Sitting of 21 January 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot take a point of order before we have opened the sitting. I say to the hon. Member that by raising a point of order at this time he puts in jeopardy those who wish to put questions to the Home Secretary. I will take points of order at the appropriate time, which is immediately after Business Questions.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not wait until then. It is very brief.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I cannot take it now.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order. I am—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he will have to raise this at the appropriate time.
Mr. Cohen: Mr. Speaker, a number of people have been denied their democratic rights. This affects the Sessional Orders, and I should like to be given the opportunity to raise the matter of people being denied their right to lobby—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member please come and discuss this with the Table while I am getting on with the business?

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate .farther adjourned till Thursday 28 January.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  As amended, considered.
  Amendments agreed to.
  To be read the Third time.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  As amended, considered.
  Amendments agreed to.
  To be read the Third time.

  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER) HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHLTRST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Seconding Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Official Secrets Act
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has undertaken in order to ascertain views as to the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): There have been at least 15 years of public debate on the matter, and there will be full opportunities to comment on the Government's proposals before legislation is introduced.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Home Secretary make sure, in the months between the debate last Friday on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the White Paper that the Government plan for the summer, that he listens to the views of the country as a whole and not to the increasingly dominant view in his party that secrecy is justifiable? Is the Home Secretary aware that only two out of the 53 new Conservative Members elected in June voted for freedom of information? Is that not an indictment of a view that is generally rubbished, namely, that the Government put their own self-defence at a far more important level than the general interests of the nation and its ability to judge issues?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for brief questions, because long questions lead to too long answers.
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. People who wish to express views to us obviously have a choice to do so between now and June, the time of the White Paper, or after the White Paper and before the legislation.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all these matters of secrecy are of interest mainly to the media, and that the mass of ordinary patriotic people want state secrets to be kept as state secrets?
    Mr. Hurd: I must say that when I arrived in my constituency at the weekend I found a rather different flavour to the discussion there from the one here. We have a serious job to do, to honour the commitments that the Prime Minister and I have given to the House. During the debate on Friday many hon. Members explained how difficult that job will be. I agree with that, but we intend to do it.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Home Secretary recall that during the debate on Friday quotations were read to the House from the book by Mr. Anthony Cavendish, in which Mr. Cavendish said that the security service had recently been involved in operations to discredit Members on both sides of the House. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that such allegations should be suppressed under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act rather than be investigated, as they would be in any other democracy?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not wish to comment on the Cavendish case or the injunctions that have borne on that particular

    1079
    publication. I would much rather have a decent, restricted system for the protection of official information than the present system, which is open to misinterpretation and misuse, and that is what we intend to get.

    Firearms
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has had with represenatives of gun clubs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend has met representatives of the British Shooting Sports Council, which represents a wide range of sporting and trade interests. I have met representatives of the Shooters' Rights Association, and the United Kingdom Practical Rifle Commission, and Home Office officals have met a number of other organisations.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the excellent work carried out by many gun clubs up and down the country, including in Norwich and the surrounding area, and the genuine concern about some of the measures to be put forward in the legislation to be debated this afternoon, will my hon. Friend say more about the discussions that he may have had with the gun clubs about licensing arrangements and compensation?
    Mr. Hogg: I recognise that the issue of compensation causes considerable concern to right hon. and hon. Members. There are serious objections to compensation, but we are prepared to give further thought to the fresh arguments that have been put forward. However, I should emphasise that I believe that there are still great difficulties, both of principle and of practice.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend agree that although there may be objections to the principle of compensation, there are greater objections to not paying compensation because of what may happen as a result of the disposal of such firearms? Will he undertake to keep an open mind on that matter as the Bill progresses?
    Mr. Hogg: I shall always consider extremely carefully the points that my right hon. and hon. Friends make. None the less, there are difficulties of principle that we cannot ignore. However, I repeat that we are prepared to give further thought to the arguments that have been put forward.

    Immigration
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider collecting statistics for entrants to the United Kingdom on the basis of ethnicity.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): No, Sir. The statistics collected on passenger admissions by nationality are sufficient to meet all the Department's major needs for information on entrants to the United Kingdom.
    As far as immigration control is concerned, we do not consider it necessary to extend the interviewing process by seeking and recording a person's ethnic origin; it would add to the cost of the control and inconvenience to the public and the passenger.
    Mr. Grant: The Minister will be aware of the large number of complaints of racism at the ports of entry to this country. Does he agree that one way of ensuring that a check is kept on that problem would be by recording ethnicity? For example, if 20 Nigerians were denied entry, one could reasonably assume that they were all black. However, if 20 Americans or South Africans are denied entry, one does not know their colour.
    Mr. Renton: I reject the charge of racism against our immigration authorities and officers. Both the Manchester Council for Community Relations and the Commission for Racial Equality have in recent reports said they believe that immigration officers discharge their obligations without regard to race, colour or religion, as they are required to do by the rules.
    If we were to ask a question about enthnicity, it would have to apply to all passengers subject to immigration control. If we were to ask whether passengers were African, Asian or Arab in origin, the hon. Gentleman, or some of his colleagues, would be the first to complain.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that to collect the statistics, suggested by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) would be likely to lead to their misuse, as they would reflect only one criterion?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, that is right. Let us consider, for example, South Africans — be they black or white —coming into this country. If they have British citizenship by descent, they will travel here on British passports and their entry to the country will not be reflected in such statistics.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that many people wishing to enter this country — members of ethnic minorities and others — complain of the horrendous delays at Heathrow caused by the heavy burden that rests on immigration officers? Far more of the complaints in my constituency and elsewhere come from people from ethnic minorities and their families and friends seeking lawful entry as visitors than from anyone else.
    Mr. Renton: I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, since we introduced the visa regime for five countries — including those of the Indian subcontinent—over a year ago, the number of complaints of difficulties at our major ports of entry has diminished substantially. However, I agree that there are unacceptable delays, and that is one reason why we have put changes in the immigration rules before the House for debate next week. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will support them.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that ethnicity is no more relevant to immigration control than the colour of an immigrant's hair? We ask only that immigration control should be exercised in the interests of the British people as a whole, whatever the colour of their skin.
    Mr. Renton: I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I remind him that one of the first immigration rules is that immigration officers should exercise their powers without regard to race, colour or religion. I believe that they do that, and it is very important that they should.
    Mr. Randall: Why does the Minister not take more concerted action to overcome deficiencies in the Home Office statistics, which refer to appalling discrimination between black and Asian people in this country? Why has he not done more?
    Mr. Renton: I am totally unclear about the deficiency in the Home Office statistics to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As discussed in the Immigration Bill Committee —to which I must not refer in the Chamber—we intend to put forward changes in the rules for debate in the House next week. They will greatly help immigration officers and Lunar House to attend more to the serious and desperate cases that hon. Members bring to my attention.

    Custodial Remand
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his experiment on restricting the period spent on remand in custody.
    Mr. Hurd: So far the custody time limits in force in Avon, Somerset, Kent and the west midlands are working well. From 1 April I propose to extend the tighter limits in the first three areas to Greater Manchester, the whole of Wales and to Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and Wiltshire. In the west midlands the time limit to committal will be reduced from 98 to 84 days, and time limits will be extended to the Crown courts at Coventry and Dudley.
    Mr. Favell: As a lawyer, I hesitate to suggest that lawyers never do today what they can put off until tomorrow. The news from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not only desirable but necessary. When can we expect the experiment to be extended to the whole country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that when that is done there will be less pressure on prisons and their staff, a saving of money and a reduction of the time during which innocent people can be kept in gaol?
    Mr. Hurd: We are proceeding gradually so that we can benefit by experience. So far our experience has been good, and that is why I have today referred to a further substantial step to reduce delays in justice. As we get on, I hope to extend the provisions over the whole country and to re-examine the time limits to see whether they can be tightened further.
    Ms. Short: As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which made that recommendation, may I remind the Home Secretary that one of our major concerns was that enormous numbers of those in our prison population were on remand? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is happening to the proportion of prisoners on remand in areas where the experiment is in operation'?
    Mr. Hurd: Not without notice. However, I hope and estimate that, as a result of the extension of the time limits that I have announced, there will be a reduction of between 300 and 600 in the prison remand population.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the 110-day rule that operates in Scotland and the United States—with which he is tinkering in the experiment—were introduced, there would be a substantial reduction in the time spent in custody awaiting trial and in the prison population? Will he consider bringing forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to introduce such a provision as speedily as possible?
    Mr. Hurd: We have the powers. We took them under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and we are using them. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that the
    1082
    Scottish procedures are different, and the 110-day procedure is not absolutely applicable across the border. With the exception of the west midlands, we are working towards 56 days to summary proceedings, 70 days to committal and 112 days to arraignment in the Crown court.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Home Secretary e plain the logic behind his decision today? Why, if he is so favourably impressed with the experiment, is he just extending it? If he agrees with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, why does he not introduce the procedure for the country as a whole?
    Mr. Hurd: Because I want to make sure that the arrangements are in place and that the limits are practicable. Nothing is worse than to introduce a substantial change of this kind at a pace and in a way that brings it into discredit because people cannot operate it. We are gradually extending and tightening it. The Opposition might be a little more gracious about the progress that we are making.

    Courthouses
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the system for approval of the construction of courthouses so as to reduce delays.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): No, Sir. The procedures are already designed to ensure that scarce capital resources are used to provide good operational buildings economically and as quickly as possible. I understand that Essex county council intends to go to tender this week for the new magistrates courthouse in Basildon, with a view to completion early in 1990.
    Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend accept my gratitude and that of my constituents for the support of the Home Office and Essex county council for the building of the new courthouse in Basildon? Will he also accept that, due to the intolerable pressures on the old courthouse in Billericay, it would be irresponsible for anyone to delay the building of the new courthouse further?
    Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that there will be no further delays with the new courthouse now that it has gone to tender. My hon. Friend's warm thanks are greatly appreciated. They are sometimes sparing in the direction of the Dispatch Box. I quite often happily visit Basildon with my hon. Friend. I will be there shortly in his company looking at an important crime prevention project funded by the private sector, and I hope to have a chance to look at the new courthouse site.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to consider the merits of combined magistrates and county court buildings, such as the excellent building at Staines in Middlesex, and contrast that with the position in Solihull, where we have a superb magistrates court, but no county court?
    Mr. Patten: I sometimes go to Solihull as well. We consider the issues on their merits. We like to try to combine the provision of justice with the provision of other social facilities wherever that makes sense for the local community and can be afforded.

    Broadcasting
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received during the past year on the future of broadcasting.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to publish his proposals for the future of broadcasting.
    Mr. Hurd: In recent months I have received many representations in various forms about the future of broadcasting. I announced our radio proposals on Tuesday and will within the next few months be publishing further proposals for broadcasting legislation.
    Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with regard to television, the British public get a pretty raw deal from the current BBC-ITV duopoly? Is he aware that on many occasions second-rate sports programmes are broadcast simultaneously on three of the four channels, often with two channels covering the same event? Is there not an overwhelming argument for the setting up of a fifth television channel and for giving the go-ahead for short-range local television stations?
    Mr. Hurd: We are looking at a whole range of matters relating to television. Unfortunately, they must be considered together because they relate to each other, and that is why this matter is taking some time. They include the point referred to by my hon. Friend and the possibility of a Channel 5, the future organisation of Channel 4, how ITV contracts should be let in future, the possibility of the multipoint video distribution system and the use of night hours. There is a big agenda.
    Mr. Campbell: In his written answer on 19 January the Home Secretary said that community radio should be subject to light restriction. Is it still the Government's intention to prevent those providing community radio services from expressing views on matters of political or industrial controversy? If, for example, there was a proposal in a particular community for the dumping of nuclear waste, would that not be precisely the kind of issue on which a community radio station should be entitled to pronounce?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman should consider paragraph 7.7 of the Green Paper. Nothing in the statement that I made on Tuesday alters that. We believe that stations, including local stations, should ensure that any news, given in whatever form, is presented with accuracy and impartiality. There are a number of provisions to avoid allowing the views and opinions of particular persons to predominate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman considers paragraph 7.7 of the Green Paper, he will find the answer that he is seeking.
    Mr. Wells: Under the legislation proposed by my right hon. Friend, will it be possible to have a dedicated London Jazz radio station?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, if the proposals for such a station meet the criteria—and I see no reason why they should not. Some of the people who first interested me in the idea of community radio wanted to do exactly that.
    Mr. Rees: Would it not be wise, before the Government legislate, following their statement of a couple of days ago in a written answer, to give the House a chance to comment on the proposals?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition have ways of doing that if they wish. I shall take the suggestion seriously into account. I do not want to rush into these matters. It will be some months before there is any legislation.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What representations has my right hon. Friend received about the 9 o'clock rule for television? Many of us are concerned about programmes that appear on television well before 9 o'clock, the content of which is unsuitable for children.
    Mr. Hurd: Occasionally, so am I, and I have twice—most recently just before Christmas — called in the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA to express my continuing anxiety about violence on television. I would much rather that they dealt with the matter in accordance with the guidelines. However, as my hon. Friend knows, we shall soon be setting up the new broadcasting standards council. That is the sort of issue with which I expect it will concern itself.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Was it not a grave discourtesy to the House to announce these major changes in broadcasting by way of a parliamentary question and an answer so long that it amounted to a statement? Why did the Home Secretary not come here and allow the House to examine the matter in further detail? When will we have that opportunity? Will the auctioning off of these three national independent channels allow people from abroad to bid for them?
    Mr. Hurd: There was a discourtesy to the House in that when the answer was available it was about an hour late, and I apologise for that. There was a mishap with regard to the copy sent to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and he and I have been in correspondence about that. I do not think that it was out of place to carry the discussion forward in a written statement, as what I said followed closely the Green Paper that was published some time ago and as the House will have substantial opportunities to go over the matter in detail when legislation is introduced.
    Mr. Fisher: How many of the 500 representations that the Home Secretary received about the Green Paper recommended that he should auction off the licences to the highest bidder? Does he understand that to sell off something as powerful and culturally important as a radio licence is completely irresponsible and careless, and that it did not command even the support of many of the companies and individuals who were likely to make applications for licences?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has thought the matter through. We are talking about how one allocates three national commercial channels. One can either have a body that sits down and arbitrates —maybe in an unsatisfactory or concealed way—or have what we propose, which is a standard of variety. Any applicant will have to pass a test of variety before a tender is accepted. Once that hurdle is surmounted—the need to provide variety on each national channel—it can be done by tender so that the Exchequer and the taxpayer can benefit to a certain extent from the use of this limited national resource.
    Mr. Sayeed: How does my right hon. Friend intend to control the content of internationally transmitted direct broadcasting by satellite?
    Mr. Hurd: Negotiation is going on in the Council of Europe at Strasbourg with the aim of producing, if possible, a convention treaty that will bind the 21 members and provide for some enforcement machinery. Apart from that, we are considering whether other additional methods might be necessary. It is one of the most difficult aspects of this problem. I hope that if the Council of Europe can reach agreement the necessary legislation will be put before the House before too long.
    Mr. Corbett: First, may I give the Home Secretary another opportunity to apologise to the House for his discourtesy in making a statement about a major change in broadcasting policy by way of a written answer on Tuesday, instead of coming here so that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members could ask him questions?
    Secondly, how does he intend to ensure quality and balance in the stations whose licences are to be flogged off to the highest bidder, and when does he expect to make an announcement about the frequencies that the BBC will lose under his proposals, because the BBC needs time to adjust?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that I have already covered the first point and do not want to repeat myself. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the reference in the Green Paper to content and to what I would call the "consumer protection" part of the proposals and the standards to be required by the new radio authority, he will see that they are set out at some length. The House will want to debate that in detail when the legislation is considered in Committee.
    We are discussing with the BBC which two frequencies we propose to take from it to facilitate the three new national commercial channels. On the whole, the BBC is content with the position because it knows where it is within the limits of the money and frequencies that it has and which are assured to it, so it can get on and organise itself as it thinks fit, not as I think fit.

    Farmwatch Schemes
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many farmwatch schemes are operated in England and Wales by county constabularies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: Information about the number of farmwatch schemes is not held centrally. Farmwatch is one of a number of variations of the neigbourhood watch concept; others include hospital watch and business watch. The number of such schemes continues to grow and we are much encouraged by this evidence of the willingness of so many individuals to work together, and with the police, to help prevent crime in their areas.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend join in congratulating the Wiltshire constabulary on its initiation of the scheme, which has led not only to a decrease in rural crime, including farm theft, illegal hare coursing and other crimes, but to an improvement in the use of police resources and help with the scheme from the whole community, including environmental groups and shooting clubs?
    Mr. Patten: The answer to that is yes. The type of work that is being carried out in the Amesbury sub-division of the Wiltshire police area is exemplary. I hope that other
    1086
    such areas up and down the country which face the problems of rural crime will think about going along the same path.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who want to have private conversations should do so outside.
    Mr. Skinner: What assistance will the Minister give those on the farmwatch scheme to stop the property developers and the city slickers preying on the land, buying it and then turning it into suburbialand, thus changing the natural beauty of Britain?
    Mr. Patten: That is an interesting development of the farmwatch concept, but I am happy to say that it is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    Drinking and Driving
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were charged with offences relating to drink and driving over the Christmas period; how these numbers compare with previous equivalent periods; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I regret that information will not be available in the form requested until the second half of this year. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers has collated provisional figures for England and Wales which show that there were 5,259 positive roadside breath tests in the period 19 December 1987 to 1 January 1988. I am encouraged by the widespread support for the way in which the police and the Government tackled the drinking and driving problem over the Christmas period. I hope that that will be reflected in the official statistics when they are available later this year.
    Mr. Taylor: Although figures show a marginal and welcome improvement, does my hon. Friend agree that so much excess drinking at Christmas time is a real problem? Bearing in mind the enormous social pressures on so many people to consume alcohol at Christmas time, will he seek to take steps to require publicans to stock non-alcoholic wines and beers, especially at that time?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of making available non-alcoholic drinks in pubs.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not time that the Minister started patting some drivers on the back? Does he realise that in the past 20 years, while the number of cars has increased enormously, the number of accidents has gone down yet the Scottish Temperance Society continually uses the issue to slag off drivers who have an excellent record? Is it not a fact that a lorry speeding through fog on a motorway can cause far more damage, and that more people were killed at Christmas by dangerous foam-filled furniture than were killed on the roads by drunken drivers?
    Mr. Hogg: The truth is that drinking and driving simply do not go together, and it is the business of the Government to communicate that fact as frequently as possible.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable relief about the success of the campaign last Christmas to discourage people from drinking and driving? Does he recognise that the problem of drinking

    1087
    and driving is not confined to Christmas, but takes place throughout the year, during much of which there is no talk at all about the dangers of such behaviour? Will he use all the resources of his Department to ensure that there is a year-on-year campaign, not one that takes place merely during public holidays?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's point is very much in the mind of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. In substance, I agree with what he has said.

    Broadcasting
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the future of community radio in Britain.
    Mr. Renton: Many of the responses to our Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities", published last year, welcomed the prospect of community radio. As my right hon. Friend announced on 19 January, we intend to bring before Parliament legislative proposals based on the Green Paper.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that those with an interest in community radio will be very glad that the Green Paper has given the green light to it. Is the Minister able to announce a time scale in which he hopes the proposals will be implemented? As he is no doubt aware, the Shetland Islands Broadcasting Company has been on the air in my constituency and — judging by representations that I have received — is popular. Can the Minister say how the proposals will affect that company?
    Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the proposals that we are announcing. Assuming that it is possible for a Bill to be brought before Parliament in the next Session, I hope that the proposals will be law by the end of the summer of 1989, and that the radio authority will then be able to consider community radio applications and start issuing licences.
    As regards the station in the Shetlands, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give my blessing to a pirate radio station. The gentleman concerned will have to make his application to the radio authority. I must say, however, that that seems just the sort of project that could succeed under the new regime that we have announced.

    Custodial Remand
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) male and (b) female prisoners aged less than 17 years old are currently held on remand in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On 30 September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available centrally, about 165 untried and 15 convicted unsentenced males aged under 17 were held in prison department establishments in England and Wales. Girls aged under 17 may not be remanded into prison custody.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure the Minister agrees with the importance of the rapid development of bail hostels. Does he agree that the present development of such hostels is too slow, and is there any way of speeding it up?
    Mr. Hogg: I am glad that we have the hon. Gentleman's support for our policy of introducing more bail hostels.

    Prisoners (Statistics)
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On 30 November there were about 37,450 sentenced prisoners in prison department establishments in England and Wales.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of the ever-increasing rate of serious crime during the Government's period of office, and noting that under the White Paper on public expenditure the provision for law and order seems unlikely to improve much after 1989, may I ask whether the Minister can be sure that all the extra prisons that his Department is to provide will be filled?
    Mr. Hogg: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has put such a question. For one thing, I should have thought that his party's position was a trifle embarrassing, in that when Labour was in government in the 1970s it failed to do anything about a prison building programme. I am also surprised that he has not welcomed the Government's present building programme, which will produce over 21,000 more places by 1995 than the number when we first came to office.
    Mr. Madel: Some people sent to prison are there as a result of having caused death by driving, having drunk too much. Can my hon. Friend comment on a further point? The public are not clear whether random breath-testing is allowed because of different policies pursued by different chief constables. Can my hon. Friend say whether random breath-testing is, or is not, lawful?
    Mr. Hogg: Random stopping is allowed under section 159 of the Highways Act 1980. Random testing is not lawful.

    Adults (National Numbering System)
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to introduce a national numbering system for each individual over 18 years.
    Mr. John Patten: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Home Secretary does not intend to introduce a system of national numbering and, presumably, like all his predecessors, would regard such a system as undesirable, what representations will he make to his colleagues in the Cabinet about the fact that the poll tax will require just such a system, as defined in the report commissioned by the Scottish Office from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? Is he aware that the report makes it clear that the poll tax cannot work without a system of national numbering — a state ID system—to be known as a community identifier? Does he agree that, as a by-product of the poll tax, we shall go down the road of a state identification system for every individual?
    Mr. Patten: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Local authorities will have the responsibility of compiling the

    1089
    lists of those liable to the community charge. They will be able to draw on a range of lists to compile the community charge list.
    Mr. Jessel: As most other countries have identity cards, and as they would greatly help to combat terrorism and other crimes, including social security fraud, what possible argument is there against them?
    Mr. Patten: I know how strongly my hon. Friend and some of my other hon. Friends feel about the issue. However, there is no evidence that in 1952, when identity cards were withdrawn, the police were put into difficulty. We have had no representation from the police that they find difficulty in identifying most people when they need to in pursuit of crime.

    Charities
    Mr. Ashdown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to seek to change charities law; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to amend current arrangements for the monitoring and control of charities.
    Mr. Hurd: The Government have warmly welcomed the report by Sir Philip Woodfield of his efficiency scrutiny of the supervision of charities. We accept the report's conclusion that, while the essentials of the present supervisory framework are still necessary, the system needs extensive reform. The report's proposals to strengthen the Charity Commission's powers, and in particular its capacity to deal with abuse, provide a sound basis for the future.
    Most of the report's recommendations concerning the procedures and internal management of the Charity Commission are already being put into effect. Those recommendations affecting the extent and nature of the commission's powers will need primary legislation. We would hope to put forward proposals for such legislation later in this Parliament.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Home Secretary's statement will be welcome in view of the fact that charities are being abused, as he knows. There are cases where so-called charities are returning as little as 10 per cent, to charitable purposes. Business men are earning fat profits and running expense accounts and vehicles to dodge tax. When does the Home Secretary expect the legislation to be complete and in place?
    Mr. Hurd: We need to think it through carefully, but Sir Philip Woodfield clearly showed that the Charity Commission ought to spend more time monitoring and spotting the kind of problem to which the hon. Member referred, and less time carrying through pernickety procedures laid down by law, which should not have the same priority.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: My right hon. Friend's announcement is very welcome on the Government side of the House. Does he accept that too many bodies which do not deserve it are taking considerable tax advantage of charitable status? Will he also accept that too many charities are suffering from maladministration and that too many charities are engaged in political advertising and political activity?
    Mr. Hurd: There has been a huge expansion of charitable activity in recent years. We need to make sure that the framework of law is right to guard against the problems. I am holding a seminar at the Home Office on Monday, to which many leading charities will be sending people, to clarify in our own minds more thoroughly what the content of legislation might be.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of their present position, can the Home Secretary tell us whether the Liberals and the SDP would now qualify for charity assistance?
    Mr. Hurd: I think they would have some difficulty in submitting to the commission the necessary details of their rules and membership.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest crime figures.
    Mr. John Patten: In the 12 months to the end of September 1987 recorded crime was 2·6 per cent. higher than in the previous 12 months. This is less than half the long-term rate of increase in recorded crime since the mid-1950s.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although one of the greatest deterrents against crime must be the ability to be caught, the Thames Valley police force, which he and I share, has the lowest ratio of police to public anywhere in the country? Can he give my constituents and his any hope on this point?
    Mr. Patten: Thames Valley police force has just had an increase, and another increase in manpower is available from 1 April. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes into account the changes in population and in the resources available to the police locally, as well as the crime pattern, in deciding on future increases in police manpower. Thames Valley police force have just had a number of additional policemen authorised.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents have a great responsibility for their children, and is she aware that parents who find themselves at risk of transmitting severe genetic disorders, such as epidermolysis bullosa, which cannot be detected until the 18th week, wish to choose, on medical advice, whether or not they should continue with such a pregnancy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very effectively. It is a matter that will be considered in the debate tomorrow, when doubtless hon. Members will make up their own minds about how to vote on that Bill. It is for each of us to do that. Speaking for myself, as the Bill is drafted at present, I could not support it.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am glad that, in at least one area, the Prime Minister and I are in complete agreement. When it is clear that the Prime Minister has enough money to meet the demands of the presidents of the royal colleges and of the nurses, without further dispute and without further crisis, why does she not use that money now?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen from the public expenditure White Paper published yesterday that there is a very substantial increase in National Health Service expenditure for next year, 1988–89, of £1,100 million.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows that those figures are calculated on exactly the same basis as the figures for this year, which required her to find some supplementary sums and which still leave the hospitals in deficit. Does she not realise that she is guaranteeing a further underfunding crisis for next year unless there is an additional amount? Why does she not make Budget day a National Health day?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the public expenditure estimates have just been published. Before those were published, in December an additional £100 million was made available to the National Health Service to get over this difficult time of year for some. The amount of public expenditure has been decided. The Budget is about how to raise the taxation and borrowing, not how to add extra expenditure.
    Mr. Forman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great pity that the Opposition and some parts of the media do not pay more attention to all the good news in the National Health Service? Was she as heartened as I was to learn of the formal opening earlier this week of the new maternity unit at St. Helier's hospital in my constituency, where the dedicated staff are able to deliver 10 babies a day? Does she agree that this is a sign of the excellent performance in the National Health Service and also of the vitality of the nation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I noted the opening of that hospital, and I congratulate it on the way in which it has got up to its fullest possible capacity and on the excellent work it is doing. It would be pertinent to remind the House that, although we hear of difficult cases from time to time, since we discussed the National Health Service last week there have been about 45,000 operations in the NHS. That is not a Health Service in crisis. We are doing very well.
    Dr. Owen: Surely the wise decision of the Royal College of Nursing not to sanction any strike action now deserves more than mere verbal support. Will the Prime Minister give it the assurance that it wants to hear, which is that the pay rise due to nurses will be funded in full by the Government, and that the price for that will not be exacted in any way from the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: The Royal College of Nursing, for which we have the highest regard, is very much aware that the nurses were given an independent pay review body because the royal college had never gone on strike, as it cared too much for its duty to patients. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said. May I remind him that the Government of which he was a member cut the pay of nurses by 20 per cent. in real terms?
    Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of the late Aneurin Bevan, who said that he would stuff
    1092
    the mouths of the doctors with gold? As doctors have been well rewarded over the years, is it not right to expect them to make their contribution to improving efficiency and value for money in the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone has a duty to obtain the maximum from the enormous amount of resources that the taxpayer pays to the Health Service, to operate with maximum efficiency and treat the maximum number of patients. Certainly, performance varies greatly between districts and hospitals, and it is with a view to examining that that we are obtaining some interesting figures and hoping to raise the standards of those who are not so good at using their resources to the standards of the best. Doctors will play a welcome part in that process.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the continuing difficulties of Chester district health authority, which treats thousands of my constituents? Does she know that on Christmas Eve two elderly patients were transferred between hospitals in a 4-tonne Bedford van because of a result of cuts? Does she know that that van was cold, dirty and smelly? Would the right hon. Lady like any member of her family to be transferred in such a shameful way, and does she realise that we do not think the Health Service is safe in her hands?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, those matters must be addressed to the local management, because it is responsible for the conditions. From 1979 up to March 1988—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to know the extra amount of money that the taxpayer has found for the Welsh Health Service —[Interruption.] Yes, it is the taxpayer who finds the money. Almost £500 million at current prices has been invested in the capital of the hospital and community health service in Wales, and expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales has risen by a third, after allowing for general inflation between 1979 and 1987. It is for the management to make the best of the opportunities that that money affords them.
    Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that it is not a simple matter of more money— billions more have been spent on the NHS, and billions more are planned to be spent—but that it is also a case of efficiency, good management and evaluation between hospitals and practices?
    The Prime Minister: We notice great differences between departments, hospitals and districts in how the money is spent and we are trying, as I said, to bring more of the best practices to those areas that have hitherto not been able to manage as well, although they may have had as many consultants and nurses. In general, the Health Service is expanding, it is treating many more patients, it is doing many more operations and it is treating more day and out-patients. The polls show that 80 per cent. of the enormous number of people who use the Health Service every year are highly satisfied with the treatment that they receive.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Why is the Prime Minister demanding extra-special NATO meetings? Is it to bounce the

    1093
    Germans to accept battlefield nuclear weapons, which they do not want, or is it to tie President Reagan's hands in the coming peace talks? Is the Prime Minister using NATO to nuke the negotiations? Would not the money which she is determined to spend on new bombs be better spent on the Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: No. If we did not have an effective defence there would be nothing like such a good Health Service, education service or standard of living. That has been mostly accepted by past Labour Governments. I understand that it does not seem to be accepted by the present Labour party.
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wood: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deplorable action of the Birmingham council in trying to prevent the free extra tuition for gifted children in the area, which teachers are prepared to provide? Is it not a duty of a local education authority to ensure that there is good education to maximise the abilities of the children in the area?
    The Prime Minister: I saw those reports this morning. I have not been able to find out whether they are accurate, but if they are I hope that everyone will condemn the action. The teachers are willing to give those especially gifted pupils extra tuition on Saturday morning. I think it is our duty to give every child a chance to develop its best talents and abilities and not to let the Socialist dogma of levelling down interfere with that process.
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pendry: Will the Prime Minister take time out today to talk to the chairperson of the Tameside and Glossop health authority to discuss the proposed cuts in health care: 24 per cent. in orthopaedic beds, when there has been a 51 per cent. increase in the waiting list this year; 18 per cent. in surgical beds; 19 per cent. in medical beds; and the closure of a hospital? All this in an area that the Black report described as one of the worst in the country for health provision. Will she come with me to Tameside to meet the doctors, nurses and patients to gauge their opinion of these Government-imposed cuts?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have made inquiries from the Tameside and Glossop health authority. The number of patients that it has been treating since the reorganisation of 1982 is substantially up. In-patients are up by 34 per cent., and out-patients by 10 per cent. On capital building, there has been completed in the Tameside and Glossop health area
    1094
    a £2·6 million geriatric unit and there is under construction a £16·6 million phase 2 redevelopment of Tanieside general. It has received £110,800 extra from the waiting list fund for additional orthopaedic, gynaecological and ear, nose and throat patients, et cetera, et cetera.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on the firm and proper stand that they are making on the question of extra finance for the National Health Service? Does she agree that there is no shortage of funds, but that those funds are being improperly used and that what we need is greater efficiency? Does she further agree that in the whole 40 years of the lifetime of the National Health Service it has never been properly managed? [Interruption.] Why is it that we have 12 chairmen employing a total of 870,000 people in the other nationalised industries —[Interruption.]—but have never had a chairman with full and effective power to look after the National Health Service.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Well over a million—nearly l¼ million—people work the National Health Service. It can be properly run only by effective management. It was in the lifetime of this Government that managers were appointed. It is not the Government who provide finance; it is the taxpayer. This year the average family of four provided to the Health Service £1,500 in taxes and charges. Next year the average family will provide in taxes and charges £1,600 to sustain the National Health Service. It has a right to expect that money to be effectively used.
    Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fields: Despite the Prime Minister's pathological hatred of the Health Service, which she sees as a manifestation of Socialism to be destroyed, is she aware that on Wednesday 10 February Health Service workers and trade unionists in Liverpool will be engaging in a day of action to defend the Health Service? Will she now, at the eleventh hour, instruct the Chancellor, instead of giving tax handouts to the rich, to divert that money to the Health Service, or is she prepared to accept full responsibility in the event of a nationwide National Health Service dispute?
    The Prime Minister: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would condemn those who take strike action at the expense of the patients—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has the right to reply.
    The Prime Minister: They are hitting out deliberately at the patients. It sounds as if the Labour party supports that strike and that industrial action.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill.
Motion on the London Regional Transport (Levy) Order.
TUESDAY 26 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 27 JANUARY — Opposition Day (8th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Government of Scotland".
Motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 208).
Remaining stages of the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
THURSDAY 28 JANUARY — Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords], followed by Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
FRIDAY 29 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills
MONDAY I FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill.
Mr. Dobson: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. First, will he give an undertaking that the new guidelines on the immigration rules, which directly affect the rights of hon. Members, will be debated on the Floor of the House in prime time before the consultation period expires?
Will the right hon. Gentleman commit the Merchant Shipping Bill to the scrutiny of a Special Standing Committee?
In view of the reports that the Secretary of State for the Environment is now planning to sell off the Crown Suppliers, with the possible loss of 1,900 jobs, may we have an urgent statement on that latest proposed rip-off?
Will the Leader of the House also tell us when we can expect a debate on the social fund? The proposed changes are devastating for the very poorest people in our society, and the House must be given an opportunity to debate, and I hope reject, them.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that we shall soon have an opportunity to debate Members' accommodation and other facilities, in view of the continuing problems faced by many Members, especially new Members?
Finally, when will the televising of the House be debated? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, for the convenience of his right hon. and hon. Friends so that they can make the necessary arrangements, whether the Prime Minister intends to put on a three-line Whip to get them to vote against that?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked six questions, which I shall do my best to answer.
First, I can confirm that there will be a debate on the immigration rules on the Floor of the House, I hope at a convenient time before the consultation period has expired.
1096
I note the hon. Gentleman's request that the Merchant Shipping Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee. That matter is best pursued through the usual channels. It might be convenient if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport were to have a discussion about it; I think that that can be arranged.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been considering various options for the future of the Crown Suppliers, following advice from consultants. When he is in a position to make an announcement, I shall ensure that there is consultation through the usual channels about the form of that announcement.
I have nothing to say about the social fund today, but I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I recognise that Members' accommodation and the new building Sub-Committee report on phase 2 is an important matter and I shall certainly arrange for a debate. When that report is received, a suitable occasion can be arranged.
I told the Leader of the Opposition last week that I hoped to be able to announce the date of the debate on televising the House today and I can inform the House that, subject to there being no unforeseen events, the debate will take place on Tuesday 9 February.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In order to facilitate the passage of the Government's business through the House, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Serjeant at Arms about the unacceptable heat in the Palace of Westminster? Is he aware that in the Committee rooms upstairs the temperature is sometimes over 80 deg? Does he agree that, not only in the interests of economy but also in the interests of clear thinking, the heating should be turned down in what is a mild winter?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall take on board what my hon. Friend says about the heat in the Committee rooms, although I am not entirely sure that all the heat is generated by the heating system.
Mr. James Wallace: Have there been any developments in the past seven days which will allow the House to give further directions to the Committee of Selection on the setting up of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Furthermore, the Leader of the House will be aware of the dismay that a major statement on the future of radio broadcasting should be made by way of a written answer. In view of that, will the House have an opportunity to debate that in the relatively near future?
Mr. Wakeham: Discussions are still going on to see whether we can find a satisfactory solution to the problem of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I have written to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and, when I have heard from him, I hope that that will help the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has answered questions about the announcement on broadcasting today. The form of any announcement by the Government is obviously a matter for the Government's judgment, but we shall find time for a debate. When legislation comes forward, that will be an opportunity.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend draw to his colleagues' attention the need for the

1097
Government to table an amendment which will draw to the attention of the House not only the disastrous consequences for Scotland but the most serious implications for the House of the Opposition's proposals for the future government of Scotland? Does he agree that the Labour party has spent the past ten years failing to answer the West Lothian question? Is it too much to hope that we shall have an answer on Wednesday?
Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, those are exactly the points that I know my right hon. Friend and others will want to make in the debate. The question of an amendment to the motion is best left until we see what the Opposition motion is.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House reintroduce the 10-minute limit for speeches in major debates? You said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), that on Tuesday of this week, on a major debate on the Health Service, affecting all constituents of all hon. Members, 25 Members were called and 30 were not. A number of speeches by Privy Councillors could have been cut much shorter. Many Back Benchers would have been afforded the opportunity of speaking if the 10-minute limit had been introduced. I ask the Leader of the House to arrange an urgent debate on the matter.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of feeling. In the past few days I have been in contact with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who leads for the Opposition on House of Commons matters, and through the usual channels, to find out when it would be best to deal with this matter and some other outstanding matters in the report of the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and the concern of other members of the Select Committee on European Legislation that many items are piling up which have not been put down for rapid debate, including all aspects of the present and future EEC budgets? On too many occasions Ministers may, either unwittingly or because they are in a difficult position, allow approval of measures which should gave been scrutinised by the House and the Select Committee in the proper way.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there have been one or two such cases, as my hon. Friend points out. In each case the Minister concerned has properly written to the Scrutiny Committee explaining why he felt it necessary to take the action, but I recognise that there is concern, and I will do my best to meet it.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on solvent abuse, because in my constituency and elsewhere young people are turning from glue sniffing to sniffing butane gas for gas lighters, which is freely available to people irrespective of their age? Should not this matter have the attention of the House before it gets very much worse?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, that is of course a very important matter. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about it, but I am afraid that I cannot see an early opportunity for a debate, although I will certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the synthetic indignation of the Opposition about the actions of the Patronage Secretary with regard to private Members' business last week. As he is also aware that hypocrisy is not an ingredient of the debates in the House, I wonder whether, through the usual channels, he could make inquiries of the Labour party to see what pressure is being put on its members as to how they should vote tomorrow, and whether some of those pressures might infringe the rules of privilege of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I have said to my hon. Friend before that I recognise his concern about this matter, but I believe that the usual channels are best kept to private discussions. I am not sure that I shall be asking the questions he wants me to ask.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that I received a letter this morning from a woman whose father almost died six years ago after taking the drug Opren? she said that she is ashamed to say that she now wishes he had died, in view of his appalling suffering. He is now bedridden, in pain, needs constant attention day and night, and has no hope and no dignity. I have many hundreds of similar letters about the sufferings of those who have taken Opren. Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that all my Adjournment debates, early-day motions and parliamentary questions are inadequate and that we must have a full debate in order to knock some sense into the multinational company, Eli Lilly, which is offering an average of £2,000 for such injuries? We must debate how to avoid similar drug disasters in future.
Mr. Wakeham: I think the whole House recognises that, when the right hon. Gentleman takes up a case, he pursues it with great vigour and sincerity. Having said that, I do not believe that I can immediately offer a debate on the subject, but I will have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the work of the Liaison Committee, which seems to be putting Thomas Cook to shame as it sends Select Committees to the far east, the Mediterranean and the United States? In view of the fact that overseas travel now costs a third of a million pounds a year, would it not be better to have a more rigorous and independent assessment of the applications for such trips rather than the secretive back-scratching that goes on between Select Committee Chairmen?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I can promise a debate on the Liaison Committee at the moment, but if it should make a report to the House obviously we shall concern ourselves with the matter. As I understand it, the Liaison Committee scrutinises such applications with the greatest possible care.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Faulds: I thought I was called—
Mr. Tony Banks: Called what?
Mr. Faulds: If I might have a word in this conversation—
Mr. Speaker: I would welcome it.
Mr. Faulds: Thank you, Sir. Before the worst elements in the Government, including the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, have their destructive way with public service broadcasting in this country, would the right hon. Gentleman determine to allow the House to debate and defend this principle, and in particular the BBC?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that debates on broadcasting are an important part of the debates in this House and that there must be a debate on this issue before too long. I cannot promise anything more than I have already said, but it is certainly a matter that I will consider.
Mr. Tim Smith: On the question of over-lengthy speeches raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), is not the problem the fact that there are now too many Privy Councillors and ex-Ministers in this House? Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Prime Minister to see whether some of them could be sent to the House of Lords, where there appears to be a need for good people?
Mr. Wakeham: That may be so, but the principal problem of over-long speeches is that hon. Members speak for too long.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House allow a debate, in early course, on the Government's policy towards mergers and acquisitions, given the remarkable circumstances whereby the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refers the Kuwaiti minority investment in BP—a company with no golden share—to the Director General of Fair Trading while, simultaneously, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to take effective action in BP's bid for Britoil — a company with a golden share? Indeed, the Chancellor gave a clear commitment to Britoil's independence before the House of Commons on 31 March 1982. We need a debate so that the Government can explain the apparent hypocrisy in their policy towards Britain's and Scotland's largest company.
Mr. Wakeham: We obviously will have debates on these subjects from time to time. However, I do not believe that the events of recent weeks make the need for such debates more urgent than it was. I believe that, in both the cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acted entirely properly. Indeed, the actions of the Chancellor were the subject of a statement to this House.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), would it not be a good idea if all Privy Councillors, with the obvious exception of the Father of the House, were restricted to four priority speeches a year?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know that I can necessarily go along with that. I am not sure that we need too many rules about speeches. I believe the basis upon which the Speaker selects who should speak in debates—it is one that has served us for many hundreds of years—is probably the best basis.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the Leader of the House aware that a kind of creeping censorship over the spoken and written word is occurring under this Government? We saw it last Friday and we are now seeing it with the announcement of a possible debate, some time
1100
in the future, regarding broadcasting when every organisation outside the House is already discussing it. Is it not time that we had a little glasnost in Britain and we discussed what is happening to the spoken and written word?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Subjects for debate in this House are not entirely a matter for the Government. As I said, I shall see what can be done, but there are other ways in which the hon. Gentleman might press for a debate.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: There is growing evidence that perpetrators of Nazi war crimes are sheltering in this country, yet there is no provision in British law for them to be brought to justice. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining the matter and considering whether there should be a change in the law, would it not be appropriate for us to have a debate to consider whether the House is in favour of the introduction of measures to change the existing law?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned that matter in the debate earlier this week. He said that, when the Government have considered the matter more fully, he will ensure that the House is informed. The best plan is to wait until that happens and then decide how best to proceed.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House agree to an urgent debate on the threatened closure of the only hospital in south-east Leeds? Will he accept that the regular statements and rhetoric from the Dispatch Box do not help the people of Rothwell, where the closure of St. George's hospital will cause tremendous hardship? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to an early debate, before Budget day, so that we can explain in detail the problems that we face as a result of hospital closures in south-east Leeds and my constituency?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we had a debate on the Health Service earlier this week, and it would not be reasonable to expect me to find time for another debate quite so soon. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter, he could perhaps try his luck at securing an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention once more the question of the debate recommended to him by the European Legislation Committee on steel closures in the Common Market? The matter has been outstanding on his list since the beginning of December, before the Minister went to express his views and vote in the Council of Ministers, yet it has still not been debated. It seriously affects steel makers in this country and, indeed, the denationalisation of the steel industry, which is to be proposed to the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of that subject, and I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the matter. I shall refer it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry, but I do not promise a debate in the next week.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I raise with the Leader of the House for the fourth time the question of Kuwaiti purchases of BP shares and the fact that the Arabs are buying up the North sea through BP?

1101
As no Minister has yet made a statement on these matters at the Dispatch Box, is it not time that such a statement was forthcoming? Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon Ministers the fact that we want questions answered in the Chamber?
Mr. Wakeham: The question whether there should be a statement in the House is ultimately for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that, his right course is to table a question.
Mr. James Kilfedder: May we have an urgent debate on the warning issued yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who told the people of Ulster to expect a fresh and terrible campaign of terrorism as a result of support given, and arms provided, by Libya to the Provisional IRA? Those arms were apparently landed in the Irish Republic in three separate shipments. The Ulster people have suffered two decades of terrible terrorism and are now demoralised by the Anglo-Eire Agreement, which they perceive as weakening their position in the United Kingdom. Therefore, is it not vital to have a debate—quite apart from Tuesday's debate on the Army — to enable all Northern Ireland Members to express their fears and investigate what the Government intend to do to protect the people of Northern Ireland and the members of the security forces from further atrocities?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of debates on Northern Ireland. I regret that I cannot offer my hon. Friend a debate on the subject next week. However, he can question the Secretary of State on Thursday during Northern Ireland questions.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House accept that I would welcome a debate on the largely pin-striped meetings of the Liaison Committee because the vote on the £300,000 expenditure referred to by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) would reveal that there was a 9 to I vote in favour and that I was the sole Member to vote against it?
I want to make a suggestion about the problem of continuing hospital closures and the debating system. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Services next week to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about the various closures proposed by the area health authorities, most of which have puppet Tory chairmen in charge? The Secretary of State could then explain why Bradford area health authority is proposing hospital closures and not fulfilling appointments, which amounts to a cut of more than £3 million in two years. We could question the Secretary of State about that. If those matters are going to take a long time, as seems likely, Opposition Members would be quite happy to take the time to examine the massive cuts that are continuing to take place.
Mr. Wakeham: In any debate about the Health Service, we should refer to the expansion as well as the closure of facilities. The picture is not as the hon. Gentleman described.
I do not believe that I should say anything more than I have already said about the Liaison Committee. If the Liaison Committee reports to the House, we will find an opportunity to debate its report if that seems appropriate.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: May I invite my right hon. Friend to be less resistant to the advances from the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and the how Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), and to have a debate on public service broadcasting because many of us believe that that would be a useful innovation for the BBC? Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today's newspapers that the "Panorama" team intends to make a programme on the National Health Service? However, to prove that the hospital service is overstretched, the team has had to import bogus patients into a waiting room to make it look as if it was full. When one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who had undergone two hip replacement operations by the National Health Service, offered to be interviewed, the "Panorama" team lost interest because he was not going to be critical of the National Health Service and the Government's role.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend puts his points very persuasively. I said that I would look at it again, and I will. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 533 about the Nicaragua and Guatemala accord?
[That this house warmly congratulates the President and Government of Nicaragua on complying with the terms of the Guatemala Accord; asks the United States Congress to vote down any proposal from President Reagan to provide additional funds for the Contra terrorists; and calls upon the United States Government to respect the sovereignty of Nicaragua and allow the countries of central America the freedom to determine their own political futures.]
May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the fact that on 3 February the United States Congress will discuss a proposal from President Reagan to extend further assistance to the Contra terrorists, to arrange a prior debate in this House because of the interest in this country about what is happening in central America and because of the presence of British forces in Belize? At least the United States Congress would know the views of the British Parliament about the further arming and funding of terrorists by President Reagan.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on that subject. However, the central American Presidents, at their meeting on 15–16 January, stated that they were not entirely satisfied with the implementation of the agreement so far, and they agreed to fulfil their undertakings immediately. We appeal to all central Americans, especially those from Nicaragua, to meet that new undertaking.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noted early-day motion 275 calling for the abolition of the national dock labour scheme, which now has the support of the very large number of 209 hon. Members?
[This House believes that the National Dock Labour Scheme is an anachronism which both endangers the viability of jobs in the scheme areas and acts as a deterrent to job creation by new ventures; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to abolish the scheme, and open negotiations immediately with employers and unions to bring that about.]
That support is representative of the frustration fell in the House at the continuing existence of this anachronism,

1103
which is having a bad effect on the growth of employment in the inner cities where most of the scheme ports are located. Will my right hon. Friend talk to our right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Employment with a view to getting on with the negotiations, which will allow legislation to be tabled in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government are aware of the views of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the drawbacks of the national dock labour scheme. However, as we have made clear to the House, there are no plans at present to change its operation.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 512, which draws attention to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975?
[That this House calls on the Government to strengthen the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in ways to ensure that: (a) those bringing claims of sexual harassment under section 1(1) of the Act cannot be subjected to questioning on their sexual attitudes, nor should such information be relevant to the case (b) compensation cannot be reduced as a result of reference to views of the victim's character and (c) compensation reflects the seriousness of the offence.]
Recently, a tribunal allowed an employer to question a woman who had won her case about her sexual attitudes and, consequently, it reduced the compensation. Will the Leader of the House make time to debate this serious issue?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that it is a very serious issue. The Equal Opportunities Commission has recently completed a review of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and we expect it to be submitted to my right hon. Friend shortly. He will consider its proposals for any changes in the legislation, and that might give us the opportunity of a debate on the subject.
Mr. Bill Walker: On Wednesday next week we shall again have an opportunity to debate the government of Scotland. When will we have an opportunity to debate the good government of the United Kingdom, particularly the needs of London and the south, as the Opposition parties have difficulty in finding Members who represent that area to staff Committees? My right hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties that we have been having in Standing Committee, with interruptions caused by difficulties of that nature coming from the north.
Mr. Wakeham: We have plenty of opportunities to debate the good government of England, Wales and Scotland, and that is the best way to proceed. The Opposition have chosen Scotland for their debate next Wednesday, which is their right.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House take the appropriate steps to ensure the publication of the 1988 Register of Members' Interests so that those of us who sympathise with nurses working in hospitals and those who are taking action can send them photocopies of the appropriate pages showing all those Tory Members of Parliament who are attacking nurses for being moonlighters when they themselves have page after page of directorships, like the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who has more than four directorships with
1104
salaries adding up to more than £50,000? He is one of the biggest moonlighters in this building, yet he has the cheek to attack nurses who are on paltry wages. We need that register so that we can get that point across to the people who matter.
Mr. Wakeham: The register will be published as soon as possible. I shall look into why the printing has not been dealt with, although the register is available in the Library. Damage is done to the Health Service by the exaggerated and excessive remarks of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends—they are much more damaging than anything else.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of an early debate on agriculture? The National Farmers Union is about to hold its annual meeting, and with the vital negotiations that are proceeding in Europe, the pressure on farming and the clear disparity in the green pound, would this not be an entirely appropriate and seasonal moment for a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a subject that I have in mind for a debate in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Leader of the House accept that many people in social services and social work departments share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the consequences of the social fund on those departments? Does he agree that the present crisis in the National Health Service means that there is a much greater demand on social workers? The morale of social workers in this country is at a low ebb. Therefore, can we have an urgent debate on these urgent matters?
Mr. Wakeham: These are important matters, and there are two sides to most of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. I cannot add anything to what I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. Friend may realise that, in spite of many probing parliamentary questions, 16,500 aerospace workers in Lancashire are still concerned about the future of the European fighter aircraft? Will he find time to have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence, so that he can make a statement to reconfirm the British Government's commitment to this vital project and tell us what he is doing to persuade the German Government to commit themselves to the project as fully as our Government?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House, in consultation with the Home Secretary, arrange for any Conservative Members intending to participate in the debate next week on the government of Scotland to be encouraged to read the excellent novel, "Scotch on the Rocks"?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will take part in the debate next week. I shall listen to their contributions with interest, but they will be interspersed with a number of speeches from the Opposition, which I suspect will not be quite as good.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend take time to look at early-day motion 542?
[That this House deplores the appointment by Derbyshire County Council of Mr. Reg Race, former honourable Member for Wood Green, former Research Officer for the National Union of Public Employees, former head of the Greater London Council's programme office, former consultant to the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and former researcher to the Labour-fitnded London Government Information Unit, to the £46,000 a year post of County Director; and believes that all local authority employees should be politically impartial and that Derbyshire County Council is making appointments on the basis of whether or not candidates are acceptable to the ruling group's left-wing views and not on the basis of merit and experience.]
He will see that it relates to the appointment, as county director of Derbyshire county council, of a former Labour Member of Parliament. Does he agree that this raises some disturbing questions about the conduct of good local government? This is only one of a number of political appointments in paid employment on long-term contracts that have been made by that authority which damage Derbyshire's reputation as an employer. Does he agree that this should be the subject of a debate under the title of "The code of local government"?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important matter. Effective local government rests solidly on politically neutral officers serving, with equal commitment, whichever party may be in political control. There is increasing concern that in some cases appointments are politically motivated. The Widdicombe committee has put forward proposals aimed at preventing such abuses, and the Government are giving them careful consideration.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the reply of the Leader of the House, for which you have no responsibility, may I raise a point with you as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission? Would it be possible, if the Register of Members' Interests is further delayed, for nurses to be allowed to be conducted into the Library so that they can see for themselves the Register of Members' Interests? Would it be possible for the Library to be open for one day so that the Government can show that the register is not being delayed and that the point about hypocrisy and double standards is not being shielded from the public gaze? If, unfortunately, nurses are driven out on strike by the Government's policies, it would be a good opportunity for them to come here and see the background of those hypocritical Tories who are attacking them.
Mr. Speaker: That matter was raised with me yesterday. I said that I would look into the reason for the delay in publishing the register. However, as the hon. Gentleman correctly says, it is available to hon. Members in the Library.
Mr. David Winnick: I wonder whether I might take up the attitude that you, Mr. Speaker, intend to take towards points of order. Inevitably, if we believe that the House is not being treated properly, hon.
1106
Members—this has happened for hundreds of years and will continue long after we are gone—raise the matter with the Speaker.
Yesterday, I understand that you did not want to take any more points of order, Sir. There was, if I may say so with respect, an important principle— the Government had decided to publish a White Paper without making a statement. The Home Secretary has, from his point of view, defended and justified that. Clearly, we are not satisfied; we were not satisfied at the time and we tried to raise a point of order. I know that a rubbishy article appeared in one of the newspapers saying that you were not exercising sufficient control. As I understand it, the House does not sit for the convenience of the Government —certainly not for the Government alone—and Back Benchers — those of us who hold no jobs, official or otherwise—take the House of Commons seriously. If we did not, we would not spend so much of our time here.
It is rather unfortunate — I hope that you. Mr. Speaker, will take this in the way that it is being presented and not as a criticism—that if we try to raise a point of order, even before we can get a word out, like yesterday, you shout us down, or tell us to sit down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I corrected that. Therefore, I hope that you will recognise that it is a legitimate way for Back Benchers to raise matters, and if we are refused we shall have to find other ways, such as Standing Order No. 20 applications, which I do not think you would appreciate. I hope that this point is understood.
Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised by an hon. Member yesterday and he was supported from his Front Bench. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard he will see that question was not directed to me but to the Leader of the House across the Chamber, and he responded. The point about the written question was a matter of Government business, not a matter of order at all.
I think the House will always support the Chair in dealing with points of order which are points of order, but points of controversy across the Chamber must be dealt with in different ways. If it is legitimate to raise such a matter through a Standing Order No. 20 application, that is the correct way to deal with it, not as a result of a point of order.
I should add that some hon. Members—not many—might be tempted to get in early by raising a point of order, rather than by making a speech in the debate to come. Yesterday, and indeed on other occasions this week, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wished to take part in our debates. That is equally true today. Points of order delay them and ensure that they do not get a fair chance.
Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a question of privilege and refer you to the precedent—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a question of privilege, he should write to me in the usual way and I will consider it. That is the rule, and has been so for some years.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could help the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is, as he has just told the House, a member of the Liaison Committee. I

1107
understand that that Committee met in closed session recently to discuss the expenditure of large sums of money for trips and that my hon. Friend gave the vote of that Committee. My understanding is that it is a rule of this House that matters that take place during private proceedings should not be brought to the House until the Committee has reported. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could reprimand my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South.
Mr. Speaker: I reprimand him.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). You will recall that on Tuesday I raised as a point of order the Home Secretary's release of information by way of a planted parliamentary question on the reorganisation of radio in this country. It may come as a bit of a surprise to you from time to time, Mr. Speaker, but I want to try to support the Chair as often as I possibly can. I should like that to be every single time.
However, I should also like to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have the right here to attempt to raise certain matters— for example, when we see the Home Secretary treating the House with what we believe to be contempt — certainly with discourtesy — in the way in which important Government announcements are sneaked in in that fashion.
Although Government business and the business of the House may not be your responsibility, Mr. Speaker — indeed, they are not—when Back Benchers, and indeed Front Benchers, are treated with contempt by Ministers, you, Sir, can certainly use your influence to intervene on our behalf so that we can call Government to account in the Chamber, which we are elected so to do. I should add that I have received complaints from Conservative Members about the way in which the Home Secretary acted on Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should study the Order Paper more carefully—[Interruption.] Well, if he
1108
had studied the Order Paper yesterday he would have seen that there would be an opportunity to raise those very matters on questions 6 and 7 today. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I allowed a full run on that matter. Indeed, every hon. Member who wished to participate at Question Time today on that question was called, including the hon. Gentleman.
In relation to an earlier point of order, I shall have to "unreprimand" the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) because I now see from the Votes and Proceedings which have been shown to me that the Committee of which he is a member has reported to the House. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was, in fact, going to draw that to your attention. I should like to conclude this amicable discussion between us, in which the Committee has been highlighted, by saying that when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) entered the House he had a reputation for defending people. I would not trust him to adopt that position for me in future.

BILL PRESENTED
  OVERSEAS AID (ASSISTANCE TO THE POOREST)
  Mr. Brian Wilson, supported by Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Tom Clarke, Miss Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Donald Anderson and Ms. Diane Abbott, presented a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to ensure that the bulk of United Kingdom official development assistance is concentrated on the poorest countries and the poorest people living in them; that a substantial proportion of aid spending is devoted to agricultural rural development to benefit especially women and children and to require the Overseas Development Administration to establish a timetable during which overall official United Nations aid targets may be reached: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February, and to be printed. [Bill 84].
Orders of the Day

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have to announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and his hon. Friends.
  I must also draw to the attention of the House yet again the fact that about 26 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I noticed that the issue of 10-minute speeches was raised during business questions. It would be most helpful to the Chair if brief speeches could be made today, so that not too many hon. Members return to their constituencies in distress this weekend.
  4.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House hardly needs me to recall the background to this Bill. The tragedy at Hungerford in August last year did not create the problem which the Bill, like the 1968 Act, seeks to tackle but it underlined the nature of that problem indelibly, in terms which no one will forget. Well before then, we had set work in hand in the context of proposals for a firearms amnesty this year. Well before then, there had been tragic incidents and strong calls from the police for firmer controls. Hungerford ensured that there would be no let-up. Every tragic crime since then —there have been several—involving the use of firearms has intensified the loss of public confidence in the present system of control. It is not in anyone's interest to leave unchanged such a shaky system. The need for a reformed Act in which both public and shooters can have confidence is overwhelmingly felt, and this Bill is the result.
  I hope that I have been careful throughout not to overstate the argument. I do not pretend that what is offered in this Bill can provide any absolute guarantee against criminal abuse or negligent misuse of guns. Hungerford cannot be guaranteed against a Ryan. What the Bill can and does do is to reduce the risk, to the individual citizen and the community at large, of such disasters. The safety of the citizen and the community has been our main concern in working out the Bill.
  That does not mean that we have ignored the rights of the legitimate shooter. Wherever possible, we have sought to accommodate the needs and interests of the many responsible shooters from all walks of life. I have declined to be hustled by the opposition parties or by the media to go faster or further. We have no desire to hinder the legitimate sportsman, the gamekeeper or the farmer in pursuit of his sport or work. But obviously our overriding obligation is the protection of the citizen in the community.
  Before I describe the main provisions of the Bill let me say that, although we believe that the central pillars of our policy are right, we remain ready to listen to legitimate concerns on matters of detail. Indeed, our White Paper was designed to enable people to study and comment on the proposals in a way that would inform debate in proceedings on the Bill.
  It is entirely natural that the proposals should cause some anxiety among legitimate shooters. As it happens, I
  1110
  have spent a large part of my life among people who own guns. That comes of having been brought up on a farm, and now representing a country constituency. I have always known shooters to be highly sensible and practical people, which is, on the whole, borne out by my experience over recent weeks.
  There have been shrill, and I think largely unrepresentative, voices in the shooting press — [Interruption.] There have been some. Many of my hon. Friends will have received strong letters of protest, as we have in the Home Office. I congratulate them on the way in which they have resisted particular pressures and returned to the general argument. I have been impressed — and surprised — by the number of individual shooters who have come up to me and said that they thought we had got it about right. At the last meeting I had with my National Farmers Union constituency parliamentary committee, I led off on our proposals on firearms, expecting a good deal of opposition, because I suppose everyone in that room owned a shotgun. Instead of opposing, those farmers urged me to get on with it, because there were too many unknown people with guns wandering about over their land.
  Of course, users of guns, whether shotguns, rifles or pistols, have legitimate concerns and representations to make. That is why, contrary to some pressure, we refused to be stampeded on this, and have proceeded steadily by way of debate, statement, White Paper and now a Bill.
  With the genuine anxieties that exist very much in mind, we have been concerned that representatives of the shooting community should be properly heard. We have consulted widely, with organisations representing particular shooting activities and with those with an interest in shooting generally. There have been meetings between officials and over 20 such organisations, as well as with police and local authority and other representatives. I have met the British Shooting Sports Council, led by Lord Swansea and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), which includes a very wide range of constituent bodies covering sporting and trade interests. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has met the council on two further occasions, and has also met the Shooters Rights Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the United Kingdom Practical Rifle Commission. We have received views from a number of organisations that were specifically asked to comment, as well as from secretaries of clubs and the public generally. I apologise for the fact that, because of the volume of such correspondence, we have not been able to reply as quickly as we wished, but I assure the House that all views have been taken into account.
  As I proceed, I shall illustrate ways in which we have accommodated particular concerns expressed by shooters. There are some that we cannot meet without damaging the pillars of the Bill; but there are others on which the House will find that our mind is not closed.
  The Bill is relatively short, but also, inevitably, technical and complex. Clause 1 goes to the heart of it, because it extends the list of prohibited weapons and ammunition that can be held only with the specific authority of the Secretary of State. Such authority is not normally given to private individuals, and the clause lists various types of weapons and ammunition which we deem unsuitable for private possession. First and foremost among these are full-bore self-loading rifles of the type

  1111
  used by Ryan at Hungerford, and full-bore pump-action rifles. Self-loading or pump-action shotguns, which are short-barrelled or less than 40 in. in overall length, and revolving magazine shotguns, will also become prohibited. We have in addition taken the opportunity to prohibit a number of other weapons, including rocket launchers, mortars and stun guns. As for ammunition, explosive bullets will be banned, and, if capable of being used with a firearm, grenades, bombs, rockets, and shells. It is odd that some of those items were not already on the prohibited list. I hope the House will agree that there can be no justification for such weapons or ammunition being possessed by the private individual.
  We have not gone in, if I may so put it, with a blunderbuss. It will be seen that .22 rim fire pump-action and self-loading rifles, which are widely used for vermin control, are not caught by the ban. When I first outlined our ideas in September, I indicated that we were minded to ban all short-barrelled smooth-bore guns. The shooting organisations have drawn my attention to the legitimate, traditional uses for such guns. Examples include rook guns, muzzle-loading guns, Very signalling pistols and stag-dispatching guns. We decided that those could properly remain under section I control.
  I recognise that the ban on self-loading rifles will affect the practical rifle shooter, who will not be able to continue his sport with that gun. The House will have to weigh a number of considerations, as we have had to do, including lethality and the extent of use. In my view, the limited sporting use of such weapons is outweighed by the power to kill, and I do not feel that we should ask the House to accept the risk of further misuse.
  We have no wish to hinder practical shooting as a sport. It may be little consolation to the self-loading rifle enthusiast, but he will of course be able to use the traditional bolt action rifle, or to join in other practical shooting events that use pistols or shotguns.
  The issue of compensation arose at Question Time. I recognise that compensation for those whose weapons will be prohibited causes considerable concern to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and possibly to Opposition Members as well. As my hon. Friend the Minister said in answer to questions, there are serious objections to compensation. I am prepared to give further thought to the fresh arguments that are put forward. However, I must add that I see considerable difficulties of both principle and practice in any form of compensation scheme.
  Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend has been touching on the practical difficulties. Will he consider the man with a legitimate licence, whose legitimate weapon is now to be made illegal? All the advice that he has been given so far is that he can sell his weapon back to the trade. Has my right hon. Friend thought of the greatest difficulty of all — that the only outlet for such weapons will be sale overseas, as a ready gift to terrorists?
  Mr. Hurd: I am afraid that huge quantities of such weapons are awash in the world. I do not believe that that argument is decisive. One of my hon. Friends has put it to me that we should not give compensation because on other occasions when certain products have been banned by domestic or European legislation, no compensation has been paid, and it would therefore be inequitable to pay it in this instance. I am using that argument simply to show
  1112
  some of the difficulties of principle, as well as practice. But, as I have said, we are prepared to give further thought to argument on the matter, and my hon. Friend and I will listen carefully to points made on the subject, either in this debate or in correspondence we have received.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend give some instances of certain classes of people being hit in the pocket by Bills passed in this place?
  Mr. Hurd: The example given to me involved a product described as a scented eraser, which was manufactured in a certain constituency and cannot be manufactured any longer. The machinery and process involved in its manufacture therefore have lost their value. I simply use that as a small example of the principle involved.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The Home Secretary may wish to consider two points. First, a person with a banned weapon may well be prepared, particularly if there are adverse financial circumstances, to consider selling that weapon unlawfully to someone who is not particularly concerned about complying with the law.
  My second point concerns a constituency case. A very responsible young man, whom I have known for a long time—he is a student, with very little money—owns a weapon, and is going to find that his hobby will cost him very dear. Such cases surely merit consideration.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman put his second point clearly, but I do not think that the first is very sound. The weapon is already listed on a section 1 firearm certificate, and its destination would be a matter for inquiries.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Cannot my right hon. Friend, in these exceptional circumstances, justify paying compensation, on the basis that it will take these weapons out of circulation? Otherwise, is there not a risk that we shall find some of our soldiers in Northern Ireland being killed by weapons that have filtered through the system, because they have not been taken out of circulation as a result of the measure?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not think that they could be sold illegally, for the reason that I have already given. The point will clearly come up in the debate. I have said that we are prepared to give it further thought. If practical suggestions can be made to resolve some of the difficulties that I have mentioned, it will be helpful.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am also grateful that he is prepared to reconsider compensation. I have been approached by an engineer, a respectable member of my community, who has three self-loading rifles. On the assumption that he will be forced to sell them, he has approached six dealers, all of whom said that self-loading rifles were virtually unsaleable. Four were unwilling or unable to accept any price, and the other two offered him about £30 and about £10 respectively—which, if he sold the rifles, would represent a loss of £735.
  Mr. Hurd: I note that illustration of the argument.
  Mr. William Ross rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No; I have given way four times, I think, on this point.
  Clause 1 also provides a reserve power for the Secretary of State to make an order to add to the list of prohibited weapons and ammunition. Such an addition may be made

  1113
  in respect of any firearm or ammunition, but not an air weapon which is not prohibited but which appears to be especially dangerous. This is not a power to be used lightly — it should be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, the affirmative procedure, but I feel it is essential because of the rapid development of weapons technology.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No; I must get on.
  Some may feel that the provision is drawn rather too widely, but do we really need primary legislation every time a new weapon which ought to be prohibited comes on to the market? It is because of such developments that we have in the Bill provision to deal with burst fire weapons and stun guns; stun guns have caused a good deal of concern. If we seek to qualify the reserve power too much we may limit the scope for dealing with the unforeseen.
  The effect of clause 2 is to lift pump-action and self-loading shotguns of normal length to section I control under the 1968 Act— the same level of control, that is, as exists for pistols and bolt-action rifles. This is justified by the significantly greater rate of fire which such guns have over conventional single and double-barrelled shotguns. There are relatively few sporting purposes for which a conventional shotgun will not serve just as well as a pump-action or self-loading one, and in future there is no question of prohibition but those who want to hold such weapons will have to satisfy the police that they have a good reason for wishing to do so. This clause also lifts the more lethal types of shotgun ammunition —cartridges which contain the larger pellets of shot, for which, again, there is little sporting justification—under full section 1 control.
  Clause 3 details the new criteria for the issue and renewal of shotgun certificates. There have been a number of recent incidents involving the misuse of legally held shotguns. We want to reduce the danger of shotguns falling into the wrong hands and to ensure that where they are held lawfully they are kept safely and cannot easily be acquired or used by those with criminal intent.
  Under present legislation, a chief officer of police must grant a shotgun certificate unless he has reason to believe that the applicant is prohibited by the Act from possessing a shotgun, or that such possession by the applicant would endanger the public safety or the peace. Clause 3 requires the chief officer to be satisfied that the public safety or the peace will not be endangered. This will give the chief officer discretion to satisfy himself, by means of a home inspection if necessary, that shotguns are being stored securely.
  Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend will know that various chief constables are zealous in certain departments, such as booking people for speeding, drink driving, and so on. Can he assure the House that chief constables will be more or less evenhanded under the good reason provision of the Bill? On refusal, will there be a right of appeal for the individual?
  Mr. Hurd: The answer to the second point is yes. That is very important. On the first point, I am coming to parts of the Bill which limit the discretion of chief officers of police for the kind of reason that my hon. Friend has in mind when we come to good reason. We shall also be
  1114
  issuing guidance. I think it is reasonable in general that chief officers of police should apply their powers in the light of local circumstances, knowing that there is a right of appeal. In some cases, particularly the carrying of shotguns from one place to another during or at the end of a shoot, there have been problems. We can iron out some of those by guidance. I am keen that we should do so to remove friction, which does not serve anybody's purpose.
  I was coming to the secure keeping clause. We propose to amend the Firearms Rules 1969 so that the requirement to keep a firearm in a secure place when not in actual use also extends to shotguns. In 1986 there were over 800 incidents in which shotguns were reported to have been stolen, including over 500 thefts from residential properties. I am aware of concern that such a requirement should not operate unreasonably on people who want to carry guns from one place to another. It is important that there should be sensible guidance to the police on this and related points.
  Clause 3 also provides for a shotgun certificate application to be refused where the police are satisfied that the applicant has no good reason for wishing to possess a shotgun. This will not affect the majority of shotgun users where the reason for holding a shotgun will be readily apparent. The existence of a good reason is not a matter for arbitrary decision. I know that there is a real worry that a future Labour Government might seek to use this to give expression to their views on what they call blood sport to declare, for example, that sporting purposes should not constitute a good reason for having a shotgun.
  That is why we have put on the face of the Bill, that is, in primary legislation which could be changed only by further primary legislation, that a good reason includes, sporting or competition purposes and vermin control. It will not be grounds for refusal merely that somebody wants to hold, but not use, shotguns that may be of sentimental value, for example. In my view the police will in practice need to make further inquiries only where there are genuine doubts about an applicant's intended use of a shotgun. They cannot do so at present. I do not believe that is right if judgments are to be made properly.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: There is a point of substance on which my right hon. Friend needs to advise the House. He has referred to giving the police guidance. So far as I know, this is not a statutory action. What is the status of the guidance which he gives to the police, and in what way does it bind the police to abide by it?
  Mr. Hurd: Guidance is not a direction. My hon. Friend knows the system of policing well enough to know that the relationship with the Home Secretary is not that the police receive directions from me on matters outside the law. Guidance is guidance. Chief officers on the whole comply with guidance. The guidance will be worked out not just between the Home Office and the police but with representatives of the shooting community because I am conscious that we will not get it right unless they are involved in advising on sensible guidance, which is the phrase I use.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in regard to guidance, that it

  1115
  would make great sense if the Bill contained provisions for a statutory expert, consultative committee that could advise Home Secretaries?
  Mr. Hurd: I understand that point. The question would then arise as to who should sit on it, what should be the police representation and what should be the representation of people who may not be so keen on the legitimate shooter's rights as I and my hon. Friends are. As I think we have shown in recent months, I am keen to keep in close touch with representatives of shooters, and I have given examples of that. When we come to the drafting of guidance, I believe that keeping in close touch will continue to be important. I would rather do that than set up a consultative body, given the arguments that would arise about its composition.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary tell us what he regards as the boundaries of acceptable guidance? From time to time we on the Opposition Benches talk about guiding chief constables and it is called political interference. When does one start and the other end?
  Mr. Hurd: Interference would occur if the proposals of the Labour manifesto were ever to be implemented, which would by law put the operations and priorities of chief constables under the control of local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman's red herring is not even particularly ingenious.
  Clause 4 provides for the listing on a shotgun certificate of details of all the shotguns possessed by the holder and for notification of transfers. I found it odd that the police should have so little knowledge about the type or numbers of shotguns which are legally held. I believe it represents an important improvement in the nature of controls that the police should have more detailed information about the possession and movement of shotguns. Clause 5 deals with the sale of shotgun ammuntion. At present, the only control on shotgun ammunition is that it may not be sold to persons under the age of 17. There is nothing to prevent someone who does not possess a shotgun certificate, and who might qualify for one, from purchasing large quantities. This clause provides that, in future people seeking to purchase shotgun ammunition will, unless they are exempt from control, have to produce their shotgun certificate, or one belonging to a third party, together with an appropriate authorisation, when buying ammunition. This is a sensible and straightforward provision.
  Let us consider the effects of the provisions of clauses 3 to 5 on the holder of a traditional single or double-barrelled shotgun. The police will be able to come and check that he is keeping his shotguns safely. When his current certificate expires, he will need next time to list the guns that he holds on his new certificate, with numbers or a description. If he sells one of his shotguns, or buys another from someone who is not a registered dealer, he will need to tell the police. If necessary, the police will be able to ask him, when renewing his certificate, about his reasons for wanting one, but his sport, leisure activity or profession will count as a good reason by law, as will the fact that he has inherited shotguns, or wishes to collect them, without any intention of using them, provided other conditions, including security, are satisfied. That hardly amounts to an onerous burden on the legitimate,
  1116
  reponsible shotgun holder, but it will enable the police to keep an account of the weapons held by individuals, and keep track of them when they change hands, and it will give them the power to make closer inquires in cases of doubt.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position on temporary loan or changes of use and on weapons which are normally held within a family, in shared possession, where father and son might want to use them on alternate days, or where somebody is out shooting, his gun is unserviceable and he needs to borrow one to continue the shoot?
  Mr. Hurd: The Bill effectively provides against undue interference in those kinds of transactions or loans. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will comment in detail on those three likely contingencies when he winds up.
  I think that I can deal with the other provisions of the Bill rather more briefly. Clause 7 deals with the difficult problem of conversion from a higher classification to a lower classification or, indeed, deactivation. It provides that such weapons will retain their original, higher classification. There is a good deal of concern about the trade in military and other firearms which are converted to a lower classification. In many cases, such weapons can be restored to their original condition without specialised knowledge or tools. The standards of conversion vary widely, and the legal status of such weapons is not clear. The clause aims, therefore, to introduce greater clarity in this area and serves to guard against possible abuse of converted weapons.
  The purpose of clause 8 is to increase from one to two—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Home Secretary clarify one point in respect of clause 7? Does he intend to retain the prohibition on weapons which have been totally deactivitated, perhaps by being turned into an ornament, and cannot, in any circumstances, be converted into any kind of weapon?
  Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the problem is that it is all too often possible to reactivate. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which has also been put forward by some of my hon. Friends, would have some force if one could find a simple way of testing without involving great bureaucracy or paperwork. We are willing to consider such points in greater depth in Committee, if the Bill is given a Second Reading. I acknowledge that there is a real problem here.
  The purpose of clause 8 is simply to increase from one to two the number of photographs which may be required, under the Firearms Rules, to accompany an application for a firearm or shotgun certificate. In addition, the power to prescribe the form of a firearm or shotgun certificate is extended to include a power to require a certificate to bear a photograph of the holder.
  Clause 9 deals with firearms dealers. It provides that, in future, the status of registered firearms dealers will be confined to those who can establish that dealing in firearms is a substantial commercial activity. The point here is to ensure that only bona fide dealers are registered by the police. It has been pointed out that we should take into account the position of those who genuinely need

  1117
  dealer status because of their research activities, for example. I accept that we should consider what more can be clone in this respect.
  We propose to extend the period of validity of a dealer's registration from one year to three years. This should reduce the administrative burden on the police and the dealers without sacrificing control.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Home Secretary agree that the definition "substantial extent" is very unsatisfactory? What about taking into account those people who run gun clubs in addition to small dealerships in firearms? There are a number of private, legitimate gun clubs, so will the turnover of a gun club, which is a commercial enterprise, be taken into account when assessing dealership in guns, or will only the trading in guns be taken into account?
  Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the problems is the connection between dealers and gun clubs, which some people believe is too close. We have drafted clause 9 to try to solve that problem.
  Clause 11 sets out revised arrangements for approved rifle and pistol clubs. This is important because the membership of an approved club can be a significant point in the grant of a firearms certificate in the first place. Clubs will have to fulfil a number of criteria in order to qualify for approval. We shall be looking to see that they are properly constituted and have suitable arrangements for full and probationary members; that they are run by fit and proper persons; that adequate arrangements are made for the security of club firearms and ammunition; and that they have access to a firing range target practice with only those types of rifles or pistol as are specified in the approval. The approval will be renewable on a six-yearly basis, and will be subject to the payment of a fee.
  Clauses 12 and 13 deal in a sensible way with the position of visitors to this country. Section 14 of the 1968 Act represents a potentially serious gap in existing controls because it allows any visitor to this country to hold or acquire a shotgun without a certificate. We are replacing that with a straightforward visitors' permit scheme, based on sponsorship, for those who wish to come here to shoot for sporting or competition purposes. We have changed this, in the light of comments received, and we are taking care to preserve the position whereby visitors can acquire shotguns for export purposes only so that damage to such business does not result.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Thousands of visitors come to this country to shoot. Will the acquisition of a licence not be extremely difficult? Will it not spoil the shooting rights of people who have many visitors over to this country for the shooting?
  Mr. Hurd: Indeed not. We have tried to design the legislation in a straightforward and simple way, comparable with the arrangments of other countries. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can spell this out in greater detail. The scheme, based on sponsorship and the issue in advance of the requisite certificate, will work satisfactorily.
  Special arrangements for museums are set out in the schedule to the Bill and are introduced by clause 14.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend deal with a point in respect of museums?
  Mr. Hurd: I have hardly started on the subject of museums. It is not a very long passage.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I suspect the Home Secretary in his speech will not cover the schedule separately from clause 14. Is he aware that clause 14 gives a very restricted list of museums? Is it not bizarre that such a list on a Bill put forward by the Home Office does not cover regimental and local museums, which have been given weapons by another Government Department, for example, the War Office? A local holder of the Victoria cross, for example, won it by capturing a German machine gun and it has been given by the War Office to a local museum. Will the Home Secretary ensure that every museum which has been considered fit by another Government Department to be given, for instance, a captured weapon is not considered by the Home Office to be unfit to hold it?
  Mr. Hurd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his point and I shall certainly look into it carefully. He made his comments before I had outlined the policy, which is that, we accept that, for the many people who work in major museums or with large collections of firearms, compliance with section 1 requirements in respect of each weapon would be unreasonably burdensome. That is why we have introduced this proposal for a museums licence — to simplify things.
  This not a new system. We accept the principles and the categories of the Firearms Act 1968. I have declined to accept proposals that sound good but would do little good for public safety and would inconvenience legitimate shooters. I agree with shooters that demands for a ban on holding weapons at home, for example, and the home loading of ammunition, should be resisted. It is better that, provided that security is adequate — that must be a precondition—individuals should keep responsibility for their guns rather than having them held by clubs which, merely because of the numbers that would build up in them, would be bound to become the target of criminals and terrorists.
  I agree with shooters that we do not need an arbitrary limit on the number of firearms held on a firearms certificate. A good reason for each one should be enough. I agree with them that it is not justified to impose full section 1 controls on shotgums, with all the extra burdens that that would involve, but the provisions that we have worked out and that I have sketched today are necessary and anything less would represent a weak response to what has happened. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that a response that is too weak will not last. It would be swept away by fresh events. I hope that we shall strengthen the system so that it can last at least another 20 years.
  I have gone through the Bill in some detail because, in this matter, it is the details that count. It is not our intention to harass the legitimate shooter or to curtail his sport. Rather, we aim to ensure that all shooting activities, working or sporting, can be pursued in the framework of a straightforward and effective control, which offers the ordinary citizen the safeguards from the misuse of guns that he has the right to expect. The changes that we propose to existing controls aim to do that. We need to build upon the Bill sound administrative procedures and guidance, which are essential to its effectiveness. I hope that the shooting interests will play their proper part in that process. Together, all this will provide a sensible and

  1119
  flexible system which will operate to the ultimate advantage of shooters and the general public for many years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I have already offered the Home Secretary my apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want to offer them to you and the House, for the fact that I must leave the House early this evening and shall not therefore be here at the conclusion of the debate. However, I want to put on record my general, if qualified, approval of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill that the Home Secretary outlined this afternoon.
  There are certainly reservations about the Bill among Opposition Members—some stronger than others. Some of those reservations are stronger than my own, and a number of them have been included in a reasoned amendment tabled by some of my hon. Friends. Many of the changes that they propose, some of which I support, and many of the changes that I anticipate will be offered from both sides of the House as the afternoon wears on, can be accommodated in Committee. I understand that the Government accept the need for some specific changes and intend to meet some of the technical objections in amendments of their own. Indeed, the Home Secretary spoke of his willingness to meet legitimate criticisms. He may have as much difficulty in defining them as he had in defining legitimate guidance, but no doubt he is open to the view that if the Bill is given a Second Reading, as I hope and believe it will be, there will still be improvements to be made.
  In my view, this Bill, like any other, must be judged on the balance of its merits, and I judge it in the same way as I judged the parts of the Criminal Justice Bill that dealt with the control of knives. Those clauses contained provisions to which I was deeply opposed. I am opposed to some items in this Bill — less so, but opposed. My reservations notwithstanding, however, there can be little doubt about the need for the tighter controls on firearms that the Bill provides, so I believe that it is worthy of the House's approval and deserves and will get a Second Reading.
  Mr. David Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill and knives. When he spoke on 26 October, he made great play of his views on the proposals for knives. Would he take this opportunity to assure the House that he was not then telling my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to crack down on guns, which are predominantly—though not entirely—the preserve of Conservative supporters, and he would then give my right hon. Friend an easier passage on knives? That would be both sinister and reprehensible.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is both ludicrous and wrong. The hon. Gentleman will discover as the debate continues that what I call—with no intention of being offensive—the gun interest is not confined to any one party; nor are shooters confined to any one voting pattern. I support the Bill on its merits, as I supported the proposals on knives on their general mertis. I think the Home Secretary will confirm, if any confirmation were necessary, that when he
  1120
  was kind enough to tell me about his proposals on knives, I gave him my unqualified support before we even knew that a Firearms (Amendment) Bill was in prospect.
  I repeat my view that the need for tighter controls on guns is obvious, and not only in the context of the tragedies of Hungerford and Bristol. We would do this measure a great disservice were we to represent it as a response to Hungerford and Bristol. I neither intend nor want to minimise the suffering that those two tragic events caused, but I do not see them in themselves as reasons for the Bill. Those tragedies focused the nation's attention on the need for tighter firearms control, but that need existed long before the murders at Hungerford. As the Home Secretary well knows, in March 1987 my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wrote to him on behalf of London Labour Members of Parliament saying that there was a need for tighter gun control. Throughout that year, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised on the Floor of the House the need for tighter provisions. I say again that the major, provisions of the Bill would have been necessary with or without Hungerford. It is enormously important to make that clear, particularly to the legitimate shooters who will undoubtedly be inconvenienced by the Bill. It should be made clear to them that they should offer their wholehearted support to this necessary measure, because it is not an overeaction to an isolated tragedy but a necessary improvement in the law governing firearms which I and some of my hon. Friends advocated long before the horrors of Hungerford were known to us.
  We all accept that legislation, no matter how comprehensive or draconian, cannot protect society from a sudden act of lunacy. Perhaps it cannot even protect society from the calculated criminal decision to obtain or use a gun. But proper legislation can prevent casual ownership and the lethal use of weapons that is sometimes the consequence of casual ownership. Those two objectives seem to me so desirable that the price that must be paid for comprehensive and adequate control is a legitimate price to ask.
  I repeat that of course we all accept that the Bill will increase the inconvenience experienced by genuine gun users and owners. I include farmers, collectors and gun club members. Nobody — least of all the Home Secretary, judging by his speech this afternoon — will deny that they will find some of the new regulations irksome, but I think it enormously important not to overestimate that inconvenience. I do not believe that the irksome nature or the inconvenience of the new provisions amounts to anything like the major infraction of liberty suggested in some of the circulated pamphlets. The freedom to own a certain type of weapon, even for a legitimate purpose, has to be balanced against the freedom to feel secure, for instance, from armed robbery. In my view, the freedom to feel secure from armed robbery is a great deal more important than the freedom to own and use, even legitimately, a certain sort of weapon.
  I believe that most legitimate owners and users accept that point. I share the judgment of the Home Secretary that, on the evidence of the last two months while his proposals have been under discussion, most shooters are prepared to accept the new responsibilities with good grace. The National Farmers Union, whose members will obviously be affected, wrote a letter to me, which I suspect is identical to letters sent to other right hon. and hon. Members, saying that it welcomed the Bill, and specifically

  1121
  commended the new criteria against which applications for shotgun licences will be measured. The British Shooting Sports Council used the same expression, and said that it explicitly welcomed the Bill, promising full co-operation in its implementation.
  If we look at the provisions of the Bill in detail, we see how reasonable their acceptance is, particularly if we look at the area around which most of the controversy hovers—the more stringent control of shotguns.
  During the debate on 26 October the Opposition called for two major changes in shotgun control. I am delighted that in fact, if not in words, both those changes have now come about. The Opposition do not claim authorship of those proposals. Their origin, as far as I was concerned, was in the Police Federation. I do not want to be part of some childish competition about who had the idea first; I merely say that we advocated those changes to the Home Secretary in October. I am delighted that the two major proposals on our part are now Government policy.
  The first proposal concerned individual certification of shotguns to replace the present practice of a single certificate covering any number of unspecified guns. Clause 3 provides that power in fact, if not exactly in words. Every shotgun is now to be identified in the certificate—a proposal which, in October, some hon. Members said was impossible. It matters not to us whether each gun is identified on a separate piece of paper or all the guns are identified on the same piece of paper. The listing of each weapon is clearly a proper precaution.
  First, it will deter a number of undesirable purchasers. The fact that an undesirable purchaser must have the identification number or other identification elements written on his certificate will be a greater deterrent than the present situation, when he or she simply has to go into a gun shop, wave the certificate and buy an additional shotgun.
  Secondly, and perhaps more important, the registration of each weapon by number, or by identifying characteristics, is essential if we are to have a national register, and a national register seems to me to be absolutely necessary if we are to have the sort of control that the Home Secretary, the Government and, I believe, the country in general want. We support that proposal.
  Clause 3 also deals with what is called the "good reason" requirement. On 26 October I argued that shotgun certificates should be issued only to applicants who had a good reason to possess such a weapon. In his winding-up speech the Under-Secretary of State specifically ruled out that provision. I think that he is looking it up, but I assure him that I am about to read what he said:
  "My fear is that if we impose a good reason requirement on the possession of shotguns, we shall face massive noncompliance."—[Official Report, 26 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 67.]
  I am delighted that wiser counsels have prevailed. The Under-Secretary's comment was, in any case, a sad and, I believe, wholly inaccurate reflection on the public spirit and responsibility of most shotgun owners and users. We believe, and I think that the country believes, that there should be a good reason for possession of a potentially lethal weapon. I know that, to avoid the embarrassment of agreeing with what they appeared not to agree with three months ago, the Government have stood the idea on its head, and a chief constable must now be satisfied that there is not a good reason for withholding, but it is the same principle. There has to be some reason, some
  1122
  purpose, some justification, and that seems to me to be wholly right, just as it is to strengthen the power appropriately, when it is married to the other half of the clause, by requiring the chief officer of police to be satisfied that the applicant is suitable in other respects.
  I know that some hon. Members are worried about the amount of discretion that the clause allows to chief officers of police. For instance, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) raised exactly that point and asked for political guidance from the Home Secretary about how chief constables should behave. It is quite extraordinary how chief constables are held in doubt by hon. Gentlemen when it is thought that they are likely to interfere with subjects which touch those hon. Gentlemen.
  In this particular let me make it absolutely clear that I am wholly prepared for responsible chief officers to make their judgments. I believe that they will make those judgments without interference from the House and the Home Secretary. My opinion is that if they err at all it will not be on the side of caution; they will feel it inappropriate to make the individual decisions which those of us who want tighter controls might expect them to make. This is my judgment, particularly since their attitudes are in part circumscribed by clause 3(1)(1B) of the Bill, which, wholly legitimately in my view, stipulates some of the activities which make the legitimate use of a shotgun obvious and the issuing of a certificate almost mandatory on chief officers.
  Sport, competition and vermin control are all specified as legitimate purposes and clearly they are legitimate purposes. Nobody disagrees with that, but I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us more about one strange phrase and what its real purpose is. It relates to the criteria by which legitimacy shall be measured and good reason and proper cause judged. It states:
  "an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use."
  If it is sentimental, if it is nostalgic, if it is concerned with family possessions or heirlooms, I understand it exactly and think that that might be appropriately specified in these terms in the Bill. That was the example that the Home Secretary gave. But the clause goes a great deal wider than that.
  I understand exactly what ought to happen. If a chief police officer, who is approached for a certificate, asks what the gun is wanted for and the individual says that he or she wants it for sport, competition or vermin control, the chief officer will say that is a legitimate use. But I should be rather perturbed if a chief officer, or his representative, were approached and told by the individual concerned that he or she did not want it for anything, but just wanted it. That seems to me to cast very considerable doubt on the legitimacy of gun ownership and on the psychology of the man or woman who might give that answer.
  Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary, reinforced by the fact that some of his hon. Friends are nodding agreement to the proposition—and they do not nod at much of what I say on the subject—will consider the possibility of tightening up that clause.
  On clause 2, I know that there is some controversy concerning self-loading and pump-action shotguns, not all of which have equal fire power and some of which are used for legitimate sports by women and the disabled because such guns have minimum recoil. No doubt that point will

  1123
  be contested in Committee, and no doubt the Home Secretary will hear more about it this afternoon as it has been the subject of a great deal of legitimate argument and correspondence. I urge him to continue to err on the side of caution. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who moans, should not be surprised that I, together with the Home Secretary and other hon. Members, take the view that our first obligation is to protect the general public from the risk that ownership might involve.
  I hope that my suggestions about other matters will be less controversial and less obnoxious to Conservative Members.
  Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to self-loading automatic shotguns. Is he aware that in Northern Ireland, where restrictions on firearms are comparatively tighter than they are here, it is still possible to own a self-loading shotgun?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am aware of that, but it does not give me any comfort. Again, we should err on the side of caution, rather than follow the restrictions that operate in Northern Ireland, which are not in themselves always the right procedure. I do not mean to joke about this sensitive subject, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my view that it is self-evidently right and necessary that the sale or ownership of burst-fire weapons, rocket launchers, mortars, explosive bombs, grenades and electric shock devices should be included in the class of prohibited weapons. It is equally self-evident that the obligation to store guns and ammunition securely is absolute.
  The Bill rightly limits the purchase of ammunition to certificate holders and their authorised representatives. There is much to be said for the proposals of the Police Federation that the authorised acceptable conditions in which ammunition is to be stored should always be described on the certificate, and that the man or woman who sells the ammunition should use his or her best endeavours to ensure that the ammunition is to be stored in the way described on the certificate.
  I wish to represent to the Home Secretary a second point from the Police Federation, pausing only to make two asides about the views of the federation. Hon. Members have received correspondence from shooting organisations which describes stringent or more stringent controls as a waste of police manpower and time. It is notable that none of the police organisations, which talk about the waste of police time most eloquently in other contexts, suggest that more stringent controls would have that effect. There is something to be said for supporting the views of the men and women who are likely to face someone with a sawn-off shotgun when they are on patrol at night.
  The second point about the police and guns concerns a dispute that we had in the House on Monday that the debate on this Bill allows me to put right. There was much shouting from the Treasury Bench about the Police Federation supporting life sentences being imposed on criminals who carry guns in pursuit of crime. The president and the secretary of the Police Federation told the Leader of the Opposition and me on Tuesday evening that they are desperately anxious that the penalty for carrying a gun should not be the same as that for using a gun. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State will
  1124
  take note of the position of the police. In the Government's control of guns, they should take particular account of the views of the men and women whose lives may be put in jeopardy, rather than the men and women who legitimately use guns for sport.
  That argument also applies to compensation. With respect, I must say to the Home Secretary that he made enormously heavy weather of dealing with interjections about compensation. He was asked whether he could cite any other instances in which such onerous obligations were applied. Every time that there have been new regulations about what is a safe motor car, people with old cheap motor cars have suddenly discovered that they can no longer use them and must sell them for scrap. That is almost exactly the same situation.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that if the Minister prohibited the sale of those weapons but refused to compensate for them, they would be passed into the hands of terrorists and other illegal organisations. That does not say very much for the shooters, whom the Home Secretary went out of his way to describe as honest and public-spirited characters. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that, if the law requires certain behaviour, they will comply with it.
  The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that gun owners must be compensated. The hon. Gentleman said that one of his constituents, who has three guns, was told by a gun dealer that they are no longer saleable because they have no value. The Home Secretary should have no obligation to compensate gun owners for guns which no longer have a market value. That is the problem of the market. Conservative Members, who have spoken so eloquently about allowing market forces to operate, should not whine to the Home Secretary about compensation when market values have been removed by legislation. I am sure that the Home Secretary will pursue that point in Committee.
  I should like to hear the Under-Secretary of State's response about an omission that I hope will be dealt with in Committee. It is an omission that the Police Federation believe should be in the Bill. I do not understand why the Home Secretary has so firmly set his face against the prohibition of mail-order sales. It seems obvious, self-evident and undeniable that it is easier improperly to purchase a weapon through mail order than through a shop in the high street. It would be absurd if these new, more stringent, and generally desirable controls were undermined by the continuation of mail order. I hope that the Home Secretary will think about that before the Bill comes back to the House on Report.
  Finally, in its evidence to the Home Secretary, the Police Federation said that since the introduction of the Firearms Act 1968, the sales of guns have become big business. That is true. More than that, during the past 20 years, gun culture in Britain has been encouraged by television, some newspapers and some films. By gun culture, I mean not the sporting, competitive or agricultural use of guns, but their illegal use. The idea has been encouraged that there is something special and manly about the possession and occasional use of a gun. Society needs to be encouraged in the belief that the legitimate use of guns is the only use to be tolerated or acceptable. That legitimate use should carefully be prescribed by stringent regulations about ownership. The proper place and the proper way in which guns should be used must be carefully

  1125
  defined and strictly limited. The Bill, despite its faults, provides a definition and specifies a limitation, and for that reason it is worthy of having a Second Reading.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: I wish to make only one point that greatly concerns my constituents in a residential area. It has been emphasised by delegations and deputations who have come to see me. Before I make my point, I assure the Home Secretary that I give the fullest support to the measure that he is introducing. To use his own words, I believe that he has got it absolutely right. However, I am sure that his broad-minded and flexible approach will accommodate the many detailed points that were made by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches during their interventions in his speech.
  Those who came to see me were mainly members of gun clubs. I was a member of a gun club in my last years at school. They have emphasised that many of those clubs originated in the 19th century as part of the national defence. That argument is no longer valid. Those who are of age can join the territorial forces if they so wish and they can then help to deal with a national emergency. It is also true that this measure cannot be guranteed never to allow another ghastly incident. We can only hope and pray that it will lead towards that.
  I want to give the strongest possible support to those of my hon. Friends who, in their interventions, have asked about compensation. This is a unique situation. The action that is being taken is right, dramatic and drastic, and comes into effect as soon as the Bill becomes law. It is not a normal question of the market. By making these weapons illegal, the market is being closed completely. That is the situation with which we must deal.
  The people who have these weapons are, I am convinced, for the great part, people of integrity. Moreover, they could not possibly have foreseen the events of Hungerford or, following them, the Government's actions. Therefore, they are a small group in the community who are exposed to considerable financial loss. Nor is the comparison, made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with others who suffer when the Government take action, a just comparison.
  A considerable time is allowed for the changeover to lead-free petrol. That is designed to cover most of the life of cars that use normal petrol. When the Government ban the use of particular furnishings, the present ownership is not affected, only future purchases. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a strong case to argue. Moreover, I am told that there is already a precedent, which I think concerns Northern Ireland, in which compensation was paid in a similar case. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will press strongly for compensation to be paid to those who will be affected by the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend emphasised the practical difficulties. I can see only one practical difficulty, and that is in persuading my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide the money with which to compensate. No one, least of all myself, would underestimate the difficulty of that, but I hope that when my right hon. Friend approaches the Chancellor he will point out that he has the solid support of the Conservative party and also, I believe, despite what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, of many Opposition
  1126
  Members as well. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be successful in obtaining compensation for those of my constituents who will be affected, as well as those affected in the rest of the country.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has said that in his opinion the Home Secretary has got the legislation right. I welcome the Bill, but I do not think that the Home Secretary has got it absolutely right. He has got it mainly right, but many amendments can, and I hope will, be made in Committee. I hope that the Home Secretary will carry out his undertaking to the House to listen to matters of legitimate complaint.
  I should declare that many of the points that I am about to make come from the Association of County Councils, of which I have the honour to be an honorary vice-president.
  The Home Secretary listed the large number of shooting organisations with which he had had correspondence and from which he had had representations on the Bill. The county councils, via their chief police officers, the chief constables, will be responsible for the administration of the Bill, and they consider that on a number of matters the Bill does not go far enough. I do not expect the Home Secretary to agree, as I do, with the association's principal policy point that the same licensing conditions should apply to shotguns as apply to part 1 firearms. That is the considered view of the county councils —which, I repeat, will have to administer the Bill through the police.
  A great deal of confusion has been caused by clause 3. When I read it I was somewhat confused by the difference between it and what was said in the White Paper. The White Paper said specifically that it is not intended to impose an obligation on all applicants to establish positively the existence of a good reason. Clause 3 seems to say the opposite of that. The Government seem to have stood their original proposition on its head. I listened to the Home Secretary explaining clause 3, but the Act seems to say one thing and the guidance quite the opposite.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the Government should not give guidance in that way. The Government should state specifically in legislation what they want chief police officers to do. The public then know that that is their duty by statute, not as a result of some hidden form of guidance. The Act could say one thing while the guidance gave chief police officers a nudge and a wink to do what was said in the White Paper, which would be wrong, in principle and as a matter of policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook also drew attention to clause 3(1B), showing what a nonsense it is. If a chief constable has no reason, because of the person concerned, to refuse an application for a gun licence, it is an open gate policy to allow that person to go to the chief constable and say that he wants a gun, not to use or to lend, but just to have. The chief constable may be slightly suspicious and wonder why he wants it, but, as far as I can see, he would be debarred from refusing such an application because he is specifically debarred if a man says that he does not want to use or lend the weapon. That will lead to endless trouble and difficulty and could be a dangerous loophole.
  The Association of County Councils firmly believes that there is a need in the statute for a standard condition

  1127
  to provide for the safe keeping of the guns and ammunition authorised by the certificate. That should appear on the face of the Bill. The association also points out that, as far as it is aware, there is no specific provision in the Bill for certificate holders to notify the police of a change of address. Clearly, that is a vital provision and should be in the Bill.
  The association also points out that there is no minimum age in the Bill for a person who can hold a gun certificate. However, I have heard rumours that the Government are to do something about that. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was a most responsible person in his last years at school to be a member of a gun club and to hold a certificate, but that does not necessarily apply to all youngsters. If the Government say that they will stipulate a minimum age in subsequent legislation, why not put it in this Bill?
  Another point arises on the number of shotguns and the amount of ammunition which may be held by certificate holders. At the time of the Hungerford case and other recent cases, the country was appalled at not only the variety and type, but the sheer quantity, of weapons and ammunition held by individuals. Under the present law, if a certificate is issued there is no limit whatever. A man can have an arsenal of guns and ammunition. The Bill deals with that problem, but—
  Mr. Ron Davies: Does my hon. Friend know that the weapon that Ryan used at Hungerford last August to inflict most of the injuries was a Beretta pistol, and that that firearm will not be affected by the legislation?
  Mr. Oakes: I am not certain whether that is the position, but if my hon. Friend says it is, I accept what he says. The legislation should be comprehensive. That omission would cause a glaring anomaly, if what my hon. Friend says is correct.
  Will the Government agree that on the certificate there should be a limitation on the number of firearms or amount of ammunition that a person can hold? I can see no reason why the Government should step back from this single procedure to prevent arsenals from being built up by a person.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred to mail order. I cannot understand why the Government have set their face against prohibiting the sale of guns by mail order. Under clause 8, the number of photographs to be attached to the certificate has been increased from one to two. What is the use of photographs if a person can write to a mail order firm and get a gun? How can a mail order firm, dealing by post, know whom they are dealing with? How do they know that the photograph is of the person whose name is on the certificate?
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Does the right hon. Member agree that there would not even he the need to write because many mail order firms that advertise such weapons would take a credit number over the telephone in payment for the weapon?
  Mr. Oakes: I do not think that it is quite as bad as that, because a person will have to send with his application to the mail order firm his firearms certificate. How could the mail order firm check this? People who deal in firearms are
  1128
  overwhelmingly very responsible traders. If they were suspicious of a person who applied for a gun, or they believed that there was something wrong with the certificate, they would have a sixth sense to know that something was wrong because they deal with the public all the time. Just like any other trader, they would feel that something was wrong, but the mail order firm could not do anything about it because it would have no idea whom it was dealing with. If the Government were to introduce an age limit in subsequent legislation, how would the mail order firm know the age of the person with whom it was dealing through the post? That loophole should be cleared up in Committee.
  I welcome the Bill. Amendments could be made to improve and strengthen it from the point of view of the public. The Home Secretary was quite right when he said that the Bill cannot guarantee that there will not be another Hungerford. No Government could be so prescient as to bring in legislation to prevent that sort of thing. What they can do is lessen the risk of it, and to that extent I warmly welcome the Bill.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In the White Paper that preceded the Bill my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asserted that the proposal he was putting before the House marked a considered and significant shift in the balance of controls between safeguarding the public at large and protecting the interests of the legitimate shooting community. The White Paper stated that the Government
  "cannot eradicate entirely the possibility of the abuse of legitimately held firearms by an unstable or criminal individual. For that reason the Government must ensure that those firearms which are held legitimately are subject to a degree of control which reduces this risk."
  I do not quarrel with that statement, any more than I quarrel with the contents of the Bill. It would seem from the two statements I have read out that the Bill, like the White Paper, is more a response to the shootings at Hungerford, Bristol and Wolverhampton last year than the end product of a review of the Firearms Act 1968, although I do not doubt that such a review was in hand before August 1987. I do not complain about that. Those three crimes at Hungerford, Bristol and Wolverhampton drew our attention to the increasing number of shooting incidents in our ever more violent society, incidents which we can expect to recur, although I hope not on the appalling scale of Hungerford.
  Because you have called the amendment to the Bill to be the subject of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to say that I cannot see what value would be served by a further public inquiry into the massacre at Hungerford. I say "a further public inquiry" because the chief constable of Thames Valley has already produced a full report which has been made publicly available. There has been an hour-long television programme and, although criticisms have been made before about the police operations on 19 August in Hungerford — criticisms, needless to say, which have the benefit of hindsight—I cannot see what a further inquiry would hope to tell us that we do not know already.
  I am speaking on the Bill because Hungerford is in my constituency. I do not claim to be a shooting enthusiast, any more than I am opposed to the sport. I shot in the Army, have fired on various ranges and possess a shotgun,

  1129
  but beyond that it holds no special interest or attraction for me. I am aware from the many letters I have received that the sport has a wide following and a large variety of weapons are used. The shooting fraternity feel that because of the terrible actions of that one man, Michael Ryan, they and their sport are being penalised by the legislation. Perhaps if I were one of them I would share their feelings but, as I have said to many people who have come to see me about the subject, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could have let Hungerford come and go without reacting as he has; without introducing a firearms review and ultimately some sort of legislation.
  Sixteen people were killed and 14 were wounded at Hungerford. Families still mourn and will mourn for many years to come. Almost every week somewhere in the world someone seems to emulate Ryan. I well remember that at the memorial service in Hungerford I found myself standing next to an Australian clergyman who had had a similar sort of massacre in his parish. I believe therefore that the Government had to make a strong response to Hungerford and the circumstances surrounding it.
  I welcome the Bill and find much in it to commend. I applaud the decision to outlaw certain weapons such as semi-automatic rifles and to bring other weapons within section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. It is right to make owners register guns individually on firearms and shotgun certificates and it is right that the police should tighten up their procedures for the issue of the certificates. I cannot help wondering whether the time is fast approaching when we should discontinue having two separate documents, one for weapons described as firearms and another for shotguns, as both are equally lethal, the main difference being in the range over which they are effective. Two certificates must mean that the police spend more time to ensure that the applicant meets the demands of the legislation. Can we not have one certificate? Those who want to own only a shotgun can have the same certificate as those who have firearms, and there could be the same requirement on each certificate to state which weapons are held. Administratively it would seem much cheaper and practically more logical to follow that practice.
  To have two classes of firearm, one of which is more difficult to acquire than the other, lends credence to the argument of those shooters who consider that the White Paper and the Bill are aimed more at those who are presently gun owners or shooters rather than those who possess weapons criminally or illegally; in other words, that we are making already strict laws stricter for those who enjoy shooting without affecting the pool of illegally held weapons from which an ever-increasing amount of crime is resulting. The weapon most commonly used in crime appears to be the sawn-off shotgun. I believe that my criticism of the changes has some validity since it is not inconceivable that the Bill as drawn will increase the number of illegally held weapons.
  I am not clear whether pump-action shotguns, now to be brought within section 5 (1) of the 1968 Act and to be held on a firearms certificate, will be restricted to use on a shooting range in common with other semi-automatic weapons or will be able to be used for shooting game and vermin if their magazine is converted to take only two shots as opposed to the present five or eight shots. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could say something about that when he replies.
  1130
  It has been put to me that if pump-action shotguns are restricted to shooting ranges present owners who possess them legally on a shotgun certificate will simply continue to keep and use them without telling the police or, more seriously, will dispose of them to whomsoever will buy them, particularly if the owner believes that he is likely to be refused a firearms certificate. At this moment I doubt whether anybody knows how many of those weapons are in private hands. One shotgun certificate covers any number of shotguns that may be owned. Therefore, who will know whether the law is effective? Indeed, what extra steps are being taken to encourage pump-action shotgun owners to register their weapons? It has been suggested to me that if such people were offered a half-price firearms certificate for the first year that might provide an inducement. Otherwise, as I have suggested, there seems to be a fair chance that such weapons will not be registered and may even find their way into the wrong hands.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary saw the article that appeared in the Yorkshire Post in October 1986 and the subsequent article that appeared in The Sun in August 1987. Those articles described how a reporter from those papers managed to buy weapons illegally. The Yorkshire Post reporter commented:
  "In a few short weeks the following list of weapons were made available:

  A single-barrelled sawn-off shotgun for £55.

  A double-barrelled sawn-off shotgun for £85.

  A Magnum hand gun for £200.

  A hand grenade for £30.

  A 9mm rifle and ammunition for £100.

  An unmodified double-barrelled shotgun for £150.

  Other items were offered for hire: A Luger pistol with ammunition for £80; a 9mm automatic pistol, again with ammunition for £50 and two replica revolvers".
  That list must cause the House grave concern. I find it desperately worrying. Indeed, after believing that the Hungerford massacre was the work of one demented man, Michael Ryan, who held all his weapons—five firearms and several shotguns — legally, it now transpires that Ryan also illegally owned a Thompson sub-machine gun and another pistol. Although it is true that Ryan was gun-crazy, he was a countryman who could hardly be expected to know where to purchase such sophisticated weapons illegally. However, he held such weapons and I believe that we should count ourselves lucky that he did not use the sub-machine gun instead of the semi-automatic in his killings.
  I am bound to ask whether illegally held weapons are as easily available as apparently suggested by those newspaper reports? If they are, what will this legislation do to help the police seize those weapons?
  Let us consider the storage of ammunition that has already been raised by a number of hon. Members. That matter is the cause of considerable concern to the Association of Chief Constables. They believe that adequate provision for the safe storage of ammunition should be a feature of the Bill. I hope that the Government will consider introducing an amendment in Committee, bearing in mind that the legal limit per weapon is 500 rounds of ammunition. That is a large amount of ammunition to possess for one weapon and, as we are not intending to restrict the number of weapons held at home, it is clear that we could be talking about thousands of rounds of ammunition held by an individual. I agree with the chief constables that that ammunition should be kept

  1131
  as securely as the weapons. I believe that it would be an oversight if the Bill did not include something about that matter.
  My right hon. Friend will also be aware that some members of the police force believe that armour-piercing ammunition of the kind that Ryan used should be banned. The chief constable of Thames Valley has told me that such ammunition can easily pierce the bullet-proof waistcoats worn by police marksmen and could just as easily penetrate the side of a police Land Rover. Again, I can see no possible reason why armour-piercing ammunition should be required by any sporting shooter.
  When we are considering the proposed amnesty, it is right that we should encourage a person with weapons to hand them in if they are held without any form of certificate, or, as a result of the Bill, held illegally. However, numerous people have asked me why the amnesty should be for a limited time only. Anyone wishing to hand in a weapon at another time can be prosecuted. The idea of an amnesty covering a specific time may encourage weapons to be handed in, but should it be illegal to do so at another time? Let us consider the case of an elderly widow who goes through her husband's possessions and finds among them a first world war pistol—a souvenir, perhaps treasured all his life. Her natural reaction may well be to hand over the gun to the local police station, but unless she does so while the amnesty is operating she will be guilty of an offence. That does not appear fair or sensible.
  There is also the matter of compensation, particularly for those who are legally in possession of a particular weapon now, but will not be when the Bill becomes law. The Bill offers them nothing, just as it offers nothing to those who hand in their weapons during the amnesty. Indeed, in an earlier debate I told the House that, after the previous amnesty, the Home Office sold the weapons handed in to the gun trade. That is indefensible. I do not believe that we can defend it and I think it is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  Some of the weapons that may be handed in may be antiques that could make a lot of money at auction. They may be legally held in so far as they are so old as never to have required a firearms certificate when first obtained. I do not believe that we can expect people to part with those weapons for nothing or that we can possibly allow the Home Office, having received those weapons,22tt to make a profit from them. I suggest that antique weapons should be exempted from the bounds of the amnesty. In that category I include all muzzle-loading weapons. Other weapons, those breech-loading weapons that fire metal-cased or metal-jacketed ammunition, are in a different category. In terms of the amnesty such weapons should have a cut-off point of 1945. Weapons made between 1867 and 1945 should be treated as souvenirs rather than effective weapons. They are valuable collectors' pieces. Can we really argue that they should be handed in without compensation? What happens when they are handed in? Are we to have an assurance that the Home Office intends to have them melted down or will they, too, find their way to the gun trade?
  Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) why I have chosen those two dates. In 1867
  1132
  we went over from muzzle-loading to breech-loading weapons and between 1900 and 1945 we had two world wars which produced a mass of souvenir weapons.
  On the question of compensation, in 1973 when the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order was debated the then Under-Secretary told the House:
  "A direction has already been issued which prohibits the holding of bullet-firing weapons by dealers, and dealers have handed over their stocks of these weapons to the police. Arrangements are being made for the dealers to be paid for the weapons handed over. The dealers have co-operated in every way with the police and the Ministry of Home Affairs and I want to emphasise that there is no suggestion that firearms dealers are not entirely trustworthy. The directive was issued because, about a month ago, for the first time, a dealer's premises were raided."—[Official Report, 30 March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1672.]
  If we can introduce such an order in Northern Ireland to provide for compensation, I see no reason why the Home Office should resist compensation arising from the Bill. I wonder whether it would not be wiser for the Home Office to use registered firearms dealers as its agents for operating the amnesty so that they can offer the true value of the weapons handed in to them—albeit a minimum value—particularly in respect of weapons handed in because they can no longer be legally held under the Bill.
  Mr. William Ross: Many hon. Members may not be aware that many of the weapons handed in and compensated for in Northern Ireland are weapons classified as personal protection weapons for many members and ex-members of the security forces. Those weapons could readily be resold to new members of those forces if they could be held by the firearms dealers. Their purchase represents a net loss to the Government and the country as a whole, as they could be sold elsewhere. Every person buying a personal protection weapon has to bring a new one into Northern Ireland. I cannot understand why we should be placed in that position. I fully agree that compensation should be paid for weapons in Great Britain, too.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that it would be wrong for the Government simply to confiscate weapons without any form of compensation. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the many examples of compensation being paid to people who have lost property as a result of legislation, compulsory purchase orders, the revocation of planning permission already given, the repurchase of gold coinage under the Exchange Control Act 1947, the arrangement with the employees at GCHQ, payments made in respect of environmentally sensitive areas and sites of special scientific interest and compensation for livestock affected by radioactivity after Chernobyl. The list is almost endless. Therefore, I see no reason why one group of people should be put at a financial disadvantage.
  As I have said, I welcome the principle behind the Bill and the intention to tighten up the gun laws. However, the doubt that remains in my mind is that the Bill will serve only to make those who are already observing the law aware that they have somehow been picked out for further attention while the pool of illegally held weapons remains untrammelled by its effects. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider whether something more can be added in Committee to make the Bill more effective.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I suppose that it is only proper to declare an interest on occasions such as this. As the holder of both a shotgun certificate and a firearms certificate, I shall plainly be affected by some of the proposals. I doubt whether such an interest is unique in the House, but it may be rare among my hon. Friends.
  It was almost inevitable after Hungerford that there would be a review of the law. Whether that review was provoked by the tragic events of Hungerford or accelerated by them is now neither here nor there. The understandable concern caused by those events made it clear that it was the Government's duty to re-examine the Firearms Act 1968 and consider whether its terms were appropriate to the circumstances of 1987. That review had to be carried out calmly and rationally because, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged, we are dealing with a variety of competing interests — not least, the public interest. I believe that we are justified in saying that responsible shooting interests always recognise the public interest. I suspect that if one possesses or uses a lethal weapon, in the shape of a shotgun .or firearm, one is more conscious than anyone of the need for safety and security.
  I am pleased that it now appears to be accepted that those who have an interest in shooting are drawn from all walks of life. At one stage, it was being suggested in the House that the interests of those concerned with shooting were somehow related to class. I am happy that that idea is no longer current.
  When the White Paper was published, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) broadly welcomed it, and I wish to repeat that welcome. But, however well-intentioned the Government may have been, they have got matters wrong in the Bill in a number of ways. When the Home Secretary introduced the White Paper to the House, he undertook to listen carefully to detailed comment on legislation. It will be known that some of the shooting organisations believe that there has been a lack of proper consultation. The Home Secretary told the House of a number of organisations that he and other Home Office Ministers had consulted. However, it is still believed among shooting organisations that the period of consultation was not long enough. If that is so, it serves only to underline the importance of the Home Secretary's undertaking to listen carefully to detailed comment on legislation. I hope that the Government will be open-minded in this matter and that they will consider amendments in Committee, not as defeats but as improvements.
  I should like to associate myself with the observations made about compensation, particularly by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I was grateful to hear that that was one element that the Home Secretary was prepared to reconsider. I hope that he will take seriously, too, the points put to him about deactivation. It seems rather curious that a weapon should retain its original classification however much it has been altered, sometimes so that it can no longer be used. The Government might demonstrate the flexibility that they say they are prepared to bring to bear in this matter in dealing with that.
  A number of other matters are of particular concern to me. Like other hon. Members, I have received many representations from my constituents and organised bodies. I am particularly concerned about clause 2 and the
  1134
  conversion of pump-action and self-loading shotguns into weapons that require a section 1 permission for conversion into firearms. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary to hear his justifications for that proposal. I was rather disappointed, because I did not understand him to offer the House any rational or considered reason why that is necessary.
  It is said that there are about 200,000 of those weapons in the United Kingdom. They were legitimately purchased in good faith. They are used in sport, on farms and, as has already been said, because of their lack of recoil, are of particular advantage to the disabled and to women. It is rather curious that, when the opportunity to possess a shotgun is being made more stringent and strict, it should have been thought necessary to reclassify shotguns of that type. The Government should reconsider that element of their proposals. If they were to do that, they would have substantial support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Clause 3 requires good reason to be established before someone may have a shotgun certificate. There is concern about the uniformity of application of those provisions by the various chief constables. Substantial discretion is afforded to chief constables even with the particular elements on which that discretion is to be exercised as enumerated in the Bill. We must bear in mind that a challenge to discretion is much more difficult to sustain legally than an appeal. Inviting a court to hold that a chief constable has unreasonably exercised his discretion may be very difficult to prove.
  I hope that the Government will accept the criticisms that have already been made in interventions about the extent of the discretion afforded to chief constables by clause 3 and consider a way to ensure uniformity of application. It would be ridiculous if someone was able to obtain a shotgun certificate in Inverness, but denied one in Dorset. A lack of uniformity of application would be ridiculous.
  I hope that the Government will take account of the fact that many people collect weapons. I hope that they will regard good reason as necessarily embracing collection. I hope that they will be prepared to consider that point in Committee and accept it as a point that could legitimately be included in the Bill.
  Any responsible shotgun owner would be happy to accept the idea of specifying the description of a shotgun on a certificate. Most people who own those weapons have them insured and, for the purpose of insurance, it is necessary to specify the weapon's make, year and serial number. The provision of that information cannot be regarded as an undue imposition or an intolerable burden. It would not be unreasonable to oblige a person owning a shotgun to keep that weapon securely. Indeed, that may be stipulated as a condition of insurance, to which I have already referred.
  Clause 4 suggests that there should be notification of transfers within a 48-hour period. The Government might consider the suggestion that that is a remarkably short time and that a period of seven days or 14 days may be as appropriate and effective. Similarly, the Government may wish to consider whether it is necessary for there to be two notifications rather than one.
  According to clause 8, it appears that photographs may be fixed to shotgun certificates. I do not regard that as unreasonable. Hon. Members can only gain entry to the House on presentation of a pass containing a photograph.

  1135
  A photograph is a regular method of identification these days, and I do not believe that it could in any sense be regarded as an intolerable or unreasonable burden.
  I hope that the Government will accept my criticisms as constructive. My experience is that the majority of shotgun and firearm certificate holders are conscientious and responsible. Like everyone else, they were deeply troubled by the events at Hungerford. I accept that, with or without those unhappy and tragic events, the Firearms Act 1968 cannot be treated as being set in tablets of stone. We will support sensible changes in the law relating to firearms, but we hope in return that the Government will be receptive to the responsible and sensible criticisms that have been made of the Bill and will accept that it will be susceptible to considerable improvement in Committee.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Like the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I declare an interest in this matter as I am a very occasional user of a shotgun. That use gives me some knowledge, experience and understanding of these matters. It is significant that many hon. Members who speak in the debate tonight may refer to their experience and knowledge, and that always brings more character to debates of this kind.
  My interest in this matter is more than personal, as I also have a constituency interest. Obviously, in a constituency such as mine, many people's livelihoods rely on the use of a shotgun or firearm. For gamekeepers, stalkers, trappers, farmers and landowners, the use of a gun or firearm is totally legitimate and normal. In addition, in a constituency such as mine, many hundreds if not thousands of people enjoy game and rough shooting. Clay pigeon shooting, which is a long-standing and very popular sport, is especially popular in my area. People who belong to gun clubs and indulge in target shooting also have a thoroughly legitimate interest in the use of guns and firearms.
  I want to emphasise those legitimate interests. I recognise the necessity for the Bill, after the events described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I support the Bill in principle for those reasons. However, I do not support it wholeheartedly. Many of the representations that I have received regarding particular aspects of the Bill are legitimate and I agree with many of the reservations that have been expressed about it so far.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a delicate and difficult balance to strike. However, in a number of respects he has struck that balance against the interests of a large section of totally law-abiding, responsible members of the community. I do not intend to go into details, as many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, but I want to refer to my major concerns.
  My first concern is that I genuinely believe that the police receive too much discretion. That discretion extends too widely. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, we must ensure that there is even treatment in different parts of the United Kingdom with respect to discretion. Treatment must be even-handed among the many different forces.
  1136
  In my area, excellent relations are enjoyed between the police and legitimate users of guns and firearms. There is good trust, and it often gives the police access to expertise, local knowledge and information that generally helps their purposes.
  If the discretion given to chief constables is extended too widely and not exercised responsibly, it will destroy an important and useful relationship between a responsible section of the community and the police forces, which is something that I should not like to happen.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the problem of achieving uniformity of treatment is one of achieving uniformity not only between place and place but between time and time? The Home Secretary said that he would give guidance—presumably in a circular—to chief constables from time to time. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that guidance may vary? The Home Office may change its views on what constitutes good reason. An applicant my be accepted as having a good reason this year but be refused in following years because the Home Secretary has changed his mind.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. I agree with him, because I am not satisfied that the issuing of guidance is the way to deal with this matter.
  The Home Secretary has a duty to spell out specifically in statute precisely what he expects. One example of that is security. There are many different interpretations of the security of a gun or firearm. I am in favour of security; weapons should be held securely. Again, it is an issue in which there could be different and varying practices. Those practices may change in time and in line with guidance. Therefore, I am not satisfied with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said.
  The second matter about which I am unhappy is whether it is right to classify, under section 1, self-loading pump-action shotguns. That weapon is particularly important to clay pigeon shooters and others. Disabled people and women have been mentioned in this regard, and I was glad that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) acknowledged that point. There is no evidence—if there is, I have not seen, understood or accepted it — to connect that weapon with the commission of crime. There is an onus on my right hon. Friend to show that there is such a connection, but without it I am unhappy about the matter. The classification of that weapon will add enormously to administration. There are 200,000 owners of these weapons, so there will be enormous additional administration without achieving anything.
  Thirdly, I am concerned about the banning of certain self-loading rifles. These weapons are used legitimately in deer stalking, which is a proper pursuit in parts of my constituency, also by civilians for target shooting, sometimes along with the military. I hope that this matter will be looked at.
  Finally, with regard to compensation, weapons that are an acknowledged threat to life are mentioned in the White Paper. However, they are not an acknowledged threat to life in the hands of current licence holders. People with these weapons have legally obtained licences for them. They are holding them because of a properly issued certificate under the law. In those circumstances, having been obtained legally and held under a licence granted by

  1137
  the statutory authorities, those weapons are not held casually. There is an onus on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider the question of compensation. A constituent of mine wrote to me yesterday. A matter of months before these circumstances arose, he legitimately spent over £500 on a weapon. Will he lose that weapon automatically with no compensation as a result of the Bill? That matter must be considered.
  As one who supports the principle of the Bill, I am still unhappy. I shall remain so unless the Minister gives assurances not only that he has listened but that he is prepared to reconsider the matter and perhaps introduce changes at a later stage. I shall listen carefully to what he says in winding up, because these concerns are shared by a vast number of law-abiding citizens.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will not achieve the aims stated in the Government's proposals for reform, in that it ignores the statistics of armed crime and the circumstances of the enforcement of existing legislation, which will only become apparent by the holding of a public inquiry into the tragic events in Hungerford in August 1987."
  I should like to expand on the reasons for tabling our amendment. I agree with certain provisions of the Bill. I obviously agree with the need to control firearms.
  I shall first examine the supposed aims of the Bill and consider the Government's White Paper, which states that one aim is to
  "ensure … the safety of the general public from the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms".
  Another aim is to protect the rights of legitimate interests.
  I do not think that the Bill will do either of those things, and it is interesting to note some of the statistics. For example, in the London area, between 1954 and 1986, armed robberies increased from four to 1,579. In the same period, firearms certificates were reduced by one third.
  The statistics up to 1986 have shown a consistent picture and are similar to the 1986 figures, which, for all offences in England and Wales, excluding criminal damage were: pistols, 1,308 offences; shotguns, 1,068; and rifles, 27. Yet the Government propose to ban one type of rifle. The Home Office could not find one other case of misuse of a self-loading rifle, apart from Hungerford.
  Looking at the figures, why have the Government not placed more restrictions on the availability of shotguns? Do the Government expect shotguns to be willingly registered? Judging from previous experience, it is unlikely that more than 20 per cent. will be, which will leave a massive pool of criminalised firearms. Would not a measure to impose safe-keeping restrictions on shotguns be more effective than anything else in preventing firearms falling into criminal hands?
  This review was supposed to have begun early this year. It bears an extraordinary resemblance to a discredited Green Paper of 1973, which was rejected by the House at that time. Why introduce discredited legislation with indecent haste? It contains unworkable provisions of definition and it contains inconsistencies, for example, the anomalies of museum provision, the implication that arms cannot be deactivated, the inclusion of pump-action but not lever-action firearms and the lending anomaly regarding shotguns. The list is endless.
  1138
  Why are the Government introducing this legislation? I suspect that it is because they want to be seen to be reacting to the tragedy at Hungerford in August 1987. Why do they not first inquire into the background and circumstances of the tragedy? I suspect that it is because it would disclose some unsavoury facts that the Government would rather were not made public. It would show that the existing legislation would have prevented Hungerford if it had been applied properly. I have uncovered a catalogue of incompetence, inefficiency or perhaps partiality on behalf of the police administration, which is horrendous in its implications.
  As a small-bore shooter unaffected by the Bill, I am well aware of and grateful for the existing necessarily stringent provisions of the Firearms Act 1968. It struck me as totally incredible that an official report, which was hardly an "inquiry" as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) described it, glibly stated:
  "on 10 December 1986 an application was made for a Firearms Certificate and enquiries revealed that he was a full member of the Dunmore Shooting Centre"
  That is a Home Office-approved club at Abingdon. The report added that:
  "Nothing was known to Ryan's detriment and he had already obtained a gun cabinet. The application was granted on 11 December 1986, with the condition that the firearms could only be used on approved ranges."
  That is frankly impossible if the proper checks are made. Even if, as the police suggest, he had applied before then, and he was merely directed to headquarters at Kidlington on that date, the procedures that are necessary at headquarters are, according to an official document:
  "That the certificate would have to be prepared".
  That is 20 minutes of police time.
  "That it would have to be approved and signed by the assistant chief constable".
  He would not be waiting at the end of a typewriter to sign one firearms certificate.
  "That indexes are created for reference purposes and the certificates dispatched".
  I suggest that that is impossible in 24 hours.
  My inquiries, unlike those of the police, have revealed that Ryan was not a full member of the club when he applied for the certificate. He joined the club on 9 September 1986 and was a provisional member. The club has a three-month provisional membership. No police check was made to establish whether he subsequently became a full member. I am sorry to go on in detail but this is crucial to my point.
  It is clearly laid down in existing law that an applicant for a certificate should be a full member of a club. Furthermore, and more pertinent to the case, when Ryan varied his certificate to obtain the so-called "Kalashnikov-style" weapon — a self-loading rifle — he was not a member of any club at which he could legitimately have used such a firearm.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is saying that Michael Ryan was not legitimately an owner of a Kalashnikov weapon, which the Bill will now ban?
  Mr. Jones: That is not quite the case. After the issue of the certificate, Ryan was a legitimate owner. However, the issue of such a certificate by the police was an extremely dubious event. Indeed, I suggest that its issue was illegitimate.
  Mr. Davies: So that we can be clear on this matter, is my hon. Friend telling the House that Michael Ryan was

  1139
  legitimately issued a firearms certificate by the police in circumstances when he was not a member of a shooting club, which membership would, under normal circumstances, have allowed him the issue of a certificate to purchase a Kalashnikov?
  Mr. Jones: I am, indeed, confirming that.
  As proof of the fact that he was not a full member of any club that had full-bore shooting provision and that he was a member of only one club, the Wiltshire Rifle and Pistol Club, I have a photograph of his membership card, showing clearly his provisional status at the club. He was not even a full member at the time of the incident.
  One could say that it was only a matter of time before he would have obtained full membership. Well, that brings me to the issue of an inquiry which, I believe, would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he should not have been granted a certificate on at least three grounds. First, he was known to carry his guns in public when not on the way to or from a range. That is illegal under the present Act and enforcement would have prevented the massacre. Secondly, he was reported to have used his firearms in public before the incident. That is illegal under the present Act and enforcement would have prevented the massacre. Thirdly, he was known — it is reported that certain police officers knew this — to have already possessed illegal weapons. I have spoken to an eye witness of one of the weapons and there is evidence under oath to that effect. That is illegal under the present Act and enforcement would have prevented the massacre.
  Other facts may or may not be confirmed by an inquiry. Ryan is reputed to have had a social worker. Why? He was not disabled or under a probation order. Did he suffer from mental instability? Ryan is reputed to have been a heavy drinker. Was that true? Ryan is reputed to have physically abused his mother. Was that true? Any of those things would have prevented his ownership of a firearm under the existing Act. Was that "inefficiency" due to the 25 per cent. undermanning of Thames Valley police or is there a more insidious reason? At least one member of the Thames Valley police authority has written to me and he would like to know.
  Any investigation might suggest sensible amendments to the Firearms Act 1968, such as statutory control of the "shooting gallery" style of gun clubs, which cannot and, I believe, often do not wish properly to control their membership. There could be statutory examination of an applicant's health and social security records and there could be a reduction of the grounds for appeal and the ease of appeal. Other obvious measures to increase the implementation and, consequently, the effectiveness of police enforcement of the existing legislation may become apparent. Sadly, they may have been all that was necessary to prevent the needless slaughter of 16 people.
  Finally, it is essential that an inquiry be held, as the Bill, if it becomes law, could be found to be more unworkable and less effective than the existing Act, at least as far as certain categories of firearms are concerned.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for catching your eye and hope to speak only briefly. I have not spoken in any of the debates on this
  1140
  subject in this Parliament. I hope that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) will forgive me if I do not follow what he said about his amendment.
  I must begin by declaring an interest. I am a council member of the National Rifle Association and a member of the council of the British Field Sports Society. I do not claim to speak for either organisation. What I want to say is based more on the fact that Bisley camp, which is the headquarters of rifle shooting in this country, is in my constituency. Many of my constituents own firearms of one kind or another and I have shot with firearms of various kinds for twice as long as I have been a Member of the House. Perhaps that entitles me to make some comment on the legislation.
  I cannot begin by saying that I regard the legislation as welcome. However, it is necessary. The circumstances that make it necessary are most unwelcome and we have been reminded of them. However, I advise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that this legislation needs substantial improvements in Committee. I was glad to hear that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is already persuaded of that in part, if not in whole.
  The legislation is necessary to restore public confidence both about the possession of firearms and shotguns in the community today and about effective policing against armed crime. It would be most unfortunate if the debate on this important measure was conducted against a background of resentment on the part of the shooting community. I advise my hon. Friend that many members of the law-abiding shooting community — owners and users of guns — have felt deeply offended at being classed as potential criminals. The Home Office has still to put that right.
  Many more shooters are understandably aggrieved at some of the proposals in the Bill, which they see as either ineffective or unfair. An example of what is clearly unfair is the denial of compensation to possessors of certain firearms which are to be made illegal. It is difficult to find an adequate precedent for that. I advise my right hon. Friend that scented erasers do not come into that category. He might, with a bit more justice, have drawn the parallel with flick knives or gin traps or other articles of some small value, which are rendered totally valueless by legislation. However, I think that it is conceded on both sides of the House that something needs to be done about the matter in Committee. I was pleased to learn—although I did not hear it from him directly — that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) agrees with this point. It is nice to be on the same side as him.
  I also feel that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must do more if he is to justify the need for restrictions on repeating shotguns — that is to say, self-loading or pump-action guns. He must show that his proposals will have an effect on crime. They will hit hard particular classes — particularly clay pigeon shooters — who have argued with considerable force that if only the proposals could be amended so that self-loading shotguns with a magazine capacity of no more than two rounds were brought within them, everything would be all right. I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand the logic of the present proposals, and the apparent reluctance of my right hon. Friend to amend them.
  What I also find curious about the Bill—as do many of my constituents—is that it contains no conscious attempt to limit the burden on police manpower that the

  1141
  new regulations would impose. I do not know which firm of management consultants came up with the figure that the new proposals can he adminstered by the addition of a mere 80 police and civilian staff. I should have thought that the burden would be considerably more than that, certainly in the initial stages. I also feel that it would he sensible to consider reducing the present burden on the police by extending the life of some certificates —particularly shotgun certificates — and lengthening the interval at which they must be renewed. That could easily be done through a simple amendment to section 26(3) of the Firearms Act 1968, substituting five years for three. I hope that that will be probed further in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West mentioned the seemingly perfunctory way in which Ryan's application for a firearms certificate was dealt with by Thames Valley police—and, indeed, the perfunctory way in which the processes of issuing such certificates are dealt with in the chief constable's report. There is no reference whatever to the normal rules and procedures of that force, and we are left to suppose that it is quite standard for a firearms certificate to be issued in 24 hours to someone who holds a shotgun certificate.
  Mr. Hurd: This is an important point, and I am grateful for the opportunity to correct the misleading impression that could easily be derived—indeed, has been derived—from the chief constable's report to the police authority on Hungerford.
  In fact, Ryan's application was received at divisional level on 26 November 1986. The customary checks were carried out to ensure that he had no criminal record and nothing was known to his detriment; that he was a full member of an approved gun club; and that security was adequate for the weapons that he wished to possess. [Interruption.] On 10 December—the date of the chief constable's report — the application was forwarded by the division to headquarters for the issue of the certificate. Having checked the point in view of the report, I understand that a reasonable time was taken, from 26 November to 10 December, and that the usual checks and procedures were carried out.
  Mr. Onslow: I understand that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West wishes to pursue the point, but he cannot intervene on an intervention in my speech. Before he speaks, may I say to my right hon. Friend that I do not know how on earth the chief constable got away with the report without a correction when he made it to his committee.
  An important point has been clarified some time after the event. I am glad that it has been clarified, but the processing of the application in just over a fortnight is still rather better than some parts of the country can achieve. Applicants for a firearms certificate do not resent the fact that it takes some time to check their applications for validity; indeed, I believe that they positively welcome it. Having paid for it, they feel that they might as well get value for money.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I apologise for the interruption on the Home Secretary's intervention. However, I would like to point out again that Ryan was not a full member, as reported in the chief constable's report. That should have been picked up at the time, and obviously was not. Ryan was not a full member of any club at that time. The earliest date on which he could have become a full member was
  1142
  9 December, and he could have done so only with the agreement of the club. The police did not check with the club whether he had become a full member on 9 December.
  Mr. Onslow: I do not wish to dwell on the point, but I feel that, both in cases such as this and in general, the House has a right to expect that section 27 of the Firearms Act is complied with by the police.
  Having said that, I must ask whether we should be content, as my right hon. Friend proposes, to leave such wide and undefined powers to the police as apparently are proposed in clause 3, under nothing more substantial than guidance. Some members of the shooting fraternity feel that pressure from the police side stems from a reluctance to enforce the law in the spirit in which it is intended. It would be a great pity if the new legislation meant that the relationship between law-abiding shooters and the police was one of mutual suspicion and distrust; its purpose should be to avoid that.
  However, I can testify that the feeling exists by quoting from an editorial that appeared in Police, the magazine of the Police Federation, in September last year. The Shooting Times is quoted as having responded to the proposal for increased security by asking a perfectly sensible question:
  "What about the shoot lunch, when the guns retire to the local pub?"
  The editorial comments:
  "an interesting juxtaposition of shooting with boozing."
  Any policeman or spokesman for the police who can write that has no business to be dealing with such matters. The House should not be content to leave unfettered discretion where there is evidence of such attitudes, any more than we should have confidence in organisations—in this case, the Shooters Rights Association — that claim that the Bill as drafted will increase the risk of more crime. I do not believe that either. I think that it will not have as much effect, in certain respects, as some of its supporters say. It may create more offences, but that is not quite the same thing.
  There is undoubtedly a need for a consultative body of the kind that has been proposed. There are plenty of people who could staff such a body. For instance, the former chief constable of Surrey, Sir Peter Matthews, knows a good deal about such matters, and would be a very wise head on that body, and it would not be hard to find some other competent people to serve on it.
  In discussing the matter with outside interests, the House must make it clear that we do not accept any arguments based on the case of the right to bear arms, which is so familiar in the United States. It is true that a body such as our own NRA in particular continues to play a major role in the promotion of military marksmanship, through Services meetings at Bisley, and the army skill-at-arms meeting is recognised as part of military training. We must, however, make it plain that defence of the realm is the task of the armed forces, and not of local gun clubs. It is important that the public should be reassured in legislation that we are dealing with what some people see as the paramilitary fascination of self-loading rifles.
  It must also be recognised that self-loading as a technology of weapon development is likely to progress. It may come to the point where magazine rifles are superseded for international competition purposes, just as single-shot rifles were superseded by the magazine rifle. We must be careful not to legislate the British shooting

  1143
  sports community out of the right to compete at international level. That, too, should be watched over by an advisory body.
  Legislation has to be seen to be sensible and fair. Any Government need the support of the shooting community in its many activities if legislation in this area is to work. This Government are entitled to it more than any alternative Government. It is against that background that I ask Ministers to recognise the need to improve the Bill in Committee to take account of the constructive criticisms of my hon. Friends.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: I trust that Members will forgive me if I do not range over the wider ramifications of the Bill. I should like to direct the attention of the House to a specific matter — the implications of this legislation for certain museums.
  After the passing of the first Firearms Act in 1920, national museums with a statutory duty to collect firearms were exempted, either de jure or de facto, from Acts of Parliament regulating the possession of firearms. This legal basis for exemption was withdrawn from the royal armouries and the service museums by the passing of the National Heritage Act 1983; some of us had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on that legislation. That Act devolved the running of these and other museums to boards of trustees. As a result, employees were no longer
  "in the service of the Crown"
  and, therefore, the basis of their exemption from the Firearms Acts has been lost.
  Since the National Heritage Act 1983 the relevant national museums and their sponsoring Departments and the Home Office have had discussions on ways of overcoming the problem of how to deal with the large firearms collections of the major national museums under the existing firearms legislation. The national museums, as the Home Secretary will know, have continually asked for a return to the status quo ante 1983; in other words, exemption from the Firearms Act.
  There is a range of arguments for this: the lack of any recorded abuse of this privilege by national museums or their staff in the past; legal opinion that this course is perfectly feasible and acceptable; the safeguards which exist through Treasury audit, the national museums' security adviser and the individual museums' security infrastructures.
  The Home Office has so far, I think misguidedly, rejected this approach and drawn up the present legislation, which includes provisions for giving museums licences of exemption, but on conditions to be laid down by the Home Secretary.
  The major national museums with large collections of firearms are very concerned about a number of the details of the present proposals. The principal concern is the irretrieveable damage to objects of heritage which may ensue. The Bill gives the Home Secretary absolute powers to insist that museums hold firearms on conditions laid down by him. The present incumbent may be very concerned about the national heritage, but it may be that other incumbents of his office will not share that concern. It is the unrestricted nature of the powers that concerns the major national museums.
  1144
  The Home Secretary, or another, may seek to impose conditions that physically affect the firearms in question, and could lead to the physical destruction or alteration of the original whole or part of these firearms. The national museums argue that a statutory distinction could and should be drawn, on the one hand, between the duties of the trustees of the museums in question to keep heritage objects in their original condition for the benefit of present and future generations, and, on the other, the duty of the Home Secretary to ensure that the firearms are held in secure conditions which will not endanger the safety of the public. They are also concerned to ensure that the licences of exemption, so-called, for museums should also cover all types of ammunition. The Bill needs clarification from the national museums' point of view.
  The museums affected are fully prepared to secure their firearms in such a way as the Home Secretary accepts will keep the peace and security of the general public. But they urge that the damaging implications of the Bill should be reconsidered on the issues that I have raised. I trust that that will be done, and hopefully done successfully, in the deliberations in Committee. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me in so briefly.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I fear that I may sound like a pale echo of many of my hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), although I may be an even paler echo when I declare that I am not a shooter, unlike my distinguished predecessor but one as the Member for Saffron Walden.
  I also confess to being nervous of guns. Apart from the school cadet force, the first time I picked up a gun with live ammunition in my adult life was on 9 January of this year when I visited a clay-pigeon shooting club in my constituency. When I say that it was Stansted airport clay-pigeon club my hon. Friends will say, where else?
  I am all too well aware of the respectable role that the gun has in the rural community and amongst the wider shooting public. I have been impressed by the many representations that I have received, as I was when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Home Office Ministers in 1973 when the matter was last discussed in detail.
  The Government had to do something in the wake of the Hungerford tragedy. Many legitimate shooters accept that the present law can and should be improved. As has been said time and again in the debate, it is a matter of arriving at the right balance between the legitimate interests of sportsmen and shooters, on the one hand, and the safety of the public, on the other. I have some unease about whether there is a direct connection between the problem as it is perceived by the public, and perhaps described by the police, and the action proposed by the Government.
  If certain types of guns are banned, if there is control of ammunition and if there are tighter requirements for security, one must imagine that there will be a measurable improvement for the safety of the public. However, the danger is surely not the legal owner of the gun using it for crime but rather that the legally-owned gun may be stolen. That, it would appear, is the main cause for concern.
  I gather that in 1986 there were 800 incidents of shotguns being stolen. In the same year firearms were used in 7·7 per cent. of homicides, 8·8 per cent. of robberies and

  1145
  4·5 per cent. of crimes of violence endangering life. In what percentage of those cases were stolen guns actually employed?
  I think we are right to question responsibly and constructively the advance that the Bill will achieve in curbing serious crime. That advance should not be overstated by my right hon. Friend. There is not such a conclusive case that amendment to the Bill should be beyond consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not regard the Bill as it stands as a perfect entity, incapable of amendment.
  Having confessed my general ignorance of the sport, if I dare venture into the types of guns, I am persuaded that the self-loading shotgun—a weapon which I handled on 9 January and with which I performed better than with any other weapon—should be used for sporting purposes. I noted that it had less recoil than other weapons. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is considering whether self-loading guns, with a restricted magazine capacity, might, after all, be exempted from clause I controls. Having handled such a gun, I wonder whether it is crucial that the dividing line should be between two and four cartridges. I cannot believe that having four cartridges rather than two makes that weapon inherently more dangerous or adds measurably to the danger to the public. What proportion of stolen guns, used in that small percentage of serious crimes involving firearms, were self-loading guns? The figure must be extremely small.
  I share my hon. Friends' fears about the powers of the police. Constituents frequently express their worries to me about the possible variations of approach between different police forces and different police officers. I have been asked to countersign a shotgun application only twice in my life, and only quite recently. One countersigns passport applications any number of times, but rather more thought is involved in countersigning a shotgun application. I had known both people concerned perfectly well for many years and was pleased to sign their applications, but I could not possibly guarantee that some trauma might not happen to either of those people in later life, which could cause them, as owners of weapons, to do something wholly regrettable and tragic. It is a far-fetched possibility, but I could not guarantee that it might not happen, nor do I believe that any police officer could give such a guarantee.
  There is a tremendous variation when officers of the state are given such responsibility. It happens time and again. For example, a factory inspector may demand one set of standards, yet his successor may demand another. It also happens when fire officers introduce fire precautions in various establishments throughout the country. It is not far-fetched to imagine that legitimate shooters might be worried about what might happen in one part of the country compared with another and about the conduct of one officer compared with another. My right hon. Friend must reduce the risk of variation in the best way possible.
  I should also like to emphasise the point about compensation, and I welcome my right hon. Friend's promise of further consideration. It seems the unkindest cut of all to many legitimate gun owners that people should believe that they might misuse their weapons and that, if those weapons were taken from them, there should he no compensation. The fear has been expressed that guns which were not allowed to be handed in, with compensation, could find their way into the wrong hands.
  1146
  That idea was dismissed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others, but it is a reasonable fear. We need only recall that a few years ago we tried to stop anything getting into Rhodesia, and we failed badly. We need only consider what is happening in any hot spot in the world where weapons are used to realise that they are getting into those places by all sorts of devious routes. The person who parted with the gun would not be responsible for the final destination. It would follow a shadowy trail, but it would get there in the end.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Haselhurst: I promised to speak briefly, so I shall not take any interventions.
  This is an immensely difficult matter in which my right hon. Friend may find the precedents discouraging, but he would do a great service if he were brave and made a special case for compensation in respect of those weapons. He was obliged to bring forward legislation. I hope that he will maintain a listening stance and be prepared to perfect the balance of his Bill in those matters which obviously cause a great deal of concern among our hon. Friends and those many people whom they represent. Then, indeed, his legislation will deserve to survive.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Like the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), I am not a shooter and my experience of all weapons is limited. My speech is based on the lobbies that I have received from both inside and outside my constituency.
  Any legislation which controls the illegal and criminal use or possession of firearms must be welcomed. However, the legislation will do nothing to affect illegally held firearms. The Bill seeks only to regulate legally held and regulated firearms. It imposes further restrictions on firearms holders who, in the vast majority of cases, are law-abiding and respectable people who have chosen shooting as their hobby. The Secretary of State has said, and it was admitted in the White Paper, that legislation cannot eradicate criminal intent. The question, therefore, is whether there is a need for this legislation and whether these proposals address that need.
  Under the present law, there is very little regulation of shotguns, but there is considerable and necessary control of other firearms, such as rifles and pistols. The White Paper recognises the public's right to hold firearms for sporting and working purposes. Almost all firearms can be used for sporting or working purposes. Indeed, the self-loading rifle, which is at the heart of this legislation, is used in target competition. The balancing of the rights of shooters with the security of the public is a difficult task, but it must be clear that further regulation of known firearms will not stop any further incidents, such as those which occurred at Hungerford and elsewhere. The only way to achieve that is by the total prohibition of firearms which, as the Government said in the White Paper, is unrealistic.
  A factor that should be made clear, and which constituents have made clear to me, is that a competent shooter can probably do as much damage using an old bolt-action type rifle as he can using a self-loading rifle. We should consider, in that light, whether that type of weapon should be prohibited. Therefore, if the law is being changed simply because of such incidents as Hungerford—the White Paper states that those events have shown

  1147
  potential weaknesses in existing legislation — this legislation is inadequate. The only way to prevent such incidents is to ban all guns. The Bill cannot reduce the risk to the public because the firearms which remain under clause I are just as dangerous as those which the Bill seeks to prohibit.
  What, therefore, is the real reason for the Bill? It cannot put any further control on illegal weapons, so the real reason may simply be to discourage shooters, to reduce their numbers by making it more difficult for firearms to be obtained, or to discourage them by not giving compensation. The granting of powers to the Secretary of State further to prohibit some categories of firearms will also discourage shooters from obtaining any type of gun which they fear could be barred by an order of the Secretary of State at short notice.
  If the shooters are a responsible and law abiding group, there should be no question that their guns will be used in crime or that they will find their way into the hands of criminals. Here, I differentiate between firearms and shotguns, to which I hope to refer later.
  All firearms covered by clause 1 are listed on a firearms certificate or licence. There are strict conditions governing the purchase and sale of such firearms and ammunition. The police, therefore, should have adequate records of these firearms. Further regulation can do nothing to prevent armed crime. The real problem is the firearms which are illegally circulating throughout the country. Recently, there have been five cases of shipments of arms from Libya finding their way to Northern Ireland or to this country.
  There is perhaps a need for further regulation in respect of shotguns. At present, there is no record of the number of guns held by a certificate holder, so the proposal to list all shotguns is welcome. The Home Secretary may consider methods of ensuring that all such guns are recorded and that a serial number is stamped on each one, perhaps through an amnesty. The tightening of conditions regarding the shotgun certificate is also welcome as, to a certain extent, this will prevent shotguns being obtained, for no real reason. However, one can only guess at the numbers of unregulated and unlicensed shotguns that are in the country now.
  Hon. Members know of the lobby against the prohibition of self-loading rifles, and I can only echo the concern expressed to me by my constituents and ask the Secretary of State to consider something like an approved list of self-loading rifles to enable disabled and frail shooters to continue their hobby. No one in his right mind would object to banning such weapons as rocket launchers, bazookas and mortars.
  As well as having shotguns listed on the certificate, perhaps the Home Secretary should consider bringing them under section 1, as with firearms, and abolishing the shotgun certificate altogether, to give some sort of uniformity to the firearms legislation.
  Compensation, to which several hon. Members have referred, is the one thing that is not in the Bill that most of the shooting fraternity want in it. Many shooters will lose considerable sums of money as a result of having to hand in guns that come under section 5 and that are prohibited. They will not be able to sell them on the domestic market or abroad. I am informed that there is no market for those sorts of firearms. The Home Secretary
  1148
  might consider the point that compensation will ensure that prohibited firearms are handed in when an amnesty comes into effect, whereas now there is a risk that some firearms will not be handed in because there is no compensation.
  The Bill does not cover mail order sales. Public confidence cannot be maintained as long as people can look along the newsagents' shelves and see firearms advertised in glossy magazines and available for a small deposit. I suggest that further consideration be given to restrictions on mail order selling, not only of firearms but of other implements that form part of the packages offered in survival magazines—martial arts equipment, wheels, darts and so on.
  I think there should have been more consultation and that a better and more comprehensive Bill could have been brought forward. It will seem to the public that the Bill has been quickly brought forward in response to the Hungerford tragedy. Its main proposals were outlined by the Secretary of State in September at the conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The public will be disappointed when they find the Bill will do nothing to reduce the rates of armed crime.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker appealed for 10-minute speeches. Few hon. Members have responded to that appeal so far.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: If being a game shooter makes it necessary to declare an interest in the debate, I do so. Unlike many other hon. Members who have spoken, I shoot game.
  When discussing the Bill it is important to try to strike the right balance between liberty and restriction. Virtually all who enjoy shooting realise that their weapons are lethal and that if they fall into the wrong hands the consequences could be appalling. As a result, shooters respect their guns and treat them accordingly. Most people already keep their guns and ammunition under lock and key and are aware of the responsibility involved in owning a firearm. I understand also that shooting is now one of the fastest-growing participatory sports in the country.
  It would require a massive amount of legislation to prevent a gun from falling into the hands of a determined thief or killer, but Hungerford has added an urgency to our work on the Bill. I believe that today's legislation can stand a little tightening. However, as other hon. Members have said, we must be careful not to allow "Ryanitis" to cloud our judgment, or to allow the Bill to become a vehicle that could be put to a more sinister use in future by those who would seek to outlaw game shooting or wildfowling.
  I cannot see the point of the proposal to transfer automatic-loading shotguns to section 1 of the Act. Automatic or pump-action shotguns are no more dangerous than the standard double-barrelled shotgun. In fact, they are less so, because the double-barrelled shotgun has a higher rate of sustained firing than an automatic, which means that one can fire 10 cartridges down a regular double-barrelled shotgun more quickly than through an automatic. Furthermore, a double-barrelled shotgun can

  1149
  be cut down to a mere 12 in. and still work. It makes a handy little weapon for a bank robber. Automatic or pump-action shotguns cannot be cut down, as their mechanisms will not work if shortened—so they cannot be concealed, like sawn-off shotguns. To move automatic guns to section 1 seems illogical. If we do so, we shall be the only country in the west that differentiates between shotguns in this way.
  The powers that will be given to the Secretary of State and to chief constables under the Bill seem too vague, for we have no clear definition of what is a good reason to own a gun. We have no way of knowing that the chief constables will interpret the powers in the same way. As things stand, the Home Secretary could amend designations at will without consultation, and could eliminate whole classes of shooting sports, together with their firearms and ammunition. How do we know that a future Home Secretary or chief constable might not be an enthusiastic supporter of the League against Cruel Sports and could, at a stroke, eliminate all classes of game shooting? That would destroy a sport that is enjoyed by a growing number of people, and bring havoc to a growing industry in rural areas. We have the finest gunmakers in the world in this country. Thousands of gamekeepers, game dealers, game farmers, game feed merchants and manufacturers would lose their livelihoods overnight—not to mention the impact that such a move would have on farmers, who are today looking for alternative ways of raising money. Game shooting will undoubtedly be one of those.
  If discretion in these matters is given to 52 chief constables, how do we know that they will interpret their instructions in the same way? I urge that this part of the Bill should be clarified. Why should uncertainty exist about how many guns a citizen may own and about the conditions under which they must be kept? Is it a good reason to keep a pair of Purdeys if one does not shoot, merely because one's grandmother gave them to one? Is it a good reason to own six guns because a person is a keen shot and wants to have an 8-bore for goose shooting, a 12-bore magnum for rough shooting, a pair of sidelocks for driven birds, a 20-bore for his wife or other members of the family and a muzzle loader for muzzle-loading shooting competitions? Is it a good reason to own 25 ancient guns because one is a collector, an investor, a student or a researcher of old guns — but not a practising sportsman? Museums will be allowed to do that, but what about individuals?
  These doubts must be cleared up because, as others have said, relations between the shooting community and the police have never been better than they are today, and that is the way that we want things to stay.
  The White Paper mentioned the secure keeping of shotguns in some detail, but little is said about that in the Bill. Here again, it is essential that clear guidance be given; otherwise, the police could use their powers seriously to curtail shotgun ownership.
  There is confusion, too, over guns in transit—taken when travelling to a shoot or staying overnight, or sent through the post. Is control over transit to be tightened up or changed, and, if so, how? Shall we expect every bed and breakfast establishment that accommodates shooters overnight to instal a gun safe? We need clarification about that.
  On the positive side, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that I approve of the suggestion
  1150
  that police should keep records of all guns and be notified of transfers of ownership on long-term loans, and that gun licences should be produced on the purchase of ammunition. Records should be kept of who owns what gun and where it is. I do not suggest that ammunition purchases should be recorded, but the production of a licence implies an approved user and all shooters, regardless of what type of shooting sport they indulge in, accept that gun ownership implies responsibility.
  It is interesting to note that, as others have said, the effects of firearms and shotguns have been held at a remarkably constant level over the last few years, which is a credit to the security arrangements of today's gun owners.
  I believe that it is right that, as set out in the Bill, visitors to this country should be required to have a gun licence and a sponsor before bringing a gun into the country.
  Turning to the very considerable extra police responsibilities envisaged in this Bill, with the need to keep these and the number of hours of work involved to a minimum so as to keep the cost to shooters to a minimum, I wonder whether it would be feasible to get organisations such as the National Rifle Association, for example, to take responsibility for ensuring that their affiliated clubs meet approved police standards. In this way an affiliated club would be a guaranteed establishment; it would be guaranteed to be responsible and secure. Surely this would cut down the amount of time needed for police inspection and approval and therefore reduce the costs to the club. Then, on approval of the club or of the sportsmen, what chance would there be, I wonder, of extending the period to the next inspection, as has already been discussed.
  Lastly, I want to turn to the proposed amnesty. I am sure that it will work. I am sure that many people will hand in their guns, but I have two thoughts on that. Would it be possible to try to preserve ancient weapons which may be handed in during this amnesty by allowing interested parties such as museums and approved collectors to inspect the guns handed in to see if there is anything that is worth saving? Secondly, as we are all anxious that as many unwanted weapons as possible should be handed in, I too believe that some sort of compensation should be paid for these guns—not necessarily varying according to the value of the gun, but a flat-rate amount offered to everybody in return for handing in guns.
  Those are the four points that I wished to contribute to this debate.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I declare an interest. I have fired a considerable variety of weapons in my lifetime, but I do not shoot in Great Britain, except when representing the House at Bisley against the other place. I am afraid that we have not done as well in recent years as we might have wished.
  I was not surprised that the Home Secretary would not give way to me during his speech whenever I rose to challenge him on the question of compensation, because he was formerly the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and presided over the system of compensation for weapons handed in by those who no longer needed them. I think that he would find it rather difficult to defend the position that he is now adopting in regard to compensation in Great Britain. It is quite clear that compensation is needed, but that is a matter that I can safely leave to right hon. and hon. Members who represent

  1151
  constituencies in Great Britain while I deal with the general thrust of the arguments for and against the legislation that is before us today.
  I think that the House will agree that, coming as I do from Northern Ireland, I have a clear interest in gun control. When I look at the history of gun control in Ulster, I question very seriously the whole theory of gun control as at present practised in this country.
  Hungerford has been referred to. I have to tell the House that last Sunday week a constituent of mine went to church early, returned home, let his wife go to church, proceeded to shoot dead his three small children, including a 14-month-old infant, shot his wife when she came home, and then shot himself. That happened in a part of the United Kingdom that has the most ferociously tight gun laws, and it could not be prevented by those gun laws. This is a matter to which I will return briefly.
  Therefore, when I look at the Hungerford incident and at what has been put before the House, I really wonder what the Government are trying to do and what general principle underlies this legislation. The control of weapons in Northern Ireland is extremely tight. Also, in Northern Ireland there is a vast number of personal protection weapons, pistols and hand guns of various types, carried by many members of the security forces, present and past. The only net result of that has been that the incidence of suicide by young men using those weapons seems to have increased dramatically. One of my neighbours was such a victim. That would indicate that such weapons held by persons legally entitled to have them are not generally used in crime at all, even in the very violent situation in which we live in Northern Ireland.
  Secondly, it is not only guns that are tightly controlled in Northern Ireland. If one buys ammunition for any sort of weapon the amount is restricted and noted on the firearms certificate. We have firearms certificates for all shotguns and bullet-firing weapons. What ammunition one buys, from whom one buys it and the date on which it is bought is shown. The ammunition dealer has to keep a similar record, which is looked over by the police at regular intervals. The reality is that this has not made a blind bit of difference to the number of weapons that are used in crime. It has not mattered.
  I cannot understand why the Government are now trying to draw a line between the lethality of the various types of weapons that are available. This matter has been dealt with in passing by other hon. Members. The reality is that a shotgun is the most deadly weapon of all at short range. It is a surprisingly difficult weapon to transport and has to be cut down if criminals are going to use it; but it is still the deadliest and most murderous weapon of all, because it is much easier to hit one's target with a shotgun than with anything else.
  All the controls in Northern Ireland have not stopped weapons of all sorts getting legally into the hands of unstable persons, such as the one who perpetrated the tragedy in my own constituency. Something must have gone wrong, but I understand there was nothing to show that even the day before. It was the same at Hungerford. The changes that are proposed in the Bill will not prevent another Hungerford or another Maghera. Nor will they prevent domestic murders by the use of legally-held
  1152
  weapons, and I think that a very large number of the murders committed in the country generally will be domestic murders.
  The criminal will continue to steal legally-held weapons if they are available. We have heard mention of that today, but we were not told how many stolen legally-held weapons were recovered. I suspect that some at least—and perhaps a very large percentage — of those stolen weapons were recovered. Terrorists, of course, in my Province and elsewhere, will steal legally-held weapons, but that is not how the terrorist carries on his war.
  The legislation that goes through the House is supposed to be decided by rational argument. It seems to me that that is the one thing that is completely lacking in the Government's approach to this matter. There has been no real attempt to look seriously and in depth at the whole matter, to take advice, or to try to find out what other countries are doing and what the result of legislative controls in those countries has been. The Bill is the product of haste and, above all, emotion.
  I can remember—and I think that all hon. Members can remember—the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Every time the subject comes up in the House those who shouted loudest for it at the start now apologise and want to get rid of it, as far as I can see. I can remember the dissolution of the Stormont Parliament because the Army shot dead a number of people in the Bogside in Londonderry. The Stormont Parliament had nothing to do with that, but it was perceived that in some way it was responsible. It was an action of haste and panic which has borne evil fruit throughout the years.
  The Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed by the Prime Minister and supported by practically all hon. Members. It was supposed to bring peace, stability and reconciliation. We have seen the result in the extradition legislation in the Irish Republic. Weapons have been brought in by the shipload by the IRA. Apparently, Protestant paramilitary groups are bringing in by the carload weapons that we are now told have to be removed from their possession — mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns. Terrorists do not go out looking for firearms certificates for those weapons; they smuggle them in and use them. Firearms legislation will not stop terrorists from getting weapons and using them.
  The two measures that I mentioned were all, to some extent, the product of emotional reactions to incidents. We had to be seen to be doing something.
  Mr. Barry Field: A number of IRA members are incarcerated in the prison on the Isle of Wight. What are the hon. Gentleman's views on adapting self-loading rifles, so that they are no longer automatic weapons, by plugging or welding up the gas inlet and removing the pistons?
  Mr. Ross: That would make it more difficult for such weapons to be used. However, if gas-operated weapons were treated in that way, people would have to go back to bolt-action weapons. In competent hands, a bolt-action weapon is a most deadly weapon. It is extremely accurate. Such weapons were used by our military forces in the first world war, to such effect that the attacking Germans thought that they were machine guns. Trying to deal with gas-operated weapons does no good at all.
  The Government have adopted a fundamentally wrong approach to the control of firearms. Reaction in haste is

  1153
  usually wrong. Whenever I see the two Front Benches agreeing that something must be done, I am confirmed in my view that it will be wrong. Whenever they agree on something, it invariably turns out to be wrong. Whenever the Home Secretary, who was the author of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, supports something, I am further convinced that it is wrong.
  Emotional reactions, especially reactions to horrific deeds such as that at Hungerford, cannot lead to a sensible and rational method of dealing with guns. The Bill is wrong. If the House divides tonight, I shall be glad to vote against it. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers will listen carefully to what is being said against the Bill and will take it away, consider in depth what is wrong with present firearms law and come back to the House with a sensible recommendation.
  7.23 pm
  Sir Dudley Smith: I have listened to every speech in the debate. It is most remarkable that the Bill has very few friends. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was the only one that was fully in support of the Bill. I am not suggesting that there will be a Division tonight, or that people will vote against the Bill. Most hon. Members agree that the gun law needs to be tightened. But I am certain that the fallacies that have been exposed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers great pause for thought.
  Experience tells me that early reactive legislation is usually the worst kind. The Bill is an example of that. I have little doubt that the law needs to be tightened. All hon. Members agree that the Hungerford affair was horrific, but it was exceptional in our national life. Even in this dangerous age, I doubt whether there will be as serious an incident in the next 20 years. If there is not, it will not he because of the Bill.
  I agree that the banning of certain firearms is probably desirable, but they should never have been available to the public in the first place. What happened at Hungerford was unique. It was imitative of what had recently happened in Australia and America. It was a copycat incident.
  Like other hon. Members, I have had a considerable number of representations from constituents who belong to shooting and gun clubs. They have been writing to me articulately and have also come to see me. They ask, pertinently, why they should be penalised because of the actions of one man—however mad and terrible he was. They say, rightly, that the new laws will not stop murder and mayhem. They resent the implication that they are latent criminals because they own firearms. There can be no effective legislation against a man who eventually becomes unhinged and has access to firearms or other weapons. In my constituency, there was a terrible case of a man who wiped out his entire family, killing three people, and then committed suicide, but who had been perfectly normal until that time. Such things happen.
  I fully support all that has been said by those who regard it as totally wrong that those who own particular weapons that they will now have to surrender should not be compensated. Those people regard it as a fine. If they
  1154
  must surrender firearms worth £200, £300, £400, or £500, the state would be fining them for daring to possess such weapons under the law as it then was.
  I have great sympathy with the views of people whose sport is shooting, even though they are a small minority of the population. I am not a member of a shooting club, although I own a shotgun and am interested in game shooting and rough shooting. I do not do it on a regular basis because, as a Member of Parliament, I do not have the time. I wonder whether my licence will be renewed, because I do not shoot regularly.
  The vast majority of people are not interested in firearms, or in owning them. However, they are influenced by the superficial instant reaction of the media to what happened at Hungerford and to the superficial calls for the public to be protected. A recent television documentary, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred, sought to establish that the police were negligent and much too slow in responding to the horror of Hungerford. Given the unique circumstances of that case, I do not blame the police, who had to face an extraordinarily difficult and unusual situation. However, I do blame them for granting a licence for the acquisition of a whole range of deadly weapons to a young man who, by any standards, should not have owned them and who appeared to be unstable. This afternoon we heard the worrying suggestion that he was probably only a provisional member of a gun club.
  As a result of what happened, all who possess guns will now be put to considerable inconvenience and cost. Yet those holders of guns, whether firearms or shotguns, are in 99 per cent. of cases among the most law-abiding citizens. Gun clubs and collectors will suffer most from the Bill. However, what will the Bill prevent? I submit that it will be very little indeed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was asked how many stolen guns are used in criminal activities. I do not have the figure, but I believe that I am right in saying that there are very few. I understand that the firearm most used in the pursuit of crime is the pistol. That weapon is currently subjected to the most restrictive licence. But most pistols used in crime have not been stolen—they have been acquired illegally by criminals through criminal networks.
  One of those shooters who will be affected drew my attention to the British Medical Association's publication, "Living with Risk", which studies the various hazards which can cause untimely death or injury in our society. Accidents with firearms, or the deliberate use of them against a person, come very low in the order of risk, especially with regard to legally held firearms. There are many other hazards facing us. For example, road accidents kill and maim far more people every 48 hours or so than did the exceptional case of Hungerford.
  It may well be wise to remove repeater weapons from the public and to tighten up on licences, but I hope that my right hon. Friend and his successors will monitor and review the law regularly and analyse the situation. There are deep flaws in the Bill. Whatever view one takes of game and rough shooting and gun clubs, there must be fairness while such pursuits are tolerated and within the law. They must be permitted and they must be treated fairly.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I shall repay your kindness in calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, by being

  1155
  brief, because, apart from anything else, most of my foxes have been shot, whether with a shotgun or other firearm, I know not.
  The annunciator screen should announce when the Front Benches are united on a piece of legislation, so that Back Benchers are suitably warned. Having said that, I support the Bill with a few qualifications, most of which have been mentioned, enabling me to be correspondingly brief.
  The Bill is not and should not be a response to the tragedy at Hungerford. The proper response should be action on the spot — instruction to the police, and, possibly, the adjustment of how they behave to try to prevent similar catastrophes.
  The Bill is not a response to the tragedy. It is necessary—I declare an interest as a possessor of a shotgun and a shooter of game — because the law is out of date. I support the Bill because a number of new and different species of weapons should be prohibited. There is a need for tighter control over guns and there is a small advantage to the prevention of crime in trying to limit the number of weapons in circulation. However, as many of my hon. Friends have already said, it is difficult to quantify the number of arms, and that is something that the Home Office should try to do.
  In several respects, the Bill may have gone too wide and in others it needs more precise definition. However, the Bill is far better than the White Paper suggested it would be.
  To those — no doubt all of us—concerned about crime, and possibly to those who think that crime will be reduced by legislating against legal holders of shotguns and other arms, I would say two things. First, we do not have the same kind of society as the United States, where the right to defend oneself with a gun is an important human right. We might be going that way, and I hope that, when the Home Secretary wears his other hat to look after broadcasting, he will do what he can to reduce the amount of, by our standards, violent, but by American standards apparently quite ordinary, material on our screens—in particular, violence with the use of guns. Increasing penalties for crimes aggravated by the possession of weapons is one way in which the kind of crimes that we are concerned about can be prevented.
  Shooting interests in Britain are strong, and I suspect that there are many more interested in shooting than the Home Office calculated when it started on this legislative road. Many jobs depend upon shooting. Shooting as a field sport, in which I have a personal interest, is largely responsible for the maintenance of the countryside as it appears to us today. It is a vehicle by which a large amount of money goes from the urban areas, spread as they are over the south of Britain, to the rural areas, and that is good. Shooting also contributes to the ecological balance of our countryside. Shooting as a sport is a positive force for good, and I would not want to see anything in the Bill that would allow any future Secretary of State—I have in mind clause 1(5)—the power to diminish the rights of proper sportsmen and legal holders of shotguns.
  On the granting and renewal of shotgun certificates and the good reason point, the interests of a bona fide collector should be specified. The hon. Member who suggested that
  1156
  that is already recognised has read the Bill incorrectly. I wonder whether the interests of a genuine investor should be specified.
  I am less concerned than my hon. Friends about leaving the police to handle the safety and peace-to-the-community aspects. That approach may work. I see enormous difficulties in trying to lay down in legislation the precise storage, safety, and peace-to-the-community requirements. However, I have no doubt that the Committee will want to discuss that. I favour sticking to guidance procedures for police.
  I agree that the three-shot pump-action shotguns are as safe as any ordinary double-barrelled shotguns and should not be classed as section 1 firearms. I also agree that the Home Office should press for compensation for prohibited firearms, a point that has been well covered.
  One point that has not been covered concerns the estimate of police manpower that will be required. The application of the Bill in practice will depend on how much it costs the community. I hope that the estimate of only 80 police is correct, but I cannot believe that that is anything but a considerable underestimate of the number of police and civilians who will be needed to enforce the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at that.
  The British Shooting Sports Council, which I am pleased to say has its base in my constituency, estimates that 220 more policemen and 50 more civilians will be required. That would be far too high a price to pay for a Bill such as this, particularly when, like many other hon. Members, I have lobbied the Home Secretary regularly for an increase in the number of policemen to administer the law in the streets of my constituency.
  The proper and responsible use of firearms can benefit the country, the sporting community and vermin control. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I do not think that there are no defence implications, although on other matters it is a great pleasure to be able to agree with him for once. There may be defence implications. We do not need to go as far as an earlier constituent of my constituency, the former Tory Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, who said in 1900 that he would laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England, but 1 do believe that responsible firearm owners and users will support the Bill, provided that it is properly amended on the lines that I and my hon. Friends have suggested.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) said, in particular about police manpower. If we take some 200,000 weapons from the category where they now qualify for shotgun certificates and include them in category 1, where they will require firearms certificates, that will have considerable implications for police manpower. I see from an answer to a parliamentary question that it takes the police 45 minutes to grant a shotgun certificate and 145 minutes to grant a firearms certificate, so if that difference is multiplied by 200,000 weapons it will mean a lot of additional work for the police.
  I must first declare my interests as an owner of shotguns and rifles and as a user of them from a very early age. My father's advice to his son was,

  1157
  "If a sportsman true you'd be,
  listen carefully to me.
  Never, never let your gun
  pointed be at anyone."
  It is because the British shooting fraternity has followed that advice that it was so outraged and shocked by the Hungerford tragedy on 19 August and other more recent events. It cautioned, quite rightly, against over-reaction by the public and the authorities. Shooting sportsmen accept that tighter controls may be required to protect the public and that the Government have a duty to respond to calls for reform.
  We must, however, ask ourselves during the passage of the Bill, which I hope will proceed tonight, whether it will give greater protection to the public or will merely penalise the law-abiding shooting community for a crime they did not commit. That shooting community comprises some 4 million shooters and a considerable trade to support Britain's second most popular participatory sport. That is probably why so many sportsmen and supporters of the sport, who do not necessarily shoot, have reacted to the Government's proposals. Our mail bags and surgery lists are evidence of that. No one can deny that they have had a fair hearing, and I applaud the way in which Home Office Ministers have reacted to representations made to them.
  A great deal of consultation has taken place. I part company with some of my hon. Friends who have said that there has not been enough consultation and that the Bill is being rushed through. There has been a great deal of consultation, from my right hon. Friend's speech in Torquay on 22 September, only a month after the Hungerford tragedy, through to the publication of the White Paper. In all that time Ministers have been only too ready to respond to representations made to us. There has been a constructive debate on the issue throughout that time.
  I particularly pay credit to the work of the British Shooting Sports Council under the chairmanship of Lord Swansea. It represents a number of organisations, which I will read out so that their members will know that their views have been represented to Ministers. The council consists of the following organisations: the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Field Sports Society, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the Gun Trade Association, the Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain, the National Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association, the National Small-bore Rifle Association, the Shooting Sports Trust and the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association. I add to the list of organisations the Shooters Rights Association, which has also been diligent and energetic in its contribution to the debate.
  I welcome the Bill, but it is far from perfect. It will have to be amended during its passage because, in seeking to protect the public against the misuse of firearms, there is a danger that we militate unintentionally and unjustifiably against the legitimate, sensible and responsible owners and users of firearms. Farmers are major users of firearms. Four out of five farmers have at least one shotgun which can be fairly described as an essential tool of trade. They welcome most of the Government's proposals, but they have one major reservation about clause 3 relating to the grant and renewal of shotgun certificates by the chief officer of police. This will require certain shotgun owners and those seeking to possess one to show good reason why
  1158
  they want it. The onus is on the shooter to show good reason, but the onus should be on the police to say why he or she should not have the certificate.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend, but the onus he prefers is the onus set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Colvin: I am very pleased to hear that. Nevertheless, there could be great disparity in the implementation of the law relating to good reason as between one police authority and another. There are 51 police authorities and it should not be left to them to apply their own interpretation, nor should it be left to the courts to decide as a matter of common law. Although the Bill goes a great deal further than the White Paper on that subject, it is not nearly specific enough. It is far better to have clear guidelines as to what constitutes a good reason incorporated in the legislation. No mention has been made in the Bill of reasons such as investment or private collections.
  In welcoming the statutory requirement that, for safekeeping, responsibility for weapons must be placed on the shoulders of the person, I feel that a code of practice is necessary. This raises the question of who should advise the Home Secretary on drawing up such guidelines and codes of practice. My hon. Friend will have seen the voluntary code of practice for safe custody of weapons and ammunition produced by the British Sports Shooting Council. It has suggested—the suggestion has received wide support in the House—that an expert consultative committee should be established to assist my right hon. Friend on an ongoing basis.
  I refer briefly to compensation. The slogan on which we should fight this issue is "No confiscation without compensation". There is no doubt that if the measure is being introduced to protect the public, the public must be prepared to foot the bill for that compensation. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who is expert in the use of firearms and has great experience of their misuse, said that many banned firearms that ought to be surrendered may find their way on to the black market arid his constituents rather than mine will be on the receiving end of their bullets.
  The analogy has been drawn between the firearm and the motor car. People ask why we should have such restrictions on firearms when people are allowed legitimately to drive around in fast motor cars, but one must have a driving test before one is allowed to drive a car. Some people have expressed concern that the European legislation on firearms—dare I say it—when the harmonisation takes place, will apply to this country. Firearms legislation controlling the use of weapons in this country is almost the toughest in the world and any legislation we import from Europe is likely to be harmful to the control of weapons.
  In some European countries it is necessary to take a test before one is permitted to use firearms. It might be worthwhile to consider that idea. We should also bear in mind that before one is allowed to drive a motor car it is necessary to have third party insurance and perhaps the Committee should also consider that in the context of firearms.
  1 believe that the Bill deserves a Second Reading. However, in the interests not only of the public, but of the

  1159
  growing number of people of all ages and both sexes who enjoy shooting, I hope that it will not reach the statute book before it has been amended along the lines suggested by my hon. Friends.
  7.40 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I declare my interest as president of the National Small-bore Rifle Association and vice-president of the National Rifle Association, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association and others. I find it hard to believe that a Conservative Government are putting the Bill to the House. I believe that the Ministers are out of touch with the members of the shooting world, many of whom are, of course, Government supporters.
  In common with every hon. Member, I accept that we must have extremely clear, concise and effective firearms legislation. However, on this occasion the Government have got the balance hopelessly wrong, and it is heavily against those legitimate shooters who have carried the brunt of the battle on the effects and results of Hungerford.
  Both target and sporting shooting are a recreation enjoyed by many thousands of responsible people. I am rather disappointed at being unable to speak to a Minister about a subject that concerns me greatly. The shooting world feels seriously let down and many have written to me to say they will not support our party again.
  I spoke in the previous debate. As I said then, it is difficult to understand why there were no consultations— despite requests — before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his policy speech on 22 September. From that date on he has hardly changed a thing, either in the White Paper or in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) appears to have got the idea that there was close association, but he has been badly misinformed. The British Shooting Sports Council is hopping mad about the way in which its advice has been treated in the past two months. One might well ask: what is the point of a BSSC or other responsible bodies if Ministers will not accept advice, even on technicalities? The Bill contains many errors that will have to be corrected in Committee. Could one imagine a Minister of Sport changing legislation affecting cricket or football without first going to the Test and County Cricket Board or the Football Association, before making a policy statement? However, that is what has happened with this Bill.
  The sheer technicalities of firearms encourages me to support warmly the idea of establishing a statutory expert consultative committee. That would help the Home Secretary with the administration of firearms legislation. It could also create a co-ordinated view among chief constables. Hon. Members have today drawn attention to the fact that the views of chief constables vary enormously throughout the country.
  Advice on weapons — extremely technical stuff —should be welcomed by the Home Secretary, and it would certainly reduce the number of cases that will inevitably go to appeal. Attempting to draft the Bill is a bit of a nightmare because it is attached to the Firearms Act 1968. Most people would have great difficulty in finding their way through the Bill. The only immediate lighthearted
  1160
  comment I can make about the Bill concerns clause 2(2). We should all like to know how to fire five shots "simultaneously" out of any gun.
  I am a strong supporter of the police and a past chairman of the Dumfries and Galloway police committee. Nothing I say is any criticism of the police. However, I believe that the view of the police has swamped the Home Office firearms division. The Bill is what the police want; it is not a fair balance between its views and those of the responsible shooting public. The police are given enormous powers under the Bill and this brings us to security and police discretion.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend has put "sporting use" on the face of the Bill as an accepted reason for having a firearm. We already have the 1969 firearms rules. Those rules insist that security is mentioned on the face of a firearms certificate. I take it that those rules will be the route by which my right hon. Friend will bring in the same measures affecting shotguns. I believe that the rules should be part of the Bill so that we can see what they are and discuss them. In that way we could ensure that they will be effective in the future. The Bill will have to include the right of entry to inspect security and so on.
  Besides the firearms rules we have the Home Office guidance. Hon. Members have already said that that guidance is important. We should like to know what that guidance is and how it will be effected. The Home Office guidance covers the security of weapons in transit. If one is going to Bisley or to a shooting club and stops for a cup of tea or whatever, it is necessary to leave one's guns locked in the boot of the car. However, people have been prosecuted by the police for leaving weapons locked in a car boot. Such prosecutions are unsatisfactory and represent a breakdown in relations between the shooting public and the police. The Home Office must seek to improve matters during the passage of the Bill.
  When the rules are introduced, they will require the inspection of the home of every owner of a shotgun certificate or the home of a person applying for or seeking the renewal of a shotgun certificate. There are 928,000 shotgun certificates. Consider the police manpower needed to inspect all those homes. Indeed, they must also inspect clubs. The Shooters Rights Association and others estimate that more than 1 million police man-hours will be necessary to undertake such work. However, the Bill states that police manpower will be increased by 80. I suspect that that means 80 civilians working computers at police headquarters. I repeat the question that I asked in the last debate: will the Minister tell us how many police man-hours will be required to carry out the additional and onerous duties required under the Bill? What will it all cost?
  The Minister has clearly stated that he hopes to review the costs of shotgun and firearm certificates every three years and recover the full cost. A firearm certificate costs £33 and a shotgun certificate costs £12. If the cost of such certificates is meant to reflect the cost of 1 million extra man-hours on the part of the police, heaven knows what those certificates will cost. The prices of certificates will be outwith the pocket of the normal man who enjoys this recreation.
  I accept that the shotgun certificate may include the number of shotguns held by a person, but that will require thousands of variations month by month as people buy and sell shotguns or lend them because a friend's shotgun

  1161
  is broken. Has my right hon. Friend considered the man-hours involved in checking all those variations in shotgun certificates as shotguns move from dealer to owner, owner to dealer and owner to owner? It will be a bureaucratic nightmare. My right hon. Friend has underestimated what he is taking on.
  Self-loading shotguns are a contentious issue, and the Minister has gone too far. In the debate today we have explained umpteen times that the lack of recoil in the self-loading shotgun is important for women and the disabled and for others, especially in the world of clay pigeon shooting. I took the Wildlife and Countryside Act through the House of Commons after great consultation with everyone, including the Home Secretary of the day. We agreed on the two-round magazine and that one up the spout would be right for the self-loading shotgun. That is now to be put on a firearms certificate. I cannot get any sense from the Home Office as to how it believes that will make a dramatic difference. We have already explained that any competent operator with a double-barrelled shotgun can get off 20 shots far quicker than someone with a five or seven-shot self-loading shotgun, which takes so long to reload. There is no difference in terms of overall fire power, so it is quite unnecessary to put a pump-action or self-loading shotgun on a firearms certificate. That simply must be changed in Committee, and I hope that the Home Secretary will agree to that tonight.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) explained that many stalkers throughout Scotland use self-loading rifles. Many roe stalkers throughout the United Kingdom use five-shot self-loading rifles which are efficient and allow them to fire a second shot at a wounded beast. Those guns are not to be classified under section 1 but are to be banned for ever under section 5. That is surely illogical. The Home Secretary simply must re-examine the practical requirements of those who use self-loading guns.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend is reconsidering the question of visitors. There is a huge income to be had from wealthy people who come here to buy the best shotguns in the world. We must not make it too difficult for them to do that or to come here for shooting competitions. Bisley and other centres have a world reputation. If we are to hedge round such competitions with special regulations, we shall lose that reputation and lose our reputation for world marksmanship.
  Conversions pose a whole host of problems. An expert committee would give the Home Secretary a tremendous amount of help. Hundreds of people have converted rifles to 410 shotguns. Those guns cannot be converted back; the gun cannot be re-rifled. Why on earth must they be dealt with in clause 1? In addition, there are a number of silly footling issues. Under clause 7, any weapon that has been converted will remain at its highest position on the list. Hand grenades and shell cases will be prohibited under section 5. Therefore, anyone with a first world war hand grenade which has been made safe will suffer. It will now be a criminal offence to have a hand grenade that has been made into a cigarette lighter sitting by one's fireplace to light one's pipe, because it will revert to being classified as a hand grenade. It will now be a section 1 criminal offence to have a shell case in which one is growing an aspidistra. The Home Secretary has not begun to think of what he is doing in the Bill.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to museums. We have the finest
  1162
  armouries in the world — particularly at the Tower of London. Is my right hon. Friend really intending weapons there to be reactivated, ruining the actions or the bolts or the breeches? That would be like punching a hole in a Canaletto.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that holders of such collections can apply for a section 1 certificate.
  Sir Hector Monro: We shall have to see about that in Committee. We must consider the Bill as drafted. As matters stand, it is entirely for the Home Secretary to decide what may go on in museums, as the hon. Member for Warley, East explained.
  I am glad that the issue of clubs was raised. Of course the NSRA and the NRA would gladly supervise and manage the arrangements for clubs' licences. There is no need to involve the police. Think of the money that could he saved in that direction.
  Lastly, we come to dealers and compensation. My right hon. Friend must have a guilty conscience about some aspects of the Bill. Paragraph 47 of the White Paper states:
  "We have concluded that as a matter of principle it is undesirable and unjust to require the taxpayer at large to pay for the removal from the public domain of weapons which are an acknowledged threat to life."
  However, it is implied that one need have no worries if one wants to sell them abroad. It is immoral for the Home Secretary to adopt the attitude that it does not matter as long as one does not sell the weapon in this country.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and other hon. Members have emphasised the importance of good compensation. Indeed, our friends from Northern Ireland have pointed out that there has been legislation in Northern Ireland. It has been acknowledged that there are various precedents for the payment of compensation. It would be unjust if many of our friends lost substantial sums because weapons that are legal today were made illegal at the end of July at the drop of a hat because those people would be losing money through no fault of their own. That is unacceptable.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the question of dealers. If we must sell section 5 firearms to dealers, we must bear in mind that in Scotland, for example, there are only six licensed dealers, who are allowed to have only five section 5 weapons at a time. How on earth are we to unload tens of thousands of weapons on to so few dealers?
  While the Government are right to try to toughen up the firearms legislation to make it effective, all in all, they have gone too far. They have produced a ragbag of matters that will need to be corrcted in Committee because they are technically incorrect, and I certainly could not support the Bill tonight.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I gather that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) used to play rugby. I am tempted to remark that if he had treated his opponents on the field with the ferocity with which he has treated the Home Secretary, he would have been banned for life—even in Wales.
  Three aspects of the Bill concern me, and I shall attempt to deal with them as briefly as possible. First, the provision that bans paramilitary firearms for the first time represents

  1163
  a significant development in the British Government's treatment of the private ownership of firearms. It is an entirely new principle and it is being introduced without public announcement, debate or acknowledgement. When taking a step that represents such a radical departure from agreed practice, the Government should be honest about their intentions.
  Secondly, it is proposed to introduce a registration system for shotguns. I understand why the Home Secretary is doing that, and most of us would regard that provision by itself as innocuous. However, it will set in hand a process that will result in every shotgun in the country being identified, located and registered in three, four or perhaps five years' time. I am worried that it will then be a fairly easy step for the Home Secretary of the day to follow the advice offered by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and abolish the distinction between shotgun certificates and firearms certificates. Once shotguns have been identified it will be relatively easy to require section 1 certificates to be obtained in respect of their ownership. That course of action is being pressed on the Home Secretary and will be available to him under the Bill. That development has not been publicly acknowledged. There has been no public debate and no justification has been offered for it.
  My third reservation concerns the discretionary powers in the Bill. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State discretionary powers to ban any firearm or ammunition without further primary legislation; it can be done by order. Are we to expect widespread public debate or consultation on that? I suspect not. Clause 3 contains the good reason provision. The Home Secretary explained that he would advise chief constables how to operate that provision. He said that he would give guidance by means of a circular. In an earlier intervention I tried to suggest that guidance might change from year to year. Therefore, not only would different parts of the country perhaps be treated inconsistently but there could be an inconsistence of treatment from one year to the next and from one Home Secretary to the next. We should give such a discretion to any Home Secretary only grudgingly.
  We are all conscious of the disaster that befell Hungerford and sympathetic to the distress that it caused. However, I disagreed with the assertion of the hon. Member for Newbury that the Bill was not a response to the events at Hungerford. The House is divided on this point because the Opposition believe that this legislation is nothing more than a political response to the events at Hungerford. However, I accept that that view is not shared by all Conservative Members.
  I want to draw to the attention of the House two items of evidence to support my contention that this legislation is merely a political response. The first piece of evidence is contained in the White Paper that was introduced to the House before Christmas. With reference to Hungerford it states:
  "These events have shown potential weaknesses in the existing controls. They have also created a climate of public opinion."
  The Bill is a response to that climate of public opinion.
  My second piece of evidence is to be found in the reply to a question that I tabled to the Home Secretary on 18
  1164
  December 1986. Ironically, that was one week after Michael Ryan was granted his firearms certificate. I asked the Secretary of State
  "whether he has any proposals to review legislation on firearms."
  The Minister replied:
  "there are no plans at present to amend the Firearms Act 1968." —[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 642.]
  Of course there was a review. Governments review all legislation at all times. However, as late as December 1986, the Government had no plans to introduce legislation. That is why I believe that this Bill is a political reaction. The Government had to be seen to be responding to the events at Hungerford. The Government's reaction has led to the Bill being rushed, inadequate and lacking in consultation. It is a political response because something had to be done and it contains major illogicalities.
  All hon. Members who have spoken tonight, including Tory Members, have criticised some aspects of the legislation. We have all realised that there are illogicalities. I want to refer to the three illogicalities that have not been referred to so far. Much reference has been made to the banning of pump-action shotguns. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary believes that pump-action shotguns have a greater rate of fire than traditional, side-by-side, double-barrelled shotguns. Any reasonably competent, dextrous shooter can achieve a far greater rate of fire with a double-barrelled shotgun than with a pump-action shotgun and with a greater degree of accuracy. If the Home Secretary is concerned about sawn-off shotguns, I further suggest that a pump-action shotgun cannot be reduced to a sawn-off shotgun. The double-barrelled shotgun is the usual sawn-off weapon. If the Home Secretary wants to deal with the increasing pool of illegally held weapons, and if that could be achieved by banning weapons, the logic of the argument is that the double-barrelled shotgun should be banned and the pump-action shotgun should be retained. However, the Government have not accepted the logic of that argument.
  In my second point I want to return to the events at Hungerford. Michael Ryan used a Beretta to kill most of his victims in Hungerford. We have heard much about the Kalashnikov. The Kalashnikov is banned, but the Beretta will not be banned. How on earth can that be a logical response to the events at Hungerford? It beggars belief that the Government should introduce such measures.
  Thirdly, when the Secretary of State referred to clause 2, he mentioned the reclassification of shotgun ammunition. He said that some ammunition is more lethal than other ammunition. The question of the lethality of shotgun ammunition does not depend on the gauge; it depends on the distance from which it is fired. If one were to shoot someone with any gauge of shotgun ammunition at close range, that person would be killed. Michael Ryan fired over distances of less than 20 ft. He could have used a shotgun with any ammunition at that distance.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
  Mr. Davies: Twenty feet is the distance between myself and the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) who wants to intervene.
  Mr. Hind: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the principle that it is impossible to legislate against the activities of a man such as Mr. Ryan. No doubt the hon.

  1165
  Gentleman can appreciate the anger of one of the most law-abiding sections in our community, the shooters, at the Government's response to that incident and the fact that they will lose some of their weapons without compensation. That anger is particularly felt among those using pump-action shotguns to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman follows my argument, that is precisely the conclusion he will draw.
  Those are the three illogicalities that I wanted to submit to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) moved an amendment and I hope that the House will have an opportunity to divide on it later. He made a compelling case about the gross irregularities that occurred in Hungerford when Michael Ryan was issued with a firearms certificate. I want to summarise those irregularities.
  First, Michael Ryan should not have been granted a firearms certificate. Secondly, the speed with which the certificate was offered was wrong. Inadequate checks were made. Thirdly, he should not have been granted the variation which allowed him to purchase a heavy calibre rifle. Finally, he should not have been allowed to retain his certificate once it had been granted because there was more than adequate evidence in Hungerford of his unsuitability to hold such a certificate.
  If there are ways in which controls can be introduced to enhance public safety, those controls must apply not to the weapons but to the individual. If an individual is fit to have a particular firearm, he must be fit enough to own any firearm because of the lethality, power and potential of any firearm for taking human life. Controls must be placed on the individual to ensure that the individual is fit. The control should not be aimed at ensuring that someone is fit to possess certain firearms but not others. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition.
  The Opposition have called for an inquiry into these matters. Most hon. Members who have spoken tonight are familiar in some sense with firearms. We all understand the power of firearms and we therefore understand the great courage that is required of a police officer facing the use of firearms. When we put the case that we should learn the lessons of Hungerford we are not being critical of the police. We are not detracting from our immense admiration of the courage with which the police face their task. Rather, we want to ensure that the lessons are learnt.
  If we want to avoid a repetition of Hungerford, that can be achieved only if we learn the lessons. We can only do that if we have a full public inquiry into how Ryan broke every rule in the book to gain possession of his weapons. We must also have a proper inquiry into the police response. That is not to say that the police reacted wrongly. Mention has been made of a television programme that was supposed to be critical of the police. I saw it, but I did not think that it was critical. I thought that it asked questions. We have a right to ask those questions and the only way in which they will be answered properly is to hold an inquiry into the procedures leading up to Ryan becoming an armed maniac and into the police response. If we believe that there is an overriding need to safeguard the public we must examine the elements of what happened in Hungerford as well as the nature of permitted firearms.
  There must be two pre-requisites. There must be a full and searching inquiry. Secondly, and I endorse the
  1166
  comments made by many Conservative Members, there must be a statutory consultation committee to allow the Home Secretary to have access to expert opinion and advice so that we do not again have the sorry state of affairs of a Home Secretary coming to the House of Commons with a set of proposals and failing to find a single Member of Parliament who will support them.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who spoke a great deal of sense, particularly with regard to the need for an expert consultative committee. It is sad that he has been unable to persuade more of his colleagues to attend and support his views.
  I should declare an interest because I own a shotgun. I consider myself to be a responsible shotgun user and I have owned one for many years. I also have a constituency interest—representing a large rural constituency, that is hardly surprising—and, as a result of the White Paper and the publication of the Bill, I have received many letters.
  We understood the pressures that the Government were under to react to the Hungerford tragedy, but I have always subscribed to that excellent Tory dictum that unless it is essential to legislate it is very necessary not to legislate. The Government have rushed into this matter without the right amount of consultation. Unless we tear the Bill apart in Committee, we shall end up with an Act that we will all regret.
  A number of hon. Members have said that by enacting this legislation we shall go some way to reducing the number of firearms-related crimes. There has been an increase in such crime of 237 per cent. between 1972 and 1986, and the figure has doubled since 1979.
  We have not considered the examples of other countries. Switzerland has a 625,000-strong militia, who all keep their weapons and ammunition at home. It possesses 6,000 assault weapons and 2 million military weapons in total. Kalashnikovs are very easy to acquire there and no certification is required on transfer. Yet armed crime in Switzerland is minimal.
  The home guard in Denmark provides cover during mobilisation and its members possess 60,000 assault weapons, all of which are kept at their homes. In the past 25 years, there have been only 13 homicides attributable to those 60,000 weapons.
  By contrast, Germany has the most draconian firearms legislation and control, but its record of firearms-related crimes is far worse than those other two countries. It is ridiculous to pretend that by legislating in this way we shall reduce the number of firearms-related crimes and that we shall prevent a recurrence of the Hungerford tragedy. We shall not be able to achieve that.
  With regard to the semi-automatic and self-loading rifle clause, Kalashnikovs and other types of infantry assault weapons should be prohibited. We must draw the line somewhere. In the past, it has been drawn at machine guns, grenade launchers and weapons of that nature.
  A number of self-loading rifles are used in competition work, and I do not see why the Minister will not agree to an amendment being moved in Committee that will list the number of self-loading rifles that can be used in competition work.
  I should like to make a new point relating to the national defence aspect of the clause. If the Bill goes

  1167
  through, it will be the first time in British history that civil marksmen will be prevented from owning and training with a current British service rifle. It will act retrospectively by banning previous self-loading rifles. Under the Bill as it stands, the last British service rifle that could continue to be used by civilians would be a world war 2 Enfield No. 4. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that matter.
  Does the Minister feel strongly about the standard of marksmanship in the community? Going back, does he remember the firearms amnesty of 1936 or 1937, when we had to appeal to the Americans to let us have weapons for the Home Guard? Has the Minister or the Home Secretary discussed that matter with the Ministry of Defence?
  I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about compensation. Surely it is morally indefensible not to offer compensation. We are talking about law-abiding citizens who have proved to the police that they have a good reason to own a firearm, and were given a certificate, and who will have their weapons taken away. The arguments that have been made in favour of that so far do not stand up. I urge the Minister to listen to what has been said about compensation. If the Bill goes through and compensation is not offered, many people will think that we have acted in a thoroughly draconian and uncivilised manner.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned pump-action and self-loading shotguns. The hon. Member for Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Marland) said that it is far more difficult to adapt a pump-action or self-loading shotgun for crime because the barrel cannot be cut down. Those weapons are owned by people who cannot afford a more traditional type of shotgun, and they shoot clay pigeons or rough shoot. So far, no sustainable argument has been made that there is a link between the existence of these weapons and armed crime involving them.
  In his speech to senior police officers at Torquay, the Home Secretary had to offer something, so he chucked this proposal at them. We are now on a hook that it will be difficult to get off. Unless we get off it completely, I urge the Minister to accept the limited magazine capacity compromise. I mentioned this to him and he said that it needed careful monitoring. Must we monitor more closely a sensible, orderly group of people? I suggest not. We could have a compromise. If someone broke the law on the limited magazine capacity, he could be prosecuted. The excuse of lack of monitoring for not agreeing to it does not stand up.
  The good reason clause must be set out very clearly. During the election campaign I visited someone in a housing association flat. To begin with, the conversation was fairly difficult because he obviously did not share my politics. I discovered that he was a member of the local wildfowling club and that in his bed-sit he had no fewer than four shotguns. Why not — he was a keen wild-fowler? He had an 8-bore, a Magnum 12-bore and two other 12-bores. He was a law-abiding sportsman who was fanatical about the sport. If someone like that has a run-in with the local police — perhaps he is a bit of a character and the police have got it in for him — they could easily say, "You cannot have a firearm certificate. We do not believe that you have a good reason to possess
  1168
  one, and you have inadequate security." We must clarify what is a good reason. What is outlined in the clause is inadequate.
  An expert consultative committee could advise the Home Secretary on many different points and, above all, play a part in setting up a code of practice on security. I cannot think why the Home Secretary or the Minister have not nodded in approval when many Conservative and Opposition Members have urged the Government to set up a statutory expert consultative committee. Without it we shall miss a major opportunity in the Bill.
  The Bill is unnecessary for the reasons that I have given. Unless we amend it substantially in Committee, we shall create a Bill that will lead to an increase in police bureaucracy and time. This legislation must be carried out in a spirit of good will and co-operation between the police and the sporting community. As some hon. Members have said, the relationship between the police and the sporting community has never been better. However, if the Bill goes through, if the police have the powers of discretion that they will have under the Bill as it now stands, if there is no expert consultative committee, and if in Dorset, for example, one will be able to obtain a shotgun certificate in certain circumstances whereas in Norfolk one will not, antagonism will be rife. We shall introduce a Bill that we shall deeply regret in years to come. It will antagonise many of our best and most loyal supporters. I support the Bill on Second Reading only on the basis that it will be heavily amended in Committee. If it is not, I shall definitely vote against it on Third Reading.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: I am conscious in following my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that their experience of this subject greatly exceeds mine. Indeed, I hope that not only the experience but the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will move the Front Bench.
  I shoot a little and own a shotgun. I represent part of a county in which game shooting and shooting clubs are major parts of our activities. In addition, all our farmers depend greatly on owning a gun.
  Much of the ground has been covered. I am conscious of the time, so I shall gallop a little if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to speak, first, about the attitude of the Home Office. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). The Home Office now says that it was in the process of preparing legislation. That may well be the case, and perhaps we must accept that. However, no one among us will doubt that, even if the Hungerford incident did not initiate the Bill, it greatly accelerated it. We must all take that as read. I believe that even today the Home Secretary talked of "responding" to the Hungerford tragedy, which I think has very much been the reason why the Bill has been brought forward. Hungerford is crucial, if not to the detailed nature of the legislation, to the reason why it is before us. Of course, it was a tragic event. However, it says far more about the nature of Michael Ryan than about the legislation on controlling firearms in this country. Such a person could do that kind of thing in any circumstances, and it is wrong to initiate legislation because of that.
  If my memory serves me correctly, Michael Ryan has boasted about the guns that he owned. I believe that he took them to work loaded and that he had used 30-mile

  1169
  an hour signs for target practice and boasted of that to friends and workmates. I think that is true. If it is, it points to the responsibility of ordinary men and women to bring such things to the attention of the police. That is a far more important aspect of the case than firearms legislation. We all bear such a responsibility. I am certain that had Michael Ryan's friends or acquaintances been the kind of shooters that we are talking about—responsible men and women who shoot regularly— those things would have been brought to the attention of the police.
  I am sure that, following that event, the attitude was that something must be done. How often we hear those words, but now something is being done. I am prepared to accept that the legislation will do some good and that possibly it will be effective. It has some good points. For example, I thoroughly welcome the amnesty, provided that it is properly handled.
  The number of shotguns listed on a certificate is crucial. That point was brought firmly home to me recently when I was talking to the police. Police are frequently called out to an incident where they know that there are shotguns. They sometimes visit a house, take the shotgun and leave. As they may be called back on another occasion, it is important that they know that the first shotgun that they took was the only shotgun and that they know exactly how many shotguns are held in the house. Otherwise they may go back to be confronted by another gun. It would help if they knew the number of guns owned by an individual. Some of the measures about the safe keeping of weapons are also good.
  A few weeks ago I spoke at a conference in Suffolk. Towards the end of the conference I had a discussion with between 15 and 20 police inspectors who were drawn from police forces throughout East Anglia and the east midlands about the whole question of firearms legislation. Towards the end, I asked them their views about the need for further legislation. They were unanimous in saying that there is no need for further legislation. I think that is important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and other hon. Members have said that most crimes are committed with illegally-held weapons. Therefore, how will crime he reduced if regulations are tightened up on people who hold weapons legally? It does not make sense. Little has been said about the fact that most crimes involving weapons are committed with handguns—[Interruption.] It is true.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The figures for 1986 for notifiable offences in which firearms were used show that of 9,363 offences, 5,886 were committed with air weapons. That point has been totally overlooked during the debate.
  Mr. Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The point that I am seeking to make is that the majority of crimes that are committed using weapons are committed not with shotguns. It just happens that shotguns, especially sawn-off shotguns, are emotive and always seem to be hitting the headlines. Therefore, sadly, shotguns are always dragged to the forefront of our debates. That point should be remembered.
  I shall deal quickly with two or three points of detail. First, it does no harm as far as my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are concerned to repeat that it will be absolutely scandalous if compensation is not paid
  1170
  to people whose weapons are confiscated. The legislation may not technically be retrospective, but its effect will be that of retrospective legislation. It will be unworthy of our party and Government if compensation is not paid.
  Secondly—this point has already been made—pump-action shotguns are of great benefit. They have less recoil than other weapons, and that is of enormous help. It is worth pointing out that that greatly benefits women and young people who are keen shooters. I understand that some of those who hope to represent us at the forthcoming Olympics use such shotguns. The point has been made, "What about allowing the gun to hold only three cartridges?" I can see no reason why that should not be taken on board.
  Thirdly, the question of converted weapons has been raised with me. They could be old guns, often 410s, which have been converted a long time ago and may be between 80 and 90 years old. There is no way in which they could possibly be converted back to their original use. What will happen to such guns? If they cannot be used legally, they will either be used illegally or handed to someone else who is less fussy about such things. I should like my hon. Friend to comment on that.
  The safe keeping of firearms and the issue of guns locked in car boots causes great concern. The problems that arise when one goes to shoot elsewhere have been put to me. One must take one's gun and can lock it only in the car boot. But what does one do when one stops for a meal? It is most important that the police take a sensible view.
  A further point about police discretion is that of equal treatment. The point was made earlier that it will be absolutely crackers if the rules governing the granting of licences in one county are different from those in another. That would be intolerable and must be considered.
  I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will devote his attention to some of these points, which are not new, but have been made several times during the debate.
  I shall support the Bill because I believe it to be a sincere attempt to reduce crime. It may succeed to some extent. I believe, and hope, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will listen to the shooting fraternity and make alterations where he believes that they are responsible and appropriate. I beg him to listen carefully so that the Bill does not do more harm than good and that it does not ruin the innocent pleasure of thousands of shooters who have shown themselves to be one of the most responsible and law-abiding groups of sportsmen and women in our society.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: One thing may be true about this debate—the timing is right. There has been time to allow the understandably angry and alarmed atmosphere of last autumn, following the Hungerford tragedy, to settle. Since then, the minority of citizens, virtually all of whom are entirely law-abiding, who own and carry guns have been subject to a degree of abuse in the media and the very definite threat of great burdens in this legislation. That concern was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). All hon. Members should note carefully what he said.
  I refer to a letter that was sent to me by a constituent. It is a copy of a letter that he sent to the Sunday Express, which is hardly an anti-field sports newspaper, referring to a comment in its editorial column. It states:

  1171
  "I object to being described as a `gung-ho Briton', together with many thousands of others, I have used firearms for nearly fifty years. The only time anyone was in danger was when the Government instructed me to use them against the nation's enemies for three years, when they were no doubt very grateful for the fact that I could shoot straight!"
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and, at greater length, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) pointed out the military value in the past of rifle clubs and so forth. The Shooters Rights Association, whose meeting last night the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and I sponsored, pointed out that, in 1859, the then Secretary of State for War became the first president of the National Rifle Association. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) observed that, at the battle of Mons in 1914, the day was probably saved by the rapidity and accuracy of our rifle fire.
  I must admit that I approach the matter with some care because, unlike most who have spoken in the debate, I have no vested interest axe to grind. Indeed, I have never used a firearm or similar weapon, apart from some innocent target shooting with an air rifle in my teens. I have, however, a constituency interest. My constituency is rural, and includes most of Exmoor. In terms of numbers of firearms and shotgun certificates, Somerset and Avon, my own police authority, ranks seventh of all the police authorities in England and Wales. Over 6,000 firearms certificates and over 30,000 shotgun certificates are held.
  That is slightly counterbalanced by a trivial but sad episode, which I mention to show that I am not a gung-ho Briton. Just before Christmas our cat was found dead, close to our home, having been shot through the lungs by a ·22 bullet. With two very young children, my wife and I were understandably concerned that there was someone about with a firearm who, to put it at its most innocent, could not tell the difference between a cat and a rabbit.
  Yet, with those disclaimers, the more I read about the Bill, and the more that I have read constituents' correspondence and met the groups concerned, the more I feel that it is a somewhat heavy-handed approach. Is it not true, I ask the Front Bench, that the Bill is substantially based on the draconian 1973 Green Paper, with which the then Government, and their successors—both Labour and Conservative—did not proceed?
  Reference has been made—and we can argue about it until doomsday—to the role of the Hungerford tragedy in the bringing forward of the Bill at this time. However, Ministers admit that the Bill cannot prevent a repeat of Hungerford. In that respect, it is a sledgehammer that cannot deter or impede a nutcase. Nor, I fear, will it curb the use of guns in crime.
  The Bill does, however, bear heavily on a small minority. A number of improvements have already been suggested, two of them by Opposition Members, which would strengthen the Bill in certain respects. One suggestion was that it should provide for a minimum age for holding firearms or shotgun certificates; the other was that it should pay some attention to — indeed, ban —armour-piercing ammunition.
  The British Shooting Sports Council, on the subject of self-loading and pump-action shotguns, says:
  "There is a very real fear that the Bill will increase the likelihood of crime with these weapons. There is some evidence of an increase in sale in advance of the Act. There
  1172
  is no record of the ownership of these shotguns. When the Act is passed those who do not secure a self-loading certificate will have to dispose of them at a time when the market has collapsed. There is a danger that they will find their way into the criminal market."
  Another proposal made by the BSSC, and mentioned briefly by a number of hon. Members, is the establishment of a statutory expert consultative committee, which
  "will create and keep up to date a Code of Good Practice covering all aspects of firearm security. It will maintain a watch on the development of firearms in sport. It will advise the Home Secretary on which firearms should be the subject of control, within the limits set by the Act."
  I have had constituency correspondence from the members of the Sealed Knot organisation. I do not know how far the Bill will damage that organisation's interests, but it is sufficient to the atmosphere of alarm that the White Paper and the consultation on the Bill have produced that it is worried that its important traditional pastimes will be hindered.
  Let me give another constituency example. A very responsible farmer, a near neighbour of mine, who occasionally has to protect his winter root crops by shooting deer, writes to me:
  "As it is not always possible to kill cleanly with one shot, it is necessary to fire two or three to avoid a painful and lingering death to the animal… My rifle is a 30·06 calibre rifle with a magazine holding only 4 rounds—not the larger magazine type of the military automatic rifle that was used so tragically at Hungerford."
  He is afraid that he will lose the use of that gun.
  That brings me to compensation. Every Conservative Member who has spoken has strongly urged the case for compensation. The only person who seems not to have supported it—indeed, to have positively opposed it—is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am amazed that he should, in his later days, have found such concern for public expenditure.
  I have noticed, in some of the briefings on the Bill, that the precedent has been cited of no compensation being granted to business in respect of changes in the law with regard to health and safety or environmental factors. That is hardly a viable parallel. We are talking of business that exists to make profits, employs people and, no doubt, has an effect on the environment. The Bill is concerned with private individuals who have owned valuable property and now face the possibility of its being taken from them without compensation. Far from committing a crime, those people have scrupulously observed the law. However, they will be in a worse position than the holder of illegal arms who will sell them on the black market.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North has referred to the burdens on police administrative time and the dangers of prohibited weapons without a proper compensation scheme finding their way into criminal hands. I understand that at present the police support the Bill. If their view does not change, it is a view to which my hon. Friends and I will no doubt have to defer. I hope very much, however, that, as the Bill goes through Parliament, the police will study those two points as a matter of urgency. In the view of many of the Bill's critics, they are most important. I hope that, as the Bill goes through its remaining stages, we shall have the benefit of evidence from the police on those points. I hope that these and the other substantial criticisms made by hon. Members on both sides will be urgently considered in Committee and the remaining stages.

  1173
  This is a matter on which this House rather than the other place should wield an amending power, for the simple reason that, in a sensitive matter of this kind, to leave the other place to make drastic amendments might play into the hands of the somewhat irresponsible political heirs and successors of the late first Earl Lloyd George.
  I will support the Bill's Second Reading to ensure that it goes forward. However, I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that much more work needs to be done.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: It is a proper convention of the House, much in evidence in the debate, to declare one's interest. One of two interests which I have to declare is unique; it is an interest of experience in that when I was a young police constable in the west end of London in the mid-1960s, aged 19, I had the unfortunate experience of being shot at by an armed criminal. It was indeed a frightening experience.
  When a policeman is faced with a gun pointing at him, he does not stop to ask whether the firearm is legally or illegally held, whether it is a part 1 or a prohibited weapon, or whether it is a shotgun and, if so, of what type. His sole concern is the safety of the public and of himself and his colleagues. Recent incidents in which two armed gunmen were shot dead by police only serve to highlight the risks that the police face in policing our safe country. A split second decision has to be made. It is proper for us to pay tribute to the bravery of our police force in regard to firearms attacks on them and on the public.
  It is of the gravest concern to me, as it should be to the House and is to the public, that in the 20-odd years since I had my unfortunate experience such incidents have increased. Reference has been made in the debate to the statistics on the use of firearms in the pursuit of crime. There was a 237 per cent. increase between 1972 and 1986. The number of incidents has more than doubled since 1979. That leads me to two possible conclusions. In 1968, not because of my experience, although it may have been a contributory factor, the Firearms Act which we are amending was passed. With the increase in armed crime one wonders whether the right conclusion to draw is that that legislation had no impact on illegally held weapons or on weapons used in crime. The alternative view is to ask how much worse things might have been if the regulations had not been tightened in 1968.
  What strikes at the heart of the debate is that we do not know what effect the proposed legislation will have, but we dare not take the risk of not amending the present law. It is a responsibility peculiar to Parliament, which we must face with an open mind and a willingness to listen to all the arguments.
  Many arguments have been put to hon. Members by interested parties. Here I declare my second interest, in that I represent a constituency where the use of the gun by sportsmen, gamekeepers, farmers and everyone concerned with the land is inextricably linked with the rural way of life. The voice of those people deserves to be heard just as much as the voice of those involved in the enforcement of the law.
  There is another irony which perhaps only this House is capable of throwing up. Within the space of 24 hours in this Chamber we will have had a debate on a Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which is designed to preserve life, and another debate on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which
  1174
  is designed to protect life. As Members of Parliament we have a great responsibility to respond to our consciences as well as to the views that are put to us.
  Much has been said in earlier debates in Parliament and at the time of the publication of the White Paper about the need to achieve a balance between the need to protect the public and the right of the genuine sportsman to use firearms. It is the effectiveness of the legislation rather than its success in striking a balance between conflicting viewpoints that really matters.
  The debate has shown that many issues remain to be settled in Committee. I was much encouraged by a conversation with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the willingness of the Government to make improvements. We all look forward with interest to his response to the debate.
  Because of the pressure of time I need not go over much of the ground already covered in detail. As to compensation, it is offensive for the Government to say that it will be all right for a weapon which is illegal in this country to be sold into another country. That is indefensible. I hope that as a result of the comments today my right hon. Friend will agree to press for a compensation scheme.
  Mention has been made of proper arrangements for visitors. Many visitors from abroad come to my constituency to enjoy their shooting and they bring a great deal of employment and wealth. The proposals in the Bill must not act as a deterrent to them coming here; instead, we must make sure that weapons do not get into the wrong hands.
  Guidelines for the police have been discussed at length. Reference has been made to the need to have a proper set of precise directives which will apply uniformly across police forces. Concern has also been expressed about the amount of police time that will be spent on firearms. If I were a young police constable, reacting to the Bill, I would want to know much more clearly and precisely than has so far been apparent just what my powers and duties are. That matter needs to be addressed properly in Committee. Whether it can be done through the formation of an expert advisory committee on the use and control of weapons is another matter to be considered. Certainly no explanation has been put forward so far from the Government as to why such a committee would not be appropriate.
  The proposals relating to shotguns also require detailed examination, in particular whether pump-action and self-loading shotguns should be classified as class 1 firearms. I cannot understand the logic of wanting to raise into a much more serious category of certification people who have a pump-action shotgun. It has become very much the vogue to quote correspondence from constituents. I should like to read briefly from a letter which a young constituent wrote to me last week:
  "I recently purchased a Beretta 303 Semi-Automatic which was designed … as a special sporting gun … they have very little recoil which … is why the gun is so favoured by me … because of a neck injury sustained by me in an accident 6 years ago. The man that hit me was on a motorbike and was drunk, and I am left with this serious neck injury. I feel I would like to bring in a law banning motorbikes!"
  Is there not a danger that, in the Bill, we have concentrated our attention too much on the types of weapons and not given enough regard to the person possessing the gun? It is not the gun that kills; it is the person who pulls the trigger.

  1175
  The editorial of the December issue of the magazine of the Police Federation stated:
  "Every year there are dozens, if not hundreds, of incidents, involving the misuse of shotguns by holders of certificates who have satisfied the simple requirements of the law on age and absence of convictions for crime. In many cases, including tragic fatalities, evidence has emerged that such people should never have been allowed to possess a weapon, by virtue of their way of life, including their known temperament, alcoholism, mental state, and so on. The new law appears to leave the situation as it was. It has to be said that the safe keeping of a shotgun in the certificate holder's house is less important than finding some means to ensure that he can safely posseses a shotgun."
  For me, the most disappointing comment of the White Paper is in paragraph 44, which states:
  "The Government is not attracted at this stage to the option of seeking medical references from qualified practitioners in support of applications for firearm or shotgun certificates."
  It goes on to say that
  "reference to an applicant's medical record would provide no guarantee against the issue of a certificate to an unsuitable person."
  There is no guarantee that the Bill, in its present form, will effectively reduce crime or prevent another Hungerford. We must consider the matter further and it should be reflected in the Bill.
  Recently, I spoke to a number of shooters at one of England's famous game shoots at Helmsley in my constituency. I asked them what they felt about the Government's proposed firearms legislation, and they all welcomed its objectives. So do I, but there are many imperfections in the Bill which will need to be addressed in Committee.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Like so many other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I ought to declare an interest. I am a very keen sporting man and, like many others, enjoy my shooting.
  There is a problem when a Government reacts to a specific event. That is what is happening in this case. There is a danger that the resulting legislation will be ill-considered, not to say hasty. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) suggested that the Government were simply reacting to the Hungerford tragedy, he was right. If we want to stop incidents such as Hungerford, we should ban all guns. We should also ban all cars and motor bikes because they are probably far more lethal than guns. If an individual goes off his rocker, there is very little one can do to stop it.
  I accept one or two proposals in the Bill which strengthen the gun laws, but it is vital that we protect the rights and freedoms of individual people. The shooting fraternity is, in my experience, a law-abiding and responsible group of people. Opposition Back-Benchers must warn their Front Bench colleagues about this point because, at the last debate on this subject on 26 October 1987, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) introduced the issue of class interest and said:
  "guns are owned by one class of people and knives"—
  he said that we were hitting the knife-owner harder than the gun-owner—
  "are feared to be owned by a different class of society".—[Official Report, 26 October 1987: Vol. 121, c. 32.]
  1176
  The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), a Front Bench spokesman, said on the "World at One" on 15 October that she agreed with proposals to place sporting shotguns in the same category as rifles. She said:
  "I think that no one should have a gun without very good reason".
  Asked whether having a shotgun for sport was a good reason to have a gun permit, she replied:
  "to my mind I would want to see more reason than that. Certainly I would not allow someone who just wanted to shoot birds for sport to hold a gun in their private home. No".
  So I hope that Opposition Back Benchers will make it clear to their Front Bench that this is not a class issue and that millions of people from all sorts of different backgrounds participate in, and enjoy, shooting of all types.
  I make no apology for discussing the issue of compensation, although it has already been widely discussed throughout the debate. Thousands of law-abiding citizens have valuable property and own it perfectly legally; but they will now have it taken away from them without compensation. None of those people has committed a crime of any sort. On the contrary, because they have scrupulously observed the law they will probably be in a worse position than the holder of illegal arms, who will sell them on the black market.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a keen European. Perhaps he is doing his bit for European solidarity and friendship, but I am not sure whether the European countries that he believes will be the recipients of the newly prohibited weapons will thank him for this part of the Bill. It is monstrous for us to take the view that these weapons are too dangerous for people to hold in the United Kingdom but that it is perfectly all right for them to be exported overseas. There is a serious danger, too, that some of the weapons will fall into the hands of undesirable people and terrorists. That is my serious concern. The Government's refusal to give compensation is fundamentally immoral. It is a long-established right that a citizen's property should not be taken away from him without proper compensation.
  I was a little discouraged by my right hon. Friend's response to my earlier intervention in his speech asking when compensation had been refused in similar circumstances. He mentioned scented erasers. At the time, I was not sure what he was talking about — perhaps rubbers of some sort. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned cars. When we made it mandatory for car manufacturers to fit seat belts, for example, the cars that were already made at the time did not have to have seat belts fitted, and people were not forced to wear them, either. So the owners of those cars suffered no financial loss. Of course there are precedents for compensation. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the sheep farmers who, only last year, received compensation after the disaster at Chernobyl. So there are precedents, and I believe that the Government have taken that point on board. It has been made by almost every speaker in the debate.
  But it must be absolutely unprecedented that there should be not a single Member of the House from any party prepared to support a Bill put forward by the Government. So I hope that they will take notice of that.
  It really is absurd to transfer self-loading and pump-action shotguns to section 1. These weapons, because of their minimum recoil, are used widely by young people, elderly people, handicapped people and, not least, women.

  1177
  Therefore I suppose it could be said that this Bill is sexist as well as everything else. These guns are also considerably cheaper, which I believe is something that we should consider, since this brings shooting to many thousands of people who otherwise might not be able to shoot. I must ask my hon. Friend where the evidence is that criminals have been using weapons of these types to further their criminal pursuits. There is no evidence whatever, as far as can see.
  I realise that I must wind up now so that a response can be given to all the points that have been made, and they are certainly numerous. I must say, however, that the more familiar I have become with the Bill the less happy I have felt over recent days and weeks. Indeed, as I have listened to this debate I have become even more convinced that the Bill is seriously flawed. I shall be able to support it on Second Reading only because I am confident and hopeful that the Government will bring forward serious and numerous amendments at Committee stage. If they do not, I shall certainly find it necessary to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  The Bill is clearly an ill-considered reaction to an appalling tragedy. The Government have a duty not to alienate and in some cases criminalise perfectly respectable and responsible members of the community.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will take all these points on board.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: May I first apologise again for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) on duties outside the House. He made clear, and I wish to underline, the need for a proper response to the murders at Hungerford and elsewhere. The public expect it and have a right to do so. The presence and the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in this debate remind us of that, should any reminder be needed.
  The public concern over the adequacy of the laws to control the possession and use of firearms and shotguns and their full enforcement is entirely justified and I think that the Government have been right to give the House the opportunity to revise them. Indeed, had they not done so there would have been loud complaints from the Opposition, because this is something that we have been urging for a long time, well ahead of the massacre at Hungerford.
  I believe that, while recognising and trying to meet public concern, there are two tests against which these proposals must be judged. First, do they win the confidence of the police, who must enforce them? Secondly, do they have the general support of the holders of the present nearly 200,000 firearms certificates and almost 1 million shotgun certificates?
  As to the first, I say to the Government that piling yet more duties upon the police, already sorely stretched in the battle against rising crime, is no guarantee of adequate enforcement. If the provisions of this Bill are to be effectively enforced—and if they are not we are wasting our time—the Government need to provide adequate resources. To that extent, I welcome the remarks of the hon. Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and other hon. Members. We know now that there are to be an extra 300 police officers only in London in 1988–89
  1178
  and as few as 500 in the other 42 forces in England and Wales. In the west midlands alone there was a request for an extra 1,000 officers over the next three years. That has been rejected and the chief constable has warned that this can only mean a poorer service to the public. Replacing police officers with civilians is some help, but there can be no proper substitute for a proper number of officers in preventing and combating crime. Certainly, without an adequate number of trained police officers, law enforcement on firearms as on other things will suffer.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) said, the chief constable of Thames Valley police, in his report, said that Michael Ryan applied for a firearms certificate on 10 December 1986, and was given one the next day. I have to question whether that involved proper and full checks. It strikes me that it was an amazing coincidence that at that particular time the necessary clerks, police officers and an assistant chief constable were all readily available to carry out such a process which elsewhere can take weeks rather than hours.
  Perhaps in that context the Minister will explain why an application form for a shotgun licence does not ask about the occupation of the applicant, although it requires a counter-signature. When people apply for a firearms certificate, on renewal, they have to say what they do for a living. Perhaps he can also say why, although both forms include the question: "Do you suffer from any mental disorder or defect?", there is no check that has to be made with an applicant's GP. That was mentioned with some force by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was a former police officer. I find that astonishing, especially given the judgments which police officers are called upon to make when considering applications.
  That is important for applicants and for those seeking renewal. Indeed, it is important during the lifetime of a licence, since mental illness can strike at any time. A GP who had to comment on an original application would then be able to advise the police of any change affecting the applicant's suitability to hold either or both licences. I hope that the Minister will think again about that.
  It seems wrong that the handling of applications for either firearms or shotguns should be left to any police officer who happens to be on duty. Surely there is a case for experienced officers in each police station to be designated as firearms officers and allowed to build up experience and expertise in the same way as we have custody officers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Similarly, it would be better for the inspection of premises of licensed dealers to be carried out by officers who are familiar with weapons rather than sending the last police officer who walks through the station door to make such inspections.
  I am puzzled as to why the Bill does not require dealers to keep a daily, up-to-date inventory of the stocks of weapons and ammunition that they hold. They have to record the sale, but not the number and types of guns and ammunition that they have in stock. That is wrong, and opens the door to theft, which, without proper checking, could go undetected for a long period. I do not mean to be facetious, but if supermarket managers have to check their shelves, how much more important is it that shelves of weapons and boxes of ammunition should be similarly checked?
  As for the storage of shotguns, it is admitted that under the present law we do not know how many shotguns the holder of a certificate may have, let alone where he or she

  1179
  keeps them. I suspect that they are sometimes kept in various buildings around the farm or on separate farms some distance apart under the same management or ownership. That must enhance the risk of theft or illegal use.
  In paragraph 22 of the White Paper, it was noted:
  "there is no obligation on him to store his weapons securely when he is not using them. The Government believes that this control is too weak."
  In paragraph 23, there was the categorical statement:
  "This means that shotgun owners will be under a statutory obligation to keep their shotguns in a secure place when not in actual use."
  The shotgun licence application asks no question about where shotguns will be kept, although the firearms application does. Can the Minister confirm that the new rules to be dealt with by statutory instrument will make that mandatory? Can he tell the House why that provision, which is recognised to be important by the Government in their White Paper, is not on the face of the Bill?
  Why is it not possible to insist that every firearm and shotgun carries an identification number? I just do not understand it. I am advised that that can be easily achieved at a minimal cost and would be of great value in assisting police in tracking down the source and travel of weapons used illegally in the course of crime.
  Why is there no provision for a national register of holders of firearm and shotgun certificates, again to assist the police? It is proposed that applicants should provide two rather than one photograph when applying, although there is no provision, as with passports, to have those endorsed by a responsible person who has known the applicant for some time.
  What will happen to the second photograph is not explained. If, as I suspect, they are to be held by the police force issuing the certificate, probably alongside computer records, why cannot the system become a national computer register to give police immediate access to those records in the case of suspected crime? If that is good enough for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea, how much stronger is the case for dealing with suspected illegal unauthorised use of firearms? It can be achieved easily, at minimum cost, and would doubtless be welcomed by the police whom we expect to deal with such matters.
  Can the Minister confirm that dealers will only be authorised to sell ammunition for the type of weapon covered by the licence? I can think of no legitimate reason for a certificate holder attempting to buy ammunition for a weapon for which no certificate is produced.
  The Minister will recall that in our earlier debates the Opposition expressed concern about the mail order trade in firearms and questioned whether that could ever be fully proofed against misuse. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) mentioned that tonight, along with others.
  Incredibly, paragraph 38 of the White Paper makes the astonishing assertion that
  "there is no evidence that such sales are being used to evade the law."
  I do not know how such evidence could be acquired. I appreciate that mail order sales are covered by the same legal restrictions and controls as over-the-counter sales,
  1180
  but surely effective enforcement is more difficult with mail order where the person attempting to purchase a weapon or weapons is not physically present.
  I do not want to weary the House, but I have some advertisements from magazines which make astonishing reading and should perhaps be referred for possible prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act. The best that one order coupon does is to provide a little space with the words:
  "I declare that I am over 17 years of age."
  Of course, if that is signed by somebody, they must be over 17, must they not, because nobody ever signs such a declaration falsely.
  Another advertisement does not even go that far. There is no space for a signature. All it says is:
  "Age declaration required over 17 years."
  Another whole page of advertisements for some rather fearsome looking pump guns and shotguns, after saying that our flexible friend and others will be welcome, says:
  "Please enclose shotgun certificate when ordering shotguns".
  I know that certificates have to be sent with orders, but at the moment there is no way in which the mail order dealer can check that the person who has placed the order and enclosed the shotgun certificate is the authorised holder of that certificate. Perhaps that is another argument for a national register so that a quick phone call could provide a check that that was the case. It must be the case that there is at least a risk of the improper use of cerficates for mail order purposes where certificates have been reported stolen or lost or, unknown to the authorised holder of the licence, they have simply been borrowed or loaned for the purpose of making an order. It cannot be unknown in many families for youngsters, impatient to get their hands on those kinds of weapons, to find out where mother or father keep the licence and, at the very least, be tempted to use it to purchase weapons by mail order.
  The debate has been astonishing, although we all remember what happened last Friday. When a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and many of his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends have expressed concern over the matter of compensation for prohibited weapons, I suspect that that Minister will tell the House that he is prepared to think again. If it is any encouragement to him, I tell him that we will listen if the Government will.
  Mr. Hurd: That is a change.
  Mr. Corbett: Labour is listening. The right hon. Gentleman should watch television more—we are the listening party now. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook opened the debate, he made clear his view. I have sympathy with the point that Conservative Members are making and I have a suggestion about how it should be dealt with. If the choice were put to my constituents about taxpayers' money being paid to those holding firearms which will become illegal under the legislation or into the Birmingham children's hospital to ensure that every child who needs heart surgery gets it at the time he or she needs it, there is no question that their vote would be to put that money into the National Health Service. Conservative Members must face up to that. They are quite willing to dig their hands into the taxpayers' pockets for this purpose, but they will not join with my right hon. and hon. Friends on larger and more important purposes.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: That is a totally absurd parallel. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of nationalisation without compensation?
  Mr. Corbett: No, I am not, but that has nothing to do with the debate. It has been estimated that guns to the value of some £50 million could be put at risk by the Bill. These are, as many hon. Members have said, weapons that were bought in good faith and legally and responsibly held by people. I understand the complaints of harshness. We were told during the debate that, perhaps not surprisingly, dealers are trying to take advantage of the position and to offer derisory amounts of cash for weapons which will become illegal. There is a temptation for even a handful of less scrupulous people to bypass authorised dealers and dispose of weapons on the black market.
  I have heard a suggestion which may have some attraction for Conservative Members. The Government should pay compensation because, as was said by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, there should be no confiscation without compensation. That brings me to the point of where the money will come from. It has been suggested that the money could be paid out of the Treasury and repaid over a period, either by a levy on new or renewed licence applications, so that all legitimate shooters share the cost of the change, or by a levy on the sale of weapons.
  Let me repeat that we are faced with a choice about taxpayers' money. Conservative Members have a leader who keeps reading lessons about taxpayers' money. Some £50 million is at stake here and that money could get rid of a lot of the agony and misery presently suffered in the Health Service.
  The Minister is aware that I have written to him about people who have private collections of guns. He will know that one of my constituents can trace his family back as far as Napoleon Bonaparte and more recently to the person who developed the Maxim machine gun. He has inherited a collection of antique weapons, many of which are incapable of being fired and he says it is virtually impossible to obtain ammunition for those that can be fired. He is not a member of a gun club and has no interest in shooting. I should have thought that there was a way that weapons held in such private collections could be certificated—perhaps via a proof house such as we have in Birmingham — so that they formed an exempted category. Restrictions on their transport and storage would also seem to be sensible. Perhaps an exemption certificate could disqualify, where necessary, the holder from the purchase of ammunition. I hope that the Minister will write to me about this matter in due course.
  There is an enormous amount of concern about the impact that the proposals will have on visitors to this country, especially those who wish to take part in competitions. I believe that we can learn from countries. Spain, for example, operates a system whereby the United Kingdom licence is translated into Spanish by the London embassy for a cost of between £1·50 and £2. A duplicate of that certificate, together with a photograph, is then sent to Madrid. On arrival, the holder presents the authenticated translation and, for the payment of another £4, obtains a licence to take part in competitions in Spain. I refuse to believe that we cannot do something similar. If we do not act, we risk damaging not only competition shooting, but the tourist trade in rural areas that depends heavily on shooting.
  1182
  I want to be told why the Government chose the route of listing weapons by type and class—this has already been mentioned in the debate. It has been demonstrated that such classification causes confusion and contention. Other countries have acted by prohibiting magazines with more than three shots. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) described it as one up the spout and two in the magazine. It has already been said that rapidity of fire can be achieved with weapons which, on the face of it, do not look lethal, but which, in practised and experienced hands, can deliver. If we limited the number of bullets that can be carried in a magazine we could achieve what the Bill is seeking to do. An example was given about the need for a second killing shot after a stag has been culled for conservation purposes. A second shot may be needed to drop the stag.
  We appreciate the need for a revision of firearms legislation, but we do not believe that there has been adequate consultation with the shooting interests. I hope that the Government will make no attempt to hurry us through the Committee in an attempt to avoid a proper discussion of the proposals. In the course of meeting public concern we must not needlessly restrict the rights of law-abiding shooters or land them with rules and restrictions that are complicated and unworkable. We shall approach the Bill with that attitude and for that reason we shall not divide the House.
  9.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am not certain whether it is necessary for me to declare an interest, but I do so. In common with almost every hon. Member who has spoken—certainly from the Conservative Benches—I have a shotgun certificate. I shoot frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as I would like, and I rather fancy that after this debate I will receive fewer invitations.
  When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he reminded the House of the need to achieve a proper balance between the legitimate interests of the shooting community and the need to provide a proper and sufficient system of firearms control. Both of those considerations are important to us and when we framed our proposals we tried to take them both into account. Our purpose has been to make firearms legislation more effective in its implementation and more reassuring to the public, without imposing on the shooting community restrictions that are unjustified in their objective or unreasonable in their application.
  I acknowledge that we have brought our proposals before the House with some dispatch. That was our duty. However, we have consulted widely and shall continue to do so. The pillars of the policy are in place and I hope that they will remain in place. But my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are not so arrogant as to assume that the Bill is necessarily perfect. [Interruption.] I fancy that that observation is attractive to my hon. Friends. Because we are not arrogant, we shall examine carefully the suggestions and criticisms that will certainly be made during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
  Let me say something brief about the official Opposition. It merits only a few brief words. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) claimed responsibility for some of the Bill's provisions. He flatters himself. He referred to our discussions of the "good reason" provision on 26 October

  1183
  1987. On that occasion he called for the full application of section 1 control to shotguns. The Government decided that that was wholly unjustified because under section 1 control the applicant has to establish a good reason in each and every case. That is not what we propose for shotgun applicants.
  Moreover, we have taken care to ensure — I shall return to this—that the definition of "good reason" is placed on the face of the Bill to protect the legitimate interests of the shooting community, of which I am a member. Therefore, it is wrong for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to claim that he was responsible. Furthermore, in October the right hon. Gentleman said that there should be a justification for each shotgun and said that it should be subject to an individual certificate. Once again, the Government took the view that that was a wholly unjustified proposal.
  The Opposition's approach to the matter was well summarised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on 26 October. He said:
  "If youths in the inner cities are to be searched for knives, we cannot allow more prosperous adults to hang around country public houses with shotguns in the boots of their cars, or allow ammunition to be carried carelessly and pointlessly from place to place."—[Official Report, 26 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 33.]
  That gives a flavour of the attitude adopted by the Labour party, and it is not good enough.
  I said that I would refer briefly to the Labour party's position, because that was all that it merited. I have finished with Opposition Members; I have nothing more to say about them.
  Mr. Corbett: But—
  Mr. Hogg: No. I have made the position wholly plain and I now propose to deal with the constructive contributions of my hon. Friends.
  First, I want to consider the question of compensation. I feel like the boy on the burning deck. All my right hon. and hon. Friends have called for compensation. I clearly understand the force of their arguments. However, I hope that they will understand that we have confronted difficulties of principle and practice. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to some of the problems. However, in view of what has been argued so powerfully, we are prepared to look again at the issue of compensation and we will do so against the background of what has been said in the debate. However, I must emphasise the difficulties to which I have already referred.
  Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I am afraid I will not.
  I now want to deal with many particular points. My first point concerns Ryan. Mr. Ryan has been referred to frequently in the debate and I want to re-emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said. It is not true that Mr. Ryan was given a firearms certificate the day after he applied for it. His application was received at divisional level on 26 November 1986. It was processed and sent to headquarters and the certificate was issued on 10 December.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Onslow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I want to finish this point.
  1184
  With regard to Ryan's possession of unlawful weapons, there is no evidence to show that he possessed a Thompson sub-machine gun. There is evidence to suggest that he had a pistol crudely converted from a Belgian ·22 rifle. However, the evidence suggests that that is the only weapon that Ryan owned unlawfully.
  Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend will understand that what has been said about the 24-hour issue of a licence derives from what was said by the chief constable of Thames Valley police in his report to his police committee. How did that erroneous statement come to be made?
  Mr. Hogg: I think that it was made because of the need for compression. We have looked into this matter very carefully and the account which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have given to the House is the account that we believe to be accurate.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No.
  The procedure took 24 hours at headquarters, but the application was received at divisional level much earlier.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Give way.
  Mr. Hogg: I have made it perfectly plain to the hon. Gentleman that I do not propose to give way to him.
  I now want to consider the question of an inquiry, which is the subject of the reasoned amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) rejected that call and I entirely agree with him. There has already been an investigation into the relevant facts. I do not think that anything of particular value would be discovered. What is more, I am certain that the process would cause increased misery to the people of Hungerford. I am fortified in my view of that by the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I want to consider pump-action guns and self-loading shotguns, because I appreciate that they raise matters of great concern among my right hon. and hon. Friends. Anxiety has been expressed by almost every Conservative Member who has spoken in the debate. There are two justifications for putting large magazine guns in section 1. The first is their increased firepower over the period of initial discharge.
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can understand that the Minister is not prepared to give way to Labour Members wishing to check certain points with him, but is it in order for him to ignore Labour Members so completely that he turns his back on them?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Minister is out of order. I think that he was addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Hogg: One of the difficulities that Labour Members are not facing up to is the need to address the Chair. They frequently ignore the Chair, which I would not recommend to any hon. Member.
  During the initial period of discharge, large magazine guns have a higher rate of fire than the more traditional side-by-side or over-and-under guns. For most of the activities for which self-loading or pump-action guns are used, a traditional side-by-side or over-and-under would do as well.
  I can well understand the argument that has been advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends — what

  1185
  happens if manufacturers bring pump-action or self-loading shotguns on to the market, the magazine of which cannot take more than two cartridges? As a proposition, it would be highly attractive to exempt those guns from the application of section 1.
  I can well understand that my right hon. and hon. Friends would also say, "What happens if existing owners of magazine shotguns can have their guns converted in such a way that the magazine cannot hold more than two cartridges and cannot be readily reconverted to a larger magazine?" There is considerable attraction in the proposition that those should be exempted from section 1. There is a problem in ensuring that the conversion is reasonably carried out and that reconversion is not readily possible.
  I am giving urgent and careful thought to the ways in which we might be able to achieve that. I cannot give a guarantee, save that I am seriously considering it.
  Mr. Riddick: I still do not understand the need to put this category of weapon in section 1. Will my hon. Friend give one instance in which such a weapon has been used in the pursuit of crime?
  Mr. Hogg: There is no evidence that they are used more frequently in the pursuit of crime, but there is an increased degree of lethality over the period of discharge. A pump-action shotgun is not necessary for most of the activities that shooting people pursue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned armour-piercing ammunition. There would be a great deal to be said for what my hon. Friend has suggested if we could do it. The problem is to identify what is meant by armour-piercing in a way that gives itself to a statutory definition. So far, we have been unable to achieve that. There is a residual power in section 1(5) to put certain specified classes of ammunition and guns into section 5.
  I appreciate that the discretion of police officers and the meaning of "good reason" cause considerable concern to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have already given the approach that we propose to adopt for shotguns. It is not for the applicant to prove a good reason. A shotgun certificate will issue, subject to the other criteria, unless the chief constable is satisfied that there is not a good reason.
  We have put on the face of the Bill a definition of "good reason" which we believe is wide enough to protect the legitimate interests of those constituents whom most of us represent. I do not agree that the last element in the definition of "good reason" has the effect described by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. However, I fancy that that is a Committee argument, rather than a Second Reading argument. Incidentally, if hon. Members feel that the definition of "good reason" is not sufficiently wide, that matter can be explored at length in Committee, where it will be seriously considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  On the question of the discretion of chief police officers, to which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends referred, notably my right hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), it is obviously desirable to achieve as much uniformity as possible. However, there are many activities for which total uniformity is not possible—for example, applications for
  1186
  liquor licences. That is one reason why we have put "good reason" on the face of the Bill. However, there is the right to go to court on appeal which, again, will give a degree of uniformity.
  My final point in this context relates to guidance. Since 1969, the Home Office has put out a memorandum of guidance, the purpose of which is to achieve a degree of uniformity. The document is not legally binding in itself because, ultimately, it is subject to the courts. However, it is guidance. I recognise that the shooting community would like to be involved in the formulation of what goes in to that guidance. Indeed, that has happened and will happen. In fact, we consulted the shooting interests at considerable length about the contents of a new memorandum of guidance. We shall do so again. When the Bill is enacted, we intend to publish a new memorandum of guidance. Before that is done, we shall consult the shooting interests and we will publish the memorandum.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that we are discussing my amendment? If so, and as there are only eight minutes left, can I rely on the Minister to give a view of my amendment?
  Mr. Speaker: That is correct. The hon. Gentleman's amendment was called.
  Mr. Hogg: The amendment was called, and I said that I could not commend an inquiry to the House. I summarised my arguments in about two lines, which is what the amendment deserved.
  Mr. Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It may not be a point of order; it may be a point of disagreement.
  Mr. Jones: It is a point of order.
  Mr. Hogg: I am not giving way. If it is a point of order, that is one thing; if it is an intervention, that is another. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is for Mr. Speaker."] I am not giving way to an intervention—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall deal briefly with the matter of a consultative committee. I know that it has troubled several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Although I am not sure that an advisory committee of a non-statutory kind will add to the consultative process, through which we are prepared to operate as it is, I am not wholly hostile to it by any means, and nor is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. This matter needs consideration and we shall give it serious consideration.
  On the question of foreign shooters, which has been raised by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), we agree entirely that it is right that people who want to come to shoot in this country should be able to do so. We have set out a regime in the Bill—I think it is clauses 12 and 13—which we believe will enable them to do so without unreasonable restrictions, but with reasonable restrictions still being imposed.
  A balance must be struck. If my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that the balance has not been struck correctly,

  1187
  the Committee is a way to explore the matter further. However, I think that we have got the balance broadly right.
  Mr. Hardy: The Minister has mentioned facilitating arrangements for foreign visitors. Would a foreign visitor be required to have a licence? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the certificates will continue to be a self-financing exercise? Will his right hon. and hon. Friends be pleased with the deluge of complaints when the licence goes up so substantially?
  Mr. Hogg: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the provisions on visitors' licences are clearly set out in the Bill, and I recommend that he read it. On the question of licence fees, we intend that the shooting interests should be fully consulted, and that they should play a part in a working party. However, we anticipate that the costs incurred in the licensing regime will be recoverable.
  We intend to require shotgun owners to keep their guns in a secure place. I cannot say that I regard that as wrong; it is something that I do myself, and I hope that everyone would do the same. However, I recognise that there are difficulties when people transport their guns from the place where they keep them to the place where they use, repair or even wish to sell them.
  That is precisely the kind of question that we can resolve in discussion—first with the shooting community and secondly in Committee — and that is what we propose to do. For today's purposes, our proposal is that we should have powers to require a gun of that kind to be kept in a secure place.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I am afraid not. I am running out of time.
  Mrs. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I am afraid not. I am running out of time.
  Mrs. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I am becoming very repetitive. I am afraid not; I am running out of time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred to the power under clause 1(5) of the Bill to put other weapons into section 5 control. The justification for that residual power is the risk that some manufacturers will put on to the market a gun designed to be outwith section 5. For example, a paramilitary shotgun with a barrel measuring less than 24m will be controlled by section 5 if the Bill is carried. But if the barrel was extended, it would not be so controlled. It could never be a sporting weapon, but the manufacturer would have designed his way out of the restriction. That is not satisfactory, and we wish to take reserve powers to deal with it. The question is whether we should qualify those reserve powers.
  I can well understand the argument being put by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that a Labour Government might behave unreasonably: I am sure that they would, if they ever returned to power. I am advised that the Bill would not lend itself to that, but I will look again at whatever the powers should be restricted to, for example, fast-firing guns, which would, I think, go a long way to meet points made in the debate.
  1188
  Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to deactivation, and I understand their points. We are now considering the possibility of finding a way, without undue bureaucracy, of certifying that a gun was truly deactivated—that is, that it could not readily be returned to a firing state.
  I appreciate that there are many points that I have not answered—[Interruption.] I feared that that would get a reaction—but I mean no discourtesy to hon. Members. Time, not discourtesy, is the cause. I shall merely say that we are in the business of trying to improve our arms legislation without imposing undue restrictions. Inevitably, that is a question of judgment in particular cases, or of striking a balance.
  We are not so arrogant as to assume that we have necessarily got it entirely right. We hope that the pillars of the policy will stand, and, on the basis that this represents a fair and reasonable assessment of what needs to be done, but with a willingness to re-examine some points in Committee, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 185.

  Division 148]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  McLeish, Henry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Madden, Max

  Battle, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Beggs, Roy

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Meale, Alan

  Buchan, Norman

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Callaghan, Jim

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Morley, Elliott

  Cummings, J.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Nellist, Dave

  Dixon, Don

  Patchett, Terry

  Dunnachie, James

  Pike, Peter

  Eastham, Ken

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Redmond, Martin

  Flannery, Martin

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Salmond, Alex

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Haynes, Frank

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Illsley, Eric

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Kilfedder, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lamond, James

  Mr. Martyn Jones and

  Macdonald, Calum

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, W.

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Allason, Rupert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Beith, A. J.

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Burns, Simon

  1189

  Burt, Alistair

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Butterfill, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jack, Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Jackson, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Janman, Timothy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Key, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Durant, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maclean, David

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Grylls, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mans, Keith

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Harris, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Hayward, Robert

  Miller, Hal

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Needham, Richard

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Neubert, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howells, Geraint

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  1190

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Summerson, Hugo

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thorne, Neil

  Portillo, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Redwood, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wallace, James

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Ryder, Richard

  Ward, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wheeler, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Speller, Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, The Duchy of Lancaster Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money]
Queens Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and

(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received under that Act by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

10.12 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: Money resolutions tend to go through the House rather too easily. I suspect that the money involved in this Bill is not great, but we have had no explanation of how much is involved. The Minister said that the intended costs of the licensing regime will be covered. That shows that there will be some sort of increase in the licensing fee. In addition, we should be interested to know what calculations have been made, because the people interested in shooting as a sport are reasonably entitled to know what the new regime will cost.
Secondly, the legislation places more duties on the police. There is an extension of the licensing system, and the Government have argued that that has been introduced—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are standing beyond the Bar kindly be quiet?
Mr. Cryer: No one would object to an improved and safer regime. The questions that have been raised tonight are whether the Government have acted over-hastily and whether they have planned for and calculated the effects of their legislation. I should have thought that, when planning the legislation, they would have had some consequential notion of the increased load on the police. For instance, chief constables will provide scrutiny of people who engage in trade as firearms dealers, under clause 9. They will have to decide whether a person engages in a substantial way. That involves work and that will not be carried out by the chief officer of police; it will be delegated. The police will be required to scrutinise more people for firearms certificates. I do not suppose that any hon. Member would object to that, provided that it is recognised that this is going to produce a higher standard of safety, because that is the whole point and purpose of the Bill.
What sort of increase in police time is this going to cause? Clause 11(5), for example, gives extra powers to police constables in relation to entering premises occupied or used by a club approved under this clause.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the money resolution is comparatively narrow. He is now going rather wider than that. It deals with the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State under clause 11 and payments into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received by the Secretary of State. The debate must be restricted to those provisions, which are what the money resolution involves.
Mr. Cryer: That is precisely my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am making the point that, first, there are going to be increased administrative expenses. That is precisely the point that I made about the work of the chief constables, because they are going to be carrying out the administration of this legislation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. This issue refers to fees. Administrative expenses are covered by the Bill, not by the money resolution.
Mr. Cryer: I am naturally grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
None the less, there are going to be increases in licensing fees, and all we have had so far tonight from the Minister is an indication that the costs of the licensing regime will be recovered. That is his intention and that is the area covered by the money resolution. I am giving the Minister the opportunity to elaborate on the money resolution, which consists of about half a dozen lines in the relevant clause and on the Order Paper, so that he may assure us that the planning behind this legislation has indeed been done and that the administrative expenses covered by the money resolution are calculated by the Government in relation to the proposed licence revenue. If there are going to be any increases in fees, I think the House should be told about them.
If, in the course of his reply, the Minister could mention the additional costs to the police, because they fall under the Home Office, that would be of advantage as well.
10.18 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: On Second Reading some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I asked about compensation for those whose weapons are now made illegal under this Bill. My question to the Minister is this: if his right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to the conclusion that compensation should be paid, is that included in the definition of
"adminstrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State"?
If it is not an administrative expense — and 1 should have thought from my experience that it would be very difficult to define it as an administrative expense—how will it be covered by Her Majesty's Government?
10.19 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I was not intending to speak in this debate until I heard the Minister winding up. I wish to raise the point raised by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because I think that the Minister made certain statements in his winding-up speech which are very significant and have implications for the money resolution attached to the Bill.
As it is written, the money resolution allows for expenditure on increased police resources but says that this will be offset by increased income from fees. It also allows for the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the approval of clubs and licensing of museums, which will also be offset by fees paid for approvals and licences. There is no mention whatsoever of extra money being made available for the type of compensation scheme that the Minister said he would be willing to look at, and half indicated he would favour. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) outlined how a self-funding compensation scheme could be produced. The Minister ignored that, and relied entirely on vague promises to Conservative BackBenchers about his own compensation scheme. The Minister may have conned some of his hon. Friends into voting with him, but he owes it to the House bluntly to explain whether the financial resolution covers the possibility of compensation.
10.21 pm
Mr. William Ross: The previous two speakers raised the question of compensation. Whatever the Minister said in his winding-up speech, he made it perfectly clear that the Government were prepared to look at the Bill in great detail in Committee. From that I assume that we will be able to consider that matter in depth in Committee, including the amount of money that will be needed.
If hon. Members will cast their minds back to the proceedings on the Shops Bill, they will recall that a large number of amendments were tabled, and the Home Secretary gave an undertaking that the Bill would not be guillotined. Will the Home Secretary give a similar undertaking so that the Bill can he properly explored and made into a real vehicle to improve the firearms legislation?
10.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Three points have been raised. The first was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman in the debate, but it is a pity that he could not spare a few minutes of his time during Second Reading.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is rather ignorant and rather arrogant. He failed to notice that I was present during most of the opening speech by the Home Secretary. Hansard will show that I received a courteous response from the Home Secretary to my intervention. Unfortunately, I must confess that I also heard the appalling speech made by the Under-Secretary.
Mr. Hogg: That means that the hon. Gentleman was here for about 40 minutes and that he was not here for about five hours and 30 minutes. That is not a particularly constructive approach to the debate.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is fairly well summarised in the explanatory memorandum. He raised the point about the working party and firearms fees. It is perfectly true that it is intended that the cost of implementing the scheme shall be largely recoverable. We intend to discuss the level of the fees with the shooting interests. Before embarking on those consultations, it would be unwise of me to pluck a particular figure out of the air. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the existing fees.
Turning to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), as the Home Secretary and I said during the debate, there are considerable difficulties of principle and practice in the way of a compensation scheme. We said that we will go away and look again at those difficulties and see if we can find a way through them. Until we have decided the principle of compensation, and its precise form, it is not possible exactly to identify the source of the money. Therefore, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, I cannot answer his question, because we must first decide the policy. The same response applies to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the money resolution adequate to allow for the type of compensation scheme that he would consider? After all, what is the point of considering a
1194
compensation scheme in the context of the Bill if the money resolution is not sufficient to cover any such scheme? What does he intend to do if there are financial costs and the money resolution is inadequate to cover them? What will be his proposals in Committee?
Mr. Hogg: Our proposal will be to put our house in order. First, we must determine the policy. On that issue, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made our position plain. We have not come to the House today with a compensation policy. I accept that my right hon. Friend has said that we shall look again at the issue. We must determine that fundamental question of policy before I can answer the wholly relevant and justified question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I cannot respond until the policy has been determined. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dewsbury will understand that I cannot answer in precise form the questions that they have posed.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am not asking the Minister for the precise cost of any compensation scheme. I am asking why he is considering the compensation scheme if it may not he allowable under the money resolution.
Mr. Hogg: If there is a problem, we shall have to put our house in order in one way or another. That we shall do if we determine the policy in the way that, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has commended that we should.
10.26 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I do not know whether my questions can be answered by the Minister or whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to guide me. As I understand it, we are about to determine whether to approve the money resolution, which will authorise the payment of any expenditure arising from the implementation of the Bill.
If I understood his remarks properly, the Minister, in his winding-up speech, gave a fairly broad hint to those hon. Members who had raised the matter of compensation that that would be looked at sympathetically. As I understand it, a nod is as good as a wink.
I have looked again at the Bill and there is no mention of compensation in its long title. There is certainly no clause which will allow the question of compensation to be raised. Therefore, unless the Government intend to table a new clause or to introduce new principles in the Bill, they would not be empowered under the existing money resolution to incur expenditure on compensation.
If that is the case, can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or, if appropriate, the Minister, confirm that if the money resolution and Bill are accepted, the Government will be prevented from introducing any further measure in Committee or subsequently allowing any compensation?
10.27 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have listened only to the end of the debate and say no more than this. It occurs to me that if the long title does not include terms of compensation, there is no way in which it can be brought into the Act. Therefore, the Minister is, in many ways, misleading the House by saying that he will look at the principle again. If that is not within the long title, it cannot be within the Act.

1195
That leads me to my second point. I declare an interest, having a shotgun or two. If the Government have to pay compensation, on what basis will they do so? Will it be upon the basis existing before the Act or after the Act? If it is on the basis before the Act, compensation will be small. After the Act—[Interruption.] I realise that I may be going outside the terms of the debate, so I return to my original point. Are we being misled by the Minister? Perhaps you can advise us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the long title does not contain any reference to compensation, any assurance that the Minister gives us has no meaning.
10.28 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I too feel that we must have some fairly clear guidance before we can agree to the money resolution. With great respect, the Minister has not replied specifically to the point that has been made about compensation. It would seem from what the Minister has said that if he and the Home Secretary agree to accept the principle of compensation, the logic would be that they would have to return with another money resolution.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During my remarks you intervened and said that the money resolution was very narrow and related only to administrative expenses of the Bill. As a consequence, I decided to ignore compensation, as you had helped and guided me in the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I always follow your guidance very gratefully. Does it follow from what you said about the very narrow resolution that compensation cannot arise under the Bill because it is not an administrative expense?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not quite as simple as that. The hon. Members who followed used their normal skill and linked the remarks on compensation to administrative expenses, so that was just—but I stress only just—within the bounds of order. Before I call another hon. Gentleman to speak, I say that the money resolution is narrow and we must stick to its terms.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are saying that the administration of a compensation scheme might be within the terms of the Bill, but not the compensation money. That would render any compensation proposal by the Minister completely void and meaningless, because the Government would only be able to push about bits of paper on compensation, but could not give any compensation at all. That is how I understand the gist of your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for argument; it is not a matter of order for the Chair.
Mr. John Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you reconsider your last remark, as all resolutions passed by the House are absolutely binding on the Committee that will consider the legislation? There are no circumstances in which the Committee, whether by Government or Opposition amendment, could move outside the terms of the money resolution. Does it not seem odd that the Minister has told the House that the Government intend to bring in some form of compensation scheme, but not make any provision for compensation in the Bill?
1196
I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that under the money resolution before the House he will not be able to introduce any amendments or new clauses in Committee which could give effect to a compensation scheme. Is it not remarkable that we shall be faced, just after the Second Reading debate which has agreed to the principles in the Bill, with the Home Secretary having to come to the Floor of the House and put a new money resolution to the House before he can proceed? Is it not a grave dereliction on his part that, unless that happens, no hon. Members will be able to table anything in Committee about a compensation scheme because the Chairman of the Committee will rule all such amendments out of order, as the Committee will be bound tightly by the money resolution? This is a remarkable situation in a remarkable Bill.
Surely the Home Secretary has done a disservice to the House by bringing forward such an appalling money resolution. He should have come prepared and made provision in the long title to ensure that, if he desired to produce a compensation scheme, it could be accommodated without having to return to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice, because this matter is of grave importance. The Second Reading of the Bill was accepted largely on the ground that the Minister gave an undertaking to look seriously at compensation. I understand that, in the light of that assurance, the Government got their majority on the Second Reading. If it is the case—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and he cannot make a second speech on the money resolution. If he has a point of order, it must be a point of order that I can deal with.
Mr. Davies: It is. I ask you to bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the money resolution is defeated, will the Second Reading be null and void and will the Government have to reintroduce new legislation and a new money resolution?
Mr. Douglas Hogg: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will seek to answer the point that is clearly troubling right hon. and hon. Members.
First, we must determine the policy on compensation. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been present for the debate know the Government's position. When we have determined that question we shall have to come to the House, one way or another, with our conclusions. At that time we shall have to ensure that there is sufficient cover for the money, whether it is done by an ex gratia payment or by money resolution. It is evident that we shall have to do that. There is no way that we shall come to the House with a compensation scheme that we cannot fund. If we decide to commend a compensation policy to the House, we shall make arrangements to ensure that it is properly funded.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that the change to allow compensation cannot be made in Committee—as he earlier implied to his hon. Friends—unless there is a change in the money resolution? Some of my hon. Friends and myself will be inclined to vote against the money resolution if it is inadequate for the purpose implied earlier by the Minister.
Mr. Hogg: I cannot confirm that. Clearly this is an extremely technical matter, upon which myself and others will require advice, because it goes to the root of the proceedings of a Committee. I would be astonished if the Committee did not have ample opportunity to discuss the question of compensation.
Mr. John Evans rose—
Mr. Hogg: I will just finish this point and then I will give way.
No Conservative Member will stand on the technicalities so as to frustrate the efforts of hon. Members to discuss the question of compensation.
Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the Committee will be unable to discuss any compensation scheme because there is no clause in the Bill that mentions any such scheme? Therefore, no amendment may be tabled referring to it. The Minister is either wittingly or unwittingly deceiving the House or himself. The Committee will simply be unable to discuss a compensation scheme because there are no terms on which to hang it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the Committee, not for me now.
Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand full well why my hon. Friend cannot give a precise answer at this stage to the question that I posed. I welcome the assurance that he has given to the House that should the Government reach the conclusion that compensation, in some way or other, should be paid, they will take the necessary steps, with the House, to finance that decision. I welcome that assurance and I hope that the House will accept it as such.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A considerable number of my right and hon. Friends have supported the Bill, in principle, throughout and did not vote against it tonight. They heard assurances from the Minister of State—
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Mr. Dobson: I am sorry that I have over-promoted the old Etonian hon. Gentleman and I duly apologise to whoever I have offended.
The Parliamentary Secretary—
Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Mr. Dobson: Worse still, I apologise. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave undertakings that a compensation scheme would be considered. A considerable number of my hon. Friends and, I have no doubt, Conservative Members accepted those undertakings in the belief that, as in the usual way, it would be possible for the Committee to consider and deliberate on a compensation scheme. We now understand that it is impossible for the Committee to deliberate on such a scheme because of a shortcoming in the money resolution.
Before this matter is put to the vote we seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is true that the Committee will be unable to consider amendments or new clauses in relation to a compensation scheme without the prior passing of a different money resolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have just said, it is not for me to say what will be in order in Committee. That will
1198
be a matter for the Committee when it eventually meets. I am sorry but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman at this stage.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is within your remit to confirm our suspicions about the money resolution. Is it not a fact that, even if the Committee could discuss compensation, the money resolution as it stands does not allow for the funding of a compensation scheme? That is the point that we are discussing. The money resolution is inadequate to deal with the question of payment of compensation — which the Under-Secretary used to persuade some of his hon. Friends to vote with him this evening. Even if the Committee can discuss compensation, the Government will not be able to pay out compensation.
Mr. Douglas HoggWith the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are many things that the Government can do in an ex gratia way. If we decide to make compensation available, it must be funded. I do not think that compensation need necessarily be provided for in the money resolution. It could be part of an ex gratia scheme. If that is what we decide to do, the money will simply have to be made available.
Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order? He cannot make another speech on the money resolution.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said, "With the permission of the House". I assume, therefore, that the House has given the Minister permission to speak a third or fourth time. Could you, Sir, confirm that when the Bill emerges from Committee it will be subject, in the usual way, to amendments on Report? Will the usual rules apply on Report? You say that you cannot comment on the Committee stage, but can you comment on the position on Report? Will the position be the same—that is to say, that the money resolution as drafted will not allow for the introduction of a compensation scheme?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is jumping a long way ahead. I have already made it clear to the House that it is not for me to say what will be in order in Committee. Until the Bill has had its Committee stage, amendments to the Bill on Report are entirely hypothetical. We should conclude our proceedings on the money resolution.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 37.

Division 149]

[10.45 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Benyon, W.

Allason, Rupert

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amess, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Amos, Alan

Boswell, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Bottomley, Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Ashby, David

Bowis, John

Ashdown, Paddy

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Brazier, Julian

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bright, Graham

Baldry, Tony

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Batiste, Spencer

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

Beith, A. J.

Browne, John (Winchester)

1199

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Kirkwood, Archy

Burns, Simon

Knapman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Knowles, Michael

Butcher, John

Lang, Ian

Butterfill, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Carrington, Matthew

Lightbown, David

Carttiss, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lord, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Currie, Mrs Edwina

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maclean, David

Day, Stephen

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dunn, Bob

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Durant, Tony

Major, Rt Hon John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Malins, Humfrey

Forman, Nigel

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gale, Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Miller, Hal

Ground, Patrick

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Grylls, Michael

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Moss, Malcolm

Hampson, Dr Keith

Needham, Richard

Hanley, Jeremy

Neubert, Michael

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

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Harris, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hawkins, Christopher

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Hayward, Robert

Paice, James

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Patnick, Irvine

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pawsey, James

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Portillo, Michael

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Redwood, John

Howells, Geraint

Renton, Tim

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Riddick, Graham

Irvine, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jack, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Jackson, Robert

Ryder, Richard

Janman, Timothy

Sayeed, Jonathan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Key, Robert

Sims, Roger

1200

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Tracey, Richard

Speller, Tony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Squire, Robin

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walden, George

Steel, Rt Hon David

Ward, John

Stern, Michael

Wheeler, John

Stevens, Lewis

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Summerson, Hugo

Wilshire, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Yeo, Tim

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thorne, Neil

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Thurnham, Peter

Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Boyes, Roland

Madden, Max

Callaghan, Jim

Martlew, Eric

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Maxton, John

Corbett, Robin

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Nellist, Dave

Dewar, Donald

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dixon, Don

Randall, Stuart

Dobson, Frank

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Eastham, Ken

Skinner, Dennis

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Flynn, Paul

Steinberg, Gerald

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Foulkes, George

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Galbraith, Samuel

Wigley, Dafydd

Golding, Mrs Llin

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Haynes, Frank

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Kilfedder, James

Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Lamond, James

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and

(b) the payment into of the Consolidated Fund of any sums received under that Act by the Secretary of State.

Duchy of Lancaster Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Duchy of Lancaster Bill
  New Clause 1

    LEASES FOR MILITARY PURPOSES
    'Any lease of land for military purposes to a Secretary of State shall cease to have effect if the land ceases to be used for military purposes.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.54 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
    '(2C) No land or property within a national park shall be leased by the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster for military purposes to a Secretary of State for more than 21 years and the lease shall cease to have effect if the land ceases to be used for military purposes.'.
    No. 7, in schedule 2, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 11.
    Mr. Dobson: New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 5 and 7 refer to what might be described as military use of Duchy of Lancaster land. At present, the use of land belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster is restricted by the provisions of the Military Lands Act 1892. That restricts the capacity of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall to grant leases for military purposes to a maximum period of 21 years. That section in the Military Lands Act also requires such a lease to cease if the land is no longer to be used for military purposes. Our Victorian predecessors obviously anticipated what might be described as the Crichel Down principle, as long ago as 1892. The Bill would provide for no restrictions whatever on the capacity of the Duchy of Lancaster to lease land for military purposes.
    On Second Reading, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claimed that there was a need to lift the restrictions that generally applied to leases granted by the Duchy, because developers would not be willing to take a lease of Duchy land for as little as 99 years because they would not be able to obtain the funds on the market for an invesment on that basis. One may think it strange that the sharks in the City, who are trying to make money in about 20 minutes flat, find a 99-year lease too short a period over which to lend money. However, that is apparently the case. I am dubious about some of those claims about the present state of the market in property speculation, but that is what we have been told.
    Over the past few years, the Government have brought forward proposals that extended the maximum period of leases of the Crown estate and the Duchy of Cornwall from 99 years to 150 years. The Bill would lift that time restriction altogether. Whatever justification the Chancellor of the Duchy has put forward for lifting the restrictions on urban land that might be the subject of speculative property developments into which the Duchy might like to enter in, say, the Savoy estate around the Strand, which is undoubtedly its most valuable property, that has absolutely nothing to do with lease of land for military purposes.
    1202
    Our Victorian predecessors were clearly sensible and prudent in deliberately limiting the power of the Duchy to grant leases of land for military purposes. At that time—1892 — they thought that a maximum period of 21 years was quite sufficient to alienate land for use for military purposes. They also required that such a lease should cease if the military use ceased.
    Those requirements cannot possibly have any effect on the sites and properties in the Savoy part of the Strand on which the Government are attempting to justify the general changes. If the Army, the Navy, the Air Force or the Marines want to lease a piece of Duchy land, they do not have to raise the capital for it on the market—at least so far. No doubt the Prime Minister is considering privatising the armed forces, in which case they would have to raise money on the market if they wanted some of the property. Therefore, the lessees do not face any problem in having a restriction as short as 21 years. It seems wholly artificial for the Government to suggest that, in the case of leases of land for military purposes, the present limit needs to be either extended or lifted altogether.
    11 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: I am slightly confused by the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend. I am not clear whether he is arguing that there is likely to be military activity in the Strand, or whether there is any likelihood of the Army and the Navy having leases in the Strand. I can understand why the Army and the Navy might want leases in Victoria street, but the Strand is slightly outwith my comprehension.
    Could my hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, explain the exact relationship between the Strand, the Savoy and military leases? I am at a loss, and I think that some of my hon. Friends are as well, to relate military leases with what is happening around the Savoy. I know that sometimes men, and even women, of military bearing are seen going in and our of the Savoy, but I cannot quite relate the military context to that of the Savoy properties. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain the connection.
    Mr. Dobson: I am sorry if I have not made the position sufficiently clear to a person as acute as my hon. Friend, whose constituency has such a long name that I can never remember it. The Duchy of Lancaster, in its peculiar way, owns more land in Yorkshire than in Lancashire, but the bulk of its property—36,000 acres—is agricultural land. A further 15,000 acres is moorland in north Yorkshire and south Wales, and the estates include 175 agricultural tenancies and about 3,000 acres of woodland. But, quite distinct from that, the Duchy holds the freehold of properties in the Manor of Savoy—as it was — along Lancaster place, the Embankment, Savoy hill and the Strand—
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is that why they do not have television licences?
    Mr. Dobson: Probably.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Could the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) help his hon. Friend by referring him to the Savoy operas and the Duke of Plaza Toro, who led his regiment from behind? That would seem to me to be the military use involved.
    Mr. Dobson: I would not suggest for a moment that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading from behind, although in his role as a Cabinet Minister he seems always to be one step behind someone in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the Chancellor is
    "the very model of a modern Major-General."
    Hon. Members will notice that I did not sing that, for obvious reasons.
    Can my hon. Friend tell me, while he is reading out the property owned by the Duchy of Lancaster — I think that he has a clear account of it there—whether any of it is in Scotland, and particularly whether any of it is in the constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley? That will give him a clue to the name of my constituency.
    Mr. Dobson: To the best of my knowledge — I am dependent on a parliamentary answer, and we can all make our own assessments of the accurancy of parliamentary answers—no property of the Duchy of Lancaster appears to be within the whole of Scotland, least of all in — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley."]
    The position is this. The property that the Duchy owns at the end of the Strand, which is less than three acres, is of immense value. It is developed land, and it offers immense gains to those who are willing to join the Duchy in speculating there, if they knock it down and put up new buildings. It is for those purposes that the Chancellor of the Duchy has come to the House and said that 99-year leases are too short and that these far-sighted people in the City wish to invest for 150 years or more in that property. However, they are unwilling to invest for about five years in something productive, such as a factory. Indeed, they are willing to invest in property there only if they have leases for 150 years or more.
    That is not the case with agricultural land so far or with moorland in the north Yorkshire moors national park. In the patches of agricultural land and in the property in north Yorkshire and south Wales there are examples of land which is presently let for military purposes. None of that land requires a lifting of the Victorian maximum for a lease of land for military use, which was set in 1892 at 21 years. Therefore, it would be consistent for the Chancellor of the Duchy to accept the restrictions which are proposed in the new clause.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Is my hon. Friend sketching a position which shows that the Government, in a shabby manoeuvre, are allowing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to link up with speculators of the sort condemned by no less a personage than Prince Charles—who, one would have thought, might have had some influence in the Tory ranks, but apparently not—and to raze buildings to the ground in order to build monstrosities with long tenure which the Prince and many ordinary working people, with just as good an eye as the Prince, have long deplored because they ravage the skyline of our capital city?
    Mr. Dobson: It is undoubtedly the case that the Duchy of Lancaster wishes to join private speculative developers in the further development of land on the Savoy estate. I am not sure in this case whether the Prince of Wales, who is also Duke of Cornwall, is entirely, so to say, in the clear in the matter—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that references to the royal family, particularly if used in support of arguments, are not in order.
    Mr. Dobson: It might undermine my argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I make no reference to the Duke of Cornwall, but not very long ago the Duchy of Cornwall came to the House to seek to extend the maximum period for its ordinary leases from 99 to 150 years.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like clarification from you. We are talking about the Duchy of Lancaster. Is it in order in doing so to make reference during the debate to the Duke of Lancaster?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is certainly in order to refer to the Duchy of Lancaster in so far as it is relevant to the debate. I am saying that it is not in order to invoke in argument, to criticise or, indeed, to praise members of the royal family. That is the distinction that I am drawing.
    Mr. Foulkes: And that includes the Duke of Lancaster?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Indeed.
    Mr. Dobson: I am glad that that point has been clarified.
    I am subject to correction, not necessarily directly by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is gracing us with his presence, but by those who advise him. So far as I know, the Duchy of Cornwall remains subject to the 21-year maximum period for leases of land for military purposes. My copy of the legislation currently in operation suggests that that restriction still applies to the Duchy of Cornwall; and to the extent that the Duke of Cornwall is responsible for that, it is praiseworthy.
    As it is extremely unlikely that there will be any military, sub-military or semi-military use of the expensive Savoy estate and its surroundings at the end of the Strand, or of the other urban properties owned by the Duchy in Harrogate, and—in bits and pieces—in Leeds, Leicester, Bradford, Lewes and London — I assure my hon. Friends that I am referring to Lewes near Brighton, not to Lewis in Scotland—
    Mr. Skinner: Have we any assurances in the Bill that the Kuwaiti Investment Office cannot extend its little empire beyond the oil industry and get on to the end of the Strand? I do not know what repercussions that might have. Perhaps we should be discussing whether there are any such safeguards.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must stick to leases for military purposes.
    Mr. Dobson: To the best of my knowledge, the Duchy of Lancaster is completely indiscriminate in this matter, and is willing to sell to anyone who has the money. I do not know whether it would be willing to let a lease to the Kuwaitis if they wanted it for military purposes — to keep the discussion within the rules of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker — but as far as I know, if some potential speculator or developer has the money, the Duchy will deal with him, whatever his nationality or origin. As I have been trying, and perhaps failing, to explain, it seems extremely unlikely that there will be any military or paramilitary use of the really valuable urban properties of the Duchy of Lancaster, yet that is the basis on which the relaxation of restrictions is proposed in the Bill.

    1205
    The bulk of the property that might be let for military purposes will be rural, probably in north Yorkshire or south Wales. A considerable quantity of the land that might be used for military purposes is likely to be in national parks or other beautiful areas, far from major centres of population; so wildlife, flora and fauna are likely to be damaged by use for military purposes. That applies not only in the areas that are leased but to areas outside their boundaries. We should try to keep military uses to a minimum, particularly in areas of significant beauty such as I have been discussing.
    In 1892, when the Military Lands Act was passed, the number of people in the British armed forces was much greater than it is now, yet our Victorian predecessors felt it right and proper to place these limitation restrictions on the use of Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall land for military purposes. We should stick by what they did.
    There is a great deal of technological change in military affairs at present, and it is ludicrous that the Duchy should be empowered to enter into leases for the use of land for military purposes that might be rendered wholly out of date within five years. Even if a lease ran out, it would still be possible for the Ministry of Defence to keep the property and deny ordinary people access to it on the ground that it might be needed at some time in the future. We should keep that sort of alienation of useful, beautiful land to a minimum.
    11.15 pm
    If there is not some hidden explanation for the Government's proposal to apply this to military land, I cannot see any reason why the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is here tonight, should not be quite willing to accept the specific terms of this new clause and the two amendments. The new clause provides:
    "Any lease of land for military purposes to a Secretary of State shall cease to have effect if the land ceases to be used for military purposes."
    One would have thought that it was in the interests of the Duchy of Lancaster to have that power in the Bill. It seems to me that it is ceding some of its powers as a landowner to the Ministry of Defence unless it maintains the protection that was provided in the Act, part of which will be amended by the Bill.
    Amendment No. 5 would he less restrictive in a sense than the new clause, because it would provide:
    "No land or property within a national park shall be leased by the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster for military purposes to a Secretary of State for more than 21 years and the lease shall cease to have effect if the land ceases to be used for military purposes."
    That element of protection that we propose would apply only to Duchy of Lancaster land within a national park. There is no way on earth that a property speculator is going to demand a 150-year lease on property in a national park—unless such parks are going to be privatised as well. It may be that this is a sort of paving measure for all sorts of monstrous activities on the part of the Government.
    Finally, amendment No. 7 would delete from the schedule of Acts to be repealed the section of the Military Lands Act 1892 which maintains the protection that I have been advocating. It seems worth recalling at this point that at one time the Duchy of Lancaster had no restrictions on the way it conducted its affairs, and the Crown chose then to dispose of its assets, get the capital and spend it. That bears a remarkably close resemblance to the policies of the
    1206
    present Government, who are selling off public assets and using the capital as revenue, which would be unacceptable to the auditors of any private organisation. If they were not the Government, they would get done by the auditors.
    Parliament, in its wisdom, decided over the years that this was not a sound way of going on and that if Crown revenues were to be maintained, restrictions should be imposed. One of those restrictions was the restriction on the use of the Duchy's land for military purposes. It seems to me that the reasoning applied by our Victorian predecessors is wholly sound and solid. The Prime Minister talks about Victorian values. These are Victorian values set out in a Victorian Act of Parliament. If the Chancellor of the Duchy wants finally to get that position in the Cabinet where he is the boss of his own Department, and get the failed property speculator who is his boss in the House of Lords out of the way, the best thing he can do is stick by the Victorian values in the Military Lands Act 1892 and accept the new clause that I am proposing.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Bill's purpose is to free the Duchy of Lancaster from some rather outdated restrictions on its ability to lease land. The Duchy of Lancaster is a fairly substantial landowner, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has described from an accurate answer to a parliamentary question. Obviously, it is the duty of the Duchy to administer the estate in the best possible way to maintain the long-term health of the estate and to obtain. a reasonable return for the benefit of the privy purse.
    All that the Bill, including the part that we are now considering, seeks to do is to put the Duchy on exactly the same footing as any other major landowner, with no legal restrictions that are no longer required, but with no intention of behaving other than as a sensible developer and maintainer of its land.
    As far as I am aware, in Committee and again today, no one has so far raised the slightest criticism of the behaviour of the Duchy towards any part of its estate. It is fair to say that in modern times the Duchy has given rise to no kind of controversy. I do not think that we are responsible for any undesirable development; if anybody thinks we are, I shall be only too anxious to consider such representations about the way in which we are dealing with the estate or any of its tenants or property.
    The Bill is necessary because in the last century quite a bit of legislation was passed which put restrictions on the Duchy's ability to manage, lease and dispose of its land. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the origins of the oldest legislation with which we are dealing go back to times when the estate was beginning to be managed somewhat irresponsibly, when royal finances were in a fairly desperate state and parliamentary interest in the Duchy may not have been as strong as it should have been. However, largely in the early 19th century, all kinds or restrictions were placed on the Duchy which at that time were essential to make sure that the estate was not run down and capital used for discharge of royal debts over which Parliament thought that it should take an interest.
    It is an anachronism that all this legislation still lies on the statute book. Modern practice in the management and development of land has changed. Some of the restrictions are now getting in the way of our being able to develop

    1207
    some of the more important holdings of land in a desirable way. That is the principal purpose of the Bill and the repeals that are covered by this part of it.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that the collapse of the speculative property market in the early 1970s would suggest that, as well as modern practice being around, there is also modern malpractice? The fact of the matter is that the restrictions presently placed on the Duchy of Lancaster, which, as the Minister said, has a good record for managing its estate, spring partly from the fact that it is restricted and does not do anything stupid or venal as do a considerable number of other property companies.
    Mr. Clarke: Sensible practice and development of land in the end depend on well judged decisions being taken on good advice about what is right for a particular plot of land, a well-put-together proposition and the Duchy acting in its own best interests and entering into a lease with a developer on terms that the market at that time is used to and requires for that kind of development.
    I have no evidence that at the time of the collapse of the property market in the early 1970s, these statutory restrictions on the Duchy played any part in protecting the Duchy against any schemes that might otherwise have gone ahead. I do not think that any of the provisions of the Acts that we are now repealing have had the slightest practical effect on anything for many years, except that now they inhibit the Duchy's ability to contemplate some of the more ambitious development schemes that we would like to have a look at, in particular for parts of the Savoy estate.
    We are dealing with the Military Lands Act 1892. The hon. Gentleman is concerned with one of the least significant of the statutory restrictions. First, let me describe the extent of our interest in military land. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the entire Duchy estate has one drill hall used by the Territorial Army. That is the full extent of our military property that I have been able to discover on, admittedly, a fairly cursory search. That drill hall is not let under the 1892 Act, nor is it covered by that measure. So at present we have absolutely no property covered by the Act and I think that we have not had any covered by it for a long time.
    The Duchy is at present not contemplating any military use for any part of its estate. So not only is the provision about which we are talking applicable to absolutely no real live situation, but there is nothing pending which is likely to cause us to need to look at the provisions of the 1892 Act.
    Mr. Foulkes: In view of the extensive nature of the lands of the Duchy, is it not surprising, given the extensive military activity throughout the United Kingdom — I have land in my constituency being used for that purpose — that no Duchy lands are being used for military purposes, apart from the Dad's Army type of drill hall to which the Minister referred? If I were permitted to refer to the Duke of Lancaster, I would ask whether this had anything to do with the fact that she is also Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Is it not strange that none of the Duchy's lands are being used for that sort of patriotic purpose?
    Mr. Clarke: The great majority of land in the United Kingdom is not used for military purposes. The bulk of the Duchy of Lancaster comprises agricultural estates, historic castles, some woodland, some moorland including that of the national parks—so we are sensitive to the need to preserve the wildlife and its natural beauty—this urban estate in the middle of London and estates in a few towns in the north, including Harrogate.
    I do not think that the military have seen any use for it; we have not received any applications for its military use and none has been let for years. So this important 1892 Act which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is defending has not played a great part in our nation's affairs, or even the affairs of the Duchy, for a long time.
    The Duchy would contemplate the use of its lands for a military purpose only if any of the military authorities showed interest in any of it, which they are not doing at present, and if the national interest in some way required part of the land to be made available for military use. We would contemplate that only if that hypothetical situation arose, and we would go along with that only if we were persuaded that the national interest was involved. We would give a lease for more than 21 years only if that were requested, and then only if it were in the interest of the Duchy.
    The Duchy is not giving up any landowner's powers by this measure. We will remain in the position of any other landowner approached by the military authorities for the possible use of its land, and we would be able to accept or refuse in the usual way, subject to the normal representations of the Secretary of State for Defence or whomever wanted to use it.
    We are talking about a wholly academic point—the repeal of a late 19th-century piece of legislation which has not made the slightest difference to any part of the County Palatine for years and is not likely to make any difference in the future. While the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras put his case well, he is pressing a minor point by this and later amendments standing in his name.
    Mr. Dobson: Is it not a fact that the Duchy would lose a power, since the measure would make any land used for military purposes revert to the Duchy as soon as it stopped being used for those purposes?
    Mr. Clarke: Our power would be to let or not to let our land, in the same way as any other landowner would make that decision, and to let it on whatever terms and conditions we wished, with a possible reversion if it was not needed for military purposes. At present, the 1892 Act imposes a constraint on the Duchy because, unlike most landowners, this statutory provision would restrict us to 21 years and make the land revert if the military ceased to use it. With the repeal we would still be free, like any other landowner, freely to consider any approach by the military authorities, in the event of any approach being made.
    I think that this is a minor point. Given the fact that this opportunity is being taken to repeal obsolete law, we might as well repeal the lot. There will not be many Duchy Bills; now that there is one, we might as well take this opportunity to get rid of all the 19th-century legislation that is no longer serving a worthwhile purpose.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras gave no reason for a 21-year limitation. He used the most extraordinary argument—that, because it was thought to be right in 1892, for reasons which, as far as I can see,

    1209
    he has not looked up, it must still be right in 1988. That is not a proposition that usually commends itself to the House. Our Victorian forebears no doubt had some reason at the time for imposing the restriction, but none of us knows what on earth it was. As it no longer has any application to the current management of the Duchy land, I suggest that there is no need for it to continue. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the new clause and the associated amendments.
    11.30 pm
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister not accept that a 21-year lease was the standard short lease in 1892?
    Mr. Clarke: It may have been, but it is not now. The fact that it was the practice in 1892 should not guide us when legislating in 1988.
    Mr. John Marston: I am interested in what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said about Victorian Acts of Parliament. For eight years I have listened to his revered leader saying that this Government were based upon Victorian values. Why is he suddenly throwing them out of the window in this callous manner?
    Mr. Clarke: In the parlours of Victorian England, their values may have been regarded as largely determined by the Military Land Act 1892, but I doubt it. I think that this Act was regarded as fairly obscure at the time that it was passed. I do not think we shall be shattering Victorian values if we repeal it now.
    Question put and negatived.

  New Clause 2

    TREATMENT OF RECEIPTS
    `The premium element of any transaction carried out under the provisions of this Act shall be treated as a capital receipt not available for payments to the Keeper of the Privy Purse.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The new clause goes to the heart of the Government's intentions. On Second Reading, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
    "The Duchy's original Charters of Incorporation were not subject to any limits on the powers of the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster to act as they saw fit"—
    I draw attention to the words "as they saw fit"—
    "in the management of the Duchy's inheritance. But certain improprieties took place, largely during the time of the Stuarts and those abuses had to be corrected."
    The official view is that the Duchy's revenues, along with those from the Crown estates, were severely depleted during the 17th century and the early part of the 18th century. Duchy property was charged to provide income for members of the royal family, other than the sovereign, or was sold to make up the revenues which could not be obtained from Parliament. Further depletions were checked by the Crown Lands Act 1702, which included the Duchy of Lancaster in its application. This Act, whose detailed provisions have subsequently been amended, but the principles of whose restrictions remain in place, prohibited all grants of the freehold, restricted powers of leasing by limiting terms of years up to a maximum of, as it was then, 21 years and required a rent to be paid of not less than that paid previously and not less than one third of the market rental value.
    1210
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster then went on to say:
    "A limit was imposed, which, at present, is 99 years on the term of what can be conveniently described as a 'building lease' and a restriction on the amount of rental, receivable under such a lease, which could be received by way of premium. A maximum of one third of such rental value can be capitalised in that way." —[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 17 November 1987; c. 3.]
    That applies at the moment. The proposal is that in future there should be no limits whatever on the length of leases granted or on the proportion of rental value that can be capitalised.
    One of the reasons restrictions were first put on, in the immortal words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was that the Chancellor and the Council could act "as they saw fit". That was regarded as objectionable. The Bill says that they will be able to
    "lease land forming part of the possessions of the Duchy on such terms as they think fit."
    In other words, it is proposed that we revert to a position that was regarded as objectionable because it was thought appropriate to place restrictions on the way in which the Duchy conducted its business.
    Those restrictions have worked rather well over the years. As the Chancellor himself said, there have been no scandals. They have not been able to fiddle on the capitalisation because the law prevented it. There has been no temptation. It was stopped by the law.
    We believe that there is a need to put continuing restraints on all organisations. Restraints, in a limited way, are usually good for most organisations and if all the restraints on the conduct of an organisation are taken away, sooner or later it is likely to get out of hand. We might as well shut up shop in this place if we say that all the organisations in the City work well and there is no fiddling or financial chicanery. We would not need laws to control companies or anything like that. We could rely on the good faith and common sense of the managing companies.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says to us now that we can rely on the competence, common sense and good faith of those who will be, from time to time, the Chancellors and Council of the Duchy. It is an absurd proposition that there should not be any restrictions on the way in which they conduct business; obviously there should be some restrictions.
    We are talking about sensible limits. One of those sensible limits would he some sort of restriction on the length of time over which they can sell a lease, which is at present 99 years. In recent changes in the law that were made to extend the powers of the Duchy of Cornwall and of the Crown Estates, neither of those organisations sought extensions beyond 150 years. What is different about the Duchy of Lancaster; why does it need all its restrictions lifted?
    Mr. Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend help the House by saying who are the other members of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster? We know the Chancellor only too well. He is the deputy supremo of the enterprise culture. I realise that I should know the answer. I should have done my homework as well as my hon. Friend. It would be helpful for us to get a picture of who it is we are expected to place our trust in.
    Mr. Dobson: We shall have to rely on the Chancellor to disclose his colleagues. The only thing that I was able

    1211
    to verify in Committee was the fact that Lord Young of Graffham, who was once a property speculator but gave it up because he was losing money, is not a member of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster. We are all grateful for that. The great deregulators apparently want wholly to deregulate the Duchy of Lancaster. That is an unsound proposition.
    I come to the nub of the amendment, which is how the Duchy of Lancaster should treat the premiums it receives when leases are entered into. In Committee I pressed the Chancellor about how premiums would be treated and whether the change in the law might make it possible for the Government—as is their custom these days—to treat premiums, which are capital, as revenue and thus disburse the money and spend it. The Chancellor was good enough to write to me to explain. In his letter, he said:
    "The treatment of the premium element of the transaction as a capital receipt is a matter of established accounting practice."
    Apparently we are now to rely on "established accounting practice" to make sure that the Duchy of Lancaster treats these premiums as capital and not as revenue.
    As hon. Members know, accounting practices change and unless we have some provision in law to ensure that these premiums are treated as capital, it is possible for accountancy practice to change and for the Duchy to be able to spend the premium income as if it were revenue. If it did that, it would be following the example of every Government Department that has disposed of public property since the Government came to office in 1979. That might be described as "established Government practice."
    If the Duchy followed established Government practice, it would take the money in as capital and then spend it as revenue. We want to prevent that, and that is why we tabled new clause 2. That new clause imposes no new restrictions whatever on the Duchy of Lancaster because, according to his letter, that is "established accounting practice." I am sure he accepts that accounting practice can change. Therefore, this is not at present an additional restriction on the way that the Duchy conducts its business. However, it is a prudent provision to make sure that the capital possessed by the Crown and the revenues that it receives from that capital are maintained in future against any pressure at any time to treat the capital as revenue. I see no sound reason whatever why the Chancellor should not accept the provision in this new clause.
    Perhaps the new clause is not drafted as well as it ought to be. I am always willing to acknowledge, indeed proclaim, the shortcomings of my drafting and would be quite willing to accept new drafts put forward by the Chancellor or by his staff or colleagues. It would be wholly sound and prudent to apply this restriction for the future in order to protect the ultimate revenues of the Crown. I hope that the Chancellor will accept my proposition. If this is not the right way to do it, I hope that he will do something through the House of Lords to meet the objective that I hope I have set out.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would be on a perfectly sensible and serious point if there was a risk that the Duchy would revert to the long outmoded practice of treating its capital receipts, its premiums, as if they were
    1212
    revenue available as payments to the Keeper of the Privy Purse. The hon. Gentleman fears that there is some risk of the Duchy Council being able to revert to the less than reputable practices that it followed at the time of the feckless Stuarts and in the days of the early Hanoverians, when Parliament felt obliged to put some restrictions on the way the Duchy of Lancaster was operated.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I see that the old pretender from Cumnock and Doon Valley is roused by my remarks.
    Mr. Foulkes: The young pretender.
    When the Chancellor is talking about the feckless Stuarts, perhaps he would answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was reluctant to answer and tell us who he has as his `oppos' in the operation — not in all the other things he is doing; we have faith in him in his role as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Who does he have about him — John of Gaunt and all these other chappies? We want to know who they are so we know whether the House can put its trust in him.
    Mr. Clarke: My starting point is that the House can trust the present Duchy Council not to start behaving in a disreputable way and using the premiums as revenue. The Attorney-General of the Duchy is Mr. Rattee, a member of the Bar in silk; the vice-chancellor of the County Palatine is Mr. Justice Scott, a High Court judge in the Chancery Division. The other members of the Council are Sir Ashley Ponsonby, Major Shane Blewitt, Mr. John Slater, and Mr. Simon Towneley, who is the Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire. It is a reputable body, which has had a good record in managing the estate in recent years. If the composition of the Duchy Council were to change and we were to come under improper pressure to apply premium income as revenue, I assure the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his hon. Friends and the House that they would not be free to do so, even without his new clause.
    I have written to the hon. Gentleman and I addressed this matter in Standing Committee, but he is right to press the point. I will spell out the combination of statutory restrictions, accounting practice restrictions and auditing restrictions, coupled with an assurance that I am prepared to give on behalf of the Treasury to reassure him that his fears are groundless.
    The manner in which premiums should be dealt with is clear, having regard to the statutory requirement that will remain and will not be repealed by the Bill. The Duchy of Lancaster Lands Act 1855 and earlier legislation deal with the treatment of proceeds of disposals. The Duchy also remains subject to the proper accounting procedures and practices when preparing accounts by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838. Given that, in the last debate, the hon. Gentleman expressed great respect for venerable legislation, he will be glad to know that these two Acts are surviving.
    The Duchy of Lancaster Lands Act 1855 makes it clear that, although all proceeds of the dispositions of Duchy property belong legally to the sovereign in right of the Duchy, capital receipts must in accordance with the Act be retained and invested by the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy. Receipt of a premium as a result of a

    1213
    disposition of land would be a capital receipt. I have already given assurances on the point in my letter to the hon. Gentleman and in the Standing Committee, when I quoted my letter yet again.
    I give a further assurance to hon. Members, in case they still think that the treatment of a premium is in some way discretionary by the Duchy Council. The Treasury has confirmed that all proper accounting practices and procedures are followed and would, if ever required, make a direction to the effect that premiums should be treated as capital. That safeguard is in addition to the independent audit of the Duchy accounts, which I have already given assurances about. No reputable auditors would accept a sudden decision by the Duchy to start using premium income as revenue, as is feared.
    I told the Standing Committee the name and standing of the auditor the Duchy uses, who seems to be extremely reputable. Any fear that the passage of the legislation might enable the Duchy Council to behave in some irresponsible way is ill founded; for that reason, I advise the House that the new clause is simply not required.
    Question put and negatived.

  Clause 1

    EXTENSION OF POWERS TO LEASE DUCHY LAND
    Mr. Dobson: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in Page 1, line 8, after 'Duchy', insert
    'within Greater London and the District of Harrogate'.
    The amendment seeks to restrict the deregulation of the Duchy of Lancaster, if I may describe it thus, to the Duchy's property in those areas on which the justification given by the Chancellor of the Duchy is based. Throughout the whole piece he has made it clear that the problem of partnership developers wanting longer leases than 99 years is apparent in the urban areas where the value of the land is extremely high.
    The Chancellor has made no suggestion—indeed, no one in his right mind would make such a suggestion—that anyone has said that they will not take an agricultural lease because it runs for less than 150 years or that people refuse to buy a lease for less than 150 years for shooting on the north Yorkshire moors because they cannot raise the money on the market.
    The justification for lifting the restrictions is based upon the alleged need to develop further the estate owned by the Duchy around the Savoy in the Strand, and possibly in Harrogate, which I understand is the Duchy's next most substantial land holding in an urban area.
    We must get this matter into perspective. So far as I can discover, there are 2·5 acres on the Savoy estate, including the Savoy chapel and the surrounding garden. It is understood that no revenue is derived from them. Presumably the Prime Minister did not pay anything when her son got married at that chapel. One would have thought that that marriage would have occasioned some revenue, but apparently not.
    On the assumption that the Duchy does not intend to redevelop the Savoy chapel and its garden, there are probably less than two acres of land on the Savoy estate available for development. Therefore, the whole justification for lifting the statutory restraints on the conduct of the Duchy are based on the possible needs of two acres in central London as against an estate of 36,000 acres of agricultural land. There are 2,800 acres in
    1214
    Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, 13,000 acres in Staffordshire, Cheshire and Shropshire, 10,900 acres in Lancashire and 9,300 acres in Yorkshire. On top of that there are 15,000 acres of moorland in north Yorkshire and south Wales, most of which is subject to common rights, and some other smaller sections of developed property in Leeds, Leicester, Bradford, Lewes and parts of London other than the Savoy estate.
    I believe that it is preposterous for the Chancellor to say that he must lift all the restrictions on all the thousands of acres of land on the basis of a justification that springs from problems arising on less than two acres of land down the other end of the Strand. Such a justification is an absolutely preposterous absurdity.
    The Chancellor has mentioned absolutely no need, let alone backed it up with argument, for the lifting of the restrictions to apply to the rest of the Duchy's estate anywhere in the country. The problems are specific to the limited urban sites. The proposal in the amendment would limit the lifting of the current restrictions to areas within greater London and the district of Harrogate. That is wholly proper and reasonable. I am happy to concede that if it is reasonable for the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown Estate to have restrictions lifted in respect of their urban property, it is all right for the Duchy of Lancaster to have restrictions lifted in respect of its urban property. But it is to stand the whole thing on its head to change the law affecting such a large area of land simply because of' the problems of one small area.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy and I read the history of the estate completely differently. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, and one might have thought that he would believe that the law affected people's behaviour. Apparently he does not. He seems to think that the existence of a body of law over a considerable period has had no effect whatever on the conduct of the Duchy of Lancaster. As a junior Minister, and now as a senior Minister, he has brought Bill after Bill to the House on the basis that if one changes the law, one changes the way in which people do things. Yet he now says, "You can change the law and it will not make a ha'p'orth of difference."
    I cannot believe that. Perhaps that is because I am not a lawyer and hold the law in more respect than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is so familiar with it. However, his proposition that changing the law does not change the way in which organisations act is preposterous. It is just as preposterous to suggest that we should change the law covering 50,000 acres of land because of the problems that occur on less than two acres. I hope that he will come up with a better justification than hitherto for the sweeping deregulatory changes that he proposes.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman spoke to the amendment in his usual pleasant manner and style, hut he used fairly strong language, calling the Bill an absurdity and the argument that we should lift the restrictions on the more rural parts of the estate preposterous. With respect, his argument contains a slight illogicality. The main restriction that the Bill seeks to repeal is the 99-year restriction on anything in the manner of a building lease with which the Duchy is still fettered. He says that there is not the slightest prospect of the Duchy ever wanting to give a lease for more than 99 years in the moors of

    1215
    Goathland. He then says that because of that we should keep a restriction legally to prevent the Duchy from granting a lease for more than 99 years.
    The hon. Gentleman demands that we maintain the present restrictions in the law for those parts of the estate where he says they are meaningless and ineffective anyway. It is probably true that most of the 19th century provisions have never had the slightest effect upon the behaviour of the Duchy in the moorlands of south Wales and north Yorkshire, the agricultural estates of Cheshire and Lancashire or the large tracts that the hon. Gentleman described. It would be nonsense for the Bill removing the restrictions to apply only to London and Harrogate. I now realise the logic of that rather curious geographical definition.
    The hon. Gentleman sought to identify the urban part of the estate, where he thinks that the repeal of the restrictions might have some relevance. As he conceded, he has not mentioned all the urban areas; he mentioned Bradford, Leicester and Leeds in passing in his own list. In addition, we have property on the outskirts of Crewe, Pontefract and Newcastle-under-Lyme. Furthermore, the Duchy is perfectly free to acquire—
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the property in Pontefract is a castle? I doubt whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would try to raise revenue on a castle.
    12 midnight
    Mr. Clarke: I do not think that we are considering a major building lease on the castle. The hon. Gentleman is quite right on that point. However, that is not the only property that we have near the town of Pontefract, although the castle is probably our most distinguished holding there.
    The Duchy is perfectly free to acquire more land. It is not a fixed estate and it does not simply comprise all the land owned by John of Gaunt. The Duchy manages the estate and sometimes makes acquisitions and sales. We have no means of knowing whether the Duchy will acquire property in future and the present limitations in the law would impose restrictions for no good purpose on the ability to manage the estate. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman's point is not worth pressing.
    It would be nonsense to keep all the old restrictions on the parts of the estate where the hon. Gentleman argues that the estate has no relevance. While we are taking the opportunity to free the Duchy from restrictions, we might as well do that properly and not include the extraordinary amendment which would involve passing an Act that would apply only to London and Harrogate. No doubt that would be unprecedented in 19th and 20th-century legislation.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Dobson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
    '(2D) Before any new lease shall be granted for any land or property forming part of a National Park, or area of outstanding natural beauty or of special scientific interest, the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy of Lancaster shall consult (a) the appropriate National Park Board, (b) the Nature Conservancy Council, and (c) the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; and in the event of any of these bodies objecting to the terms of the new lease the Chancellor and
    1216
    Council of the Duchy of Lancaster shall only proceed following an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament.'.
    This amendment is intended to provide additional protection for land owned by the Duchy of Lancaster in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of special scientific interest.
    It is particularly appropriate that we should be trying to provide additional protection now because we understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering privatising property owned by the Nature Conservancy Council. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a reluctant deregulator at times, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is an absolutely fanatical deregulator. After all, his family made its money out of deregulated coal mines a long time ago. There is every reason for him to be in favour of deregulation to try to get them back as quickly as possible.
    The Government are in the process of introducing a great deal of deregulation in rural areas. I have mentioned the idea of selling land belonging to the Nature Conservancy Council. There are also substantial proposals in the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for change in the approach to the control of development in rural areas. We have the opportunity tonight to provide additional protection for some of the property which lies within the public sector at the moment, if I can describe the Duchy of Lancaster in that way.
    It would be right to place restrictions now on the granting of new leases in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or areas of special scientific interest, as the Bill proposes to lift all other restrictions. We need some compensatory protection. If there is to be no limit to the period for which leases can be entered into for such sensitive areas as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of special scientific interest, it is only proper to introduce some restraints to ensure that the purposes of the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of special scientific interest are protected. It would be a failure on our part to allow the Duchy to have utterly free play over the land in those areas, as is envisaged in the Bill.
    The amendment proposes that, before the Duchy enters into any new leases, with its new unbounded powers under what will be the Duchy of Lancaster Act 1988, where the lease is granted for any land or property forming part of a national park, area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest, it shall consult the appropriate national park board, the Nature Conservancy Council or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. If any of those bodies objects to the terms of these new, utterly unfettered, leases, the Duchy of Lancaster will be able to proceed only following the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The Chancellor may say that that is going a bit far and that it might not be the best way of providing the protection that we are seeking.
    I have no great brief for the amendments that I have drafted. They may be faulty in their detail, but they are not faulty in their intention. It is right and proper to add this compensatory protection. I hope that the Chancellor will accept the wording as it stands or promise that some protection will be introduced when the Bill goes to the House of Lords.
    Mr. Martlew: I was a little puzzled when I read the Bill and its Committee stage, but, having heard the Chancellor, I am completely confused. I gained the impression that he was trying to say that he wants to put the business of the Duchy on a more professional basis.
    I note that there are two clauses missing from the Bill. The first should be to get rid of the post of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In reality, a professional organisation would have a highly paid chief executive. I understand that the Chancellor is paid £2,000 per annum. I do not know whether, for the work that he does, that is highly paid or not.
    Under the present arrangements, the person holding the post is a politician—he may be a very good politician—and for political reasons he needs to be in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister is of the opinion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be trusted with a Department so she has made him Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not want to offend the Chancellor, but the cap fits.
    Perhaps the Chancellor will say how much of his time is spent on the duties—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not been a Member of the House for long, and I have allowed him a preamble. I hope that he will come to the amendment.
    Mr. Martlew: Amendment No. 6 is specific and if it is not dealt with it would consume more of the Chancellor's time if he had to bring it back to the House because of a disagreement. One of the Chancellor's predecessors in the 1930s said that he spent half an hour a week on the business of the Duchy.
    Parts of the Duchy's property—other than the Savoy, which does not have much wildlife; it might at various times of the night—lie in areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as Cheshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire. Unfortunately, it has sold its land in Cumbria.
    If the Duchy were to be put on a par with the private sector, its tax arrangements would have to be altered. I understand that the Duchy's taxes go straight into the privy purse.
    We should not expect to get rid of the Duchy or change its tax position, because it is something special which should be preserved. The Duchy is not a property company; it has looked after the countryside and its wildlife since 1265, so far as I am aware. There is no reason why, for short-term financial gain, we should change that or endanger any of the areas of outstanding natural beauty. Therefore, we do not need to change the leasing arrangements of the Bill, and perhaps we need to accept the amendment. If I have one criticism of my hon. Friend's amendment, it is that there is an omission from it, but I hope that the Minister will accept that we should consider it.
    Being a Cumbrian Member of Parliament, I am aware of the debate that took place only yesterday in my area about the problem of fox-hunting in the national park. I hope that the Chancellor or the Duchy will consider whether, as well as protecting the wildlife in the area, we should ban the use of hounds for hunting animals on land that is owned by the Duchy of Lancaster. It is barbaric that we should allow that practice to continue. Although it is part of our history—just as it is part of the history of my constituency that we did not allow Scotsmen to walk
    1218
    around the city after dusk and we also used to hang sheep stealers — —[Interruption.] There were exceptions with regard to Scotsmen. Although it is part of our history, it should be forgotten. Therefore, I should be happy to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy say tonight that he is prepared to accept the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment and to consider banning the use of hounds for hunting animals on Duchy land.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am entirely in sympathy with the spirit and intention of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Although I do not go along with the arguments of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about field sports on Duchy land, I share his desire to look after its natural beauty.
    The amendment seeks to get the approval for every new lease that we enter into of the appropriate national park, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I have been a member of the RSPB for years. I am not sure whether I have got my new status correct, but I think that I am now a fellow — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is an absolute qualification for being Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am sure that my colleagues on the Duchy Council share a general desire to make sure that we look after the wildlife and preserve the countryside on tracts of land that are owned by the Duchy, inside the national parks. So far as I am aware, the Duchy has never been accused of doing anything to damage sites of scientific interest of national park areas—certainly not in my time in the House. However, I shall look at any complaints, if people can find any, in any part of the County Palatine.
    The Acts that we are repealing have not had much to do with that. Previous legislation allowed building leases up to 99 years. During a 99-year lease one can do a lot of damage to a stretch of moorland or to the foreshore that we own. In this case, I do not think that it is legislative protection that has made the Duchy a reasonable custodian of the areas of natural beauty that it owns.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras correctly predicted that I would think that his amendment went too far. In his enthusiasm, he has sought to require that every new lease should require consultation with the three bodies, and that if any one of the three objects to a new lease it should have to come to both Houses of Parliament for an affirmative resolution. In the areas of land that we are discussing, enormous numbers of transactions could be described as new leases. The amendment would mean that every cottage letting, every farm letting and every sporting letting would have to be submitted to each of the three bodies for its opinion.
    I am not sure that any of the three bodies concerned would welcome that, because they would require substantial staff to be able to handle the flood of matters on which they would have to report back, and we would have an unnecessary restriction on the whole estate.
    12.15 am
    In case the House feels that the Duchy Council and I are a band of amateurs for seeking to protect the national parks—the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) understandably doubted my qualifications for being chairman of the Council managing such a large estate—I hasten to assure the House that I receive £2,000 a year, which is probably all that I am worth as Chancellor of the Duchy. My belief when I was appointed that the £2,000

    1219
    was a bonus extra to my salary as a Cabinet Minister was rapidly shattered: my Cabinet salary is docked by the appropriate amount, to ensure that I am not better paid than any of my colleagues. The hours that I spend on the Duchy each week are therefore not wildly rewarded, but they are rewarding in themselves.
    More to the point, there is a professional staff. There is a clerk to the Council, and people with expertise in surveying all the aspects of the estate who carry out a good deal of the management of the Duchy lands, and do so very well.
    I hope that the House is persuaded that the Duchy is an extremely reasonable custodian of areas of great natural beauty and interest, and that this proposal would be excessive and probably unworkable.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Abortion
  12.16 am
  Mr. Max Madden: With nine and a half hours or so to go before the debate on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, I beg leave to present a petition signed by Sandra Grice of Burnett place, Bradford 5, and 343 of my constituents, many of whom are students at Bradford university, who wish to pray
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Parliament assembled, the Humble Petition of United Kingdom Residents Showeth That The Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which proposes to reduce the upper limit for abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act. Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
  To lie upon the Table.

Kampuchea
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
12.17 am
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate.
It is now nine years since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime were ousted from Kampuchea by the invading Vietnamese army. Some weeks ago, while we were in the country visiting Oxfam-supported projects and meeting senior Government officials, the first peace talks to try to resolve the conflict were taking place in Paris, between Kampuchea's Prime Minister, Hun Sen, and Prince Sihanouk, former ruler of Cambodia and until recently the president of the so-called Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, which is dominated by Khmer Rouge and receives cash and recognition from Western Governments. At this moment, the second round of talks is going on in Paris.
People in Kampuchea are very excited and optimistic about the talks, because they are desperate for peace. That is not surprising in a country where over 1 million people were killed, tortured, starved and persecuted between 1975 and 1978.
The Vietnamese invasion at that time saved many other Kampucheans from being killed by Pol Pot. The major reason that they stay there, and the Kampucheans need their presence, is that the Khmer Rouge continues to launch guerrilla attacks within the country from the Thai border.
Incredibly, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are given international recognition at the United Nations, as one of the components of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. Britain was one of the Governments who, incredibly, support the group.
On our first day in Phnom Penh we were taken by our guide to see a school in which the Khmer Rouge had imprisoned, tortured and killed about 16,000 of its victims. Only five were known to have escaped alive as the Vietnamese liberated the city from Pol Pot. I asked our guide, in a shocking reminder of the three years, eight months and 20 days of Pol Pot terror, what he had done before the Pol Pot regime. "A student of literature," he said, "hoping to become a teacher." "And now?" "All our dreams have been changed," he said quietly.
We were taken to see the mass graves just outside one of the villages. The remains are now to be seen in a grisly exhibition. Hundreds of skulls were stacked together and other human bones were in a separate pile. Anyone who saw the film "The Killing Fields" will realise the horror of those scenes.
In Phnom Penh itself, the capital, once an elegant and civilised city, now almost no house has water above ground floor level and there are few indoor toilets. Pigs, cattle and hens wander around the main streets. The water supply is erratic. There is little street lighting. There is a curfew at 9 o'clock every night because of continuing guerrilla attacks by the Khmer Rouge.
The city's waterworks is one of the projects that Oxfam assists. It would cost millions of pounds to modernise. Without bilateral aid, that would be impossible. Oxfam currently has a £1·5 million programme in the country, supporting such infrastructure work normally funded by the United Nations or by bilateral aid. The British

1221
Government do not recognise the Kampuchean Government. They consider them to be a puppet of Vietnam and therefore give no aid. Oxfam is assisting in the rehabilitation of an essential ferry link and workshop, and also with the important jute industry. These have all been the object of guerrilla attacks by forces morally backed by Western Governments.
Since 1979, Kampuchea has made progress in education, health and industry, but it is still a long way behind the standards of other developing countries. At the rate it is going, it will be many years before it can restore the damage done by wars to the country and especially to the people. The lack of educated and technically skilled people is a major problem for a country attempting to rebuild. Thousands were deliberately exterminated by Pol Pot.
There are only five vets in the entire country, and of 20,000 teachers only 5,000 remain. By 1979 Pol Pot had destroyed education, money, industry and culture. There was no public transport, no telephones or postal system and hardly any clean water, electricity or sanitation. Now only 1 per cent. of the population has access to a clean water supply.
In the main paediatric hospital in Phnom Penh the doctor in charge told us that only six doctors out of 500 of his generation had survived. Now one in six children under five dies from fever, typhoid, dysentry and diseases related to malnutrition.
Compared with several African countries, Kampuchea clearly has many resources. It has the potential to be self-sufficient in food and even to export. Today it cannot even produce enough to feed itself. The quantity of aid received by the country means that it can only stay at that level of development. Other countries are generous in emergencies, supplying food and seed, but they will not provide the tools that would help Kampuchea to rehabilitate, for example, the irrigation sector to enable it to improve control of the water or the equipment to increase the catch of fish. The absurdity of the present position is that everything is there to make the country self-sufficient.
There is a feeling of great insecurity. People do not know what is going to happen tomorrow, let alone next week or next year. They are afraid and discouraged. They cannot get the kind of aid they want. The backing they had hoped for from from the West is not there, and they are being dragged into a strong alliance and debt with the Eastern bloc, especially Vietnam.
From conversations with senior Government Ministers, officials and others in Kampuchea I am certain that they do not want that. They would like a more open system and relationship with the West. Under the present climate of hostility and repeated warfare, the Hun Sen Government in Kampuchea have never been given a chance to establish good relations with the West. Certainly no one would dispute that in foreign affairs and security matters there is a strong Vietnamese influence because they see Kampuchea as a legitimate security interest for them. They do not want a country backed by China on their southern as well as their northern border. So it is important for them that Kampuchea remains friendly.
There seems no reason to doubt Vietnam's repeated assertions that it is prepared to withdraw completely from Kampuchea by 1990, and before then, if a political settlement can be reached. A few miles from the border of Kampuchea in Thailand, about 275,000 Kampucheans are living in eight closed camps. They are controlled by three
1222
political groupings that make up the United Nations-recognised Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. The strongest military group is the Khmer Rouge, still led by the same people who were responsible for killing the Kampucheans between 1975 and 1978.
Although ostensibly civilian, the camps serve the prime function of supporting the anti-Vietnamese resistance movement. According to the International Council of Voluntary Agencies and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the camps are all used as rest and relaxation centres for soldiers returning from the front. Four of the camps run by the Khmer Rouge are closed to UN monitoring, which is ironic, as one of the arguments used by the West for not giving aid to Kampuchea is that it cannot be monitored. That does not seem to matter when it comes to giving aid on the border.
Surely the greatest need is to get people out of the camps because they are virtually prisoners there. We do not want another Palestinian camp on the borders of south-east Asia. How long are the West and the world prepared to leave those people rotting on the border?
Meanwhile the people of Kampuchea continue to suffer. Trapped between super-power and regional rivalries, they are still isolated by the majority of Governments as though they were personally to blame for the presence of the Vietnamese.
I urge the Government, who could play such an important role in this matter, to reconvene the 1954 Geneva conference on Indochina, which was co-chaired by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, and to promote a negotiated settlement that would isolate Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. In the meantime, I ask the Government, as a matter of the greatest urgency, to provide reconstruction and development aid as soon as possible to Kampuchea, a country that has suffered so much for so long.
12.28 am
Mr. Jim Lester: I am pleased to be able to join the debate briefly. It deserves more time on a major occasion.
I agree very much with the description by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of our visit to Kampuchea, Phnom Penh and the other regions. I am pleased that, since we returned and spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, the Government have changed their policy and are prepared to consider humanitarian schemes in Kampuchea, which is a step forward that we welcome.
Kampuchea is a victim of international circumstance, trapped between the two major nations of Thailand and Vietnam. Historically, it has always been a ground between them, either for security or for envy of its potential for agricultural development. There is no question but that the talks yesterday and the next four rounds of talks give hope for the peace that is so desperately desired by the people living in Kampuchea, and for an end to the uncertainty and nightmare that has occurred there since I entered the House in 1974—since when Pol Pot arrived and was defeated.
Then there must be progress, as the hon. Lady said, towards self-sufficiency. Kampuchea is a country of great potential. It is beautiful, and could not only be self-sufficient but could play a part under a reconstructed Government in ASEAN. It would be helpful if the Government, with their traditional diplomatic skills, were

1223
asked by ASEAN and other countries to reconvene the international conference, which, it is to be hoped, would follow an agreement between Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen that would restore that part of the world.
I have also travelled to Thailand and have visited the camps on the border. There is no way in which those people have a future in the present situation. There is no opportunity for third country development. There has been an agreement since we went to Kampuchea before Christmas, with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, I think, that those refugees can now, should they be allowed to leave the camps, return to their homes and to the acres of potential agricultural development. One million hectares are currently lying idle.
I support the suggestion that we play as active and as diplomatic a role as possible to bring an end to the suffering of that country and that region.
12.31 am
Mr. Chris Mullin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on raising this issue. I think that the British public will be very surprised that Her Majesty's Government are supporting, and have supported for some years, the dreaded Khmer Rouge. It is in my view a wicked and cynical state of affairs, the purpose of which is to bleed Vietnam. I know that many British diplomats in the area who have dealt with this in one capacity or another are deeply ashamed of what has quietly been going on.
I recognise that we are a very junior partner in this enterprise and that the main villains are China, which supplies the guns, Thailand, where the guns are transported in Thai army lorries directly to the Khmer Rouge, and the Americans, who have organised the lobby at the United Nations that causes our representative and the representatives of many other Governments to vote each year, first of all for the Khmer Rouge directly, and in the last few years for the coalition which is a thinly disguised front for the Khmer Rouge. As I say, we are only a junior partner in this enterprise, but it is one of the most humiliating examples of our satellite status in relation to the United States.
I have travelled in that region quite a lot in the last 15 years. I was in Kampuchea during the war, before the rise of Pol Pot, and I was there in the immediate aftermath of Pol Pot.
A couple of years ago, in Bangkok, I called at the British embassy and said to a gentleman there that we appeared to be supporting the Khmer Rouge. He said, "Oh, no. It is all going to be different this time. Mr. Reagan has promised that the Khmer Rouge is to have free elections." I said, "Please tell me that I am not hearing this." He repeated what he had said. He said, "I know why you are worried, I have read the books; but it is all going to be different this time." I repeated, "Please tell me that I am not hearing this." He said "Are we talking off the record?" I said that we were and he said, "Quite frankly, I think it is appalling." That was a representative of Her Majesty's Government.
Everybody connected with this shameful enterprise is deeply ashamed of it and I hope that in his speech this evening the Minister will face up to the situation squarely and not try to pretend that we are not supporting the
1224
coalition with Mr. Son Sann and Sihanouk and making it look respectable. The people who are doing the fighting are the Khmer Rouge. The guns are coming from China. The food is coming from the West, and we make a contribution to that food. We know exactly where it is going, and the only way we have got away with it all these years is by not talking about it, and I am glad to see that the days when we do not talk about it are coming to an end.
12.34 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on raising this subject and on giving us such a graphic account of her recent visit to Cambodia.
During this debate I will refer to Cambodia rather than Kampuchea, because, of course, Cambodia is the name which is preferred by the majority of that country's inhabitants to the term Kampuchea, which was first brought into vogue by the Khmer Rouge regime.
Let me say at the outset that the Government fully share the concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in this debate. We too wish to do all that we can to help the Cambodian people to recover from the terrible hardships that they have suffered and, indeed, continue to suffer.
I very much welcome this opportunity to explain our policy. Our policy is based on the conviction that the peace, stability and long-term prosperity of that unhappy country, and, indeed, of the region, depends on the reestablishment of an independent and non-aligned Cambodia. That means a Cambodia free of all foreign troops. It means a Cambodia with a Government freely chosen by its own people.
Our policy is rooted in the fundamental principles of the United Nations' charter and I am amazed that the hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Sunderland, South have not referred to that. At last year's General Assembly, proposals based on those principles were endorsed by an overwhelming majority. Indeed, they have been so endorsed for the past nine years.
The tragedy is that that annual endorsement should be necessary, that we should have to say again and again that these basic principles should apply to Cambodia as they apply to the rest of the world. The reason that we have to do that is simple and straightforward and it is Vietnam's completely illegal occupation of Cambodia; indeed, Vietnam's cynical and flagrant disregard for the principles of international law.
Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has already taken part in the debate. I want to try to make my speech to state the Government's position clearly and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I prefer not to give way.
The description given by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley of the relationship of Cambodia with Vietnam might most charitably be described as imaginative.
Vietnam can be in no doubt about the strength of world opinion. Last year 117 countries—more than ever before — supported the United Nations' resolution on Cambodia. Those 117 countries could hardly be dismissed,

1225
as they have been tonight, as "a group". But Vietnam, and its Soviet paymasters, ignore the views of that overwhelming number of countries, just as they ignore Cambodian demands for freedom. We cannot, and will not, accept this unlawful, cruel and oppressive occupation.
Cambodia is governed by a regime which is utterly without legitimacy. [Interruption.] The dependence of the so-called Heng Samrin — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has not been a Member of the House for long, but he should have learned by now to listen to the contributors to an Adjournment debate. I did him that courtesy, despite the fact that he did not tell me that he wished to take part. I request at least some courtesy in return.
Cambodia is governed by a regime utterly without legitimacy. That regime was hastily cobbled together by the Vietnamese on the eve of their invasion. Without the presence of massive Vietnamese forces, the regime simply would not exist.
Vietnam's supporters say that the United Nations' vote is a vote for the odious Khmer Rouge. That is nonsense. The annual vote is a ringing endorsement of the rights of the Cambodian people. But when the Vietnamese seek to join the worldwide protest at the Khmer Rouge record on human rights, let us not forget that for years it was the Vietnamese who tried to block discussion in the United Nations and elsewhere. Is this a conversion on the road to Damascus, or a cynical tactic? Only yesterday the House was hearing of the continuing plight of the boat people. The House yesterday drew a clear conclusion about the regime in Vietnam.
We have no doubt that, given a free choice, the people of Cambodia would resoundingly reject the Khmer Rouge. We withdrew recognition from the appalling Pol Pot regime in 1979. Hearing the words of the hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Sunderland, South tonight, it is strange to recall that it was a Labour Government who saw fit to establish relations with Pol Pot in 1976.
The resistance to the Heng Samrin regime is broadly based. The resistance, in the shape of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, represents not simply the Khmer Rouge but the non-Communist groups of former Head of State Prince Sihanouk and of Mr. Son Sann.
Prince Sihanouk in particular retains widespread loyalty among Cambodians, both within and outside Cambodia. The Vietnamese know this only too well; it is one reason why they retain such massive military forces in Cambodia. They cannot trust Heng Samrin's troops to fight the resistance. Too many of the regime's troops share the aims of the resistance.
The continuing talks between Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen are a welcome breakthrough in the diplomatic impasse. We hope they may be the first steps towards a negotiated settlement, but we cannot underestimate the obstacles.
Vietnam should withdraw all its troops from Cambodia now and signal its readiness to enter serious negotiations. Sadly, we have seen no evidence of a change of heart in Hanoi. Instead, Vietnam, supported by the Soviet Union, flagrantly and consistently ignores world opinion. It talks grandly of international conferences, but shows no readiness to negotiate. Vietnam's talk of an international conference is nothing but a smokescreen and a propaganda ploy.
1226
Hon. Members have rightly raised the appalling plight of the ordinary people of Cambodia. We already give substantial aid to the most affected Cambodians—those forced by Vietnamese aggression to flee across the border to Thailand. In 1984, there were 230,000 people in the camps. Today there are 275,000. More are arriving every day. They have fled in search of safety. Yet Vietnamese aggression on the Thai-Cambodian border has caused further casualites. Last year saw the cynical shelling by the Vietnamese of the main refugee camp, site 2.
We and most other aid donors agree that it is vital to help these people, and I too have visited the camps. this view was endorsed by the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House only last year. Since 1985, we have channelled £3·7 million through the United Nations border relief operation, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross and other voluntary agencies, and I pay tribute to the work of those agencies.
We are ready to respond to further appeals by these organisations, within the limits of resources available. I should stress that this aid is solely humanitarian, such as medical and food supplies. We give no military assistance and no aid whatever goes to the Khmer Rouge, either directly or indirectly.
Hon. Members have also called for aid to Cambodia itself. I understand, and share, their desire to alleviate suffering. With other donors, we keep under constant review the possible need for emergency relief. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe that we would look open-mindedly at support for any internationally organised relief effort inside Cambodia.
But we cannot accept that at this time we should give development assistance to a regime which depends for its very existence on Vietnamese occupying forces. We cannot allow Vietnam to bankroll its oppression of Cambodia with western aid. It would be a negation of the very principles of aid itself.
Vietnamese cynicism knows no bounds. Vietnam is bankrupt. Even its Soviet paymaster is grumbling about misuse of aid it has given. But, instead of pulling out of Cambodia and setting its own economy in order, Vietnam holds out a begging bowl to the west. A Government whose policies have led to the forced expulsion of over a million of their own inhabitants plead for "humanitarian" assistance. What an irony.
We watch with interest recent diplomatic moves. We wish them well, but the fundamental requirement is a change of heart in Hanoi and in Moscow. We call again on Vietnam to enter negotiations, and on the Soviet Union to use its influence to promote those negotiations. We look for a will to negotiate and a will to find an end to suffering.
Our condemnation of Vietnamese occupation enjoys the widest international support. Our position is shared by our partners in the European Community, it is shared by our friends in the Association of South East Asian Nations and it is shared widely, as evidenced by the UN vote, among the non-aligned.
The Government believe that we must work to maintain and strengthen this unanimity of international view. It offers the best, and indeed the only, prospect of restoring independence to Cambodia and thereby safeguarding the lives and well-being of its people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Aid
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many grants were given, and what was the total annual amount of regional aid granted in the district of Derwentside, in each of the last eight years.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) offered

  Original Regional Development Grant (RDG I) paid

  Revised Regional Development Grant (RDG II) approved

  Number

  Value (£ million)

  Value (£ million)

  Number

  Value (£ million)

  1979

  3

  0·4

  0·8

  —

  —

  1980

  3

  0·4

  0·4

  —

  —

  1981

  11

  0·8

  0·4

  —

  —

  1982

  11

  2·6

  0·4

  —

  —

  1983

  19

  2·1

  0·8

  —

  —

  1984

  9

  0·3

  0·6

  —

  —

  1985

  2

  0·4

  0·5

  41

  1·2

  1986

  14

  1·4

  0·7

  111

  3·9

  1987

  12

  1·1

  0·1

  120

  3·1

  The RDG I figures relate to published information on individual payments of over £25,000 in the Consett and Stanley employment office areas which together almost exactly approximate to the Derwentside district. The number of RDG I payments made is not available. The Department does not maintain more detailed statistics.

  The RDG II scheme was introduced in November 1984.

  Business improvement service grant records are not maintained on a district basis.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many grants were made and what was the total annual amount of regional development grants, for each year since their inception, for the district of Derwentside.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on regional development grants cannot be provided since the inception of the scheme in 1972. Sufficiently detailed records are available only from 1977 and these do not record the number of payments made. The amount of grant awarded in each year since 1977 and the number and value of grants approved under the revised scheme introduced in November 1984 are as follows:

  Original regional development grant (RDG I)

  Revised regional development grant (RDG II)

  Value (£ million)

  Number

  Value (£ million)

  1977

  1·3

  1978

  1·7

  1979

  0·8

  1980

  0·4

  1981

  0·4

  1982

  0·4

  768
  Mr. Atkins
  The number of grants offered and the total amount of regional aid granted in the district of Derwentside in each of the last eight years was as follows:

  Original regional development grant (RDG I)

  Revised regional development grant (RDC II)

  Value (£ million)

  Number

  Value (£ million)

  1983

  0·8

  1984

  0·6

  1985

  0·5

  41

  1·2

  1986

  0·7

  111

  3·9

  1987

  0·1

  120

  3·1

  The RDG I figures relate to published information on individual payments of over £25,000 in the Consett and Stanley employment office areas which almost exactly approximate to the Derwentside district. The Department does not maintain more detailed statistics.

  Advertising Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost of the current advertising campaigns for his Department.

  Mr. Butcher
  Planned expenditure on advertising for the enterprise initiative campaign in the current financial year is £6·3 million.

  South Africa
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on 21 October 1987,Official Report, column 814, what was the basis for Her Majesty's Government's estimate, that about 90,000 full-time job equivalents may be involved in the export of goods and services to South Africa.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The figure of about 90,000 job equivalents involved in exports of goods and services to South Africa was a broad estimate based on the aggregate level of trade with that country, together with an assumption about the relationship between output and employment.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the figures for exports from Scotland to the Republic of South Africa and for imports to Scotland from the Republic of South Africa, expressed as a percentage of total Scottish exports and imports in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is not available.

  Space Research
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give a regional breakdown of the expenditure on United Kingdom space research during the last year for which full figures are available.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: These figures are not held centrally and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on United Kingdom participation in the ERS-2 satellite and Columbus programmes.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: My right hon. and learned Friend is currently discussing with industry the scope for greater private sector involvement in the planning and financing of future space activities. We will take account of these discussions in assessing proposals for United Kingdom participation in the ERS2 and Columbus programmes alongside other priorities.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total value to the United Kingdom of exports of space technology and engineering in 1986–87.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: The information is not available.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funds will be made available to the British National Space Centre for 1988–89 by his Department; what funds were made available for 1987–88; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979–80 both outturn and 1987 prices.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: The following table shows DTI expenditure on space, which since October 1985 has been administered by the British National Space Centre, from 1979–80 to 1986–87, and the provisions for 1987–88 and 1988–89. The amounts are shown in cash and in 1986–87 prices using the general gdp deflator.
  770

  DTI Space Expenditure 1979–80 to 1988–89

  Outturn/provision

  1986–87 prices

  1979–80

  37·1

  61·8

  1980–81

  44·1

  61·9

  1981–82

  58·7

  75·1

  1982–83

  61·5

  73·4

  1983–84

  59·9

  68·3

  1984–85

  64·1

  70·0

  1985–86

  74·4

  76·6

  1986–87

  72·2

  72·2

  1987–88

  71·7

  68·8

  1988–89

  72·3

  66·4

  Inner-city Development Grant
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what definition of deprivation his Department uses in relation to the granting of inner-city development grants.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  In England, priority for urban development grant and urban regeneration grant is given to the 57 urban programme areas. The selection of these areas, whose local authorities have been invited to submit inner-area programmes for support under the urban programme, is not based on any single measure of deprivation, but the following factors were taken into account:

  Unemployment:
  the scale, rate and concentration of residential unemployment, including information on long term and youth unemployment, and unemployment at ward level.

  Census information:
  selected census indicators of economic, social and housing stress, showing the scale, intensity and concentration of deprivation.

  Dereliction:
  information from the 1982 derelict land survey.

  Population:
  towns over 30,000.
  In addition to these specific factors, account was taken of the local and regional economic context.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Records
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria the Lord Chancellor uses in determining the additional period for which papers withheld from the Public Record Office after 30 years should remain closed; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Records may be closed for periods longer than 30 years under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 and in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper "Modern Public Records", Cmnd. 8531, March 1982. The period of closure is determined by reference to the particular nature of the record in question.

  Judicial Review Pamphlet
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library a copy of the training pamphlet "The Judge over your Shoulder — Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions", prepared by the Treasury Solicitors Department.
  771
  The Attorney-General
  Yes. I have today placed a copy of "The Judge over your Shoulder" in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

DEFENCE

  Home Defence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of his Department's current budget is devoted to providing home defence, defined as the approximate military equivalent of civil defence, for the protection of the United Kingdom in the event of hostilities in Europe.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There is no clear military equivalent to civil defence. I therefore refer the hon. Member to figure 10 of the 1987 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which attributes £2,219 million to defence of the home base.

  Challenger Tank
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in encouraging the United Kingdom's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to purchase the new generation Challenger battle tank.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We will continue to encourage NATO allies, whenever it is appropriate and realistic to do so, to consider Challenger as a means of fulfilling their medium-term requirements for main battle tanks, in the context of the general approach described in my reply to the hon. Member on 2 November 1987, at column 602.

  Alvey Project
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will explain the purpose of the Alvey advanced information technology project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This is primarily a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  However, the Alvey advanced information technology project is a five-year programme of pre-competitive collaborative research in the technologies of IT between Government, industry and academic institutions. It is funded and managed through the co-operation of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Science and Engineering Research Council. The four major thrusts of the programme are intelligent knowledge-based systems, software engineering, VLSI (very large-scale integration) and man-machine interface. As these clearly have a relevance to defence systems, MOD has contributed financially and seconded manpower to the programme.

  Simulators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in introducing low flight and air combat simulators into the Royal Air Force and in improving their realism; and what is the cost programme for these simulators.

  Mr. Freeman
  Simulators of increasing sophistication and realism are currently being introduced into service. RAF air crew have been training for several years in a prototype air combat simulator, and a production system 772
  was delivered to RAF Coningsby in November 1987. Orders have recently been placed for Harrier GR5 mission simulators which will include digitally generated visual systems to provide a low-level flying training capability.

  The training value of simulators remains limited by their inability to simulate all aspects of flying and they must, therefore, be seen as a supplement to low-level flying training and air combat exercises in aircraft. The total procurement cost of all RAF simulator programmes in 1986–87 was £22·4 million.

  Costs (Statistics)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will express total United Kingdom defence costs as an amount (i) per household, (ii) per taxpayer and (iii) per person in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested, on the basis of the latest estimate of defence expenditure for 1987–88, is as follows:

  Defence expenditure

  £

  Per household

  877

  Per income tax payer

  763

  Per person

  331

  Vanguard Class Submarine
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is proposed that the Vanguard class submarines currently being built will be capable of carrying cruise missiles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Vanguard class submarines currently under construction are not designed to have the capability of carrying cruise missiles and there are no plans to modify them to provide this capability.

  Rolls-Royce plc (Winter Seminar)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a complete list of personnel from his Department and the armed forces attending the lunch and cocktail party and winter seminar organised by Rolls-Royce plc on 13 January; and what was the purpose of their attendance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Ninety-four officers and civilian personnel from the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces attended the winter seminar organised by Rolls-Royce plc on 13 January. This reflected their responsibility to maintain close contact with major companies in the aerospace sector.

  Overspending
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a complete list of all items and projects for which he is responsible, estimated at £1 million or over likely overspent from the last Defence Estimates, together with the amount overspent or likely overspent for items and projects from when first placed in the Defence Estimates.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. While the terms of the question are not entirely clear, it would appear to cover a lot of ground
  773
  and a great deal of effort would be required to answer it. I am satisfied that the scale of effort would be disproportionate, particularly since the annual major project statement for defence equipment which my Department supplies to the appropriate Committees of the House shows a comparison, for projects for which approved expenditure on development and production combined exceeds £250 million, between the estimated cost at the time of approval and the currently estimated cost.

  NFR 90 Frigate
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when a decision is to be made about whether the United Kingdom will enter the next phase of the NFR 90 collaborative frigate project;

  (2) further to his answer of 12 November 1987, Official Report, column 298, if he will make a statement about the outcome of project definition and subsequent decisions in respect of the NFR 90 collaborative frigate project.

  Mr. Younger
  Following completion of international feasibility studies, we have been considering whether to participate in the next stage, project definition, of the collaborative project NFR 90 (a NATO frigate replacement for the nineties). NFR 90 could potentially meet the Royal Navy's requirement for an anti-air warfare escort coming into service at the turn of the century to replace the type 42 destroyers. Adoption of a standard frigate by NATO navies would yield valuable operational advantages in terms of interoperability.

  In the interests of sound and efficient procurement practice, we have been concerned to ensure proper coordination between work on the frigate and work on the principal armament it would require for Royal Navy service, namely a support defence missile system, which we hope to procure through a separate collaborative programme. Although our concerns on this score are not yet entirely allayed, I am pleased to say that, following discussion with our allies, we have now decided to join the project definition stage of NFR 90 and to sign the implementing memorandum of understanding. We are, however, making clear to our partners that our continued participation is conditional upon the agreement of a timetable which is both realistic in technical terms and properly matched to the timetables for the ship's major weapon systems.

  The arrangements for project definition include provision for reviews at various points by the participating nations to take stock of progress. In the light of the first such review, we shall consider whether the timetable proposed for the remainder of the project has the characteristics we are seeking, and we shall decide accordingly whether or not to continue our participation.

  Early Warning Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if there is a ballistic missile early warning system in the United Kingdom purely for United Kingdom use;

  (2) whether (a) United Kingdom or (b) United States officials have initial access to information from the early warning system at RAF Fylingdales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The ballistic missile early warning system at RAF Fylingdales was constructed as a joint venture by the United Kingdom and United States 774
  Governments. The system is under RAF command and control and the early warning information is disseminated in parallel to both the United Kingdom and United States authorities.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions cruise missiles have been taken outside the perimeters of their United Kingdom bases.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Cruise missiles have never been deployed during off-base training exercises.

  National Joint Ocean Surveillance Information Centre
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 14 December 1987 concerning the United Kingdom national joint ocean surveillance information centre, what is its current cost to the Defence budget; and where it appears in the Defence Estimates.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Provision for the joint ocean surveillance information centre will be contained within defence Votes 2 and 4, with a very small amount also attributable to Vote 1. The estimated costs are commercial confidential.

  States of Alert
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the different states of alert, and explain their significance.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  For security reasons, it is not our normal practice to give details of alert states.

  Mould Radio System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the installation of the Mould radio system has been completed; if it has complied with budget and time requirements for its installation; and if he will explain its purpose.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The installation programme for the Mould home defence radio system is ahead of schedule and within cost. Details of the project are classified.

  New Tactical Warhead
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether work has started at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston on the design of a new tactical warhead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Work continues at the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston to keep abreast of the relevant nuclear technologies, but no decision has been taken to start the design of a new tactical warhead.

  Maritime Operations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the updating of NATO's concept of maritime operations is likely to be completed.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I understand that no date has currently been set.

  Military Bases and Facilities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a list in the Library of those United Kingdom military bases and facilities with more than 500 personnel and the estimated number of personnel in each.

  Mr. Freeman
  It would not be in the public interest to make available information on the numbers of personnel in United Kingdom military bases and facilities at the level of detail requested.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence upon what satellite guidance system it is currently anticipated Trident will be dependent.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Trident will not be dependent on any satellite guidance system.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Trident system.

  Mr. Younger
  I am pleased to announce that for the second year running there has been a reduction in the estimated cost of the Trident programme, which now stands at £9,043 million.

  After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, there is a real reduction in the estimate over the one announced previously of some £376 million and a real reduction of £1,038 million over the original 1982 estimate, over and above the savings resulting from the decision to have United Kingdom missiles processed in the United States facility at King's bay, Georgia. The total will be spent over a period of 20 years.

  In line with established conventions adopted for the recosting of the defence programme, the estimate is based on the exchange rate used for the long term costing of the defence programme, namely £1-$1·62.

  The proportion of the programme to be undertaken in the United Kingdom has also reached its highest recorded level—64 per cent.

  The Select Committee on Defence previously asked that when announcing the annual revised estimate, I should report on the state of the project as a whole. I am pleased to say that the project remains on programme to enter service as planned in the mid-1990s. There has been no slippage in the in-service date since the decision to proceed with Trident II was announced in March 1982.I am, as last year, sending to the Chairmen of the Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee a more detailed report covering the points on which the Select Committee on Defence sought advice. I am also placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  Research and Development
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many research contracts or agreements for research and development his Department has with Southampton university; and into which subjects;

  (2) how many contracts or agreements for research and development his Department has with the university of Aston in Birmingham; and into which subjects;

  (3) how many contracts or agreements for research and development his Department is currently placing in United
  776
  Kingdom universities or other such educational establishments; and at what cost for the financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88;

  (4) if he will list the universities, polytechnics, medical schools or other such educational establishments in the United Kingdom at which research directly or indirectly sponsored by his Department is taking place or has taken place over the last two years;

  (5) how many contracts or agreements for research and development his Department has with the university of Birmingham; and into which subjects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence currently has 753 research agreements and 76 contracts with a wide range of United Kingdom universities, polytechnics and other institutions of education. In addition, the MOD is participating with the research councils in making joint-funded grants for university research of relevance to defence.

  The cost of research and development in the academic sector during the financial years 1986–87 was £14 million and is forecast to be some £18 million in 1987–88. It is not our policy to give details of these arrangements. It is for the universities themselves to confirm their involvement.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has awarded any classified research contracts or agreements to United Kingdom universities or other such educational institutions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are currently no classified research contracts with universities or other educational establishments. It is however MOD's practice to place work at universities and other establishments of higher education by agreements rather than by formal contracts, and at present there are three classified agreements.

  Bruslee Shooting Range, Newtownabbey
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation took place with adjoining famers whose livelihood was likely to be affected prior to the establishment of Bruslee shooting range, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim.

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD consulted Newtownabbey urban district council in January 1973 about the proposal to lease the Bruslee quarry site for a firing range. The council agreed to this in March 1973 and the range was opened in November 1976. Although not obliged by law to do so, it would have been for the council to canvas local opinion on the project. The range has been closed and the site was returned to the Newtownabbey district council on 31 December 1986.

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for the holding of a British Army equipment exhibition in 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 13 November 1987 at column 333.

  RAF Training
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what reductions in flying hours in the Royal Air Force fast jet operational training programme are planned over the next three years;
  777
  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Eustace report on Royal Air Force navigator training;

  (3) if he will make a statement on action taken to implement the recommendations of the Eustace report on Royal Air Force navigator training;

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Gibson report on Royal Air Force fast jet operational training, completed in August 1985;

  (5) if he will make a statement on action taken to implement the recommendations of the Gibson report on Royal Air Force fast jet operational training, which reported in August 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  The recommendations of the Gibson report on Royal Air Force fast jet operational training which were made in August 1985 have subsequently been examined and work has started on implementation as appropriate. If all goes to plan, some useful reductions in flying hours should be seen over the next three years. The recommendations of the recent Eustace report on Royal Air Force long-term navigator training are still being considered and no decisions have been taken yet on implementation. Both reports are internal working papers and it would be inappropriate to place copies in the Library.

  Tornado Aircraft (Employment Implications)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the employment implications for skilled and design staff of the Tornado mid-life update.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No final decision has yet been taken on the content of the proposed mid-life update programme for the Tornado GR1 aircraft. It is not possible to assess the employment implications for skilled and design staff, but, if approved, a mid-life update programme would help to sustain job opportunities over a range of disciplines.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the other partners in the Eurofighter consortium to proceed with the Eurofighter in the light of the policy committee decision.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As would be expected, my right hon. Friend frequently exchanges views with his colleagues in the other EFA partner countries and this dialogue is continuing as each of the partners proceeds with its national consideration of the launch of full development of the project.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Eurofighter will be entirely European in design and content;

  (2) whether there are any provisions to prevent American companies competing for Eurofighter contracts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The involvement of companies from nations not participating in the European fighter aircraft is, in principle, permissible. In order to maximise the involvement of the participating nations, such companies would be encouraged to acquire a partner—or partners —from within these nations. As the equipments for the European fighter aircraft are to be selected as a result of competition, it is not possible to forecast what if any involvement of industries from non-participating nations there might eventually be.
  778
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs he estimates would be created at British Aerospace by the purchase of 250 Eurofighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible at this stage to be specific about the number of long-term jobs which might be sustained at British Aerospace as a result of United Kingdom participation in the European fighter aircraft programme. However, it is clear that development and subsequent production of the aircraft would provide a significant programme of work well into the next century not only for British Aerospace but for the United Kingdom aerospace industry as a whole.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has of the potential for export of the Eurofighter.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is too early at this stage to make firm forecasts of the sales of the European fighter aircraft. However, there is likely to be a big demand for advanced combat aircraft during the lifetime of the European fighter aircraft.

  Radar Systems
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to give full support to the Ferranti/Fiat/Inisel ECR90 radar system against the American-developed APG 65.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The radar for the European fighter aircraft will be selected as a result of competition. Since that competition is currently under way, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hinton St. Mary
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Hinton St. Mary.

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

  North-West Region
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the north-west in 1988.

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

  Eastlands
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Eastlands.

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

  Ramsbottom
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Ramsbottom.

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

  European Council (Tax Harmonisation)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will seek to raise the issue of the implications of tax harmonisation at the next meeting of the European Council; and if she will make a statement.
  779
  The Prime Minister
  No. The European Commission's proposals for tax approximation are being dealt with by Economic and Finance Ministers. They have commissioned an evaluation of the Commission's proposals from the Economic Policy Committee and will discuss the implications of the proposals in the light of the Committee's report.

  Africa (Visit)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of her recent visit to Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 14 January, at column 353.

  "Their Trade is Treachery"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if any disciplinary action has been taken against officials who failed to convey to Sir Robert Armstrong the fact that they had vetted proofs of Mr. Chapman Pincher's book "Their Trade is Treachery".

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Public Records
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 269–70, she will specify which of the criteria governing the withdrawal of papers beyond 30 years set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper "Modern Public Records". Cmnd. 8531, applied to the 1957 file headed "Leader of the Opposition"; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  HMS Conqueror (Logbook)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the light of the information contained in the foreword by Clive Ponting to the recently published book "The Unnecessary War", a copy of which has been sent to her, she will establish an inquiry into the circumstances in which the logbook of HMS Conqueror was lost following the Falklands war; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on 30 November 1984, at columns 593–94, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) on 25 October 1985, at column 227.

  Engagements
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
  780
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic wardens are currently employed; how many were employed in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of traffic wardens in England and Wales on 31 December is as follows:

  Number

  1982

  4,597

  1983

  4,914

  1984

  4,860

  1985

  4,769

  1986

  4,793

  19871

  4,769

  1 On 31 October.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to combat juvenile crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have a wide range of initiatives in hand for combating crime and others are in preparation. With 15 as the peak age for offending, many of them are aimed at offences commonly committed by juveniles. The key to success lies in effective local co-operation involving both the relevant services and the wider community. The recent report of the working party on juvenile crime, set up by the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention, shows the way forward.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to publish his Green Paper on radio broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  As outlined in my answer earlier today to a question from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), we want to bring forward legislation based on our Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities", published last year. We have no plans for a further Green Paper on radio.

  Kent (Policing)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the chief constable of Kent to discuss policing in the county.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has no such meetings at present arranged.

  Prisoners (Custodial Costs)
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost to public
  781
  funds of all the prisoners convicted of murder held in Her Majesty's prisons, using as the basis of the calculation the average cost of keeping all prisoners in custody.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The average annual cost of keeping a person in custody in 1986–87 was £13,104. On 30 September 1987 an estimated 1,850 prisoners were serving life sentences for murder in penal establishments in England and Wales, but the uneven distribution of convicted murderers throughout the prison system makes it impossible to calculate the cost of keeping them in custody.

  BBC and IBA
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the chairmen of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Broadcasting Authority; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the chairman of the BBC or IBA, but we expect to keep in close touch with them over the next few months as our policy on broadcasting develops.

  Miss Salema Begum
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet arrived at a decision on the application by Miss Salema Begum at present on temporary admission in Oldham, to join her parents in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  I advised the hon. Member on 22 December that the outstanding inquiries — here and abroad—would take some time. I undertook to let him know the outcome in due course, and I hope to be able to do so shortly.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women, (b) men and (c) children have been refused visas to visit the United Kingdom from those countries subject to such visa control since October 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 17 December 1987, at column 628.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male immigrants from North Yemen have been allowed to settle in Britain annually since 1983.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is readily available only on the numbers granted settlement in the United Kingdom on the removal of time limit and these are shown in the following table for the years 1983 to 1986. In addition, there may have been a small number accepted for settlement on arrival in the United Kingdom.

  North Yemeni males (all ages) accepted for of time limit1

  Year

  Number

  1983

  6

  1984

  11

  1985

  17

  1986

  14

  782

  1 Excludes any male children obtaining settlement at the same time as the mother and included on her passport.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide an indication of the number of individuals refused entry to the United Kingdom although in possession of a valid entry clearance in the last year.

  Mr. Renton
  The only comprehensive figures available of passengers refused entry while in possession of a valid entry clearance relate to the citizens of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria who were refused entry at Heathrow, Gatwick and Dover since the extension of visa requirements to these countries. The totals for the year ending 2 January 1988 are as follows:

  Nationality

  Number

  India

  45

  Pakistan

  108

  Bangladesh

  47

  Ghana

  82

  Nigeria

  1104

  TOTAL

  386

  1 As from 1 February 1987.

  Welsh Police Forces
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constables of the Welsh police forces; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I visited Gwent constabulary on 26 September 1987 and discussed with the chief constable a number of policing matters. My right hon. Friend hopes to include a visit to the headquarters of the North Wales police in his programme of engagements for the coming year.

  Charities
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the Woodfield report on charities.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a number of representations from charitable organisations broadly in support of the report's recommendations.

  Five Precautions Act 1971
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the workings of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 as it relates to the workplace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  Designation orders made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 provide for general fire safety in places of work. Factories, offices, shops and railway premises, where more than 20 persons are employed to work at any one time or more than 10 persons are so employed elsewhere than on the ground floor, are required to have a fire certificate. This requires the provision of adequate means of escape and means for fighting fire and training for employees in action to be taken in the event of fire.
  783
  In premises which do not require a fire certificate the occupier must provide such means of escape in case of fire for the persons employed to work there as may reasonably be required and appropriate means for fighting fire.

  Parking (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make more resources available to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to enable him vigorously to enforce parking regulations in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The strength of the Metropolitan police has risen by some 5,000 police officers since this Government took office in May 1979. The strength of the civil staff has also risen — by some 1,400 — releasing a large number of officers from administrative posts for redeployment on operational duties. It is a matter for the Commissioner to determine how best to deploy his resources to meet the many demands on the Metropolitan police, but I know that he recognises the importance of the enforcement of parking and other traffic law. Proposals for improving the effectiveness of parking enforcement (including those arising from a recent scrutiny of the Metropolitan police traffic warden service) are currently being considered by a working party, in which the Home Office, the Department of Transport, the police and the local authority associations are all represented.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on police manpower; and what recent discussions he has had with chief constables on this matter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Total police strength at the end of October 1987 was 123,870, the highest ever recorded. Since then my right hon. Friend has approved further increases in police force establishments as part of the phased programme which he announced to Parliament on 20 May 1986, at column 124.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of recruitment of police officers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 6,871 police officers were recruited in England and Wales including the Metropolitan police in the 10 months up until 31 October 1987, either to replace officers who retired or resigned or to enable forces to implement increases in establishment. Between May 1979 and October 1987, the strength of the police service, excluding those who are on secondment, increased by 12,019 police officers, from 109,998 to 122,017.

  Alcohol Sales (Minors)
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deter the sale of alcohol to minors from public houses and off-licences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 19 January, at columns 646–7, in the light of discussion within the ministerial group on alcohol misuse the Government intend to amend 784
  the Licensing Act 1964 to strengthen the offence of selling alcohol to young people under 18 and to increase the penalties for the offence. Appropriate amendments will be tabled to the Licensing Bill.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the number of prisoners infected with the HIV virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 12 January 1988 the prison population of England and Wales included 44 inmates reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive. One hundred and fifty four such cases had been reported since central monitoring began in March 1985.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of the west midlands; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend visited the West Midlands police on 11 December 1987, when he discussed with the chief constable a range of policing matters.

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement the recommendations of the joint Home Office and Department of Health and Social Security working party, on the problems presented by mentally disordered offenders in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of the recommendations already have been or are being implemented. The recommendations aimed at increasing the extent to which mentally disordered offenders are detained other than in prison custody are to be taken forward in further discussion between Home Office and DHSS officials.

  Racial Equality
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to make any change to his policy on racial equality, in the light of the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. John Patten
  We remain committed to a fair and just society in which all individuals, whatever their race or colour, have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. We shall continue to support the work of the Commission for Racial Equality under its new chairman.

  Thamesmead (Prison)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects construction of the new prison at Thamesmead to be completed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The new urban prison which is being constructed at Woolwich is currently due for completion in December 1990.

  Fresh Start Programme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress being made to implement the fresh start prison programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Fresh start has been implemented at 105 establishments in England and Wales, including all those in the south-west and midland regions. Work is continuing to complete the process at the remaining 16 establishments by the end of February.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with DNA testing.

  Mr. Renton
  DNA profiling has been used in the analysis of evidential material in about 150 forensic science cases so far, and in analysing samples from mass screenings. The technique is to be used in analysing samples from a mass screening which is to be undertaken in Thames Valley in connection with investigations into an unsolved murder.

  Due weight is already given to the results of DNA tests submitted by applicants in support of entry clearance applications. The results of the pilot trial to evaluate the role of DNA testing in immigration procedures should be available shortly.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from pensioners' associations seeking the abolition of television licences for pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  During 1987, six written representations, including one petition, seeking free television licences for pensioners were received from pensioners' organisations.

  Rural Areas (Policing)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding the policing of rural areas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for chief officers of police to determine the most suitable methods of policing rural areas.

  Gartree Prison (Escape)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome to date of the inquiry into the helicopter escape from Gartree prison.

  Mr. Hurd
  Two highly dangerous category A prisoners, Kendall and Draper, escaped by air from Gartree prison at about 3.15 pm on 10 December 1987. They were taken out in a helicopter whose pilot had been hijacked by an armed passenger. They disembarked a short distance from the prison and made good their escape by road. Police inquiries into the escape are continuing, but both men are still at large. Mr. G. H. Lakes CB, MC, deputy director general of the prison service, has completed his inquiry into the escape and has reported the results to me.
  786
  The escape was able to succeed mainly because, while Kendall and Draper were taking their normal exercise in a large open space under the supervision of prison staff, there was no physical barrier to stop the helicopter from landing in that part of the prison and no practical means of preventing it from leaving. The attempt was made easier because it came as a complete surprise to the staff and because those planning it had been able confidently to predict the time and place at which the escapers would be taking their outdoor exercise that day. The helicopter was on the ground for only 23 seconds and then in the air for less than five minutes before it landed again outside the prison. That was too short a period in which successfully to track it by radar in accordance with existing contingency plans, which have been further refined in the light of this incident.

  It has been suggested that reduced manning levels resulting from fresh start transitional arrangements may have contributed to the success of the escape. A comparison of staff deployment both before and after 1 November clearly indicates that manning arrangements were unchanged.

  Immediately after the escape an immediate and vigorous review of security measures was ordered and all establishments holding category A prisoners were put in a heightened state of alert. A number of practical steps were taken at once within dispersal prisons to frustrate any similar or other possible method of escape. Regime activities and arrangements for outdoor exercise have been changed and now make it significantly more difficult for individual category A prisoners to predict where they will be from day to day. Physical obstacles, for example wires strong enough to foul helicopter rotor blades, have been erected above exercise areas at a number of prisons, and will be installed at others very shortly, in order to impede a helicopter attempting to land in those areas. At suitable prisons observation posts at a level to watch for approaching aircraft will be manned at times when this is necessary. The prison service is reviewing the policy assumptions governing the arrangements for the security of category A prisoners. It has already introduced some changes which will bring the difficult job of preventing escape by highly dangerous prisoners under closer management attention.

  The current system of dispersal prisons was designed to contain highly dangerous prisoners securely. It also has to provide satisfactory regimes which allow control to be maintained. It has to operate with sufficient flexibility to enable inmates to be moved from one establishment to another within the system for security, control or other reasons. Steps have been taken to tackle the security weaknesses revealed by this escape and further measures are being considered to give added strength to the dispersal system.

  Prison Workshops and Farms
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to improve the profitability of prison workshops and farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The implementation of a series of measures for the rationalisation of prison industries announced in March 1986, which included the setting of clear management targets by the prisons board, has
  787
  reduced the cost of employing inmates in prison workshops and improved the value for money obtained from the resources invested in providing this type of activity for prisoners. Work to maintain these trends is continuing. Prison farms and gardens consistently operate at a modest profit.

  Chief Constables
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many chief constables have been dismissed under section 5 of the Police Act 1964 since the Act came into force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  One chief constable has been dismissed under section 29(1) of the Act, which empowers my right hon. Friend to require a police authority to exercise its power under section 5(4) to call upon the chief constable to retire in the interests of efficiency.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking the abolition of the age limit below which parents cannot be held responsible-for vandalism caused by their children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Parents are not responsible in law for criminal offences committed by their children, although they may be required to pay fines or other financial penalties imposed on children who have reached the age of criminal responsibility (10 years) but are under the age of 17. In 1987, the Home Office received about 20 letters suggesting that parents should be made liable for the criminal acts of their children; about half of them specifically suggested that such liability should extend to children below the age of criminal responsibility.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the non-availability of forms required for the registration of British citizenship in accordance with the British Nationality Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We are satisfied that there were supplies available to meet reasonable demands for all the forms subject to the 31 December 1987 deadline for the ending of certain rights to register. There was a temporary shortage of forms which were not subject to time limits, but orders are now being met and the backlog cleared.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the income and expenditure account for the administration of citizenship applications for 1986–87.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the nationality fees income and expenditure account for the 12 months ended 31 March 1987.

  Television Violence
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable him to enforce through statutory powers the so-called 9 o'clock watershed as a safeguard for young poeple against scenes of violence and depravity on television.
  788
  Mr. Renton
  The responsibility for enforcing programme standards must rest with the broadcasting authorities. The Government recognise the need for stronger and more effective oversight of standards relating to the portrayal of violence and sex on television and to that end my right hon. Friend has announced his intention to set up the Broadcasting Standards Council.

  Drug Trafficking and Abuse
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what part his Department took in the Council of Europe's parliamentary hearing on drug trafficking and drug abuse, held in Paris on 11 and 12 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The head of the Home Office drugs branch was present throughout, and delivered a paper, in his capacity as chairman of the committee of senior officials of the Council of Europe's Pompidou group.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made a new electoral arrangement order for the Inner London education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Yes. I have signed an order implementing the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England contained in its report No. 533, which was submitted to me on 24 March 1987 This provides for single member wards to come into effect for the next ordinary elections of the ILEA in 1990 as required by section 19(3) of the Local Government Act 1985. The commission was required to hold the review by paragraph 3 of schedule 9 to the 1985 Act, which also requires me to make an order implementing the commission's recommendations, with or without modifications. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has introduced a Bill which includes provisions on the future of ILEA. Under his proposals, the size of the elected ILEA will be reduced if boroughs successfully apply to assume education responsibilities for their area. This does not effect the 1985 Act requirement that provision should be made for single member wards for future ILEA elections.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Disarmament
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent responses by ambassadors at the United Nations 40-nation disarmament committee in Geneva on(a) nuclear disarmament initiatives from the United Kingdom under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (b) United Kingdom initiatives on verification procedures in support of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons requires the parties to it to pursue negotiations on effective measures connected with nuclear disarmament. The conference on disarmament provides a valuable forum for discussion of these issues, but since the United States and the Soviet Union
  789
  possess between them the overwhelming preponderance of nuclear weapons it is universally recognised that the primary responsibility for negotiations must fall to them. The resolution of outstanding verification procedures in support of a comprehensive test ban treaty does not require "initiatives", which are unlikely to solve the real technical difficulties; rather, it needs scientific work, which is conducted by the conference on disarmament's ad hoc group of scientific experts, in which the United Kingdom plays a constructive part.

  Nuclear Materials (Libya and Pakistan)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he possesses that nuclear materials owned by EURATOM, and under safeguards, have been illegally diverted from the Federal Republic of Germany to Libya and Pakistan.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no evidence of illegal diversion of nuclear material from the Federal Republic of Germany to Libya and Pakistan. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany are currently investigating such allegations with the assistance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agency stated on 18 January that it was satisfied there had been no unauthorised diversion of nuclear material in significant quantities. We await further details.

  United Kingdom-USSR (Bilateral Agreements)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report (a) all bilateral cultural, trade, science and technology co-operation, defence and arms control agreements currently in force between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (b) all multilateral cultural trade, science and technology cooperation, defence and arms control agreements signed, respectively, by the United Kingdom and Soviet Governments and (c) all United Nations decrees, charters and other agreements on cultural, trade, science and technology co-operation, and arms control matters signed both by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Mellor
  Bilateral agreements under which activity is currently conducted include the following (year of signature and brief explanation where needed in brackets):United Kingdom-Soviet Protocol on Consultations (1975. Provides for regular ministerial and official level discussions on a wide range of political issues).
  Long-term Economic and Industrial Co-operation Programme (renewed in 1986).
  United Kingdom/USSR Credit and Financing Agreement (1987).
  United Kingdom/Soviet Programme for Scientific and Technological Co-operation (1975).
  Memorandum of Understanding on Energy, Trade and Co-operation 1986).
  Memorandum of Understanding on Co-operation in Agriculture and Food Production (1986).
  United Kingdom/Soviet Agreement on Co-operation in the Field of Medicine and Public Health (1975).
  United Kingdom/USSR Cultural Agreement (renewed 1987. Provides for exchanges in arts, science and education fields).
  Memorandum of Understanding on Information/Cultural (1987. Provides for closer contacts between the media and in other areas).
  United Kingdom/USSR Co-operation Agreement (1987).
  Agreement on Prevention of Incidents at Sea (1986).
  790
  Agreement concerning the Establishment of a Direct Communication Link (1967. Hotline).
  Agreement on the Prevention of Accidental Nuclear War (1977).

  For the remainder of the question, the answers are not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  South Africa
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the restrictive measures and sanctions which have been imposed against South Africa since 1983; and to what extent they are in line with measures that have been suggested by(a) the Commonwealth and (b) the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The restrictive measures imposed by us against South Africa since 1983, together with an indication of whether they were adopted in common with our European and/or Commonwealth partners, are as follows:

  1. Measures agreed at the Meeting of EC Foreign Ministers September 1985

  (i) A re-affirmation of an embargo on exports of arms and para-military equipment to South Africa (United Nations Security Council resolution 418 of 4 November 1977);

  (ii) A re-affirmation of an embargo on imports of arms and para-military equipment from South Africa (United Nations Security Council resolution 558 of 13 December 1977);

  (iii) A refusal to co-operate in the military sphere;

  (iv) The recall of military attachés accredited to South Africa and refusal to grant accreditation to military attachés from South Africa;

  (v) Discouraging cultural and scientific agreements except where these contribute towards the ending of apartheid or have no possible role in supporting it; and freezing of official contacts and international agreements in the sporting and security spheres;

  (vi) The cessation of oil exports to South Africa;

  (vii) The cessation of exports of sensitive equipment destined for the police and armed forces of South Africa;

  (viii) The prohibition of all new collaboration in the nuclear sector.

  2. Measures agreed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Nassau, October 1985

  (i) The strict enforcement of the mandatory arms embargo against South Africa;

  (ii) A re-affirmation of the Gleneagles declaration of 1977, which called upon Commonwealth members to take every practical step to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa;

  (iii) Agreement upon the commendation to other Governments of the adoption of the following further economic measures against South Africa:

  (A) A ban on all new Government loans to the Government of South Africa and their agencies;

  (B) A readiness to take unilaterally what action may be possible to preclude the import of Krugerrands;

  (C) No Government funding for trade missions to South Africa or for participation in exhibitions and trade fairs in South Africa;

  (D) A ban on the sale and export of computer equipment capable of use by South African military forces; police or security forces;

  (E) A ban on new contracts for the sale and export of nuclear goods, material and technology to South Africa;

  (F) A ban on the sale and export of oil to South Africa;

  (G) A strict and rigorously controlled embargo on imports of arms, ammunition, military vehicles and para-military equipment from South Africa;

  791

  (H) An embargo on all military co-operation with South-Africa;

  (I) The discouragement of all cultural and scientific events except where these contribute towards the ending of apartheid or have no possible role in promoting it.

  3. Measures which the United Kingdom agreed to implement following the Commonwealth Review Meeting, Marlborough House, August 1986

  (i) A voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa;

  (ii) A voluntary ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa;

  (iii) The implementation of any EC decision to ban the import of coal, iron and steel and of gold coins from South Africa.

  4. Measures agreed at the EC Meeting of Foreign Ministers, September 1986

  (i) A ban on imports of certain South African iron and steel;

  (ii) A ban on imports of certain South African gold coins;

  (iii) A ban on certain new investment in South Africa.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teacher Training (Report)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the 26 institutions in England that formed the sample on which was based Her Majesty's Inspectorate's survey "Quality in Schools: the Initial Training of Teachers."

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following English polytechnics and colleges were included in the sample of institutions in Her Majesty's inspectorate's report "Quality in Schools: the Initial Training of Teachers":

  Bath College of Higher Education

  Bedford College of Higher Education

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  Bishop Grosseteste College, Lincoln

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College

  Christchurch College, Canterbury

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  Hertfordshire College of Higher Education

  Humberside College of Higher Education

  Kingston Polytechnic

  La Sainte Union College of Higher Education, Southampton

  Leeds Polytechnic

  Liverpool Polytechnic

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Nene College, Northampton

  Newman College, Birmingham

  Polytechnic of the South Bank

  Portsmouth Polytechnic

  College of Ripon and York, St. John

  Rolle College, Exmouth

  St. Martin's College, Lancaster

  St. Mary's College, Twickenham

  College of St. Paul's and St. Mary, Cheltenham

  Trent Polytechnic

  West London Institute of Higher Education

  West Midlands College of Higher Education

  Pupil Performance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the relative performance of(a) state maintained and (b) independent schools in England and Wales at (i) GCE O-level grades A to C and CSE grade 1 and (ii) GCE A-level, in 1965, 1975 and 1985, taking into account the number and percentage of pupils educated in each sector in each of these years.
  792
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Indicators of relative school performance would require information on the attainments and aptitudes of pupils on entry to the school or proxies for this, not collected by the Department. The GCE O-level grades A to C and CSE grade 1 examination achievements of school leavers from maintained and independent schools are as follows, expressed in terms of the number of leavers from each sector.

  For GCE A-level the attainments are expressed in terms of the 17-year-old population. Because attendance post-16 is not compulsory, it is not appropriate to express A-level attainments as a percentage of school rolls.

  Table 1

  School Leavers, England1 expressed as a percentage of leavers in each category

  Academic year

  11964–65

  1974–75

  1984–85

  Maintained schools

  Percentage of leavers with

  1 or more higher2 grades at O-level or CSE

  3n.a.

  46·1

  52·2

  5 or more higher2 grades at O-level or CSE

  16·9

  19·1

  23·7

  Total leavers (000s)

  600·10

  608·84

  690·99

  Independent schools

  Percentage of leavers with

  1 or more higher2 grades at O-level or CSE

  3n.a.

  94·2

  93·5

  5 or more higher2 grades at O-level or CSE

  67·3

  72·7

  75·8

  Total leavers (000s)

  45·70

  42·87

  45·22

  All schools

  Percentage of leavers with

  1 or more higher2 grades at O-level or CSE

  35·9

  49·2

  54·7

  5 or more higher2 grades at O-level or CSE

  20·5

  22·6

  26·9

  Total leavers (000s)

  645·78

  651·71

  736·21

  Source: School leavers sample survey. Data subject to sampling error.

  1 England and Wales for 1974–75.

  2 O-level grades A-C, CSE grade 1.

  3 Not available.

  Table 2

  School Leavers, England1 leavers with GCE A-level passes as a percentage of the 17-year-old population2

  Academic year

  11964–65

  1974–75

  1984–85

  Maintained schools

  1

  1·6

  2·6

  2·5

  2

  2·2

  3·2

  3·3

  3 or more

  3·8

  5·7

  6·8

  Total

  7·6

  11·4

  12·6

  Independent schools

  1

  0·5

  0·5

  0·4

  2

  0·7

  0·8

  0·6

  3 or more

  1·4

  2·4

  2·9

  Total

  2·6

  3·7

  3·9

  All schools

  1

  2·1

  3·1

  2·9

  2

  2·9

  4·0

  3·9

  793

  Academic year

  11964–65

  1974–75

  1984–85

  3 or more

  5·2

  8·0

  9·7

  Total

  10·2

  15·2

  16·5

  17-year-old population (000s)

  812

  662

  763

  Source: School Leavers sample survey. Data subject to sampling error.

  1 England and Wales for 1964–65.

  2 GAD estimates of the population.

  University Entrants
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information his Department has as to the proportion of university entrants whose father's occupation is given as being in social classes Him, IV and V; how this compares with 1958, 1968 and 1978 in the United Kingdom; and what equivalent information he has about other countries.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1986, 21 per cent. of university entrants were from social classes IIIm, IV or V. In 1978 the comparable figure was 23 per cent. Information for 1958 and 1968 is not available, but it is estimated that in 1955, 1961 and 1971 the equivalent figures were 25, 25 and 27 per cent. respectively.

  The OECD has published some information on parental occupations for higher education students in a few countries, but this is not strictly comparable as each country has its own classification of occupations.

  Nursery Schools
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which authorities provide an educational welfare officer service for nursery schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is not centrally available. All local education authorities maintain an education welfare service, but it is for them to decide on its deployment. DES circular 2/86 on "School Attendance and Education Welfare Services" set out the Government's view that the objectives and emphasis of education welfare services should remain firmly rooted in promoting regular attendance at school. Attendance at nursery schools is not compulsory.

  Widowers' Pensions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will, in consultation with teacher's representatives, remove the discrimination against women teachers regarding the payment of widowers' pensions on contributions made prior to April.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Discussions are continuing with representatives of teachers and their employers about the arrangements for covering pre-April 1988 service when automatic survivors benefits for female teachers are introduced into the teachers superannuation scheme. Although male and female teachers have paid the same contribution rate since 1972, that rate, determined by the Government Actuary in his actuarial valuations of the scheme, took into account only the existing benefits of the 794
  scheme. The contributions already paid by teachers do not reflect the cost of covering pre-April 1988 service for survivors benefits for female teachers.

  Leeds Education Authority
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much Leeds education authority spent on books and equipment per pupil for each year since 1982; what is the estimate for 1987–88; and what is the comparable average expenditure for metropolitan districts over the same period, as a whole.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Based on the returns of expenditure for 1982–83 to 1985–86 made to the Department of the Environment by local authorities and pupil returns made to the Department of Education and Science the overall expenditure on books and educational equipment per primary and secondary pupil for Leeds and for the metropolitan districts as a whole are as given in the table. The figures for 1987–88 are taken from "Education Statistics, 1987–88 Estimates" published by the Chartered Institute of Pulbic Finance and Accountancy; a copy of which is in the Library.

  Expenditure on books and equipment per pupil Primary and secondary schools (at November 1986 prices)

  Leeds

  Metropolitan districts

  £

  £

  1982–83 (actual)

  10·65

  24·83

  1983–84 (actual)

  11·82

  27·83

  1984–85 (actual)

  11·23

  29·96

  1985–86 (actual)

  12·03

  29·63

  1987–88 (estimates)

  17·86

  38·28

  Equipment Donations
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has had any representations concerning the payment of value added tax on donations of equipment to higher educational institutions.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have received two such representations.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken to encourage companies to donate equipment, particularly computers, to higher educational institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are various tax incentives to encourage company donations of equipment to higher education institutions. These will very shortly be brought together in a convenient form in a guide to be published by the Manpower Services Commission on the current tax treatment of companies' expenditure on education and training. As far as computers are concerned, the Computer Board for the Universities and the research Councils is ready to consider proposals for schemes of matching support involving donations of equipment.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the regulations in respect of educational grants to university students are likely to be amended to improve the position of self-employed parents.
  795
  Mr. Jackson
  The regulations make no distinction between self-employed and other parents, and it is not proposed to introduce one.

  Bickleigh Down (Primary School)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will pay the final instalment of grant for the new primary school at Bickleigh Down, Roborough, near Plymouth, details of which were submitted to his Department on 20 February 1987 for the amount of £39,086·84; and if he will make a statement as to why there has been an 11 month delay.

  Mr. Dunn
  When my right hon. Friend approved the establishment of the new voluntary aided school at Bickleigh Down, the Exeter diocesan education committee was informed that grant would be paid on the whole of the governors' approved net building expenditure on the provision of the new school less the proceeds of the sale of the premises of the former Bickleigh CE primary school.

  Before the final payment of grant can be made, the Department needs to know the proceeds of the sale of the Bickleigh premises. The Exeter diocesan education committee has been made aware of this requirement but, as yet, the Department has received no response. Until one is forthcoming it will not be possible to make any further payments of grant.

SCOTLAND

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the announcement made on the withdrawal of regional development grant for Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I have not received any representations following the announcement of the ending of regional development grant for Scotland.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to respond to the Countryside Commission for Scotland's report, "Forestry in Scotland"; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Countryside Commission for Scotland published its report "Forestry in Scotland" in July 1986 and initially did not seek a Government response in order that it might pursue its ideas with the industry and the conservation movement in the first instance. However, the commission has recently informed the Government that it would wish a formal response and this is now under consideration.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the percentage rise in average water rates for Scotland has been between 1979 and the latest date available in(a) cash and (b) real terms.

  Mr. Lang
  Comparison of rates between years before and after 1985 is not straightforward, because of revaluation. The percentage rise in average domestic water 796
  rate bills for Scotland between 1979–80 and 1987–88 has been 156·7 per cent. in cash terms and 47·9 per cent. in real terms.

  Winget-Type Housing
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total numbers of Winget-type houses in each district council area of Scotland where such houses exist.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Glasgow district council has 1,268 Winget-type houses in its area.

  Prisons (Statistics)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the certified normal prison accommodation and the actual population on the latest available date for(a) Her Majesty's prison, Peterhead, (b) Her Majesty's prison, Aberdeen, (c) Her Majesty's prison, Perth, (d) Her Majesty's prison, Saughton, Edinburgh, (e) Her Majesty's prison, Shutts and (f) Her Majesty's prison, Barlinnie, Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  HM prison

  Design capacity

  Current available capacity

  Population at 19 January 1988

  Peterhead

  180

  1130

  124

  Aberdeen

  151

  151

  180

  Perth

  519

  1478

  481

  Edinburgh

  547

  547

  610

  Shotts

  528

  1371

  342

  Barlinnie

  983

  983

  989

  1 Temporary reduction in capacity due to work in progress following recent incidents.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of those persons sentenced to a period of immediate imprisonment in Scotland in 1986 were sentenced to a period of six months or less.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  84·3 per cent.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average weekly cost of keeping a person in prison in Scotland at the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  £260.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average prison remand population in Scotland during 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The 1987 figures are not yet available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the prison remand population for Scotland at the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At lock-up on 19 January 1988 there were 938 remand prisoners in Scotland.

  Prison Population
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average prison population in Scotland for 1987.
  797
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The 1987 figures are not yet available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the prison population for Scotland at the latest available date; and what was the comparable figure in 1979, 1983 and 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures are as follows:

  Date

  Prison population

  16 January 1979

  4,753

  18 January 1983

  5,039

  22 January 1985

  4,979

  19 January 1988

  5,287

  Scottish Economy
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what estimates have been made of the effect of taking up of the ECR 90 option for the Eurofighter on employment in Scotland's electronics industry;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the adoption of the European radar system on the Scottish economy;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the contribution of Ferranti to the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Lang
  Ferranti's Scottish group employs 9,500 and is therefore a major employer making a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy. Turnover in 1986–87 was over £280 million.

  My right hon. and learned Friend and I both keep in contact with Ferranti about its efforts to supply the ECR 90 radar for the European fighter aircraft. In addition, Scottish Office officials liaise closely with colleagues in the MOD.

  If the ECR 90 is selected in the competition now in progress it will maintain employment within Ferranti's Scottish group well into the next century as work on current contracts, including equipment for the Tornado aircraft, comes to an end. Success would also enable Ferranti to maintain its capability to design radar and other avionic equipment to the most exacting technological standard and to compete effectively in important international markets.

  In addition to being important to Ferranti, the adoption of the ECR 90 for Eurofighter should also provide new opportunities for Scottish electronic sub-contractors.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for houses in need of urgent repairs(a) in urban areas and (b) in rural areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Coatbridge Project
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Development Agency and others concerning the effectiveness of the Coatbridge project; what consideration he is giving to widening the project geographically to cover all of Monklands district; and if he will make a statement.
  798
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have indicated to the Scottish Development Agency that we regard Lanarkshire as an area which continues to need the special attention of the agency. In the first instance, however, it is for the agency and its partners in the Coatbridge project to consider any extension outside the geographical area at present covered or beyond the period currently agreed. I have been told by the agency that it intends to start discussions with its partners about extension in both respects soon.

  Last year the agency and my Department completed a research project which established ways to measure the achievements of an area initiative. This has not yet been applied to the Coatbridge project.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations have been received(a) in favour of and (b) against the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received 853 representations since the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill was enacted in May last year. Since many representations have included comments in favour of some of the proposals and against others, it is not possible to provide the information in the form requested.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to inform Scottish local authorities of the level of the proposed unified business rate for 1989–90; and on what basis the business rate will be calculated.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 27 November to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) at column 132.

  South African Consul General for Scotland
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the South African consul general for Scotland; and what was the purpose and outcome of the meeting.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I received a courtesy call from the South African consul general on 10 February 1986 in Edinburgh. No issues of substance were discussed.

  Inflation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average rate of inflation in Scotland in each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: No official estimates are available.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Me Allion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, for each new job training scheme contracted managing agent in the Dundee area, what are the monthly figures since the start of the scheme for entrants during each period showing how many(a) were male, (b) were female, (c) were six to 12 months unemployed, above and below the age of 25 years, (d) were 12 to 24 months unemployed, above and below the age of 25 years,

  799
  (e) were unemployed 24 months or more, above and below the age of 25 years, (f) were disabled, (g) were of ethnic minority origin and (h) entered work placements; and how many leavers there were in each period, and of those how many (i) found work, (ii) failed to attend, (iii) went to a further education course or other training, (iv) completed the job training scheme course, (v) left because of sickness and (vi) left for other reasons; and what are the latest cumulative figures of entrants and leavers.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: It is not Government policy to publish comparative information on the performance of individual managing agents.

EMPLOYMENT

  Resignations
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants by grade resigned from his Department in the financial year 1986–87; what percentage of the total number of staff employed by his Department this represents; and what measures he is taking to reduce the level of staff turnover.

  Mr. Lee
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Resignations for year ending 31 March 1987

  Number

  Administrative Assistant

  2,369

  Administrative Officer

  2,847

  Typist

  161

  Executive Officer

  282

  Administrative Trainee/

  Management Trainee/Higher

  Executive Officer (Development)

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  45

  Senior Executive Officer

  13

  Grade 7 and above

  7

  Others

  257

  Total

  5,982

  Notes:

  1. 'Others' includes industrial staff.

  2. Casual staff are excluded.

  3. Part-time staff are counted as whole units.

  This represents 9·44 per cent, of the total number of staff employed by the Department of Employment Group.

  We continue to use a range of personnel measures to reduce the level of staff turnover including effective recruitment of the staff we need, realistic levels of pay, reasonable working conditions, career development and training, good communications and employee involvement in the work, and recognition of a job well done.

  Benefit Offices (Staff)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of staff turnover in unemployment benefit offices in(a) the Greater London area and (b) the south-east of England area in 1986–87.

  Mr. Lee
  The level of staff turnover in 1986–87 was as follows:

  The Greater London area 17·1 per cent.

  The South East of England 13·1 per cent.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each health and safety inspectorate area office, any asbestos stripping operations which have taken place, or are planned for 1987 and 1988, which did not or will not receive any visit from inspectors to ensure compliance with current legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A record of the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  HSE (Staff)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many construction inspectors there are in post in each area office of the Health and Safety Executive; how many resigned in 1987; and how many it is planned to recruit in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of inspectors employed on construction work in each area office of the Health and Safety Executive at 1 January 1988 is as follows:

  HSE Area Office

  Number

  South West

  5

  South

  5

  South East

  5

  London North

  10

  London South

  110

  East Anglia

  3

  Northern Home Counties

  4

  East Midlands

  3

  West Midlands

  3

  Wales

  3

  Marches

  4

  North Midlands

  3

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  3

  West and North Yorkshire

  4

  Greater Manchester

  3

  Merseyside

  3

  North West

  4

  North East

  3

  Scotland East

  4

  Scotland West

  4

  1 Construction inspectors for the London area are all based at London south area office.

  Fourteen trainee inspectors are also currently employed on construction work in the Executive's area offices.

  Factory inspectors are allocated to groups responsible for inspection of different industries and during their careers inspectors move between groups; it is therefore not possible to tell how many have resigned from work on construction.

  It is planned to recruit enough factory inspectors to bring the total number of experienced inspectors in construction groups nationally to around 100 by 1990.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainee factory inspectors were recruited to the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1980; and how many it is planned to recruit in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of class II factory inspectors recruited in each year since 1980 is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  17

  1981

  —

  1982

  —

  801

  Number

  1983

  —

  1984

  11

  1985

  3

  1986

  39

  1987

  32

  It is planned to recruit enough factory inspectors to bring total numbers in the inspectorate, currently 554, to around 585 by the end of 1988.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many class IB factory inspectors resigned from the Health and Safety Executive in 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  During 1987, 19 of the class IB factory inspectors resigned.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors there are in each area offices of the Health and Safety Executive in the grades of(a) principal inspector, (b) inspector class IB, (c) trainee factory inspector II Q, (d) trainee factory inspector class II T and (e) trainee inspector.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested for each grade and HSE area office is as follows (1 January figures).

  Area

  Inspectors

  1IA

  IB

  2II

  Southwest

  5

  16

  5

  South

  6

  15

  3

  South East

  6

  14

  5

  London North

  7

  20

  5

  London South

  10

  15

  9

  East Anglia

  6

  12

  3

  North Home Counties

  6

  13

  2

  East Midlands

  5

  13

  5

  West Midlands

  8

  13

  7

  Wales

  5

  11

  4

  Marches

  5

  13

  6

  North Midlands

  5

  9

  4

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  6

  14

  4

  West and North Yorkshire

  7

  17

  4

  Greater Manchester

  6

  15

  7

  Merseyside

  6

  11

  6

  North West

  5

  13

  2

  North East

  7

  12

  5

  Scotland East

  5

  12

  3

  Scotland West

  6

  13

  5

  Total

  122

  271

  94

  1 Inspector IA equates to principal inspector.

  2 Figures for class II inspectors are totals of trainee inspectors II T and II Q.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average annual percentage of(a) economically active males and (b) economically active females unemployed in the district of Derwentside, for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the economically active population for small areas is available only from the 802
  decennial census of population, the last of which relates to April 1981. The following table shows the numbers of economically active males and females who were not in employment as a percentage of the total economically active, in the Derwentside local authority area, for all ages and for those aged 16 to 19 years at that date.

  Males Per cent.

  Females Per cent.

  All ages

  29·2

  10·1

  Aged 16–19

  27·7

  21·1

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people presently unemployed in the district of Derwentside have been unemployed for more than(a) one year, (b) two years and (c) three years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is available from the library. On 8 October 1987 the numbers of unemployed claimants in the Derwentside local authority area who had been unemployed for more than one year, two years and three years were 2,679, 1,893 and 1,427, respectively.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average annual percentage of economically active males and economically active females, under 19 years of age, in the district of Derwentside, for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information comes from the 1981 census of population, which found that 64·3 per cent, of males and 54·3 per cent, of females aged 16 to 18 years and usually resident in the district of Derwentside were economically active.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been registered as unemployed for more than one period of time in any one year in the district of Derwentside in each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the number of(a) males and (b) females employed in the district of Derwentside, for each of the last eight years;

  (2) what proportion of the total employed population in the district of Derwentside were employed in (a) manufacturing industry and (b) service industries for each of the last eight years;

  (3) what was the number of people employed (a) full-time, and (b) part-time in the district of Derwentside, for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Lee
  Information about employment in local areas is available only for years in which censuses of employment are conducted. The available employee estimates for the district of Derwentside, taken from the September 1981 and September 1984 censuses of employment, are as follows.
  803

  Employees in employment1

  Derwentside local authority district2

  September 1981

  September 1984

  Number (thousand)

  Per cent.

  Number (thousand)

  Per cent.

  All industries and services

  Male

  8,700

  9,600

  Female

  9,100

  8,900

  Male and Female

  18,800

  100·0

  18,500

  100·0

  Full-time

  13,900

  13,600

  Part-time3

  4,900

  4,900

  Manufacturing industries

  4,800

  25·7

  4,300

  23·5

  Service industries

  12,200

  65·0

  12,200

  66·2

  1 The figures exclude the self employed and members of HM Forces.

  2 The district is defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981.

  3 Part-time workers are defined as those working not more than 30 hours a week.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many private sector firms there are with(a) fewer than 24 employees, (b) between 25 and 49 employees, (c) between 50 and 199 employees, and (d) more than 199 employees, in the district of Derwentside; and what is the total number of people employed by firms in each category.

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

  Domestic Staff
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate is available to him of the employment creation potential of placing the cost of employing domestic staff in private households on the same footing as office staff, with regard to tax deductibility; and if he will make a statement.

  1987 European social fund allocations for Greater London

  Applicant name

  Organisation

  Beneficiaries

  £ aid

  1 Article

  1 Article

  Brent Asian Professionals' Association (BAPA)

  PB1

  60

  125,098·00

  12a

  41-

  Brent, London Borough of

  LA1

  8

  2,751·00

  12a

  41-

  Brent, London Borough of

  LA1

  8

  1,391·00

  12a

  42b

  British Refugee Council

  PB1

  260

  485,601·00

  12a

  41-

  British Refugee Council

  PB1

  449

  863,252·00

  12a

  42d

  British Refugee Council

  PB1

  36

  199,044·00

  12a

  42a

  British Refugee Council

  PB1

  39

  89,764·00

  12a

  42a

  Broadwater Farm Youth Association

  PB4

  15

  65,376·00

  12a

  41-

  Camden Training Centre

  PB1

  48

  176,413·00

  12a

  41-

  Camden Training Centre

  PB1

  48

  142,147·00

  12a

  42b

  Camden Training Centre

  PB1

  8

  12,914·00

  12a

  43-

  Community Service Volunteers

  PB1

  45

  59,456·00

  12a

  41-

  Community Service Volunteers

  PB1

  70

  86,452·00

  12a

  41-

  Community Service Volunteers

  PB1

  100

  380,760·00

  12a

  42a

  Connections Limited

  PB1

  30

  17,877·00

  12a

  43-

  Davy McKee (London) Ltd·

  PB3E

  30

  60,313·00

  12a

  41-

  Downham Community Workshop

  PB4

  24

  31,771·00

  12a

  41-

  East Ham College of Technology

  LA2

  11

  62,549·00

  12a

  41-

  F. & R. Cooling Limited

  PB3E

  2

  2,768·00

  12a

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Limited

  PB4

  40

  28,306·00

  12a

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Limited

  PB4

  40

  22,870·00

  12a

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Limited

  PB4

  30

  26,678·00

  12a

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Limited

  PB4

  7

  8,831·00

  12a

  42b

  Greenwich Training Company Limited

  PB4

  18

  14,999·00

  12a

  42b

  Greenwich Training Company Limited

  PB4

  6

  5,960·00

  12a

  42b

  Greenwich Young People's Theatre

  PB4

  12

  129,366·00

  12a

  41-

  Hackney African Organisation

  PB1

  20

  36,885·00

  12a

  42c

  Hackney African Organisation

  PB1

  20

  78,042·00

  12a

  41-

  Hackney African Organisation

  PB1

  20

  22,714·00

  12a

  43-

  Hackney Information Technology

  PB1

  6

  14,271·00

  12a

  41-

  804
  Mr. Lee
  No such estimate is available.

  Social Fund
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise, by recipient organisation or body, European social fund allocations to projects based in Greater London in 1987, indicating the main purpose of the grant, the main category of beneficiary and the number of beneficiaries for each project.

  Mr. Cope
  The European Commission allocated the following amounts from the European social fund to projects based in Greater London for the calendar year 1987. The list does not, however, include national schemes run, for example, by the Manpower Services Commission and industrial training boards from which those living in Greater London will have benefited. Separate figures for Greater London for these national schemes are not readily available.
  805

  Applicant name

  Organisation

  Beneficiaries

  £ aid

  1Article

  1Article

  Hackney Information Technology

  PB1

  6

  11,499·00

  12a

  42b

  Hackney Pakistan Womens Welfare Centre

  PB1

  12

  7,446·00

  12a

  41-

  Hackney Pakistan Womens Welfare Centre

  PB1

  12

  3,765·00

  12a

  42b

  Hammersmith and Fulham Training Services

  PB4

  15

  31,542·00

  12a

  41-

  Haringey Womens Training and Education Centre Ltd.

  PB1

  90

  221,049·00

  12a

  42b

  Hillingdon Asian Women's Group

  PB4

  15

  15,145·00

  12c

  41-

  Hillingdon Asian Women's Group

  PB4

  15

  7,658·00

  12c

  42d

  Independent Media Traing Trust

  PB1

  15

  96,913·00

  12a

  41-

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  20

  25,734·00

  12a

  41-

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  20

  13,012·00

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  8

  36,609·00

  12a

  41-

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  8

  18,510·000

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  8

  31,385·00

  12a

  41-

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  8

  15,869·00

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  32

  19,584·00

  12a

  42a

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  7

  17,216·00

  12a

  41-

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  8

  9,949·00

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  16

  19,052·00

  12a

  41-

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  8

  4,841·00

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  15

  3,900·00

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  8

  6,013·00

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  7

  2,660·00

  12a

  42b

  Inner London Education Authority

  LA1

  15

  4,092·00

  12a

  42b

  Invalid Children's Aid Association

  PB1

  15

  92,293·00

  12a

  41-

  Islington Training Centre Ltd.

  PB4

  16

  8,745·00

  12a

  43-

  Islington Training Centre Ltd.

  PB4

  60

  65,367·00

  12a

  42b

  Islington Training Centre Ltd.

  PB4

  60

  22,994·00

  12a

  42b

  Lambeth Womens Workshop

  PB4

  48

  35,554·00

  12a

  42b

  Leetec Limited

  PB3E

  10

  17,342·00

  12a

  41-

  Lewisham Womens Training Centre Limited

  PB4

  12

  79,061·00

  12a

  41-

  Lewisham Womens Training Centre Limited

  PB4

  12

  63,705·00

  12a

  42b

  London Borough of Lambeth

  LA1

  24

  36,021·00

  12a

  41-

  London Borough of Lambeth

  LA1

  24

  18,213·00

  12a

  42b

  London Borough of Bexley

  LA1

  21

  11,701·00

  12c

  41-

  London Borough of Bexley

  LA1

  21

  5,916·00

  12c

  42d

  London Borough of Hackney (Economic Dev. Unit)

  LA1

  15

  14,892·00

  12a

  41-

  London Borough of Hackney (Economic Dev. Unit)

  LA1

  15

  7,530·00

  12b

  42b

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  LA1

  25

  72,854·00

  12a

  42b

  London Borough of Hackney

  LA1

  14

  99,092·00

  12a

  41-

  London Co-operative Enterprise Board

  PB4

  40

  28,763·00

  12a

  42b

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  PB4

  100

  87,006·00

  12a

  42e

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  PB4

  200

  165,323·00

  12a

  42b

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  PB4

  100

  72,582·00

  12a

  42a

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  PB4

  100

  87,178·00

  12a

  41-

  London Energy and Employment Network

  PB4

  10

  10,390·00

  12a

  42a

  London Institute, London College of Fashion

  LA2

  25

  18,250·00

  12a

  42e

  London Institute, London College of Fashion

  LA2

  100

  78,000·00

  12a

  42e

  Londra Halkevi (Turkish Community Centre)

  PB1

  20

  33,745·00

  12a

  41-

  Manpower Services Commission

  MSC

  30

  85,844·00

  12a

  42a

  Newham Association for the Education and Training of Women

  PB1

  60

  29,334·00

  12a

  42b

  Newham Women's Activities Project

  PB1

  40

  7,764·00

  12a

  42b

  North Downham Tenants Association

  PB4

  20

  21,068·00

  12a

  41-

  North Downham Tenants Association

  PB4

  10

  8,488·00

  12a

  42b

  Pimlico Arts and Media Scheme

  PB1

  30

  30,232·00

  12a

  41-

  Polytechnic of North London

  PB1

  40

  3,821·00

  12a

  42d

  Polytechnic of the South Bank

  LA2

  40

  78,263·00

  12a

  41-

  Project Fullemploy Ltd.

  PB1

  10

  17,730·00

  12a

  41-

  Richmond Adult and Community College

  LA2

  60

  50,364·00

  12a

  42b

  Road Transport Industry Training Board

  PB2

  125

  82,953·00

  12a

  42e

  Road Transport Industry Training Board

  PB2

  34

  33,891·00

  12a

  41-

  South-West London Women's Training Workshop

  PB4

  15

  52,696·00

  12a

  41-

  South-West London Women's Training Workshop

  PB4

  15

  42,461·00

  12a

  42b

  Sargam Ethnic Craft Training Centre

  PB1

  30

  10,542·00

  12a

  42a

  Skillnet (Training Trust)

  PB1

  100

  65,279·00

  12a

  41-

  Skillnet (Training Trust)

  PB1

  100

  55,003·00

  12a

  41-

  Skillnet (Training Trust)

  PB1

  100

  44,320·00

  12a

  42b

  Skillnet (Training Trust)

  PB1

  1,000

  500,394·00

  12a

  41-

  South Bank Acoustic Engineering

  PB4

  13

  25,459·00

  12d

  41-

  Southall College of Technology

  LA2

  30

  9,688·00

  12a

  42b

  Southall ITEC

  PB1

  24

  10,489·00

  12a

  41-

  Southall ITEC

  PB1

  24

  8,452·00

  12a

  42d

  Southwark Women's Training Workshop

  PB4

  16

  59,178·00

  12a

  41-

  Southwark Women's Training Workshop

  PB4

  32

  59,549·00

  12a

  42b

  Southwark Aid/Southwark Hardware Servicing

  PB4

  8

  39,047·00

  12a

  42a

  Southwark Aid

  PB4

  20

  12,215·00

  12a

  42b

  Southwark Aid

  PB4

  20

  8,336·00

  12a

  41-

  806 807

  Applicant name

  Organisation

  Beneficiaries

  £ aid

  1Article

  1Article

  Southwark Aid

  PB4

  12

  7,664·00

  12a

  42b

  Spirax Sarco Ltd.

  PB3E

  11

  13,561·00

  12a

  41-

  Thames Polytechnic

  LA2

  30

  90,359·00

  12a

  41-

  Thames Polytechnic

  LA2

  30

  176,525·00

  12a

  42b

  Thames Polytechnic

  LA2

  30

  44,886·00

  12a

  42c

  The Paul Bogle Foundation

  PB1

  40

  81,909·00

  12a

  41-

  The Polytechnic of Central London

  LA2

  90

  32,149·00

  12a

  42c

  The Universities Settlement in East London

  PB1

  30

  60,567·00

  12a

  41-

  The Universities Settlement in East London

  PB1

  10

  17,400·00

  12a

  42b

  Tower Hamlets Community of Vietnamese Refugees

  PB1

  40

  17,104·00

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Training Forum

  PB1

  24

  75,215·00

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Advanced Technology Training

  PB1

  26

  62,054·00

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Advanced Technology Training

  PB1

  8

  13,914·00

  12a

  42b

  Tower Hamlets Advanced Technology Training

  PB1

  75

  176,894·00

  12a

  41-

  Training Initiatives Limited

  PB4

  14

  71,189·00

  12a

  42b

  United Medical and Dental Schools

  LA3

  80

  83,160·00

  12a

  41-

  Waltham Forest MENCAP

  PB1

  70

  42,854·00

  12a

  43-

  Willesden College of Technology

  LA2

  6

  2,104·00

  12a

  41-

  Willesden College of Technology

  LA2

  12

  2,128 00

  12a

  42b

  Wimpey Group Services Ltd.

  PB3C

  310

  175,088·00

  12a

  41-

  Women's Motor Mechanics Workshop Limited

  PB1

  32

  55,141·00

  12a

  42b

  Womens Education in Building Ltd.

  PB1

  60

  116,059·00

  12a

  42a

  Youth Business Initiative

  PB1

  218

  86,576·00

  12a

  41-

  The coding used is as follows:

  1 COMPUTER CODINGS FOR APPLICATIONS

  Organisation Types

  PB1 = Registered charities and friendly societies.

  PB2 = Industrial Training Boards.

  PB3 = Private companies.

  PB4 = Companies limited by guarantee.

  LA1 = Local authorities.

  LA2 = Educational establishments (excluding universities).

  LA3 = Universities.

  LA4 = Health Authorities.

  NATIND1 = Nationalised Industries.

  NATIND2 = Public Corporations e.g. BBC.

  MSC = Manpower Services Commission.

  DE = Department of Employment.

  OGD = Other Government schemes.

  Article Numbers

  12a = Vocational training.

  12b = Recruitment & wage subsidies.

  12c = resettlement & socio-vocational integration in connection with geographical mobility.

  12d = services and technical advice concerned with job creation.

  41- = Under-25 scheme.

  42a = unemployed people over the age of 25.

  42b = women over-25 who wish to return to work.

  42c = handicapped (over 25).

  42d = migrant workers (over 25).

  42e = people over 25 employed in small or medium-sized enterprises.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will itemise, by recipient organisation or body, European social fund allocations to projects based in Greater London for the current year, indicating the main purpose of the grant, the main category of beneficiary and the number of beneficiaries for each project.

  Mr. Cope
  The European Commission is not expected to announce its decision on the allocation of 1988 European social fund grants until April 1988 at the 808
  earliest. My Department will not be able to inform organisations of the result of their application until then. The following list details social fund applications and aid applied for which have been submitted to the European Commission for schemes to operate in Greater London during the calendar year 1988. The list does not, however, include national schemes run, for example, by the Manpower Services Commission and industrial training boards from which those living in Greater London will benefit. Separate figures for Greater London for these national schemes are not readily available.
  809

  1988 European social fund allocations for Greater London

  Applicant name

  £ Aid

  Beneficiaries

  Organisation

  1Article

  1Article

  Afro Caribbean Project

  68,655·00

  12

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Afro Caribbean Harembi Project

  51,173·00

  20

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Alfa (Access to Learning for Adults)

  69,852·00

  100

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  Battersea Basement Studios

  56,209·00

  24

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Bexley London Borough

  11,786·00

  22

  LA1

  12c

  41-

  Bexley London Borough

  11,786·00

  23

  LA1

  12c

  42d

  Brent Asian Professionals' Association (BAPA)

  130,025·00

  60

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Bridge Self Enterprise Project

  63,300·00

  40

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  British Refugee Council

  500,612·00

  251

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  British Refugee Council

  978,930·00

  360

  PB1

  12a

  42d

  Broadwater Farm Youth Association Co Op Ltd

  69,150·00

  15

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  C. S. M. H. Employment Service

  159,000·00

  120

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  CAITS

  184,750·00

  34

  PB4

  12a

  42c

  Camden Itec Limited

  9,492·00

  10

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Camden Itec Limited

  21,115·00

  20

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Camden Itec Limited

  134,910·00

  36

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Camden Training Centre Limited

  245,460·00

  63

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Camden Training Centre

  245,460·00

  63

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Carr-Gomm Society Ltd

  93,498·00

  100

  PB1

  12a

  42c

  Cinestra Pictures Ltd

  2,955·00

  5

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  Cinestra Pictures Ltd

  2,955·00

  5

  PB4

  12a

  42a

  City of Westminster (Social Services Department)

  300,000·00

  40

  LA1

  12a

  42c

  City of London Polytechnic (Houndsditch)

  31,704·00

  6

  PB1

  12a

  41

  City of London Polytechnic (Houndsditch)

  12,719·00

  3

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  City of London Polytechnic (Houndsditch)

  24,215·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  City of London Polytechnic (Houndsditch)

  67,503·00

  6

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Community Service Volunteers

  77,650·00

  50

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Community Service Volunteers

  195,503·00

  45

  PB1

  12a

  42a

  Community Service Volunteers

  67,028·00

  45

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Community Service Volunteers

  112,900·00

  16

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Computer Technology for Women: London Link

  177,485·00

  60

  PB1

  12a

  42e

  Connections Limited

  19,855·00

  32

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Davy McKee (London) Ltd

  70,359·00

  33

  PB3E

  12a

  41-

  Docklands Skillnet

  40,895·00

  100

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Docklands Skillnet

  40,895·00

  100

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Docklands Skillnet

  84,913·00

  22

  PB1

  12a

  42a

  Docklands Skillnet

  408,967·00

  1,000

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Downham Young People's Business Centre

  47,662·00

  30

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  ELMV Shadwell Basin Project

  22,275·00

  60

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Fluor Daniel Ltd

  52,693·00

  25

  PB3E

  12a

  41-

  GEC Research Ltd

  103,528·00

  297

  PB3E

  12a

  41-

  Ghana Union London

  27,776·00

  10

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Ltd

  22,128·00

  15

  PB4

  12b

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Ltd

  29,975·00

  40

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Ltd

  29,975·00

  40

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  Greenwich Training Company Ltd

  21,028·00

  15

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Greenwich Training Company Ltd

  16,557·00

  8

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Greenwich Training Company Ltd

  71,396·00

  20

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Hackney Youth in Action (Clapton Enterprises)

  22263·00

  8

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney Employment and Training Agency

  50239·00

  60

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney Pakistan Womens Welfare Centre

  7875·00

  12

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney Pakistan Womens Welfare Centre

  7875·00

  12

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Hackney Construction Services

  200357·00

  20

  LA1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney Construction Services

  168403·00

  15

  LA1

  12a

  42b

  Hackney African Organisation

  45105·00

  10

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney African Organisation

  4343500

  10

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney Information Technology

  24290·00

  18

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Hackney Information Technology

  20140·00

  12

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney, London Borough of (Economic Dev. Unit)

  12000·00

  6

  LA1

  12a

  41-

  Hackney, London Borough of (Economic Dev. Unit)

  12000·00

  6

  LA1

  12a

  41

  Hammersmith and Fulham Training Services

  31575·00

  15

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  Hammersmith and Fulham Training Services

  14255·00

  5

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Haringey Health Authority

  75000·00

  9

  LA4

  12a

  42a

  Haringey Women's Training and Education Centre Ltd.

  313024·00

  90

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Hillingdon Asian Women's Group

  24040·00

  25

  PB4

  12c

  41-

  Hillingdon Asian Women's Group

  24040·00

  25

  PB4

  12c

  42d

  Independent Media Training Trust Ltd.

  151844·00

  15

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Inner London Education Authority

  20810·00

  10

  LA1

  12a

  42b

  Islington Training Centre Ltd.

  62072·00

  60

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Islington Training Consortium

  86637·00

  99

  PB4

  12a

  42e

  Jobfit

  162500·00

  54

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Lambeth Women's Workshop

  46472·00

  48

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Lambeth Accord

  36541·00

  22

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Lewisham Womens Training Centre

  84789·00

  12

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Lewisham Womens Training Centre

  85369·00

  12

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Local Aid Limited

  62449·00

  16

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  810 811

  Applicant name

  £ Aid

  Beneficiaries

  Organisation

  1Article

  1Article

  Local Aid Limited

  124270·00

  32

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  64925·00

  30

  LA1

  12a

  42b

  London Borough of Lambeth

  24458·00

  18

  LA1

  12a

  41-

  London Borough of Lambeth

  24458·00

  18

  LA1

  12a

  42b

  London Borough of Baling

  17717·00

  5

  LA1

  12a

  41-

  London Borough of Ealing

  17717·00

  5

  LA1

  12a

  41-

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  12535·00

  10

  PB4

  12a

  42e

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  13410·00

  12

  PB4

  12a

  42e

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  49156·00

  33

  PB4

  12a

  42a

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  19201·00

  15

  PB4

  12a

  42d

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  109041·00

  107

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  195699·00

  182

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  London Co-operative Training Ltd.

  66842·00

  57

  PB4

  12a

  42e

  Londra Halkevi (Turkish Community Centre)

  38867·00

  25

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Mainstream

  37500·00

  20

  PB1

  12a

  42c

  Manpower Services Commission

  123926·00

  36

  MSC

  12a

  42a

  Marconi Defence Systems Ltd.

  159820·00

  166

  PB3E

  12a

  41-

  Microjob

  260525·00

  75

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  National Steering Group on Equal Opportunities Women in NHS

  316000·00

  22

  LA4

  12a

  42b

  National Ethnic Minority Advisory Council

  67916·00

  18

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  Newham, London Borough of

  538,161·00

  1,536

  LA1

  12a

  41-

  Newham, London Borough of

  62,080·00

  256

  LA1

  12a

  42b

  Newham, London Borough of

  17,885·00

  12

  LA1

  12a

  41

  Newham, London Borough of

  28,841·00

  4

  LA1

  12a

  41

  Newham, London Borough of

  25,227·00

  8

  LA1

  12a

  42b

  Newham, London Borough of

  30,260·00

  6

  LA1

  12a

  42b

  Newham Association for the Education and Training of Women

  38,179·50

  60

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Newham Association for the Education and Training of Women

  263,389·00

  60

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  North Downham Tenants Association

  17,980·00

  10

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Nottingdale Technology Centre

  206,323·00

  50

  PB1

  12a

  42a

  Pimlico Arts and Media Scheme

  38,725·00

  40

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Polytechnic of North London

  69,000·00

  80

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Polytechnic of North London

  57,500·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Priory Centre

  22,341·00

  20

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Priory Centre Music Projects

  52,687·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Priory Print Shop

  30,630·00

  15

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Project Kiran

  50,220·00

  50

  PB1

  12a

  42c

  Richmond Adult and Community College

  104,564·00

  60

  LA2

  12a

  42b

  Riverside Systems Ltd.

  20,328·00

  4

  PB4

  12a

  42a

  Riverside Systems Ltd.

  20,124·00

  4

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  Sargam Ethnic Craft Training Centre

  26,150·00

  20

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Sargam Ethnic Craft Training Centre

  26,150·00

  20

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  South West London Womens Training Workshop

  64,303·00

  15

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  South West London Womens Training Workshop

  64,303·00

  15

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Southall ITEC

  17,775·00

  24

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Southall ITEC

  17,775·00

  24

  PB1

  12a

  41d

  Southall ITEC

  23,025·00

  24

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Southall ITEC

  23,700·00

  12

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Southwark Aid Ltd.

  15,268 00

  12

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Southwark Aid Ltd.

  8,907·00

  20

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  Southwark Co-Op Development Agency

  7,365·00

  8

  PB4

  12a

  41

  Southwark Co-Op Development Agency

  7,365·00

  8

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Southwark Co-Op Development Agency

  12,656·00

  10

  PB4

  12a

  41-

  St. Mungo Community Housing Association Ltd.

  219,000·00

  90

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Taxi Trade Promotions Ltd.

  78,932·00

  25

  PB4

  12a

  42b

  Thames Polytechnic Ltd.

  131,423·00

  25

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  Thames Polytechnic Ltd.

  131,423·00

  25

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  Thames Polytechnic Ltd.

  215,350·00

  30

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  Thames Polytechnic Ltd.

  131,423·00

  25

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  Thames Polytechnic Ltd.

  131,423·00

  25

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  The Centaur Project

  65,781·00

  425

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  The Paul Bogle Foundation

  82,500·00

  40

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  The Paul Bogle Foundation

  37,500·00

  40

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  The Polytechnic of Central London

  32,900·00

  30

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Advanced Technology Training

  106,980·00

  75

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Advanced Technology Training

  106,980·00

  75

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Advanced Technology Training

  126,899·00

  50

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Tower Hamlets Training Forum

  37,036·00

  18

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Training Forum

  45,002·00

  24

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Tower Hamlets Training Forum

  54,937·00

  75

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Unity Association of Finsbury Park

  83,333·00

  25

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Unity Association of Finsbury Park

  16,667·00

  5

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Walker House Management Centre

  10,000·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Walker House Management Centre

  12,500·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  812 813

  Applicant name

  £ Aid

  Beneficiaries

  Organisation

  1Article

  1Article

  Walker House Management Centre

  12,500·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Walker House Management Centre

  12,500·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Walker House Management Centre

  12,500·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  42d

  Walker House Management Centre

  12,500·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Walker House Management Centre

  12,500·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Walker House Management Centre

  10,000·00

  30

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  West London Tamil School

  44168·00

  20

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  West London Tamil School

  34,658 00

  50

  PB1

  12c

  42a

  Willesden College of Technology

  4,050·00

  12

  LA2

  12a

  41-

  Willesden College of Technology

  8,000·00

  24

  LA2

  12a

  42b

  WINTECH (Ltd.)

  136,942·00

  40

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Women's Motor Mechanics Workshop Ltd.

  39,994·00

  16

  PB1

  12a

  41-

  Women's Motor Mechanics Workshop Ltd.

  39,994·00

  16

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  Women's Education in Building

  237,700·00

  60

  PB1

  12a

  42b

  The coding used is as follows:

  1 COMPUTER CODINGS FOR APPLICATIONS

  Organisation Types

  PB1 = Registered charities and friendly societies.

  PB2 = Industrial Training Boards.

  PB2 = Industrial Training Boards.

  PB3 = Private companies.

  PB4 = Companies limited by guarantee.

  LA1 = Local authorities.

  LA2 = Educational establishments (excluding universities).

  LA3 = Universities.

  LA4 = Health Authorities.

  NATIND1 = Nationalised Industries.

  NATIND2 = Public Corporations e.g. BBC.

  MSC = Manpower services Commission.

  DE = Department of Employment.

  OGD = Other Government schemes.

  Article Numbers

  12a = Vocational training.

  12b = Recruitment & wage subsidies.

  12c = resettlement & socio-vocational integration in connection with geographical mobility.

  12d = services and technical advice concerned with job creation.

  41- = Under-25 scheme.

  42a = unemployed people over the age of 25.

  42b = women over-25 who wish to return to work.

  42c = handicapped (over 25).

  42d = migrant workers (over 25).

  42e = people over 25 employed in small or medium-sized enterprises.

  YTS
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government's undertaking that all unemployed 16 and 17-year-old school leavers would be offered a suitable YTS place by Christmas 1987 has been met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I am very pleased to say that the Government's undertaking for 1987 has been effectively met. Some 330,000 young people joined YTS during the year, and on 4 January 1988 only 2,305 young people were waiting for the offer of a place, most of whom have now been made an offer. The 1987 figure is an improvement on the 1986 figure (2,376) especially since it includes, for the first time, 17-year-olds, and reflects great credit on the Manpower Services Commission and the careers service.

  There will not be a specific Christmas undertaking in 1988. Instead the Government have given a new undertaking to guarantee a place on YTS for all 16 and 17-year-olds who want one. This guarantee will apply not just to school leavers but to young people who may have lost their job or left a YTS scheme. The availability of good quality training within YTS will ensure that in 1988 no one under 18 need be unemployed.

WALES

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which two institutions in Wales formed the sample on which was based Her Majesty's inspectorate's survey "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers".

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Bangor normal college and the West Glamorgan institute of higher education.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate whether the two institutions included in Her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" provided British education degree courses which contained a method course designed for students to consider the application of their specialist subject to children's learning.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Yes, they did contain such a method course.

  Health Authorities (Cash Allocations)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an estimate as to the effect of the
  815
  provisional cash allocations to Welsh district health authorities for 1988–89 on table 17 of "Results of Resources Formula for Distribution in Wales 1988–89;" and if he will publish in the Official Report an amended version of table 17 showing the results of his estimate on individual district health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The effect of the provisional cash allocations to Welsh district health authorities for 1988–89 on the results of the revenue formula assessment for that year is as follows:

  Table 17 Effect of allocation by formula incorporating all outstanding RCCS and taking into account the effect of the provisional cash allocations to health authorities in Wales in 1988–89.

  £ million 1988–89 prices

  Total Net Recurrent Element of Allocation 1988–89

  Specific Allowances 1988–89

  RCCS 1988–89

  Net Recurrent Residual Allocation 1988–89

  Notional Foromula Allocation (Adjusted for outstanding RCCS)

  Effect of Formula on Residual Allocation

  Projected Net Recurrent Allocation 1988–89

  Per cent. Change Suggested by Formula

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  95·180

  16·849

  —

  78·331

  80·588

  +2·257

  95·180

  +2·4

  East Dyfed

  59·759

  12·228

  0·948

  48·479

  49·692

  +1·213

  60·707

  +2·0

  Pembrokeshire

  22·674

  1·279

  —

  21·395

  21·989

  +0.594

  22·674

  +2·6

  Gwent

  114·532

  26·309

  —

  88·223

  90·257

  +2·034

  114·532

  +1·8

  Gwynedd

  57·787

  8·194

  —

  49·593

  48·047

  -1·546

  57·787

  -2·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  134·733

  28·689

  —

  106·044

  106·586

  +0·542

  134·733

  +0·4

  Powys

  26·978

  9·142

  —

  17·836

  17·745

  -0091

  26·978

  -0·3

  South Glamorgan

  154·986

  61·557

  0·502

  93·931

  91·730

  -2·201

  155·488

  -1·4

  West Glamorgan

  99·349

  14·662

  —

  84·687

  81·885

  -2·802

  99·349

  -2·8

  765·978

  178·909

  1·450

  588·519

  588·519

  —

  767·428

  —

  Revaluation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has as to the likely effects on average rateable values in each local authority in Wales if a general revaluation were to take place, and if he will publish in the Official Report the estimate for each Welsh local authority, together with current average rateable values.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 18 January, at column 555, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The same position applies for Wales.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total cost of the Welsh Development Agency, including grants each year since its establishment and the estimated number of jobs created in each year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 19 January, at column 612, setting out the direct subvention to the WDA since its inception.

  The Welsh Development Agency contributes to the job creation process through a range of activities including the provision of factory space, investment and advice. It is not
  816

  Per cent. Change Suggested by 1988–89 formula assessment

  Per cent. Change Required as a result of 1988–89 Provisional Allocations

  Clwyd

  +2·5

  +2·4

  East Dyfed

  +2·8

  +2·0

  Pembrokeshire

  +5·2

  +2·6

  Gwent

  +1·7

  +1·8

  Gwynedd

  -3·1

  -2·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  +0·2

  +0·4

  Powys

  +0·1

  -0·3

  South Glamorgan

  -1·4

  -1·4

  West Glamorgan

  -3·4

  -2·8

  An amended version of table 17 of the formula assessment is given in the following table.

  possible to quantify the full cumulative impact in terms of jobs created. Information on job opportunities provided through the agency's factory building programme is published in its annual report and accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The jobs forecast for the current financial year is given in table 17.10 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288).

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will direct the Welsh Development Agency to build additional new advance factories at(a) Engineer park, Sandycroft and (b) Deeside industrial park, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. The 30 per cent, increase in Welsh Development Agency resources announced for 1988–89 will enable it to make an early start on a wide ranging and ambitious new programme of property initiatives in conjunction with private sector and other partners. The needs and potential of north-east Wales will be recognised fully in the new programme which I plan to announce shortly.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each district health authority in Wales(a) which services have been contracted out, (b) the dates of the awards of these

  817
  contracts, (c) what savings have been made or are expected from the process and (d) whether the authorities have notified him of their intention to contract out further specified services.

  Mr. Grist
  The information given in the following table relates to domestic cleaning, catering and laundry services which have been subject to competitive tendering. Details

  District health authority and details of contract

  Estimated savings (£) per annum

  In-house/Private contractor

  Date of commencement of contract

  Gwent

  Domestic:

  District Health Authority Headquarters

  5,080

  Private Contractor

  1986

  Gwynedd

  Domestic:

  Llandudno Hospital;

  58,000

  In-House

  5 July 1987

  Domestic:

  Arfon Offices

  92

  In-House

  5 July 1987

  Mid-Glamorgan

  Laundry:

  District Service

  200,000

  In-House

  1 April 1988

  Pembrokeshire

  Laundry:

  District Service;

  82,950

  Private Contractor

  30 July 1984

  District Service;

  —

  Private Contractor

  1 August 19871

  Domestic:

  Withybush Hospital

  164,618

  In-House

  4 February 1985

  Domestic:

  South Pembs/Tenby Cottage

  25,233

  In-House

  4 February 1985

  Domestic:

  Community Services

  6,782

  In-House

  4 February 1985

  Catering:

  Withybush Hospital in-house

  60,468

  In-House

  1 April 1986

  Catering:

  South Pembs/Tenby Cottage;

  In-House

  1 April 1986

  Powys

  Domestic:

  Phase I Machynlleth;

  15,000

  In-House

  25 November 1984

  Domestic:

  Phase II Llandrindod Wells Builth Wells;

  19,855

  In-House

  1 September 1985

  Domestic:

  Phase IVb New Ystradgynlais Hospital;

  No cost

  In-House

  1 January 1986

  Domestic:

  Phase III Llanidloes Hospital etc;

  18,000

  In-House

  1 July 1986

  Domestic:

  Phase IVa Mid Wales and Bronllys Hospitals etc plus District HQ;

  36,212

  In-House

  1 March 1987

  Catering:

  Phase la Ystradgynlais Hospital;

  No cost comparison

  In-House

  1 January 1986

  Catering:

  Phase Ib Llandrindod Wells, Builth Wells and Knighton Hospitals;

  11,000

  In-House

  1 July 1986

  Catering:

  Phase II Llanidloes Hospital;

  16,000

  In-House

  1 September 1986

  Catering:

  Phase IV Brecon War Memorial and Brecon War Hospitals;

  8,565

  In-House

  1 September 1987

  Catering:

  Phase III Mid Wales and Bronllys Hospitals;

  82,548

  In-House

  1 December 1987

  West Glamorgan

  Domestic:

  District HQ and Trinity Buildings;

  19,868

  In-House

  1 August 1986

  Domestic:

  Outpatient Department, Neath General Hospital;

  3,393

  In-House

  1 August 1986

  Domestic:

  Public Corridors and Residences;

  In-House

  (i) Morriston

  5,000

  1 August 1986

  (ii) Singleton

  6,000

  3 November 1986

  (iii) Neath

  28,749

  6 April 1987

  (iv) Cefn Coed

  23,000

  19 October 1986

  Domestic:

  Health Centres and Clinics;

  32,000

  In-House

  1 December 1986

  Catering:

  Neath General Hospital;

  60,000

  In-House

  6 April 1987

  Laundry:

  District Services;

  199,538

  In-House

  4 August 1986

  1 Interim contract pending re-tendering exercise.

  The table contains details of contracts awarded up to 31 October 1987.

  National Museum of Wales
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, with respect to the 15th report of Session 1986–87 from the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's memorandum on the National Museum of Wales, whether the Comptroller and Auditor
  818
  of contracts relating to other ancillary services are not held centrally. All Welsh health authorities have complied or indicated that they will comply with the requirement which my right hon. Friend placed upon them in August 1987, that they test by competitive tendering at least 75 per cent, by value of their domestic cleaning, catering and laundry services by December 1988.

  General was provided with a copy of the agreement between the national museum and its former keeper of art, approved by the Welsh Office and signed on 8 April 1986.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to say what documents were provided to him during the course of his examinations.
  819
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, with regard to the staffing recommendations of his Department's staff inspectors for the department of art of the National Museum of Wales in 1983–84, what were the professional qualifications of the two full-time and one part-time conservators in post at the time of the staff inspection.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The professional qualifications of staff employed by the National Museum of Wales are matters for the museum authorities.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the maximum salary of a staff nurse and a ward sister in 1979 and in the current year; and what this represents as an increase in real terms.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  Salary 1979

  Maximum 1988

  Increase in real terms

  £

  £

  Percentage

  Staff nurse

  3,813

  8,600

  29

  Ward sister

  4,949

  12,000

  38

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much in 1988 prices has been spent on capital investment in the National Health Service in Wales since April 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  It is estimated that the net capital expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales between April 1979 and March 1988 will have been £497·6 million at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales(a) in 1978–79 and (b) projected for 1988–89;

  Whole-time equivalents as at:

  March 1979

  September 1979

  September 1986

  December 1987

  Medical and Dental Staff

  n/a

  2,181

  2,470

  n/a

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff

  124,826

  124,567

  27,187

  27,759

  1 Adjusted to take account of the change from 40 to 37½ hours in the working week in 1980.

  Note:

  Figures are available for nursing and midwifery staff on a monthly basis but only at September for medical and dental staff (1987 figures are not yet available).

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the increase in the waiting list for inpatients in Wales(a) between March 1978 and March 1979 and (b) between March 1986 and March 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  The in-patient waiting list in Wales increased by 4,126 between March 1978 and March 1979. It decreased by 1,053 between March 1986 and March 1987.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretarty of State for Wales how many hip replacement operations were carried out in Welsh hospitals in 1979 and for the latest year for which figures are available.
  820
  and what was the average spending per household on the National Health Service in Wales (i) in 1978–79 and (ii) projected for 1988–89.

  Mr. Walker
  The information requested is as follows: National Health Service net expenditure in 1978–79;

  Total expenditure

  £398·2 million

  Average spending per household

  £410·8

  Planned National Health Service net provision in 1988–89:

  Total provision

  £1,173·1 million

  Average spending per household

  £1,111·9

  In reply to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on 18 January, I stated that the gross NHS expenditure in Wales is planned to increase between 1978–79 and 1988–89 from £418 per household to £1,238. This information was given to me based on the number of households in 1979. The answer above takes account of the forecast increase in households—from 969,400 in 1979 to 1,055,000 in 1988. This increase largely represents a reduction in average household size (from 2·8 to 2·6) and not a significant increase in population. Therefore, the gross NHS spending in Wales will increase on current plans from £144·1 per person in 1978–79 to £426·7 per person in 1988–89, representing a real increase of more than 39 percent.

  Notes:

  1. The planned provision is subject to parliamentary approval of the Supply Estimates.

  2. The NHS totals include the administrative costs of the artificial limb and appliance service which will from 1 April 1988 be transferred to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many doctors and nurses are employed in the National Health Service in Wales at the present time and in March 1979.

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

  Mr. Grist
  In 1986, the latest year for which complete information is available, 1,908 hip replacement operations were carried out in Welsh hospitals, compared with 1,551 operations in 1979.

  NHS (Treatment Statistics)
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out for the National Health Service in Wales the increase in the treatment of in-patient cases(a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) between 1979 and 1986, and the increase in new out-patient cases (i) between 1974 and 1979 and (ii) between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the following table:
  821

  Per cent.

  In-patient cases

  1974–79

  +20,722

  +6·3

  1979–86

  +84,175

  +24·1

  New out-patient cases

  1974–79

  -15,293

  -3·4

  1979–86

  +76,021

  +17·7

  A44
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he had any plans to improve the A44 trunk road by Rhydlydan, Ponterwyd, during the current year and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 18 January 1988, at column 545.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dairy farmers in Wales do not produce milk up to their allocated quota; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19 January 1988, at column 615.

  Greencroft Hostel, Aston
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if, on his visit to Clwyd county council on 22 February, he will take steps to discuss with the director of social services, the council and other senior county officials the financial implications of closing the Greencroft hostel, Aston, Deeside, so far as adequate funding and staffing and the consequent placing of former residents of the hostel in homes and flats in the Deeside community is concerned;

  (2) if he will make extra financial allocations to Clwyd county council in order that the county will have sufficient cash successfully to locate the former residents of Greencroft hostel, Aston, Deeside, in the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for individual authorities to determine spending priorities for their areas, having regard to the financial implications of particular schemes and the resources available to them. 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 1988–89. The allocations were approved by the House on 15 December, and there is no scope for extra allocations. However, in setting current expenditure provision for Wales in 1988–89, an increase of £9·9 million (7·1 per cent.) was allowed for personal social services (including port health).

  My right hon. Friend expects soon to announce capital additional funding for the development of community-based services under the all-Wales mental handicap strategy in response to bids which have already been made by county joint planning teams.

  Ewes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that there will be no 822
  change in the definition of ewes eligible for payment of variable premium in the foreseeable future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The redefinition of an eligible ewe for the sheep annual premium scheme is one of a number of proposals which the Commission has put forward in its review of the sheepmeat regime. Further details are required before the Commission's proposal can be fully assessed.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now respond to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs' report on tourism in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The response has been released today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENVIRONMENT

  Skillnet (Docklands)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the places on Skillnet in docklands were taken up; how many students completed their courses; and what were the post-course destinations of students.

  Mr. Trippier
  Skillnet supported 1,270 training places during 1987. About 75 per cent, are expected to be filled. Two thirds of enrolled trainees generally complete their courses. Data on the post-course destinations of trainees are currently being collected.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of the London Docklands development corporation on the recruitment of local labour.

  Mr. Trippier
  The London Docklands development corporation operates an open recruitment system, and welcomes applications from local people for all its posts. It encourages others in the area to employ local people.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what machinery exists for liaison between the London Docklands development corporation and the Manpower Services Commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC are working closely with the MSC's docklands liaison group.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used when the London Docklands development corporation allocates expenditure on education and training.

  Mr. Trippier
  They are set out in detail in LDDC's published corporate plan at pages 37–42.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the social and community aims of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Broadly to ensure that docklands is an attractive place for people to live and work in. Greater detail is set out in its annual corporate plan, a copy of which is in the Library.
  823
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is an aim of the London Docklands development corporation to seek to reduce unemployment in docklands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes—and the unemployment rate in docklands has fallen from 23 per cent, in January 1986 to 18 per cent, in October 1987.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many students have completed courses on London Docklands development corporation funded training projects; what were those courses; what qualifications they obtained; and what were the students' post-course destinations.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 23 October 1987 at column 891. No further information is readily available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the London Docklands Development Corporation takes to see that contractors offer employment to local labour.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC encourages its contractors to employ local labour. It cannot require them to do so.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the average house price at the mortgage completion stage in the London Docklands development corporation area during 1987.

  (A) LDDC Actual Annual Expenditure 1981–87

  £ million

  1981–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Total

  Land Acquisition

  34

  16

  4

  8

  13

  75

  Land Reclamation

  9

  10

  11

  18

  16

  64

  Roads & Transport

  6

  8

  6

  8

  16

  44

  Services

  5

  7

  5

  6

  14

  37

  Environment

  5

  6

  3

  5

  8

  27

  DLR

  —

  2

  16

  13

  5

  36

  Housing

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Sub-Total (a)

  60

  51

  45

  58

  72

  286

  Community/Industry Support

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  19

  Estate Management

  2

  3

  3

  2

  2

  12

  Promotion and Consultancies

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  14

  Administration and Tax

  6

  8

  6

  8

  8

  36

  Sub-Total (b)

  15

  18

  16

  16

  16

  81

  TOTALS

  75

  69

  61

  74

  88

  367

  (B) Cost of Enterprise Zone benefits

  £ million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Capital allowances 1 (all United Kingdom Zones—net)

  20

  20

  20

  30

  60

  Rates Revenue foregone2

  —

  1·25

  1·49

  2·43

  2·32

  1 Estimated: 1985–86 prices (no figure is available for the Isle of Dogs Zone).

  2 Outturn prices.

  824
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 January]: From an analysis of sales of new homes on land owned by them, LDDC currently estimate the median price paid for a property during the first three quarters of 1987 to be £65,900.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of private sector money invested in the London Docklands development corporation area to date.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 January]: At 31 March 1987 an estimated £2·2 billion had been spent or committed by the private sector. A further £758 million is forecast for the current financial year. These estimates are published annually in the LDDC's annual report and in its corporate plan.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of public money invested in the London docklands area through the Docklands Joint Committee, the Port of London Authority and the London Docklands development corporation, including the cost of enterprise zone benefits itemised by categories of expenditure, grant and allowance, on an annual basis from 1974.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 January]: The latest figures for LDDC expenditure, and for the cost of the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone benefits, are set out in the tables Information about the DJC and PLA expenditure in the London docklands area is not readily available.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the full category A royalty is levied for all copies of the Temple Press-Ordnance Survey "Motoring Atlas of Great Britain" hardback edition.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Category B royalty rate is charged on the "Ordnance Survey Motoring Atlas" of Great Britain published in softback only. This is in line with the rates applied to private sector publishers for similar publications.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report in rank order starting with the local authority with the highest proportion of rent arrears, the total arrears of rent outstanding for domestic properties owned by each English local authority at the latest available date, together with the percentage figure which their arrears represent of each authority's total rent roll and the number of tenants with arrears of more than four weeks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have today arranged to be placed in the Library tables setting out the figures on the cumulative arrears of rent owed to each local authority in England as at 1 April 1987, together with the percentage those arrears represent of the rent collectable. The authorities are ranked according to the percentage figure. Information on the number of tenants with arrears of more than four weeks is not collected centrally.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were recorded on local authority housing waiting lists on 1 April 1987 in England as a whole and for each region of England.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information provided by local authorities in their 1987 housing investment programme returns is as follows:

  Households on local authority waiting lists, April 1987

  Standard region

  Thousands

  North

  112

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  160

  East Midlands

  110

  East Anglia

  43

  Greater London

  264

  Rest of South East

  200

  South West

  87

  West Midlands

  132

  North West

  181

  England

  1,289

  Local authorities' criteria for inclusion of names on the waiting lists are not uniform and the frequency of reviewing the lists varies.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were housed by local authorities from their waiting lists through allocation procedures(a) during 1983–84, (b) during 1984–85, (c) during 1985–86 and (d) during 1986–87, for England as a whole and for each region of England.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In their annual housing investment programme returns local authorities report the number of 826
  dwellings which have been let on secure tenancies to households under normal waiting list allocation procedures. The information is as follows:

  New secure tenants housed from waiting lists

  Thousands

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Standard region

  North

  17·4

  18·3

  19·0

  18·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  24·4

  23·5

  25·9

  25·6

  East Midlands

  17·3

  17·5

  16·1

  16·0

  East Anglia

  5·6

  5·4

  4·8

  4·2

  Greater London

  13·6

  10·9

  10·7

  9·3

  Rest of South East

  22·0

  21·4

  20·2

  18·5

  South West

  10·1

  9·8

  9·2

  9·0

  West Midlands

  20·6

  19·1

  18·4

  18·5

  North West

  30·1

  30·5

  29·1

  29·8

  England

  161·0

  156·4

  153·2

  149·4

  Homeless Families
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the public sector revenue costs of housing homeless families(a) in Greater London and (b) in English non-metropolitan areas (i) by providing them with newly-built council dwellings, (ii) by providing them with council dwellings acquired from the private sector and newly improved for letting and (iii) by providing them with bed and breakfast accommodation; and if he will publish these figures on a comparable basis with those published in his replies to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 16 January 1987. Official Report, columns 331–2, and on 4 March 1987, Offical Report, column 639.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Estimates for 1986–87 are as follows:

  Greater London

  English non-metropolitan areas

  £

  £

  New build

  7,400

  4,600

  Acquisition and renovation

  6,700

  4,500

  Bed and breakfast

  31

  14

  Notes:

  i. the estimates for new build and for acquisition and renovation show the total first year costs to local authorities of the accommodation shown;

  ii. estimates of average new built and renovation costs were derived from information provided by local authorities in housing subsidy and can show significant variation from authority to authority and year to year reflecting differences in the mix of work undertaken;

  iii. the bed and breakfast figures are gross costs per household day and are based on returns to CIPFA from those local authorities providing information on both gross expenditure on bed and breakfast and the number of household days of bed and breakfast provided.

  Home Improvements
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish the full results of his Department's distribution of grants inquiry of 1983; and when he will bring forward legislation to reform the current system of grant aid for home improvements in the private sector.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We plan to publish a further report on the Department's distribution of grant inquiry as soon
  827
  as possible, though the main results have already been published in Cmnd. 9513. Legislation to reform the home improvement system will be brought forward at the first suitable opportunity.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the amount and (b) the proportion of net income after rebates, adjusted for family size, which households paid in domestic rates in 1987–88; and what estimates he has made of what these figures would be if the community charge were in operation in 1987–88, broken down into decile groups.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle).

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent it will be open to local authorities after the break-up of a marriage or cohabitation to recover any arrears of the poll tax which have accrued during the period of the relationship from either of the partners; and to what extent this will depend on whether the partner from whom the authority seeks recovery had his or her own income during the period when the arrears accrued.

  Mr. Howard
  It will be open to local authorities to recover arrears from either partner. In deciding whether to proceed against either partner or both, I would expect them to take account of each partner's income and assets.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a local authority wishing to hold a woman responsible for arrears of poll tax which accrued in the name of a man with whom she was living, but to whom she was not married, will have to establish whether the man and woman in question were living together as husband and wife.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes.

  Sport and Leisure Facilities
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from organisations in the county of Durham on competition in the management of local authority sport and leisure facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Northern Council for Sport and Recreation is the only organisation based in the county of Durham to have responded directly to the consultation paper which we issued on this subject on 28 September 1987. The local authority associations have of course responded on behalf of their members and many local authorities (but none in Durham) have also submitted comments direct. The paper invited views by 11 December 1987 and all the responses received are now being considered in detail before any final decisions are taken.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the abolition of the housing cost floor restrictions in relation to the right to buy.
  828
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The White Paper "Housing: The Government's Proposals" proposed that the cost floor rule under the right to buy should be abolished. The responses are still under consideration.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will exercise his powers under section 22(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to require the Audit Commission to direct an extraordinary audit of Westminster city council with specific reference to its sale of cemetaries at 5p each and their subsequent resale for £2 million; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Each local authority property transaction is subject to audit in the normal course, and I understand that these cases have been raised with the auditor by a Westminster elector. Extraordinary audit is not needed.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of householders living in council housing within the district of Derwentside are in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information supplied to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy by Derwentside district council shows that at November 1987 75 per cent. of their tenants were in receipt of housing benefit in the form of a standard or certificated rent rebate.

  Derwentside District Council
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed by the district council of Derwentside in 1979 and at the latest date available.

  Mr. Chope
  In September 1979 Derwentside district council employed 1,555 people; in September 1987 (the latest available date) it employed 1,316 people.

  Residuary Bodies
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the total administrative costs to date from their establishment of the residual bodies for the former Greater London council area and each of the metropolitan counties and (b) the expenses incurred by the chairpersons and other members of all these residual bodies.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the 1985–86 annual reports and accounts of the residuary bodies published on 18 November 1986 and to the 1986–87 annual reports and accounts of the six metropolitan residuary bodies published on 25 November 1987. The London residuary body's 1986–87 annual report and accounts should be published shortly. Costs in respect of 1987–88 will not be known until the 1987–88 accounts have been audited and certified.

  Local Authority Services (Charges)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when and in what form he proposes to introduce measures to give effect to the Government's
  829
  intention to seek enabling powers on charging for local authority services as announced in his statement of 22 July 1987, Official Report column 275.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government will introduce the necessary enabling power at the earliest practical legislative opportunity.

  Derelict Land
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to how much derelict land owned by local authorities and public bodies could be sold for private development.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, a register of unused and underused land owned by certain public bodies, including local authorities, has been compiled. At the end of December 1987 about 91,000 acres of such land were entered on the register. In broad terms it is estimated that about 70 per cent. of this land has some potential for development.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a list of those local authorities and public bodies which currently own derelict land in excess of 1 sq mile.

  Mr. Trippier
  The amount of land entered on the registers of unused and underused land on 31 October 1987 owned by each of the following bodies exceeded 1 sq mile (640 acres) in total:

  Blackburn Borough Council

  Bristol City Council

  British Coal

  British Rail

  British Steel Corporation

  Central Electricity Generating Board

  Commission for New Towns

  Derwentside District Council

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Department of the Environment (including Property Services Agency)

  Hampshire County Council

  Kingston upon Hull City Council

  Leeds City Council

  Leicester City Council

  Ministry of Defence

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Plymouth City Council

  Sunderland Metropolitan Borough Council

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority

  Telford Development Corporation

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  Thames Water Authority

  Tyne and Wear Residuary Body

  Wansbeck District Council

  Warrington Development Corporation

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to take action to reduce the amount of derelict land held by local authorities in the light of the report "Why Wasteland?" published by the Adam Smith Institute, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  A programme of forced disposals of unused and underused land owned by public bodies, using the power under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is under way. So far the statutory procedures have been initiated on 242 sites owned by local authorities, covering nearly 1,400 acres. I am considering what further action is necessary.
  830
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to require local authorities to sell waste land for private housing development.

  Mr. Trippier
  Part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 empowers me to direct public bodies, including local authorities to dispose of land entered on the register of unused and underused land. I have no intention of extending those powers to require disposal for a particular use.

  Housing for Senior Management
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to issue for England a circular relating to housing for senior management along the lines of Welsh Office circular 44/87.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no plans for any planning policy guidance on housing for senior management.

  Overseas Nuclear Incidents
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the proposals for implementing the Government's national response plan for dealing with overseas nuclear incidents are to be finalised and published.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am pleased to announce that following the Prime Minister's statement of 30 June last year, proposals for implementing the national response plan have now been finalised. In the extremely unlikely event of another accident like Chernobyl, the national radiation monitoring network (Rimnet) which will be set up as part of the plan will be able to detect and monitor its consequences.

  Rimnet will provide for radiation monitoring data from across the country to be assembled and analysed rapidly. It will be linked into modern communications systems that enable information bulletins to be supplied to the media and the public in a routine and regular way. This will ensure that people are kept fully informed of the development of the incident and the consequences of any, nuclear incident overseas.

  The first phase, of the system will be installed in the first half of this year. This will provide a fully operational radiation detection network and associated procedures for disseminating information about any incident. The system will be tested in an emergency simulation exercise in the autumn. The network will be progressively upgraded with the aim of having a fully automated system by 1989.

  It will also be possible to use Rimnet, along with other contingency plans, to help deal with the consequences of any nuclear accident in this country.

  The Government's proposals have been published today in a booklet: "The National Response Plan and Radiation Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET). A Statement of Proposals" published by HMSO. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licence applications have been made to his Department in each of the past five years for the discharge of radioactive waste.
  831
  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 13 January 1988]: The total number of authorisations issued by this Department for the disposal or discharge of radioactive waste in each of the past five years is set out in the table. These have each been in response to a specific application from the organisation responsible for the waste generation.

  Year

  Number of authorizations

  1983

  249

  1984

  204

  1985

  232

  1986

  239

  1987

  280

  Rates
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply of 16 December 1987,Official Report, columns 521–22, what is the average cash figure paid in rates by the highest and lowest paid 10 per cent. of households under the current rebate system; and what is this figure expressed as a percentage of their incomes.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: The information requested is not available. Table 5 of the material placed in the Library on 13 January provides a comparison between net domestic rates and the community charge, on the basis of a 20 per cent. minimum payment by all ratepayers and community charge payers. This shows that households with net incomes of under £50 per week, for example, would on average pay 3·4 per cent, of their incomes in community charges, compared with 4·1 per cent, in rates.

TRANSPORT

  A12 (M11-Aldgate)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the A12 trunk road between the M11 and Aldgate.

  1982–83

  11983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Heavy goods licence issues

  Provisional

  52,700

  28,719

  57,041

  60,632

  69,401

  First full

  24,721

  12,553

  25,036

  27,426

  28,823

  Renewals

  291,652

  131,392

  258,735

  263,043

  261,918

  HGV licences withdrawn for various reasons

  2,668

  1,333

  2,281

  2,772

  3,066

  Public service licence issues

  58,958

  56,699

  12,360

  13,612

  57,218

  PSV licences withdrawn for medical reasons

  412

  419

  659

  895

  1,173

  1 The heavy goods vehicle driver licence data for this year reflect a change in the period of accounting.

  Some 840,000 drivers held full HGV licences and 180,000 have full PSV entitlement.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Job Dispersal
  Mr. Sheldon
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on his policy for dispersal of
  832
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The A12 trunk road currently ends at the Green Man roundabout, Leytonstone. We are planning a new all-purpose dual carriageway from the M11-A12 junction at Redbridge roundabout which will extend it as far as the A102(M) at Hackney Wick and relieve the traffic-congested shopping and residential streets through Stratford, Leyton, Leytonstone and Wanstead. Subject to completion of the necessary statutory procedures, work should start in 1990 and take at least three and a half years. Options for dealing with problems in the area between Aldgate and Hackney are being considered as part of the east London assessment study.

  Road Programme
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many schedules are in the forward road construction programme.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are 351 national schemes in the forward road construction programme. Fourty-five of these are under construction and 306 in preparation.

  Vehicle Licences
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public service vehicle licences and how many heavy goods vehicle licences of the various classes have been in force over each of the last five calendar years; how many new public service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licences have been issued, and how many withdrawn in each of those years; and how many of the licences in each category have been withdrawn for the reason of ill-health or incapacity of the licence-holder.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following information about heavy goods and public service vehicle driver licences is available in respect of all traffic areas:

  Civil Service posts; if he will set out the number of such dispersed posts; and how many will be in the north-west, the north and Scotland.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: Since 1979 some 5,560 Civil Service posts have been dispersed from London under the Government's dispersal programme, including 1,930 posts to Scotland and some 1,210 to the north-west; no posts have been dispersed to the northern region. Further moves to Scotland of at least 125 posts are planned under this programme.
  833
  In addition, Departments have, under the Government's wider location policy, dispersed staff on their own initiative. Forty staff of the Data Protection Registrar were located at Wilmslow, Cheshire, in 1984; by the end of 1987–88, the Department of Health and Social Security will have created over 500 new jobs at its Newcastle central office and a net addition of around 350 posts at the family credit centre at North Fylde; plans have now been approved to move 60 Ministry of Defence posts to Cheadle Hulme in Cheshire; the Inland Revenue opened a new office in Cumbernauld in 1987 (32 posts) and will be dispersing later this year some London tax office and head office staff to Manchester (36 posts), to Stockport (17 posts) and to Glasgow (12 posts).

  For the future, Departments will be encouraged to consider all suitable locations, including those for the north-west, the north and Scotland, on the basis mentioned in my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General's answer on 18 January, at columns 475–76, to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Any specific plans will be announced as and when they are prepared.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Cost-sharing Agreements
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide his estimate of the total annual amount forgone by the Exchequer under the cost-sharing agreements and special arrangements with the United States, based on the difference between current practice and market interest rates and United Kingdom taxes applying.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Profit-sharing
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to provide more information to the public about the tax reliefs available for share-based profit-sharing and about profit-sharing generally.

  Mr. Lawson
  This Government continue vigorously to promote awareness of the benefits of increased profit-sharing, whether in the form of employee share schemes or cash-based schemes. These efforts include the publication and dissemination by the Inland Revenue of a variety of leaflets and booklets providing information about the tax reliefs which are associated with schemes approved or registered under the Finance Acts of 1978, 1980, 1984 and 1987.

  The success of this publicity is indicated by the growing popularity of these schemes. More than 1,400 all-employee share schemes have now been approved covering well over 10,000 companies; and 430 profit-related pay schemes, covering over 70,000 employees, have already been registered under the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any new proposals on profit-related pay.

  Mr. Lawson
  I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)Official Report, 15 January, column 406, he will indicate the reasons for the increase in total expenditure for the Central Office of Information, in constant prices, from £60·5 million in 1982–83 to £141 million in 1987–88.

  Mr. Brooke
  Expenditure by the Central Office of Information increased between 1982–83 and 1987–88 to meet the policy requirements of Departments.

  EC (Budget)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table of Britain's net contribution to the EEC in each financial year from 1981–82, together with the latest estimate for the current financial year, on the same basis as the table attached to the answer of 18 November 1986,Official Report, column 176; and if he will initiate an inquiry into the reasons why Treasury estimates of net EEC contributions have required upward revisions in many of these years.

  Mr. Brooke
  I see no need for such an inquiry. Information on the United Kingdom's net payments to European Community institutions for 1981–82 is contained on page 68 of last year's public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56-II) and for 1982–83 onwards on page 33 of the 1988 White Paper (Cm. 288-II). The reasons for the increase in the estimate of our net payments in 1987–88 and later years were explained in my replies to my hon. Friend of 9 November 1987, at columns 68–69. Information on differences between forecasts and outturn for past years is contained in previous years' public expenditure White Papers and in the annual statements on the Community budget.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the refunds of value added tax under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 for the last five years per year for(a) county councils and (b) district councils, giving separate figures for Scotland, Wales and England.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The detailed analysis requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. However, the following table shows the net sums repaid annually to local government bodies, the bulk of which relates to refunds under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 and under the predecessor legislation for each of the last five years.

  Year

  Total VAT refund £

  1982–83

  707,180,000

  1983–84

  834,410,000

  1984–85

  957,950,000

  1985–86

  1,081,200,000

  1986–87

  1,198,300,000

THE ARTS

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total cost to public funds of the Office of Arts and Libraries in the financial year 1987–88; and if he will publish corresponding estimates for the years 1979–80 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Luce
  The total cost to public funds of the central Government expenditure programme of the Office of Arts and Libraries in the financial year 1987–88 is estimated at £360·6 million. The corresponding figures for the years since 1983–84, when the OAL was established as a separate Department, are as follows. They include provisions for the British Museum (Natural History).

  Year

  £ million

  1983–84

  244·3

  1984–85

  267·5

  1985–86

  284·2

  1986–87

  337·3

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting on 18 and 19 January in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Discussion at the Council concentrated almost exclusively on mechanisms for stabilising expenditure under the common agricultural policy and on new Commission proposals for a wider scheme for taking land out of agricultural production. Both would form part of the package of issues on the future financing of the Community that will be before the meeting of Heads of Government on 11 and 12 February. No conclusions were reached and the Council will resume on Saturday.

  Considerable progress was made on working out the details on a satisfactory scheme for the set-aside of agricultural land, but there is still some work to be done to achieve a satisfactory scheme. I had to express my deep concern at some suggestions floated during discussion in relation to expenditure stabilisers. The German presidency will be producing new proposals for discussion at the weekend.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Number

  £ million

  Number

  £ million

  Number

  £ million

  United Kingdom

  46

  0·3

  59

  0·7

  68

  0·5

  Rest of EC

  321

  5·4

  444

  7·6

  352

  18·6

  The vast majority of these irregularities relate to failures to meet conditions of scheme where fraud was not suspected. However, it seems likely that the relatively small number of likely frauds accounted for a significant part of the money.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy farmers there are in England, Scotland and Wales; what were the corresponding figures in each of the three countries in 1980 and 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The numbers of registered milk producers are as follows:—

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1980

  35,494

  7,864

  3,330

  1985

  30,825

  6,990

  2,942

  1987

  29,428

  6,720

  2,842

  In 1970, the comparable figures were:—

  64,246

  16,019

  5,383

  Figures relate to March of each year.

  Source: Milk Marketing Boards.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the response of the food industry to his guidelines on nutrition labelling which he published in July 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Both food manufacturers and food retailers have shown considerable interest in adopting the standard format for nutrition labelling set out in the guidelines and in giving this information to consumers on the labels of their products. There have been two practical problems which have needed resolution, but I am pleased to announce that adjustments to the guidelines covering the category in which trans-fatty acids should be declared and the way in which, for the time being, dietary fibre shall be assessed have resolved these matters. I am, therefore, hopeful that these small adjustments will result in a high level of uptake by the industry of these guidelines.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the level and cost of fraud under the common agricultural policy for each of the last three years in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the rest of the Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: Member states are obliged to report quarterly to the Commission on irregularitiees in claims, even where the money may be recovered. The number and value of irregularities reported in the last three years for which figures are available were:

  It is not possible by definition to state the level of undetected fraud. The Government are concerned to minimise fraudulent claims under the CAP and welcome the Commission's recent initiative to devote more resources to this important area.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update to 1985 the reply given to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)Official Report, 27 January, column 215, showing the

  Number of working families with children at various income levels: Great Britain 1985

  Thousands

  Gross weekly income excluding state benefits £

  Total

  One parent families

  Two parent families

  One wage families

  Two wage families

  Number of dependent children

  1

  2

  3

  4 or more

  Under 80

  90

  10

  70

  70

  10

  40

  40

  10

  1

  80–89

  20

  1

  20

  20

  1

  20

  10

  1

  1

  90–99

  50

  10

  40

  40

  10

  40

  10

  1

  1

  100–109

  100

  10

  90

  70

  30

  40

  40

  20

  1

  110–119

  130

  10

  120

  80

  40

  60

  50

  10

  10

  120–129

  130

  20

  110

  100

  30

  70

  60

  10

  1

  130–139

  170

  30

  140

  130

  40

  80

  70

  10

  10

  140–149

  150

  10

  140

  100

  60

  70

  60

  10

  10

  150–159

  260

  10

  240

  170

  90

  130

  100

  30

  1

  160–169

  190

  10

  170

  100

  90

  90

  80

  20

  1

  170–179

  230

  10

  220

  110

  120

  120

  90

  20

  1

  180–189

  200

  10

  190

  120

  80

  90

  80

  20

  10

  190–199

  250

  10

  240

  130

  110

  120

  100

  20

  10

  200–219

  480

  10

  470

  220

  260

  170

  230

  60

  20

  220–239

  440

  10

  430

  170

  270

  170

  180

  70

  30

  240–259

  370

  10

  360

  120

  250

  130

  160

  60

  20

  260–279

  360

  1

  360

  110

  250

  130

  170

  40

  10

  280–299

  290

  10

  280

  100

  190

  110

  130

  30

  10

  300 and over

  1,480

  10

  1,470

  480

  1,010

  550

  700

  170

  60

  Total

  5,390

  220

  5,180

  2,460

  2,940

  2,240

  2,340

  610

  200

  1 Less than 5,000.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and so rows and columns may not sum exactly to the totals shown.

  2. Gross weekly income is the income reported in 1985 without any updating.

  3. A "working family" is defined as one where at least one parent is in full-time employment or self-employment. The figures include families where the head has been sick or unemployed for less than three months—in these cases income has been taken as the family's income when the head was in work.

  4. The figures exclude any families not living in private households.

  5. A "two wage family" is one where the second wage exceeds £4 a week.

  Number of out of work families of working age children at various income levels—Great Britain 1985

  Thousands

  Gross weekly income including state benefits

  Under £50

  £50 to£59

  £60 to £69

  £70 to £79

  £80 to £89

  £90 to £99

  £100 to £109

  £110 to £119

  £120 to £139

  £130 to£139

  £140 to £149

  £150 and over

  Total

  Total

  90

  40

  140

  180

  230

  220

  150

  100

  70

  50

  30

  150

  1,450

  One parent families

  70

  30

  120

  110

  110

  90

  60

  30

  30

  10

  10

  30

  690

  Two parent families

  20

  10

  20

  80

  120

  140

  90

  70

  40

  40

  20

  110

  760

  Number of dependent children:

  One

  80

  20

  110

  110

  110

  60

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  50

  630

  Two

  10

  10

  30

  60

  100

  110

  60

  40

  20

  10

  10

  60

  510

  Three

  *

  10

  *

  10

  20

  30

  50

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  180

  Four or more

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  20

  10

  20

  30

  20

  10

  10

  130

  National Insurance benefits being received:

  None (a)

  30

  10

  10

  10

  20

  30

  30

  20

  10

  *

  10

  90

  260

  (b)

  60

  20

  110

  150

  180

  140

  90

  50

  50

  30

  10

  10

  890

  UB (a)

  *

  10

  *

  10

  *

  10

  10

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  50

  (b)

  *

  *

  *

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  *

  *

  *

  *

  60

  SB/SSP (a)

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  10

  (b)

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  10

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  10

  IVB (a)

  *

  *

  10

  *

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  80

  (b)

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  10

  Other (a)

  *

  *

  10

  *

  *

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  60

  (b)

  *

  *

  *

  *

  10

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  20

  838
  numbers of working and out-of-work families with children, at different income levels and according to the number of wage earners.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is shown in the tables. For statistical reasons, detailed information of this kind should be treated as free standing annual analyses and not as time series.
  839

  * Less than 5,000

  (a) Without supplementary benefit.

  (b) With supplementary benefit.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and so rows and columns may not sum exactly to the totals shown.

  2. The totals do not coincide exactly with other published statistics. This is due to the different data sources.

  3. Gross weekly income includes housing benefit and is the income reported in 1985 without updating.

  4. An "out of work" family is defined as one where neither parent is in full-time employment or self-employment, except that families where the head has been sick or unemployed for less than 3 months are excluded.

  5. The figures exclude any families not living in private households.

  6. "Other" National Insurance benefits include industrial disablement, maternity and windows benefit.

  Out-of-work families of working age with children not in receipt of supplementary benefit (Great Britain 1985)

  thousands

  Gross weekly income including state benefits

  Not entitled to supplementary benefit

  Entitled but not claiming supplementary benefit

  Total

  £

  Under 50

  —

  30

  30

  50–59

  10

  10

  20

  60–69

  20

  10

  30

  70–79

  10

  10

  20

  80–89

  30

  10

  40

  90–99

  40

  10

  50

  100–109

  40

  —

  40

  110–119

  40

  —

  40

  120–129

  20

  —

  20

  130–139

  20

  —

  20

  140–149

  30

  —

  30

  150 and over

  130

  —

  130

  Total

  380

  80

  460

  Notes:

  1. The figures are derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling error. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and so rows and columns may not sum exactly to the totals shown.

  2. Gross weekly income is the income reported in 1985 without any updating.

  3. A "working family" is defined as one where at least one parent is in full-time employment or self-employment, except that families where the head has been sick or unemployed for less than 3 months are excluded.

  4. The figures exclude any families not living in private households.

  5. Inferences cannot be drawn from the number of out of work families with children entitled but not claiming supplementary benefit about the take-up of supplementary benefit.

  Day Nurseries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what research his Department has done on the correlation between levels of day nursery provision and the numbers of children in care.

  Mrs. Cunrie
  The Department has not commissioned any research specifically on this issue. However, some research studies have addressed it in passing. For example, a study of local authority day nurseries in England in the period 1975–83 showed that children of families in contact with social services departments were accorded priority for admission to day nurseries.

  NHS (Funding)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the amount of Government funding 840
  for each year since 1979 to (a) Waltham Forest district health authority and (b) North East Thames regional health authority, based on (i) actual amounts, (ii) in real terms at current years prices and (iii) in real terms at current years prices based on information he may have for Health Service inflation and costs.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is shown in the table. Information is not available on a district basis for the years prior to the 1982 reorganisation of the National Health Service. Comparable information for 1987–88 will not be available until after the end of the financial year.

  It is inappropriate to revalue district health authority expenditure by reference to centrally assessed movements in hospital and community health services pay and prices as the local composition of that expenditure can differ substantially from the national average.
  841

  North East Thames Region Net Revenue Expenditure1 (£000)

  Waltham Forest District Net Revenue Expenditure1 (£000)

  1987–88 Prices

  1986–87 Prices

  Cash

  Using gross domestic product deflator

  Using HCHS pay and price deflator

  Cash

  Using gross domestic product deflator

  1978–79

  408,958

  795,654

  909,114

  not available

  1979–80

  483,090

  804,172

  890,818

  1980–81

  629,213

  883,466

  906,696

  1981–82

  691,836

  884,689

  921,526

  1982–83

  788,936

  941,114

  986,170

  55,436

  66,129

  1983–84

  829,151

  945,602

  986,690

  56,838

  64,821

  1984–85

  869,167

  949,432

  977,813

  58,862

  64,298

  1985–86

  902,631

  929,828

  964,913

  52,512

  54,094

  1986–87

  965,116

  965,116

  965,116

  54,796

  54,796

  Notes:

  1 As shown in health authorities' summarised accounts.

  2 The 1982 reorganisation of the NHS resulted in substantial and complex boundary changes and changes in management responsibility. Figures for pre- and post- 1982 authorities are not directly comparable.

  3 District expenditure figures are distorted by a change in the region's accounting methodology which was introduced in 1985–86. Districts in North East Thames are now charged for the cost of "their" patients in large mental illness hospitals outside their boundaries.

  Mr. Hartley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the allocation of funds to the South West Thames area authority and to the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton district health authority for each of the last 10 years; and what has been the percentage increase in each year.

  Growth in net revenue expenditure 1978·79 to 1986–87

  South West Thames region

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton district

  Net revenue expenditure1 £000

  Percentage increase over previous year per cent.

  Net revenue expenditure1 cash £000

  Percentage increase over previous year per cent.

  1978–79

  301,143

  —

  3

  —

  1979–80

  358,664

  19·1

  3

  —

  1980–81

  461,750

  28·7

  3

  —

  1981–82

  510,712

  10·6

  3

  —

  1982–83

  525,671

  2—

  30,649

  —

  1983–84

  554,012

  5·4

  32,865

  7·2

  1984–85

  580,905

  4·9

  33,104

  0·7

  1985–86

  603,799

  3·9

  34,653

  4·7

  1986–87

  645,521

  6·9

  37,076

  7·0

  1 As shown in health authorities' summarised accounts.

  2 The 1982 reorganisation of the National Health Service resulted in substantial and complex boundary changes and changes in management responsibility. Figures for pre and post 1982 authorities are not directly comparable.

  3 Not available.

  Costs of Treatment
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the relative costs of different treatments and operations in(a) each regional health authority, (b) each district health authority and (c) each hospital; what actions he intends to take in order to obtain more detailed information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 12 January, at column 253. The initiative is currently being piloted at five acute hospital sites in England.

  Stockpiled Drugs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the quantities and the monetary value of drugs stockpiled for use in the event of war(a) in the current financial year and (b) cumulatively, in the United Kingdom.
  842
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: The available information is shown in the table. Information is not available on a district basis for the years prior to the 1982 reorganisation of the National Health Service. Comparable information for 1987–88 will not be available until after the end of the financial year.

  Mrs. Currie
  National Health Service drug stocks are kept at a level commensurate with short-term peacetime needs: there is no stockpile dedicated for use in the event of war.

  A working group of officials within the Department is considering stockpile requirements for medical supplies to be used in emergencies. The cost of providing stores of essential items is likely to be high and so may have to be built up over a period of time. Guidance will be issued following completion of the study.

  NHS (War Planning)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether plans for the National Health Service in the event of war indicate the number and the method by which patients will be discharged from National Health Service hospitals to make way for casualties; and if he will make a statement.
  843
  Mrs. Currie
  During a period of tension and when directed by the Secretary of State, health authorities would cease to admit all but emergency cases and arrange to send home as many as possible of the patients in hospitals and nursing homes whose retention was not medically essential. The selection of patients for discharge would be made on medical advice and would take account of the availability of accommodation and facilities for care in the community. Contingency plans do not refer to numbers of patients since these would depend on the prevailing circumstances.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether plans for the National Health Service in the event of war indicate in detail the role of doctors and how they are expected to choose between the injured who may be treated and those who will be left to die; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are at present considering revised guidance on civil defence planning in the National Health Service but it will not attempt to detail the role of doctors. Planning officers whom we expect to respond to the guidance are aware of the need to take account of all available resources in drawing up detailed plans, and that the sorting of casualties is a matter for professional judgment in the light of the particular circumstances.

  After any disaster the responsibility for sorting casualties and allocating priorities for treatment lies with doctors or ambulance personnel attending the injured at the material time. This principle applies in both peacetime and wartime emergencies.

  Peterlee Community Hospital
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his proposals, and their timing, for the provision of a community hospital in Peterlee.

  Mrs. Currie
  The provision of capital schemes in the northern region is for the regional health authority to determine in the light of its available resources and competing priorities.

  Claybury Hospital, Ilford
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy towards heating the corridors of Claybury hospital, Ilford; whether any recent change has been made to this policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of Waltham Forest health authority, which is responsible for managing services at Claybury hospital, for this information, which is not held centrally.

  Waltham Forest
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what information he has received from Waltham Forest district health authority about its projected deficits for 1987–88 and 1988–89; and what action he proposes to take in response;

  (2) why Waltham Forest has suffered a greater cumulative loss of revenue to hospital services between 1982–83 and 1985–86 than any other district health authority within the North East Thames regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.
  844
  Mrs. Currie
  The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of North East Thames regional health authority, which is responsible for the allocation of resources to its district health authorities, about these matters.

  Donor Card Scheme
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has made any assessment of the effectiveness of the donor card scheme: and whether he has plans to improve its effectiveness.

  Mrs. Currie
  Organ donation is influenced by a number of factors, many of which cannot readily be quantified. It is therefore difficult to estimate separately the effect of donor cards on the number of organs donated. However, our view is that the donor card scheme has played a valuable role, especially when used in conjunction with other publicity initiatives.

  We are currently following up a number of recommendations made by a medical royal colleges working party. For further details I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 18 December 1987 at column 934.

  Geriatric Patients
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the levels of staffing dealing with geriatric patients in the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool health authorities over each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures are shown in the table.

  NHS medical and nursing staff in post1 Geriatric medicine specialty/area of work Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool district health authorities

  Whole-time equivalents2

  30 September

  Sunderland DHA

  Durham DHA

  Hartlepool DHA

  1984

  240

  150

  110

  1985

  280

  160

  120

  1986

  270

  160

  130

  Source: DHSS Annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes permanent paid and honorary staff. Excludes Senior Registras and Consultants whose contracts are held by the Regional Health Authorities. Excludes Locum Medical and Agency Nursing Staff.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  Mersey Regional Health Authority (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what services have been contracted out within the Mersey regional health authority to date; and what savings have been made or are expected from such contracting out.

  Mrs. Currie
  As at 30 September 1987, 94 per cent. of domestic cleaning services, 89 per cent. of catering services and 93 per cent. of laundry services in the Mersey region had been put out to competitive tender. Estimated annual savings generated from contracts awarded in the region currently total £5·9 million.

  Schizophrenia (Homeless Persons)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any estimate of the total number of homeless schizophrenia sufferers who are in bed and breakfast accommodation in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret we do not have information on which to base an estimate.

  Electorates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the 20 largest parliamentary constituencies by electorate, with their electorates on the current register; and what is the average constituency electorate in the United Kingdom and England.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Parliamentary constituency

  1987 Electorate

  Isle of Wight

  99,760

  Milton Keynes

  98,215

  East Berkshire

  88,884

  Eastleigh

  88,664

  East Hampshire

  87,476

  Total electors

  Non-metropolitan county (ranked by percentage growth)

  1982 register

  1987 register

  Difference

  Percentage growth

  Buckinghamshire

  420,555

  461,231

  40,676

  9·7

  Cambridgeshire

  433,595

  473,880

  40,285

  9·3

  Berkshire

  508,444

  549,929

  41,485

  8·2

  Cornwall

  329,221

  355,049

  25,828

  7·8

  Dorset

  475,531

  512,612

  37,081

  7·8

  Wiltshire

  388,534

  418,591

  30,057

  7·7

  Northamptonshire

  392,450

  422,515

  30,065

  7·7

  Somerset

  327,209

  352,233

  25,024

  7·6

  Shropshire

  280,002

  300,565

  20,563

  7·3

  Lincolnshire

  414,297

  441,737

  27,440

  6·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  478,901

  510,007

  31,106

  6·5

  Devon

  725,287

  771,680

  46,393

  6·4

  Hampshire

  1,101,139

  1,171,534

  70,395

  6·4

  Suffolk

  441,258

  469,258

  28,000

  6·3

  Norfolk

  538,410

  568,290

  30,880

  5·7

  North Yorkshire

  513,391

  542,198

  28,807

  5·6

  Gloucestershire

  383,616

  404,423

  20,807

  5·4

  Oxfordshire

  391,961

  412,734

  20,773

  5·3

  Isle of Wight

  94,771

  99,739

  4,968

  5·2

  Essex

  1,123,177

  1,181,244

  58,067

  5·2

  Ethnic Minorities
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many leaflets his Department publishes concerning benefits and benefit entitlement; how many of these are available in minority languages; what are those languages; when such minority language leaflets were published; and how many changes in the benefit system have occurred since that date.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department currently publishes about 120 leaflets on social security benefits. Only one leaflet is translated into the main ethnic minority languages. This is FB22, a version of the English language leaflet FB 2 "Which benefit?", translated into Chinese, Urdu, Hindi, Gujerati, Bengali and Punjabi.
  846

  Parliamentary constituency

  1987 Electorate

  Horsham

  87,229

  Huntingdon

  87,195

  Devizes

  87,145

  Swindon

  87,140

  Wokingham

  86,587

  Westbury

  85,708

  South Colchester and Maldon

  85,302

  Peterborough

  85,244

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  85,181

  Crosby

  85,099

  North West Surrey

  84,295

  Ryedale

  84,205

  The Wrekin

  83,796

  Chelmsford

  83,696

  Woking

  83,453

  Average Constituency Electorate

  (i) United Kingdom

  67,178

  (ii) England

  69,585

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the 20 English non-metropolitan counties which have shown the greatest percentage growth in electorate since 1982; and what has been the percentage growth and actual figures in each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Five translations were made in March 1985. The Chinese version was translated in November 1984 and revised in July 1985. There have been several reprints of these translations.

  Because leaflet FB 22 was worded in broader terms than the English version of the leaflet, the numerous changes in the benefit system since the translations have not dated the leaflets. However, following this April's social security reforms, it is intended to publish revised editions of FB 22 as soon as possible.

  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures are taken to assist ethnic minority claimants who cannot speak English in his Department's offices where there are no officers who can communicate with these claimants.
  847
  Mr. Portillo
  In offices where there are no staff who can communicate with a claimant who has little or no English, his family, friends, and supporters in the community will act for him. In practice this works well.

  Local Offices (Multilingual Staff)
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many bilingual or multilingual staff are employed in his Department's local offices in Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool, Redcar and Eston.

  Mr. Portillo
  Stockton local office has one bilingual member of staff. The other offices — Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Redcar and Eston—have none.

  Benefits
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department's leaflet "Which Benefit—FB2" is to be reprinted to incorporate the replacement of supplementary benefit and family income supplement by income support and family credit.

  Mr. Portillo
  A new edition of leaflet FB2 "Which Benefit?" is being prepared for publication by April 1988. The new edition will cover references to all the new social security benefits, including family credit and income support, and give details on where further information on these benefits can be found.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of people partially dependent or totally dependent on(a) supplementary benefit, (b) housing benefit and (c) family income supplement in (i) Wales and (ii) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]: The readily available information is as follows:

  Income related benefit recipients, their partners and dependants

  Thousands

  Benefit

  Great Britain

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Supplementary benefit1

  Number of recipients

  4,938

  291

  184

  Number of partners and dependants

  3,353

  207

  188

  Family income supplement2

  Number of recipients

  200

  12

  15

  Number of partners and dependants

  530

  34

  55

  Standard housing benefit3

  Number of recipients

  3,730

  170

  67

  Number of partners and dependants

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 February 1986.

  2 Summer 1986.

  3 Autumn 1986.

  Notes:

  1. n/a: Figures not available.

  2. Recipients of one benefit may also be in receipt of another. For example, in the British figures, approximately 20,000 FIS recipients also receive supplementary benefit and about 120,000 FIS recipients also receive standard housing benefit.

  3. Supplementary benefit recipients who are householders are also entitled to certificated housing benefit.

  4. Supplementary benefit figures were obtained from annual statistical inquiries. FIS figures were obtained from administrative statistics and the figures on housing benefit are from the annual standard housing benefit inquiries and local authority returns. The
  848
  figure for the number of housing benefit recipients in Wales is for rate rebate and excludes a small number of people who receive rent rebate or rent allowance only.

  North Tees General Hospital
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to visit North Tees general hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to do so at present.

  Artificial Limb Centre, Roehampton
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision there was for inspection of repairs at the artificial limb fitting centre at Roehampton before the recent strike; what provision there is now; what change there has been in the number of inspectors; if he will ascertain from the companies supplying artificial limbs if there has been any increase in complaints; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The strike to which the right hon. Member refers was settled in May last year. It did not, as the right hon. Member's question may imply, take place at the Roehampton artificial limb fitting centre, but at the nearby factory of J. E. Hanger and Co. Ltd., one of the manufacturers of artificial limbs.

  As the right hon. Member will be aware, from 1 July 1987 the Disablement Services Authority has taken over full responsibility for the artificial limb service, and for dealing with the suppliers of artificial limbs. I understand that the Disablement Services Authority is strengthening controls on the quality and cost of contractors' work.

  Income-Related Benefits
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what figure from the annual statistical inquiry was used for supplementary benefit claimants' average water rates in compiling the tables on the estimated impact of the reformed structure of income-related benefits, published in October 1987.

  Mr. Scott
  The average water rate payment by supplementary benefit claimants was calculated from table 6.14 of the annual statistical inquiry for February 1986. The overall cost in supplementary benefit of water charges was updated to estimated amounts for 1988–89 and this figure was used in setting the income support levels for April 1988 and in compiling the tables on the estimated impact of the reformed structure of income-related benefits.

  Income Support
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a breakdown of estimated expenditure on income support for 1988–89 by claimant group(a) including the compensation for 20 per cent, contribution to rates and (b) excluding the 20 per cent, rates compensation.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:
  849

  (a) Including compensation for 20 per cent, rates contribution

  (b) Excluding compensation for 20 per cent, rates contribution

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Pensioners age 80 +

  190

  160

  Pensioners age 60–79

  1,160

  1,080

  Sick or Disabled

  510

  500

  Lone Parents

  1,830

  1,790

  Couples with Children

  2,030

  2,010

  Others

  2,850

  2,760

  Total (figures do not add owing to rounding)

  8,570

  8,290

  Mr. Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if Her Majesty's Government plan to withhold income support from Easter school leavers.

  Mr. Scott
  Young people who leave school this Easter will, subject to satisfying the normal conditions, be entitled to receive income support.

  It is the Government's intention that from September 1988 there will be no general entitlement to income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. Only certain groups of people, to be prescribed in regulations and expected to include such groups as lone parents and the severely disabled, will be entitled in their own right. We also intend to provide benefit for a limited period for those young people who are unable to live at home, because, for example, of risk of physical or sexual abuse, and who would otherwise suffer severe hardship.

  North West Durham District Health Authority
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were employed by North West Durham district health authority in 1979 and at the latest date available.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such information as is available is shown in the table.

  Because of the 1982 National Health Service reorganisation consistent data at district health authority level are not available for 1979.

  The figures exclude consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authorities. The district health authorities where these staff work cannot be separately identified centrally. There will therefore be more medical and dental staff actually working in North West Durham district health authority than accounted for in the table.

  NHS directly employed staff in post at 30 September1

  North West Durham District Health Authority Wholetime equivalents2

  1982

  1,400

  1986

  1,370

  Source: DHSS Annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum medical staff. Includes agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  Derwentside
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit and supplementary allowances in the district of Derwentside, for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table sets out the information requested giving the earliest data available. The district of Derwentside is served by Stanley local office but the boundaries are not conterminous.

  Stanley local office

  Date

  Number of people receiving Supplementary benefit

  Number of people receiving Supplementary allowance

  February 1982

  8,970

  5,622

  February 1983

  11,014

  7,579

  February 1984

  11,318

  8,034

  February 1985

  11,601

  8,331

  February 1986

  11,514

  8,303

  February 1987

  10,795

  7,561

  Source: 100 per cent, count of cases in action.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were in receipt of family income supplement in the district of Derwentside, for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret this information is not available. Family income supplement claims are dealt with by one centre at Blackpool and no information is maintained about claims from particular local areas.

  Maternal Deaths
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many(a) direct and (b) indirect maternal deaths in England and Wales in each year from 1976 onwards occurred in isolated general practioners' units; and how many were associated with anaesthesia.

  Mrs. Currie
  In order to identify those maternal deaths occurring in isolated general practitioners' units it would be necessary to refer to the copies of the death certificates of all registered maternal deaths. I regret that this could be done for all the years requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the social fund grant allocations to each office of his Department as a sum per head of the claimants registered with each office.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on each local office's social fund grants budget and live load at 28 July 1987 is available in the Library.

  Hypothermia
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the total costs of advertising and administration for the Government campaign of health education on the links between diet, warmth and the dangers of hypothermia.
  851
  Mrs. Currie
  I assume the hon. Member is asking about the "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign and I refer her to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 16 December 1987, at columns 598–599.

  The cost of the campaign to the Department is now estimated at £610,000. This includes production and distribution of the government booklet, television films, press advertisements, and the telephone helpline. The increase in estimated costs is a reflection of the success of the campaign which has generated more telephone calls to the helpline and more requests for the booklet than was originally anticipated. I will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the booklet. Copies have already been placed in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of disabled people; and whether he will place a copy in the Library in advance of publication.

  Mr. Scott
  The OPCS expects to publish the results of the survey of disabled people in a series of reports, beginning later this year. A copy of each report will be placed in the Library at the time of publication, in accordance with normal practice.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements will be made for consulting disabled people and organisations representing them in connection with the review of social security provision for disability.

  Mr. Scott
  An announcement will be made in due course about consultation with interested organisations on the implications for disability benefits of the results of the OPCS survey.

  National Health Service Staff in Post1 at 30 September

  Whole-time1 Equivalents

  Change 1974–862

  Percentage of All Staff2

  1974

  1986

  (WTE)

  Percentage

  1974

  1986

  Total Directly Employed3

  675,800

  801,600

  +125,800

  +18·6

  100·0

  100·0

  Administrative and Clerical

  582,800

  111,400

  +28,600

  +34·6

  12·2

  13·9

  Ancillary4

  163,400

  124,300

  -39,200

  -24·0

  24·2

  15·5

  Source: DHSS Annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures arc independently rounded to the nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents. No adjustments have been made for various changes in contractual hours during this period.

  2 All changes and percentages have been calculated on un-figures.

  3 Includes locum medical and dental and agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  4 Part of the decrease is due to the transfer of Operating Department Assistants (ODAs) from Ancillary to Professional and Technical staff group on 1 April 1984 (some 2,600 wtes at 31 March 1984).

  5 Figure may not reflect the full effects of the 1974 NHS reorganisation.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the turnover rates in the National Health Service of(a) administrative staff and (b) district general managers.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on the turnover rate of administrative staff is not available centrally. We do not at present have full information on movements of district general managers within the National Health Service, but in the three years since the first appointments were made, 10 district general managers have left for outside employment. This represents a rate of about 1·7 per cent, per annum.

  Trent Health Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if in the light of the closure of Middlewood hospital, in the Trent health authority, he will provide bridging funds to avoid damage to other services.

  Mrs. Currie
  Middlewood mental illness hospital is being run down on a phased basis and is due to close in 1994 by which time more community-orientated replacement services will have been developed. Bridging funds to support the build-up of the new service are already being provided by the Trent regional health authority within its existing allocation. The regional and district health authorities are keeping both the financing arrangements and the pace of service change under review.

  NHS (Staff)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what has been the increase in staff employed in the National Health Service since 1958;

  (2) what is the percentage of Health Service employees who at present are involved in an administrative and clerical capacity and what was the comparable figure in 1958;

  (3) what percentage of National Health Service staff are employed at present to carry out ancillary duties compared with 1958.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that staffing figures prior to 1974 are not comparable with those for later years, due mainly to the effects of the 1974 reorganisation. Comparisons from 1974 to the latest available date are in the table.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to facilitate employee and individual enrolment in private health insurance schemes.

  Mrs. Currie
  I welcome the fact that the number of people covered by private medical insurance has almost doubled since 1979—from 2·75 million to 5·25 million in 1986. This record clearly demonstrates the ability of the medical insurance industry to respond to the growing demand for greater choice in health care.
  853
  The Government are determined to encourage the industry's continuing expansion. Tax concessions have been given on employer-paid medical insurance premiums for people earning less than £8,500 p.a. since 1980.

  District Health Authorities
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to put out to tender the management of district health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Management arrangements at local level are a matter for individual district health authorities to consider in conjunction with their regional health authority.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to transform district health authorities into competing health maintenance organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Health Vouchers
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the introduction of health vouchers.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received a small number of representations commending the introduction of health vouchers.

  Local Offices (Budget Allocations)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the names of his Department's local offices raising operational questions relating to their budget allocations, referred to in the answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 167, and if he will indicate the subject matter of the questions raised.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 13 January, at column 400.

  Pensions
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to publicise the new pension choices introduced by the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government wish to ensure that employers and employees are made aware of the new pensions choices available to them as a result of the Social Security Act 1986. While the promotion of particular products and advice on the type of pension suitable in any given case are the responsibilities of pensions providers and professional advisers, the Government intend that the new framework created by the Act should be as widely understood as possible. We will, therefore, be taking the following measures.

  First, we will be mounting a public awareness campaign, making use of television and press advertising. The major effort will be concentrated in the weeks preceding the start of the new personal pension arrangements on 1 July 1988, since it is only at that point that the full range of choices becomes available. This will
  854
  be preceded by a shorter press advertisement campaign in March 1988, directed towards employers, which will draw attention to the new options for occupational pension schemes starting on 6 April 1988.

  Second, the Department will shortly be issuing a set of explanatory leaflets. The television and press advertisements are designed to lead people who are interested to obtain a leaflet entitled "New Pensions Choices" which will give an overview of the new options. This leaflet draws attention in turn to two further leaflets, one aimed at employers and the other at employees. Supported by detailed fact sheets, the two leaflets will describe how the new arrangements work.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement regarding the implications of the case of the late Mr. Thomas Johnson of 90 Raisenhall road, Sheffield, for the future practice and procedures of the South Yorkshire ambulance service.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 January 1988:] Trent regional health authority is responsible for managing the South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance service. I understand that the incident involving Mr. Johnson on 14 December referred to in the hon. Member's letter of 12 January to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already been investigated. I have asked Sir Michael Carlisle, the regional health authority chairman, to look urgently into the second case involving Mr. Johnson on 4 January and to write to the hon. Member about both incidents at the same time as reporting to me.

  Mentally Ill Patients (Durham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the levels of spending on mentally ill patients who have received or are receiving treatment in the Durham health authority during the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987 to date.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: Information on health authority expenditure by type of patient is not collected centrally. Hospital cost returns submitted to the Department show expenditure on hospitals of different types and cost returns in respect of community health services show expenditure relating to the major areas of activity.

  Total current expenditure on hospitals categorised as mental illness in the Durham health authority district was £1,017,556 in 1985–86 and £1,169,398 in 1986–87. Information for 1987–88 is not yet available.

  Maternity Units
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many small maternity units, particularly in rural areas, have been closed in each of the past five years; and what was the total number of maternity beds involved in each year;

  (2) how many small maternity units, particularly in rural areas, are currently subject to formal proposals for closure; and how many maternity beds are involved.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: I regret the information requested is not available centrally and

  855
  cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. Day-to-day management decisions on closures are a matter for individual health authorities in England.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply of 11 December 1987,Official Report, columns 297–98, if he will investigate the failure of Birmingham and Worcester district health authorities to consult community health councils when they made substantial reductions in the number of hospital beds in 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: I am satisfied that the Central Birmingham and Worcester district health authorities have followed the procedures for consultation as set out in the National Health Service (Community Health Council) Regulations 1985. Urgent and temporary closures do not require pre-closure consultation.

  Markets
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether the regulations governing the hygiene standards for retail covered markets and market stalls are the same as for wholesale covered markets and market stalls;

  (2) whether there is any provision under the Food Hygiene (Market Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 1966 or any other legislation to prohibit the sale of fresh meat, fish, cheese and vegetables in a covered market unless the stalls are located in a separate food hall;

  (3) what guidelines his Department issues governing the maximum levels of pollution acceptable from motor vehicles delivering goods to covered retail or wholesale markets.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: The Food Hygiene (Market Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations 1966, as amended, apply to food trading undertaken at covered retail or wholesale markets, or otherwise away from fixed premises. The regulations cover all food intended for human consumption and require that food traders should take all reasonable steps to ensure that food is protected from the risk of contamination. No guidelines have been issued centrally.

  It is a matter for local decision as to where such markets are held and the local environmental health department should be able to advise on the implementation of the regulations.

ENERGY

  Magnox Reactors
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he possesses regarding the availability for examination by independent civil engineering consultancy organisations of the full design plans of each of the Central Electricity Generating Board Magnox nuclear plants in advance of the beginning of decommissioning of the older reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is the responsibility of the Central Electricity Generating Board to make detailed 856
  plans for the decommissioning of its Magnox reactors. The board's plans will be assessed by the independent nuclear installations inspectorate, and will need to be approved by it before they can be implemented.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current government policy on the time period over which the decommissioning of older Magnox reactors is expected to take place.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many applications have been made to the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive by the Central Electricity Generating Board to operate a Magnox nuclear power station in an experimental way to test reactor cooling by convection; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on how many occasions his Department has been notified by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it intended to operate Magnox nuclear power stations in an experimental way to test reactor cooling by convection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is the first occasion that the CEGB has decided to carry out a test of the kind proposed at Trawsfynydd. Similar tests have been successfully carried out, by the South of Scotland Electricity Board at Hunterston A in 1981, and by BNF plc at Calder Hall in 1985 and 1986, with the full approval of the NII. The proposed test will proceed only if the HSE's NII is totally satisfied as to safety.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, what papers have been commissioned(a) within his Department, (b) from external consultants, (c) from the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board and (d) from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on the implications for privatisation of the electricity supply industry of the decommissioning of the Magnox reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for advice from a wide range of sources on many issues concerned with the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry. Advice given to Ministers on this basis is confidential.

  Trawsfynydd Nuclear Reactor
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for energy when he was informed that an emergency shutdown procedure is to be performed on Trawsfynydd nuclear reactor on 12 February; if he is satisfied with the safety precautions to be taken to protect the residents of the surrounding area during this procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The proposed test at Trawsfynydd does not involve an emergency shutdown and will take place only afte the reactor has been safely shut down in the normal manner. It will proceed only if the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is totally satisfied as to safety.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he was first advised of the proposed
  857
  experimental shutdown at Trawsfynydd power station; whether this experiment has his approval; what emergency arrangements are being organised along the west coast of Wales and England; whether he has received objections to this experiment; and if he will now instruct the Central Electricity Generating Board to abandon this experiment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate which received on 30 November last year the CEGB's proposal for a test of natural cooling following the routine shutdown of a reactor at Trawsfynydd. The NII is presently considering the proposal, and the test will proceed only if it is totally satisfied as to safety. Details of emergency arrangements for nuclear power stations are to be found in the reply given on 22 April 1987 at columns 547–51 by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad).

  Monergy (Condoms)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department's "Monergy" campaign to save energy in industrial processing has included any departmental assessment of the energy-saving possibilities in the production of condoms in support of the anti — AIDS campaign.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No.

  Chernobyl Accident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Soviet trade union officials on the implications of the Chernobyl accident for the safe operation of nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend's discussions with the Soviet trade union delegation on 2 December covered a range of nuclear safety issues, including international initiatives since the Chernobyl accident and opportunities for bilateral and multilateral co-operation. The discussions complement existing links with the USSR at Government and industry level.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the financial and economic cost of the Chernobyl accident to(a) the United Kingdom nuclear industry, (b) United Kingdom farmers and (c) the United Kingdom tourist industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom industry was widely involved in monitoring the effects of the Chernobyl accident and in assessing its implications. The cost of this involvement is not readily quantifiable. The Government have so far paid out over £5·2 million in compensation to sheep farmers for the effect on their enterprises of the controls arising from the Chernobyl accident. It is not possible to quantify any effect on tourism.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest information on the evaluation made by the Soviet Union of the total economic cost of the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that the 15 January edition of Pravda reported that at a Politburo meeting the previous day the direct cost of the Chernobyl accident was estimated at 4 billion roubles (£4 billion). According to the report, this cost doubles if economic loss is taken into account.

  Sellafield (Safety)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any invitation from the European Parliament's energy committee to appear before it to discuss safeguards facility attachments for British Nuclear Fuels plc Sellafield reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Transnuklear (Bribery Allegations)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the implications of the Transnuklear allegations of bribery and cover-up involving the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Sweden, the EEC Energy Commission and EURATOM for further confidence in, and continued application of(a) EURATOM and (b) the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in the United Kingdom and in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency are currently investigating the reports. We await their conclusions.

  Overhead Transmission Lines
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library all copies to date of the annual report on research into the possible hazardous characteristics of high-voltage overhead transmission lines, first requisitioned by him from the Central Electricity Generating Board in February 1980.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Secretary of State has received from the Central Electricity Generating Board five reports on research into the possible effects on human health of high-voltage overhead transmission lines, and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library. The last report was received in January 1986 when it was agreed that the practice of reporting annually would be replaced by reports from the board whenever significant changes in the position occurred. There have been frequent discussions between my own officials and the board's staff, and the board has published a number of technical articles on the subject.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress by the Central Electricity Generating Board in equipping coal-fired power plants with desulphurisation acid rain control technology; and what was the time scale originally envisaged.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board announced in October last year its plans for fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment to coal-fired stations at Drax and Fiddlers Ferry in a programme extending until 1997. The board inform me that they expect to be in a position to submit an application for consent to the first stage of this programme at Drax imminently.

  Electricity Council (Chairman)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to reappoint Sir Philip Jones as chairman of the Electricity Council; and what his objectives will be.
  859
  Mr. Parkinson
  I have reappointed Sir Philip Jones as chairman of the Electricity Council for a further three years from 1 April 1988, and in my letter of 20 January I agreed the following revised objectives with him:"This letter sets out the objectives which the Government wish you to pursue as Chairman of the Electricity Council. The objectives elaborate the responsibilities and obligations placed by Statute on the Electricity Council, and in particular the duty to promote and assist the maintenance and development by Electricity Boards in England and Wales of an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply.

  1. The Government has announced its intention to bring forward proposals to privatise the Electricity Supply Industry. Your specific objective as Chairman of the Council will be to assist the Government in implementing those proposals, and in bringing about an orderly and timely transfer of the Industry to the private sector.

  2. Meanwhile you should by all practicable means promote and encourage maximum efficiency throughout the Industry including sustained and detailed attention to cost control by the various Boards in England and Wales through all aspects of their activities. In this context:

  (a) you should advise me on the setting of financial targets and performance aims for the Electricity Supply Industry in England and Wales and each Board individually; you should keep me informed, in accordance with guidance which I shall give you from time to time, on matters relevant to the setting of those targets and aims and on progress towards their achievement;

  (b) you should encourage Boards to develop a wide range of challenging targets for cost control, efficiency and standards of service and to publish information about performance against targets.

  3. It must also be your objective to encourage the Boards to develop co-operation with private generators of electricity, within the framework laid down in the Energy Act 1983, and ensure that effective commercial and technical arrangements exist to take full economic advantage of their potential contribution to supply. You should also encourage the Boards to adopt and support schemes for the combined production of heat and power in accordance with the provisions in the Energy Act.

  4. I shall require Boards to set out their capital investment proposals comprehensively for my approval, explaining the proposals in relation to business plans and the achievement of financial targets and performance aims. I shall also require them to continue to pay close attention to the methodology used in capital investment appraisal. In advising me on these proposals it should be your objective to promote the production and distribution of electricity at the lowest possible cost consistent with maintaining adequate standards e.g. of security of supply.

  5. To support the Boards' capital investment proposals and the Council's returns for the Investment and Financing Review, the Council should set them in the context of CEGB and Area Board business and trends, in a manner specified by the Department. The Boards' plans should also take full account of the objectives agreed with Government as well as the financial and performance targets agreed and the Industry's external financial limits. Bearing in mind the requirements of S.8(5) and S.8(6) of the Electricity Act 1957, you should ensure regular, timely, and effective information flows from the Boards to assist the Government and the Electricity Council in setting those objectives, targets and limits and in monitoring performance.

  6. You should, in consultation with the Boards, and as appropriate with Government, develop and promote a framework of electricity pricing principles, within which the Boards set their prices so as to reflect the costs at the margin of meeting demands on a continuing basis, and so as to be consistent with the financial framework set by Government.

  7. You should seek to ensure that contracting, sales of appliance and appliance repair activities of the Area Boards are carried out effectively and economically so as to yield a proper return on the assets employed.

  8. Subject of course to European Community and other international obligations, you should encourage the Boards
  860
  to assist United Kingdom manufacturing industry to secure orders in export markets, in particular through the provision of support services through British Electricity International.

  9. You should ensure that the Industry remains sensitive to the impact of its policies and prices on consumers, and that these are properly presented to the Industry's consumer representative bodies and to the public at large.

  10. Until the Industry is privatised you should seek by all practicable means to promote close working relationships within the Industry. In this connection I draw attention to David Howell's statement of July 1980.

  11. Finally, I should make clear that the Government may wish to give further guidance to you at a later date or to impose constraints from time to time, for wider reasons, on your ability to achieve one or other of these objectives.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Earnings
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the latest estimates of average adult earnings in Northern Ireland; and if he will also show the proportion of workers in(a) retailing and (b) hairdressing who earn less than £2 per hour.

  Mr. Viggers
  The latest results from the new earnings survey for Northern Ireland show that in April 1987 average weekly earnings for all full-time employees on adult rates were £176·4. Results also show that approximately 25 per cent, of full-time employees in the survey working in retail distribution sectors earned less than £2 per hour. Estimates of average hourly earnings for persons working in hairdressing occupations are not available.

  High Sheriff (Belfast)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when an appointment of high sheriff for the city of Belfast is to be made; and why it has not accompanied those for the six counties and the city of Londonderry.

  Mr. Tom King
  The nomination for the post of high sheriff for the city of Belfast by the outgoing high sheriff is normally made only after consultation with the Belfast city council. However, the council declined to co-operate and no nomination for 1987 or 1988 was received.

  As the duties of the office of high sheriff are purely ceremonial, it was decided that in the meantime the post should be left unfilled until a nomination is received.

  Pig Grading Officers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why he is proposing to make the 20 pig grading officers redundant; who will become responsible for administering this service at the pig processing plants; what are the implications for quality control of Ulster pig products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: Industry and trade union interests are being consulted with a view to establishing effective and economic arrangements transferring responsibility for operating the Northern Ireland pig carcase classification scheme to the private sector. Implications for redundancy and quality requirements will be among the matters considered as consultations progress.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members (Imprisonment)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many occasions in 1987 the House was notified of the imprisonment of a right hon. or hon.862
  Member or Members; how many Members were the subject of such a notification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The House was notified of the imprisonment of a Member on three occasions in 1987:

  28 January — Mr. Harold McCusker

  25 June — Mr. Ken Maginnis

  21 October — Mr. Peter Robinson.

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

EC Transport Ministers' Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what dates have been agreed for meetings of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council in 1988, and whether they will make a statement concerning the present position of the proposal made by the European Commission to withdraw its list of exemptions to the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Transport Council meetings under the German Presidency have been arranged for 14th and 15th March and 20th and 21st June. There will also be an informal Council on 25th and 26th April.
During negotiation of the EC's aviation package, the Commission, with the UK's support, threatened to withdraw its proposal for transitional exemptions from the competition rules at a time when some member states were pressing for inadequate measures elsewhere in the package. The package was adopted unanimously last month and it contains the transitional exemptions.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, why do we need a list of exemptions at all? Does the Minister not agree that having a list of block exemptions attached to the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome means that the Commission will be able to challenge only on a much narrower basis any allegedly anti-competitive packaging or fare-fixing deals?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the group exemptions to which the noble Baroness refers will be granted under Article 85·3 of the Treaty of Rome. They do not produce the scope for Commission action because they will apply only to agreements which meet the conditions for exemptions laid down in the treaty. The exemptions, which are only transitional, will expire on 31st January 1991.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that may well be the case but I am not much further on with that matter. Does the Minister feel able to tell the House now, or to publish an Answer in the Official Report if I table a Question, the details of the list of exemptions and in what way he thinks they will benefit the Community in the proposed reforms that have been agreed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, details of the exemptions are listed in Article 2·2 of the regulations, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Therefore the noble Baroness, and any other noble Lord, will be able to see them. The Council thought it right that the exemptions should be reviewed in three years in the light of the changed circumstances which may then exist.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if I table a Written Question, will the Minister give the House the benefit of that information in Hansard?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Baroness tables a Written Question of course I shall answer it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Question asked about future meetings of the Transport Ministers' Council, and the Minister has kindly given dates for the next few meetings. Is the question of VAT on transport likely to be raised at those meetings? If so, what will be the Government's attitude to the possibility of VAT being levied on our transport system?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer that question at the moment because it is for the Presidency to table the agenda for the March Council, and that has not yet been done. It must be done 16 days in advance of the meeting.

Foreign Goods Vehicles: Requirements
3.4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are taken to ensure that foreign-registered vehicles using British roads comply with British restrictions on dimensions and weight of vehicles.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, all goods vehicles, including foreign registered vehicles, entering the ports and travelling on the roads in Britain, are liable to be stopped and checked by the department's traffic examiners or the police to see that they comply with our legal requirements for vehicle dimensions and weights. Local authority trading standards officers also make regular use of the department's weighbridge sites.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does his reference to the liability to be checked mean that, in practice, all vehicles go over weighbridges?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously we do not check every vehicle but we try to check a number. We have an increasing programme of checks to be made. Last year 5,700 foreign registered vehicles were weighed. In the coming year we propose to raise that figure to at least 8,800. Over the next few

327
years we plan to provide additional weighbridges around the country.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said, is he aware that on 11th January his honourable friend Peter Bottomley mentioned the figure of 8,800 in a Written Answer? However, he said that they comprised only 3 per cent. of the number of inward journeys. Is that not a shockingly low number? In view of the interest that there is in this country concerning the use of weighbridges for outgoing lorries, could not the matter be raised again with European Transport Ministers with a view to weighbridges being used at both ends of the journey?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of the 3 per cent. of vehicles weighed, many are regular visitors and therefore the chances of any one vehicle being caught is heightened. As regards weighing at ports, as part of ferry safety operations we are required to weigh lorries which are boarding ferries. We are also in consultation with European countries to ascertain whether they will make similar arrangements on the Continent.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the present United Kingdom maximum axle weight requirements are in line with European requirements? Will he also say what are the weights in the United Kingdom and Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are not in line with Europe. The maximum weight on the Continent is 40 tonnes; at present we have a temporary derogation to a limit of 38 tonnes.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I asked about axle weights.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the figures for axle weights; I was giving the figure for maximum weights.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, surely in an age of automaticity it should be possible that lorries are automatically weighed as they roll off the ferries and, if they are overweight, an indication light signals to stop them. Is it sensible to pick on 3 per cent? Are we sure that we are picking on the right 3 per cent? A very big load can be very light and a very small load can be extremely heavy. Therefore, ought not this to be done automatically, thus reducing the manpower and increasing the effectiveness of our control?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, more weighbridges are being planned at ports for weighing lorries which leave the ferries. We are also examining methods of increasing the number of lorries weighed by using new technology and faster weighing equipment. Consultations are under way with a view to mounting a pilot project at five selected ports to test a range of options for increasing the number of weighings at ports.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the point, but when my noble friend Lord
328
Peyton was Minister of Transport years ago there was far more worry about the axle weight than the total weight of the vehicle. Is the emphasis no longer on the axle weight, and is it not the axle weight that causes damage to bridges rather than the total weight of the vehicle?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are still concerned with axle weights. I indicated to my noble friend that I did not have the figures for drawing a comparison between Europe and this country in respect of axle weights; I have only those figures for total weight limits. Axle weights are indeed important as regards roads and bridges.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can suggest how we might overcome the dilemma? A number of people break our laws who, if they were citizens of this country, would appear before our courts. However, those people leave our country almost immediately but what can we do about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if foreigners are caught in this country they are prohibited from further movement until their load has been adjusted. In some cases instant courts have been convened to coincide with foreign vehicle checks and the appropriate penalties have been imposed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the damage done to motorways and the road safety aspect, can my noble friend say whether it is the intention and object of the Government to ensure that all incoming vehicles are weighed and that we do not rely on the fallacious method of trying to guess a vehicle's weight by looking at it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot say that at present we intend to weigh every single vehicle that enters the country. However, as I said, we intend to improve our resources for weighing the vehicles and to increase the number of checks and weighbridges.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what will happen when the Single European Act comes into force in 1992? Surely then there will not be any restrictions on the movement of vehicles within the European Community?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our derogation from the 40-tonne limit is temporary but we have said that we cannot accept any increase in the total weight or axle weight until our roads and bridges have been surveyed and strengthened where necessary. That will inevitably take many years to complete and no early increase in lorry weights is contemplated. In any case, any increase could not be brought into effect without the approval of Parliament.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us what proportion of the 3 per cent. tested complied with, or did not comply with, our regulations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, about 24 per cent. are overloaded.

Influenza Vaccine Supplies
3.12 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: 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 arrangements they have made to ensure that adequate supplies of influenza vaccine are available throughout the country.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, influenza vaccination is a selective programme recommended only for at-risk groups. In recent winters the number of doses sold has varied between 1.4 and 1.6 million, but when it became known some weeks ago that demand had increased considerably the department liaised with the vaccine manufacturers for the supply to be increased to 2.1 million doses. At the very end, this represents a 25 per cent. increase over recent winters.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer, as far as it goes. Is he aware that his campaign last summer to encourage vaccination against 'flu has on the one hand, increased the take up and the hurricane in the South-East which cut off electricity supplies for some days or even weeks, on the other hand, destroyed a great deal of vaccine which was either in doctors' surgeries or chemists? Therefore, there is a shortage now. In the neighbourhood where I live neither the chemists nor the doctors' surgeries have these supplies. Will my noble friend look further into the matter to see whether it is possible to make a further supply available in our area?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in that the Influenza Monitoring and Information Bureau last October held a press conference which suggested that since there had been no influenza epidemic for 10 years one was likely to occur this winter. As a consequence, demand for the vaccine rose and shortages began to be reported. However, I am informed that the department received no reports that supplies were affected by the storms or by the resultant interruption to electricity supply. But if my noble friend is still having problems in receiving supplies I undertake to look further into the matter with the department.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the noble Earl explain to the House what evidence is available that this 'flu vaccine actually works?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have no direct evidence upon me but I am reliably informed that it is effective for 70 per cent. of those who take it and lasts for a period of about one year.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether we yet have an influenza vaccine which is claimed to confer immunity against all strains of the virus? He said that the vaccine is recommended only for at-risk groups. Does he realize
330
that many members of the public feel that everyone should have the vaccine and that doctors and patients need clear and unequivocal advice about who should and who should not be vaccinated? Can the noble Earl give that advice?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, experience in the United States has shown that when general vaccination of the whole population is attempted, a small yet significant number of people will suffer from serious side effects. It is for doctors to decide whether vaccination is appropriate in individual cases.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the main reason that there is a shortage of vaccine is that the influenza monitoring bureau, financed by the pharmaceutical industry, put out a warning of a 'flu epidemic, which led to substantial demand and which certainly exhausted the supplies that were intended for priority groups? Can he say what was the evidence, if any, on which the bureau put out its warning and how much it cost the National Health Service to pay for something which seemed to be a form of scare tactic?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I require further notice of that question. I am not aware of the cost to the National Health Service.
Lord Blease: My Lords, will the noble Earl include Northern Ireland in his inquiries? Certainly two or three weeks ago I understand that supplies were scarce in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I said, I undertake to look at the current supply situation and will pay particular regard to Northern Ireland.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I say how much I welcome the declaration—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I welcome the noble Earl's statement that he will make an inquiry? May I ask whether in his inquiries he will consider to what extent it is right that a non-governmental body issues advice about an impending crisis rather than the ministry itself? Is it not for the department to take the lead rather than a body financed by the pharmaceutical industry?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that the Influenza Monitoring and Information Bureau was established last year and is financed by two of the three United Kingdom manufacturers of influenza vaccine. However, I take the point and I shall talk to the department about this.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has the noble Earl seen the recent report that the epidemic is not now expected until next year? Will he ensure that there is sufficient vaccine available for next autumn?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall take into account the remarks made by the noble Countess.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his undertaking to look into the shortages to which I have referred will be most reassuring and that I am most grateful?

Civil Servants: Confidentiality
3.18 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 Treasury civil servants are bound by the terms of their employment to the same rules of confidentiality as those imposed on civil servants employed in the security services.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, as Sir Robert Armstrong said in his note which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in another place on 2nd December 1987, all civil servants are under an obligation to keep the confidences to which they become privy in the course of their work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that that is a most remarkable Answer to my Question, bearing in mind that on 24th December the Daily Telegraph carried a detailed account of highly confidential discussions between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and senior officials of the Treasury? Can he tell the House how that came about?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that the Government are concerned to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information at all times.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that sometimes leakages occur not from civil servants but from Ministers? Is he therefore prepared to put the same barrier in the way of Ministers who continually leak information as that imposed on civil servants?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in a sense I have replied to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on that point. Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in that it would be better not to probe too deeply into this because it goes very wide of the original Question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the House to understand that the Treasury advisers, who according to the Daily Telegraph were involved in a row with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be prohibited when they come to publish their memoirs from giving a detailed, blow-by-blow account of what actually happened on this auspicious occasion?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to comment on any individual case.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Lord refresh his memory on the report of the Radcliffe Committee of Privy Counsellors, of which I happen to a be a member, on the publication of ministerial information? It is an allied matter. If we expect civil servants to maintain an undertaking, the same must apply to Ministers, and not just ex-Ministers.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course I take seriously the point made by the noble Lord. This is in fact wide of the original Question but that does not detract from its importance. Perhaps I may go back to my orginal Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Quite genuinely, this Government, as all governments have been, are concerned to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that some of the autobiographies of Ministers, ex-Ministers and others have shown this whole matter to be full of riddles and something of a farce? The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in tabling this Question must have known that it is a matter of a person's integrity. The person concerned knows that he is working for the government of the day and he should shut up afterwards. Some Ministers do not give a very good lesson, do they?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot possibly improve on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that many hundreds, if not thousands, of civil servants are now of the opinion that the Government have certain standards for what they call important confidential reports made to Ministers? Some civil servants have been hauled before the courts-they were freed—and others have written books upon which there has been world-wide discussion. However on the vital issue of the next budget of Great Britain information was leaked which has apparently upset many civil servants who believe as I do, in the loyalty that the Leader of the House espouses but are of the opinion that at certain levels and in certain quarters you can get away with disclosure? In other situations a person is harrassed even if there is grave doubt. There is no doubt about the supplementary question which I put: is the Leader of the House prepared to take that matter very seriously?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do indeed take seriously the exchange which we have had across the Floor of the House, but I do not think that I should repeat the answer to the first supplementary question which the noble Lord asked me. I do not believe that I can improve upon the original Answer that I gave to him. All civil servants are under an obligation to keep the confidences to which they become privy during the course of their work.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, whatever steps my noble friend may feel it is necessary to take in this matter, will he take great care to ensure that they do not result in making dull books into best sellers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is characteristically wise advice.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he would be prepared at some time, as I am sure he takes this matter extremely seriously, to consider coming to the House to make a further statement?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not sure that that entirely appeals to me, much as I have enjoyed the exchanges this afternoon.

Australian Bicentenary: Humble Address
3.26 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in the terms set out on the Order Paper.
I am sure that the whole House wishes to support the Motion on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House. The presentation of a vice-regal chair to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia by both Houses of the Westminster Parliament is our way of marking the bicentenary of the first European settlement of Australia in 1788. Australia holds a special place in our affections. I know that many Members of your Lordships' House have over the years developed strong links with the Australian people. We admire the unique beauty of their country, the strength of their institutions, in particular their Parliamentary traditions, and of course their characteristic zest for life.
I am sure that your Lordships wish to know what exactly it is that we propose to give to the Australian Parliament. The chair will be placed in the Senate of the new Federal Parliament building in Canberra. Like the throne in your Lordships' House, it will be occupied by Her Majesty the Queen or the Governor General when opening Parliament. It is to be made of pear wood by craftsmen in London and it will be delivered to Australia in time for the opening of the new Parliament building in May.
I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that this is a most appropriate way for us at Westminster to mark Australia's bicentenary, and that the whole House will join in congratulating the Australian people on their achievements. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that, to mark the bicentenary in 1988 of the first European settlement of Australia and the opening of the new Parliament House in Canberra, a gift of a vice-regal chair be made, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. [Lord Belstead.]
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome this Motion to authorise the presentation of a vice-regal chair to the Parliament of Australia. As the noble Lord said, the Motion refers to the bicentenary of the first European settlement of Australia 200 years ago. All of us know that the circumstances at that time were not entirely auspicious. There was great courage and there was
334
great suffering. It was a different age with different standards and different aspirations. However, it would be wrong to dwell upon these events today.
We join Australia in celebrating the historic transformation that has taken place in that beautiful country. Since 1788 a great democracy has emerged based first on a British and then upon a multi-racial community as well as the original inhabitants of Australia. Looking around the world, we must be thankful that it is a true democracy of forthright and independently-minded people.
Furthermore, in two centuries, it has become a land of beautiful cities with great artistic and scientific achievements. They have their problems, as we have; but it is for their Government to resolve them. I believe that they have the vitality and the vision to do so. We all wish Australia and her people success and happiness in the future.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we too wish very strongly to be associated on this happy occasion with the remarks which have been made. Many noble Lords must have shared the experience which I have frequently had: on being a Member of a parliamentary delegation, visiting the Chamber of the Parliament in question and seeing there some important piece of furniture which has come from the mother country and which has given great pleasure to all who have seen it, especially when they are fellow countrymen. I think this is a most happy idea on what is undoubtedly a very great occasion.
I hope that I may be excused for being slightly serious because I shall never forget that during the course of my lifetime the Australian people have, without hesitation, twice—twice, my Lords—given the flower of their youth in order to protect our common standards, our common ideals and our common heritage of liberty. It is therefore with very great pleasure that all of us on these Benches wish to be associated with this expression of good will that we give to the peoples and the parliamentarians of Australia, not forgetting those who sit in their Upper Chamber, where this chair will reside for all to see.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, as the chairman of the Britain-Australia Society perhaps I may say that I think we ought not to regard this as a perfunctory Motion. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said about the role the Australians have played in helping to save this country. I still remember, in 1940, the first appearance of Australian uniforms. I remember that so often in the RAF you saw the dark blue of an Australian, usually a navigator. They were of vital importance to our own survival and I like to think that we shall remember that. A little patriotism now and again is not entirely amiss in these days.
I also remind your Lordships of the fact that it was about this day in 1788 that that great leader and governor—the first governor, Captain Phillip, later Admiral Phillip—wrote:
"We … had the satisfaction"—
after he had abandoned Botany Bay—
"of finding the finest harbour in the world, in which a thousand sail-of-the-line may ride in the most perfect security".

335
He named it Sydney.
They are one day ahead now in Australia, but the following day they had an encounter with the aboriginals. They called the place Manly Cove,
"because of the confidence and manly behaviour shown by the natives. They seemed desirous of our hats and attempted to seize some. Like King, Bowes had to order pants to be pulled down for the 'Indians'. They expressed a wish to know of what sex we were".
There have been tragedies in our relations with the aboriginal people, and the record is not one on which we wish to dwell. I can only give as an up-to-date example that the Royal Geographical Society Linnean Society 200th anniversary expedition to the Kimberleys has had many meetings with the aboriginals, and the leader of the Banaba people actually said:
"I am very glad that the skills of my people will be at the disposal of science".
Not all is bad in that area.
Many of your Lordships have had close relations with Australia, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Home, who played a great part in maintaining these good relations. I wish that my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx were here, because at the age of 10 he went to Perth. His uncle from Kalgoorlie became the president of the Legislative Council. He was not of the same party as my noble friend Lord Wilson. It is alleged, though my noble friend Lord Wilson will not confirm it, that at the age of 10 he told his mother that he would like to stay in Australia, in which case the history both of Australia and of this country might have been different.
The British have in fact contributed about £3 million. The Government gave £1 million, which went largely to that splendid sail training boat "Young Enterprise", but a lot of other money has been raised and the history of this is exciting. It is a birthday party. The only point I should like to make—and, again, the noble Lord, Lord Home, heard me say this the other night at the Guildhall—is that there is a difficulty in getting visas. Perhaps this is a matter that the Government could give a little thought to—all the more so since according to Whicker's programme there are obviously rather specialised services available for people who get visas to go to Australia. This is a splendid occasion, and we should be proud that we are able to play a part in some way and the Houses of Parliament are making an appropriate gift.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it is a privilege to be associated with this Motion for a humble Address. It will not surprise the House, given the nature and purpose of the first fleet, that there were two Parrys aboard. The first was classified as a felon and his wife, Sarah Parry, was given an older profession. I sometimes think that she probably founded the tourism business in Australia which is based on visiting friends and relations.
The serious purpose is that this is a donation of a chair, which is a particularly apt gift when one realises that William Morris Hughes, a London Welshman, Welsh-speaking, became a very distinguished Prime Minister of Australia. He sat in the House for 51 years and for eight years was Prime
336
Minister, and is credited by another Welshman, David Lloyd George, as having made a massive contribution to the winning of the First World War with his energy and zeal and the way in which he devoted himself to the interests of the then empire.
It is also apt that the High Commissioner for Australia, the honourable Douglas McClelland, was chairman of the Senate and the representative in the Senate for New South Wales. He is here doing a great job for Australia. While we remember the origins, the history and the difficulties that have been alluded to, what a joy it is that we are able to look on these people, the Australians, as kith and kin of the British and of the Western Europeans, and have shared their pleasure in their 200th birthday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who goes regularly to Australia and claims to know the country well, perhaps I may add just one word of additional congratulation to the Australian people on the successful achievement of the past 200 years. Australia, as your Lordships know, is a country with wonderful natural resources, full of active, energetic, dynamic and efficient people. I am quite sure that the century which is now opening will show even greater achievements. Indeed, when your Lordships come to the tercentenary celebrations, Australia will undoubtedly then be one of the great powers of the world. We wish it well.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I do not think that the tributes to Australia ought to end without a mention of the word "cricket". They have been our rivals and companions on the cricket field for as long as we can remember, and we hope they will be so for another 100 years.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Ackner be appointed a member of the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Ackner be appointed a member of the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices. (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 35 [Restriction of disclosure of information]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 57CA:
Page 28, line 42, after ("Board") insert ("or any court or other person or body of persons").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 57DA. These amendments seek to restore fully the position under Section 22 of the 1974 Act. The provisions deal, as is the case at present in the Bill, with the board but other arrangements continue. There has been concern that the Government wish to lessen the restrictions on the confidentiality of legal aid applications, a subject related to one which Members of the Committee were discussing a little earlier. This is certainly not so.
In fact the amendment goes further than to restore the position in Section 22 of the 1974 Act which covered only civil legal aid applications. The Bill will now cover criminal legal aid applications handled by the courts as well as any other matters with which the board deals.
The same point is dealt with in the amendments down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I believe that our amendments which take account of his amendments cover all that his amendments would cover and possibly go just a little further. I hope that Amendment No. 57CA will be acceptable to the Committee.
Lord Mishcon: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and I put down Amendments Nos. 57D and 57E. The noble and learned Lord has been gracious enough to put down a government amendment. It was necessary because there were cases where the disclosure of information to DHSS officials was going into quarters where it was never meant to go. There was the case of Whipman v. Whipman in 1951 where the quoted words of the Legal Aid Act 1974, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, were held to include officers of the National Assistance Board, which was the forerunner of the DHSS.
My only reason for rising, apart from thanking the noble and learned Lord for putting right this matter to which we called attention, is to say—and I am sure he will not regard this as an impertinence—that in this amendment he is not quoting the words of the 1974 Act as we were content to do. Section 22 of the 1974 Act said, and at that time the Law Society was doing what the board will do:
"or to any committee or person on their behalf".
338
Therefore the confidentiality was reserved for those who were acting on behalf of the Law Society as indeed the DHSS was at that time.
I well understand why in any amendment, because those words were omitted from the Act, one should try to cover precisely the same bodies. I well understand why one wants to cover criminal legal aid as well as civil legal aid by having the words "any court". But the words the noble and learned Lord uses in his amendment are,
"any court or other person or body of persons".
The words "on their behalf" are omitted. As therefore the cloak of confidentiality will now descend upon a communication by anybody to any person or body of persons provided that it is in regard to the matters contained in the Bill, I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord is in fact putting down a curtain beyond what he might intend to do.
I said that I venture this submission with the greatest respect and it is not meant to be anything other than helpful. If the noble and learned Lord will kindly look at the wording of the Act as it will be when it is amended, he will see that it will read:
"Subject to the following provisions of this Section"—
there are exceptions to this rule which are contained in the clause—
"no information furnished to the Board or any court or other person or body of persons for the purposes of this Act in connection with the case of a person seeking or receiving advice".
I am very content, if the noble and learned Lord is, that this is meant to cover people in Citizens' Advice Bureaux and people who give information to officials at the town hall, saying, "I want to consult somebody in connection with my rights under the Act", and thereupon telling an official at the townhall something about his case or what he wants to do. If the noble and learned Lord is content with the extent of that umbrella I certainly do not raise any question. I thought it my duty to call to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, if he will permit me to do so, the wording of the 1974 Act and the limiting words that we put in our amendment which are far more limiting than his own.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the spirit in which he has welcomed the amendments and also for the constructive questions that he has asked about the wording. He raises a doubt about whether the cloak of confidentiality has not been drawn too far to cover information. I looked at this point myself in relation to the amendment and the other amendment of the same kind to which we shall come shortly. In the light of the exceptions in paragraphs (a) to (f), it seemed to me that we had got it right. However, this is an important question and if the noble Lord will allow me I shall certainly consider further what he has said. It may be that he will want to enlighten me even further and in more detail about the particular risks that he has in mind. I am sure that we could conveniently do that without taking up the time of the Committee.
I am anxious that we should get this right and have it not too far from and not too short of the goal. If

339
we miss the goal by going too far I would be happy to bring it back. At the moment I think it is right, when one has regard to the various exceptions which I think would cover all the proper situations in which disclosure might take place. If the noble Lord has particular problems in mind perhaps I may have the opportunity to discuss the matter with him.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord has spoken with his usual courtesy, and I shall be delighted to have the kind of conversation or correspondence that he has in mind. I mentioned as an example the communication that might be made to a journalist for the purposes of any claim or matter under the Bill and as to whether again the curtain of confidentiality is meant to fall on that communication—a matter which is in no way dealt with in the exceptions contained in the clause. As he rightly says, this is more a matter for friendly discussions as there is no difference between us except that we want to know what we are providing for. I gladly accept what the noble and learned Lord has said.
The Lord Chancellor: The journalist case may be of some importance. I want to draw attention to the possibility of general information being handed out by the board under subsection (2). The idea is that information about activities and so on can be furnished in such a way as not to identify the circumstances of a particular case. That is put in with a view to trying to help to ensure that the public investigation and interest in these matters can be furthered without damage to individual confidentiality.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57D not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 57DA:
Page 29, line 18, after ("Board") insert ("or any court or other person or body of persons").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment a moment ago. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57E not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Proceedings for misrepresentation etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 29, line 34, leave out ("four") and insert ("three").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 36 sets out the proceedings and penalties where those seeking or receiving legal aid fail to furnish or falsely furnish the information required of them under this Bill. Subsection (1) lays down the penalty for this offence as being a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, currently a maximum of £1,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding four months. This was the penalty under the 1974 Legal Aid Act, but I am informed that it is out of line with the maxima which are normally adoped now. The more usual formulation nowadays is for a level 4 fine to be accompanied by a maximum period of three
340
months' imprisonment. I am sure your Lordships will think it right that this normal rule should be adopted in this case and this amendment will bring the Bill into line with the standard practice. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I respectfully agree that this is a useful and beneficial amendment of which we on this side of the Committee approve.
Lord Renton: I, too, agree but I wonder whether I may briefly mention in passing that one of the offences to which this level of penalties will relate is described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) as:
"intentionally fails to comply with regulations as to the information to be furnished by him".
We know that there will be a great mass of regulations under the Bill. It may be quite an alarming task for the ordinary lay person to have to decipher the regulations and make quite sure that he has not failed to comply with them, whether intentionally or otherwise, unless they are phrased in such a way that he could not possibly go wrong or unless a suitable explanatory note is attached to them.
Of course, we will not have the chance to amend these regulations to ensure that situation in either House. Therefore I ask in passing that my noble and learned friend—who will, I know, pay particularly careful regard to the contents of all the regulations—makes sure that these particular regulations are such as the ordinary person can understand.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I support everything that my noble friend Lord Renton says? I ask respectfully that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor perhaps considers a departure from practice in this way. As a rule, the regulations say at the start of the explanatory note, "These regulations are made pursuant to Section this, that or the other of the Act". It would be very helpful in this case if reference could be made in the explanatory note to the penalties for breach of the regulations as provided in subsection so-and-so.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: However complex the regulations may be—and the Committee will by now by over-weary with what I have said by way of complaint about the mass of regulations-this amendment will be beneficial on any view of the regulations to the person concerned. Therefore for that reason I approve.
The Lord Chancellor: Although it does not arise out of the terms of this particular amendment, since my noble friends have raised the question I should say, first, that of course we shall do our best to make the regulations as explicit as possible. Where information is required from applicants, that is done by means of forms that they have to fill up, and again we shall endeavour to have those forms absolutely plain so that the questions they have to answer are clear to them. It is normal in such forms to draw attention to the possibility that the giving of false information may have criminal consequences. One does not want to frighten people unduly, but, on the other hand, it is right that they should be informed.

341
But the real protection for anyone who makes an error is the word "intentionally' which is used here. The idea of that is to prevent people being convicted of a criminal offence under this provision if it was not done intentionally. If it was done because they had misunderstood or something of that kind, it would not he an offence. I renew my Motion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39: [Finance]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 58A:
Page 31, line 6, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: On Tuesday night until a very late hour we heard the well repeated statement of the fact that, to a great excess, the baleful eye of the Treasury was upon every movement of the Lord Chancellor in regard to the application of legal aid. The real matter that is raised by the question is: why in the circumstances that are contained on page 31, line 6, and page 31, line 8, is an express reference to the approval of the Treasury being required?
The provisions of Clause 5 of the Bill deal with the major expenditures to be incurred and to be paid by the board, and paragraph (b) of Clause 39(1) provides for such further sums as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time think it necessary, or the board itself may think it necessary, to expend to carry out the purposes of the legal aid scheme.
Then one comes to subsection (2) which reads:
"The Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury

(a) determine the manner in which and times at which the sums referred to in subsection (1)(a) above shall be paid to the Board; and

(b) impose conditions on the payment of the sums referred to in subsection (1)(b) above."

It seems to me an unusually detailed exposition of the requirement of Treasury approval, going beyond the range of previous experience of the involvement of the Treasury in the relevant legislation. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will explain why it is necessary in such wide terms to involve the Treasury in almost every penny that he spends. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I support both of these amendments, because I think that the noble and learned Lord has spoken to both Amendment No. 58A and Amendment No. 58B. But the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury"
are unnecessary and, if unnecessary, their appearance in the Bill is positively undesirable. As for the necessity, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has analysed this clause.
By subsection (1)(a) the Lord Chancellor may pay to the board out of monies provided by Parliament, as I understand it—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—such sums as are required for advice, assistance and representation; and under paragraph (b) such sums as he may determine are required for
342
other expenditure. I take it that that refers to matters like staff and accommodation.
It seems to me that the approval of the Treasury is certainly required for both those kinds of expenditure. Under paragraph (a) there will be large sums paid out of the monies provided by Parliament. Although the Treasury is not—if I recollect correctly—responsible for the actual handling of the funds in the Consolidated Fund, in the sense that it does not manage those funds, it has a general responsibility and therefore it is right that the Lord Chancellor should have the Treasury's approval. If I am right in thinking that paragraph (b) deals with accommodation and such things, that again is a matter which intimately concerns the Treasury and is a daily matter of routine. Therefore it is right that the Treasury's approval should be required.
I do not know what is intended by subsection (2)(b). When my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replies perhaps he will say what conditions he has in mind. My question to him is: if those words arc not in the Act when it is passed, will he not as a matter of routine and the ordinary machinery of government arrange for his officials to clear the payments with the Treasury? My recollection of spending departments and the Treasury is that that would be done as a matter of routine. It is not required on the face of the Act.
When we discussed a similar matter on Clause 32(11), I think it was, my noble and learned friend said that these words are common form. So they are, and so much the worse for all of us who have to use the statute book. Why litter the statute book with unnecessary phrases if my noble and learned friend's department would clear such payments with the Treasury as a matter of routine and the ordinary machinery of government?
I said that those words are not only unnecessary; they are positively undesirable. During the Bill's passage so far, the Treasury has come under constant fire. On Second Reading one of my noble and learned friends, who is noted for his moderation of language, said that the Bill was peppered with instances of the hand of the Treasury on the Lord Chancellor. In Committee another of my noble and learned friends referred to the Lord Chancellor as being manacled to the Treasury. I do not by any means share those criticisms. But if Treasury officials insist, as they have in the past, on such unnecessary terms being put into the Act, the Treasury has only itself to blame if it becomes subject to vilification, as it has been during the Bill's passage.
For those two reasons—that the words are unnecessary and, if they are unnecessary, they are undesirable because they clutter up the statute book and focus an unfair gaze on the Treasury—I support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely the sums referred to in paragraph (b) are sums taken from a grant of public funds granted with the Treasury's approval. That is the source. We have at Parliament the source for the granting of the funds. Is it appropriate that the manner of allocation,

343
as determined by the Lord Chancellor, for the purposes of
"the other expenditure of the Board",
should in any event be subject to the Treasury's approval. Surely it is for the Lord Chancellor to determine how he allocates out of public funds the expenditure for those other purposes. Perhaps it is my ignorance but what does the Treasury have to do with that?
Lord Renton: On various previous occasions I have supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and he has sometimes supported me, when attempts have been made to exorcise those words from other statutes dealing with different matters. However, we have never had a stronger case than this for getting rid of words which clutter up the statute book, as has been said. We all know something about system of government and the careful and thorough consultations which take place within it, and I find it strange that the Lord Chancellor, one of the great Officers of State, should have specifically written into the statute that he cannot act without the Treasury's approval when he would never dream of doing so even if it were necessary for him to do so.
Sooner or later I hope that wisdom will prevail and we shall no longer have those words inflicted upon us in Bills. If this could be the occasion, many people would rejoice.
I shall add this argument to all those that have already been expressed. I refer to the second amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. In subsection (2)(a) we find that the Lord Chancellor is to:
"determine the manner in which and the times at which the sums referred in subsection (1)(a) above shall be paid to the Board".
Those are matters of comparative administrative detail upon which the Lord Chancellor is the right person to make his own decisions. The money to be approved will already have been advanced either as an Estimate or a Supplementary Estimate, and in any event in the natural course of events, with the Treasury's approval. Why should the Lord Chancellor have to go back to the Treasury yet again for it to decide relatively minor matters as to how and when he is to pay the moneys to the board? That seems utterly absurd.
Lord Mishcon: Not only is it utterly absurd but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Renton, hinted—
Lord Renton: I am not regarded as learned in this place.
Lord Mishcon: Nevertheless, there are some of us who regard the noble Lord as learned and I intend to continue to use the adjective, and not only as a matter of courtesy. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with his learning, said, there is no doubt that this provision is wrong. It is not that it is otiose and it is not that obviously Treasury approval must be obtained. The point he makes—one which I wish to underline for an additional reason that I shall give in a moment—is
344
that it is absolutely wrong to fetter the Lord Chancellor's Department in regard to the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) with the duty of having to obtain the approval of the Treasury.
As the noble Lord said, the sum which is available is approved by the Treasury. The way in which it is handed out, the period over which it is handed out in instalments, or whatever, must be a matter for the administration of the Lord Chancellor's Department. If I may say so, if these words were suggested by any Treasury official, then, with the greatest respect to that official, that is a bit of impertinence and should be removed.
I believe that it may help in the tidiness of the debate if, instead of making a separate speech on the next Amendment, No. 58C, I speak to that amendment in my name at this stage. The Amendment is to leave out lines 11 to 13. Those lines constitute paragraph (b), which says that the Lord Chancellor, but only with the approval of the Treasury, may,
"impose conditions on the payment of the sums referred to in subsection (1)(b) above".
The paragraph referred to there says:
"such sums as he may [again] with the approval of the Treasury, determine are requred for the other expenditure of the Board".
So that the debate is a comprehensive one and the noble and learned Lord in his courtesy may reply to the various matters at issue in this clause, I should like to say why I put down the amendment. Perhaps I may now turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I put it down, first, because it is a little uncomfortable for the Committee again to be faced with the possibility of conditions being imposed the nature of which noble Lords are completely unaware at this stage. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord would give some indication as to why these words are included so that we may at least know the workings of the mind of the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor.
One of the reasons I have asked for this paragraph to be excluded is to draw attention, so that the noble and learned Lord can deal with it in his reply, to the parlous state in which the board may be placed if it has not the proper resources of administration. A crisis point was reached last year and a joint statement was issued by the Law Society and the Bar Council in the spring of 1987, before all the implications of the White Paper could possibly have been taken up, because the White Paper came out only a matter of a month or so before this statement.
The statement said:
"Figures worked out by the legal aid administration show that in l987–88 time taken to deal with applications for civil legal aid and with claims for payment by solicitors and counsel will substantially increase. Whereas previously there have been delays of some weeks there will now be delays of months. The service is already stretched by tight funding. It has been necessary to discontinue the payment of overtime and the employment of temporary staff in legal aid offices: to impose tight controls of the filling of vacancies which occur and even in some offices to decline to deal with incoming telephone calls".
That was the position in the spring of 1987 and this was a joint statement made by the Law Society and the Bar Council.
Now comes the additional work which we know will be imposed upon the board by reason of

345
suggestions which have been made in the White Paper and which we have been informed will be taken up. Let me give noble Lords one big example of the new burden on the Legal Aid Board. It was one which came up with approval when we dealt with previous clauses in the Bill in Committee: namely, the right of a person concerned in litigation, where an application has been made by the opposing party for a legal aid certificate, to make representations to the board as to the grant of that legal aid certificate. We thought that was a very important provision in order to stop the sort of bogus case which was referred to in the speech which I remember was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
We thought that was a proper instrument, especially because of the injustice which is so often meted out to somebody who is not an assisted person, faced, as an opponent in the courts, by somebody who is. Noble Lords can well imagine the burden which will fall on the department in dealing with those applications to oppose the grant of legal aid.
It is intended also, following on the White Paper, as I understand it, to impose greater limitations on the scope of legal aid certificates. That, again, will place an additional burden on the administration. I am informed that what the Law Society and the Bar Council really fear is that the legal aid system will fall into disrepute because of delays and inefficiencies caused by a lack of funding.
It is proper to bring this up in the debate. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will in the course of his reply give us some assurance that he is satisfied, having regard to such discussions as have already taken place with the Treasury, that these additional matters can be covered, that there should not be a lack of funding which will lead to delays and the inefficiencies to which I have referred, since there are these additional burdens now being placed on the board as against those which were placed on the Law Society in the past.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: No layman has spoken on this question and I feel I cannot let slip the opportunity of making perfectly plain that though I may not understand everything the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, very clearly. He said that if the phrase under discussion is unnecessary it is also undesirable. It seems to me that it is perfectly clear that it is unnecessary, because the money is voted by Parliament and the duty of the Treasury is not to deal with the quantities but to deal with the fact that that money is within the Vote. That is its only duty. So it is clearly unnecessary.
As we should never miss an opportunity of excluding reference to the Treasury when it is possible, I support this amendment very strongly, partly also because I should prefer the decision of the Lord Chancellor without the Treasury to the decision of the Lord Chancellor with the Treasury.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very grateful for the sentiment which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has just expressed, in a sense. But I
346
think that in approaching this matter we must have regard to the constitutional position. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned earlier on, he had the honour of serving in the Treasury, which he described as a great department of state. It is the department which has the responsibility to Parliament for the proper administration of moneys voted by Parliament, not only as to the total amount but also as to the way in which the amounts voted are disbursed, and to take the proper steps to see that they are disbursed in accordance with the intentions of Parliament and in a way which properly reflects the care which the Government should have of the taxpayers' money.
I hope that all of the Members of the Committee will share the view that it is vitally important that when the public, the taxpayers, are asked to provide money for whatever purpose they should be assured that the maximum possible steps are taken to ensure care of that money and its disbursement in the proper way. The department which has primary responsibility for that is the Treasury although of course every department and every Minister shares that responsibility to some extent.
It is also important in the administration of a matter like legal aid that distinctions are drawn between matters that are still available for control and for intervention and matters that are not. The Committee will see that the provision that we are considering now has been carefully framed. Just in case it escapes me to mention it later, it was suggested that the inclusion of these words may have been as a result of some suggestion from an official of the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may take it that the Bill in its draft is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The Bill is put to Parliament in these terms because I as Lord Chancellor consider it appropriate that provision should be made in this way.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, expressed the view, which I share, that words that are totally unnecessary should normally not appear on Bills or Acts of Parliament. On the other hand, there are occasions when at first sight words which appear unnecessary may be of vital importance. The Committee will notice that there is an important distinction between Clause 39(1)(a) and Clause 39(1)(b) in this connnection.
There is no requirement for approval of the Treasury in relation to the Lord Chancellor paying to the board
"out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) such sums as are required…to meet the payments"

needed under Clause 5(2) of the Bill.
That is an absolutely statutory obligation so far as we have gone. The requirement of Treasury approval comes only in Clause 39(1)(b) which covers the sums required by the board for expenditure other than the expenditure covered in Clause 5(2).
Clause 5(2) basically deals with the provision of legal advice, assistance and representation. The Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty under this clause to pay those sums. On the other hand, sums for administration of the board are not the subject of a direct statutory duty of that kind because it is

347
possible for them to be estimated with more precision and it is right that the board's expenditure should be a matter agreed with the Treasury. Of course it is said, and rightly said, that if the Lord Chancellor is hoping to have a reasonable life he will proceed by trying to get agreement with the Treasury. I have no doubt that those of my noble and learned friends and other noble and learned Lords who have had much more experience of Government than I have had will agree that it is wise, if possible, to get the agreement of the Treasury to one's plans. The ultimate success of a Minister may well depend upon his skill in that connection. But that is different from requiring the approval of the Treasury in other situations and in other ways.
In this case there is, as I said, an important distinction between Clause 39(1)(a) and Clause 39(1)(b). As regards Clause 39(1)(a), as I said, there is a statutory duty to pay the money and no approval of the Treasury comes into that obligation. Therefore once the hoard has incurred expenditure in terms of Clause 5(2), that is, for "advice, assistance or representation", the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to pay that money.
That ensures that the board will be in funds to meet the remuneration, for example, of the solicitors' branch of the profession and the Bar to which they have become entitled when they have done work for the board on behalf of citizens who require those services. Therefore the hoard will have a statutory entitlement, without condition of approval of the Treasury, as regards the basic entitlement to that money.
On the other hand, as I said, it is the Treasury that has the management of those funds and therefore it is right that the approval of the Treasury should be required as to the manner in which and the times at which the sums referred to should be paid to the board because obviously, apart from anything else, the Treasury has the management of the tax revenues—the funds that are to be used. As it is responsible for that it must have a say in determining how the sums are to be paid and at what times. But that does not qualify the underlying obligation to pay. It would not, for example, be possible for the Treasury to refuse out and out to pay any of the money which the Lord Chancellor is bound to pay under Clause 39(1).
That is the reason for this very important distinction between demand-led expenditure on the one hand, which is the expenditure which is covered by Clause 39(1)(a) of the kind that I have described—I use the phrase demand-led simply as a shorthand to save me repeating every time the full formula that I have tried to use—and the sums required for the expenditure of the board. So the phrase has a very important role to play. The way in which it is used throughout this provision makes an important distinction which I would regard personally as vital between the two types of money covered in Clause 39(1)(a) and Clause 39(1)(b).
As I said earlier, and as I shall repeat now, it is as appropriate as it is common form for it to be made plain in regulation making powers and in statutory provisions where public funds are involved that the
348
approval of the Treasury is required for the making of the regulations or for the disbursement of particular funds. That has been a feature of the great office of Lord Chancellor for many years.
I feel absolutely certain that my noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and Lord Havers and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, have very often signed instruments which required the concurrence of the Lords' Commissioners of the Treasury signified on the instrument. It is perfectly in accordance with the machinery of Government and it is important in signifying the distinction between the responsibilities of different people in that situation.
It is particularly important if there should arise—as I hope fervently that there will not, at least as long as I occupy my present office—any question of judicial review of any decisions relating to this kind of matter. But if by any chance such a thing should happen it is absolutely vital that the responsibility which may accrue to a particular Minister should be identified with precision in the way that this particular clause does.
Therefore, with great respect to Members of the Committee who have expressed a contrary view, and having given the matter close attention, I must firmly say that it would be quite wrong to accept the amendments. Those phrases and the way they are used in the provision make distinctions which are vital in the administration of the scheme. I hope that the Committee will not accept either of the amendments.
I pass from that matter to the question of administration and the points made in that connection by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. There are more reasons than shortage of money for administrative delays. The noble Lord himself referred to the possibility of other administrative difficulties. I shall not repeat fully what he said. However, it is very important that the administration of the scheme should be efficiently managed. It is my belief that an important aspect of the formation of the board is that it should have management expertise on it in order to make cost-effective use of the money available for the administration of the scheme.
The Committee will know at least as well as I do that the mere fact that extra money is given does not necessarily mean an improvement in efficiency of administration. What is required is a good long-term strategy for dealing with the problems that arise and a management plan which is likely to be effective. For that reason, people with experience of management and administration have an important part to play.
I do not want to leave the matter without repeating what I said at earlier stages of the Bill as regards the Law Society. It has shouldered the burden of administration for civil legal aid for a considerable time. The administration of criminal legal aid has been distinct from that of civil legal aid. The Law Society is to be thanked and I am sure that my noble and learned predecessors will join with me in acknowledging the work that it has done in that connection for many years and will wish to thank it on behalf of the public.

349
However good administration is, there is always the possibility of improvement. One improvement which I have just mentioned is the possibility that by bringing together (as ultimately the board may well do) the different areas of legal aid administration, green form administration and other methods of funding advice, there may well be administrative savings and efficiencies introduced which could not have happened under the present scheme. One of the major purposes of the formation of the board and the provisions that have been made in relation to it is to seek—and I sincerely hope to obtain—administrative efficiency which will be cost-effective and give a good administrative service for this important social service of legal aid to people of small or moderate means.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendments. I strongly invite it not to do so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he will deal with the contents of lines 12 and 13, about which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I both asked.
The Lord Chancellor: I am obliged for that reminder. As regards conditions on the payment of sums, it is not easy to give precise details. One does not know how such matters may arise. It may well be that particular payments should be made conditional; for example, on the use of a particular method of dealing with administration. It may well be that the condition on payment of sums would be that they were required at a particular time. It may be that particular situations which had been envisaged as possibly requiring a certain amount in fact obtain. In other words, it may be possible to make a condition that certain sums should be paid only in certain contingencies—for example, as a result of some situation which would require them. There are many types of condition that might be appropriate in certain circumstances of efficient administration.
I hope that that is a sufficient indication of the content that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) has in mind.
Lord Renton: I have a further query on which I should be grateful for elucidation in addition to that raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord was at one time Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Therefore he speaks with a great deal of knowledge of those matters.
I have been trying to follow the closely reasoned argument of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I have been trying to link it up with the terms of the Bill. That involves a great deal of internal cross-referencing, which has not been altogether easy. I shall be grateful for assurance from my noble and learned friend that, referring back to Clause 5(3) and above all Clause 5(2), which is referred to in Clause 39(1)(a), the approval of the Treasury might be required in order for payments to be made in individual cases. If that is not the intention of the drafting, the drafting should be reconsidered. It will be absurd if the Treasury have to give approval
350
before money can be paid out within the powers given under Clause 5 to meet the needs of individual cases.
The Lord Chancellor: I can assure my noble friend that there is no question of that. I fear that my explanation, even if it was closely reasoned, has not been clear enough if that impression remains.
The approval of the Treasury is not required in respect of payments made under Clause 5(2) at all except in relation to the times at which and the manner in which they are to be made. The obligation to pay the sums under Clause 5(2) is an absolute obligation, once it arises, which does not require the approval of the Treasury. With the regulations under which the rates are determined, those under Clause 32 already require the approval of the Treasury. However, once that regulation comes into force so that, let us say, a person under the regulations is entitled to a certain sum of money from the board, then the Lord Chancellor, in terms of the statute as drafted, has an absolute statutory obligation to pay the board all of that money.
There is no intervention by the Treasury which can prevent that obligation from ultimately being fulfilled so long as Parliament provides the money. That applies to the whole of the funds which are required to discharge the obligations under Clause 5(2). Clause 5(3) provides for payments into the fund. The Lord Chancellor is bound to provide the difference between what is required to be paid out under Clause 5(2) and what comes in under Clause 5(3). It is only the balance that must be found.
The whole aggregate of those sums is subject, because of the way the provision is drafted, to an absolute statutory obligation on the Lord Chancellor to pay, although the Treasury has a say in the manner in which it is paid and the time at which it is paid. It would be quite ultra vires under the provisions for the Treasury to attempt to cut down a sum or anything of that kind. I hope that I have made it plain. I am sorry that I did not make it plain the first time.
Since the noble Lord mentioned it, I should also like to say that I always listen with the very greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because I know that he had a most distinguished career, which included being Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The first time I had the privilege of meeting him was at the Bar of this Chamber when he was dealing with a regional employment premium case which involved a great deal of detail. He was sitting in the position now occupied by my noble and learned friend Lord Havers and hearing a judicial appeal. I learnt very quickly to respect his views and interventions on matters of Treasury. I have not lost that respect and will never lose it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having intervened in this matter, I thank my noble and learned friend for his very detailed and careful explanation, which now that I understand the position I find wholly satisfactory.
Lord Hughes: It is not in any thirst for legal knowledge that I venture to intervene but just mild

351
curiosity. The discussion has been based on the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just referred back to Clause 5. The words used in that clause are,
"with the concurrence of the Treasury".
I understood that it was always desirable to use the same language. Is there a difference between those two expressions?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sums up this debate, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his very kind references to me, and ask him what difference it will make to any action of his, of any official of his department, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any Treasury official if those words are omitted?
The Lord Chancellor: The answer is that if the board sued the Lord Chancellor under the provisions of the first part of Clause 39(1)(a) he would have no defence that he did not have the approval of the Treasury, whereas if the board sued the Lord Chancellor under Clause 39(1)(b) for administrative expenses he would have a complete answer that the approval of the Treasury had been refused. In that case it would have to join the Treasury—the Minister responsible for the Treasury and his department—to the matter.
That is a very important distinction. It would make a great difference to me and also make some difference in the responsibility of the accounts officer—the Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am sure that he would need to be mighty careful that he did not agree to the payment of any sum under Clause 39(1)(b) for which he did not have Treasury approval, whereas under Clause 39(1)(a) he could agree to pay out, although the manner in which and the time at which the particular sum would be paid would be subject to the approval of the Treasury.
There is just one other point that I should mention. I tried to explain this matter as carefully as I could. It is a complicated subject and naturally I cannot encompass every possible detail. I have tried to take the broad headings. In the minor part of Clause 5(2), paragraph (d), there is the possibility of obtaining the concurrence of the Treasury as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says, in a determination for payments other than the principal payments to which I referred under subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c). Perhaps as a footnote I should add that for accuracy. I think that the distinction between "concurrence" and "approval" is rather a fine one. It may be more easy to get concurrence than approval.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My remarks are likely to get neither from the noble and learned Lord.
First of all perhaps I may make the point briefly that it is terribly untidy legislation when one has to try to get some meaning from clauses—to which the noble and learned Lord referred with his usual
352
lucidity. I was trying to find my way through the maze. The noble and learned Lord is quite correct. Clause 39(1)(a) deals with matters for which approval of the Treasury is not expressly stated as being necessary. The coverage of that discretion—a power which he has—is defined as:
"such sums as are required (after allowing for payments by the Board into its legal aid fund under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of section 5(3)) to meet the payments which, under subsection (2) of that section, are to be paid by the Board out of that fund"
The process of close analysis shows that obviously paragraph (e) is omitted from that definition, although the other paragraphs are covered. Therefore I immediately seek a definition of paragraph (e). On turning to page 5, having looked for clarity in regard to paragraph (e) because of the wording of Clause 39(1)(a), I find that Clause 5(3)(e) reads:
"the sums to be paid by the Lord Chancellor in pursuance of section 39(1)(a)".
I go backwards and forwards with the kind of mental agility which the Lord Chancellor always shows but with which some Members of the Committee, including my humble self, cannot keep pace. In those circumstances I make my first point to him. Before this Bill leaves the Committee it would help to tidy up the references back and forward with some of the clarity that he himself has shown this afternoon.
I now come to the main point of difference between the noble and learned Lord and myself as well as other Members of the Committee. He said that for moneys that are required for all purposes except administration, including the payment out to the solicitors, barristers and so on, the approval of the Treasury is not required under the Bill. However, when it comes to the administration expenses of the board, the approval of the Treasury is required and that would be common form; it is usual.
I have been at the receiving end of his criticism—and possibly rightly so—every time I have asked for a provision about consultation to be included in the Bill. I have been asked whether I expect the Lord Chancellor—whoever he may be at the time—not to do what it is obvious he should do; namely, to seek the counsel of others, be it the Law Society, the board or the Bar Council. Either it is absolutely common form and necessary to seek the approval of the Treasury for the administration of the board's expenses or it is not. If it is necessary and it is common form, why is it in the Bill? If it is not so, why is the Lord Chancellor saddled with the necessity of obtaining the approval in the Bill? I could just about swallow its inclusion if the noble and learned Lord were to say: "It is my department's practice to do this. We are setting up a new board and I feel that it ought to be in the Bill. It would not necessarily be incumbent upon me to seek that approval".
I come to the words that I have sought to have omitted from the Bill; namely, those contained in subsections (2)(a) and (b). Here he is called upon not in regard to the amount of the money required for the administration—and I repeat, not in regard to the amount required—but to have the approval of the Treasury before he can determine the manner in which and the times at which the sums referred to in

353
subsection (1)(a) shall be paid to the board. He does not therefore have a complete discretion over subsection (1)(a)—the payment to the lawyers and the other matter—but he has to obtain the approval of the board to determine the manner in which the money has to be paid and the periods in which it has to be paid. He cannot impose conditions even on the payments of the sum referred to in subsection (1)(b).
We have a little definition of the kinds of conditions he has in mind. He cannot even do that without the approval of the Treasury. That cannot be common form. That cannot be usual and I do not see why those words are in the Bill.
I tried to unfetter the Lord Chancellor and his department from the manacles that are being put upon him, quite unnecessarily in my view. What frightens me are the examples that I tried to give the noble and learned Lord of the shortages that have appeared in the past with regard to the Law Society and the Bar Council—against whose efficiency no complaint of which I am aware has ever been made, certainly not by the Lord Chancellor—and the conditions under which they had to function. They found huge delays occurring not as a result of inefficiency but through lack of funds or the way in which they were handed out.
It is for those reasons that I shall press the amendment to which we next come. However, I promise faithfully not to address Members of the Committee upon it because I have spoken upon it in this debate.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 58A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 58B:
Page 31, line 8, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: The same applies to Amendment No. 58B.
[Amendment No. 58B not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 58C:
Page 31, leave out lines 11 to 13.
The noble Lord said: I intend to ask for the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 58C. I promised not to make a further speech and I shall keep my promise.
The Lord Chancellor: I wish to reply because I have not dealt with this. I understand the request now is that the whole of this provision in Clause 39(2)(b) be left out. I have sought to give an example; I can give another.
If it was considered that the total number of applications for legal aid might exceed a certain number, it might be very reasonable to provide additional money as a contingency in case that happened. If that happened, the additional money would be forthcoming. In keeping control of taxpayers' money there is much to be said for not handing it out if it is unnecessary.
If, for example, there were some relationship—I am not suggesting that there would be a close one but
354
there might well be a relationship—between the amount one requires for administration and the amount of business one has to handle, and if, for example, by a certain time in the year the number of legal aid applications that the legal aid board had received exceeded a certain amount, it might be right that additional money should be released for the administration—to increase the staff or something of that kind. Therefore to have a contingency fund of that kind might be a highly desirable feature of the administration.
If one does not have such a provision as this, there is at least a risk that one cannot do that. One has either to vote a whole sum or none at all. That would remove an entirely desirable administrative technique from this Bill. Why on earth should Members of the Committee wish to do that, I ask respectfully and rhetorically?
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may add a word on this. As a result of the withdrawal of the earlier amendments we have in the Bill the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury".
But if they are to remain as being desirable there seems to be no possible objection to keeping in subsection (2)(b). It is a perfectly good administrative provision to insert and to keep in the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I can immediately tell the Committee that I am in error. I come before the Committee with an apology, but I realise that I cannot put myself right. What I meant to do was to go ahead with obtaining the Committee's view on Amendment No. 58B that the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury",
be omitted at page 31, line 8. On our side we withdrew the amendment. I cannot put that right now. I shall have to come back to the matter at Report stage.
There would be no point in my putting to the Committee Amendment No. 58C when the pith of such remarks as I made, and the whole basis of them, was that I wanted the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury".
omitted. I apologise. It is not the first time that I have erred; and it will not be the last. However, I must try to put myself right at Report stage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My noble friend takes too much upon himself. The error was mine. I am sorry. We shall have to put the matter right at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Definitions]:
On Question, whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Airedale: Clause 40 is a definition clause. It says among other things that,
"'the Board' has the meaning assigned to it by section 2(1)".
Clause 2 says that the board shall be known as the Legal Aid Board. Therefore why does not Clause 40 say that "the Board" means the Legal Aid Board?

355
That is shorter than saying that "the Board" has the meaning assigned to it by Section 2(1) and it saves the reader from having to turn back 30 pages to find the answer.
The Lord Chancellor: The only difficulty is that in Clause (2)(1) in the brackets it says,
"(in this Act referred to as 'the Board')".
Therefore one would be in breach of that provision if one were to follow the noble Lord's suggestion. But we shall be happy to consider any improvement. I shall ask the parliamentary draftsmen to consider it.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: May I ask my noble and learned friend whether he is able to give any indication as to his intentions with regard to bringing into force various Parts of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: I am certainly anxious to bring into force as soon as possible the part which gives to the Legal Aid Board the responsibility for the administration of civil legal aid. I think that is as far as I can go at the moment. As I indicated at Second Reading, I hope that we shall be able to establish the board as a shadow board before it has formal statutory responsibility. Progress thereafter will depend upon consultations with the members of the board once it is established. Experience has taught one over the years that when one is making a major change it may be wise not to go too fast but to consult fairly widely in the course of making these arrangements. That is as far as I am able to go at the moment.
Lord Renton: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Civil Proceedings: scope of Part IV representation]:
[Amendments Nos. 58D to 58F not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 36, line 24, at end insert—
("(8) Proceedings before a Coroners Court.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment let me declare my interest as a barrister remunerated in part under the legal aid fund. This is an important amendment which seeks to allow for legal aid to be granted so that the properly interested parties who appear before a coroner's inquest may be represented by a lawyer remunerated under the legal aid scheme if they do not have sufficient means.
I should like to introduce the amendment by drawing attention to the great value of the inquest
356
procedure in our jurisdiction. When there is a sudden and unexplained death or a death under unusual or suspicious circumstances, it is very right and proper that there should be a public examination before a judicial officer (sitting in certain cases with a jury) in a hearing in which those who are properly interested may take part. The properly interested parties include particularly parties who may be held responsible for the fatality, and the next of kin of the person who has died.
Inquests are taken very very seriously by interested parties. When, for instance, there is a death in a factory it is common for the owner of the factory to be represented in order to protect his interests. When there is a death in unexplained circumstances in a police station, similarly the police are represented so that their position can be made known.
The next of kin in such cases are placed in a terrible position. They are in the first place the bereaved; they have suffered the death of a loved one. They are desperate to know why that death has happened. They want to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the law to appear and have any party who may be responsible for the death questioned. But if they have no means, then legal aid is not available to pay for their legal representatives. They have either to rely on the goodwill of a lawyer appearing without a fee—and there are many members of the Bar and solicitors who have appeared without a fee particularly in cases of controversy. Alternatively they go unrepresented in which case the facts of the death cannot be properly inquired into. Having appeared at inquests, I can tell the Committee that the presence of a lawyer to ask the right questions of the right witnesses is essential for justice to be properly done in a coroner's inquest.
I remember a terrible series of fatalities which took place about seven years ago when a fire swept through Clanricarde Gardens, a tenement block in West London, and killed a number of the tenants. At the inquest the landlord was represented by a distinguished lawyer who called expert witnesses to try to prove that the fire was caused by arson by one of the tenants. The next of kin disputed that suggestion and believed that the fire was the responsibility of the landlord. A number of questions were asked by the lawyers who appeared; questions that could only asked by lawyers. A substantial amount of information was gathered and in the end justice could be done and seen to be done.
There are many other cases where proper inquiries have satisfied the next of kin either that there was no blame attached to someone who might be under suspicion—and that is equally important—or that there was some further cause for inquiry if necessary by civil action.
There are not so many inquests that the inclusion of this provision would add enormously to the expenditure of the Legal Aid Board. By passing the amendment the Committee could ensure that justice was done to a number of bereaved people in times of great difficulty by allowing for their lawyers to use this valuable inquest procedure to question the circumstances and the causes of the death of someone they loved. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I should like to support the amendment. Those of us who have had experience in coroners courts are well aware of the importance of next of kin and families being represented. In my experience the powers of coroners to intervene seem to have been far more powerfully exercised than I would have expected—I fear to the disadvantage of next of kin and families. However, that may have been one experience in particular circumstances.
Generally speaking the proceedings in coroners' courts arc of immense importance to next of kin and families. The kind of verdicts that will be arrived at are important, for instance, to the reputation of the deceased. They are important particularly to dependants—to families. Life insurance does not cover the contingency of suicide. It is of very great importance to families to be able to establish a proposition to displace the allegation and fear of suicide. I do not like mentioning specific cases in which I myself was involved, but it is of great importance in my submission that families and next of kin of small or moderate means should have the right to legal aid.
It is significant that the 35th annual report of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee suggested extending representation to proceedings before coroners. That committee has high authority, independence and monitoring capacity. The noble and learned Lord wishes to continue to have the services of the Committee. Its judgment is of very great importance, and I venture to think it will have weight upon him. I urge this from my own personal experience. In some cases it would have been of very great importance to have this available, and I hope accordingly that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I should like to support the amendment. I am a layman in this matter, but in my medical practice I have known many occasions when bereaved persons have been very unhappy about coroners' inquests. On all those occasions I had formed the impression that if they had been able to provide themselves with legal representatives, they would have been less unhappy and I should have seen less of them. Therefore I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to bear that in mind in deciding whether to accept the amendment. Many people do not understand what has taken place and it has not been properly explained to them. They emerge unhappy about the situation but had they had a good lawyer looking after their interests they would not have felt that way. I should like that point to be borne in mind.
Lord Denning: It is many years since I appeared in a coroner's court. It was a case involving a man who had been killed on a railway line and I was instructed by the railway company. The relatives of the man appeared in person and they succeeded in obtaining a verdict in their favour against me as a lawyer.
I believe it to be unnecessary to have legal aid in all such cases. It may be helpful in some cases but one will find that the relatives or those concerned are helped by a lawyer who probably takes no fee. In the great majority of cases there is no need for a lawyer.
358
This is not a case for legal aid but it is one for the relatives and their friends to obtain legal representation, if they wish, at their own cost.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to add a comment in support of the amendment. There are many tribunals where the person who presides has such legal experience that, to some extent, he is able to compensate for the fact that one of the parties is not legally represented. That does not necessarily arise in coroners' courts because the coroner is often a person of limited legal experience, although he may have substantial medical experience. It would assist the fairness of proceedings in that particular tribunal if there was legal representation of both sides.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to add one observation to what fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and which, if I may say so, fell on an icy and stony floor. I should like to put a question to the Committee: I wonder whether any Member of the Committee will reply if what the noble and learned Lord has said is correct. I know of no case involving an accident in which an insurance company has thought that it might be at liability where the insurance company has relied on any official or lay representative to represent it at an inquest. Without exception, it properly thinks it necessary to instruct solicitors and counsel. Why put the family of someone who has been killed in an accident at a disadvantage when they fall within the limits of the legal aid financial provisions?
The Lord Chancellor: I sympathise with the spirit of this amendment. Very trying circumstances may prevail when families are involved in proceedings before a coroner's court. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has pointed out, the coroner is not necessarily legally qualified. I think that that suggests the nature of the tribunal in question; it is intended to be relatively informal from a legal point of view. The coroner has the responsibility of inquiring into the matters.
From his experience, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has indicated to the Committee that families may leave feeling very unhappy, but that if they had had a good lawyer they would have better understood the situation and that would have been an improvement. I should like to say at once that I well understand that point and welcome his intervention. I should not like it to be thought that this Bill was one for intervention by lawyers alone. From my point of view, our deliberations profit from the intervention of Members of the Committee other than lawyers.
The difficulty is that all those matters are matters of priority in regard to the funds available. So far as I have been able to judge—and this is not a judgment made for the first time by me—the coroner's court is not at the top of the list of priorities for the introduction of legal aid. I sympathise with the situation of relatives in a position such as this. However, at the moment I do not feel that legal aid for all coroners' courts is a proper answer, or that it would be the highest priority in extending the present scheme. Therefore, while I have sympathy with the spirit that lies behind the amendment, and with the

359
concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in moving it, I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.
The scope of legal aid is a matter to be kept constantly under review. If efficiency produces a sufficient amount of savings, who knows what money might be available? However, in the present situation, and with the priorities that I have so far seen, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Gifford: I regret that I find the noble and learned Lord's answer to be very unsatisfactory. I must first point out to him that the coroner's court is not an informal court. There are many coroners who conduct the proceedings with humanity and with a sense of concern for the grief of the next of kin, but when controversial facts are being examined the proceedings are far from informal. The representatives of those who might be at fault—and my noble friend Lord Mishcon has given as an example the insurance companies—question the witnesses at great length in order to bring out every possible fact which would support the lack of negligence or the innocence of their client. The next of kin have the right to, and do, cross-examine at length when they are legally represented, and it is necessary that they should do so. Members of the Committee should be under no illusion that a person without a lawyer is at a great disadvantage.
It is then said that this is not a matter of high priority; that justice for those who have been bereaved, in the shape of the right to ask legitimate questions as to why their relative has died, is not a high priority. The legal aid scheme applies in civil cases across the board in the High Court and in the county court. That is subject to the proviso which would apply overall—that it is reasonable for a legal aid certificate to be granted. That proviso would also apply to these cases. Therefore, to say that this kind of case is somehow less worthy than the generality of civil claims will not, in my submission, be tenable.
The situation is so unsatisfactory, and so little has been said to indicate that there is any chance that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will change his mind and reconsider, that I wish to divide the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Attlee, E.

Gifford, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Grimond, L.

Caradon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ennals, L.

Hughes, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Hunt, L.

Fitt, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

360

Jeger, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Simon, V.

Longford, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milford, L.

Underhill, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Molloy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Phillips, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Winterbottom, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Aldington, L.

Joseph, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kitchener, E.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Bauer, L.

Lothian, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway. L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe. L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denning, L.

Rodney, L.

Dormer, L.

St. Davids, V.

Dulverton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Sandford, L.

Elibank, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Elton, L.

Somers, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sudeley, L.

Ferrier, L.

Suffield, L.

Fortescue, E.

Teynham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Haig, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Westbury, L.

Havers, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Young, B.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 36, line 24, at end insert—
(". Proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners.
. Proceedings in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
. Proceedings in the Vaccine Damage Tribunal.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment arises from the provisions in that part of the Bill dealing with civil proceedings. It sets out in Part I of Schedule 2, headed "Description of Proceedings", the various proceedings that are covered by legal aid. This amendment proposes to add to that list, which includes seven diverse proceedings, three others: proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners, proceedings in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and proceedings in the Vaccine Damage Tribunal.
Our submission is that each of those proceedings is of very great importance to the parties which appear before them—often parties with small or moderate means and the very type that ought to be protected by legal aid—and that legal aid should also be made available to them. It is significant that again I call in aid the wisdom and experience of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, which recommended that legal aid should be granted to the immigration appellate authorities for applications to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the Social Security Commissioners and the Vaccine Damage Tribunal. That was done in the 35th annual report of the advisory committee. We have that authority and support for these recommendations.
The first category of proceedings before the Social Security Commissioners, which is a court of resort to those who have been refused the vital Plimsoll line of defence of a social security benefit, concerns proceedings of very great importance to a large section of our community dependent upon the help of social security for survival and continuity. It is in our submission a category of proceedings where those unable to afford the funds for legal representation should be represented. Very often issues of considerable legal complexity arise in regard to the interpretation of the various provisions for social security; provisions which go beyond the resources and capacity of unrepresented citizens to present to the commissioners. That is the first of the three categories.
Immigration Appeal Tribunals are vital and sometimes nearly of life and death significance for those who fear being sent back to the place from whence they came and who want to place before the tribunal the facts upon which they seek to justify their stay in this country. Again, this is a very important aspect of our law. It has been said more than once that our justice can be tested by the way in which we treat foreigners who come to this country, particularly those who have escaped persecution and poverty to come to the shelter of these shores. Very often they find the final resort of the appeal tribunal of great significance in their lives. There again we think that this is an appropriate tribunal.
Then there is the sadder category—I shall not say the saddest—of the dependants and families of those grievously injured by vaccine damage or who have
362
lost their lives because of vaccine damage. It is a touching and sad section of our community; they are of inadequate means to present their cases and a grave injustice may be done to people in this category who, more than anyone, need legal aid. In those circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord, not only out of a sense of compassion but also of justice, will see that legal aid is available in all three categories. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I suggest that the Committee should not accept this amendment. I have not appeared before those bodies individually, but in the Court of Appeal we heard many cases which had been before the Social Security Commissioners and before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
I first deal with social security. As a rule, the amounts involved are small to the general population; a few pounds or a few shillings a week, or whatever it may be. First, they are dealt with by the insurance bodies themselves. There is then an appeal from that and then to the Social Security Commissioners. The number of regulations that have to be interpreted is enormous and difficult. There is a whole body of case law on the proper interpretation of these regulations brought Out by the Ministry in large volumes. The Security Commissioners know the regulations backwards and far better than any lawyer who appears before them. The Commissioners deal with most of them on paper and they decide the cases themselves. If there is a case which needs argument, I am sure it can be well dealt with by the Security Commissioners themselves. There is no need to encumber our system with the right to legal representation and legal aid at the expense of the taxpayer in regard to those bodies.
The Immigration Appeal Tribunal falls within the same category. The cases are all dealt with by adjudicators very carefully and sympathetically. The appellants go on from there to appeal and eventually, if needs be, to an Immigration Appeals Tribunal. That Tribunal is expert and knows all the law and the considerations about it. It always gives written decisions and having seen its work I believe that in none of these cases is it necessary to give legal aid as of right. The members of the tribunals know the law perfectly well and probably better than any of the lawyers who would appear before them.
I do not know much about the Vaccine Damage Tribunal, which is rather new. It should not be made the subject of legal aid, as of right, at the present day. I am not in favour of the amendment.
Lord Wigoder: I support the amendment, and I do so with a modest knowledge of the topic. I served for some six years on the Council on Tribunals which not only had to examine the workings of all the tribunals, but individual members spent a great deal of time visiting individual tribunals of all kinds in all parts of the country. One saw a great many of the proceedings that we are now discussing.
I should like to say that when the tribunal system was first set up it was hoped that to a large extent it would be an informal procedure. It was inevitable—and it has in fact happened—that formality has taken over in regard to some of the major tribunals. That is

363
certainly the case regarding the three categories in the amendment.
They are all matters of considerable importance. Appeals (not the first hearings) can be substantial matters, measured not in terms of a few pounds, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. A few pounds can mean quite a great deal to a poor person even it it does not mean all that much to some of the Members of the Committee.
The proceedings at the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and the Vaccine Damage Tribunal need no elaboration as to their importance to the individuals involved. In all those three categories of cases not only is there now very considerable formality before those tribunals, but there has also developed a substantial body of case law in relation to each of them. It is case law which is not accessible or easily available. It requires a skilled lawyer to discover what are the authorities to be referred to in cases which are heard before those three tribunals.
I know that the noble and learned Lord will express his sympathy with the principle. It has been done by governments for many years now by extending legal aid to a further number of tribunals. No doubt the point will be made that it is a matter of expense, when the funds are available, and so on. That argument is getting a little thin as we approach a budget in which it appears that the funds of the Government are more readily available than they have been over the past 10 or 15 years. Therefore, one hopes that one will not hear too much about the privations which the Treasury has to suffer which makes it impossible to do what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would, in his heart, wish to do. It will be of interest if the noble and learned Lord can tell us, when it is possible to extend legal aid to the tribunals, which tribunals are going to have priority. The noble and learned Lord indicated in relation to coroners' courts that, to use his words:
"Coroners' courts are not at the top of the list".
May I venture to ask what is at the top of the list?
I ask that in all innocence. I am reminded of Jack Benny, I think it was, the American comedian, who used to claim that he had been voted the second most popular comedian in the world. When he was asked, "Well, who is the most popular?" he said, "Well, all the other ones tied first equal". I rather suspect that we are going to be in the position today where these tribunals and the coroners' courts all come second equal. but there is no first candidate to which we could at least leave this amendment knowing that when funds are available legal aid would be extended.
Lord Renton: I feel strongly that there should not be the right of legal aid for proceedings in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. If that were granted the pressure on the Legal Aid Board would become tremendous because there is a great demand for people from various overseas countries to enter our overcrowded country. Although in many of the cases the board would not consider it right to issue a certificate, nevertheless the pressures would be enormous. I therefore feel that we should certainly not grant legal aid in such circumstances. I have an open mind on the other two matters, and I should be
364
interested to hear what my noble and learned friend has to say.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: When decisions were taken many years ago to take certain cases out of the courts and send them to various forms of extra-court tribunal, the ideal was some informal sort of proceedings in which ordinary people, non-lawyers, could go along to take part. It is still surely the ideal that that should happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said—and he speaks with the authority of his experience on the Council on Tribunals—a degree of formality that may not have been intended by those who originally set up these tribunals has crept in.
It may be that that development has to some extent been contributed to by the nature of the representation available in some of these tribunals, but on the other hand sometimes these expectations of simplicity are disappointed by the complexity of the circumstances to which the very simple law that the Committee enacts has to be applied. Anyway, I accept of course that matters are more difficult than those who set up these tribunals originally anticipated—and I am now thinking generally and not of these particular ones—and have developed in a way that perhaps is not in accord with what they wanted.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was faced with this problem some time ago, and instead of just concentrating on legal aid there has been set up a research project in relation to tribunals in order to examine the effectiveness of representation, both legal and non-legal, for parties before tribunal hearings as compared with other forms of tribunal assistance; for example, to the judges, the people who actually operate the tribunals. It may well be that it is help to them that would be most useful; not, I think, in relation to the tribunals that we are particularly speaking about in this amendment.
This research project is studying four tribunals: the immigration tribunals; industrial tribunals; mental health tribunals; and social security tribunals. That is the Social Security Appeal Tribunal, not the commissioners. The commissioners are the very top layer of the statutory authorities in social security, and this is the tribunal referred to as No. 1 on this list.
I well understand that there is a desire to extend some form of representation or help in these tribunals. If I had at this very moment to assign a No. 1, I would not be very far from the first one mentioned in this amendment. I must be quite frank about that. But of course I am speaking as a result of what I have heard over a fairly short time, and I have no doubt that representatives from some other tribunals might have a strong case to put which I have not yet had the opportunity of hearing. But in all frankness, since the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked about it, I personally feel that the Social Security Commissioners is a tribunal which would have high priority in having some form of legal representation before it.
Even if Members of the Committee thought that that was a desirable objective and should happen

365
now, there is an important question as to the manner in which help should be given. This amendment makes it by way of legal aid; that is to say, a statutory entitlement to legal aid with a means test and all the rest of it. There may well be other methods of assistance which would be more appropriate in this kind of matter. For example, in relation to the immigration work the Home Office has, under the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, funded in part—90 per cent.—a statutory body which does assist.
There are other possibilities in relation to, for example, the Social Security Commissioners. It might well be that if it was wise to extend some form of help there, it should be under Part III of the Bill rather than under Part IV with its full means test and the like. There is of course also the possibility of the Part II powers of the Bill. Therefore, even if the principle was correct that some form of help should be decided upon, I would not suggest to the Committee that this amendment necessarily would be the right way to go about it.
The submission that I would put to the Committee is that this is a matter to be kept under review once the structure of legal aid is determined. When I say "legal aid" in that context, I mean the whole subject matter of this Bill. Reviews have taken place from time to time, and extensions as a result of them. For example, in 1982 legal aid was extended to the mental health review tribunals, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has the credit for that. He was the Lord Chancellor at that time. I can assure the Committee that this is a matter in which I am deeply interested, and Members of the Committee can take it that I would be very interested in reviewing the position in the light of what comes out of the research project.
The research project started work in April 1987 and is expected to report in March 1989. It might well be that the situation could be reviewed very fully in the light of that with the board in position. At the present moment, in my submission, apart from the general point that I made, it would be quite unwise to pass this amendment because it would make the representation in the form of fully means-tested legal aid under Part IV.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord has indicated that there is an area of need here that needs filling. He is not disposed at this stage at any rate to say that legal aid is the answer. I feel sufficiently encouraged by what has been said, but sufficiently impressed with the urgency now—not waiting for two years or one year—to give the kind of assistance that legal aid could give in these categories. In the circumstances, and with the knowledge that there is still a Report stage, I ask leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 59B:
Page 36, line 24, at end insert—
(". Arbitration proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment will commend itself to the noble and learned Lord for
366
two reasons; first, it is just in the light of what is happening now in our country; and secondly, in my view, and in the view of those who know much more about these matters than I do, it would be an economy for the legal aid fund.
As regards what is happening now generally, there are many arbitration agreements which the Committee may feel belong to the field of high commerce and international business. Equally, in this day and age, there are many arbitration clauses in agreements involving "little" people. In consumer agreements people may be at a great disadvantage when they find that the arbitration clause is binding whereas had there been a court case they would have been granted legal aid. The Consumers' Association is anxious that the amendment should succeed.
There is another class of case about which Members of the Committee may have received some literature. The chairman of the Official Referees' Bar Association has been sending out a memorandum advocating what I am now about to say. The chairman, Mr. Butcher, who is one of our leading counsel and is a well known official referee member of the Bar, will obviously impress the Committee. He draws attention to the fact that many householders—and they can be "little" people —find themselves in great difficulty as a result of building contracts where there is an arbitration clause. Quite recently one felt that this was no longer a great worry because of a case, Fakes v. Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited, in 1973 which went before the Court of Appeal. In that case the decision was made that legal proceedings in a construction dispute would not be stayed for arbitration where the plaintiff was impecunious because legal aid was not available for arbitration. That was the voice of justice and mercy which is so continually a mixture in our courts. The plaintiff was allowed to continue with a case in spite of the arbitration clause, and the proceedings in our courts were not stayed.
Unfortunately, and as a result of a recent decision, that is no longer the position in the majority of such building cases. In the case of Crouch v. Northern Regional Health Authority in 1984 it was decided that any dispute which involved the opening-up of an architect's certificate or any similar certificate must be arbitrated since the courts do not have the jurisdiction to open up such a certificate. As in most of the building cases the question of the architect's certificate is very much a consideration; it means that here again the person who is bound by the arbitration clause suffers a great handicap.
I said that this would effect an economy. In my humble submission, that would really be the case. As a rule arbitrations are very much less expensive than litigation in our courts. By adopting this proposal we would save court fees and we would reduce the heavy pressure that now exists upon court officials throughout the land. It would encourage people to adopt this cheaper form of justice which is just as efficient, and it would enable matters to be concluded—matters which affect "little" people in a large way—through the process of arbitration. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I seem to be against all these amendments. Arbitration is a consensual matter between the two parties to the contract or whatever it may be. The contract provides for what is to happen—whether the architect's certificate is to be final, what will happen if there is an arbitration, who will hold it and so forth. It is a consensual process in which the state is not involved.
In the City of London commercial arbitrations are very important and they may be expensive. Of course there may be cases involving house building and so on with an arbitration put into the printed form. It is a consensual matter and the state should not be involved. There should not be any right to legal aid before it because parties have provided for their own tribunal by agreement. Let them therefore provide for their own representation before it. I am against the state granting legal aid in these matters.
Lord Broxbourne: I am sorry to differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to whom I, in common with most noble Lords, always listen with great respect. But I rise to support the amendment so eloquently and persuasively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I hope that I do not observe a twinge of pain or apprehension across his features when I make that announcement. Perhaps he is trying to recall the words of Virgil:
"Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis".
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his gracious remarks. That quotation was in my mind as he was uttering it.
Lord Broxbourne: It is a far cry from the days when the noble Lord used to honour me occasionally with his instructions in a professional capacity.
I preface my brief reasons for supporting the amendment with this preliminary observation. I have no pecuniary interest to declare in the sense that comes within the practice of the House in regard to declaration of interest. I have certain interests of a more general character which perhaps I ought to confess to the Committee, if that is the mot juste, so that it can discount any natural partiality I may have in favour of the subject matter of the amendment.
Though I am no longer in practice at the Bar I am a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, an Associate of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a Vice-President of the National House Building Council, which the Committee may know exists to prescribe and enforce good standards of building construction and, to heap Pelion on Ossa, I am concerned with that publication now known as Walker-Smith on the Standard Forms of Building Contract. I do not suppose that many Members of the Committee are much concerned with that esoteric if unexciting publication. It went through several decades under the blameless title of The Annotation of the Standard Forms of Building Contract. My kind publishers have now renamed it, though I tease them by saying that I notice that they waited until I changed my name before they gave it that name.
The reasons for my support are very similar to those so well expounded by the noble Lord. I too
368
received this memorandum from Mr. Anthony Butcher, QC, an erstwhile formidable forensic opponent, still and always a valued friend. He writes in his capacity as chairman of the Official Referees' Bar Association. I do not think it existed in my day but I have no doubt that it does very valuable work.
I adopt the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, particularly in regard to these building disputes which normally do not occur to people in the context of legal aid, because in the normal building dispute both parties—builders and building owners—are people of substantial means. But of late of course there has come this new category, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred, of the householder who has a construction dispute in regard to his dwelling house.
He may very often be eligible, or would be eligible, for legal aid but he is debarred by this paradoxical situation. He could get legal aid if he brought his case before the Official Referee's court. Unless this amendment is accepted, he cannot get legal aid, if he goes to arbitration. That is clearly a paradoxical situation, that he should be compelled by reason of the decision in the Crouch case to have recourse to a forum which denies him legal aid. The reason, as given in the Crouch case, is because of the inability of the courts to review an architect's certificate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that this was to be found in some contracts. It is virtually found in all. The standard forms of building contracts include this provision. It is in Article 5 of the main standard form, which gives an architect the right to issue the certificate, makes that certificate binding, but gives to the arbitrator—and, again, arbitration is compulsory under the standard forms—the right to review and revise the architect's certificate. So the arbitrator can do what is essential and the courts cannot. That was the ratio decidendi of Crouch's case, and it is of course a decisive element in favour of the adoption of this amendment so that that paradox can be removed.
So may I respectfully urge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor not to seek to deploy his great powers of advocacy in defending this paradoxical position? It can be removed only by the adoption of this amendment. Therefore I hope that, even if he does not say immediately that he is going to accept it, he will at least undertake sympathetically to review it with a view to introducing such a provision on the Report stage.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I would just say this in support of what fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. I do not in the least want to stop my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench from reviewing the situation. But if he grants this amendment now, I believe it will be a millstone around his neck because of the immense cost of it. It will take priority, for instance, over the very things which the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite was advocating in the last amendment.
Secondly, as regards what was said by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, the argument contained in the circular and the argument advanced by my noble

369
friend Lord Broxbourne is self-defeating. The reasons why the courts decline to reopen an architect's certificate is precisely because the architect's certificate is the certificate of an experienced, professional man, accepted by both parties, and the reason why the arbitrator—if there is an arbitration—is allowed to look at it when the courts will not, is precisely because the arbitrator knows, without being advised by solicitors and counsel on both sides after prolonged legal argument, whether or not the architect's certificate ought to be reopened. One of the types of arbitration—it is not the only type—where parties agree to arbitration is precisely to avoid the prolixity of legal proceedings conducted according to legal procedure.
The Lord Chancellor: I heed my noble friend's admonition, which I take to be an admonition to be rather brief on this amendment, and I adopt what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. So far as concerns Crouch's case, as I understand it the reason why the architect's certificate cannot be altered except by the arbitrator is because the contract so provides. If one has entered into a contract that one will be bound by the certificate of an architect nominated by the person, it seems at least not to be the strongest possible case for legal aid.
In the ordinary case, Fakes' decision would apply and if the interests of justice require it the court would allow proceedings in court to proceed, notwithstanding an arbitration clause, as I understand the law of this country. So this is a very special point.
The noble Lord says that arbitration is inexpensive, quick, and so on. That has been claimed for it more than once. I am not sure whether it is always entirely justified; but it may be almost as good a claim as claiming that legal aid should be available in arbitration. In my submission, if there is a list of priorities for extension of legal aid, arbitration is certainly nowhere near the top of that list. I would strongly submit that this amendment should not be agreed to.
Lord Mishcon: My reply equally will be brief. I refer the noble and learned Lord to the decision in Crouch, and to the remarks of the Master of the Rolls. He said that one of the reasons for that decision was to reduce the length of the list of the official referees who habitually deal with construction disputes, and that rather negatives much that has been said in this debate. In the circumstances, I should very much like to consider with care what has been said, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for whose remarks I was infinitely grateful. I am talking about the remarks in support of the amendment at this stage. In the circumstances, and having regard to the state of the clock at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 36, line 27, leave out paragraph (1).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove from the excepted proceedings in Part II of Schedule 2 proceedings which are in respect of defamation. All the other excepted proceedings seem to have some logical reason why they should be there; but, in my mind, this one has not. The law lays great stress on the protection of a person's reputation. The British people appear also to lay great stress on the protection of a person's reputation because the damages awarded by juries who have to try to quantify in monetary terms the damage caused by a slander or a libel are very high in many cases.
The reason why they place such stress on a person's reputation is the same reason as was given by Cassio to Iago in Shakespeare's Othello when he said:
"O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!"
I have never understood why it is that only the wealthy can get access to justice when it is a question of their reputation. Certainly the reputations of the poor should be regarded with no less weight than the reputations of the wealthy. I have from time to time had to advise that although someone has an arguable case against a great newspaper to take libel proceedings, the cost and the risks in undertaking those proceedings are so great that the client really cannot afford to proceed. In many cases, the newspapers know that and with their unlimited resources take advantage of the poverty of a potential plaintiff who accuses them of libel. It would be a valuable addition to our legal aid law. I beg leave to move.
Lord Denning: This matter has been discussed on many occasions in this place. It has been before the Law Commission, Mr. Justice Hirst's Committee, and the like. The argument put forward is that a poor person should be able to bring an action for defamation on legal aid. The answer is that if it were allowed no end of people who had been perhaps defamed—rightly or wrongly—would put the newspapers to great expense. Many cases would take up the time of the courts indefinitely and at great expense. It is much better to leave out defamation from the legal aid system.
Lord Renton: It is a good principle of legislation that bottomless pits should be avoided.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord who moved the amendment knows, it has never been law for defamation actions to be included in civil legal aid. The people who set up the scheme were no doubt wise and they did so for wise reasons. As the noble Lord said, it is uniquely difficult to forecast the outcome of defamation proceedings, and that makes it especially difficult to apply the "merits" test normally applied to such proceedings.
Advice not to take an action for defamation is often the appropriate advice to give to someone who is wealthy and apparently has a good case. I have given such advice myself and the persons involved have come, although perhaps not immediately, to see that it was wise advice. Whatever the merits of the

371
argument for the provision, it could not by any means be of high priority. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, it is likely to be an expensive item. I would rather extend legal aid, or some form of assistance, to the social security commissioners' proceedings than to actions for defamation. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gifford: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord's last observation is an offer in disguise. But, in the hope that it might be, and that we might in the end receive some extension to the legal aid scheme in the interests of the very poorest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 39, line 42, at end insert—
("PART I
Direct payment of fees and outlays by legally assisted person
1. In section 4(2)(a) (payments out of the Scottish Legal Aid Fund), after the word "due" there shall be inserted the words "out of the Fund".
2. In section 17 (contributions. etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "the Fund" there shall be substituted the words "the expenses incurred by them (or on their behalf)";

(b) subsections (3) to (8) are repealed;

(c) at the end there shall be added the following subsections—

"(9) Except insofar as regulations made under this section otherwise provide—

(a) any award of expenses to a legally assisted person; and

(b) any property (wherever situated) recovered or preserved for him in the proceedings for which he is legally assisted shall be paid initially to the Fund, to be applied towards the expenses incurred by or on behalf of the legally assisted person in those proceedings.

(10) Where the solicitor acting for a legally assisted person is employed by the Board for the purposes of Part V of this Act, references in subsection (1) above to "expenses" and in section 33 of this Act to "fees and outlays" include references to sums which would have been payable to that solicitor had he not been so employed.
(11) Nothing in subsection (9) above shall prejudice the power of the court to allow any damages or expenses to be set off.".
3. In section 32(a) (restriction on payment etc.), the words ", out of the Fund" are repealed.
4. In section 33 (fees and outlays of solicitors and counsel) in subsection (1), for the words from "out" to the end there shall be substituted the words—
"in respect of any fees or outlays properly incurred by him in so acting—

(a) by the legally assisted person, to the extent to which a contribution has been determined for him under section 17 of this Act;

(b) to the extent that such fees and outlays exceed any such contribution out of the Fund in accordance with section 4(2)(a) of this Act.".

PART II")
The noble Earl said: Schedule 4 amends the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. The amendment will alter the arrangements for the collection of contributions
372
from assisted persons in civil cases, so that payment will become a matter for settlement between solicitor and client. This change will reduce the administrative costs for the Scottish Legal Aid Board and place the assisted person in the same position as a private client in relation to the contribution.
The amendment will not be commenced until consultations have taken place with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland as to timing and any related regulations. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to make one observation, not on what the amendment does but on the way it does it. If one looks at Clause 41 one sees the words "this Act". In subsection (10) of the amendment at line 3, one sees the words "this Act". Here is one Bill using the words "this Act" and referring to two different Acts. That is probably wrong. I see no reason why the amendment should not specify the Act to which it refers.
I shall add one further point. The amendment is amending a different Act. It should be done by the textual method, which is generally accepted, instead of in this rather scraggy way, which will not make it easy to understand. I should like the noble Earl to think about that point to sec whether it can be corrected. I am sure that in this Bill to refer to "this Act" when it has two different meanings is wrong and careless. I suggest to the noble Earl that he take the amendment back and look at it more carefully.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution about the drafting, I will take it back, look at it, and without commitment, possibly bring it back on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I wish to declare my interest as the chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board which is the elected representative body for greyhound racing that operates under the rules of racing of the National Greyhound Racing Club.
This is the third time in eight years that I have asked for the indulgence of the House to agree to measures which seek to amend the statutory straitjacket in which the sport of greyhound racing was placed in 1933 and 1934. I am pleased to say that on two previous occasions in 1980 and 1985, the Private Members' Bills which I submitted to the House were eventually passed and made law. Those Acts, principally the 1985 Act, removed the statutory ceiling on the number of days and races when greyhound racing could be held.
The House has heard much discussion in recent weeks of the problems that in another place can beset Private Members' Bills which have been approved by

373
this House. However, I hope that the Bill will be supported in both Houses.
The Bill seeks to amend one of the many remaining restrictions on greyhound racing; namely, the limitation to five times the normal public admission on the charges that can be made to on-course bookmakers at greyhound racecourses. Those charges are unrealistic and accepted as such by the bookmakers themselves who make voluntary payments to the racecourse managements to supplement the low statutory returns. Their total nationwide voluntary contributions to the tracks amount to approximately 55 times the price of normal public admissions. That is not over-generous. In fact the National Association of Bookmakers has already offered to make suggestions that bookmakers increase their voluntary contributions.
My Bill simply seeks to regularise this situation by increasing the statutory multiple to 70 times the cost of the admission. I mean that as an absolute maximum, thus dispensing with the necessity of having to place so much reliance on voluntary payments. It is true that horse racing has a similar restriction of five times the admission for on-course bookmakers; but of course that sport has the distinct advantage of having the support of an off-course betting levy given to them by the Government. Greyhound racing does not have that advantage so this Bill is solely related to greyhound racing and does not affect horse racing in any way. The authorities of horse racing have written to my board saying that they will not themselves seek a similar amendment to the 1963 Act.
Whenever a Totalisator is operated at a greyhound racecourse, that racecourse must by statute permit on-course bookmaking. Managements are under a statutory duty to provide convenient space and facilities where the bookmakers can operate. The ratio of betting at greyhound racecourses is approximately 75 per cent. to the bookmakers and 25 per cent. to the Totalisator. The permitted legal deduction by the Totalisator operator is limited by statute to 17½ per cent. So clearly the Totalisator cannot itself support the operation of greyhound tracks at 17½ per cent. of an ever decreasing proportion of the on-course betting turnover. Now contrast that position with the on-course bookmakers. They have only to obtain a bookmaking permit from the licensing justices and then they have no further degree of accountability whatsoever. They can make any deductions they wish for profit and any other arrangements. There is no method at all whereby either the licensing authority or the racecourse management can intervene.
The average admission charge for greyhound racecourses in Britain is about £2, resulting in an average maximum charge of £10 per bookmaker. For this small sum he can set up his stand at a greyhound track and use all the facilities to operate his business. In total, there are 90 tracks in this country. So the bookmaker is required to make no further payments whatsoever towards the operation or promotion of the sport.
As I have said, many bookmakers recognise that the present statutory charge is quite inadequate. Nearly all of them make voluntary payments to the
374
racecourse managements in addition to the statutory charge. It is estimated that the nationwide sum which accrues from these voluntary contributions is approximately £6·3 million per year. However, this is a very uncertain method by which to operate a business. These voluntary charges can be and are withdrawn without notice by bookmakers and indeed can be subject to legal challenge as being contrary to Section 18 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1963. It is considered that these voluntary payments are outside the ambit of this section, but of course challenges of this nature are a continuing worry for the racecourse concerned. Voluntary contributions also invite interference from bookmakers in the conduct of racing. Regrettably, there have been a number of such instances.
So in order to take a more realistic view of the present and future arrangements, this Bill provides for the adoption of a new multiple of 70 times the admission charge as maximum. Ideally, there is a strong case for saying that this section should be repealed entirely and that market forces should prevail which would take into consideration obviously the requirements that bookmakers have to be admitted whenever a Totalisator is operated.
However, our discussions with the Government have brought forth the view that the most acceptable form of amendment is to alter the multiple. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he would consider this point very seriously and perhaps discuss it further with his experts and advisers.
After all, the restrictions basically on greyhound racing in 1933 were there to protect the working-class man from gambling away his money instead of looking after his family. This was long before supermarkets, betting shops, do-it-yourself and the hundreds of new temptations to spend money which are put in the way of everybody today. In those days, betting on horses and dogs was the only way for the lower paid (or anybody for that matter) to gamble at all.
So I have endeavoured to sketch out the present situation concerning the sport of greyhound racing and the necessity for the Bill. It is a sport which does not receive any subvention whatsoever and must stand or fall on its own feet. The Bill seeks only to amend one of the remaining statutory shackles from the outdated legislation and follows the precedents contained in the previous amending Acts. With over 4 million spectators in 1987, slightly more than the people who went horseracing, and an industry employing over 5,000 people, we cannot afford to ignore the situation. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Newall.)
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newall, for giving such a clear presentation of his Bill. I am the more grateful because I personally feel rather inadequate when confronted with these serious matters in this sport. The noble Lord has made very clear what the problems for the sport are and that there is a need for

375
some kind of change. I also understand from what he has said that the present admission charge for bookmakers to the track is not satisfactory to the sport as a whole.
I have had one or two thoughts about this issue and I should like to put these to the noble Lord. Also at the end of my speech I should like to put another idea to the Minister, although I am not quite sure what his response to this Bill will be.
From my way of seeing it, there seem to be three separate interest groups who are concerned, all of whom have to be satisfied. First, there is the National Greyhound Racing Club, who operate the sport. Secondly, there are the bookmakers, whose interests are represented by the National Association of Bookmakers. Thirdly, there are the spectators and punters. I have been unable to find anybody who represents their interests here; although I have asked around the House this afternoon, I have found no one who satisfied me on what the punter needs.
The noble Lord has presented the case as from the British Greyhound Racing Board and made it clear that the new multiple of 70 may sound excessive over the present multiple of five. However, he maintains that the true payment is at present nearer to 55 times the admission charged by way of voluntary and statutory payments. However, the British Greyhound Racing Board concede that the multiple which this Bill seeks to raise is artificial and has no relationship whatsoever to the cost of promoting the sport and ensuring its integrity. I therefore understand that this multiple has been chosen in rather an arbitrary way as higher than the present charge but not so high as to make it unacceptable.
Perhaps I may move on to the reaction of the National Association of Bookmakers. I must admit that it seems to be rather unequivocal. They say that they are implacably opposed to Lord Newall's Bill and the reason they give is that they believe that it is unfair to raise the multiple of maximum admission fee which can be charged from five to 70. They point out that this sum must be paid by a bookmaker each time he attends a meeting which could be several times a week.
Also there are far fewer punters per bookmaker at a greyhound track than at a racecourse. Consequently, the bookmaker at a dog track has less potential revenue. This I understand is the position that the bookmakers present. The association also says that any further increase would have to be passed on to the punters. This is where the situation becomes rather more worrying. It suggests that it would lead to a decline in the number of punters, a fall in turnover and still fewer bookies on the tracks. This is what my investigation has uncovered as regards the bookmakers.
I wish briefly to mention some of the recommendations which came out of the report of the Royal Commission on Gaming chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, in July 1978. The commission at that time recommended that charges made to bookmakers should remain unchanged. The report stated:
"We are not persuaded by the cases made for adjusting the present formula limiting the charges which tracks can impose on bookmakers on course and we recommend that it should remanin unchanged".
376
The provision that bookmakers cannot be charged more than five times the entrance fee was:
"designed to protect the bookmakers on course, to ensure that the punter has access to a competitive form of betting when totes are in operation, partly to protect the punter and partly to prevent track management from making excessive profits".
The report concludes:
"We are in no doubt that the position of bookmakers on tracks operating totalisers should be protected. If some change were needed to ensure this it would have our support. But the National Association of Bookmakers apparently had no specific change in mind and matters can therefore be safely left as they are".
I know that that report was published in 1978, which is a long time ago, but nevertheless those were part of the recommendations put forward by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild.
Finally I come to the position of the punters and spectators. As I have said, there seems to be doubt that the extra cost put on to the bookmakers might be passed on to the punters. So with their interests in mind I find it difficult to give my wholehearted support to the noble Lord's Bill and would very much rather put a suggestion to the Minister, which would be that perhaps we should devise some alternative form of funding, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newall, said, is certainly necessary. That alternative form of funding could be introduced with the mutual support of the various interested parties involved in the running of this sport. That would mean that there was a fixed admission fee which was of a different nature for the bookmakers and not based on a multiple of what the spectators pay.
I understand completely from what the noble Lord, Lord Newall, said that there is a problem. I am not absolutely convinced from my investigation that his solution is the correct one. He himself admitted that he was not sure that it was the ideal way of dealing with the situation. But I shall be very interested to hear when the Minister replies whether he will put forward some ideas of his own.
6.34 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene at this stage to indicate the Government's views of the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Newall, has introduced and which he has very capably explained to us. The present law—Section 18 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 — presupposes the presence of bookmakers when there is greyhound racing and governs the amount which management may charge bookmakers and their staff for this opportunity.
As the noble Lord indicated, one original purpose of the provision has been overtaken by the passage of time and changes in social culture. The origin was a concern to forestall the multiplication of greyhound tracks, which were providing a new betting opportunity to working men. The social evil which the legislation sought to anticipate did not come about, whether because of the success of the provision, a change in the habits of the working man or his recourse to other leisure possibilities. The other purpose of the provision was to assist in providing a choice of betting for punters between the tote operated by the track owner and the odds offered by the bookmakers. This may be seen to retain some validity as a measure of fair competition.

377
It is, however, common ground that the original restriction on the amount that management may charge bookmakers is open for revision and negotiation. This is reinforced by the fact, which the noble Lord has explained, that bookmakers already make voluntary payments in addition to the charges levied on them as a result of the legislation.
As the noble Lord has indicated, the Government would favour a reform of the current arrangements should that be agreed by both parties. The two representative bodies, namely the British Greyhound Racing Board and the National Association of Bookmakers, have been in negotiation for some years about a means of rationalising the financial arrangements between their members.
As I understand the position, the measure before your Lordships is not agreed by the bookmakers. This may be because the sums generated by the proposed new factor of 70 times the admission charge could be greater than those currently provided by the voluntary payments. But it seems that it is rather the inclination of the bookmakers to keep to an informal system.
The nature of the present system of voluntary payments may be thought not to be entirely satisfactory. On the other hand, the measure before your Lordships has not secured the agreement of the bookmakers, which may be thought to be a necessary ingredient. The Bill does address a real issue. Whether the solution it proposes is the right one is a question for Parliament to judge. I most readily note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady EwartBiggs, but in the first instance it is for your Lordships to decide whether the Bill should proceed.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for the time and trouble that she spent in doing her research. I was extremely interested to hear what she said as well as what my noble friend the Minister said.
If the noble Baroness wants to know what a punter wants I can tell her. He wants very good racing at a reasonable cost, with good dogs, good tracks and good prizes. Unless we as a racing board have more money coming in many tracks may have to close. Then people will be put out of work, as well as putting the punters out of their flutter.
The Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, was not without its own flaws and they have been proved with the passage of time. But I do not think it realised that in 1988 the bookmakers would be paying up to 55 times the admission charge voluntarily. Therefore that knocks a bit of a hole in the report in some ways.
As I have already said, the informal system is no way to run a business. We must find a method to run this sport. If we are two people who cannot find a solution, it is up to one of us—which is why I am introducing this Bill—to try to find a solution which will be workable even if one side does not agree with it at the moment. I am most grateful to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness for what they have said
378
and I shall note it very carefully. I hope that we can see this pass to the other place. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gale Damage
6.39 a.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the extent of the damage to trees and to the countryside caused by the gales of 16th October.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On 16th October last year God blew with his winds and they were scattered. I am not talking about the Spanish Armada but 15 million trees across the southern and eastern quarter of England. There are 4 million cubic metres of wood lying pathetically on the ground, some of them already beginning to rot. Even more trees will have to be felled to clear up this horrendous mess.
Sevenoaks is one, or possibly nil, oak at the moment. Wakehurst, Kew, Petworth, Emmets, Sheffield, Goodwood and Nymans have all been ravaged by nature. I know that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, as Chairman of English Heritage, will wish to elaborate on the damage which has been done to English Heritage gardens and parks.
Parklands, hedgerows and individual farm trees have been uprooted and severely damaged. I have been told by Task Force Trees and the Countryside Commission that 2 per cent. to 6 per cent. of all trees in affected areas were damaged. At first sight, that is not a very large number. However, the storm went in whirlygigs and it ripped up large chunks here and there and left other areas without damage. A neighbour of mine who farms some fields on the northern slopes of the North Downs had some particularly attractive beech trees under which cattle or sheep grazed. They added considerably to the beauty of the Surrey hills. His fields are now littered with fallen beeches, which have dug holes in the fields leaving great chalk gouges in the countryside. Those trees were all happily growing on 14th October.
Perhaps an extreme and poignant example of the damage will be of interest to your Lordships. It involved my very popular and noble—I use that word not only in the parliamentary but also in the personal sense—friend Lord Chelwood. He has a property of 200 acres. One hundred acres are in trees which he has been planting and tending for 25 years. That was all done exactly according to the book and with the advice and consent of the Forestry Commission. He has 80 acres of trees lying on the ground. His conservatory has been lifted out of the ground and the broken glass is scattered all over his lawn. He estimates that cost of the damage is between £250,000 and £500,000. The prospect of bearing that loss and clearing it up is extremely depressing and daunting.
Some of us have been asked, "What about insurance? Why was the damage not insured?" I have been in touch with my insurance contacts and NFU

379
Mutual, with whom I do not deal but whom I know. They say that it is not the practice to do that in England except on rare occasions where trustees of charitable funds have done it. I know that it is done much more in Scotland since the big blow of 1968. I believe that in Scotland the costs are approximately £2 per hectare per annum after 15 years. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Stockton may want to elaborate further on the damage which has actually been done.
The Timber Growers of the United Kingdom, the Forestry Commission and the timber merchants got together and formed a Windblow Action Committee. I wish that people would not use words such as "windblow". Words such as "wind", "hurricane", or "gale" are perfectly adequate. That is but a minor criticism, however. The group has produced an excellent report. It was submitted this morning to the Agricultural Select Committee of another place. I know that the Minister has a copy.
Perhaps I may summarise the main conclusions of the report. The storm of which we are speaking was the worst storm since 1703. Twenty per cent. of the woodland in the area damaged by the hurricane—let us call it a hurricane because it was nothing short of that, in spite of what that weather forecasting gentleman said—has been affected. A large chunk of hardwood—much of it admittedly old hardwood—and much of what could be classed (especially in Surrey) as unmanaged woodland, which was extremely important from an environmental point of view, was badly affected.
The report calls for effective restoration and maximum salvage, both to minimise the loss and to help finance restoration work. The volume of non-durable and low-quality timber and additional clearance costs and landscape damage are major problems. As your Lordships will know, beech, pine and soft whitewoods have a low lying-in-the-field value. I believe that beech rots within six months and pine within about nine months. Needless to say, that has been helped by the wettest autumn we have had for a very long time.
The committee would like to increase the wood market in size and it would like help for replanting. Also, timber mercants must be attracted from outside the area. The committee recommends that that can only be done by a transport subsidy. Governments frequently say, "We cannot do that; it has never been done before". However, obligingly enough, there is a precedent for that action in the Scottish example of 1968. The committee believes that a net subsidy or grant of about £500 per hectare over and above salvageable and ordinary grant and tax relief for hardwood and £200 extra for softwood would overcome the problems caused by difficulty of access, the fact that many trees are broken off 12 or 15 feet above the ground and are lying higgledy-piggledy and the fact that bits must be cut on the outside of a wood in order to get into the wood to work there. The committee believes that the subsidy demand will be something in the region of a total of £6.5 million over five years.
Surrey County Council, with whom I have been in touch, believes that its costs alone are £3.6 million
380
over five years for planting. The Government, generous as ever with taxpayers' money, immediately said that they would give £2.75 million for replanting. The trouble is that that could not possibly be spent up to 31st March. I hope that, because it could not possibly be spent up to 31st March, the gremlins in the Treasury will not say, "You have not used the money by 31st March; therefore you cannot have any more for next year". To expect the Treasury to change its spots or its accounting habits because of the gale is asking too much. I hope that my noble friend, when he has had time to listen and reply to the debate, will have that point firmly in mind.
The Surrey County Council is particularly worried, in that it has 9,000 acres of primary public open space and recreational space which is managed more from that point of view than from the point of view of commercial forestry. According to its submission to the Countryside Commission on 16th November, which is a lucid and sensible document:
"The biggest and most insurmountable obstacle to replanting in this or immediately subsequent years, is the large amount of damaged timber lying about. Much of this is Beech, with a short pre-decay life, and a market which has plummeted; much of it is in inaccessible places, and requiring heavy lifting machinery for safe disposal. Damage to standing trees also requires urgent surgery, again often impossible until fallen trees are removed. Another difficulty is estimating the amount of planting which can physically be completed this financial year; contractors and estate staff are busy on clearing up operations, many woodlands are too dangerous to allow work by volunteers"—
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Norrie will touch on the matter of volunteers—
"and tree stock is likely to be in short supply due to damage in nurseries and the huge demand.
A further constraint upon immediate replanting is the urgent need to take stock and reconsider planting and landscaping policies. The huge amount of damage wrought by the storm has thinned out many areas of unmanaged and aged woodland and tree-stock, and the opportunity should be taken of building upon this enforced "management", rather than exactly replacing what was there before".
I think that those are extremely sensible paragraphs. Many of the papers that I have been given have been in the same constructive and useful vein.
There is one other minor point, about which I speak from personal experience. In front of a house which is now National Trust property but whose land belongs to me, there is—or there was—a beech avenue which was planted to celebrate the birth of my grandfather (I did not get an avenue; I just got one tree). Half that avenue was blown down. In the part that we wanted to clear-fell so that the trees could be replanted approximately 10 trees remained. The Forestry Commission came down; the local authority came down; the National Trust came down; and I went down. We all agreed on exactly what should be done. It has taken two months, but I understand from my noble friend Lord Caithness that a felling licence is on its way. This is bureaucracy run riot. I know that planning authorities have many things to do. One of my neighbours in Surrey told me that he wanted to alter the planning application for his agreed five-year designated plan. Again, the borough council was slow in clearing the application. There was no question of a disagreement; it was a question of bits of paper not arriving so that things which were ready to be done and should have been done were not done.
The NFU has produced evidence of the damage to their members' interests. I hope that my noble friend has been in close touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I must admit that I have heard from several sources that co-operation between the various arms of Government has been excellent, which is a nice thing to hear. There has been no squabbling between permanent secretaries over who will be the first to get a knighthood. The NFU's main points relate to general damage to light and historic farm buildings; damage done to vehicles, walls, fences and stored crops by fallen trees; certain cropping areas which have not been able to be used because of fallen trees; glasshouse damage to protected crops; damaged top fruits, soft fruit, and much more. I appreciate that help for fruit growers has been forthcoming for orchard replanting and in the shape of conservation grants. I give credit where credit is due. In the case of used farm buildings—and by "used" I mean farm buildings which are in use, not those which are finished with—insurance should have been in place. According to the NFU some 200 old decent farm buildings which could be classed as uneconomic were destroyed in the storm. That is a heritage loss and I hope that something can be done about it.
The wages of chainsaw operatives are now up to £12 per hour and the price of timber has fallen, which was inevitable. When there is a labour shortage the price goes up and when there is a glut the price goes down. There is a labour shortage for clearing up and a glut of timber. The iron law of economics has applied. There is not enough trained manpower and there is an imbalance—admittedly temporary—in our saw-milling capacity. All of those to whom I have spoken have asked for help in clearance, which represents the great extra cost.
I have been inundated with tautly written submissions on the storm, varying from a paper from the NFU to a note from my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, who explained to me that 738 trees were destroyed on Hampstead Heath. Because of lack of time I have had to omit quite a lot of facts and information, but I hope that I have been able to outline something of what is known. I know that others will add to and elaborate on what I have said. However, we must regard this tragedy as an opportunity to plan and think long-term. We ask that the Government give a long and continuous commitment to that aim. I do not think that it is a question of spending lots of money now; it is a question of needing lots of thought now, and funding at a moderate level over a long period to enable us to repair, alter where necessary and improve if possible a very beautiful countryside.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be enormously grateful to my noble friend for raising this very timely question this evening. At Beaulieu we were very much in the eye of the storm and considerable damage was done. However I speak tonight not as a victim of the storm but as the chairman of English Heritage, which is one of the government agencies that is trying to do what
382
it can to help in this situation. I also speak with the encouragement of my noble friend Lord Caithness and am in no way trying to presume on his answer at the end of the debate.
The great storm did more than bring tragic destruction to trees across a wide swathe of South-East England; it also revealed the disturbing extent to which the great historic parks and gardens, which form such a characteristic part of the landscape, have been allowed to fall into decay. Historic gardens and parks, like historic buildings, have always depended for their upkeep on a number of traditional, superimposed cycles of maintenance, from the very regular cutting of grass to the very infrequent replacement of mature trees. The great storm and the extensive subsequent survey work by English Heritage have shown that in many well-known gardens major cycles of maintenance and replanting have been neglected over a long period. That is not to criticise the majority of owners. Understanding and advice on the maintenance requirements of historic parks and gardens have been limited, and the cost of their upkeep is very high.
Although powers have existed for the Government and more recently English Heritage to make grants toward the upkeep of gardens and land of outstanding historic interest, this nettle was never grasped, mainly because there were more urgent demands on funds. As a result, English Heritage operates no garden grant schemes analogous to those operated over the past 35 years for outstanding listed buildings, although we and others have pressed hard for resources for this purpose.
Cumulative neglect and the great storm have precipitated in our historic parks and gardens a crisis of epic proportions, to which my fellow commissioners and I decided that we had to react immediately. Therefore, on 21st October—the very same day when the Secretary of State so commendably and quickly granted money to the Countryside Commission℄I announced a scheme of grant aid toward the cost of clearance and replanting. Within days English Heritage and the Countryside Commission had met to assess the damage. The sum that we felt able to divert from our other grant schemes for that purpose was about £250,000, which is very little in relation to the scale of demand for help. So far we have had to limit the scope of our scheme to the immediate pleasure grounds of the house or, as we say, within the ha-ha.
Since the end of October we have made very considerable progress with this emergency programme of grant aid. The recently completed English Heritage register of historic parks and gardens—wisely legislated for in 1983 but not, I may say, universally welcomed by some Members of this House—has proved an invaluable and essential tool, enabling us to have written within 10 days to nearly 300 owners of historic parks and gardens in the storm damaged areas. We have received in return 241 requests for assistance, some from gardens not even on our register. Using consultants, co-ordinated by our own staff, we have surveyed almost all of these gardens and will finish the task by the end of this month. At the same time, we have begun the work of identifying those gardens which are of outstanding

383
national importance and thus eligible for our grants. We shall therefore be very shortly in a position to start making firm offers of grants. In the meantime we have made it clear to owners that the essential work of clearance need not be delayed while grant applications are being processed.
Much of the work of reconstruction and replanting will take a considerable time to put into effect. In order to see that the historic interest of the gardens is enhanced and not jeopardised by replanting we are calling for proper replanting and management shemes to be submitted as a condition of grant offer.
I have referred to our reluctant confinement of grants to storm damage within the ha-ha. With regard to those which are nationally outstanding, I ask the Government to consider that from an administrative point of view, and certainly from the owner's point of view, it would be far better to deal with the land without the ha-ha together with that within it. By necessity this would mean that extra resources would have to be given to English Heritage to cover this responsibility. I understand that the Countryside Commission would support such a decision.
Of course the Countryside Commission, in consultation with English Heritage, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and others, have put to the Government a plea for additional funding for trees over several years, which include all trees within historic parks and gardens which are not outstanding. My commission hopes that the Government will give the Countryside Commisssion the means to deal with such parks and gardens.
The scale of the financial problem facing owners must not be underestimated. The response from the first 100 gardens which we have investigated suggests a total cost with respect to planting alone of the order of £5 million. This ignores the massive damage to park walls, as well as the loss of future visitor income and increased maintenance costs until the new planting has reached maturity. The great storm of 16th October demonstrated in the most dramatic way the need for realistic funding if historic parks and gardens—such a crucial component of our heritage—are not to be allowed to fall into decay.
The scale of the recent devastation has precipitated English Heritage into realising its long-standing ambition of introducing gardens' grants, albeit on an ad hoc basis. But what the great storm has revealed is that our landscape, and in particular our historic parks and gardens, needs constant upkeep and renewal which is often beyond the means of individual owners. It is therefore our belief that a permanent grant scheme is essential. We and the Countryside Commission will monitor the progress of this emergency grant scheme with care so that, provided we receive the necessary resources in the future, we have the experience and expertise to introduce a permanent grant scheme covering the whole country.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, I am not a landowner and I have no personal stake in the
384
destruction caused by the October hurricane. However, I feel that the special nature of this disaster justifies some degree of government assistance. I have attempted to penetrate some of the devastated woodland. I can only say that no photograph can give a full picture of the state of the worst affected woods. Much of the woodland is impenetrable. It was an eerie experience trying to climb in over the fallen trees and to find oneself 15 to 20 feet above the ground with nowhere further to go. Even my dog could not find a way through.
I understand that the Government's policy is to concentrate on restoring tree cover, and I am sure that that is right. The problem is that replanting cannot take place until the sites have been cleared of fallen trees. Landowners will be prevented from doing this by the high cost of clearance. Machines with skilled operators are required and these cost a great deal of money.
The immediate problem is the softwood, which will deteriorate fast. Much of it is conifers planted 35 to 40 years ago as a result of post-war planting encouraged by the government of the day. These were just beginning to produce timber. But all this promising material has had to be sold for pulpwood as the timber mills are flooded with larger sized trees. Prices paid by the mills for pulpwood are half what they were before the hurricane. In addition therefore to losing the growth potential, woodland owners are faced with losing £4 a tonne for removing their fallen softwood and transporting it to the pulp mills. The problem is accentuated by the pulp mills being situated mainly in Wales, the North of England and Scotland, so that the transport costs are prohibitive.
I should like to ask therefore whether transport grants could be given to the timber growers to get the wood to the mills. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, transport grants were made to help private woodland owners after the last big wind blow in Scotland, so there is a precedent.
My second suggestion concerns replanting grants. The aim is to restore tree cover, but this will not be done if the timber growers cannot afford to clear the sites. The replanting grants already cover stump clearance and site preparation. Could their scope be extended to include an element for site clearance? This could be done for only a limited period to cover clearance of trees brought down by the October hurricane. The woods of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Suffolk are such a wonderful part of our countryside and I hope very much that the Government will be able to provide special help for their restoration.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, the expression "the wind of change" is one that may not be unfamiliar to noble Lords, In the case of my property, the home for all his life of the originator of that phrase, it took on a terrible new significance in the early hours of that dreadful day. When the hurricane abated we started to try to evaluate the problem and found that the damage was not only outside our experience in the South-East but outside that of the whole country. Even the great wind blow

385
of 1972 in Scotland pales by comparison. It is the estimate of the Forestry Commission that there is more mature timber on the ground in the South-East than would normally be harvested throughout the United Kingdom in five years.
I do not want to get into a ghoulish statistical competition with noble friends on both sides of the House whose homes have also suffered. We have lost 60 per cent. of the timber on the 900 acres of woodland on the Birch Grove estate. This means that 60,000 trees have been smashed, blown down or shattered by falling trunks. A further 10,000 have received damage that may imperil their long-term survival either through snow, further wind or disease.
A forestry contractor gave me an estimate that to clear up in order to replant, using contract labour, would cost me between £1·2 million and £ 1·5 million. With my own labour force we have estimated that it will take 10 years and the cost, in terms of depressed values of mature and salvageable timber, of lost value of immature timber, loss of incidental income such as shooting and fishing and of increased equipment costs and overtime, will be between £400,000 and £500,000. Clearly this is way beyond the scope of any private individual.
We have started work and we are shifting and burning at the rate of about four trees a day. We have therefore a lot of work ahead of us. The woods, which looked like Passchendaele after the bombardment, now have muddy tracks through them that would have been familair to my grandfather in the trenches.
But this sad story can be heard and told by my noble friends Lord Cowdray, Lord De La Warr, Lord Egremont and Lord Limerick. We are all in the same position. I am aware that the Government have made some grants, but very few to help the private landowner with the clearance of fallen timber. I am afraid that to replant we must clear, and it is a race against time. The softwoods will be useless in a year, the beech in two and with the spring coming the brambles and the rabbits are on the way.
If the roof of this mighty Palace had been blown off there would have been money forthcoming from the Government. We have beech trees that were as high as the roof of this Palace which are now lying on the ground, and oaks, which were mighty trees before this building was even a gleam in Pugin's eye. I was told by my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne that he thought the Secretary of State in another place was right not to, "spend taxpayers' money to help you rebuild your shoot". I wonder whether the Secretary of State's elder brother, my noble friend Lord Ridley, would agree with such sentiments.
In the end it is not my shoot that is the question; it is not even my property that is the question. We have to decide whether we mind enough about those parts of southern England's green and pleasant land that have so far escaped the bulldozer and the developer, to prevent them falling foul of the hurricane and the Secretary of State.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the role and response of the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector has
386
already contributed a great deal of help to the storm-affected counties. Its contribution cannot and should not be under-estimated. One criticism which is wholly unjustified is that an unnecessarily long-term view is being taken and that the public have been confused by too many appeals. This is definitely not the case.
It is worth noting that many of the organisations involved such as the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and the County Trusts, are major landowners. Naturally, their immediate priority has been to concentrate on storm clearance and safety of access. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the Woodland Trust, an organisation committed to the purchase and protection of woodlands. Imagine the enormousness of the task before them when suddenly a total of 41 woods in 12 counties were devastated by the storm of 16th October last year.
One organisation with which I have a very close association as their president is the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV). Its particular role is to involve people in practical conservation. In recent months the people of this country have demonstrated conclusively just how aware and how caring they have become about their environment. It was the ability to direct this irrepressible enthusiasm and harness it to their professional expertise in woodland management which led the Countryside Commission to invite the BTCV to join its emergency task-force trees team.
The purpose of the team is to set up and allocate the Department of Environment special grant of £2.75 million to local authorities and the voluntary sector and devise a long-term plan for clearance and replanting. Everywhere the response by individuals has been swift and immediate. People were prompted by the many articles in newspapers and radio and television to want to help either by giving money or actually lending a hand. Thank goodness they did! The full-time professional bodies could not possibly have coped with the scale of damage caused by last year's storm without the help of so many volunteers.
Such a willing commitment demands our wholehearted encouragement rather than the opposite. Even national television has highlighted the BTCV as the major organisation for practical conservation work. Some 10,000 people have now received the emergency information pack which allows each volunteer to use his or her energies in the most effective way. Since October some 4,000 people have worked on over 330 sites in the storm-ravaged areas.
An example of the way in which landowners and those of us who appreciate their land can work together on a voluntary basis is the co-operation nationally from March this year of the BTCV and the Woodland Trust. Even in the voluntary sector such work costs a great deal of money. It runs into millions. The appeal targets set by each organisation have effected considerable private and individual support to date. But this will change as the emotion and memory of the damage caused on 16th October last year begins to fade.
Parhaps I may therefore seek from the Minister an assurance that the Government will agree a long-term financial commitment to the voluntary sector to

387
secure for the future a legacy worthy of our children and all that the English countryside means to people everywhere.
7.16 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I appear to have temporarily mislaid my glasses. I shall not be able to read the notes I have written down. I should like first to thank my noble friend Lord Onslow very much for putting down this Question. I am surprised that it was not put down before, because the situation is so very serious.
I also have an interest to declare; but my interest is a very great financial loss, as I am sure is the case with the other noble Lords who have spoken on this subject. It has been appalling in the Stour Valley. There are three estates where the valley gets narrower: Olantigh, Godmersham—where Jane Austen wrote her books— and Chilham. In my park, it has been absolutely devastating. In the gardens we have lost 148 big trees, many of them exotics like paulownia, catalpa and tulip trees. The park is about 400 acres and includes about 100 acres of woodland. We have lost about 2,000 really big deciduous trees. I am not counting the softwoods I have planted, like douglas fir. I established a plantation of douglas fir over 30 years ago. They were doing extremely well and they have just come down like a pack of cards. The larch have held up a bit better.
The avenue from the main gates on the village square to my front door is only a short straight run of 300 yards and has a double row of limes on each side, planted in 1820. They have come down to a man. I suppose trees are female too, but anyway they have all come down. They fell in about two or three minutes. It was apparently an appalling gust of over 100 miles an hour—some people say 130 miles an hour—which brought them down.
I think that the Government have made a great mistake in putting the cart before the horse. It is true to say that they have promised grants but, as we all know, one gets grants from the Forestry Commission in any case if one plants. But how can you plant if you cannot clear the land? To clear my park will certainly take 18 months and probably two years. How am I to clear it? I have tractors, trailers and chainsaws, but I only wish we had what we had in the old days (before my time, naturally). In the 18th and early 19th centuries they used to work the timber with elephants. Where can I get elephants? Where can I get trained elephants? I do not know what the solution is. I do not have the enormous machines with great grabs to lift the trees. They cost about £80,000. I am told you can hire cranes for £500 a day, but who can afford that? So how am I going to clear the ground? One cannot do it.
I am concentrating on the gardens because we have the public coming to see the gardens. It will be shaming. As my noble friend Lord Stockton said, the scene was like the battlefields of Ypres or the Somme and all the ground was churned up. We are gradually taking away the enormous roots, but that is difficult because they are terribly heavy. However, I hope that we shall be able to clear the gardens.
388
I must not continue for too long or I shall bore your Lordships—perhaps I have already. I was saddened by the fact that in the park was the oldest recorded heronry in Britain. It is about 860 years old and is recorded in the Doomsday Book. Some of the herons return on St. Valentine's Day and I am worried that if they do not return then some terrible fate will befall me. I do not know what to do about that because every tree has gone. Beech trees of a great height have all come down. I shall try to erect artificial nesting sites but I do not know if the herons will use them.
My noble friend Lord Stockton also spoke of what transpired at the conference at Wye College, London University. People from the three counties in the South East of England attended. There were many expert speakers. They told us that the number of trees that had fallen, which was said to be 3 million, was more like 20 million. As my noble friend Lord Stockton said, about five years' supply of felled timber is lying on the ground.
I should like to ask the Government to provide a grant for the clearing that we have had to do. People have been very helpful and various societies have offered to help, but they do not appear to have any money. My noble friend Lord Onslow spoke about £2 million, but that will be a drop in the ocean. It has been suggested that the area inside and outside the ha-ha of my park should be treated as one, and I think that that idea is fair. However, I should like to see the Government giving a clearing grant of so much per hectare; even one-third or one-quarter of the cost of clearing would be a great help. I hope that something like that can be achieved. So far, I have not been able to sell any timber apart from black walnut. I should think that every other noble Lord present is in the same position.
I have spoken for long enough and I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to approach the Prime Minister. I am sure that if the Prime Minister knew of the extent of the tragedy she would make the bureaucracy act and we should all be much happier.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I should like to express gratitude to my noble friend Lord Onslow for initiating this important debate. I have a personal interest in the subject which I shall declare later. In my home in the north Cotswolds we were jolly lucky to have escaped the worst effects of the terrible hurricane which hit us in October. I do not wish to dwell upon the severity of the damage because other noble Lords have spoken about it. It has been well-publicised in newspapers and elsewhere.
The bare statistics are horrifying. Four million tonnes of timber of different species, sizes and shapes much of it broken and tangled on the ground, is five times the normal output in the worst affected areas of devastation. Seventy per cent. of the area is in the private sector of forestry, with consequent crippling losses for owners who have expended long decades of care necessary for the production of good quality timber. All that has gone overboard.
My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to the fact that immediately after the hurricane a Forestry Wind

389
Blow Action Committee was set up, though he objected to the two words, "wind blow". My secretary typed it as one word and I believe that she was right. The committee was immediately set up and was a consortium of the Forestry Commission, Timber Growers of the United Kingdom, who are the official representatives of the private sector of forestry, the timber merchants and the wood processing industries. It has done excellent work in assessing the damage and weighing up the consequent problems.
The Timber Growers have produced a report in advance of anything that has been forthcoming from the Government or the Forestry Commission. That report provides an excellent assessment of the situation and I am proud of it. Here I must declare an interest because I am its honorary president. I have ensured that the report has been made available both in the Library of this House and in the Printed Paper Office for any noble Lord who would like to peruse it. I think that it is a good, factual assessment of the problem.
Two major issues are involved to which other noble Lords have referred. One is the clearance, removal and, where possible, utilisation of the fallen and damaged trees. Many trees that have not fallen have been damaged by those that have, and something must be done about them. They are often lying in a tangled mess on the ground. They are frightfully difficult to work among and the handling of them far exceeds the capacity of local foresters, local contractors and local timber industries. We have by no means dealt with the clearance, but the second issue is the replanting of both forest and amenity trees when the ground has eventually been cleared and tidied. Fifteen million trees have fallen and many more must be planted and cared for over many decades before they, having been thinned, contribute to the landscape.
There are no short cuts in forestry. Unless the clearance and disposal problem is expedited far beyond the capacity of local resources, more than half of the fallen timber will have deteriorated into uselessness. About the only species that will survive several years of lying on the ground is the oak. The beech (which has been referred to) and many other soft woods and species will be unsaleable. Much of it is only good for firewood anyway. Even so, it is worth bearing in mind that the loss value of 2·5 million tonnes which will not have been cleared unless something drastic is done will amount to about £75 million in lost revenue; and that is loss to the nation as well as the owners. If distant timbermills with the capacity to use the timber can be enlisted to make use of the many kinds of trees with their varying properties there will be a good chance of greatly expediting operations. However, the expense of long distance haulage thus involved would leave nothing, or even a deficit, in the hands of contractors even if they could be attracted from outside the area to deal with this mess.
It is desperately necessary to contract an army of such contractors into the areas of disaster and I hope that the Minister might persuade his colleagues in another place to provide an emergency subsidizing
390
fund towards the transport costs required, estimated at £2·5 million. That will enable an expedition of operations to take place along those lines.
As to the replanting phase which it is to be hoped will succeed the clearance, and will take several years to achieve, private owners will need help and persuasion to do all that is desirable. That again will cause a substantial increment in the present scale of planting grants; otherwise, there is every possibility that owners will be far too disheartened and out of pocket to restore their devastated countryside.
Your Lordships should bear in mind in this connection that many of the lost woodlands were of amenity or sporting value rather than commercially managed. Once again, I hope that my noble friend can and will persuade his colleagues in another place to help with this matter. It has been estimated that another £4 million will be required.
I have said little or nothing about all the lovely amenity trees and the arboreta that have suffered; but, cherishing as I do our arboreta at Batsford which escaped the hurricane, that is not due to any lack of concern but because of the need for brevity.
7.33 p.m.
The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for making a brief intervention. Although I live a long way from the areas devastated by the October hurricane, nevertheless I offer sympathy to those who have been affected. I have seen many examples of gale damage in my time, in Scotland in particular, and what I saw around Sevenoaks really took my breath away. Violent storms strike different parts of the country periodically and Scotland suffered badly in 1968, which helps me to appreciate the consequential problems. One of those problems is the orderly marketing of blown trees which is, of course, a crucial prelude to orderly recovery programmes, though we have to accept the sad fact that the landscape, as we have come to know and love it, can never be the same again in our lifetime.
However, there is one matter for which we can be thankful. There is now in existence a body called the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain which grew only recently out of the Timber Growers organisation and the timber trade. This has the capability of making a significant impact upon sensible and orderly marketing. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Onslow referred to its specially formed action group, and I believe it is probably doing a very good job.
Of course, this is a matter of great importance to all tree growers throughout the land, partly because of the ripple effect of glut in one area knocking prices in another, and partly because no one knows where the next disaster will strike with a corresponding need for action by that same Forestry Industry Committee. That means that wherever we live all those with an interest in trees and the landscape should do their utmost to support the Forestry Industry Committee by providing it with the financial muscle that it badly needs to ensure that it can do its job efficiently.

391
There is one other aspect which I believe merits consideration. The tragic loss of landscape is a salutory though cruel reminder that in nature nothing stands still and that however much one might wish to freeze the landscape just as it is, trees, like everything else, grow up, grow old and die. That suggests that landscape replacement and rejuvenation must be a continuing process and not left to the next hurricane. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Montagu emphasised this very clearly in his speech. This is especially relevant in the context of trees subject to tree preservation orders as these are likely to be the most vulnerable in a storm and may constitute a high risk to life and limb. It may be a good idea for the Government to remind those who impose TPOs of the risks involved and the need for appropriate precautions, including regular reviews of the condition of such trees if they are to fulfil their proper responsibility for public safety.
My last point is to mention that the replanting of wind blown areas will require a large number of broadleaved plants, and if shortages are to be avoided it may be as well to relax the proportion of broadleaved species to be planted with conifers on hill country where they will, in any case, face a precarious struggle for survival. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the many constructive points made this evening.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, has intervened in this debate without putting his name down, may I crave your Lordships' pardon for doing the same thing. I am certain that my noble friend Lady Nicol will deal most adequately with the subject of this debate but I should not like it to be thought that because there are not many of us present on this side of the House we are not deeply concerned about the matter.
I think that virtually every noble Lord who has spoken has declared some personal, direct or indirect interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, knows, on occasions I have been critical of forestry policy in this country, not least of the taxation arrangements which, in certain circumstances, make it possible for film stars and broadcasting people and such like to make large fortunes Jut of forestry. Such criticism as one may have made leaves one completely dumb when one has to follow the tragic consequences of what was, after all, as one used to say in the olden days, an act of God.
I very much hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will recognise that while a great deal was done instantly—or more or less instantly— it is clear from the speeches made that a great deal still has to be done, particularly on this matter of clearance. Unless some imaginative and substantial help is given—and I am thinking in particular of Birch Grove, which I used to know fairly well—tragedies of that kind call for extraordinary measures which are not contemplated in normal circumstances. I hope that when we hear the Minister's reply it will be clear that the situation faced in this part of the country is recognised as being extraordinary and merits extraordinary solutions.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, there is one other aspect that I should like to mention. It is very important that we manage to clear up this disaster as well as we possibly can, not only for the environment and the landscape, which is important and which has been spoken about. I should not wish to detract at all from what has been said about that.
There is another aspect. The Government want more trees to be planted. In view of that, I believe it is important to emphasise the enormous degree to which forestry owners in the devastated areas have been disheartened by what has happened. It is the scale of the disaster which is so frightening. Timber growers suspect that if nothing is done it is highly likely that 50 per cent. of the woodland which has gone will never be replanted. I am sure that the smaller the owner, the more disheartening is the situation.
There are long memories regarding the business of forestry, and there have been some disagreeable experiences in the past which should not be entirely forgotten. The years of the slump were bad enough and a great many people despaired at that time. The last war should have been better because it was a time when timber was definitely wanted. We had been planting timber for that for some years. What happened was not really so good so far as concerns the timber grower. During the war there was a desperate urgency and there was no time for sophisticated operations like thinning plantations. Very often young plantations were simply butchered —clear-felled—in order to get pitprops as soon as possible. I remember good oak being cut up in order to make railway sleepers.
I also recollect at the time that prices were pretty miserable and they were controlled. During the war there was no possibility of replanting and there were no sprays to kill the brambles as there are today. The undergrowth grew to about 10 feet or more and became a devastated area which had to be dealt with long afterwards and at very great expense. It was a terrible mess.
I have heard it said that the government of the day, in the haste of the war, virtually handed over timber growing to the trade to despoil. That is a hard thing to say but there may be a grain of truth in it. There is a certain disillusion about what can happen when timber is wanted.
Much of that slow and expensive replanting since the war has been wrecked again in the South-East. Here I must declare an interest because I did some replanting. I suppose about half of what I replanted has gone. I believe that I only suffered the loss of about half and that is quite good luck. It is going to take a great deal of effort to restore confidence if we are to establish a viable forestry industry. Something more is wanted than just another bout of enthusiasm for grants for planting. The matter needs thinking through much more thoroughly than that, and there perhaps I am edging onto another story.
Meanwhile, I trust that my noble friend and the Government will react favourably to what has been said tonight and provide further help. That was really

393
the one point I wished to make. I should like to say how well timed and welcome I found the Question tabled by my noble friend.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Earl for this very timely Question. The value of it is obvious from the speeches that we have heard tonight and some of them were very moving speeches.
The events of 16th October were a national disaster which affected us all. Because it affected all of us and it was a national disaster it is the responsibility of everyone to see that restoration is carried out so far as possible. I shall not go into the details of damage because that has been covered very well by other speakers and I know your Lordships have heard it all before.
But disasters can provide opportunities. We are all aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said, that woodland management in this country has not been universally good. Like our human population, our tree population had too many in the upper age bracket. That and the lack of good husbandry in some cases—but only a few cases—added to the losses.
Now we must look to the future. To replace tree for tree is not a very imaginative solution. The National Trust is to be commended for its constructive approach in its storm disaster appeal. Where possible, it is to use the fallen timber to repair its own buildings. I quote briefly from a letter I have received from the trust:
"We are also planning carefully for the future, because at some properties we should not simply be trying to re-plant what was there before, but should be thinking creatively about new opportunities".
That is a lesson which I think we should apply wherever restoration is to be carried out. I am not talking particularly about commercial forestry but amenity forestry, woodlands and the smaller scale operations.
Some areas should be allowed to regenerate naturally to provide a range of age and height of tree stands. Gaps or glades should be left clear to provide for grazing and for flora. Noble Lords would expect me to put the conservation point of view. Those open areas are valuable for certain bird species. Some deadwood also should be left to provide insect habitat.
Clearance has to be done before anything else can start and I was particularly interested in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Moore, about transport grants. I hope the Minister will be able to provide an answer to that. I am aware that the terms of the Question are rather narrow, but I am convinced that from the Minister tonight we shall not hear just an assessment of the damage but also of the Government's solution to the problem.
We should seek safeguards against woodlands which have been cleared by the storm from being ploughed for other uses. Perhaps it is unnecessary to say this at a time when we are seeking to persuade farmers to increase their woodland and to plant land which has been used for arable purposes. That should be discouraged where it might happen. It is essential that the efforts of the voluntary bodies about which
394
the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, spoke so convincingly, should be supported and the statutory bodies and local authorities should have their work coordinated.
The Royal Society for Nature Conservation suggests that the best unit size for co-ordination is that of the county, which seems to make sense. The 12 nature conservation trusts most affected by the storm are county trusts and they are already working closely with the county councils. For example, in Kent the trust's officer has been accommodated in the county council offices and that must be to their mutual benefit.
The World Wildlife Fund and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, with the backing of the Countryside Commission and the Task Force Trees unit, have all made good progress. Public response to appeals for money is going well; but as time goes on, the public will forget, as they do, the problems that we have before us. This is a long-term task. Planning must be at least five years ahead. Obviously it has to be longer than that if we are to replace in the way that I feel we should our broadleaved woodlands, but it must be at least five years initially. Tree nurseries, for example, must be assured that when public interest has died down there will still be customers for their trees—that money will be forthcoming—if they are to take longer-term decisions on the growing of stock.
Here perhaps I could put in a word for using native species wherever possible. We have seen recently what happens in London, where the plane trees, which were all imported clones, are suffering from a disease common to all of them and are changing the landscape in London quite considerably. It is also necessary for the retention of expert staff that at least five years should be assured. Only government can give the backing and the assurances that are needed, especially in the case of local authorities, which need to know that this important conservation work is not vulnerable to unexpected cuts. Here I should like to reinforce the theme of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about waiving bureaucracy wherever possible, because it really needs to be waived in the case of local authorities. Flexibility must be introduced.
A few moments ago I was handed a letter from a Mr. Talbot in Kent, who makes a moving plea for help in the High Weald. I can do no better than end with the last two paragraphs of his letter. He says:
"The farmers, small landowners and those directly involved cannot begin to afford the cost of clearance. Only the Government can save what Kipling describes as 'belt upon belt the wooded, dim, blue goodness of the Weald'.
"England has suffered a great disaster. Like many disasters, it affords a great opportunity. If the Government acts with speed and determination it will earn the thanks of posterity".
7.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the great storm which occurred in the early hours of 16th October was a natural catastrophe unknown since the early 18th century. It wrecked property, destroyed gardens on which many years of care had been lavished and laid bare landscapes with which local people had been familiar since childhood. I am

395
grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for giving us the opportunity to discuss that fateful event in the House.
Faced with this emergency, local authorities and others responded with great speed and efficiency. The Government too played their part: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment swiftly announced special aid under the "Bellwin Rules" for local authorities to carry out emergency work. He also explained that £3 million would be made available in 1987–d the replacement of trees. Out of this £250,000 was allocated to the Royal Parks. Most of the extra funds however have been used in the form of grants paid through the Countryside Commission, which quickly set up a special unit, Task Force Trees, to administer the programme.
The Countryside Commission's responsibility is for trees as a feature of the landscape, in small woods or in the countryside generally; and for this special programme it has extended its activities to urban areas as well. The mild weather so far this winter has been a tremendous boost for the progress of this work on the ground. I understand that a good deal of planting has already taken place, and this is enormously encouraging. Therefore, I can say to my noble friend Lord Onslow that we expect a high proportion of the money to be spent this year unless there is a sustained period of hard frost now. In fact bids from local authorities mean that the amount available is three times oversubscribed.
Other government departments and public bodies also took action in the wake of the storm. The Forestry Commission, which is responsible for woodlands of a quarter of a hectare or more, where one of the purposes is timber production, joined forces with other relevant bodies to set up the Forest Windblow Action Committee, aimed at coordinating the timber industry's response; a statement by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the introduction of special storm damage compensation arrangements for farmers, which covered orchards and shelter belts; and English Heritage, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, announced (as my noble friend Lord Montagu has just described) a programme of assistance to owners with the clearing and replanting of outstanding historic gardens.
However as this timely Question from my noble friend reminds us, it is essential as a basis for longer-term planning that we have a comprehensive assessment of the damage to tree cover caused by the storm. The results of one survey have already been widely publicised. In November the Forest Windblow Action Committee announced its conclusion that some 4 million cubic metres of timber had been blown down in the storm, representing an estimated 15 million trees. Some idea of the scale of this loss can be gauged from the fact that in 1986 the annual domestic production of timber in the United Kingdom was 5·6 million cubic metres; and 80 per cent. of this output was softwood. About 50 per cent. of the timber lost was broadleaves. Therefore, let us be clear that the total quantity of timber blown down
396
is just under one year's timber consumption over the whole country.
The committee estimated that 70 per cent. of the total loss was in private woodlands, 25 per cent. in woodlands managed by the Forestry Commission and a further 5 per cent. was in hedgerows, parks and gardens. The worst affected counties were West Sussex, East Sussex, Suffolk and Kent. The committee's estimate was that 20 per cent. of all timber in those counties had been brought down. It also reported that significant volumes of wind blown timber lay in Essex, Hampshire and Surrey, while Berkshire, Dorset, the Isle of Wight, Greater London, Hertfordshire and Norfolk had also been affected but had less timber on the ground.
As my noble friend Lord Dulverton knows, generally the good quality timber is finding a market. However, some of the timber is over-mature and of poor quality. In this there is a message for the future, that we must ensure that we manage trees properly and not regard them as things which can be preserved indefinitely. That was a point so well made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, who also mentioned the risk of tree preservation orders preserving trees beyond a safe age. At this stage let me just pay tribute to the noble Duke, because it was indeed his father who employed me many years ago when I did my year's mud studenting before going to Cirencester, where I learnt about trees and developed the interest in them that I have been able to maintain.
This survey was carried out with commendable speed and has been of great value in gauging the overall position, particularly the implications for the timber market. I should perhaps say a few words on the physical problems of undertaking such surveys. Many woods are still largely inaccessible as a result of the damage sustained. Forestry Commission surveyors drafted in from as far away as Scotland have done sterling work. Aerial photography has a role to play in extensive surveys, but obtaining such photography is always subject to weather conditions. The process of quantifying damage by interpretation of aerial photographs is a task which demands particular skills.
The responsibilty of my department is trees in open countryside and in built-up areas, for which it is even more difficult to produce accurate figures, especially given the localised nature of some of the damage. This was again a point that my noble friend Lord Onslow made. However, to guide the long-term programme of restoration it is essential that we have a more precise assessment. We have therefore commissioned a survey of damage to non-woodland trees. The contractor has been asked to take aerial photographs of a sample series of strips in the 10 worst affected counties to establish the extent of loss. Of the 235 sample strips involved well over half have been flown, mainly in Suffolk, Hertfordshire, Essex, Dorset and Hampshire. Preliminary figures for' Suffolk, Hertfordshire and Essex suggest that 44,000 trees outside woods have fallen or been badly damaged as a result of the storm. Separately my department is also funding work by the Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service to try to learn as many lessons as possible from the storm damage.

397
Work by others is also helping to build up the picture. English Heritage has carried out an appraisal of the damage to historic parks and gardens. Of 336 gardens in the affected counties on its national register, 161 have suffered significant losses of trees. In 46 the historically important tree planting has been virtually flattened. The Nature Conservancy Council has also carried out an important study of damage to ancient woodlands in statutorily protected areas; and through Task Force Trees information is becoming available on local authority estimates of damage to amenity trees in their areas.
The Nature Conservancy Council has also been assessing the effects of the storm on wildlife, such as the heron mentioned by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I have to say that its initial conclusions have been reassuring. If anything, the council would prefer from the wildlife point of view that fallen trees should be left where they lie rather than be cleared, a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say to my noble friend that, as he knows better than I do, the Forestry Commission's headquarters is opposite Edinburgh Zoo. I shall ask it to look into the question of elephants, but I think that the opportunities might be a little limited in present circumstances.
The results from all this work will need to be brought together to produce a comprehensive picture. My department is taking the lead in a specially convened interdepartmental committee to do just that. The group contains representatives of the Forestry Commission, Task Force Trees, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Transport, and English Heritage. It has already held two meetings and I hope to receive its interim findings shortly. The final report will be prepared as soon as sufficient information is available.
I believe that all noble Lords will welcome this programme of assessment and agree with me that it forms the essential foundation stone for considering the need for longer-term programmes of action. Replacement of trees lost in the storm will be the task of years, not months. It is our children and their children who will see the results of planting which takes place now. We must ensure that it is carefully and responsibly done. This is a challenge to all of us: to government, owners and gardeners alike. Included in this challenge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, is the opportunity to think creatively. We have a unique opportunity to encourage the natural regeneration of woodlands.
I wish to emphasise the key role which voluntary initiative can play. Although government can provide a guiding framework for replacement planting, it is a spread of effort on the ground which counts. After all, planting by private owners on a small scale has determined much of the traditional landscape of England. I am therefore glad to have this opportunity of applauding publicly the launching of a number of appeals to help fund replacement planting by bodies such as the National Trust, Woodland Trust, Men of the Trees and also the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, whose
398
plans my noble friend Lord Norrie has outlined tonight and which I am sure the House will wish to commend.
Local authorities also have an important role to play. They will now be drawing up their budgets for the coming financial year and, in contrast to the position in the immediate aftermath of the storm, which was an entirely unexpected catastrophe, they will be able to weigh up the various calls on resources and decide what priority they wish to give to tree planting.
A number of your Lordships have pressed the case for continuing government assistance with this massive task. In the case of woodlands of a quarter of a hectare or more, the normal Forestry Commission planting grants are available for restocking, and higher rates of grant are given for broadleaved trees. In the case of other trees, we are discussing with the Countryside Commission the need for a continuation of the special programme of grants operated by Task Force Trees and assessing how that will fit in with the efforts of local authorities, of other bodies and of individual owners. I shall return to the Countryside Commission's programme in a moment. We shall also examine whether there is a case for additional resources for English Heritage, as my noble friend Lord Montagu urged, and I look forward to receiving the detailed assessment of which he spoke. I can tell my noble friend Lord Massereene that I am sympathetic to the point of my noble friend Lord Montagu that English Heritage ought to be responsible for assistance to outstanding historic parks, as well as outstanding historic gardens. I should like to consider this further.
Many noble Lords have urged that government assistance should be available not only for replanting but to meet the costs of clearance. My noble friend Lord Stockton gave an example of the scale of those costs and said that in present circumstances they are unlikely to be offset completely, or even in the worst cases offset to any significant extent by the value of the timber extracted. In some cases practical assistance either has been or may in the future be forthcoming from volunteers co-ordinated by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, from the community programme of the Manpower Services Commission or from the Farming and Countryside Initiative.
The general principle, however, must be that clearance is the responsibility of the individual owner. That applies at all levels, from the individual householder who had a tree blown down in his garden and who perhaps has not been mentioned to the full tonight, right up to the Forestry Commission. That is why the grants the Government make available are specifically for planting and are paid only as and when planting is known to have taken place. There cannot be any question of advance payment.
We have received a number of representations urging assistance to private householders for clearance of trees. This is a difficult area. The Government's approach has been to alleviate the costs to ratepayers generally of dealing with the storm by making available special financial assistance

399
to local authorities. We are sympathetic to the position of householders who face costs for clearance but we do not believe it would be either practicable or appropriate for us to accept that these costs should fall on taxpayers nationally rather than the private householder.
As concerns aid under the schemes for both the Countryside Commission and English Heritage, exceptionally they have been prepared to consider helping with the cost of clearance, but only in the case of parks and gardens where there is a particularly strong public interest. However, Countryside Commission grants may include a limited amount of assistance for site preparation, for instance if a stump has to be removed.
We also accept that there are extra costs falling on the owners of large woodlands when they have to replant after a windblow. The Forest Windblow Action Committee set up by the Forestry Commission has discussed this issue and also the commercial prospects for owners trying to sell their fallen timber. The committee has very recently made certain recommendations to the Government, as my noble friend Lord Onslow mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, and my noble friend Lord Dulverton also mentioned the possibility of a subsidy towards the cost of taking timber to mills in other parts of the country and certain precedents in that respect. This is another aspect discussed by the committee. I am sure that the House will not expect me to enter into discussion on the merits of these proposals this evening but I shall ensure that my right honourable friends are fully aware of the views that have been advanced by noble Lords tonight.
I take the point made by noble friend Lord Onslow about some delay in the processing of felling licence applications which have been made in respect of remaining trees following the storm. I willingly support the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that delay from any party in the processing of applications should not be condoned.
400
Both in the public and the private sector the target is to reach considered views of prospects and plans for the start of the next planting season later this year. For their part the Government will make a statement of their intentions in good time for the start of that season. In the meantime we shall be taking note of any further representations which may be made on this matter. I can however make two announcements now about additional funds for the Countryside Commission.
First, in the current financial year we are increasing the commission's grant-in-aid by a further £500,000, of which £250,000 will be available for tree planting. Secondly, we are making available a further sum of almost £800,000 to supplement the commission's planting programme in 1988–e that your Lordships will accept this as a clear sign of the Government's desire to see restoration of the damage wrought by the storm and of our wish to facilitate such planting as far as practicable. However, to reflect the essential partnership role of local authorities in longer-term efforts of recovery, the maximum rate of grant aid available for planting by local authorities next season will revert to the former rate of 50 per cent. of the cost to the authority.
The storm affected many people, farmers, forresters, owners of parks and gardens, and individual householders. Even those who are not directly involved are moved by a profound sense of personal loss when they see the extensive damage to the treescape of the countryside, which is our national heritage. Because the effects of the storm were wide-ranging, so is involvement in tackling its aftermath. The Forestry Commission in respect of commercial timber, the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to farms and my department in respect of amenity trees are all concerned in this matter. I can assure the House that we shall continue to liaise closely within government and with professional, environmental and other bodies in the task ahead for all of us.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  NATIONALITY FEES: 1986–87 ACCOUNTS
  NATIONALITY FEES: 1986–87 ACCOUNTS
  CONVENTIONAL FORCES: STABILITY TALKS
  CONVENTIONAL FORCES: STABILITY TALKS
  FAR EAST: TRADE AND INVESTMENT STATISTICS
  FAR EAST: TRADE AND INVESTMENT STATISTICS
  NUCLEAR INCIDENTS: NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN
  NUCLEAR INCIDENTS: NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN