house on 9 December 1987. 100 awards have been made in 1987, and the names of the 100 winners were announced on that date.

  Unemployment Benefit Claims
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish up-to-date figues showing(a) the total number of new benefit claims from unemployed people since the beginning of 1987, (b) how many of these claims resulted in a benefit award, (c) a breakdown of the difference in the two figures showing the numbers deemed unavailable for work, those deemed voluntarily unemployed, withdrawn claims and any other reasons and (4) the number of appeals against benefit decisions, distinguishing between different types of decision, together with the results of such appeals.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: I have been asked to reply.

  In the first 10 months of 1987 some 4·1 million claims to unemployment benefit were made. It is estimated that

  441
  40 per cent. of all new claims result in payment of unemployment benefit only, 10 per cent. in payment of both unemployment benefit and supplementary allowance and 35 per cent. in payment of supplementary allowance only. The remaining 15 per cent. do not attract any benefit but a large proportion of these claims result in an award of credits.

  Of claims not attracting unemployment benefit, about 5 per cent. are disallowed unemployment benefit on the grounds of unavailability for work, 30 per cent. are disallowed on the basis that the claimant became unemployed voluntarily and 65 per cent. for other reasons, such as the receipt of a payment in lieu of notice, dismissal for misconduct or delayed claim.

  The latest available figures for appeals are for the quarter ending 31 March 1987:

  Reason for disallowance

  Non-availability and limited availability for work

  Voluntarily unemployed

  Other

  Number of appeals heard

  716

  1,002

  3,161

  Number decided in appellant's favour

  251

  426

  976

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Ante-natal Provision (Crewe and Nantwich)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures have been taken in the Crewe and Nantwich health district to ensure that the ante-natal provision complies with the recommendations of the report "Maternity Care in Action" of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Maternity Services Advisory Committee's report provides health authorities with a guide to good practice to be used to improve the quality of maternity care. It is for individual health authorities to examine with all concerned the way ante natal care is provided locally and the hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of the Crewe health authority for the information she seeks.

  Consultants' Reports (Lothian and the Borders)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time it takes in the Lothian and the Borders health board areas for a full medical consultant's report to come if it is called for in making an assessment of a person's eligibility for industrial disablement benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Value of child support1 for each child in standard rate tax-paying families expressed at April 19872 prices (£)

  Children under age 11

  Children under age 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  Date3

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  April 1958

  6·77

  8·92

  9·58

  8·42

  10 65

  11·15

  10·16

  12·30

  12·88

  April 1959

  6·20

  8·43

  9·01

  7·69

  10·00

  10·58

  9·26

  11·49

  12·15

  April 1960

  6·15

  8·37

  9·03

  7·63

  9·93

  10·50

  9·19

  11·41

  12·06

  Charities
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will break down how the £15 million to be donated to charities following the adjustment to benefits announced on 18 November was arrived at.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  The amount announced on 18 December of £10 million to £15 million to be donated to charities was an initial estimate. We now expect that around £14·5 million will be available. About half of this represents the underspend on social security expenditure after the special payments have been made, and the remainder underspend on public sector pensions.

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants will receive no increase in their benefit following the adjustment being made due to the error in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that about 4·5 million people who receive a social security benefit that is affected by the error in the retail prices index will not be included in the February special payments exercise.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social services what would have been the additional cost of adjusting all benefits following the errors in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Scott
  As I announced in my statement to the House on 18 December, we estimate that £109 million will have been underspent as a result of the error in the calculation of the retail prices index. This is equal to the sum which will be disbursed in the form of special payments to social security beneficiaries and donations to charities. Administrative costs would have been considerably higher if we had attempted to calculate and pay each individual loss.

  Child and Family Allowances
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1958 the combined value of child tax allowance after clawback and family allowance or child benefit expressed in November 1987 prices for the first, second and third child in standard rate tax paying families.

  Mr. Scott
  Comparison of values at dates other than upratings can be misleading. The figures up to the last general benefit uprating date of April 1987 are given in the table. They will be updated when the movement in the retail price index over the 12 months to April 1988 is known. Until the mid-1960s, the value of support, including child tax allowances, was substantially more for families paying standard rate income tax than for families on average earnings.
  443

  Children under age 11

  Children under age 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  Date3

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child4

  April 1961

  5·99

  8·15

  8·79

  7·43

  9·67

  10·23

  8·95

  11·10

  11·74

  April 1962

  5·67

  7·71

  8·31

  7·03

  9·15

  9·68

  8·47

  10·51

  11·11

  April 1963

  6·37

  8·37

  8·96

  7·70

  9·85

  10·30

  9·11

  11·18

  11·70

  April 1964

  6·24

  8·20

  8·78

  7·55

  9·66

  10·09

  8·93

  10·96

  11·47

  April 1965

  6·26

  8·18

  8·60

  7·63

  9·49

  9·97

  9·01

  10·87

  11·35

  April 1966

  6·04

  7·90

  8·30

  7·37

  9·16

  9·63

  8·70

  10·49

  10·96

  April 1967

  5·87

  7·67

  8·06

  7·16

  8·90

  9·35

  8·44

  10·19

  10·64

  April 1968

  5·62

  7·04

  7·47

  6·85

  8·27

  8·64

  8·09

  9·44

  9·87

  April 1969

  5·32

  6·96

  7·37

  6·49

  8·13

  8·54

  7·66

  9·30

  9·65

  April 1970

  5·04

  6·59

  6·98

  6·15

  7·70

  8·09

  7·25

  8·81

  9·14

  April 1971

  5·87

  7·44

  7·79

  6·78

  8·40

  8·76

  7·74

  9·31

  9·67

  April 1972

  5·52

  7·00

  7·33

  6·38

  7·90

  8·24

  7·28

  8·76

  9·09

  April 1973

  5·01

  6·28

  6·58

  5·93

  7·15

  7·45

  6·67

  7·89

  8·20

  April 1974

  5·75

  6·81

  7·08

  6·62

  7·61

  7·91

  7·34

  8·33

  8·63

  April 1975

  5·04

  6·97

  6·97

  5·75

  7·68

  7·68

  6·38

  8·34

  8·34

  April 1976

  5·28

  6·93

  6·93

  5·89

  7·53

  7·53

  6·44

  8·06

  8·06

  April 1977

  5·08

  5·81

  5·81

  5·59

  6·33

  6·33

  6·04

  6·75

  6·75

  April 1978

  6·05

  6·05

  6·05

  6·52

  6·52

  6·52

  6·91

  6·91

  6·91

  April 1979

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  7·50

  November 1980

  6·96

  6·96

  6·96

  6·96

  6·96

  6·96

  6·96

  6·96

  6·96

  November 1981

  6·87

  6·87

  6·87

  6·87

  6·87

  6·87

  6·87

  6·87

  6·87

  November 1982

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  7·20

  November 1983

  7·63

  7·63

  7·63

  7·63

  7·63

  7·63

  7·63

  7·63

  7·63

  November 1984

  7·67

  7·67

  7·67

  7·67

  7·67

  7·67

  7·67

  7·67

  7·67

  November 1985

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  7·43

  July 1986

  7·41

  7·41

  7·41

  7·41

  7·41

  7·41

  7·41

  7·41

  7·41

  April 1987

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  1 The combined value of child tax-allowances after Clawback and Family Allowance/Child Benefit.

  2 Based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices at April 1987.

  3 Child Tax Allowance ceased after the 1978–79 Tax Year end and up-rating dates are shown from 1979 onwards.

  4 And subsequent children.

  NHS (Restrictive Practices)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to reduce restrictive practices within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  We always seek to ensure the most effective and efficient working practices within the National Health Service to secure the best possible service to patients.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the number of trainees in England entering nursing for the state registered nurse registered general nurse course for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is:

  Intakes to Registered General Nurse Training England: Year Ending 31 March

  Number

  1978

  14,490

  1979

  17,290

  1980

  15,970

  1981

  15,020

  1982

  15,430

  1983

  14,600

  1984

  13,620

  1985

  14,900

  1986

  14,210

  1987

  14,010

  Notes:

  1 All figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 England only figures not available prior to 1984, therefore figures have been assumed to be 95 per cent. of England and Wales total.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he proposes to make weekly additional grants from the social fund in respect of community care needs.

  Mr. Scott
  Community care grants are intended to help certain priority groups who are receiving income support meet exceptional expenses. The social fund is not a form of weekly maintenance and help will be provided by way of lump sum payments. At present we do not propose to alter these arrangements.

  Personal Allowances and Premiums
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he hopes to announce the levels of personal allowances and premiums operating from April.

  Mr. Scott
  The rates are set out in the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 and the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 which were made on 20 November1987.

  As I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 3 November 1987 at columns 705–6, these rates are the same as the proposed rates announced on 27 October 1987.

  Housing Benefits
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to place an upper limit on housing benefit in respect of rents.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the consultation paper (a copy of which is in the Library) issued jointly by the Department and the Department of the Environment in October 1987 on the housing benefit
  445
  implications of the Government's proposals for deregulation of new private sector lettings. This paper proposes a number of measures to ensure that, with an increasing proportion of rents in future not subject to statutory rent control, rents which attract support from the Exchequer through housing benefit are not unreasonable. These measures include the setting of limits on benefit to be awarded on the most expensive privately rented properties in each local authority area. The intention is to prevent abuse and only a small proportion of accommodation in any area is likely to be covered by this arrangement.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now reply to the letter written to him by the hon. Member for Birkenhead on 23 October 1987 about Mr. Kenneth Davies, of 34 Union street, Birkenhead.

  Mr. Portillo
  My noble Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 30 November 1987 requesting information on his constituent, Mr. Kenneth Davies, to enable him to trace Mr. Davies' papers.

  Hospital Waiting List (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current hospital waiting list in Bradford for(a) urgent cases, (b) urgent cases waiting more than one month, (c) non-urgent cases and (d) non-urgent cases waiting more than one year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest information available centrally is given in the table.

  In-patient waiting list at 31 March 1987

  National Health Service hospitals in Bradford district health authority

  All specialties

  Urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases

  Total

  All

  On list more than one month

  All

  On list more than one year

  7,172

  188

  88

  6,984

  1,535

  Health Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to regional health authorities' allocations to district health authorities of the extra funds announced on 16 December 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Allocations to district health authorities are a matter for the regional health authorities, and we do not yet have detailed information about their decisions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crown Properties (Fire Inspections)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fire inspectors are in post whose duties include the inspection of Crown properties in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are currently two officers who are designated by Her Majesty's chief inspector to inspect Crown premises.

  Prisons (Private Sector Involvement)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any contingency plans to involve the private sector in the running of prisons, in the event of a strike by prison officers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It would not be sensible to give details of our contingency plans to maintain prisons and to prevent serious disorder in the event of industrial action by staff.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A women prisoners there were in Her Majesty's prison Durham in December 1987; and how many strip searches were made on these prisoners in that month, indicating strip searches before and after consultation with legal advisers, after visits and after cell changes, wing searches and cell searches, and listing reasons for searches and illegal contraband or smuggled items found.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During December, there were three category A women prisoners in Durham prison. The number of occasions on which each was strip-searched during the month is shown in the table:

  Inmate A

  Inmate B

  Inmate C

  After legal visits

  —

  —

  —

  After other visits

  2

  5

  3

  At the time of cell changes, and wing and cell searches

  3

  2

  2

  No authorised article was found on any of the three women. But, as the hon. Member is aware, strip-searching is a routine security measure to which all inmates—male and female — are subject and its justification lies not only in the fact that staff do discover items (such as drugs, syringes, plastic knives sharpened into daggers, and scissors) which they would not otherwise find, but in the deterrent effect which such searching undoubtedly has.

  Rifle and Pistol Clubs
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the conditions for the approval of rifle and pistol clubs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On the basis of inquiries made by the chief officer of police for the area concerned my right hon. Friend has to be satisfied that:

  i. safety certificate for the categories of firearm to be fired are in existence for the ranges to be used;

  ii. the security arrangements for the storage of club firearms and ammunition are satisfactory;

  iii. the application is being made by, or on behalf of, a bona fide club; and

  iv. there are no other considerations that would make the club unsuitable for approval.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and civilians have been recruited to date since his announcement of increases in May 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  10,687 police officers were recruited to all forces in England and Wales including the
  447
  Metropolitan police between the end of May 1986 and 31 October 1987, the latest date for which information is available, either to replace officers who retired or resigned or to enable forces to implement increases in establishment. In this period, the strength of the police service, excluding those who are on secondment, increased by 2,692 police officers, from 119,325 to 122,017. Information on civilian recruitment is not held centrally but the number of civilians rose by 1,704 from 39,621 to 41,325 in the same period.

  Welsh Language
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on the production of civil protection material in the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The question of providing a Welsh language version of the public information on civil protection was carefully considered at the time it was produced, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. We are guided by the criteria of demand, expediency and expense recommended in the 1965 Hughes-Parry Report on the "Legal Status of the Welsh Language". In the light of those criteria, we were not persuaded that there was sufficient demand to justify the considerable costs which would have been involved in the production of a Welsh language version of this material.

  Immigration
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications to adopt children from the Commonwealth have been received; how many were admitted to permanent residence in the United Kingdom since the most recent change in the relevant legislation; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) how many applications for admission for permanent residence have been made for adopted children from the Indian sub-continent, and how many have been granted, since the most recent change in the immigration rules.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is available centrally only on the numbers of children granted settlement in the United Kingdom in 1986 on the basis of their adoption by a person already settled here. Of a total of 85 such children, 13 were nationals of the Indian sub-continent countries, 23 were Commonwealth citizens (including Bangladesh and India) and 62 were foreign nationals.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he received from hon. Members concerning immigration matters in each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information related to the number of immigration files created following representations by right hon. and hon. Members, and is as follows:

  Number

  1983

  11,456

  1984

  13,164

  1985

  16,024

  1986

  17,511

  1987

  11,856

  Notes:

  1. These figures include a number of letters dealing with general issues
  448
  rather than individual cases.

  2. Representations made on behalf of a single family may be counted as more than one case where the immigration circumstances of more than one member of the family are under consideration.

  3. Further representations made after reply has been sent are included separately in these figures.

  4. Representations received about the same case from more than one right hon. Member or hon. Member are counted separately.

  5. These figures include representations on after entry cases as well as those arising from port refusals where stops on removal were followed by written representations.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he had received in the last year urging that hon. Members should be stopped from making representations to Ministers on immigration matters; and if he will list the names of any individuals or organisations who have made such representations in the last year.

  Mr. Renton
  None, but I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 27 November to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) at columns 366–67.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for a copy of the suspects index held by immigration officers to be placed in the Library; how many names are included in the latest suspects index; under what categories are they indexed; and what are the definitions of each category.

  Mr. Renton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy in his Department on acknowledging correspondence; and what is the average time taken between correspondence being received and acknowledgement being made.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Department deals with correspondence as quickly as possible. Because of the disparate nature of the correspondence received by divisions, and the varying numbers of staff available, practice on acknowledging correspondence necessarily varies. Details of the average time between receipt and acknowledgement could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time from receipt taken by officials in his Department to open letters addressed to his Department; what is the total number of unopened letters now awaiting attention in his Department; and how long he anticipates it will take to deal with the backlog.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, and would not be significant since the amount of correspondence awaiting attention varies considerably from day to day between divisions according to the level of incoming work and the staff available.

  The large number of applications for registration as British citizens received in the latter part of last year has produced delays in dealing with correspondence addressed to the immigration and nationality department. Every effort is being made to reduce, as quickly as practicable, the resultant backlog of work.

  Departmental Houses and Flats
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many houses and flats owned by his
  449
  Department are surplus to operational requirement; and how many have been empty for more than (a) four months, (b) eight months and (c) 12 months.

  Mr. Hurd
  Of nearly 8,000 dwellings owned by the Department, 218 are currently identified as surplus to operational requirements, 201 have been vacant for more than four (but less than 12) months and 11 for over 12 months. Six are still occupied. The Department is further reviewing its holding of dwellings.

  Mr. Peter Wright (Pension)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations were received from Mr. Peter Wright before his retirement about his pension entitlement; what representations have been received from Mr. Peter Wright since his retirement about his pension entitlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  There are proper channels through which such representations may be made. I have no further statement.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for registration for British citizenship were received in his Department by 31 December 1987; what policy has been adopted to decide whether or not an application was received by 31 December 1987; if he will now extend the deadline by six months; and how many representations he has received urging the deadline to be extended.

  Mr. Renton
  We have an estimated 250,000 registration and naturalisation applications awaiting initial consideration. We cannot yet say how many of these are applications for registration. In practice, to take account of postal delays around Christmas, we are treating applications as having been made before the deadline if they had postmarks earlier than 1 January 1988, regardless of when they were delivered; or if they were delivered by post before 7 January provided the declaration on the form was completed by 31 December 1987. There is however no power to extend the 31 December time limit in respect of applications under section 8 of the British Nationality Act 1981 made on the grounds of marriage. The exercise of discretion to accept late applications made by Commonwealth citizens under section 7 of the Act must take account of the special circumstances of each individual case.

  We have received representations about the deadline from 17 right hon. and hon. Members, three local authorities and five organisations.

  Departmental Telephone System
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of installing a new telephone system in his Department, when the new system became operative; and when Ministers took steps to inform hon. Members of their new telephone numbers.

  Mr. Hurd
  The new system became operative on 11 January. The cost was about £785,000, including VAT. On 13 January, details of Ministers' new numbers were made available through Whips' offices. I am sorry this was not done sooner.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Debt
  Mr. McNamara To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what total deductions were made from invalidity benefit in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area;
  (2) what total deductions were made from child benefit in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area;
  (3) what total deductions were made from widows' benefit in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area;
  (4) what total deductions were made from supplementary benefit in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area;
  (5) what total deductions were made from unemployment benefit in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area;
  (6) what total deductions were made from sickness benefit in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services hoard area;
  (7) what total deductions were made from retirement pensions in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area.
  Mr. Needham
  Information is not available in the form requested. Deductions made under this legislation for the first three quarters of 1987 for which figures are available were as follows:—

  1 January—30 September 1987

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,023,055·06

  Child Benefit

  52,238·64

  Widows' Benefit

  313,892·85

  Supplementary Benefit

  727,238·81

  Unemployment Benefit

  92,178·87

  Sickness Benefit

  9,762·96

  Retirement Pensions

  492,362·75

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what total deductions were made from criminal damage compensation payments in 1987; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area, under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971;

  (2) what total deductions were made from criminal injury compensation payments in 1987; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area, under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as follows:
  451

  £

  Total deductions from criminal damage compensation payments

  112,005

  Total deductions from criminal injury compensation payments

  106,748

  A breakdown by health and social services board area is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total amount was which was recovered in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; what the total administrative cost was for the recovery of this amount; and what proportion the latter was of the former.

  Mr. Stanley
  In the period 1 January 1987 to 30 September 1987, some £4.5 million was recovered under this legislation. Information on the total administrative cost is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what total amounts were deducted to recover each of rate arrears and rent arrears under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 by each local council in 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  The collection of rent and rates are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment respectively.

  The information concerning moneys deducted under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 in respect of rent and rates is not recorded in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants payable by Government Departments or agencies are subject to deductions under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what total amounts were deducted from each in 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  All grants payable by or on behalf of any Government Department or local or public authority may be subject to deductions under the legislation. Information on total amounts deducted from individual grants is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what total deductions were made from Government payments for conversion of gas heating and cooking services to other means, under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the breakdown was by health and social services board area.

  Mr. Viggers
  None.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what total deductions were made from public sector employees earnings in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the deductions were, broken down by Government Department or agency in which debtors were employed.
  452
  Mr. Stanley
  The total amount deducted from 1 January 1987 to 30 September 1987 was £1,430,251. The information on the breakdown of these deductions by Government Departments and other agency is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from what benefits or other payments by state bodies deductions were made under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 in the year 1987; what the total deductions were in each category; and from how many people deductions were made in each category.

  Mr. Stanley
  The benefits and other payments by state bodies from which deductions were made under the legislation in the first three quarters of 1987, and the total amounts deducted, were as follows:

  1 January 1987–30 September 1987 £

  Supplementary Benefit

  727,239

  Sickness Benefit

  9,762

  Child Benefit

  52,239

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,023,053

  Unemployment Benefit

  92,178

  Widows' Pension

  313,892

  Retirement Pension

  492,362

  Training Allowance

  Nil

  Personal Injury/Criminal Damage Compensation Claims

  165,354

  Public Liability Compensation Claims Roads Services

  111,276

  Water Service

  16,171

  On 31 March 1987 the four creditor bodies had in total 127,000 debt cases. Number of people from whom deductions were made in each category are not readily available.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what total levels of debt existed in 1987 in each category for which deductions were made from debtors in that year under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act 1971.

  Mr. Stanley
  As at 1 April 1987 the total levels of debt in each category for which deductions were made from debtors under this legislation were as follows:

  £ million

  NIHE (Rent, Rates and District Heating)

  17·1

  NIE (Electricity)

  7·0

  Rating Division

  9·6

  Belfast Gas

  2·7

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what categories of debts payments were deducted from debtors in 1987 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971; and what the total amounts deducted in each category were.

  Mr. Stanley
  The categories of debt for which payments were deducted from debtors under the legislation, and the total amounts deducted in each category for the first three quarters of 1987 were as follows:
  453

  1 January 1987 to 30 September 1987

  £

  NIHE (Rent, Rates and District Heating)

  2,674,489

  NIE (Electricity)

  1,549,838

  Rating Division

  107,472

  Belfast Gas

  104,075

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry in December 1987, giving the number of persons involved and number of times each person was searched and if any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted: and what were the reasons for the search under each of the following headings: making a remand appearance at court, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Number of searches

  Total number of searches carried out

  24

  Total number of inmates searched

  16

  Number of prisoners searched once

  11

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  4

  Number of prisoners searched 5 times

  1

  Reasons for search

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  4

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  7

  Attending Appeal Court

  1

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Number of persons murdered by terrorists (also includes those murdered as a result of internal disputes)

  65

  53

  48

  55

  80

  Number of persons believed to be terrorists and assumed to have been killed by their own devices or weapons

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Number of persons killed believed to be terrorists killed by the security forces

  6

  7

  3

  4

  8

  Total deaths associated with terrorist activity

  72

  60

  52

  59

  92

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the trend in the number of deaths and injuries due to terrorist violence since 15 November 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  16 November to 31 December Deaths

  1 January to 31 December Deaths

  1 January to 31 December Deaths

  Number of persons murdered by terrorists (also includes those murdered as a result of internal disputes)

  6

  55

  80

  Number of persons believed to be terrorists and assumed to have been killed by their own devices and weapons

  —

  —

  4

  Number of persons believed to be terrorists killed by security forces

  —

  4

  8

  454

  Number

  Bail Court appearances

  1

  Going on or returning from home leave

  4

  Compassionate home leave

  2

  Inter prison visits

  2

  Visits to outside hospital

  1

  After a visit

  1

  During a search of the prison

  1

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic bullets were fired in Northern Ireland in the first half of 1987; in what circumstances; in what location the bullets were fired; and how many persons were injured as a result of the use of plastic bullets.

  Mr. Stanley
  During the first six months of 1987. a total of 1,571 plastic baton rounds were fired in Northern Ireland; 14 people were allegedly injured as a result.

  I am writing to the hon. Member with the information he has requested about the circumstances and places in which the baton rounds were fired. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Terrorism
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of persons who died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist violence in each of the past five calendar years.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The information is as follows:
  455

  1985

  1986

  1987

  16 November to 31 December Deaths

  1 January to 31 December Deaths

  1 January to 31 December Deaths

  Total deaths associated with terrorist activity

  6

  59

  92

  Total injuries1

  86

  1,450

  1,130

  1 Information on injuries is not collected in a way which allows it to be categorised as for deaths above.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Accidents (Drink-Driving)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of road traffic accidents were related to drink-driving in 1986.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is estimated that about one tenth of all injury accidents result from driving with excess alcohol in the blood. There were 247,854 injury accidents in 1986.

  In 1985, 1,000 road users died in crashes and collisions where the driver or rider was over the legal limit, representing one fifth of all road deaths in 19852.

  In 1985, 60 per cent. of drivers and riders who were killed in road accidents between 10 pm and 4 am had a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit, compared with 15 per cent. at other times of the day3.

  1. "The facts about drinking and driving", published by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, 1986.

  2. Page 34, "Road Accidents Great Britain 1986 — The Casualty Report", published by HMSO, 1987.

  3. Ibid, table CS, page 36.

  Bus Deregulation (Cheshire)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has regarding the costs or savings to Cheshire county council in 1986–87 following bus deregulation.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Cheshire county council budgeted to spend £5·5 million on revenue support for passenger transport in 1986–87. Following deregulation, I understand that actual expenditure for that year was less than £3·5 million.

  Thelwall Viaduct
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of major works to be undertaken on the Thelwall viaduct.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We announced on 5 January our plans to widen the M6 between the M56 and M62, including Thelwall viaduct, to dual four lanes with hardshoulders.

  The £58 million scheme includes a new viaduct alongside the existing one for southbound traffic and rebuilding the existing structure for northbound traffic. Construction might start in about four years.

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to permit sales of National Bus Company subsidiaries which significantly undervalue the book value of the assets concerned.
  456
  Mr. David Mitchell
  Each National Bus Company subsidiary has been widely marketed with a view to establishing through competitive bidding a market valuation of the business as a going concern.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a decision regarding the future level of tolls on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is nothing further I can add to my replies to my hon. Friend on 14 and 18 December 1987 at columns 421–22 and 777.

  Traffic Control
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to enable drivers to turn left at traffic lights when it is safe to do so, in accordance with systems long operative in many of the states in the United States of America.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. This proposal could only be produced generally at sites where a dedicated traffic lane could be provided for left turning traffic. Where conditions are appropriate a left filter traffic signal or "left turn only" slip roads with "give way" markings may currently be provided at the discretion of the appropriate highway authority.

  Trees
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he takes to ensure that the replanting of trees beside roadways is not a hazard to road traffic.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our landscape and horticultural section takes great care when planting trees on roadside embankments and — or cuttings to ensure that when fully developed they do not constitute a hazard to road traffic.

  In the case of rural or semi-rural roads, the planting carried out over the last 30 years has observed the Department's guide lines that no single tree should be planted within 4·5 m the nearside edge of the carriageway, unless protected by a safety fence or other suitable barrier.

  In the case of the urban or semi-urban roads, the greater proportion of individual trees are in verges of varying width and often close to the edge of the carriageway. This planting is primarily on pre-war and early post-war schemes.

  As part of upgrading the pre-war and early post-war schemes, replacement of the remaining trees is often the only option available to mitigate the impact of the traffic on the street scene. In such cases, special measures are incorporated in the design so as to avoid the trees becoming a traffic hazard.

  Traffic Flows (Kirkby Stephen)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish up-to-date figures for traffic flows, including figures for heavy lorries, for the road passing through Kirkby Stephen between Tebay and Brough; and by how much they have increased in recent years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The A685 is a local road for which Cumbria county council is the highway authority. The 1986 annual average daily traffic flows were about 2,900 vehicles to the east of Tebay and about 4,600 just north of Kirkby Stephen, both including approximately 11 per cent. goods vehicles. During the 1980s, flows have increased by about 4 per cent. per annum.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the withdrawal of the operators' licences to fly to and from the London City airport and Paris.

  Mr. Channon
  The Civil Aviation Authority provisionally suspended the operation of flights between London City airport and Paris on 18 December pending the outcome of an inquiry into the safety of these flights in south-east air space. The conclusions of the inquiry, which the CAA announced today, recommend three alternative routes to Paris, and the airline operators concerned have confirmed that they consider themselves competent to operate flights on those routes.

  A13 (North Circular Road to Tower Bridge)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the A13 trunk road between the A406 north circular road and Tower bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A scheme to improve the A13 Newham way-A 117 East Ham Manor way junction is in the national roads programme. An interim traffic management scheme there will open this spring.

  Two studies are under way to identify other schemes. Consultants are expected to report very shortly on possible improvements to the A 13 between Dagenham and Limehouse to relieve congestion and cater for increased traffic arising from regeneration of docklands. Stage II of the East London assessment study covers the western end of the A13.

  Tyre Treads
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultations he proposes to hold with the police and motoring organisations concerning the current regulations on tyre treads and the EEC proposed directive thereon; what steps he is taking to assess the effectiveness of current regulations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to require tyre tread depths on motor vehicles to be a minimum of 1·6 mm over the entire width of the tyre.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The current regulations on tyre tread depths were made in 1983 and specify 1 mm across 458
  three quarters of the width of the tyre with visible tread on the remainder. The regulations were thoroughly reviewed two years ago in consultation with the police, the motoring organisations and other interested parties. This review considered the evidence as regards enforceability and road safety and led to the conclusion that no further changes to the regulations were needed. The commission has not produced new evidence on which it is necessary to have a fresh consultation exercise.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicles in each of the last three years failed the MOT test because of unsatisfactory tyres.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Too many. The most recent figures based on a 2 per cent. sample are as follows:

  Year ending December

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total vehicles tested

  14,436,650

  14,415,266

  14,275,118

  Total vehicles failed

  5,537,505

  5,463,946

  5,747,102

  Total vehicles failed due to defective tyres

  1,176,100

  1,249,822

  1,525,449

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many scheduled crossings have been lost on the Woolwich ferry since 1 April 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Too many. Up to 13 January, about 25,000 crossings have been lost.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the London borough of Greenwich about the future operation of the Woolwich ferry; and with what outcome.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department continues to be in regular contact with the London borough of Greenwich. A substantial improvement in service should be achieved if the package of measures arising from the management review is agreed by the work force.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the final report of the consultants on the future operation of the Woolwich ferry; and what action he has taken or intends to take on its recommendations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As I told the hon. Member on 30 October,Official Report, column 484, we received the consultant's final report last July. A package of measures based on the recommendations has been put to the ferrymen and their representatives by the London borough of Greenwich. Negotiations are continuing.

  Horne Committee
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Horne committee.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We attach great importance to improving the arrangements for the carrying out of works by public utilities in highways and securing appropriate reinstatement immediately afterwards.

  The Government's response to the Horne report, published in July 1986, accepted the great majority of its

  459
  recommendations. We are pressing ahead with the detailed technical work required on many of the recommendations. We shall continue to seek a suitable opportunity to bring before Parliament proposals for primary legislation on the lines already announced.

  Travis Brow, Stockport (Land Development)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the land at Travis Brow,460
  Stockport, which was included in the compulsory purchase order for the M63, to be disposed of; and what delays have occurred to this disposal since the Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in November 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We will dispose of this site as soon as possible after acquiring the two outstanding interests. Some progress has been made since November towards completing the acquisitions. We are considering arrangements for the sale.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR 0n the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Archbishop of York.

Crop Spraying: Regulations
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that current regulations effectively protect neighbours from spray drifting from agricultural land and enable those believing their health or property has been adversely affected readily and speedily to obtain details of the chemicals sprayed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): Yes, my Lords. We take the use of pesticides very seriously. That is why the Control of Pesticides Regulations were introduced in 1986.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she confirm that a draft code of practice for spraying exists and tell the House whether it is intended to have statutory force? If so, when will that draft code be submitted to Parliament and will it require those who are about to spray to notify neighbours so that precautions may be taken? Will those carrying out spraying have to keep records of the chemicals used? Does the Minister agree that since the regulatory authority in that matter is not the local environmental health department, the address of the regulatory authority might well be placed with the environmental health department, which is where members of the public will normally seek assistance and advice? Can the Minister also—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are working on two statutory codes of practice. The first of those codes is for users in farming and horticulture and the second concerns the storage of pesticides. We consider that it is important to get the advice right before presenting a text for approval. The storage code is well advanced. It may be possible to present that code to Parliament before the end of the year. We should like to see the next draft of the user code tried in practice before considering further comments.
As regards the obligations of operators, Condition 2 of Consent 2 (Use) made under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 requires all users of pesticides to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health of human beings, creatures and plants, to safeguard the environment and, in particular, to avoid the pollution of water. I think that that will do for this tranche.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend add to that compendious list and answer this simple question? Is an obligation included to give notice to owners of adjoining property, particularly in the case of aerial crop spraying?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in addition to their general obligations, aerial operators are required to confine the application of pesticides to the land intended to be treated. In addition, there is an obligation to inform the local police station and chief environmental health officer for the district of the intention to spray. Aerial operators must give 24 hours' prior notification to neighbours who are within 75 feet of the boundary of the land which is to be sprayed; such notification should include the name of the pesticide to be used.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the advice given is not very practical? Advice is given to spray on a very still day. On a still day, the spray will drift. It is much better to spray in a mild breeze blowing away from danger areas or areas likely to be affected. I have found that to be a successful practice. A country person sprays his own land and not somebody else's.
As regards the point made about somebody who—I use the word carefully—thinks he has been affected by spray, all the information to deal with that is on the package. I am sure that no farmer would fail to give information to anybody who thinks he has been affected by a spray.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the first point I said that the draft code was still being worked out and that those who wish to use it are already trying out the various measures and reporting back. I think that the point which the noble Lord has made is very relevant.
Regarding the noble Lord's point concerning labels— I cannot remember what the noble Lord said.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I said that I do not think that any farmer would refuse to give the information appearing on the label of the package to someone who thought that he had been affected.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful. The point I wished to make was that some farmers contract out their land and may not be aware of what contractors use. In any case, the HSE is empowered to obtain that information. That was not in my brief but I knew the answer.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness has been as helpful as she can be. Is it not the case that members of the public may still be in the dark about what they should do, apart from or in addition to consulting a solicitor, if they feel that damage is being caused by such sprays? To whom should they go to lodge a complaint? Should they go to the local authority? Do the public generally know to whom they can make a proper complaint?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I believe that I am also answering a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. Complaints affecting human health arising from the use of pesticides on farms or holdings should be referred to the local office of the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate which is listed in local telephone books. There are well-tried liaison arrangements between local authorities and the HSE. Anyone reporting an incident to the local authority will be directed to the appropriate investigating body.

Dalkon Shield
11.12 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to make any financial compensation to women in this country who have suffered damage from the use of the Dalkon Shield, following the recent judgment on this matter in the United States.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, no. The Government consider that any compensation claims arising in connection with the Dalkon Shield are a matter for the appropriate courts and the compensation fund set up by the manufacturing company.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the reason why so many women ignored the deadline for compensation claims resulting from the use of this particular shield may have been a lack of communication between the DHSS and the American company in question and also a failure to mount a sufficient publicity campaign? Can the Minister say when the Government first knew that the Dalkon Shield was a defective product? Secondly, why was it only recalled in 1975, one year after it was withdrawn in the United States? Thirdly, why were the women who had been fitted with this device not themselves recalled by their family planning associations and informed of what had happened?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am advised that the manufacturer stopped selling and distributing this device in the United Kingdom in July 1974 immediately after similar action had been taken in the United States pending investigations into its safety by the US Food and Drug Administration following reports of problems. So far as I am aware, the FDA did not ask for the device to be recalled as a result of its investigations. The manufacturers wrote to all doctors about the Dalkon Shield in 1974, 1980 and 1985. Furthermore, it is good practice for doctors to carry out regular follow-up checks on patients fitted with IUDs of any kind. That advice is
1444
contained in the Handbook of Contraceptive Practice which was first published in 1974.
I am afraid I do not know how many women are still using such devices, but we understand that 100,000 were distributed in the United Kingdom and an estimated 90,000 were actually used at one time.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is there not something very unsatisfactory about a situation in which 3,700 British women who suffered as a result of using this device are to be compensated but that another 6,000 who suffered similarly are not to be compensated? As regards the level of publicity that was required, were the Government not consulted by the A. H. Robins Company and, if so, can the Minister tell the House what response the firm received?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly it would not have been appropriate for the Government to take action in a matter of litigation. As directed by a US federal judge, the manufacturers themselves mounted a worldwide publicity campaign to invite claims and their action resulted in considerable media coverage. I have made that point clear.
There is no doubt that the situation was well described in the media and generally. It was known to health authorities on the dates that I have already mentioned. It is true that 3,700 women from the United Kingdom were included in the 300,000 claims reportedly received. As regards the other figure that the noble Lord has mentioned, I am afraid it is new to me. If he would like to pursue the point, I shall take it up on his behalf.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful for those remarks. But is the Minister happy about a situation in which the department in a sense is wiping its hands of the situation? Does he not recall that on a previous occasion Sir Gerard Vaughan intervened in the case of the Distillers Company in order to secure justice? Would it not be appropriate to consult with his right honourable friend and take some initiative to ensure justice for those unfortunate women?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not yet sure that justice will not be forthcoming, since the noble Lord has already accepted that 3,700 women from the United Kingdom were included in the claims. He has mentioned other women who were not included in the claims. If that is true, then, obviously, I shall have to take the matter further. However, I should point out that the position of the Government on compensation for medical accidents generally is well known and follows the advice of the Pearson Commission which concluded that negligence should continue to be the basis for liability for most medical injuries.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that alternative British-manufactured products are available?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is a vast range of intrauterine devices currently available, some of which are made in this country and others abroad.

Telemessage Service
11.18 a.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will exercise their powers under Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to ensure that discussions are held by British Telecom with the Post Office to make the Telemessage service proposals available to the public.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in this instance it is the Director General of Telecommunications rather than Ministers to whom the Telecommunications Act gives relevant powers. However, I can confirm to my noble friend that British Telecom and the Post Office have voluntarily entered into discussions about Telemessage.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I welcome. is he aware that a Motion for short debate that I have suggested has been standing on the books awaiting the result of a ballot since July last year? Hope springs eternal in the human breast and as the winners will be pulled from the hat on the 20th January, we may be able to have a short debate on this topic on the 10th February. Does he agree that as the subject is very complicated, perhaps we can extend the debate?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am afraid I have to tell my noble friend that I do not possess magical powers, but I wish him the very best of luck in being successful on this occasion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has been and is extremely persistent in his pursuit of this point, and is quite right to be so? It is a relatively small problem which affects a certain number of people living in rural areas who need to send messages quickly, often messages of a life or death nature. Is the noble Lord aware that we are glad that British Telecom and the Post Office have voluntarily agreed to enter into negotiations? However, will he also use ministerial powers to ensure that the Post Office, which he can direct, brings these discussions to an appropriate conclusion?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord in expressing admiration for the persistence of my noble friend in this matter. However, my understanding is that there would be little wider benefit for the user in making the service available at post offices. Telemessage promises delivery of a message the next day. The advantages for the consumer are that it requires only a quick telephone call from home or from a nearby callbox. If a customer goes to a post office, there are already similar post office services which assure next-day delivery.
1446
However, British Telecom and the Post Office are considering the issue again, but I must emphasise that this is a commercial matter for their judgment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does this matter—which is rather important to some people—not also lie within the responsibility of Oftel and the Director General, Mr. Bryan Carsberg? He has an interest in considering whether BT is carrying out its functions efficiently and economically. This service lays down that there is a minimum charge of £4 for 50 words. Sometimes messages are much shorter than that, and few people carry eight 50p pieces and no telephone coinbox allows for £1 coins at this stage. All these matters are against the user expanding what could be a useful service.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not want to comment further on the merits or the cost of the British Telecom overnight service or the Post Office overnight service. However, British Telecom's licence includes obligations to consider social factors and to provide, for example, services to rural areas for the disabled, directory information services and a public emergency calls service. The Director General of Oftel ensures that BT complies with its licence conditions.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a century ago in London a person could send out an invitation to tea, receive an answer to that invitation, have the person to tea, and read the thank-you letter, all on the same day? Now, assuming that he has a telephone, he can receive a telemessage only the next day. Does the Minister agree that that is progress?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I find it difficult to comment on what was possible 100 years ago. I am sure that many noble Lords and many outside your Lordships' House will regret the passing of the telegram service in 1982. However, the widespread use of the telephone led to the service becoming very uneconomic, with losses at that time of up to £50 million a year.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, perhaps I may raise two small supplementary points relating to the reply of the Minister. This is not solely a commercial matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has pointed out that there is an obligation on government to provide some means for brief and urgent private messages to be sent. Is the Minister aware that I am already in correspondence with the Director General of Oftel and with the Post Office?—and very comprehensive my correspondence has been.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes. I have seen much of the noble Lord's correspondence, and indeed it has been very comprehensive.
On my noble friend's first point on the sending of immediate life or death messages, from time to time the position is reviewed by BT. I understand that BT is exploring the possibilities of special arrangements for life or death messages.

Management Personnel: Interchanges
11.25 a.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy for encouraging the interchange of management personnel between the Civil Service and the private business sector.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government's policy is to stimulate to the fullest possible extent interchange of personnel between the Civil Service and other organisations, notably industrial and commercial enterprises. To help maintain the momentum of interchange, which has built up over a number of years, a promotional leaflet, The Ins and Outs of Civil Service Secondments, was published in November. A copy has been placed in the Library.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. From the information he has already, can he say which of the two—the Civil Service or private enterprise—has benefited most from new brooms as a result of these transfers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is fair to say that these exchanges promote better understanding between both government and the private sector, promote personal development of the person seconded, and introduce into both government service and the private sector people with particular skills and experience. In answer to my noble friend's supplementary question, I can say unreservedly that the Civil Service has benefited from these arrangements. I am sure that other organisations have also found them of great value.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, like the noble Lord, we warmly support the scheme, which we think is important. First, is he satisfied that the build-up has been significant? Can he give figures covering the past 20 years, for example, to indicate how many personnel have been exchanged per annum between industry and the Civil Service?
Secondly, to what extent is it true that disparity in pay as between the Civil Service and private business may have affected the scheme? Thirdly, does the exchange apply not only to management but to the trade unions as well?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the build-up of the scheme has been good. The scheme as we know it started in 1977. In the past eight years the numbers have more than doubled if one takes the secondments between the government service and industry and commerce, and the secondments between government and other organisations, notably such organisations as the health service and local government.
I do not think disparity in pay affects this scheme. Normally the government department will be paid for individuals it sends out and will pay for the services of the people brought in. The rule is that
1448
those who are seconded, both ways, do not suffer any diminution in the pay that they would otherwise have received.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to repeat his third question about trade unions?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, first, is the Minister not aware that this scheme was in operation in the 1960s? It has been in operation for about 20 years. I appreciate that the scheme in its present form may have started in 1977, but it is important to realise that it has been supported by successive governments over a longer period than that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Secondly, I wish to know whether it is not only the top-rank civil servants and top management in industry who are affected, but lower ranks, including those who are members of trade unions as well.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I heard my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter also saying, "Hear, hear" to the fact that these secondments go back a very long way. As the schemes exist at the moment, the conventional secondments last about one or two years and are to enable a man or a woman to go to do a job for another organisation or to come in to do it for a government department. These range from higher executive officer level to grade 5, which is what used to be called Assistant Secretary. There are the short-term attachments, called the Whitehall and Industry Scheme, which are for about grade 5 and then there are some non-executive directorships which are for more senior management in the Civil Service at grades 3 to 5.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I appreciate the advantages of the scheme, but does the Minister agree that, while there is everything to be said for exchange of experience between the Civil Service and industry, there are dangers in that? One thing that must be done is to attract into Parliament more people with experience in industry who wish to take an active part. Does the Minister not agree that the taking of positions in industry by civil servants, ex-civil servants and ex-Ministers can have its dangers? This has always been realised. This is slightly wider than the Question, but will he consider putting again on the record the rules governing the acceptance of directorships by ex-civil servants and say whether there are any rules governing the acceptance of directorships by ex-Ministers, particularly in industries in which as Ministers they have been concerned?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that there clearly are dangers in the interchange scheme. Great care is taken to ensure that conflict of interest does not arise when civil servants are attached to other organisations. Similarly when businessmen are seconded into the Civil Service, care is taken to see that they are not put into positions where they would have access to sensitive

1449
information about their commercial competitors. But the noble Lord then rather widened his question, as I understood him, in talking about civil servants who take up positions after leaving the Civil Service. As the noble Lord may know, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is chairman of a committee which considers all applications in the very senior Civil Service levels for the taking up of outside appointments after retirement or resignation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend add to the interesting information that he has given the House the numbers currently involved?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if one takes the secondments between government and industry and commerce, in 1986, the latest date for which I have figures, there were 280 outward secondments and 189 inward secondments of people coming in from industry and commerce. That represents an increase of 22 per cent. over the previous year. In the same year there were very nearly 500 secondments to or from other organisations, typically health and local government organisations, of which 394 were outward and 94 were inward.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the success of the Crown Prosecution Service depends very largely on a healthy interchange between skilled lawyers in private practice and service in the Crown Prosecution Service? May I ask my noble friend what is being done about that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that goes a little wider than the original Question and is something that I should draw to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that to an extent the rigidity of our promotion and pension arrangements, both within the Civil Service and industry, inhibits the wider use of the interchange system?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have not been advised that that is the case. If I find that in any way I am misleading my noble friend in saying that, I shall certainly write to him. It is perfectly true that the broad arrangements that I gave in answer to a previous question—that normally the department pays for individuals sent out and will pay for the services of people coming in with no diminution in pay—is the basic rule. In addition to that and flowing from my noble friend's question there are certain arrangements that have to be made concerning national insurance, superannuation and so on. In preparing for today I have certainly not been advised that those other arrangements are inhibiting.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the clock has stopped?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords

Business
11.33 a.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the Minister is allowed approximately 20 minutes to open and that he should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a strict upper limit of 12 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that statement and I hope that before we have proceeded very far with the debate, the noble Viscount will have arranged for the clocks to be restarted.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can inform the House that the digital clocks are still working and that they will recall the length of each speech as usual, which I think is probably more important than the main clock. On the subject of the main clock, I should say that there is a chronometer on the Hansard reporters' desk and that the Clerks at the Table are all wearing wristwatches.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology
11.35 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper on Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation (Cmnd. 259).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this year, Britain's first test-tube baby will celebrate her tenth birthday. Since then, well over 1,000 children have been born in this country as a result of in vitro fertilisation. Every year, between 1,500 and 2,000 children are thought to be born as a result of artificial insemination using donor sperm. Happiness and fulfilment have been given to many thousands of couples who despaired ever of having a family of their own. The technical possibilities of helping still more childless couples are developing by the day.
So today's debate is concerned with the frontiers of medical science. Pushing forward those frontiers has always brought its problems as well as its blessings, not least for service providers trying to cope with increasing demand for new expensive treatments, but also—and this is particularly true of the reproductive technologies—substantial problems of an ethical, social and legal nature. These will be central to today's debate. The way to tackle these problems is not to try to block or ignore medical advance, but to accommodate it within proper safeguards which ensure that due respect is given to the presence of human life. The legislator's task is to devise

1451
safeguards which command broad support in society while not needlessly adding to human unhappiness.
There can be no doubt that the catalyst of the issues which need to be faced was the report of the inquiry chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, into human fertilisation and embryology. I am delighted to see that she will be speaking later today. I shall not be the only speaker today to pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the achievement of her committee, even though not all your Lordships, nor indeed the White Paper, agree with every conclusion reached by it. Beyond doubt her report has been a major influence internationally and has set the parameters for the debate in this country.
That debate has been carried on, since the report's publication in 1984, with great intensity and commitment. It has involved large numbers of organisations, individuals and the media. Much evidence was put to the inquiry itself. Its report was followed by debates both in your Lordships' House and in another place. The Government consulted on the report. These responses concentrated mainly on the most controversial issues of embryo research and surrogacy. There has also been a series of private Member's Bills on embryo research in another place, and the Bill on surrogacy introduced in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. In December 1986, the Government issued a consultation document specifically inviting comment on other important issues they felt had not been given a proper airing. This consultation period ended in June 1987 and almost 200 detailed responses were received.
The consultation document stated the Government's intention to legislate and at the end of the consultation period I had the privilege of announcing to your Lordships our intention to set out the details of our conclusions about legislation in a White Paper. This was published in November under the title Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation.
Your Lordships may ask why a White Paper was thought necessary, and whether the Government are making consultation a substitute for action. We have in fact already acted where a broad consensus seemed to exist. For example, we have banned fee-taking surrogacy agencies and the advertising of surrogacy arrangements through the 1985 Surrogacy Arrangements Act. We have also clarified, through Section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (which applies to England and Wales and will come into force later this year) the status within a marriage of the child born as a result of donor insemination.
However, I make no apology about proceeding cautiously on other issues in the Warnock Report, many of which raise deeply personal moral issues on which the Government take a neutral stance and where it would not be right for us, nor for any government, to rush into legislating. We felt it important to set out the details of our proposals in a White Paper, including an explanation of the alternative possibilities for dealing with embryo research, and to allow Parliament to debate these. Your Lordships' debate today, and that in another place shortly, will help frame the Bill to be introduced during this Parliament.
Before turning to what I regard as the key proposals in the White Paper, I should like briefly to explain the basic principles which underlie them. First is the recognition that the human embryo from conception most certainly deserves the protection of the law. The extent of that protection is for Parliament to decide, but there can be no question of allowing embryos to be created or used outside the constraints of the law.
Secondly, as I have already indicated, the predicament facing childless couples is one which we as a society must take very seriously. It is thought that as many as one in 10 couples may be infertile, and that a higher proportion need to seek specialist help at some point during their child-bearing period. For many, the desire to have a child is an all-consuming one which can dominate their lives and create a damaging sense of personal failure and social stigmatisation. It is too easy to say they should learn to live with childlessness. They already know that that is what many of them in all probability will have to do, despite the best efforts of doctors to help them. As legislators, whatever our personal views, we need to think very hard indeed before introducing measures which close off existing avenues of help or preventing new ones opening up.
We must recognise too that in pursuit of their dream couples will go elsewhere. For, whatever decisions we reach in this country, we may be sure that the techniques under discussion will not be disinvented. They will continue to be practised elsewhere in the world. The implications of this lead me on to a further basic principle, the welfare of the child. The White Paper places great emphasis on the importance of counselling so that couples enter these treatment programmes with their eyes open. They need to be clear that there are other players in the game besides themselves; namely, the children yet to be born. Particularly where donated gametes are involved, parents should be aware of the implications of this for resulting children; and the children should be given a right of access to information about their genetic parentage.
Finally, our aim is to make legislation flexible. It needs to be so in order to control as yet unforeseen technological developments without constant recourse to primary legislation. Thus we propose that the remit of the Statutory Licensing Authority itself should be adjustable by secondary legislation. Just as important, it needs to be flexible to accommodate changes in social attitudes. This, for example, has informed our thinking about surrogacy where I still sense that many of us are feeling our way and no clear consensus has yet emerged.
Turning to the White Paper itself, the key proposal is for the establishment of an independent statutory licensing authority to regulate those infertility treatments which give rise to fundamental ethical or social concerns. In our view, any treatments which involve the use of donated gametes—that is, sperm or eggs—should be regulated. Also the fertilisation of eggs, or handling, storage or use of fertilised eggs (in other words, embryos) outside the body needs regulation. Anyone practising these treatments, which include AID and more recent developments like gamete intra-fallopian transfer (known as GIFT)

1453
if donated gametes are used, or of course IVF, will require a licence from the Statutory Licensing Authority which will need to take account of certain matters listed in the White Paper when deciding upon it. The licensing authority will also need to produce a code of practice to be laid before Parliament. Anyone practising these treatments without a licence will be committing a criminal offence.
The licensing authority will have a lay chairman and at least half its membership will be lay—that is to say, neither doctors nor scientists with a specialist interest in this field. It will be truly independent in that it, and not government, will make the licensing decisions. It will also act as an advisory body to government on ethical matters arising from the modern reproductive technologies. Ministers will, however, appoint its members and have certain regulatory powers, some of which I have already mentioned. In that sense, the body will have a line of accountability to Parliament.
I believe there is widespread support for an independent statutory body with these functions. Certainly, of those responding to the consultation document, around 70 per cent. favoured an independent licensing authority. This group includes the current Voluntary Licensing Authority which was set up two-and-a-half years ago by the Medical Research Council and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and has been exercising a form of professional self-regulation of IVF. Six per cent. favoured direct control by the Secretary of State and 3 per cent. preferred voluntary control. There is still unease about some of the treatments which would be regulated, especially those involving donated gametes, but taken as a whole the responses pointed to the conclusion that they should continue to be permitted under appropriate control.
It was also a key proposal of the Warnock Report that the licensing authority should regulate research using human embryos and this should be permitted up to 14 days. Opinions remain deeply divided on this. Everyone is agreed that there must be legislation, and to my mind there are arguments deserving respect on both sides as to whether this should prohibit research or permit it under controls. These are set out in an annex to the White Paper.
In the Government's view this is a matter for individual consciences and a free vote. The White Paper therefore reflects the commitment given in the 1986 consultation document to offer Parliament alternative clauses, the one effectively banning research involving human embryos and the other allowing it under licence from the licensing authority and subject to strict controls.
I know this issue will lie at the heart of today's debate. While the Government are neutral on this, your Lordships might find it helpful if I made some comment on the proposals set out in the White Paper which relate to embryo research.
There is in fact some common ground on the research issue. There is general agreement that some procedures are unlikely to be considered ethically acceptable; for example, attempts to create human beings with pre-determined characteristics through genetic modification of the embryo; cloning or the
1454
creation of hybrids. The Bill will make these procedures criminal offences.
Beyond that, however, opinions begin to diverge. Those who support embryo research are agreed that strict controls are necessary. The proposal for a draft clause permitting research attempts to reflect that. Thus research would require a specific project licence from the Statutory Licensing Authority, which would be empowered to permit its using embryos only up to 14 days. In granting a licence for a project, the licensing authority would need to be satisfied that its aim was to bring about advances in diagnostic or therapeutic techniques or in fertility control and that proper consideration had been given to achieving its aims by other means.
Those who oppose research argue that, however beneficial the fruits of it, the end does not justify the means; that it is unacceptable to harm an embryo in the interests of others; and that the embryo should have the full protection of the law from conception onwards. The clause prohibiting research on an embryo aims to reflect this by prohibiting any procedures other than those aimed at preparing it for transfer to the womb; or to ascertain its suitability for that transfer.
There are many other important issues in the White Paper—proposals concerning the storage of embryos and gametes; rights of their use and disposal; counselling and, not least, surrogacy. Here, although the Government have not adopted all the proposals contained in the Bill sponsored by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, it has taken on important parts of it.
I hope your Lordships will understand if I do not elaborate on all these matters now. I am conscious that there are many wishing to speak today. I very much hope the debate will range over all these issues, and that I may refer to some of them in my concluding remarks. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper on Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation (Cmnd. 259).—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
11.50 a.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the number of noble Lords who are speaking in today's debate indicates a very widespread interest in the subject of human fertilisation and embryology. I want to say from these Benches how grateful I am to the Government for giving us this early opportunity of discussing the proposals in the White Paper.
On 31st October 1984 (when your Lordships debated the report of the Committee presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock) I made clear, without seeking to commit all my noble friends some of whom may hold different views on some of the issues involved, that I found the arguments contained in the Warnock Report persuasive and its conclusions sound. I should say that during the whole of this period of consultation which has been substantial and thorough—and I congratulate the Government on that—I have not changed my views and I believe that they are persuasive and sound.

1455
I was therefore naturally pleased that after this very wide and careful consultation, the Government have on most issues followed the recommendations of the Warnock Report, although I recognise there are a number of issues on which they have taken a slightly different view. I certainly do not intend to go through the White Paper and identify those differences. The Minister referred to the great encouragement that since the birth of Louise Brown in Oldham 10 years ago, more than 1,000 IVF babies have been born in Britain. I know that all those parents will give thanks for this fact and for the pioneering experimental work of Mr. Patrick Steptoe and Professor Robert Edwards, both of whom were pioneers in the field. I believe that the joy that has come to those families who were previously childless and now have been able to produce a love child is something which we should all recognise and hope will happen in the future.
Moreover, there has been a great deal of very valuable research carried out since 1985 under the voluntary licensing authority set up by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. In my view, the scientists involved in this research have shown, under a voluntary system of control, a deep sense of responsibility and a high level of moral judgment. I express my gratitude to them and to the Medical Research Council who have pioneered what in my view has been a very fruitful period of research during these past two and a half to three years.
In the debate three and a half years ago, I made particular reference to the new hope that IVF offered on two fronts. First, there is the prospect that more couples, where infertility was a problem for either parent, would be able to enjoy parenthood. I was glad that reference was made to this by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, because this is an essential point. I remember in the earlier debate referring to long contacts that I had had with the National Association for the Childless in which I had been involved with many of these families who desperately wanted to have a family and, in my view, were suitable to be good parents. I think this is a matter for profound satisfaction.
Secondly, we might be nearer to reducing what has been a great fear for many parents of giving birth to a child with congenital abnormalities. Developments since then have justified these two hopes. No one should under-estimate the sadness caused by childlessness nor yet the strain on parents—and indeed the children themselves—of physical and mental handicaps or congenital disease. I believe that this is a crucially important part of the debate. Many people in this House know from their own personal experience how harrowing and difficult it is to have to cope throughout a lifetime with a child eventually becoming an adult born with a condition that could possibly have been prevented.
I just want to add one more point before coming on to the central issue; namely, the importance of counselling. I well recognise and appreciate the recommendation in paragraph 77 of the White Paper that centres offering licensed treatment should be required to make counselling available to all couples
1456
who are considering such treatment. Counselling should be distinct from discussions with a doctor of any medical treatment he proposes, and should be carried out by someone, preferably a qualified counsellor. I believe that the role the SLA will play in ensuring that there is a high level of counselling and that they will be satisfied about that before they grant a licence is extremely important.
I should like to add on that that there is a very important role for nurses in this and I hope that the SLA will include a nurse on their panel and that nurses will be trained to be involved with the counselling.
As has been said by the Minister, the central issue of this debate is the choice of two alternatives in the field of research. In my view, it would be quite unthinkable to put a halt to the invaluable research of which many of your Lordships will be aware. The second report of the VLA prepared in 1987 is full of information which can only be encouraging for those involved. The research must of course be effectively controlled by a statutory licensing authority; and any who may have felt that a voluntary licensing authority would be satisfactory, I believe, would recognise that the public need to be assured. I am glad that the Minister referred to the degree of common ground that exists which would prohibit certain types of research which would clearly be morally wrong for all of us.
However, I agree with the British Medical Association that research is an important part of the in vitro fertilisation, not least to improve the success rate of infertility treatment and to identify possible genetic abnormalities. It says that the SLA should set down provisions for such research which should be included in its annual report to Parliament. Research should be completed within 14 days.
In those two vital factors, more research is absolutely essential. I believe that it is morally imperative to continue hopeful research in fields in which Britain leads the world. There are four important ways in which research might improve IVF: first, by perfecting the culture fluid that more eggs reach the stage at which they can be transferred to the womb; secondly, by developing methods of analysing pre-embryos so that those with serious genetic disease or other types of abnormality need not be transferred; thirdly, by improving methods of freezing eggs and pre-embryos so that they can be transferred to the womb at the time in the woman's cycle when they are most likely to develop; fourthly, of finding the best way of preparing the sperm for IVF in cases of male infertility to maximise the chance of fertilisation using the husband's own sperm. Moreover, research involving pre-embryos can, as I suggested earlier, help couples who are at risk of passing on serious genetic disease to have normal children, thereby reducing the incidence of inherited disease.
Research can also help to understand and prevent the one-in-five miscarriages that affect the population at large. It may also lead to the development of new, safer methods of contraception. For example, research is well under way to develop a contraceptive vaccine using the thin protein shell surrounding each egg and pre-embryo.

1457
I have sought to understand, if not to accept, the argument that, from the moment of fertilisation, the pre-embryo is like a foetus or a human being deserving the protection given by the law to both. However, I cannot see how that can be argued. The very size of a pre-embryo is less than the point of a pin or a needle. It is a fertilised egg, a group of cells deriving from it and, as I said, the size of the point of a pin.
In normal development a very small proportion of the cells of the pre-embryo progress to form the actual embryo, which can first be distinguished at about 14 to 16 days after fertilisation. By far the majority of the cells go to form the placenta and the membranes that will surround the foetus. In fact, most pre-embryos do not progress to that stage. More than half abort spontaneously or fail to implant. It is at present impossible to say whether part of any specific pre-embryo is destined to give rise to an individual foetus and then a child; and, if so, which part of the pre-embryo.
I find it extremely difficult to accept that we are dealing with a child or yet with an embryo that could become a child. In my view, it cannot be right to lock the stable door on vital life-giving research. Speaking personally, I am desperately anxious to see fewer unnecessarily childless couples in Britain. No less, and perhaps more, do I want to see the stopping of the steady reduction of children born with unnecessary handicaps. Nor do I want to see mothers turning to abortion to avoid such sad births. Anything which increases the number of abortions cannot, I suggest, be ethically sound. Thus, I personally fully support the continuation of controlled research on the lines suggested in the alternative given in the White Paper.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the report of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, started, in effect, by recognising that most people want limits of some sort and that doctors and scientists involved in these areas themselves want some measure of certainty. Indeed, they are entitled to a measure of certainty. They are entitled to a workable legal framework and the time is approaching for the law to provide it.
The arrival of the White Paper—which the Minister explained is part of a fairly lengthy continuing process—should mean that the topics covered in it should now cease to be matters for emotional rhetoric and should become subjects for careful and thoughtful consideration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I participated in the debate on 31st October 1984, and I shall not seek to repeat anything that I said then.
The Government are to be congratulated on taking the matter through the consultation process, with a provocative consultation paper, and on producing this White Paper indicating their legislative intentions. The essential backbone is to be the statutory licensing system, and I suggest that that is indeed the correct approach, requiring as it will the licensing of practitioners and of premises.
The point on which I should like the Minister to give us some indication of the Government's
1458
intentions concerns membership of the proposed authority. I hope he will not mind if I ask whether there is to be any legal representation on the authority. It is also correct, as the Minister indicated, that the regulatory powers in whatever legislation comes before Parliament should give flexibility to provide for future developments; but, of course, that does leave open, as has already been well indicated, the important question of whether embryo research should be permitted or prohibited. To that I say, yes, it would be permitted for the reasons summarised in the consulation paper and repeated in the annex to the White Paper itself.
The suggested benefits of research are said to fall into four main categories: first, improving the treatment of infertility; secondly, gaining further knowledge about factors leading to congenital disease; thirdly, developing more effective forms of contraception; and, fourthly, detecting gene or chromosome abnormalities before implantation. We should think long and hard before doing anything which would deprive us of those undoubted benefits. Appropriately controlled research by responsible people should not be unduly restricted. Indeed, as we have already been told, there is the existing voluntary licensing system, which seems to work well and which indicates that there is no need for more serious restriction; though of course its responsibilities can he transposed to a statutory licensing body.
To prevent appropriate research would he a backward step, depriving us of the benefits of existing research and losing the benefit of such research in the years to come. Inevitably, as has been said before and will be said again, if undue restrictions are imposed in any of these areas activities will be driven underground or abroad. In that respect, I venture to suggest that the Government are being too neutral. It is understood that the Bill to be brought forward will propose alternative clauses. I hope that the Government will heed the views of the Medical Research Council and others and come forward with a positive proposal for a licensing system for appropriate embryo research.
I turn briefly to various other topics in the White Paper. Paragraphs 53 and 54 deal with the question of how long embryos might be stored. Again, I suggest that the Government are correct to have questioned the 10-year maximum suggested in the Warnock Report. The proposal in the White Paper is for a five-year maximum delay. One must recognise that all time limits are arbitrary but it is right that potential problems can increase if storage continues for too long. I had originally thought that it might be appropriate, at least where embryos are stored for normal reproductive purposes, to impose a time limit at the end of the natural mother's child-bearing span, but I suspect that that is too elastic a concept.
This leads one to the other topic also dealt with in the White Paper—the rights of use or disposal of embryos. One hesitates to talk in terms of legal concepts of ownership but in this respect I venture to recommend the views of the Family Law Bar Association on the subject. That association proposes that if the embryo were to be in law the property of the medical practitioner, the licensed clinic or the health authority, disputes as to

1459
ownership could not arise. I know that that proposal goes somewhat further than the White Paper, but it is one safe way of isolating and removing areas of dispute.
Surrogacy is also covered in the White Paper and, again, I welcome the decision of the Government not to attempt to add any further criminal sanctions over and above those imposed in the 1985 Act. I also welcome the intention of the Government to clarify the contractual position. In practical terms the law seeks to do nothing else than what is best for the child. However the contractual position as between the surrogate mother and the commissioning parents raises important questions of policy if only to decide what is the best disincentive for badly thought out, amateurish do-it-yourself arrangements.
In contractual law it is therefore important to decide who is to have the superior bargaining position when things go wrong; that is to say, if the child is handed over and the surrogate mother is not paid or not paid in full or if the child is not handed over though the surrogate mother has been paid. It may be that something else will go wrong; for example, the child goes into care or is born with some defect or is stillborn.
These are topics which have been ventilated at some length by the Family Law Bar Association in its submissions to the Government following the consultation paper. I know that they were matters which were also ventilated before your Lordships in the course of the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill, by, I believe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, among others. They are important matters and when the legislation comes before your Lordships' House we must think about those topics if only, as I say, to provide the appropriate disincentive to unworkable or unsuitable arrangements.
The question of suitability is also dealt with in the White Paper; that is to say, whether there should be a mechanism for the assessment of suitability for parties wishing to enter into these arrangements. The White Paper puts the burden effectively on the centres and on the licensing authorities. There is a dilemma. One needs no social or domestic qualifications for parentage whether a child is wanted or not. Conversely, in adoption, there are stringent requirements for children who are deeply wanted.
The position here is not wholly analogous to adoption. It can be said that. like adoption, those who are prepared to undergo these procedures by that very fact usually indicate a sense of commitment and responsibility. Conversely, one has heard alarming stories about wholly unsuitable people seeking to commission children one way or another. These stories may be apocryphal but they illustrate a point. For example, an unmarried couple, the woman a former prostitute, sterile by venereal infection; the man divorced and with several children in care. They would not reach the starting gate for the purposes of adoption. What should happen if they present themselves for treatment in order to have a child? In less dramatic cases there is the position of single people, elderly people, heavy drinkers and heavy smokers which should be considered.
1460
In this respect, I refer your Lordships briefly to the Warnock Report itself at paragraph 2.11 where it is said:
"we believe that as a general rule it is better for children to be born into a two-parent family, with both father and mother, although we recognise that it is impossible to predict with any certainty how lasting such a relationship will be".
Finally, I welcome the way in which the White Paper deals with the question of the status of these children following Section 27 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987. This was a matter which was fairly fully debated in the course of that legislation in your Lordships' House. I understood then that the Government were sympathetic to the idea and I am glad to see it repeated in the White Paper. We will have to come to grips with all these problems in the form of legislation. In so doing we must not lose the commonsense and the helpful guidance of the Warnock Report.
12.15 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I welcome the Government's White Paper which, on the whole, I regard as a well-argued and well-balanced document. I must confess to some continuing misgivings over the arrangements for donors because I think the problems of anonymity and deception involved in this issue have not yet been fully resolved. I agree with the main proposals put forward in the White Paper and in particular with the establishment of the statutory licensing authority and what is said about the scope of its work.
I must use my limited time in concentrating upon the most controversial issue; namely, embryo research. I do so because I have been personally involved in the ethical issues concerning this for more than 10 years. Before the birth of Louise Brown I had the privilege of being invited to become a member of the Ethical Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council. This was a committee initially set up in order to advise the council on decisions about making research grants in this field. Later, as we have been reminded, in the immediate post-Warnock period, it was this body which put forward the idea of a voluntary licensing authority since it was obvious by then that, in the light of the great public interest which the whole matter had aroused, we could no longer continue without some form of control on research.
As I think back to that period of more than 10 years ago, when we were trying to find our moral bearings and before there had been any real public discussion of the matter, I remember how we fixed upon two major criteria. The first of those was that human ova fertilised with human sperm should not be cultured in vitro beyond the implantation stage. The second criteria was that all research on fertilised ova should have a broadly therapeutic aim.
The significance of the first of these criteria lay in eliminating any possibility that a fertilised ovum which had been used for experiment could enter into the next stage of development essential for its growth into a human being. The non-implanted embryo cannot develop beyond a certain stage which is at the moment fewer than 14 days.
In other words, what we were saying then was that whatever potential the fertilised ovum may have to

1461
become a human being it will not and cannot be realised. Our justification for allowing its use in experiments depends absolutely on its lack of any future. Implicit in laying down that criterion was the recognition that there are several crucial moments in the development of the human person of which fertilisation is one; the development of the primitive streak is another; implantation is another and one may possibly see other crucial moments. The relative merits of these particular crises in development have to he considered when one is thinking about the moral implications.
Our second guideline about research for therapeutic purposes only, has been written into the White Paper for precisely the same reasons for which it was first formulated; namely, that the moral context of such research has to be the care and nurture of human life and not the tinkering about with the fundamental bases of human life. Again that seems to me to be a clear and absolute distinction.
So far as I know, these early guidelines have held good to this day but I accept that changes along the lines proposed in the Warnock Report and spelt out in the White Paper, might be easier to administer and might be more defensible on moral grounds. I shall return to that point in a minute.
First, let me say that I believe that research must continue if in vitro fertilisation is to continue. One cannot separate them, and I regard as totally unrealistic and indeed immoral any proposal to continue in vitro fertilisation without a proper backing in research.
This is for the simple and basic reason that imperfect techniques without a backing in research are bad practice medically and, I believe, wrong morally. There is a duty to patients to do the best which can be done, and any technique which involves the present traumas and uncertainties and wastage of embryos must be capable of improvement and therefore must be open to research.
I turn now to the question, what is a fertilised ovum? What are we actually researching on? It is a question that the Warnock Report avoided for good, pragmatic reasons, and the White Paper understandably makes no judgment on it. However, it is a question that a theologian cannot avoid if only because at some stage we have to start talking about the human soul and the meaning of human personhood.
I refer at this point to the Church of England report entitled, Personal Origins, which looked back on the tangled history of theological thinking on these matters. It went on to distinguish two different ways of perceiving the status of the early embryo and traced these back to two very different philosophical traditions without being able to say that one of these traditions was Christian and the other was not. They have both formed part of continuous Christian thinking.
The first of these ways is to think of personhood in terms of the historical continuity of the individual subject. So we can trace the history of a life backwards, and although there will have been these crises of development that I have talked about, although there will have been huge physical changes,
1462
nevertheless there is a discernible point at which that history begins, and that point is fertilisation. So the argument goes that, however rudimentary the development of that point, it is proper to talk about human life beginning then and to ascribe personal worth to the fertilised ovum.
This way of interpreting the status of an early embryo is impressive and clear, and is the main basis of the argument against interference at any stage after conception. However, as we have been reminded, it runs into the difficulty that biologically speaking the so-called pre-embryo is not quite the fixed and stable entity that this account of it presupposes. The splitting of cells, the recombination of cells, the uncertainty about which cells are going to develop into the embryo and which into the placenta all imply that there is a certain fluidity about the identity of the organism at this early stage, and that uncertainty is not resolved until the cells, instead of just going through the process of multiplying as happens in the very early stages, begin differentiating. It is only at that stage that one can begin to talk in any meaningful way about the embryo as opposed to its surrounds. Here it seems to me that one can fix the beginnings of human individuality.
If we are to think of a person in terms of this continuity of history, this beginning of individuality which corresponds in fact with the beginnings of the primitive streak and with the 14 days recommended in the Warnock Report, this seems to me a biologically and morally more satisfying starting point than the moment of conception. It is also a way of looking at development which helps to resolve otherwise impossible questions about the human soul.
I do not myself think of the soul as a separate entity but as the inner reality of a human person. But those who do think of the soul as something infused at a particular moment into a developing organism by God have to face all sorts of conundrums in making sense of it at this early stage. There are marvellous theological disputes about whether God anticipates twinning by creating two souls which I shall not take you into because my time is nearly running out.
That then is one way of interpreting the status of the early embryo. The other way is in terms of the attributes of personhood. We recognise and value persons in terms of what they are. We see certain qualities and capacities even in a very rudimentary form, and the value that we acknowledge in persons implies the recognition of some of these qualities, and in particular the recognition that they are, or can become, subjects of consciousness like ourselves.
Thus on this approach we can see a sort of sliding scale of value in the process of development, and it makes no sense on this view to ascribe full personal value to human matter which possesses none of the attributes which normally belong to persons. Of course the danger in this view is that sliding scales of value can easily slide too far, and if we apply this too literally to research on embryos, then we might not start drawing moral lines until the stage at which the human brain began to develop.
But that I am sure would be to go much too far, and that, for reasons connected with our deep moral need to value and respect human life, even if we

1463
cannot think of an embryo convincingly as if it were a human person, we need to build in safeguards which may have an element of arbitrariness about them. If we offend this sense of respect for early human life gratuitously, then I believe we damage ourselves, we damage our society, and we shall rightly arouse deep religious opposition.
I believe that in the very early stage when personal attributes are non-existent and when identity is yet to be established there is room to allow experiment. But it has to be hedged round by safeguards which make it publicly obvious that respect for our human origins is being properly observed. I see this as the tenor of the Government's proposals, including the tentative proposal to allow embryo research, and I hope that we shall see legislation along these lines in the very near future.
12.28 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I declare an interest—a very real interest—as chairman of the Medical Research Council in this debate. Nevertheless my remarks reflect my personal views. I welcome, like others have, this White Paper. I wish indeed that we could have had it before. I also welcome the implication that I take to be there that the Government propose to legislate soon, and I would hope in the next Session. It is high time.
Again I welcome the fact that Parliament's eventual decision on these complex issues—technically, complex legally, complex ethnically and also complex emotionally—especially in relation to this critical question of research will be on a free vote. That is right. I also welcome this debate and the fact that, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will be participating in it. I should also like to thank the Minister who introduced it for his considered and balanced opening statement.
So much for common ground. My remarks, however, will focus on what is of course the reverse of common ground—namely, whether we should permit in the future, as we have permitted up until now, dedicated and directed research, purposeful research, for the benefit of mankind on the emerging human embryo. As your Lordships know, the Warnock Report recommended by a majority, albeit a clear majority, that subject to strict limitations and controls such research should be permitted up to, but not beyond, the fourteenth day.
I tread upon this ground knowing that it is overlaid by a great weight, by millenia of religious and moral tradition—and we have just heard a very deeply pondered statement from the most reverend Primate—and that for many, including perhaps many of your Lordships, the ultimate wonder, the commencement of the individual human being, begins at fertilisation, and that for those who hold this belief research on the human embryo is unacceptable save perhaps for the good of the embryo itself. I respect that view, I respect the strong sensitivities which underlie it, but I happen to take another view.
My starting point is, I believe, the same as that in the Warnock Report; namely:
1464
"That everyone agreed that it is completely unacceptable to make use of a child or an adult as the subject of research procedure which may cause harm or death".
Of course, like the report itself, I would go much further. The same principle should apply to the foetus and to the embryo from the 14th day after fertilisation; and the pre-embryo, before the 14th day, also deserves some protection, careful protection.
Why do I hold this view? I cannot put it with the eloquence and depth which the most reverend Primate has expressed it to us, but I should like to quote the words of one of our foremost research scientists in this field, Dr. Anne McLaren, who has said:
"If we are talking about the origin of an individual life, one can trace back directly from the newborn baby to the foetus and back further to the origin of the individual embryo at the primitive streak stage in the embryonic plate at 16 or 17 days. But if one tries to trace back further there is no longer a coherent entity. Instead there is a large collection of cells, some of which are going to take part in the subsequent development of the embryo and some of which are not".
As Dr. McLaren has pointed out, and following what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, with almost all of which I agreed very much, that pre-embryo, just visible to the naked eye, is equivalent in size to the full stop which will end this sentence in Hansard tomorrow.
It is for these reasons, based on the best of scientific knowledge available to me at least, that I hold research properly regulated and controlled on the pre-embryo to be morally permissible. Nor do I fear that once research up to 14 days after fertilisation is permitted the enthusiasm of over-enthusiastic scientists will impel us inevitably down some slippery slope. I should like to quote what Sir Cecil Clothier, chairing a very interesting seminar held by the CI BA Foundation two years ago, said about the 14-day rule:
"It is workable, it is observable, it has a quality of certainty about it— there is an important change at 14 days".
Moreover, if Parliament were to take a definite and considered decision to permit research up to 14 days it would require a similar definite and considered decision of Parliament to extend it. Thus it would be for Parliament, not possibly for over-eager scientists, to decide whether to descend the slippery slope. Speaking personally, I would be very strongly opposed to extending the period.
But—and it is a big but and a but to which I believe all researchers and scientists (our researchers and scientists at least) would subscribe—it is and would remain impermissible for certain repugnant types of research, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and referred to in the White Paper, to be undertaken—genetic manipulation, the horrible creation of monstrous hybrids, cloning and the rest of it. If the Government's proposals are accepted such research would clearly be legislated out. Such research all of us would rule out. But there are other areas of research which I hope we will in the future, as is the case today, very much rule in.
I refer to that research on the pre-embryo which could be of great potential benefit to mankind and to research in which this country, I am proud to say, is today playing a leading role. There is vital research

1465
on contraception, in a world whose population increases by some quarter of a million every 24 hours. There is research into fertility, which a number of your Lordships have also mentioned. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that that research into fertility has as its by-product something else. It should be able to help to alleviate not only the misery of any infertile human beings in our society. It has been estimated that more than 275,000 couples between the ages of 24 and 35 are infertile; it could do a great deal in that area for many people who suffer greatly at the present time. But it would also help those women who suffer from recurrent miscarriages.
The point I should like to make here can be made best by quoting the words of my council's response to the Government's consultation paper which preceded the White Paper. We said:
"Moreover, as the Medical Research Council in their evidence to the Government have stated, 'There are large species differences in this field, as in other areas of reproduction, and it is therefore not possible to extrapolate the results obtained in animals into man'. Thus it remains necessary to carry out this work on the human pre-embryo".
Then there is the other area—research into genetic disease. It is perhaps all too easy, as one surveys the healthy specimens on the Benches around one, to forget the sad fact that between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. of children are born each year with a grave genetic defect. The company is all too familiar—Down's, Tay Sachs, muscular dystrophy, Huntingdon's, the horrible Lesch Nyhan syndrome and so on. At present, as many of your Lordships know, one can diagnose some of these disorders at 16 to 18 weeks into pregnancy but this can mean an abortion with all its attendant traumas at four months or so. Even with a newer technique, an abortion at 10 or 11 weeks would be involved. It would be something devoutly to be wished if instead of these late infinitely distressing abortions it were possible to diagnose at least some of these genetic and chromosonal defects before the implantation stage. This would mean, again in the words of Dr. McLaren, that:
"Women at risk of producing a foetus with a severe genetic disease would feel safe to start their pregnancy".
But without further research on the pre-embryo this will not be possible, at least in this country.
To sum up, I cannot find the ethical case against research on the pre-embryo up to 14 days—research properly directed and properly regulated—to be overwhelming. In the present state of our scientific knowledge I find it almost impossible to regard this minute collection of cells, marvellous though it is, as an individual human person. On the other hand, I emphatically find the benefits, actual or potential, which could flow from purposeful research—the purpose is very important—properly regulated and directed as overwhelmingly beneficial. For all these reasons I wish to express the hope that Parliament at the end of the day will endorse the second option in paragraph 30 of the Government's White Paper, that permitting self-regulating research in that context.
In conclusion I only add how strongly I support the Government's preference for a statutory licensing authority with a lay chairman and with strong lay representations. The voluntary licensing authority
1466
under its lay chairman, Dame Mary Donaldson, has done a splendid and dedicated job. As a glance at its two considered and scrupulous reports will show, they have laid very firm foundations on which the statutory licensing authority when established can build. I think we owe Dame Mary Donaldson and her colleagues a very great debt indeed.
I hope that the statutory licensing authority will be established in the near future. The regulatory regime proposed by the government would have—and I should like to say this very deliberately—the firm backing of my colleagues and myself in the Medical Research Council. As my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson observed in our debate on this issue over three years ago, this is too important a matter to be left to scientists. I agree. Funnily enough so do the scientists.
12.41 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I must apologise in advance for the fact that I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate owing to my contractual obligations to the National Health Service. I feel it might be useful to your Lordships if I attempt to amplify in some degree the basis of the experimental work on human pre-embryos which other noble Lords have already described. It is a complex field to understand, especially for non-biologists. I must say that I am impressed by the grasp of the subject which speakers so far have shown. Much better explanations than I can give are available and I particularly recommend the article by Dr. Anne McLaren, Director of the Medical Research Council's Mammalian Development Unit, in the New Scientist of 10th December last mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, just now. This, and the report of the CIBA Foundation Conference which he also mentioned, are available through Dr. Gunning at the Medical Research Council's headquarters office.
It is worth attempting to describe briefly the ongoing work, if only to have some of this detail printed in Hansard for future reference. I shall try to describe very briefly in a little more detail what a pre-embryo is, how it is obtained and a little bit about the nature of the research being done, the potential benefits from it and also the loss to women, society and science which could result if the more restrictive of the two draft clauses in paragraph 30 of the White Paper were to become law.
Pre-embryos are the product of the fertilisation of ova. In life this usually takes place in the fallopian tube, but less than half of these successfully implant in the uterus, some never develop into embryos proper—that is, a recognisable early human foetus—and some even develop into a form of malignant tumour, the so-called hydatidiform mole. A great many pre-embryos from one to 14 days old are therefore lost, usually at the time of the normal menstrual period so that a woman may not even know that one of her eggs had been fertilised.
It is possible to obtain unfertilised live ova from women by various ingenious techniques; usually several are obtained at once. These ova can then be fertilised in a culture medium—in vitro, in fact—and the product replaced in the uterus of infertile women.

1467
Usually several at a time are used to maximise the chance that one will implant. Even so, at present only about one in eight do so, so there obviously is room for improvement. "Spare" ova, and thus pre-embryos, are available if more are gathered than are needed by a woman receiving in vitro fertilisation treatment for her infertility. They can also be obtained, and often are, from volunteer women who are undergoing planned surgical procedures such as sterilisation.
As the White Paper mentions, it has so far only been possible—and other speakers have mentioned this—to grow human pre-embryos for eight to nine days in vitro. At that stage the pre-embryo consists of a small spherical collection of identical cells. The most reverend Primate has described this in great detail, so I will not go into it very fully. Most of the cells in this pre-embryo are destined to become membranes and placenta. The embryo proper, which will develop into the human foetus, only starts to appear at 14 days, when the cells begin to differentiate, and this stage has not yet been attained in current experimental work. For reasons which the noble Earl has mentioned, this is thought to be the logical cut-off point, because it is the point at which a potential human being is first detectable.
Other speakers have mentioned the three main types of research work that are going on on pre-embryos. Highly important breakthroughs in the research are imminent, especially in the detection and prevention of major genetic disorders prior to the implantation of the pre-embryo. After extracting and analysing a few cells from a pre-embryo using new chromosome, gene mapping and DNA identifying techniques, an increasing range of genetic diseases are becoming recognisable. In couples at risk, pre-embryos carrying the faulty genes will be discarded and only apparently normal ones placed in the uterus. The woman will then be free from the fear which my noble friend Lord Ennals mentioned, that her foetus may have to be aborted at a quite late stage in pregnancy if, using current techniques, the disorder were to be detected at amniocentesis. There is no time to describe the details of some of the exciting research which is going on at the 15 centres in the United Kingdom which are mentioned in the report of the voluntary licensing authority referred to by my noble friend. There is no doubt, as the noble Earl said, that we are now world leaders in this field. If the prohibitive clause in paragraph 30 were to become law, all this would have to stop. Thousands of infertile couples would be disappointed and a chance to reduce the number of children with congenital handicaps such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy—and the noble Earl mentioned a lot more—could be lost. This involves some 7,000 children at the moment. It would be a wonderful advance to reduce that number considerably. As he also mentioned, a major improvement in contraceptive techniques might be lost and this could have worldwide significance. Other countries would probably take up the work, but not for some years, and some of our best scientists might well emigrate in order to continue their work where it was permitted.
1468
If all embryos which were the subject of research had to be replaced in the womb, the couples having treatment could become experimental subjects themselves together with their pre-embryos. They will have to undergo the risk, anxiety and expense of repeated experimental therapies.
It is not often that a respected scientific body such as the Medical Research Council feels the need to take such an active part in informing Members of Parliament and Peers about proposed legislation. The Government have perhaps shown insufficient trust in our scientists' motives, though I agree with the right reverend Primate that scientists need to be advised and perhaps not trusted entirely.
The Bill should not include the first alternative draft clause contained in paragraph 30, which is restrictive of research. The Government should give their full backing to the second draft clause, which passes the responsibility to authorise research to the statutory licensing authority. The statutory licensing authority has wide lay membership and is greatly welcomed by all legitimate research workers in the field.
The more fanciful types of research on embryos, which of course are reminiscent of Aldous Huxley's influential satire, Brave New World, such as cloning, conditioning foetal growth in various ways, or introducing new of foreign genetic material into the embryo, will be specifically prohibited, quite apart from being outside what is technically possible at present.
I hope that noble Lords will insist on the Bill being drafted in such a way that all current research on pre-embryos and new work which it may approve in the future can continue under the auspices of the statutory licensing authority.
12.52 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I shall start by expressing my gratitude for the chance to have a preliminary debate among your Lordships on the White Paper. This is a great opportunity. I shall try not to take up too much of your Lordships' time, and therefore I shall confine myself entirely to the questions that are raised in paragraph 30 of the White Paper about research using human embryos. Those have been rightly recognised by the Government as far and away the most difficult and controversial issues.
Those who argue that research using human embryos should become a criminal offence, which is one of the alternatives offered in this paragraph of the White Paper, do so on the grounds, as we have heard, that it it already an offence to use children or non-consenting adults for medical research, and that the law should afford the same protection to embryos and foetuses from the moment of fertilisation. They hold that the life of an individual begins at fertilisation and that it is immaterial, after fertilisation, whether that individual has or has not been born. I honour the sincerity and loyalty of those who adhere to that principle. However, it must be emphasised that the principle is founded on faith and not upon reason or the demonstration of facts.

1469
Arguments will not prove relevant to the principle because no demonstration of the great goods that will flow from the research, nor, as we have heard, the great harms from bringing research to an end, could be expected to move those who, as a matter of faith, hold that all human life is, or should be, equally protected by law from the moment of fertilisation. There can be no doubt about the goods that will flow from allowing the research to proceed. We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Ennals, Lord Rea and others what those goods are.
Research using human embryos has been going on for at least 20 years. That has not only brought new hope to the infertile, but in my view even more importantly, as we have heard, by means of the techniques of in vitro fertilisation it has become increasingly possible for parents who are carriers of genetic disease to have children who are healthy; because the embryo is fertilised and diagnosed and only those that are perfect can be placed in the uterus for implantation and subsequent growth.
I must emphasise that I am not talking about the bringing to an end of minor handicapping conditions, but about a child who may be born with such a condition that its life would be short and for the most part unspeakably terrible, both for it and for its parents. By means of research it will be possible to understand more about the causation of chromosome disorders such as Down's syndrome and thus ultimately perhaps to intervene to prevent such defects occurring. But it is not my purpose to emphasise the undoubtedly vast benefits. I do not wish to dwell further on that, or on the fact—it is a fact—that to criminalise research in this area would be a radical and perhaps unprecedented step to take.
I want instead to suggest that for those who are not bound by loyalty or by doctrine to the principle of the equal sanctity of all human life from fertilisation on, there is a genuine choice to be made. A principle has to be thought out on the basis of which, I hope, legislation will proceed. What is in question is the use for research of the human embryo in vitro up to 14 days from fertilisation, because that is the extent of embryo research which is now permitted under the voluntary guidelines and would be permitted under legislation following the White Paper. What status are we to accord to this pre 14-day embryo, the pre-embryo as it is now generally called? Is it or is it not to have some legal protection that is rightly afforded to children and grown-up human beings?
The abortion law, which is something that comes into people's minds when they are thinking about this subject, at present accords to the human foetus no right to survive if the good of the mother requires that it be destroyed. The principle that would justify research using human embryos, the pre-embryo, would be a different principle. It would permit research not for the good of some specific individual, other than the subject of the research, but for the good of unspecified and so far unborn human beings. We have to ask ourselves whether we are morally justified in using the pre-embryo for the general good. Those who answer that it is not justified often base their argument on the ground, as I have said, that human life begins at fertilisation. The statement that
1470
human life begins at fertilisation is misleading, in my opinion, in two different ways. First, life begins long before fertilisation, in the sense that the sperm and the ovum are both indisputably human and alive. Secondly, the kind of life in which we are morally interested—the life which it is our duty to protect—is not merely biological or genetic life; it is an individual life that is to be lived.
It is to human individuals that our duty and our care must belong morally. But it is factually impossible, as we have heard, to think of the pre-embryo as an individual with an individual life to lead. On fertilisation, perhaps I may remind your Lordships yet again that the egg and sperm come together to form a loose cluster of cells, eight in number, which contain within the cluster the cells which will ultimately perhaps go on to form an embryo. But by far the greater number of those cells, as they multiply, will go to form the placenta and not the embryo. Moreover, up to day 14 it is perfectly possible that no embryo at all will develop or that two identical twin embryos will form because this is the last stage at which identical twins may come into being.
This, then, in my view, is the reason why the pre14-day embryo is referred to as the pre-embryo, because only after day 14 is there an individual who, in due course, will develop into a foetus, then into a child and then into a grown-up human being, my Lords, you or I.
We must distinguish then between the genetic information certainly already complete in the embryo and the individual life, the life to be led by the embryo when the so-called primitive streak has developed on about day 14. This will grow in due course into the central nervous system and the brain, the perceptive and motor powers of the one or the two individuals who are linked with the cluster of cells. The link is a causal link but not a link of identity.
It is the lot of philosophers always to be thought to draw distinctions were none exists or to confound people with hair splitting and with invented terminology. However, on the other side, there is a very noble prayer frequently uttered in my college chapel that we may be given the grace to distinguish things that differ. 1, as a member of my college chapel, pray this most fervently because I believe that it is our moral duty to make a distinction in this case between the pre-embryo and the embryo which is to become the individual and to act on this distinction.
We must learn to think differently of the pre-embryo than we think of the embryo itself. It is not altogether surprising to learn that theology speaks with a divided voice on this subject because the subject is new. We must make up our minds on facts which were not known to human beings at all, namely the nature of the embryo in vitro. We must make up our minds on those facts; we must face the problem of legislation in a new field. This why it is incumbent on us to think hard for ourselves.
My final point is that people often say that if research is permitted using embryos up to 14 days from fertilisation, this length of time will gradually increase. Scientists will come forward to say that if they had a day or two more they could do wonders.

1471
Other people say that if we are working on the removal from among us of these very sadly genetically inherited diseases we shall ultimately move on to remove from among us valuable people like myself who are short-sighted.
Both these contentions are forms of what is known as the "slippery slope" argument. I think your Lordships should not be frightened of the slippery slope argument. I am sure you will not be and that the general public may be aware of this fact. We can stop our descent down the slippery slope at any point when we wish to do so and the way of stopping ourselves descending into unknown horrors is by legislation. If, on the face of the Bill, there is the time beyond which embryos may not be legitimately used for research purposes, after which time it will be a criminal offence, then we can stop the descent of the slope at that very point and we shall be seen to do so.
The slippery slope argument is frequently used by people who fear what might happen next. My belief is that if we have a statutory body licensing research and if the statutory body is backed up by a clear moral view of how we regard the pre-embryo, then we need not fear that we shall descend the slope and we shall have highly beneficial legislation.
1.5 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I welcome the Government's decision to publish this White Paper on human fertilisation and embryology. In framing the White Paper I particularly congratulate them on having consulted so many groups and religious bodies, among whom are the Catholic Bishops. The paper deals with the fundamental ethical question of our human species. Homo sapiens is part of the reality of our universe and let us not forget that we Christians believe that God chose to send his son to this earth, taking a human form.
From the moment of its conception—that is fertilisation which includes what is being called at the moment the pre-embryo—I believe that the human embryo becomes a human being. So nothing should be allowed which does not help this human being to live and prosper. A statutory licensing authority should be set up which would be infinitely preferable to some sort of ministerial control or the present very genuine self-regulation of voluntary licensing authorities. However, this statutory licensing authority must operate within a framework. I am now referring to paragraph 30. This framework must forbid many things.
In particular, first, it must forbid any destructive research or experiments on an embryo or pre-embryo. Secondly, it must forbid production of spare embryos; thirdly it must forbid the donation of eggs, sperm or embryos outside the marital relationship of the proposed child's parents; fourthly, trans-species fertilisation should be forbidden; fifthly, storing, by freezing embryos except in emergency to enable the transfer to its proper mother, should also be forbidden.
I believe that surrogacy is most undesirable. It is very often the rich exploiting the poor and I do not
1472
think that any forms of surrogacy should be permitted.
I have cut down my speech to the bare minimum because I know there are very many other speakers. I shall conclude by saying that all history bears witness to the advantages of a child being born into and nurtured by a family, the father and mother. Our laws should underwrite and support this. But let us give to the child born anywhere, anyhow, all the help, sustenance and love due to it as a creature of God.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, sits down, as a sincere Christian and Catholic myself perhaps I may ask one simple question. If a life starts at conception, since I am a twin does that mean I only have half a soul?
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, that is a theological point which the most reverend Primate has already mentioned. I cannot in any way answer the question. However, I obviously follow the Catholic line, which says that those are vital matters and that it is safer to say that a pre-embryo is the start of human life; a soul is available, so to speak, for the pre-embryo. It is not in my competence to speculate on whether a second soul is available for a twin.
1.10 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Duke addresses the House with special authority as he is the honoured leader of the Catholic laity. I have no credentials of that kind. I offer the opinions of a rank and file Member of your Lordships' House who has not been allowed near the Front Bench for over 20 years. I get as close to it as I can, but not close enough!
I am not likely to fail in admiration for the brilliant gifts of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. She did me the supreme honour of asking me to be one of her sponsors when she came to the House. Whether after my remarks this morning she will wish to cancel that invitation is doubtful. However, I hope that she will not feel the necessity.
The issue is undoubtedly one of enormous difficulty. On the one hand we have all the scientific arguments and on the other hand we have the moral arguments. My noble friend Lord Ennals, although he said that it is indefensible to interfere with life-giving research, agreed that some forms of research are intolerable. It therefore becomes a question of what forms of research are morally intolerable. I hope that my noble friend realises that there are people who feel just as strongly as he does about the nature of the research which in intolerable. That is the problem before us.
I submit that the damage which may be done by such research—which may be beneficial in many ways—may take two forms. It can either damage the principle of the family or it can damage human entities. I shall say a few words about the latter damage later. As regards the family, and as I believe the noble Duke was beginning to say when he spoke all too briefly, surely all of us would like to see that every child who is born into this world is able to identify its mother and father. That must be an

1473
aspiration which is shared by everyone. I realise that many people come into the world without that advantage. The last thing we ought to do in terms of government action is to take any step which increases the number of people who cannot identify their mothers and fathers. Once one adopts that position, one rules out many procedures, some of which are being carried out presently.
The noble Duke spoke against surrogacy, which obviously leaves a child with uncertainties about its parentage. There is a question about the parents, whether real or alleged, and I think that that is an undesirable situation. Other aspects of the matter might also be quite intolerable from that point of view. What are we left with? We are left with the extraction of the ovum, fertilisation and re-implantation in the mother. On moral grounds, I do not see that I am in a position to object to that. However, I am tremendously apprehensive about a future in which that might become general. When one thinks of the number of ova that can be produced, fertilised and stored, I believe that it is an absolutely revolting prospect. I am very nervous about the situation.
Most of the speakers today have concentrated on the position of the embryo. I am sure that the noble Baroness will not mind if I say that I find one of the expressions of dissent even more attractive than the conclusions of the majority on the Warnock Committee. She of all people will remember best what I am to say, and I am sure that most Members of the House will be aware of it. Your Lordships will remember the expression of dissent attached to the Warnock Report by Mrs. Carriline, Professor John Marshall, who is an eminent scientist, and Mrs. Walker. Of those, Professor Marshall is a Roman Catholic and the two ladies are not. All three say in their expressions of dissent that the crucial question is:
"at what stage of the development should the status of a person be accorded to an embryo of the human species".
They acknowledge that that question may be answered by different people in different ways. But their practical conclusion is unequivocal. They say:
"The embryo has a special status because of its potential for development to a stage where everyone would accord it the status of a human person. It is in our view wrong to create something with the potential for becoming a human person and then deliberately to destroy it. We therefore recommend that nothing should be done that would reduce the chance of successful implantation of the embryo".
A little later they say that experimentation on embryos should not be permitted.
For what my opinion is worth—I am not an expert—I go along with that practical conclusion. However, it is only right to say that some of those who advise me theologically consider that the matter could be put more strongly than it is put by the dissenting trio. I do not say that the conclusion would be different. As I understand it, in the classical Christian tradition—perhaps the most reverend Primate might say in one classical Christian tradition—a person is defined as an individual substance of a rational nature. It is a factual question whether the early human embryo is an individual. If it is an individual, then it can hardly be reasonably doubted that it is an individual of the human species
1474
and that as such it possesses a rational nature and is a person. I think that the most reverend Primate will agree that that is one strong Christian tradition.
I have little time left and I shall not be discussing the government proposals except to indicate that I obviously prefer the first of the two alternative draft clauses, although it is far from perfect. However, before I sit down I should like to touch on one point which has not been clarified this morning. Contrary to the general impression, there is no certainty in official Roman Catholic teaching as to when the soul enters the body. However, whenever it may enter the body, it would be seriously wrong in the Catholic view to destroy the fertilised ovum, because at the very least one might be killing a human person. Even if it were not at that stage a human person, and even if one does not believe in the soul, it would be wrong to take any step of that kind. I do not wish to give the impression, as the noble Baroness will be well aware, that Roman Catholic views on these intricate matters are monolithic. One can find many shades of emphasis. However, what the noble Duke and I have said would, I am sure, represent the view of the vast majority of Roman Catholics.
As I said earlier, I have no doubt in my mind that nothing should be done that would reduce the chance of successful implantation of an embryo. To quote the dissenting trio's minute to the Warnock Report, they say:
"experimentation on the human embryo should not be permitted".
I beg those who care so much for scientific research to realise that if they carry their ideas much further some of us believe that we shall get repulsive consequences.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper in so far as it takes us a step nearer the legislation which is so urgently needed, and I welcome the proposed establishment of a statutory licensing authority. I further welcome the intention set out in the White Paper to bring the embryo within the scope of the law from its fertilisation, and despite what has been said I counsel caution in introducing the term "pre-embryo". To me it seems a contradiction in terms.
Much of this debate in your Lordships' House is centring around embryo research. However, we should not overlook the other important ethical questions to be decided, which should not be allowed to go by default. There is, for example, AID. The White Paper's position appears to assume that AID is an acceptable practice. When your Lordships' House debated the Warnock Report in 1984 many reservations were expressed on AID which are not allayed by the White Paper.
To take just one point, the Warnock Report recognised that there was an inevitable risk that children born as a result of AID could unwittingly find themselvs in a situation of incest. The report recommended that in order to reduce the risk—and I emphasise the words "reduce the risk"—there should be a limit of 10 children to be fathered by one donor. The White Paper, however, indicates that such a limit would not be practicable. The full risk therefore

1475
remains. One must ask whether the risk is worth taking. I believe not. Let me state something which in part emphasises what the Minister said and which is so obvious that it is often overlooked; namely, that the people who bear the greatest consequences of fertility treatment are not the parents but the children who are born as a result of it.
I come to my final point; namely, whether fertility treatment such as AID or ovum donation should be available only to married couples. Some people may say that everyone has a claim to have children. I believe that there is a superior claim, which is that every child has the right where possible to have two parents, one of either sex—I am afraid that has to be stated nowadays—who are committed in marriage to each other and to their children. On that principle fertility treatment should therefore be confined to married couples, and I hope to see that reflected in any legislation.
1.25 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in such a well informed debate there is only one aspect on which I have the temerity, or even the wish, to speak. My choice is the compelling and urgent need for everything possible to be done to advance research aimed at preventing congenital handicap. Already during my generation medical science has conferred on mankind the infinite blessing of virtually removing the threat in this country of polio, TB, diphtheria and smallpox. No words can express the value of such discoveries.
Those who have been concerned personally with severely mentally and/or physically handicapped children are prompted to strive to do all in their power to remove that dreadful threat in life. Of course prevention of the transmission of genetic and chromosomal defects is a most important step towards this end. Except in the case of Members of this House, one cannot help wondering whether those who question the course preferred by medical research can be fully aware of the real horror of the facts. When one member of a family has a severe genetic abnormality a tremendous load falls on the parents and siblings. It is a load which can disable the whole family. Huge sacrifices have to be made. Some cases require constant attention given against a background of shouting and banging of heads. Other cases, involving those with cystic fibrosis for instance, provide a ceaseless source of heartbreak and anxiety. Families burdened with diseases such as Duchenne's disease, muscular dystrophy, Huntingdon's Chorea, Friedrich's Attaxia, brittle bone disease and others may often be unaware of the severe disablement that is to overtake an older child and there may be another pregnancy. Only then is it known that further offspring are likely to inherit the same cruelly crippling diseases.
I should like to say once more that I was lucky enough to be looked after by my mother for the first 50 years after I had contracted polio. Despite her endlessly resourceful, cheerful and uncomplaining ways, nobody knew better than she did the full meaning of a relentless daily routine, often with no
1476
time off duty. From this experience and her social work my mother decided that the huge burden of day-to-day caring required by some of the more severely and congenitally handicapped cases was more than should be coped with by any family. She saw the need for a concerted attack by doctors and lay people to remove this dreadful plight.
The White Paper that we are debating proposes that a statutory licensing body will regulate in vitro fertilisation; this suggests that either research with embryos will be regulated or that studies on human embryos (except in special cases) will be banned altogether. This happens just when there is great hope that the doctors are getting close to diagnosing and identifying some genetic defects and see the way to develop their discoveries. Medically scientific methods are so minutely precise, long-term and demanding of best endeavours that it requires encouragement more than threats if the course of therapeutic research is to progress.
It is my belief that a little knowledge is dangerous and that when the mother is pregnant potential parents should be counselled with the utmost frankness as to the possible results of pregnancy. They should be helped to follow any prescribed, assured method that will lead towards a reduction of severely genetically defective babies. Doctors hold the best chance of averting these tragic births and they deserve all our applause and encouragement. This aspect should be most carefully considered when controls of these methods are settled. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take some account of these words.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the Government on having brought us this far towards the achievement of a consensus and almost agreed legislation on a most controversial issue. I believe that this matter has been handled in a very commendable manner. I am glad to make my second point, which is that the Government themselves have grasped the nettle and rescued the issue from the lottery of the Private Members' Bill procedure.
This happy prospect makes me regret the more deeply that no government have felt able to tackle abortion in the same way that we are dealing with this problem. We are witnessing today some of the most disgraceful and distorted propaganda on the abortion issue that we have had in the last 20 years. I can only hope that when the report comes forward of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, chairman of the Select Committee on this subject, we may be on the threshold of something more sensible, more satisfactory and more lasting than the steps in legislation and other ways that we have taken until now. Ten efforts have been made to amend the abortion law in 20 years. All have failed and all have raised the same controversies over the same issues with the same distortion and extremism on both sides. I regard that as very deplorable.
However, I must not digress a moment longer. I wish to come to the contentious issue, if it still remains, in the White Paper: a simple line in the

1477
square bracketed part of paragraph 15 which authorises under strict controls the use of early human embryo for research purposes other than those related to the future of the embryo itself. If man's search for remedies for his own ills turns him away from his own early beginnings and he continues to rely wholly on animals, that will be a regrettable outcome of the study of this problem. If we find it abhorrent to use an early human embryo for research into human afflictions, then it is time to consider the justification for the use of living animals for the same ends.
I widen the moral dimension of this issue beyond that of human affairs. I take a humanistic view of morality anyway. But, from any point of view, a moral issue on human affairs should be put in the wider context of man's relationship with the animal kingdom, how he stands in his behaviour towards his own sanctity of life and his behaviour towards animals to which he will not concede equal status.
In recent centuries man has widened his own sense of moral responsibility outside his own species by bringing cruelty to animals within the criminal law. It is only 200 years since the criminal law was amended to do that. As recently as 1986 we passed the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act which regulates the use of living species for laboratory purposes. One of the main objectives of that legislation—which we all supported—was to replace the use of animals in research. They were to be replaced by alternatives of whatever kind, and not all of them would involve the transfer of research from one species to another. Some might involve statistical or computerised records.
However, if we are to reject what is in the White Paper regarding the permitted use of the earlier human embryo for research purposes, then we already begin to undermine the purpose of the 1986 Act on animals. We shall continue to thrust upon the animal kingdom the sole responsibility, so far as it is effective, for exploration and research into man's afflictions. If we cannot bring ourselves to admit the early stage of human life into the field of research for the betterment of human beings generally, then we have some questions to answer about our justification of the use of animals exclusively for that purpose.
However, even if noble Lords are to reject the parallel that I draw—and I can quite understand that some might—of research by man upon his own kind for his own ends, we have to bear in mind all the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; the consequences on human beings themselves in later life, the children who are born into families, and those who will continue to suffer afflictions which might have been detected earlier. The noble Earl also brought into the discussion the controversial and distressing question of late abortions. The more the malformations and difficulties connected with the human embryo can be identified, if a termination of the pregnancy is justified and lawful the better it is that an abortion should take place early and not be left until later when it can cause a good deal more public debate.
1478
This issue is bound up with two very important moral issues before the country and Parliament: cruelty to animals and the use of animals in laboratories, and the health of children and its consequences upon the incidence and extent of late abortions. I hope that those noble Lords and others outside who may wish to satisfy one moral issue will not, by so doing, raise others that are equally difficult to meet and which provide as many dilemmas as those before us today.
1.37 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I have taken part in all discussions until now and have read the Government's White Paper with care. I should like to say first, and so put it on one side, that I am entirely in favour of all possible research producing these new techniques such as in vitro fertilisation and the like to see what is to be carried out in the future.
Let me therefore put research to one side and turn to the bigger issues which have to be dealt with by Parliament since this new technique was evolved of producing children. First, it is vital and essential that we should have a statutory licensing body to keep control over the sperm and the ova which will now be collected. The licensing body should see that they are used in the proper way to uphold the institution of marriage and to ensure that the children so begotten are well brought up in the proper atmosphere of a home. It is that imperative that must be upheld. I should like to see a principle enunciated in any legislation that will provide those objectives that I have mentioned: upholding the institution of marriage and looking to the welfare of any child who is so produced.
Therefore I have drafted a suggested principle which should underline all these treatments for infertility. I entirely uphold artificial insemination by the husband, or the reverse from the wife, as long as the child is produced by each of them in combination. That is entirely satisfactory from the moral, religious and every other point of view. However, I feel that great care has to be taken when a third person is brought into the problem. It is for that reason that I suggest this principle which I should like to see enunciated as a purpose of Parliament. This technique of AID should be confined to a married couple in a stable union of long-standing who have not been able themselves to produce a child of their own and who have freely given their consent to it after being fully informed of the legal, social and ethical consequences, with the likelihood that their union will be continued so as to bring up the child as it should be brought up.
I put to one side any artificial insemination of single or unmarried women or unsuitable couples such as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, of the elderly man and the prostitute. I put all those on one side. If this technique for producing a child is to be adopted, then it must be allowed only in those circumstances to a married couple with a stable union with every likelihood of the child being brought up properly as their child in a good home. That is my first principle.

1479
This next principle has not been mentioned, but the statutory licensing authority should insist upon the recording somewhere—in the clinic or elsewhere—the whole truth of the parenthood, the name and identity of the donor and where he can be found in case of need. Details should also be given of the woman so that we know where she is in order that there can be a follow-up. The White Paper suggests quite rightly that the consent of the donor should be given, certainly for any storage purposes. I believe, though I do not know, that at the moment a donor might be invited to give his sperm and to be paid for it. Is that right? Not only does he give his sperm, but he gives it unconditionally to the clinic so that it can do whatever it likes with it. Is that right? It can be used once, twice and for any woman. It can be used 10 times or 20 for as long as the clinic keeps it. Is that right? I go by the words of the White Paper. The consent of the donor should be given to any user of the sperm, because in a way he is the cardinal factor in the matter. We should keep track of him too.
I invite your Lordships to suppose that a child is born with an inherited disease. Surely the clinic ought to be able to track down that man and if need be bring him to book. Let us suppose that the unfortunate couple find that their child is diseased with AIDS or some other inherited disease. Are they not entitled to complain to the clinic or the doctor who did this or even to the man who provided it? They would certainly have a cause of action in law against the clinic if that clinic provided sperm which as a result produced a child with an inherited disease or AIDS.
It is important that there should be a fair, true, whole record of the parenthood of the child produced so that it is accessible and available to any person who has a legitimate interest in obtaining it. The first people to have a legitimate interest if a child turns out to have an inherited disease are surely that couple. They are entitled to have full particulars of that donor.
In one of the paragraphs in the White Paper titles of honour are mentioned. They ought not to come within this artificial insemination process. Let us suppose that the elder son of a peer has been happily married for some years, but unfortunately has no child. Then he has a child and it is recorded in the birth certificate with the elder son of the peer being the father and his wife the mother. It will be recorded by the authority of law that that child is the child of the elder son of the peer. The grandfather may wonder whether the line has been contaminated in some way. He may wonder whether the child is not the child of his son but the child of an unknown stranger. Suppose the younger son of the peer wonders about that. He may say "I wonder whether that is really my brother's child. I wonder whether it is not the child of some other unknown man by some AID insemination". In such a case an interested person ought to have a right of access to full information as to the begetting of the child. That can only be done if the clinic has proper records available.
Lastly, those people who ought to know are the child himself or grandchildren. The White Paper agrees that the child should have information as to its
1480
parenthood. The natural instinct of all children through the ages is to ask "Who was my father? Who was my mother?" They are entitled to a truthful answer. All that was given, according to this White Paper, was whether he was short or tall, black or white. They can be told that but not given a name or any more information. What does that tell the child? It does not tell a child about his parents. Surely the child has a legitimate interest in and access to the records which should show the true and whole parentage. The record should be kept by the statutory licensing authority with the full name and particulars of the man who gave the sperm, also how much he was paid for it and if need be his consent.
All that information should be available so that people vitally interested in time to come may know and the child himself may be able to ask the question "Who was my father?". Every child surely would wish to know that.
The final step in my principle is that nothing should be done by the state or on its behalf to deceive anyone—to deceive the public or the parents. That is authorised by statute at the moment. I hope that the House will reconsider the proposal that, on the birth of such a child by the sperm of another man, that child is to be registered as the lawful and sole child of the husband and the wife, although the husband has had no part in it at all. Yet he is to be recorded in law—recorded on the birth certificate—as being the father when he is not. How does that affect titles of inheritance? How does that affect succession to property and the like?
I say that it is a fundamental principle of our law that the birth certificate should be honest and true so that everyone should know the origins of their parenthood. Yet, the Bill will say that that is not to be done; a lie will be told to everyone because the birth certificate, so authorised, is a lying document. It is deception, not only of the individuals concerned but of everyone. The husband should not be registered on the birth certificate as being the father when he is not. The birth certificate should be left blank; recorded as "father unknown". That is my third principle.
Apart from a fair and accurate record, I say that every document issued by or on behalf of society, such as a birth certificate, should be true and not deceptive. We should stand by that principle as well as by the others about which I have spoken. I make those points because this legislation will be one of the most important in our social history. I am sure that the Bill will be well considered by your Lordships when it comes before the House.
1.56 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I find myself in strong agreement with almost everything that he has said. I need hardly say more by way of introduction than join with all noble Lords who have spoken—and I am sure those who have not spoken—in thanking the Government for giving the House the opportunity of debating the White Paper.
I should like to return to the subject upon which the Government particularly wished to have the

1481
opinion of Parliament; namely, the vexed question of embryo experimentation. It is obvious from the debate that has taken place so far that there is confusion of thought. We must be clear in our minds as to the kind of experimentation about which we are talking and what we mean by the term "an embryo".
I should like to look at three documents: first, the White Paper; secondly, the Warnock Report; thirdly, a document to which no reference has yet been made, namely, the report of the Australian Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. I hope that the quotations I make from that document will be my justification for introducing something from "down under" up here. It appears that the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill was introduced into the Upper House in Canberra by an independent member, just as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has introduced Bills on cognate questions into the Upper House at Westminster.
The kind of research that we are considering is dealt with at paragraph 29 of the White Paper. It correctly makes the key distinction between research designed ultimately to produce a child and any other research. The comparable passage in the Warnock Report is slightly different. The Committee approached the matter in a different way but I believe that the distinction they were making is the same. The Committee exclude from the meaning of the word "research", research directed to the particular patient. That appears to be a difference in the usage of words rather than a difference of substance.
The Australian Senate Committee is more thorough. In paragraph 2.25 it clearly draws a distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research, basing itself upon the Helsinki Declaration. It quotes a paragraph from the introduction to that document and it may not be inapposite to quote that to your Lordships. The Helsinki Declaration states:
"In the field of biomedical research a fundamental distinction must be recognised between medical research in which the aim is essentially diagnostic or therapeutic for a patient, and medical research, the essential object of which is purely scientific and without direct diagnostic or therapeutic value to the person subjected to the research".
I am glad that the White Paper, although not specifically referring to the Helsinki Document, makes that key distinction.
Turning to the nature of the embryo, noble Lords have heard a great deal about this subject in the course of the debate, including the use of what I believe to be a thoroughly misleading term, "the pre-embryo". Paragraph 7 of the White Paper has the heading in the margin, "Definition of an embryo". I have read that paragraph through and through and for the life of me I cannot see anything that gives the kind of definition of an embryo upon which we can base our thinking when we come to legislate on the rights which should be accorded by law to an embryo or, to use the Warnock phrase, how we should treat the embryo.
The Warnock phrase comes from paragraph 11.9 of the report. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is no longer present. That is one of the least satisfactory passages in the report. The most reverend Primate said that it was for practical reasons that the Warnock Committee did not pursue in detail the
1482
argument about the nature of the embryo but went "straight to the question of how it is right to treat the human embryo". That is where the phrase comes from and it was put in italics. It is difficult to see anything other than confusion arising from the intellectual procedure of trying to find out how it is right to treat something if one is not first absolutely clear in one's mind as to what that something is. Therefore, the Warnock Committee certainly gets an alpha, you might say, for practicality and pragmatism, but for those of us who suffer from the disability of a pedantic Celtic mind, I am afraid it gets only a beta minus on the point of intellectual rigour.
The Australian Senate Committee seemed to me to get much more to the root of matters and it arrived at this definition of an embryo at paragraph 2.21:
"Genetically new human life organised as a distinct entity oriented towards further development".
I could not better that and I do not know whether any of your Lordships could. However, on the basis of that definition the Australian Senate Committee concluded that the embryo is a human subject. It must be regarded as human without going into "for this purpose" or "for that purpose"; it is basically human. Of course that brings it at once within the protection of the basic principles of the Helsinki Agreement.
It also gives rise—and I was hoping I would have time to mention this point—to the question of what protection it should have. Obviously if it is merely a very young, very small and utterly helpless human subject, it should have by normal, natural rights the protection of its parents and if its parents are not available, then the protection of some other person appointed by the law. I do not suppose that the courts would welcome suddenly finding themselves with several hundred microscopic wards. It may be that Parliament would have to make special arrangements for that. However, the concept that someone must be the guardian of an embryo seems to me a very sound one. I commend to your Lordships the Australian Senate Report and its writing on that point in paragraphs 3.24 to 3.42.
It is probably quite clear to your Lordships by now that if and when we have legislation before us which contains one or other of the alternative clauses mentioned in paragraph 30 of the White Paper, I should be inclined to vote for the more restrictive of the two, because it seems to me that once we desert the principle that all human subjects must be treated as human, once we allow ourselves to say that any human subject is only a bit human or is not quite human, we are lowering ourselves and we shall never live it down.
2.5 p.m.
Lady Saltoun ofAbernethy: My Lords, I think that as this debate is going, the apology I am about to make will probably be unnecessary but I have to leave at four o'clock to catch an aeroplane so if I am not in my place to hear the winding-up speeches, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will forgive me and will not trouble to answer any points I may make.

1483
Over three years ago I spoke in the debate on the Warnock Report. I found it much easier then to decide what I believed to be right and wrong than I do now. Since then I have taken steps to inform myself on the exact nature of the so-called embryo research which is being done. I have visited the Medical Research Council's laboratories at Carshalton where the research is done, the Infertility Clinic at the Simpson Memorial Pavilion in Edinburgh and the Cromwell Hospital in London where I saw the various processes involved in in vitro fertilisation being carried out. I am most grateful to the directors and professors who made these visits possible and to the patients who permitted me to see them receiving treatment. I hope that before we have to consider a Bill on these subjects, any noble Lords who are still uncertain about what is going on and how it is done will have an opportunity to do likewise.
Many of us probably wish that Eve had never given Adam the apple but she did and he ate it, so we have knowledge. You cannot un-know knowledge, however uncomfortable it may be. Years ago it might have been possible for the then government to prohibit that particular line of research and the development of in vitro fertilisation techniques, but they did not and so it has continued. When I first raised the subject in the House over five years ago I met with a total lack of interest on the part of most of the Bishops, so I am most grateful for the clear lead that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has given us today, as well as for the very clear, lucid explanations that he, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, have given of the early stages of human development.
Even if I were persuaded that pre-embryo research is wrong I believe that it is now too late to stop it. We must try to make the best of the situation in which we find ourselves. Were the Government now, at this late date, to seek to legislate to make research which is already taking place a criminal offence they might have considerable difficulty, apart from other problems which would arise and which have been touched upon by other noble Lords, in enforcing the law or obtaining a conviction in the courts. I am afraid that in any case that is a difficulty which a statutory licensing authority will be up against in carrying out its duties.
If the research now being carried out involved the murder of a child it could not be allowed under the law; but having seen what I have seen and learnt what I have learnt I do not believe that it does. In fact I am inclined to the view that up until the appearance of the primative streak the pre-embryo cannot be regarded as a human being.
I also believe that abortion is wrong. Nevertheless, I should find it extremely hard to tell a pregnant woman who had discovered that she was to bear a severely handicapped child that she should not have an abortion when I myself have not had to bring up such a child. I do not care for the ease with which some people take the line that women should bear such children and rear them, and get to heaven thereby. In the old days, when most births took place at home, very few obviously defective babies
1484
survived. The doctors and midwives saw to that. Nowadays it is a very different story. Such children are born in hospital and they survive. It can be terrible for the parents and for the children too.
Therefore, I feel extremely hesitant to ban, for no good reason, research which promises, through biopsies performed on fertilised ova at a very early stage, to enable couples who are particularly at risk of having children with serious genetic abnormalities to have defective pre-embryos rejected and only the normal healthy ones implanted, thereby reducing the number of severely handicapped children who are born. Research may also give some indication of the reasons why some pre-embryos have genetic or chromosomal defects and thus enable these defects to be prevented. Nonetheless, I hope that the Government will stand firm on their neutral stance and allow a free vote, because there are other opinions which I once held and they should be respected. By and large, I think the White Paper is on the right lines.
There is the difficult question of where exactly the line should be drawn between what activities should or should not be permitted by government legislation and what should be left to individuals to decide for themselves to do or not to do according to their consciences. I think that the Government have this right. However, the provisions regarding storage of gametes and embryos need more thought, as does the question of ownership. Is the owner of an embryo the donor of the ovum or the donor of the sperm? I wonder, as have other noble Lords, whether embryos should be stored for as long as 10 years or whether as many as 10 children should be allowed to be fathered by any one donor. I think probably not.
I believe, too, that there may be other successions than to titles of honour from which children born of donated ova or sperm should be excluded but that it may not be necessary to include all titles of honour. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke at some length on this subject and for those reasons I agree with him that there must be at least some indication on birth certificates as to the status of children, even if not of their exact detailed parentage. However, I do not know how that can be enforced. Moreover, the remit of the statutory licensing authority should be changed only by primary legislation, not by subordinate legislation.
As regards surrogacy, I believe that all surrogacy arrangements should be illegal and unenforceable at law and that any form of agency, whether commercial or voluntary, should be illegal and liable to criminal prosecution. One cannot prevent these arrangements being made privately, possibly within families and between close friends, but this is something which I believe should be driven underground, because while it can never be stopped altogether it should be made as difficult as possible.
There is one matter on which the White Paper is silent—that is, who shall or shall not be permitted to receive treatment for infertility. I hope that the Government will address themselves to that issue. I totally deplore the availability of such treatment to any but legally married couples. I believe that it should be prohibited to those who are merely co-

1485
habiting, to homosexual couples and to single women. I say that purely with the best interests of the resultant children in mind. No less care should be taken to ascertain that such children are born into stable homes where they will enjoy the loving care of both a father and a mother than is taken to ensure that adopted children go only to those able to give them the best possible care.
I said in 1984 and I say again, that whatever we do is going to be wrong from some point of view. There is only a certain amount that it is possible to do, and putting the clock back is not possible.
2.14 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, we all approve the specific, categorical prohibitions which are foreseen in the White Paper and certainly all do who supported the minority report to the Warnock Report. They will not only approve but be thankful for the prohibitions.
For a moment I was encouraged by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and by the pretty clear statement which he made in his opening remarks, that whatever is done there must be due respect to the presence of human life from the moment of conception. That is where my welcome stops.
Of the White Paper as a whole I have to say, "No, this will not do". That is mainly because it is utterly ambiguous as to when human—and I stress the word "human"—conception happens. The whole thrust of the White Paper is clearly in favour of research, although we are given the assurance that there will be an alternative clause on which your Lordships can vote when the time comes.
The case for research is at best justified by the argument that to start with an embryo is not really an embryo at all. The argument is also based on the precept that the end justifies the means. Leaving medical counter-arguments to others—I believe my noble friend Lord Halsbury may touch on that aspect as he is qualified and I am not—I challenge this simply on moral grounds. The White Paper is altogether woolly on all this. It is trying to argue (albeit in a small-print footnote) about what is "generally regarded". That is a strange scientific term. It tries to argue about what is "generally regarded" as to the starting point of fertilisation. Much of today's argument has focused upon that.
In other words, the White Paper joins with those who are seeking to obscure—I repeat "seeking to obscure"—the right-to-life issue by inventing a new thing now called the "pre-embryo". The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was quite explicit. Not having heard her speak before, I was immensely impressed by all that she said. That is perhaps hardly surprising. But she said there is a distinction between genetic and human life. I hope I understood her words correctly and I am sorry that she is not in her place to correct me if I am wrong. She said that the pre-embryo cannot be regarded as a personal individual. Others have said much the same. Some noble Lords have put it even more crudely in trying to dismiss the pre-embryo as something no larger than a pinhead or a full stop at the end of a sentence. As if its size had anything to do with the issue!
1486
I listened with respect and care to the most reverend Primate. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but I warned him that I was going to refer to something which he wrote. Having listened to him, I feel a little like the student who went to his professor in great puzzlement. After an hour the professor said to the student, "Are you any less confused than you were before?". The student said, "No, sir, I am just as confused as before but at a higher intellectual level". I found the most reverend Primate's words the words of a silver tongue; they were quite riveting. I enjoyed listening to them and I shall read them with the very greatest care tomorrow.
However, I find myself confused, and I still find a curious ambiguity in his position so far as it was summarised in a letter of his to The Times in September 1985, from which I propose to quote and of which I gave him warning that I would quote. His words were these:
"It is thus possible to hold as I do that innocent human life is sacred and must not be destroyed while at the same time admitting a degree of uncertainty about the ethical significance of the earliest and most fragile stages of embryonic development".
To my simple, third-class mind there is a contradiction there.
I must say that I greatly prefer the wholly categorical conclusion of one of Scotland's greatest thinkers at the present time. I refer to Professor Thomas Torrance, who in addition to being a doctor of divinity at many universities is also a doctor of science. He is a former moderator, he is an early winner of the Templeton prize, and I suppose he could be described—though he would not accept this himself—as the greatest living Calvinist theologian. He wrote:
"There is no scientific doubt about the fact that from the moment of conception the human embryo is genetically complete and must be treated as such, as distinctively human, and not just as a mere biochemical episode or as equivalent to the fertilised egg of an animal or a bit of animal tissue. After all if the human embryo were neither human nor alive it would have no place in research on human beings. If the human embryo is genetically complete and distinctively human from the very beginning, then arguments allowing for scientific experiment or genetic manipulation after a certain period, seven, 14 days or whatever, are scientifically and morally specious. There is also a serious ambiguity about an argument from the premise that the embryo is 'potentially human', for the potentiality concerned is not that of becoming something else but of becoming what it essentially is".
I must say that I accept that, and I am happy to call in aid a Protestant theologian of world-wide distinction just to show that although of course there are angels among the Catholics, they also exist among those of the Reformed tradition. Coming from that standpoint, if you take it (and I do), any doctor experimenting on what is called today a pre-embryo is surely mocking the Hippocratic Oath, and with such experiments so also is the Medical Research Council.
Perhaps the point was best made by Professor Lejeune in evidence to the Select Committee of the Australian Senate, to which my noble friend Lord Craigmyle has already referred. He said:
"I am a doctor. I have sworn the Hippocratic Oath which means we are at the service of our patients, that we will never procure something which can kill an embryo. Therefore any experimentation on an embryo—I mean something which is not in the interests of this particular embryo—is just outside our consideration of medicine".

1487
Such experimentation not only mocks the Hippocratic Oath but ridicules the Helsinki declaration of the World Medical Association, which I quote:
"In research on man, the interests of science and society should never"—
"never" is a very final word—
"take precedence over considerations related to the wellbeing of the subject".
As Professor Torrance continues and concludes:
"This implies that research on human embryos is morally wrong if the intention behind it is wrong. The basic question to be asked, therefore, is whether research or experimentation is in the interest of the embryo or in the interest of the scientist in his desire to advance knowledge".
The House has, as always on a topic as grave as this, kept the temperature down. Every Member of your Lordships' House has spoken, as one would expect, with great regard for the feelings and conviction of others and with due regard to what I would call the sacredness of an occasion like this. But there has been some emotional and sentimental advocacy about infertility in a world threatened with overpopulation, while the same advocates have argued the case for more effective contraception. They do not seem to me to go together.
In answer I repeat that the case is no better than the principle that the end justifies the means. I believe that experiments on embryos and so-called pre-embryos differ only in degree and never in kind from the sickening human vivisection done by the Nazi doctors at Auschwitz. Natzweiler and Birkenau and by the Japanese at Khandok. All that was done in the name of science. Like it or not, pleasing or offensive to the progressive children of the Enlightenment as it may be, I say that this is darkness all day; it is not light. This is a licence to kill without even trial for a crime. We must not allow it.
2.27 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, at bedtime on Wednesday of this week I was feeling slightly schizophrenic because my scientific and ethical beliefs were not dovetailing as closely as they had seemed to do at breakfast time. In the course of the day I had listened to the exposition by members of the Medical Research Council, to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has referred, of which the star performer was Dr. Anne McLaren. She is one of my very oldest friends. We have known one another for very nearly 50 years. In this House only the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, and I have known one another longer, since we were schoolboys together.
She is not only an old friend. I am a student of her writings and I have learnt a good deal from them and from conversations with her. With characteristic intellectual integrity she made it quite clear that research could bear on one or two things—either prevention or cure—and she did not herself believe that cures as opposed to prevention would emerge from the kind of research that was going on under her direction in the Medical Research Council's unit. So far to lunch time, my Lords.
At tea time I attended another colloquium, held by the National Council for Christian Standards in
1488
Society, of which I have the honour to be president. Those who addressed us were Dr. Peggy Norris, a general practitioner whose hobby is to keep this whole subject under close review, and another embryologist, Dr. John McLean. They placed the emphasis for the future on the explosive advances in biochemistry, cell biology and molecular biology that had been going on in the last decade, most of them concentrated into the last quinquennium. That put a completely new look on the alternatives of cure rather than prevention.
For example, spina bifida now turns out to be a vitamin deficiency disease and is curable or preventable, because the two are more or less synonymous, by a correct diet during pregnancy. They also insisted that the process of super ovulation, which is a prerequisite for in vitro fertilisation to produce enough ova to get a significant score of results, produces an abnormally large number of abnormal ova and raises the whole question as to whether those that are used may not have latent abnormalities of which at the present moment we know nothing. On the purely scientific plane, time alone will decide between these two approaches. I incline, but only marginally, to allow both to proceed in parallel, with IVF under very strict observation and control.
When we talk about experiments, what in fact are we talking about? An experiment is a procedure whose consequences cannot be foreseen. If they could be, it would not be necessary to do the experiment. Alternatively, if you think you can predict the result you still have to confirm it, and that is confirmation by experiment.
Consider, my Lords, a simple type of test—a test for normality. Is it normal or is it not normal? You do not know. You have got to find out either by observation or by experiments, and to implant a conceptus without testing it for normality would be the height of irresponsibility. Therefore the issue—the most reverend Primate made this point and I agree with him entirely—is that you either embargo IVF or permit limited experimentation under strict observation and control to test for normality with a view to rejecting abnormalities. That must be coupled to an absolute embargo on genetic engineering which crosses species or creates chimerae of which one part is human.
On the issue of sanctions and criminality, would you, or could you, ever get a conviction? I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who I am sorry is not in his place, is of the opinion that conviction would be most unlikely. Therefore what case is there for bringing it under the scope of the criminal law? I think there is a case, because we are dealing with responsible professionals who would much sooner not be prosecuted at all than be prosecuted and acquitted, even if acquittal was almost certain. This, and not the obtaining of convictions, should be the guiding motive in bringing sanctions within the scope of the criminal law.
I now come to the other half of what I want to say, which is concerned with the ethical framework of the Warnock Report. I have to confess that after many years of study I find moral philosophy a

1489
disappointing subject. Two thousand five hundred years after its inception, the only conclusion I can come to is that what is theoretically simple enough to be manageable is obviously false, in contrast to whatever is theoretically sophisticated enough to be credible but is not obviously true.
The whole of the Warnock Report is embedded in a background of consequentialist ethics whose axiology—that is, sense of values—is independent of any intrinsic value in the act or motive of the agent. But this carries no commitment to one set of values rather than another. Is it pleasure or pain; is it happiness or unhappiness; is it the general good of the community or the greatest good for the greatest number, all of which are entirely uncalculable? I therefore regard consequentialist ethics as essentially vacuous, and though I would be delighted to pursue this in argument either with the noble Baroness, who is not in her place, or the most reverend Primate, this is not the forum or the right place for a metaphysical discussion.
Suffice it that I myself am an Aristotelian and my thinking is permeated by the analogies of actuality to potentiality, of form to matter, of unity to multiplicity, of the individual to the species and of existence to essence. The whole of embryology is permeated by the transformation of potentiality into actuality. The curious thing is that those of your Lordships who seem sensitive to this issue come from the Roman Catholic branch of the Christian faith, while Thomas Aquinas was himself an Aristotelian and to some extent their official interpreter.
As to the emergence of an individual unity from the process of differentiation, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that, just as Aristotle taught that the soul is the form of the body, the actuating principle which makes the body what it is, then insofar as his body is a unity, his soul is too and he has a whole one and not half one. The soul is not a substance; it is a principle. If we must be metaphysical, then I think that Aristotelian or NeoThomism is a better background for our thinking than consequentialism. But enough of metaphysics.
I do not like the term "pre-embryo". In this I am with a lot of noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. if you want an excuse for doing what you want to do, you cook up a new term for it and get everybody else into a muddle as to what the new terms means. I do not believe in the pre-embryo. The best term for the immediate product of conception is "zygote". That is the usual word. Zygote can carry through from yeast to human beings, because yeasts can breed sexually if one dopes them with camphor and colchicine. But I think the word conceptus is better; it being understood that at a fairly early stage it will differentiate into life-support membranes, which will be discarded in due course, and the foetus (sensu stricto). Differentiation is of the very essence of the subject. There is nothing unique about this in the context of gestation.
My skin is a continually differentiating mass, starting from stem cells very deep in the dermis; differentiating and migrating to the top where, by the process of desquamation, they are shed and
1490
discarded just as are the placenta, the allantois, the amnion and all the other pregnancy membranes following childbirth.
I should like to say something about the slippery slope. In the CIBA symposium, to which attention has been drawn. Professor Bernard Williams says that slopes are not as slippery as they look. The sooner someone puts him on skis and launches him downhill so that he realises that they can be a darned sight more slippery than that, the better off his immortal soul.
One of the fallacies of consequentialism is that we can perceive all the consequences that lie ahead. We think that if we can perceive the short-term consequences it does not matter that the middle-term consequences look a bit misty. The long-term consequences are right outside our field of vision. I can tell your Lordships what one of the consequences is: always, through permissivity, the blunting or our sensitivity to what we once took for granted. I shall give the House an illustration of that in terms of a simple piece of nomenclature which has been used during the course of this debate. Once upon a time we referred to the female gamete as the ovum, thus dignifying it with a Latin name and isolating it from the Anglo-Saxon egg that we have for breakfast. We are now in the habit of talking about the female gamete as an egg, putting it on the same plane as the word which the waiter would use if he said, "Will you have your egg boiled, poached or fried for breakfast this morning?" In other words, there has been a reduction in sensitivity to what we should treat with respect. On that note, I thank your Lordships for your attention.
2.38 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am pleased to find myself following the noble Earl. I welcome the report. I am glad that the Government are acting, and will create the authority and give it statutory powers so that there will be sanctions against those who disobey its instructions. I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he introduced the debate. I thank the Government for allowing the House to discuss the White Paper before they produce a Bill.
I shall comment on three matters which seem to me to be the authority's responsibility. I shall comment, first, on artificial insemination by donor. As I see it, children born by AID are no different from adopted children. They are the children of the mother of the family. That happens quite often. If you agree with me then I think there should be the same approach for dealing with AID and the children who are the result of AID. That being so, the first essential as I see it is that the donor should be named. This is the first point where I part company with the Warnock Report—the donor should be named. I was rather shocked when I read in one paragraph that the report recognised the consequence of one idea which it was suggesting—that children would be born with no father. The Warnock Committee thought that was perfectly in order and we should pass a law which would create that situation.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. Under his plan,

1491
supposing the husband were unable to perform his function and someone else were called in to help with AID, would the two fathers be announced, or how would this be dealt with?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the Warnock Report also gave an answer on that. It said that there should be a certificate of registration and legislation that the father should be shown as John Smith by donor. I would want it to be John Smith by donor William Henry. Therefore, the point is that the child will know who his genetic father is if he wants to.
At present if a child is adopted and at a certain stage wants to know who his parents are, he may find out. If this method were followed in the case of AID, the children would know that a white man with dark hair and who possessed certain qualities was the donor of the sperm from which they were derived. They will know no more than that, and I think that is wrong. Starting from there, many other matters in relation to AID will fall into place. In other words, the truth is that if you start from that point AID will be no different from AIH except that it would not be the husband but somebody else. I have not heard anybody say that AIH is something we should not have; therefore AID, in which there is a known, named donor is not something we should want to reject.
That is my approach, and I should like to put it to the Government for what it is worth. My own view is that this is the way to approach the matter, and if it is approached from that angle many of the problems now relating to AID will be avoided.
There was one other suggestion about AID—that if the donor were known it would be intrusive into the family relationships. This does not necessarily follow at all, because while I suggest that the donor should be known I am not suggesting that the donor should know who is the recipient. There is no need for that. The donor cannot be intrusive unless he knows who is the recipient. So long as it is the recipient who remains anonymous in terms of the donor and the donor is known to the children so that they know who is their father, that is sufficient.
I also wish to comment, remembering that the time is limited, on the question of research, which has been touched on by everyone. I put this differently from most speakers because I am against the research even though I recognise all the various stages which are recognised scientifically and even though I recognise the value of some of the research that is being done.
The truth is that I can see only one consequence of permitting research: we shall have people producing embryos in order to carry out research on them. I think that that is abhorrent. Because it is abhorrent and because I do not believe there is any way of preventing it other than stopping the research, I should stop there, at the top of the hill, before such research actually starts.' should not want to stop two steps down the slope. Those abhorrent consequences will flow from permitting the research, even though it is restricted for the first 14 days or whatever. What we shall have is the creation of embryos to be used in
1492
research. I hope that Members of the House will recognise that that is abhorrent.
Thirdly, perhaps I may mention the question of storage of gametes and embryos. I believe that if the authority exercises strict control over IVF, which will include control over the number of embryos which can be implanted, we shall reduce storage problems considerably. When we reduce the problem of storage, the question of how long embryos may be stored is a point which must be faced. I agree with the Government that the time should not be as long as that which was suggested by the Warnock Committee. I think that the Government's suggestion of five years is better. On the other hand, there are many legal and ethical questions in relation to that matter which may fall into place if my two suggestions of naming the donor and restricting the number of embryos that can be implanted are implemented. I again stress to the Government the importance of those suggestions.
As regards the authority, another matter which worries me is that it is being allowed to licence the diagnostic use of technologies involving the penetration of a non-human ovum by a human sperm. That should be banned. I therefore cannot see how we can ask the authority to carry out such a task. I know that the procedure is used for diagnostic tests concerning sperm which is capable of functioning. I suspect that there may be other ways of finding that out. I believe that we should force the scientists to find those other ways. I say firmly to the Government that I believe that those tests should be banned.
I shall not delay your Lordships any longer. I hope that we shall have early legislation, and I hope that the Government will make sure that the authority is able to enforce its decisions and that they will give full backing and support to its rulings. I also hope that the Government will bear in mind the three points which I have made.
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I have been asked to intervene in this debate and shall do so very briefly. First, I should like to apologise to the Minister for the fact I was not in my place when he opened his speech.
I shall add my voice to those of noble Lords who have opposed most of the recommendations in the White Paper. I speak particularly of my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge and my noble colleague Lord Lauderdale. If one believes, as I do, that there is a supreme being and creator who is omnipotent and omnipresent, one must accept that drastic and radical interference with the creative process on the lines set out in this paper is a sin. I use the word "radical" deliberately because surely most of the recommendations in the White Paper are just that. Could anything be more repulsive or obscene, for example, than the trans-species fertilisation which is referred to in paragraph 39 of the White Paper? Against those radical proposals one must put the less radical interferences, such as contraception and caesarian section, which are less radical means of interference with the divine Will which I think we would all agree are necessary.

1493
I know that there are many Christians who share the view that the divine process is not perfect and that if we can in any way improve the lot of mankind by embryo experimentation then we should do so. That seems to be the generally accepted view of all branches of the Christian Church and it has been expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. However, I must add that Moslems—and we must remember as I have said on several occasions that there are more Moslems than Methodists in this country—regard all such experimentation as totally abhorrent. And what about the strict Hindus who will not harm in any way the smallest insect or microbe?
I am in no way competent to assess the medical arguments, most of which have been very ably adduced by the number of doctors and other noble Lords who have spoken. However I feel bound to emphasise very briefly three points based on recent medical research, some of which have already been made and some not. The first is that the pregnancy success rate of in vitro fertilisation is only 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. The problem is failure of implantation, which has been mentioned on several occasions. Secondly, research on the human embryo in the laboratory cannot provide answers to questions concerning the preparation and physiology of the womb. Thirdly, there is the point about spina bifida which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury; namely, that this is due basically to nutritional deficiencies that can be prevented and that embryo research is not therefore necessary to prevent such a condition.
In conclusion. as other noble Lords have said, I greatly hope that the recommendations will be given the most careful consideration.
2.55 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not propose to follow my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, who has just spoken, except to say that I consider that he is perhaps rather bold to say in the presence of the most reverend Primate that the proposals which have been carefully circumscribed in this paper, if implemented, would be a sin. I thought that the most reverend Primate's speech was the most important of the very many splendid speeches that have been made today. I should like to thank him for it. It has certainly clarified the moral issue in my mind.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I think I emphasised the distinction between radical and less radical interferences. I think that the most reverend Primate would agree with me that one must make such a distinction; certainly many of the proposals in this White Paper are by no means radical.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. Of course I accept what he says. I do not believe that any of us have been addressing the question of the most radical proposals because we all agree that they should be excluded by statute. This is therefore an issue that does not arise.
1494
I am not making the speech that I had prepared because everything that I wished to say has been said in the remarkable speeches made by the first seven speakers today.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, why does the noble Lord draw the line at seven? At that point there was a divergence of view.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, that must be the slippery slope!
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, yes. It is only too easy to descend Averno.
I wish to thank the Government in general for the way in which they have handled this matter. It seems to me to be a model for the future for any measure of this nature. In the first place, they commissioned the Warnock Report. After that distinguished document, there was parliamentary debate. Then there was a long consultative process followed by a White Paper. Then there was more debate such as both Houses are having today and finally there were proposals for legislation. I do not think that that could be improved if one is considering the sensitivity of Government handling, and if one compares that kind of sensitive handling with the legislation that many of us remember so well on, for instance, sexual offences and abortion. Both those Bills eventually came onto the statute book. But if we had had the benefit of this pre-legislative process in those days how much better those Bills would have been and how much more widely informed would be the general public as well as the legislators. That is a general "thank you" to the Government for this very valuable method of procedure. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the extremely balanced approach with which he opened this debate.
I must confess that when I first started to think about the subject I found it extremely misty. As the reports, debates, White Papers and consultative periods have proceeded I have found that that mist has been dissipated. If it were able to be dissipated further, it has been today. It reminds me of the undergraduate at Cambridge who asked the late Dean of York, Dean Milner White, how he could define mysticism when he was discussing the mystical nature of the Holy Trinity. The Dean of York replied that the word "mysticism" could be explained by dividing it into two halves. The first half was misty; and the second half was schism. In this case the mistiness has been dissipated by the schism of the word embryo into two parts. There is the pre-embryo from the fertilised ovum to the primitive streak and implantation.
Secondly, there is the post-primitive streak period which can be described as an embryo, later as a foetus, and later still as a child. But in no sense can the 14-day period be regarded as an embryo. That has been made very clear by today's speeches. It has been made very clear by the experts to whom I have listened over the years. I instance particularly the very humane doctors, Dr. Winston of Hammersmith and Dr. Anne McLaren and Professor Shaw of the Medical Research Council. These humane people made the distinction so clear to me that I find that the

1495
moral problem of dealing with the first 14 days after fertilisation of the embryo has disappeared. It is a precision I have found helpful and in no way misleading.
As a result of the absolute certainty this medical opinion has given to me, I find that there is no moral problem. The matter is entirely distinct from whether or not and at what time an abortion should be allowed to take place. It is entirely beneficial that there should be research into pre-embryo material, if only because it would mean a great many abortions not having to take place. The diminution of the number of abortions could be striking. This is of the utmost importance.
It has been mentioned that the Australian committee described the embryo, among other things, as something organised as "a distinct entity". Those were, I believe, the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle. If what has been said today is read carefully, it will be seen that the pre-embryo is not, and cannot be described as, a distinct entity. It is not a stage when a potential person could possibly be said to have been begun or to have been formed.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, why I stopped at the seventh speaker. I come now to the eighth speaker, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I listened with respect, as I always do, to what he said. He was the first speaker—this was why I made the natural break at that point—who used the important words "I believe". Others had not rested their arguments on belief. The noble Duke, with characteristic forthrightness and honesty, used the words "I believe" at the outset of his speech. Again, with characteristic forthrightness, he said that he was following the Catholic line. I very much respect that. They were key words in his speech, and perhaps in the speeches of other Catholics and Christians who particularly brought their belief before the House. It is a case of not being able to argue with belief. One never can. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, most eloquently said so in her speech, which immediately preceded that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I do not propose to argue with what the noble Duke said. I respect his remarks but I shall leave them on one side because it is not an arguable matter.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he will not argue with any Roman Catholic in this House? Will he accept the views, ex cathedra, of the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York? Is he not expressing an Anglican point of view, because if the Roman Catholics are ruled out we shall be back to pre-1829 when we were not allowed here at all?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Earl knows quite well that I mean no such thing. I have drawn a distinction between the utterance of the most reverend Primate, who did not base his arguments on belief, and those of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who expressly based his arguments on belief and authority. I do not wish to pursue the matter further but I draw that distinction between them.
1496
I came to consider the matter as closely as I could because for a long time I have had an interest in disability and in the prevention of disablement. I listened with the greatest agreement and respect to the moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I agree entirely with what she said. To those noble Lords who take a contrary view, I ask that they kindly pay attention to the horrific catalogues brought before the House by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. Can they really put their hands on their hearts and say that they would not do everything in their power, or authorise doctors to do everything in their power, to prevent or diminish the incidence of such horrific diseases?
The moral onus to prove that what is being done is worthwhile should not be on those who are proposing the limited rights of doctors to experiment on genetic material for genetic and chromosomal abnormalities but on those who object to what the doctors are doing. With such powerful controls as those embodied in the White Paper, those who object to what is proposed ought to adduce their moral arguments when the outcome of controlled research can bring so much happiness to so many families.
Secondly, I think that if—and this is the great hope—the presence of an abnormal gene or chromosomal defect could be detected in the pre-embryo it would be possible to ensure that only normal pre-embryos were transferred back to those women from families carrying serious genetic diseases. The moral onus is on those who object to these highly moral and admirable objectives.
3.8 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to start with some observations about language. For centuries the whole area of human reproduction has been bedevilled by the obscurities of language which we impose upon ourselves, generally between one or another moral course, to wrap up the truth. We are now familiar with the euphemism "termination of pregnancy" meaning abortion. We have recently become familiar with another euphemism—"selective reduction of pregnancy." That applies when a researcher puts back into the uterus three, four or even more ova which have been fertilised in vitro and more of them develop than he expects. He may then find himself with a multiple pregnancy of six or eight foetuses and he simply aborts some of them if he can, although, surgically, that is extremely difficult.
For the first time in this debate I have realised that there is another euphemism of which I had not previously heard or thought. It concerns "research." That word is used in the White Paper, and it has been used widely in the debate today, to mean two things. The noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, commented upon it. First, it has been used to mean procedures carried out on a human being or pre-human being for the benefit of that human being or pre-human being. In common usage the word means research carried out on a human being, or living creature of any kind, for the benefit of all the members of that species.
I believe that in the English language as we know it the first use of the word is not at home. I have never

1497
before heard of such a use of the word "research." The English for the first meaning is "investigation" or "diagnostic investigation" into the condition of the subject or patient concerned in order to decide what is the best treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, mentioned that it was enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act. It may be that the problem is one familiar to anyone who has tried to work in the European Community, particularly in French. The French usage of the word has been carried over into English. In French the word recherches indeed includes diagnostic investigations. It could be that that is what has happened, though I do not say that it is. However, I notice that the assimilation of the two quite distinct activities under the one abstract noun "research" is greatly to the benefit of those who condone and wish for embryo research. If they are able to say "Ah, but there is one kind of research which is certainly good", and we all agree it is, and if you had a living piece of tissue in a dish which was about to become an embryo, nobody could object to it being examined and investigated to see whether or not it was in good condition. That is something we do to ourselves every day throughout our lives and the doctors help us. If that is agreed by those who are against embryo research, it is then easier for the pro-embryo research faction to press forward and say, "Why will you not agree to the next bit as well?"
The worst of these examples of purpose-serving new language is the word "pre-embryo" itself. I may be ignorant. but I have never heard it until this debate began a year or two ago. To my knowledge, first there is a sperm and then an ovum and then an embryo and at a certain point it is called a foetus instead of an embryo, and then a baby. Pre-embryo tells us nothing. A pre-embryo goes on to be an embryo, which is a pre-foetus, and a foetus, which is a pre-baby, goes on to be a baby; and a baby, of course, is a pre-adult. We do not call any other stage of human life story something beginning with "pre". It is a negative definition which merely says that it is not an embryo in order to avoid the stigma of destroying embryos.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, slipped once in her most interesting speech when she said that a pre-embryo was quite different from an embryo and then defined it as a pre-14 week embryo so it both was and was not an embryo. I do not believe it matters very much.
Let me come to the heart of the matter which is this. Before conception there are two conglomerations of cells called a sperm and an ovum, neither of which, if given the best treatment (short of their meeting up) which can be given to them, will turn into human beings. Immediately after conception, there is something I should like to call a "conceptus". That is a newly invented word but is quite clear. The "conceptus", if given the best treatment, will turn into a human being. I am not terribly interested in logic-chopping and fiddling about and saying, "Oh well, part of it is going to be placenta, part is going to be caul, and so on". Part is not and that part is going to be a human being. If you destroy that you destroy the potentiality of a human being. Contraception does not destroy the
1498
potentiality of a human being. The distinction is quite clear.
A pre-embryo could also be called post-sperm or post-ovum, however you wish to say it. The point of the matter is an ontological one. If you read your own life story backwards, can you say with any conviction that you feel it ends 14 days before you get back to your conception? I must say that I cannot. I think it is difficult to imagine that anyone could. It is obviously not possible to assimilate the "conceptus" to anything that has gone before—it is totally different qualitatively—and is very easy to assimilate it to what comes after, which is very similar qualitatively. Indeed, it contains that bundle of cells which the pro-research faction want to call the embryo. It contains that embryo within itself. There is an unbroken time progression and an unbroken ontological process from the moment of conception to the moment of death. Therefore, let us call it embryo or young embryo or, if it is insisted, let us call it conceptus, but let us get rid of this profoundly mystifying "pre-embryo".
I should like to know, and perhaps in later debates the Government will be able to tell us, what is the proportion of Government research money that goes on embryo research. Conversely, what proportion goes on the prevention of infertility in the first place, on investigating the causes of infertility, not only physical, resulting from disease or genetic problems, but also social? They certainly exist, if one includes infectious diseases among social phenomena, which I think one must. In general we accept (do we not?) that prevention is better than cure and embryo research is all devoted to the cure or circumvention of infertility. Standard health service wisdom now is to pour money into prevention in the hope of saving it on the cure. I submit that that should apply in this case, as in others, but I should very much like to know what are the figures.
I am worried by a couple of items in the White Paper, which, mainly, I think is admirable. It is a bit lax and hopeful about the follow-up of persons born as a result of in vitro fertilisation. This whole extremely new, dangerous, alarming and divisive process deserves the most rigorous follow-up which science and state can provide in order to find out not only what happens to Louise Brown but what happens to her when she has children, and what her children are like, and what happens to her children when they have children. That procedure should be followed over the generations. IVF itself is bordering on genetic engineering and the very least we can do to look after our own future and to make that slope a little less slippery is to have a proper follow-up of people born that way as they radiate out through the generations and through society.
The White Paper is weakened also by the way in which it ignores the outer world. So many government papers, so much legislation and so many debates in your Lordships' House ignore the outer world. We are not the only country facing these problems. I should be very loth to make my mind up on any of them without knowing what they do in Germany, the United States or France. We know a little of what they do in Australia because that country happens to be ahead, like us. If the other

1499
countries are behind us in basic research, which they may well be, it does not mean that they are behind us in moral conceptions and judgments. I hope that somebody, somewhere, will produce a small pamphlet about what is being done in those other countries, what is being said in their parliaments, which way they see the problem and how they are going. Mankind is large and most of it is quite friendly, so let us find out.
As to what is proposed for the Bill in the White Paper, I have a few objections. One has already been advanced with force by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt; that is, that the identity of the father should be known. The question is, know to whom? In the White Paper it is proposed that it should be known only to the statutory licensing authority, or principally to it. I have a concrete objection to that. It seems to me highly undesirable, even intolerable, that any statutory body, any organ of the state, should hold knowledge of the identity of a citizen which that citizen does not have—and knowledge of who your father is, is knowledge of your identity. Even more is it wrong that the state should have the right to withhold that knowledge if the citizen demands to have it. That is difficult to justify. We shall go into it on Second Reading.
I should like at this stage to say—and it may be easier to do so at this stage than on Second Reading because by that time members of the statutory licensing authority may have been nominated or half nominated, or there may be expectations about who is to be on it—that it seems to me important that the role of practitioners of embryo research and, indeed, of in vitro fertilisation, on the statutory licensing authority should be most carefully considered. One could go so far as to say that there should be no practitioners. A man loves his work, becomes immersed in it, and if he is very good he becomes brilliant; he sees the future through different spectacles from those not so immersed in their work. I hope the Government will consider having an SLA which consists of wise laymen, as they propose, and wise medical scientists who know all about these matters, but which does not include practitioners. Naturally SLA would call upon practitioners for advice and education all the time as the work continues.
I wish to congratulate the Government, as have many others, on having handled the in utero period of this intended Bill with great skill and sensitivity. I welcome the fact that we are to be given the choice between two alternative clauses on embryo research both to be drafted by the Government. I regret the suggestion in this House that this should not be done; I believe that to be a sad suggestion. It is good that the clauses should be drafted by the Government and put before us as two neutral alternatives. We all know that if one tries to draft one's own amendment and to put it across as an alternative to a government draft on the same point, one stands very little chance of success because, first, the Government have superior advice in drafting; and, secondly, they pretend that their advice is superior to what it is. It is able also to whistle-up the dinner-time vote in support of its first
1500
idea. This time it is full marks to the Government for a well-conceived process of pre-legislation consultation, and for every prospect of a well-conceived process of legislation itself.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we have had the immense benefit of listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, taking us carefully through her analysis, her assessments of the arguments and the values which led to the main conclusion of the majority report of her committee. I believe that many people who had been agonising over and seeking an answer to the complex ethical and moral problems which face us and which were really in existence before the committee of inquiry was set up, will have been helped considerably by the noble Lady's illuminating speech. I also believe that they will have been helped by the compelling speech of the most reverend Primate.
Since the 1984 debate we have also been helped by the second of the annual reports prepared by the voluntary licensing authority based upon its unique experience which it has collected over the past two-and-a-half years. I wish to join with other noble Lords in thanking the chairman and the members of the VLA for the time that they have devoted voluntarily to their task.
I wish to make a few brief remarks about four matters which have been touched upon in the course of the debate before moving on to deal with the difficult and controversial issue. I believe that all of us welcome the key proposal to set up this independent statutory licensing authority to advise, license and also monitor research and which will be backed by an effective inspectorate and criminal sanctions. The statutory authority will be accountable to Parliament.
It is for consideration whether its remit should also include some or all of the additional matters referred to in the resonse of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility. I believe that your Lordships prefer the five-year maximum period for the preservation of embryos to the 10-year period suggested by the Warnock Committee. The longer the period of preservation, the more problems that will arise.
Unless I have missed it, there is one question which has not been discussed in the White Paper, and that is whether on dissolution of marriage, and in the absence of agreement between the parties, the courts will have power to decide how the embryos are to be disposed of. Should the Bill anticipate such an application being made to the courts?
I move on to another point. The White Paper and the Minister in his opening speech seem to accept that children should have the right to know if they are not genetically linked to their parents. But it is difficult to see how this can be ensured in practice in the absence of a duty on the parents to notify the Registrar General when registering the birth that a child was born following donation. There is no such duty suggested in the White Paper. This is a delicate matter, but I suggest that it requires more thought between now and the Bill.

1501
Your Lordships have welcomed the importance attached to counselling services, but it is not clear to me from reading the paper whether it is intended that the clinician should have the right to refuse IVF treatment if he or she considers that it is not in the best interests of a child to be born or of the family that the treatment should go on if the couple after counselling still insist on receiving treatment. This, I suggest, is another issue which requires more thought.
Today's debate, like the 1984 debate, has been mostly and properly concerned with the basic question of whether restricted research shall be allowed to continue rather than with the kind of specific issues to which I have been referring. There has been a strong thread of root and branch dislike of such research running through some of your Lordships' speeches, but it is not as marked as it was in the 1984 debate. That is why when we come to make an appraisal and a comparison of today's debate with the 1984 debate I believe that today's debate will be seen to be more representative.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will make it plain, because the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made it plain, that this is not party policy but that he is speaking for himself.
Lord Prys-Davies: Yes, my Lords, I speak personally on this issue.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to say exactly the same thing myself? I quite forgot to say that, although I appear below the gap, this is an accident of printing and my views are my own and commit nobody at all.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the opponents of restricted research on human embryos claim that the early embryo has the status of human life from the day of fertilisation and that the sanctity of that life must be protected. That is a particular standpoint or belief based on moral or religious principles, and I accept that it is deeply and firmly held by many people. I respect that belief, and for the reasons that have been given by the most reverend Primate it must be taken into account when designing legislation. But I regret that the opposition to restricted research has sometimes been expressed in vivid and emotional rhetoric, which can so easily be used or exploited to generate an emotive response and possibly unfairly influence public opinion.
We accept that the sanctity of life principle is important for all civilised societies. It is a guiding principle, and indeed without it human society would be hopelessly adrift. However, for some of us it does not provide an absolute solution or answer to the difficult question of whether restricted research on human embryos should be allowed to continue in our country. There is the initial difficulty which has already been referred to. There is no agreement that a human being comes into existence on the day of fertilisation.
There is yet another difficulty which has also been referred to. When we see that the potential value of the research with which we are concerned in this
1502
paper is directed to improving the quality of life, then we come to another principle which is also important in our scale of values. The doctor or scientist who seeks to improve the quality of life for mankind also stands in a great tradition which commands respect. It seems to me—and I may have got this wrong—that the majority report of the Warnock Committee seeks to reconcile the two principles; the protection of the embryo and the enhancement of the quality of life of the members of mankind generally. I happen to believe—and this is my personal belief—that the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, which gives the early embryo a limited protection, goes a long way to achieve the reconciliation.
Of course this compromise, which lies at the heart of the basic recommendation, has not satisfied some Members of your Lordships' House. However, I have a feeling that when it is explained and understood it will be acceptable to many people. There is in addition this deep seated mistrust of the scientist. This has emerged in one or two speeches today. I am not so sure that this is always justified.
A week ago I listened to the illustrious Mr. Patrick Steptoe addressing a large gathering of medical students, nurses and staff at the Welsh National School of Medicine at the University Hospital of Wales. He described to the students the research work which he and Dr. Robert Edwards and other scientists had undertaken at Bourn Hall and which led to the birth of the first test tube baby in 1978. He went on to identify the areas where there was need for more research to provide the knowledge which is required to improve and perfect the IVF treatment.
We have been told in the course of this debate that since 1978 about 1,000 test tube babies have been born in this country. This attests to the value of the research. The fact that only about one in 10 attempts at IVF results in a successful pregnancy attests to the considerable need and justification for further research. A theme which ran through the lecture of Mr. Steptoe was his deep concern for the mother and the infertile couples, and repeatedly when explaining a point he asked: "In this situation can we do anything more for the mother?"
I mention this gathering in Cardiff a week ago because one gets the impression when listening to some of the opponents of restricted research that the Warnock Report contemplates that the scientist can do just what he likes with human embryos if restricted research is permitted. However, the important paragraph 35 of the White Paper makes it abundantly clear that there will be statutory barriers over which, through which or under which the scientist cannot go to satisfy a scientific curiosity or in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Before it grants a project licence, the statutory licensing authority must be satisfied, and here I quote:
"that the aim of the project was to bring about advances in diagnostic or therapeutic technique or infertility control".
There is no ambiguity about this condition.
I have taken up my time and I must now pull the threads together. I think it comes to this. Is research on the early human embryo, with the consent of its donor, for one of the limited life enhancing purposes

1503
named and identified in paragraph 34 of the White Paper, and where there is no equivalent research material available, to be prohibited and made a criminal offence in this country? If such research is to be prohibited, a price will have to be paid and I believe that when the restricted scope of the research and the safeguards against abuse are fully explained to the public, a majority will show a sympathy and a tolerance towards such research.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in listening to today's debate I have been reminded with a slightly sinking heart of a very wise comment made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in the original debate in your Lordships' House on the Warnock Report. She said:
"The only thing I feel depressingly sure of is that…whatever we do is going to be wrong from some point of view. It is not a black and white situation"—. [Official Report. 31/10/84; col. 563.]
I said that I had a sinking heart, but perhaps that is not quite the attitude that I currently find myself in, because the one thing that has had total unanimity from your Lordships in all your speeches—those who have mentioned this fact—is that you all want a statutory licensing authority. We have moved on beyond the days of the Warnock debates to that particular point.
Having said that, and having observed that your Lordships all agree with this, I make the point that it is exactly because it is not a black and white situation that the Government have made it quite clear in the White Paper that, whatever the format of the legislation which will come shortly—very shortly, I hope, within the next year or 18 months—it will not be appropriate to put everything into legislation. It will be necessary to leave some things to the developing counsels of the statutory licensing authority, and it will be for Parliament to decide whether, knowing the pace at which such things move, this should be backed up by subjects for affirmative or negative resolution. I for one do not believe that primary legislation is appropriate on all the issues which are concerning us today.
So far as those issues are concerned, I found today's debate extremely helpful in further clarifying the issues to which the Government will need to pay particular attention when drawing up that legislation. It confirmed that opinions remain divided on some key matters, but it has also shown, as I have said, that there is plenty of common ground on others.
I detect a general agreement about the central proposal in the White Paper that an independent statutory licensing authority should be established to regulate the new reproductive technologies which cause ethical concern. Various speakers have given their view about who should be on it and what its precise role should be. So far as its precise role is concerned, this has still to be sorted out somewhat further. But as to who should be on it, the White Paper suggests that the aim would be to ensure that it has a wide range of experience including nursing and legal experience among its membership. Those are answers to two points raised by the noble Lords,
1504
Lord Ennals and Lord Meston. The membership is vitally important because, it is crucial to have a body which commands respect not only from specialists in the field but from society generally.
As predicted, a major preoccupation today has been embryo research. There are especially difficult arguments. Undoubtedly research using human embryos can bring great benefits. However, the human embryo deserves respect and the protection of the law. How complete should that protection be? The Government's position, as I said in my opening speech, is neutral on this matter, although of course we propose tough measures on procedures like genetic engineering which are generally accepted to be unethical. Parliament will decide the issue on a free vote.
It is interesting to note that your Lordships have pretty well decided the issue today. The tally is that four out of the 21 speakers have come down firmly against research in any form of the word, whereas the rest are prepared to accept it. I was especially interested by the comment of the most reverend Primate, who said that without in vitro fertilisation there would be no need to have research. The two aspects go very much together. At least this what I understood him to say.
During the debate your Lordships have asked various questions which I shall do my best to answer. First, would research reduce the number of children born with congenital abnormalities? The answer is yes, as far as we know. Research in animals suggests that techniques might eventually become available which would make that possible. That would depend on Parliament opting for the research option. The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Rea, mentioned this point.
As my noble friend Lord Jellicoe pointed out. chromosomal abnormalities commonly develop during and just after fertilisation. Therefore, research on human embryos could help to unravel the reasons for that and point the way to reduce them, which may not involve clinical use of in vitro fertilisation. It would be reasonable for my noble friend Lord Lauderdale to ask himself whether it would be in the interests of science or the subject itself if the identification were not to take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the National Association for the Childless. I am pleased to pay tribute to the important role of the association and the help it provides for childless couples. It has received, as he may know, a government grant for some years now under the department's Section 64 scheme.
In analysing the comments made in this debate, what struck me highly was the fact that few of your Lordships mentioned the status of children, although I agree with those noble Lords who said that that must be central to our decisions and discussions on the issue. The noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Oakridge and Lord Meston, mentioned that point.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said that it would be up to Parliament to extend the 14-day limit if it thought fit. I should stress that he is right; it would be for Parliament and not for individual scientists or licensing organisations, whether statutory or other,

1505
to extend the 14-day limit, if Parliament so decides. I also stress that under our proposals this would require primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked, as regards suitability of parents, whether this should be left to the statutory licensing authority. He and other noble Lords said that it was important to ensure that children were born into a stable, two-parent family. Clearly some form of selection of couples for IVF treatment will be inevitable, given the expensive nature and low success rates of the treatment. The Government believe that where selection criteria are necessary the SLA and the clinics involved should determine them. It would not be appropriate for primary legislation to lay down who should or should not be entitled to receive IVF or AID treatment. This should be decided by doctors on the facts of the individual case and with reference to any guidance issued by the licensing authority.
Storage time for embryos was mentioned; and storage by freezing, which is the method currently used. enables clinicians to provide the best service possible for patients undergoing these treatments. The Government recognise that this raises complex ethical issues but in view of the usefulness of the procedure they consider that it should be permitted under strict control by the SLA.
Accordingly, it is proposed that legislation will limit the time gametes can be stored to a maximum of 10 years and the time for embryos to five years. This is stricter than the Warnock recommendations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have power to reduce these time limits further.
As regards the use of gametes or embryos, the Government believe that the donor's consent should be obtained for all use of gametes or embryos stored by a licensed centre. Strict conditions will be laid down to cover situations where there is any doubt as to how the embryo or gametes should be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested that the dispute over the ownership of an embryo would not arise if the clinic or doctor had disposal rights. As far as the ownership of embryos is concerned, the White Paper aims, by tightly defining who has use or disposal in various situations, to avoid the possibility of a dispute over the embryo arising. For example, the White Paper proposes clear lines of responsibility in the event of the donor's death, failure to agree or being untraceable, and also if the licence-holder dies or loses his licence.
The most reverend Primate is someone to whom I am sure the whole House is indebted for the lucid and thorough analysis of the scientific and theological issues surrounding the embryo research question. His will be a very special contribution to the continuing debate on these issues. Not surprisingly I am probably not alone in finding the contrast most marked with the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk who said that family values should not be undermined.
I certainly agree but surely the point at issue is whether we should lay down rigidly in primary legislation who should or should not be given access to these treatments with presumably punishments for those who break this rule, with all the consequences
1506
which this might have for the resulting child. I believe that this is not appropriate and in other parts of the health service I have been singing this message, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, before me, for very much longer. We have proposed that the statutory licensing authority must take clinics' assessment procedures into account when granting licences. I am sure that they will give thorough consideration to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, suggested that the White Paper assumes that AID is acceptable. Your Lordships' House, in its 1984 debate, was not so sanguine on that subject. I am aware of concerns about AID which were expressed in that debate. It is because of the serious ethical issues that we are proposing that the procedure should be carried out only under strict controls. I believe that that reflects the general view emerging from the consultation document.
Two noble Lords mentioned control on the number of sperm donations. The question of an upper limit on the number of children fathered by one donor is a point for the licensing authority to decide as a matter of good practice. I do not believe that it is practical to decide that in legislation. Apart from any other reason, I believe that we are in a fast-moving ball game and it is the sort of subject which is not suitable for primary legislation.
I regret that I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton; I always enjoy listening to him. However, I understand him to have said that if embryo research is banned then more animal research will be used and that that will be immoral. Some years ago, the noble Lord and I served on the Select Committee on a Bill which was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and which concerned animal research. I was extremely interested in his views at that time. I should stress at this point that even where research is permitted, human embryos should not be used where alternative forms of achieving the same research are possible. I am not quite sure of the point the noble Lord was making. However, I shall study Hansard with care and write to him if I am still unclear.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, produced a principle that AID should be confined to married couples in stable union who were infertile and who had been given full information about the implications, where the likelihood was that the child would be brought up by that couple. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord has seen in the newspapers this week the many reports of figures just published by a department for which I have the honour to be responsible—the OPCS. They show a significant increase in the past 10 years in the number of births outside marriage.
Within that group, the number of such births where the father's name also appears on the birth certificate has increased. In other words, we live in a world where people decide to have children and offer them a happy and stable family environment without marrying. I am well aware that that is somewhat reactionary in your Lordships' House. Many Members of the House will not agree that a stable family relationship can exist outside marriage.

1507
Nonetheless, that is what that piece of research has shown. The Family Law Reform Act reflected that situation in trying to remove the distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that putting the clock back was not possible. I suggest that she may have to have a wee rethink concerning who should be able to receive the benefits of those techniques in the light of that information.
Another principle enunciated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was that the whole truth about the donor should be available from the clinic and/or the statutory licensing authority. I quite agree, although we are not at this stage proposing that the child should have access to the name of the father. However, I have no doubt that that is something which will be fiercely debated within the context of the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, suggested that the donor should be named. Our consultation revealed that there is no consensus about this. We believe, as I have just said, that the donor's name should remain anonymous at present. However, the climate of opinion may change more to the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and therefore we propose that the situation should be kept under review. I have already mentioned restricting the number of embryos to be transferred, which was a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
The starting point, which I enunciated earlier—namely, the status of the resulting children—was a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Does anyone know the effects of in vitro fertilisation on resulting children? I am advised that there is no firm evidence to indicate that IVF treatment itself produces a greater risk of abnormality at birth. It is obviously important to assess the effects of new treatment techniques of any kind, and IVF is no exception. The Medical Research Council is currently conducting a study on several hundred children born as a result of in vitro fertilisation. It has yet to be published.
While on the subject of the Medical Research Council, I should say that I am advised that it is supporting a number of reproductive research projects to the tune of about £1 million.
Lastly, I have a note of a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The registrars general will have access to any information recorded of donation births occurring after the establishment of the SLA, which will be held by the SLA. They will therefore have full genetic records available to them. They will of course treat this information in confidence until such time as it is decided that the name of the sperm donor, for example, should be given to the resultant child.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has it been decided that this information should not be given to the resultant child on demand at the age of 18? Will that be in the Act and be a matter for Parliament to discuss?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have not yet started drafting the proposed legislation, but as the White Paper makes clear there is as yet no
1508
government proposal for that; so the answer to the noble Lord's question is, no.
I have tried to deal with as many points as I could in the time available, and hope that I shall be forgiven if I have omitted some. I am afraid it was inevitable. I thought that there was a strong feeling emerging from today's debate that, while there is still plenty of scope for debating the detail—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just cross-questioned me on part of it—all are agreed that there must be some kind of legislation soon. I am sure that the Government were right not to rush into legislation as soon as the Warnock Report was published and that we were right to ensure that there was full consultation. However, we intend to legislate in this Parliament. I cannot promise when that will be, although as I said earlier it will be sooner rather than later. In a word, it will be as soon as practicable, and the Government have carefully noted the views of this House on the urgency of the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at one minute before four o'clock.

  EC FREE FOOD SCHEME
  EC FREE FOOD SCHEME