Sitting of 22 January 1988

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

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill
  9.35 am
  Mr. Chris Smith: I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of about 400 or 500 of my constituents. It is headed "Fight Alton's Bill" and states:
  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.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I wish to present a petition, Mr. Speaker, to
  the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  The petition
  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 the Honourable House do vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
  It has been signed by 1,065 people, the majority of whom are my constituents. I am pleased to be able to present the petition on their behalf, and I fully support it. I trust that the House of Commons will reject the Bill that is to be debated today.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I beg leave to present a petition from the women's council of the Pontefract and Castleford constituency, signed by hundreds of my constituents. They beg to ask the House not to pass the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
  Wherefore, your petitioners pray that your Honourable House do vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
  To lie upon the Table.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.38 am
Mr. David Alton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In coming to the debate this morning, three months after I presented the Bill, I thank those hon. Members on both sides of the argument for the way in which, generally, the debate has been conducted. This is a difficult issue, which rouses sensitivities, anger, bitterness, and, sometimes, even hatred. By and large, Members of this House have conducted the debate in the country with great dignity and decorum, giving this issue the respect to which it is entitled. I hope that we shall be able to mirror that in the House today.
Fifty-nine years after the passage of the Infant Life Preservation Act and 20 years after the passage of the Abortion Act, it is my hope that the House will today allow this Bill to proceed to Commitee. Public and parliamentary opinion clearly believes that, in the light of medical and scientific advances, a clear upper time limit beyond which abortion may not occur should be established.
Wherever we come from in this debate, be we pro-life or pro-choice, opposed to or in favour of abortion, no one can be sanguine about the nature and consequences of late abortions. That is the issue before the House today and this Bill provides a vehicle for public policy to be reviewed.
The existing statute regulating abortion comprises three pieces of legislation—the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the Abortion Act 1967. No upper time limit when abortions may occur is specified in the 1967 Act. No distinction is made between late and early abortions. Indeed, section 5(1) declares:
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929."
Those who framed the 1929 legislation came to the question after an assize judge had before him a case in which a child had been killed shortly before the moment of birth and before it had an existence independent of its mother. It emerged that the killer could not be charged with any criminal offence, so a Bill was introduced in the House of Lords by one of the Lords of Appeal to fill the gap between abortion and murder. In framing the legislation, it was considered necessary to exclude the case where a foetus was destroyed at a time when it was not capable of being born alive, so a rule of thumb was created in section 1(2) of the Act to the effect that, at any time after the 28th week of pregnancy, the child is, prima facie, assumed to be capable of being born alive.
It does not seem unreasonable, 59 years after the passage of that Act, to ask Parliament to reconsider this rule of thumb. Indeed, given the gigantic strides in medicine and technology, where medical knowledge has increased by leaps and bounds, it is incumbent on any civilised or ordered society to review its public policy and to strike a proper balance between claimed rights and responsibilities.
Many of us hold powerfully held convictions about the right to life over the notion that we have the right to choose to take life, but this debate is not about that. It is about what, in the judgment of individual Members of

1229
Parliament, the public interest requires and what people as a whole can be brought to accept as a rational solution to an intractable problem.
Sir Jim Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will know that I wrote to him three days ago, enclosing a letter which I sent to my constituents concerning this point about what the time should be. Most hon. Members agree that 28 weeks is not acceptable, but, equally, many hon. Members do not accept 18 weeks. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance, during the debate, that he is prepared to accept a middle-ground time, which will bring many people on to his side?
Mr. Alton: That is a helpful intervention and I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Many hon. Members have written to me. Some have suggested that the time limit should be more in line with other European countries where the average is about 14 weeks. Other hon. Members have suggested that it should be 14, 16, 18, 22, or anything up to 28 weeks. I have made it clear that, although in my judgment 18 weeks is about the right time, I recognise that there are strongly held views on this subject throughout the House. Indeed, it would be proper to examine in Committee other possible points where a time limit might be established. I give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that, if an amendment were suggested, provided it did not emasculate the Bill beyond the point of recognition, I should be happy to accept anything that could be done to rationalise the law.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman said that, in his judgment, 18 weeks was about the right time. What does he have to say to the parents of one, two or three disabled children who are yearning to have another child who is not disabled? How does he advise the mother when the choices are either to have a disabled child with whom they cannot cope or to have a child who will suffer so much that they are not willing to see such suffering? Is he prepared to close the door on that family having additional children?
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter, for obvious reasons, many times. We both have very personal, strongly-held views about the eugenics question and about whether abortion might take place on the ground of disability. The Bill contains an exclusion clause for those cases of disability which are incompatible with life. If a child has anencephaly, or there is Potter's or Edward's syndrome it would be proper, under the terms of the Bill, for a termination to occur, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the legitimacy of taking life on the ground of disability. However, I recognise—
Mr. Barry Field rose—
Mr. Alton: —the power of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I also recognise that, given that 92 per cent. of all late abortions involved healthy children, if an exclusion clause were included in the Bill in Committee to deal with the question of disability it would still be a worthwhile measure. The widespread debate which accompanies such an initiative is of equal importance to the Bill. That is where attitudes can be challenged and the climate changed. I refuse to believe that anyone is in favour of abortion, and that is why it is right that, time and again, politicians, public figures and the country must discuss this question.
1230
Before coming to the detail of the Bill and to the question on which we shall vote later, I wish to place the Bill in the context of that national debate. Twenty years ago, when introducing his Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said that it was his intention to eliminate back-street abortions. He said that it was not the intention of the promoters of the Bill to leave a wider door open for abortion on request. Yet who can doubt, almost 3 million abortions later — 600 abortions are undertaken every working day, some even on the grounds of the gender of a child, simply because it is a little girl—that we have anything other than abortion on demand in most parts of Britain?
In a census of 746 gynaecologists, undertaken by Gallup and published two days ago, over 400 —86 per cent. — stated that, from their experience, abortion on demand is now available in the NHS hospitals in which they work.
Miss Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman said that to his knowledge, terminations were taking place in cases where the gender of the child was in question. That is quite clearly illegal and cannot be supported. If the hon. Gentleman knows of such cases, he should present them to the Director of Public Prosecutions for prosecution. Will he give us that assurance?
Mr. Alton: The example highlighted by BBC Radio 4 has already been presented by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) in a letter to the Attorney-General. In the view of many hon. Members, this ought to be challenged as being illegal under the terms of the 1967 Act. The fact that BBC Radio 4 is prepared to substantiate those claims and has provided chapter and verse shows that the matter ought to be a cause for concern.
In 1967, abortion was presented almost as a panacea or as a universal remedy. In 1967, we were told that abortion would reduce illegitimacy. Today, it stands at 15 per cent. and is rising. In 1967, we were told that there would be less child abuse because every child would be wanted. However, scarcely a day passed in 1987 when we did not hear of a case of a child being physically or sexually abused. In 1967, we were told that abortion would give a woman new rights. By 1987, many women and men had been emotionally and psychologically scarred and the demand for post-abortion counselling has been growing. We have learnt much in 20 years, and even more since the passage of the 1929 Act.
It was only in 1969—two years after the passage of my right hon. Friend's Bill — that the science of foetoscopy really took off. In 1967, let alone in 1929, medics could not take an electrocardiogram of the baby, which shows its heartbeat and reaction to painful stimuli as its heartbeat increases. Twenty years ago, it would have been impossible accurately to date the exact time of gestational development or the characteristics of the developing child. Clearly, ultrasound scanning, chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis have changed all that. Since 1967 we have revolutionised our awareness of the humanity of the developing child. Since then, we have learned a lot also about the consequences of abortion, both for the mother and child, and for the medics as well. I am amazed that those who counsel in favour of abortion, especially so late in pregnancy, would really warn a

1231
woman of the potential physical and psychological consequences. Abortion was recently described by an opponent of my Bill as being
"as safe as having an injection of penicillin".
We must challenge the assumption that abortion is either prudent or desirable.
Not only are there the physical effects of invasive surgery on perfectly healthy women but there are the psychological consequences of post-abortion trauma. In 1976 the Department of Health and Social Security started to fund the Manchester unit of the Royal College of General Practitioners which is studying the psychiatric morbidity experienced by women after an abortion. The report will be published shortly. But today The Independent shows that of those surveyed 79 per cent. admitted that, if they knew that a child had quickened in the womb, they would experience a great sense of guilt if they were to carry out an abortion after that time. That is how people tick. A late abortion—when a woman has felt her child quicken, when its humanity can be in no doubt—is inevitably the most traumatic abortion of all.
Kathleen McDonnell, in her book "Not an Easy Choice —A Feminist Re-examines Abortion"— I do not believe that abortion is ever an easy choice — quotes approvingly a young abortion councillor who says:
"Yes, this is killing, there is no way around it. But I am willing to accept that."
McDonnell says:
"there is no escaping the fact that we have, with full consciousness, terminated life. This is most emphatically not the same as blaming ourselves or burdening ourselves with an unnecessary load of guilt."
But it is simple casuistry to say, "Yes, it is killing, but, no, I will not feel any sense of guilt."
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alton: 1 shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been trying to intervene.
Mr. Hood: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that I wrote to him on 15 October in response to a circular which was sent to hon. Members and asked him about a particular point? I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question now: does he believe in abortion at 18 weeks? It is important for that question to be answered. Some of the people who have been canvassing and lobbying hon. Members look at the present proposals as a step to follow the abolition of abortion in all circumstances. The hon. Gentleman should tell the House whether he believes in abortion at 18 weeks.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to ask that question. I have never made any secret about my views. In 1981, when I attempted to reduce the upper time limit, I made exactly the same point that, for me, abortion, whether late or early, whether legal or illegal, is the taking of life. That is not the Bill before the House at the moment. This is a legitimate review of public policy. That is what is contained in the Bill.
Given the psychological and physical consequences to which a woman may be subject, having had an abortion, why do counsellors advise her to have an abortion, especially so late in a pregnancy? One reason is revealed in a figure which has been provided to me by the Department of Health and Social Security. The Department confirms that 32 individuals are directors or trustees of a company or a charity providing abortion
1232
counselling and are simultaneously involved in private clinics undertaking abortions. About £12 million is estimated to have passed hands in this business last year. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists survey into late abortions, in one year alone 60 per cent. of the late abortions undertaken in private clinics were performed by just 11 practitioners. They and the clinics in which they work netted £2 million in this business.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I point out the sad case of one of my constituents. She says:
"I have had two abortions. The private clinic that I attended on both occasions made it relatively easy for me to obtain an abortion. The plausible reasons that I gave for seeking the terminations were readily accepted.
I received no counselling but I now realise that this is due to the fact that private clinics run a profitable industry in human weakness.
In all probability both babies would have been born perfectly healthy and even though I considered, at that time, I could not bring them up myself, I was not reminded of the fact that there are only too many childless couples anxious to adopt.
However, private clinics are not in the business of giving support and pointing out the available options.
Sadly, I only considered my own situation at the time."
Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important intervention. Some 88 per cent. of all late abortions take place not in the National Health Service but in private clinics. Half of the late abortions are on women from overseas, who are then duly despatched on an aeroplane back to the countries from which they came, without any care or compassion shown for them. How do we know what physical or psychological condition a woman will be in when she returns to her country? That is why there is a case to be answered. We must show compassion for the woman and the child. If there are consequences in a late abortion for a woman, there are consequences for the child as well. Every country and every age will be judged by the simple test: how did they treat their people?
By 18 weeks, a foetus is not just a clump of tissues, not just a blob of jelly. The child has sentience and can feel pain. If a light is shone at its mother's womb, the child will react and turn away. The child has a complete skeleton and reflexes. It pumps 50 pints of blood a day. A report "Human Procreation — Ethical Aspects of the New Techniques", published by the Council for Science and Society — certainly not a body supporting my view—states that pain is experienced
"after the foetus has developed a nervous system, six weeks after pregnancy being the earliest."
In November, Dr. Peter McCullagh, an eminent immunologist, stated that research on foetal nervous systems showed that pain could be felt at eight or nine weeks, and perhaps earlier. He said that babies could be in agony during abortions.
What, under a late abortion, do we allow to happen to a child? Two principal methods are used in a late abortion. Of the 12 per cent. of late abortions undertaken in the NHS, the method known as prostaglandins is the most commonly used. By this method, labour is induced by drugs. The labour will be more painful than in a birth and can last for 20 hours or more. There is a chance that when prostaglandins is used the child will be born alive. To avoid this a child is usually poisoned before the abortion. Because this is a long-drawn-out business, the method of late abortion used in private clinics is primarily dilatation

1233
and evacuation. By this method, the cervix is dilated and the baby's body removed piece by piece. To facilitate its extraction from the womb, the skull is crushed, the spine snapped and the body removed piece by piece. An attendant nurse then has the job of reassembling the body to ensure that nothing has been left behind that might cause infection. Throughout this procedure no anaesthetic is used on the child.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alton: In a moment.
A nurse involved in these late abortions wrote to me in these terms:
"Although the doctor commences the infusion, it's the nurses who have the job of looking after the patient—and some of these are so advanced it's like a normal delivery. Sometimes the foetus lives for a few minutes though the harsh contractions caused by the drugs have usually battered it to death. I don't know which is worse, those done in theatre, where you see the uterine contents being sucked into a bottle, or seeing the bruised bodies of these always perfectly formed foetuses in a receiver on the wall."
This is a corrupting and degrading business for the medical staff who become the destroyer instead of defender of life.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman started on a premise that we all share: no one is in favour of abortion. However, does he agree that the photographic material sent out by the anti-abortion lobby is deplorable in that it is difficult for laymen to handle as they are beset with the horrors of life and death in all medical aspects and not just in birth?
Mr. Alton: No. It is time that people saw the reality. It is also an extraordinary paradox.
Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about what happened before the 1967 Act, when the foetus was stabbed by a knitting needle or a screwdriver? I had direct experience of that, as I was a nurse in the wards which received the victims of backstreet abortionists and women who had had self-induced abortions. It was horrific. At least now abortions take place in clean, clinically controlled environments. There was more suffering, pain and anguish for women then than there is now.
Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Lady that a return to the back streets would not be progress. If it were possible to have introduced a Abortion (Utopia) Bill, I would have introduced it. No one would wish for a return to the back streets, but the nature of the operation that I described can be undertaken only by a doctor and a nurse if it is undertaken so late in pregnancy.
In other countries in western Europe that have a rational time limit such as that I have suggested, there is no problem with back-street abortions. In confirmation of that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said:
"it true … that the bulk of the illegal abortions, the backstreet abortions, which go on today occur not at the stage where the foetus is fairly advanced … but at an early stage." —[Official Report, 13 July 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1347.]
It is a paradox that we spend some £13 million a year on abortions in Britain, when doctors and nurses should be using their skills to care for and cradle life, not to extinguish it and snuff it out. Care and kill can never be used as synonyms.
1234
The nurse's observation that aborted babies are perfect is invariably true. Of the 8,276 late abortions undertaken last year, 92 per cent. were on perfectly healthy children. The Bill, by imposing an upper time limit, sets out to stop that. Hard cases are used to try to rubbish the Bill—but hard cases make bad law. However, those hard cases will be brought up during the debate and should be examined in detail.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alton: No. I have given way already.
Some hon. Members do not share my view about disability. I have already said something about that in answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). About 8 per cent. of late abortions occur after an amniocentesis or another test that shows that a child will have a disability. As Professor Ron Taylor, a supporter of the Bill and the professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at London university stated in last week's Sunday Times:
"With new techniques such as chorionic villus sampling and ultrasound, discovery of such abnormalities as can be diagnosed are found much earlier than 18 weeks."
It is true that not all conditions diagnosed by amniocentesis will be discovered by CVS —and CVS is not yet available everywhere. I recognise that some hon. Members will wish to include an exclusion clause to allow post-l8-week abortion on the ground of disability. That is a perfectly proper issue for the Committee to consider. Although I personally do not support abortions on eugenic grounds, I have made it clear that even if such an exemption were placed in the Bill it would still be of enormous worth.
For six years before coming to the House I worked with children with special needs. It would have been a brave man or woman who would have told them that they would have been better dead. At the outset, when I announced my intention to introduce the Bill, a young woman called Ellen Wilkie contacted me. She was born with muscular dystrophy. The doctors had told her parents that she would not live beyond her teens. Ellen is now 29, she has a classics degree and writes poetry and plays. She said in her letter, more eloquently than I could say:
"No one can say what a disabled person will be capable of. Who are we to play God?"
Disability should not be a disqualification for life.
Interestingly, Wednesday's Gallup survey of gynaecologists revealed several significant things. Almost all gynaecologists questioned sought a later limit for severe handicaps, such as anencephaly or Potter's syndrome where the baby cannot survive. My Bill contains a specific exemption for such circumstances. However, two thirds, or 68 per cent., believed that an upper limit of 18 weeks was right in the case of minor handicaps such as hare lip, club foot, or impaired hearing or sight. Almost half, or 46 per cent., said that there should be no abortions for such minor handicaps. The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists called for an upper limit of 24 weeks to allow late abortion for handicap, but that suggestion had the support of 31 per cent., or less than one-third, of practising gynaecologists in Britian.
There are radical alternatives to utility, based on uninhibited, unqualified, unconditional love, and backed up by practical support, care and resources. That finds its bedrock in authentic human values. Abortionism is

1235
defeatism — albeit a defeatism that is often born of desperation and fear. The answer can never be to kill one of the two patients who confront the doctor.
Let me turn to some of the other cases which have been cited by those who oppose the Bill. Contrary to what has been said in newspaper articles and speeches that oppose the Bill, after 18 weeks, abortions are not often performed on young girls. Only 4·7 per cent. of late abortions are performed on girls under 16. Late abortions are not often performed on women with many previous children who cannot face the prospect of another baby. Only 0·8 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are on women with more than four children. Late abortions are not often performed on middle-aged women who may have mistaken pregnancy for the menopause. Only 2 per cent. of late abortions are performed on women over 41. Late abortions are not often performed in cases of pregnancy arising out of rape or when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. During five years, only 13 late abortions, out of 40,000, were performed for one of those two reasons. The Bill specifically allows for a termination of pregnancy when the mother's life is at risk.
We are told that 20 per cent. of late abortions result from delays in the NHS. No doubt the Minister will want to say something about that. However, given that 88 per cent. of late abortions are not even performed in the NHS, that seems a curious claim. The 1984 report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that 95 per cent. of women presenting for late abortions were operated on within 14 days of first seeking advice.
Opponents of the Bill claim that women will be forced into the back streets. The dilatation and evacuation operation that I mentioned earlier clearly could not be performed by a back-street abortionist. In other EC countries, where time limits are much lower than in the United Kingdom—the average time limit in the EEC is about 14 weeks—that argument has been shown to be scare mongering of the worst kind. Let me re-emphasise that 88 per cent. of late abortions, or 7,270 out of 8,276, were performed under the Act, which allows for social abortions.
Men must, of course, approach the debate with humility and sensitivity. We rarely have to suffer the practical day-to-day experience of an unwanted child. We rarely hear about unmarried fathers, only about unmarried mothers. We do not hear about men having illegitimate children, only women, and how often men smugly talk about fallen women. We never hear about fallen men.
Women are frequently pressurised into abortions by men. Men too often leave a woman in the lurch, having used their sexuality without responsibility. Those who maintain that abortion is purely a woman's issue do women no service; it allows men to evade their responsibilities, and without changes in men's attitudes women will not be truly liberated. Men and women are involved in abortion, and all that is required to come to this debate is humanity.
I believe that I have made out a case for this Bill being allowed a Committee stage. These arguments must then be sifted through and honed.
Speaking on "Woman's Hour", Dame Josephine Barnes, not a supporter of my Bill, but a leading gynaecologist, said:
"We have far too many late abortions in this country. It is deplorable."
1236
Many would share that view.
I have attempted to bring forward a modest Bill. which deals with only 4·8 per cent. of all abortions, but undoubtedly those which carry the gravest consequences for the mother, for the child and for the medic alike. In framing this one-clause Bill, I have demonstrated a willingness to be reasonable. I have made it clear that I will not be intransigent in trying to steer through a much-needed and long overdue reform. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first of the Back Benchers to contribute, I remind the House that a great many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Well over 30 Members have indicated their wish by letter and there may well be others. I make a special plea for contributions to be brief so that others may be called.
10.10 am
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I believe that the Bill is phoney. It does not stand up to close examination. It is perfectly acceptable intellectually and morally to be opposed to abortion, to believe that it should be illegal and to take the view, which I do not share, that it is murder. I have a very close working relationship with the members of the Pro-Life group in my constituency. I understand and respect their views, but I do not go along with them, and they are aware of that.
I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) can have just plucked out of the air the time of 18 weeks. If he believes that abortion is murder, surely it is murder at 16 weeks, 14 weeks or 12 weeks. What is worse is that the limit of 18 weeks will do grave damage to those parents who have conceived a grossly disabled child in the past, wish to have further children, and know that there is a one in four chance that that child might also be grossly disabled.
The House will be aware that tests can only just be carried out at 18 weeks. Those tests take many weeks before conclusion can be drawn and then, if need be, a traumatic and difficult decision must be made by the parents to arrange an abortion. Under the Bill, many decent, reasonable, caring people will find that they are unable to have an abortion. I am privileged to have in my constituency the headquarters of the epidermolysis bullosa support group, known as DEBRA, under the inspirational directorship of Mrs. Mary Freeman. Some hon. Members came to the DEBRA rally in the Grand Committee Room on Tuesday. Whatever one's view of the Bill, one would have been deeply moved by the people one met there. They were not zealots or fundamentalists; they were Christian, caring people who had experienced the trauma of having a grossly disabled child and did not want to repeat that tragedy. Not unreasonably, they wished to have further children, which their gynaecologist told them had about a three in four chance of being disabled. They would be denied the opportunity to have an abortion if the Bill is passed.
Mr. David Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacKay: I will not give way, because Mr. Speaker has indicated that many hon. Members wish to speak. I will give way to my hon. Friend later if he will let me pursue my point.
All hon. Members must have had constituents come to their advice bureaux or surgeries with disabled children.

1237
They, like me, will have noted how much those parents have aged. Somebody who looks 65 tells one that he or she is only 40. They perhaps bring with them other normal children, and those normal children are not being properly cared for because, quite rightly and naturally, the parents have to devote every waking hour to that grossly disabled child. The parents fear what will happen to the child if they die early, in their 50s. This becomes a trauma for them, a nightmare, which they get out of perspective, but I can understand that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A lady came to my advice bureau with a seriously handicapped child and I saw the look of love on that mother's face. She said that she would not have done without that child; all she wanted was the support services.
Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point.
Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacKay: No, I will not give way; I want to answer the point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) points out, many people have disabled children and they love them and treat them well. They are given excellent services by the local authority and the state.
Like the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, I am not in favour of abortion. All I am in favour of, as a Conservative, is freedom of choice for people to be able to decide. It is a traumatic decision for the parents to have an abortion—not just for the mother, but for the father as well. It does not help if politicians interfere and tell those parents whether they should go ahead with that abortion. It is up to the parents to decide whether they wish to have a grossly disabled child. I could never dream of advising them one way or the other. My wife and I are not sufficiently capable as parents to have a disabled child. To be totally honest, I could not cope with it. I have terrific admiration, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, for those people who are able to cope—but the decision must be theirs, not ours.
Another element of the Bill worries me. If passed, the Bill would be the worst piece of class legislation that the House has put on the statute book for many a long day. My affluent, middle-class, and, I hope, by and large intelligent, constituents would have no difficulty in arranging an abortion, either privately or elsewhere. Most of those abortions, except in the case of the disabled, would be well before the 18-week limit, so they could take a very relaxed view.
All hon. Members have had come to their surgeries 15 or 16-year-old girls with a low IQ. They are not aware of what contraception is; they are pregnant, lost and confused. Often the girl does not realise for several months that she is pregnant. She is scared, frightened to speak to her parents and frightened to go to her doctor, so it is many weeks before she faces the crisis. That will be the little girl who will suffer from the Bill, not my affluent constituents. We will then go back to the bad old days, briefly mentioned by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), of back-street abortions.
It is only 21 years since the Abortion Act was introduced, but I am sure that everybody can recall the
1238
horror of back-street abortions. We are all realistic enough to know that abortions will still take place, whether legal or illegal, so it is important that they are done in modern clinics where there is good hygiene, good follow-up services and a sensitive attitude. A return to back-street abortions will mean a return to deaths and trauma, and the people who will suffer are those whom the House should most want to protect. The vulnerable, the not very intelligent and the inadequate will be driven to the backstreet abortionists, who will be laughing all the way to the bank. That would be a bad example to set.
Like me, many of my hon. Friends would be happy for the limit to be reduced to 24 weeks. Medical science has advanced immeasurably during the past 20 years so that today it is perfectly possible for a child to be born at 24 weeks. I also believe that abortions on grounds of disability need not be performed after 24 weeks, as tests for disability can be carried out earlier. What should those of us who hold that view do? I suggest that they should not support the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested at the Dispatch Box yesterday. I will tell the House why. In the past few days, some of my hon. Friends have said to me, "I am totally against 18 weeks. I accept all the arguments on disability. However, I would like the limit to be reduced to 24 weeks. Cannot we amend the Bill in Committee?" My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) raised that point earlier.
I will tell the House what will happen if hon. Members who advocate a limit of 24 weeks vote for the Bill today. It will get a substantial majority on Second Reading, which will mean—I do not object to this—that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill will have a considerable say in the constitution of the Standing Committee. I suggest—I would do the same in his position—that he will pack the Committee with anti-abortionists who would like to see abortion made illegal.
Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacKay: Just one moment. Of course, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I should like to hear from him on this point.
An amendment tabled in Committee suggesting 24 weeks will be resisted by the anti-abortionists, with the result that it cannot be referred back to the House on Report. My hon. Friends will then be left in the difficult position of having to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) says. To leave it until Third Reading is to leave it very late, and some of our constituents would be very confused if we voted for the Bill on Second Reading and against is on Third Reading. That would be most unfortunate.
Finally —[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I was prepared to give way, but the hon. Member for Mossley Hill not longer seems to wish to intervene.
Mr. Alton: I think that the hon. Gentleman has already dealt with the point. I had intended to say that hon. Members will have opportunities at various stages of the Bill in this House and in another place, whatever the Committee decides. I have already made it clear that I have no intention of being intransigent if I can get a useful measure on to the statute book. Surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that, if I do not keep my word, he and other hon. Members will have the chance to vote against the Bill on Report and Third Reading.
Mr. MacKay: I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman will not be intransigent, but not that those whom he places on the Committee will be at all reasonable. I have been in the House far too long to fall for that one.
In fairness, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has made it clear that he resists the idea of medical exemptions. An amendment to allow such exemptions would appeal to many of my hon. Friends. Again, let me issue a warning. It would he very difficult to insert a suitable clause specifying the medical conditions that would lead to exemptions. The medical authorities tell us that there could be more than 2,000. That would be a nightmare, and it would be quite unacceptable. Therefore, I share the view of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill on that point, although for very different reasons.
Finally, I urge hon. Members to reject this most unfortunate Bill.
10.24 am
Mr. David Steel: As I was the promoter of the Abortion Act that went through the House in 1967 and as this Bill seeks to amend that Act, it is only right that I should speak on it, albeit briefly.
I appreciate the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) introduced his Bill. He is not only my hon. Friend but a friend of mine, which is not always exactly the same thing in this place. Having said that, I cannot support the Bill, and I wish to tell the House why.
In the past few weeks, we have all been bombarded with postcards carrying enlarged photographs — me more than most, perhaps. One that I received from a constituent said:
"Mr. Steel, how do you think the human race managed to keep a balance for nearly 20 centuries without abortion?"
It is one of the great myths peddled by the supporters of this Bill that abortion came into being with the 1967 Act. The truth is that it did not. The House was motivated to change the law in 1967—mine was the seventh attempt in 15 years to use private Members' legislation to secure reform —by the appalling record of illegal abortions in Britain. No one knows the precise figures for illegal abortions, but the medical authorities vary in their estimates from 40,000 to 200,000 a year. They fell into two categories. Some people could get safe and comfortable abortions—the law for the rich — because if one had money and the intelligence to find one's way through all the medical specialists, one could get a quasi-legal abortion in a hospital. However, people who were not rich and intelligent went through the various back-street methods.
In the 1960s the House was faced with the knowledge that between 30 and 50 women died each year as a result of criminal abortion. That was only the tip of the iceberg. Many more were maimed or injured for life as a result of operations carried out in the back streets. The idea that abortion started with the 1967 Act is one of the myths that we must explode.
The other myth is that Britain has become the abortion capital of the world and that we have a high abortion rate. I am not in favour of a high abortion rate, but the House should be aware of the facts. According to the figures for 1984—the latest that I have—our abortion rate is 12·2 per thousand women of child-bearing age. That compares with 15·2 per thousand in France, 18·4 per thousand in
1240
Denmark, 19·1 per thousand in Italy and 27·4 per thousand in the United States. That is not taking info account those countries that unfortunately use abortion as a method of population control. In Romania, the rate is 90·9 per thousand and in the Soviet Union it is 181 per thousand. We need to keep a sense of perspective and recognise that, deplorable though the increase in abortions may be, our rate is by no means the highest in the world, as the opponents claim.
I have never come across anyone who is pro-abortion. Most of us who support the present legislation have always operated on the basis that abortion is the lesser of two evils in some circumstances. I hope that the Church of England will reprint its detailed and objective report, "Abortion— an Athical Discussion" published in 1965, which traces the ethics of abortion over the centuries. It said:
"This discussion will proceed … on the supposition that there may be cases in which, granted this general right of the foetus to live and develop, this right may be offset by other conflicting rights; and that the proper function of the criminal law is, in a restricted area, to regulate the adjustment of those rights when they cannot be, or are unlikely to be, adjusted by other means."
Mr. Cyril Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Steel: In a moment. It was on that ethical foundation that the Abortion Act 1967 was framed.
Mr. Smith: As my right hon. Friend chooses to quote the attitude expressed by the Church of England in 1965, will he tell us what is the attitude of the Synod of the Church of England to the Bill?
Mr. Steel: I was about to come to that point, because at that time most of the churches supported the reform of the law. Since then, various churches have monitored the operation of the Act and have expressed their views, which are all different. My church, the Church of Scotland, made it clear in a letter sent this week to all Scottish Members that it is a matter for individual Christian consciences. The letter says:
"You will no doubt be aware from debates at the General Assembly that there is division of opinion within the Church of Scotland on the issue of abortion as clearly there is throughout the country. In all of this, the church should urge that those engaged in political decisions should recognise that freedom should be given to all to act according to their conscience."
I think that that approach has been broadly adopted by the Church of England. Different committees in the churches—and hon. Members can speak for their own church—have produced different recommendations to the House.
It is our task to lay down the boundary of the criminal law. It is not our task to say in what precise circumstances any individual should or should not have an abortion. The House decided in 1967, despite the fact that some hon. Members argued then, as some hon. Members will argue today, that we should legislate for abortion at the request of the woman, that that was not to be the basis of the 1967 Act; nor is it. We did not legislate for abortion on demand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill complains that people are running profit-making clinics and using those clinics for making money mainly from patients imported from overseas. That was not intended in the spirit of the 1967 legislation. The answer to that complaint lies in the capacity of the Ministers in charge of the Health Departments to make regulations under the

1241
Act and to say to such clinics that their licence will be withdrawn. There is no need to change the law in order to achieve the objective.
I now turn to the question of late abortions. I have read again the speeches made in 1967. I said at the time that if we were to have abortion at all, it was desirable that it should be done as early as possible. I very much regret that we still have a high rate of late abortions. They happen for two reasons. One is that administrative snarl-ups in the National Health Service very often delay the abortion operation. That is a matter to be argued on another day. The other reason is that, sadly, many women present very late for consideration of termination of pregnancy. That is especially so in the case of those who fear or have been tested for foetal abnormality — covered by a specific clause in the 1967 Act.
Ms. Clare Short: It is broadly agreed that a late abortion is a post-24 week abortion. The numbers of such abortions have come down massively, and last year there were only 29. Two thirds of those were because of severe foetal abnormality and the others concerned young girls and menopausal women. The adjustment is taking place and late abortion is being reduced, but I agree that we should do more about that.
Mr. Steel: The hon. Lady is talking about late abortion in a very precise sense after 24 weeks. I am talking about late abortions generally. In passing the 1967 Act I think that the whole House intended, and still wishes, that abortion should take place as early as possible.
The case of the handicapped is extremely emotive. I hope that the House will recognise that charities such as Mencap, which spends its whole existence caring for the handicapped, is among those organisations that oppose the provisions of my hon. Friend's Bill and support the present legislation. It is not true to suggest that those who believe that this is a proper provision in the law do not care for the disabled in our midst, who deserve the full consideration that we all give them.
We have had many letters from medical bodies urging us not to support the Bill. More impressive than those is a short letter that I received from a constituent who said:
"Having had a late termination (about 19–20 weeks) because it was discovered my baby had severe abnormalities I know what I am talking about. It was a disturbing event for me but not as bad as giving birth after 9 months to a baby the doctors said would not have lived anyway. Parents must have the choice to make their own decision in cases like this.
I know I personally could not have coped with a full term baby being born like this. I have had a healthy daughter since this tragic event but I am sure I would never have had the courage to become pregnant again if I knew that I would have to go 9 months and not be offered a late termination had the baby had the same abnormalities."
That letter is the answer to those who say that it is uncaring or unheeding to consider the termination of pregnancy in such circumstances. Nobody is forced to require this if that person does not believe that it is right. It is simply that the criminal law allows it to happen if the doctors, the mother, the father, think that these are the right circumstances.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us his view on the 92 per cent. of late abortions that are carried out on healthy children?
Mr. Steel: I am coming to the question of the time limits, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill asserted, and I have seen it in much of the literature put out in support of his Bill, that other European countries have a much more restricted cut-off point in their legislation than we have. My hon. Friend is misinformed in this matter, because that is not so. The laws of most of our European neighbours are different from ours because they establish in their legislation two degrees of abortion. They allow abortion on request of the mother up to a certain limited stage.
I have a list which illustrates that. Sweden allows abortion on request of the mother up to 18 weeks, but after that it is for serious medical or social reasons. In Denmark, abortion is on request up to 12 weeks, but after that it can be for social or medical reasons. In Norway it is on request up to 12 weeks and after that it is on the doctor's decision. France allows abortion on request up to 12 weeks but allows it up to 24 weeks on medical grounds. In Italy it is allowed for various reasons that are established during the first three months, and after that it is allowed for the woman's health or for foetal abnormality.
Therefore, one sees that other countries have approached their law in a different way and the cut-off points mentioned by the promoters of the Bill are not cutoff points at all. They are the dividing line between abortion on demand and other categories of abortion that come later. Because we have not approached abortion in that way, we do not have a cut-off point and it is unfair to make comparisons with the cut-off points in other legislation.
The committee of inquiry, under Mrs. Justice Lane, into the working of abortion recommended that there should be a restriction of abortion to 24 weeks. That has been endorsed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. In 1967 we did not establish a 28-week limit but simply took the existing law, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 as the basis for the cut-off limit. There is no cut-off limit in the 1967 Act and the law of England and Wales is established as in 1929. It is similar in Scotland. I think that it is fairly common ground that medical science has moved on, and that it is possible for foetuses born as early as 24 weeks to survive. That is why I support, as do the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition — although that may not be an argument that commends it to the House—the 24-week limit.
My hon. Friend's Bill seeks to do something very different from that. It does not seek to establish an 18-week limit. That is because, every time a legal limit is set down, the actual medical practice allows two weeks for safety. In medical practice, the present 28-week limit is a 26-week limit. If the House establishes a statutory 24-week limit, in medical practice it would be a 22-week limit. The Bill does not seek to establish an 18-week limit because it talks about the beginning of the 18th week. That is a 17-week limit and in medical practice will mean a limit of 15 weeks.
I do not have the slightest doubt that, if the Bill were to pass into legislation, it would make a major difference to the operation of the abortion law and would deprive thousands of women of the opportunity to go to their medical practitioner and consider the case for termination of pregnancy. As I have said, I do not think that it is for us to tell women in particular circumstances, or their

1243
doctors, that they should or should not have an abortion. The Bill would cause deprivation and for that reason it should be opposed.
I agree with the point, perhaps not made very judiciously, by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) that the promoter of the Bill is entitled to choose the members of his Committee. There is no doubt that the Bill would not be substantially altered in Committee. But it will have to come back to us and we could alter it on Report. I have a bigger objection than that to voting for the Bill. The Second Reading should be a vote on the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is not about tinkering with the upper medical limit as recommended by Mrs. Justice Lane or the royal college. It is a fundamental change to the Abortion Act 1967, and that is why I oppose it.
Finally, we are meeting at a time when, whether we are for or against the Bill, we are all concerned that, if at all possible, there should be a lower level of abortions. It is tragic that this year the family planning services, funded by the National Health Service, are facing cuts. I am told that this very day the Central Birmingham district health authority is negotiating with the Brook Advisory Centre for further cuts for the next three years, which will result in a 40 per cent. reduction in that centre's activities in the city of Birmingham. If we want, as I do, fewer unwanted abortions, let us have few unwanted pregnancies.
10.40 am
Sir Bernard Braine: Whatever view any of us take about this great issue, we are all profoundly grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for opening the debate with a speech that was a model of lucidity and compassion.
It is a sad commentary on the way in which we conduct our affairs in this place that on every occasion since 1975 when a similar Bill has secured a Second Reading and has done so on the basis of principle, all have foundered because of procedural devices at one stage or another and because of lack of time. That is sad, because we know that there was and is now a substantial majority in the country in favour of abortion reform.
For over 20 years, I have been concerned at the way in which a civilised country such as ours has permitted, and indeed encouraged, the deliberate destruction every year of 150,000 unborn babies, most of whom, if born, would have been perfectly normal, healthy children. That was the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) sought to gain a response from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), but the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood it. That point remains unanswered, but perhaps I shall be able to develop it a little later.
Abortion presents a dreadful dilemma for all of us, whatever view we take of the Bill. In cases where the mother's life is in danger or where there are indications of grave and permanent damage to the child if born, the majority accept that termination is justified. However, such tragic circumstances account for only a minute proportion of the total number of abortions carried out under the 1967 Act. Of the 2·6 million unborn babies destroyed up to the end of 1986, only 123 had to be sacrificed to save the mother's life. The overwhelming majority were authorised on social grounds—and many of us know precisely what that means: abortion on demand.
1244
The Bill will not change that situation greatly. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill is not proposing something that will tear up the 1967 Act or change the position in any material way. However, I readily concede that it will change the climate and affect our attitudes to abortion generally in important ways.
It follows then that the overwhelming proportion of late abortions are performed on babies which if born, would have been normal healthy children. There is only one word for that in my book, and that is murder.
I agree that there is no magic about 18 weeks. The early stages of human life are part of a continuum as, indeed, are our own lives after birth. Well before 18 weeks, the foetus is recognisably human. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill touched on that, and it should be basic to our understanding of what the Bill is about.
An article in the British Medical Journal of 26 January 1980 put the facts very clearly. I read the article at the time and have kept it. It states:
"Nine weeks after conception, the baby is well enough formed to bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand, in response to a touch on the sole of his foot he will curl his toes or bend his hips and knees to move away from the touching object. At 12 weeks he can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of the thumb. At first when his hands touch his mouth the foetus turns his head away though his mouth opens. Later the foetus may turn his head towards his hands and even put a finger into his open mouth and stick it."
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Bernard Braine: No, I shall not give way. I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Lady, but a great many hon. Members wish to speak and I shall obey the injunction of the Chair. I would rather not give way because there will be plenty of opportunity for hon. Members to speak, but only if we restrain ourselves on interventions.
The facts are that at 12 to 14 weeks the auditory system of the foetus is complete. At 18 weeks it can certainly recognise its mother's voice and reacts to light as well as to sound. It has learnt to put its hands before its eyes to shield them from moving light or over its ears to protect them against loud noise.
Yet, although the miracle of human life has developed to that point at 18 weeks, the human foetus has no rights at that stage. Our abortion law, unlike those of other civilised countries, permits thousands of perfectly normal healthy children of that gestation to be destroyed, not that I consider gestational age to be of great importance when considering the moral implications of abortion, or even of viability.
There is precious little sense on this subject where our existing law is concerned. As has been said, procuring an abortion at 28 weeks has been recognised since 1929 as the crime of "child destruction". However, we now know that at 23 or 24 weeks babies born prematurely are capable of surviving, and do so survive. The only difference between babies born at 24 weeks, or for that matter after 28 weeks, and those born at 18 weeks, is that the latter are smaller. Almost everything else is the same.
Therefore, the question that the Bill's opponents must face is surely, "Why should it not also be a crime to destroy an unborn baby at the gestational age of 18 weeks?" That question must be answered, because late abortions, the outlawing of which is the purpose of the Bill, clearly involve the destruction of sentient human beings, who not

1245
only react to outside stimuli and can feel pain, but who have none of the protection that they would have only a few weeks later. Where is the logic and the morality of that? The question must be answered by those who oppose the Bill.
Mrs. Audrey Wise rose—
Miss Mowlam rose—
Sir Bernard Braine: It is a lottery —[Interruption.] No, as I said a little earlier, I must set an example. I am not going to give way.
Mrs. Wise rose—
Sir Bernard Braine: I would love to debate this endlessly because I feel deeply about it, but if I give way I shall be setting a bad example and will deprive those hon. Members who in some cases have a great deal of experience of the opportunity to express their view.
It is a lottery as to whether or not, because of the late stage of its development, the baby of 18 weeks or more will be aborted in the most cruel way with its limbs torn from its body and its head crushed, as many doctors and nurses have testified. That revolting procedure — the House must face up to what late abortion really means — is described in detail by Dr. Margaret White, a general practitioner, magistrate and very distinguished member of the General Medical Council, in her book entitled "Two Million Silent Killings". She explains that with late abortions, the baby is already of a size and its bones have hardened to such an extent that:
"With the pliers the baby is torn limb from limb and pulled out in pieces. The skull is crushed, as it is much too large and too firm to be pulled out intact. It is the unpleasant duty of the nurse to assemble the broken parts of the body, to be sure that no pieces are left behind in the womb."
At that stage, too, the mother is not unaffected. Some of the most poignant letters I have received over the years have been from women pressurised into abortions. Long afterwards, they suffer both physical and emotional damage. Only last week I received a letter from one of my constituents, whom I do not know. She had previously had an abortion and then had another, this time at 19 weeks. She wrote:
"I did not do it lightly—nevertheless, I made the choice —the wrong one. It was so easy to get an abortion. If I had known the true facts of what happens to the baby being aborted, I would definitely never have had it done. Also if the Abortion Bill limited it to 18 weeks then my child would be alive today. It has left a scar forever."
May I now deal with what is probably the most emotive argument about the Bill and one that is often misrepresented. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has made it clear that the Bill will not affect termination of pregnancies where severe disability incompatible with sustaining life has been diagnosed, and I am glad that he has done that. Indeed, the Bill will protect those babies whose disability is compatible with life and is treatable. We have to be careful to distinguish between the two.
Some of the most gifted, delightful and lovable people in our society were born handicapped and might have been deprived of the right to live if their abnormality had been detected before birth as it can be nowadays. In our hearts all of us know that to be true. Who among us would not have been moved by the story in The Times on 20 January about the award of the Whitbread Book of the Year prize
1246
to a young spastic boy who can neither speak nor hear well? He cannot move himself, and types with a stick attached to his forehead. He used his acceptance speech, given for him by his mother, to speak up for the handicapped and against abortion.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Sir Bernard Braine: This young man is the winner of one of the most prestigious literary prizes our country can offer. He said—
Mr. Wigley rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has said that he is not prepared to give way.
Sir Bernard Braine: He said:
"Tonight is the happiest night of my life. Imagine what I would have missed if the doctors had not revived me on that September day long ago. Can freedom now be denied to a handicapped man? Can yessing be so difficult that rather than give a baby a chance at life, man treads upon his brother and silences him before he can draw one breath of this world's fresh air?"
Those of us who support the Bill must be sensitive—I believe that I am sensitive—to the views of those who want to be sure that it will not bar the way to termination in those cases where it can be established that the handicap is likely to be so severe that the child, if born, would be incapable of sustaining life in any meaningful sense. Here, medical technology—some of us have been watching it closely in recent years—comes to our aid. It has certainly not stood still since the Abortion Act became law 21 years ago.
Many of the disabilities that opponents of the Bill regularly cite as requiring the test of amniocentesis can now be detected much earlier, indeed as early as the eighth of 10th week of pregnancy, by a variety of methods. We may have to find—I am ready to join in the search—a formula that will safeguard the position of a woman for whom tests have begun before the 18th week but which for some reason are not complete before that time. That is a matter to which we must address ourselves in Committee. That is the message I have received from many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I know that we are being told by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association and other learned bodies that they are opposed to the Bill. However, before we fall over ourselves in considering the weight of their opinion, it is important for the House to realise that it is not shared by the majority of gynaecologists. A recent survey of about 700 gynaecologists, accounting for 40 per cent. of all those involved in that specialty in Britain, revealed that one third supported the recommendation of the Royal College and the BMA that the upper limit for abortion should be 24 weeks, but a substantial majority, nearly two in three—64 per cent. — would like to see the upper limit for abortion reduced from 28 weeks to 20 weeks or less with exceptions made when the mother's life is in danger or for severe foetal abnormality.
There is much more I should like to say, but there are many others who wish to speak. Let me emphasise once again that the Bill does not undermine the essential principles of the 1967 Act. As one who has a vivid memory of the debates in 1966 and 1967, I must echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and

1247
Lauderdale that it was never his intention, nor was it the intention of Parliament at the time, to legislate for what we have today, which is virtually abortion on demand.
It is right to consider what should be done about babies likely to be born with severe handicaps, but in our compassion for all who are likely to suffer from some handicap, we should not allow ourselves to forget that the overwhelming majority of babies being aborted at present at 18 weeks or later would, if born and not destroyed because they are momentarily inconvenient, be perfectly normal, healthy children. Those children, too, cry out for our compassion. For that reason alone, the Bill deserves the support of the House.
10.57 pm
Dr. Lewis Moonie: I am not going to quote reams of statistics today. I am aware that the time is limited. Moreover, I am a statistician as a result of part of my medical training and I know that statistics can be manipulated by people who are not experts to say whatever they like, and can be manipulated even more readily by those who are experts. Therefore, it is specious to quote reams of data at each other today.
I should like to go back to the start of my medical career, when I was a student in 1968. That is when I first experienced the workings of the Abortion Act 1967. The first girl I saw was 15 years old. She did not really know what it was all about and she did not understand what happened. She just knew that she wanted to go back to a normal life and that she did not want to bear a child, and she did not. The other woman was in her early 40s with a large number of children. She could not face the reality of bearing another child and she, too, was relieved of that burden. That is what the 1967 Act gave women in this country. It gave them an element of choice.
Having started clinical work in 1968, I have no direct experience of illegal abortions. Illegal abortions in this country effectively ended with the passing of the 1967 Act. I have heard plenty of reports from older doctors and nurses about what went on before, and I do not want to see a return to that.
I believe that the Bill concerns certain basic principles. First, is abortion a moral or an ethical thing to do? If so, who should decide whether an abortion should be carried out? Thirdly, what constraints should society place on that decision — I believe that the sponsor of the Bill would like us to believe that that is the major concern of his Bill.
I believe that abortion is both moral—that is, right for the individual woman to decide upon—and ethical: it is a correct procedure for a doctor to perform at a woman's request. At present, the decision to carry out an abortion is given to the medical profession alone to make, at the request of the woman. I believe that a change in that practice is long overdue. The constraints relate to the reason for the abortion and the age of the foetus at the time the abortion is carried out. Surely those two issues are the nub of the argument today.
We all agree that there should be an upper limit beyond which an abortion, the destruction of a foetus, cannot and should not take place. At present, the law places that limit at 28 weeks and medical practice effectively places it at 26 weeks. The Bill would reduce that limit to 18 weeks, or, as has been clearly illustrated, effectively closer to 16 weeks. I believe that that would be wrong, and my belief is supported by the vast majority of my profession, and, I believe, by society.
1248
I could quote reams of examples about this matter—conversations I have had with women, women I have treated or whom I have referred for an abortion during my medical career. I could quote letters that I have received from my colleagues in branches of our profession —including gynaecologists—pointing out the damage that will be done not only to women who are at risk to bearing a handicapped foetus — I accept that they are the minority—but to many young women if the Bill is passed. By young, I do not mean girls under 16. For many girls under the age of 21 — single, possibly of low intelligence and in desperate social circumstances—the possibility of having a child is a serious prospect —handicapped or not. For many women who have already borne children, a further burden may be more than they are prepared to bear and more than society should expect them to bear.
Women have complex reasons for delaying the decision that they take to seek an abortion. I believe that the law should reflect that and should give them the chance to come forward at a later stage, post 18 weeks. I do not see any case for depriving them of their right to undergo an abortion if they so choose. I believe that their rights supersede those of the foetus at the developmental stage that we are discussing.
I do not believe that we should be in the business of bringing more and more unwanted children into our society. I believe that, ultimately, a woman must have the last say on whether she wants to bear a handicapped child. It is a specious argument to look at handicapped children who exist now and say that it would be wrong to kill them. Of course it would be wrong, but it is right and proper for the woman and her husband to be able to make the choice: "I will not bear a handicapped child." We are in danger of taking away that right. We are not taking away the right of an already born handicapped child to live. Those children are entitled to all the compassion, understanding and help that society can give. So often, society does not offer that help because we are not prepared to put the money into that care.
I believe that it is high time that we looked at the workings of the 1967 Act. For what it is worth, my view is that women should have open access to abortion and, if we must use the pejorative term, to "abortion on demand". I call it "abortion on request" and it should be carried out up to an agreed stage of about 12 weeks. I believe that, on the present grounds, women should be entitled to have an abortion up to roughly 24 weeks.
The system also needs overhauling. It is a system that lets girls down and does not give them the armament they need to make the decisions that would stop a pregnancy in the first place. We need to look at the availability of facilities for abortion, to ensure that women do not have to experience the delays that we know occur in many areas. Above all, we need to look at our attitude towards women and women's rights.
It is time for a formal review of the system, not some ad hoc measure brought before the House in the form of a private Member's Bill. We need something along the lines of the Warnock commission report on which we will have an opportunity to vote later in the session. That is the correct, reasonable and civilised way in which to bring about a change in the law on abortion, and I believe that that is long overdue.
The Bill is not the way to make a reasoned change in the 1967 Act. Frankly, I do not trust the Bill or its

1249
supporters to accept any amendment. They are not in the business of providing compromises, they are in the business of stopping abortion at 18 weeks. I do not trust them and I hope that others who have listened to this debate will likewise vote against the Bill to defeat it today.
11.5 am
Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made it clear that he completely agrees with abortion on demand at every stage and the the foetus has no rights — [HON. MEMBERS: "Abortion on request."] — well, if the House prefers, "Abortion on request". I see no difference between the two. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to assume that anything in particular will happen in Committee. He cannot predict that now. There will be people on the Committee who are anxious about the principle of late abortion. However, the sponsor of the Bill has said that he is not intransigent and that he will listen to all the arguments. Obviously the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) wants his Bill to get through, even if there are amendments at a later stage.
If the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is so deep in the abortion business, he must know, when he tells the House that he does not want a return to illegal abortions, that such abortions do not happen after 18 weeks because it is too dangerous to carry them out.
Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight: I will not give way, because there are so many people who wish to speak.
Almost all the flak against the Bill has been to do with handicapped children.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Lady should start telling the truth.
Dame Jill Knight: I strongly resent being told that I am not speaking the truth.[Interruption.]
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said the hon. Lady was not speaking the truth because she deliberately distorted what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
Madam Deputy Speaker: In this House we are all responsible for what we say. The hon. Lady is interpreting the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy as she believes that she heard it.
Dame Jill Knight: Almost all the flak against the Bill has been to do with handicapped children. No one who has not had to cope with a physically handicapped son or daughter can possibly understand the burden that that imposes. I have no doubt that that care often takes a terrible toll on a family. However, the overwhelming number of babies aborted after 18 weeks, about which we are concerned today, are not handicapped. They are perfectly normal children whose only crime is that their mothers do not want them.
Today we are in danger of concentrating on the 7·8 per cent. of handicapped children aborted after 18 weeks and ignoring the 92·2 per cent. of perfectly normal children who are so aborted. The postcards that many supporters of the Bill have sent out have already been mentioned and have been described as an emotional argument. My
1250
goodness, there are emotional arguments on both sides, because all the opposition to the Bill has been centred on and advanced about handicapped children. That has been the major feature of the opposition to the Bill.
It should be understood that mainly we are talking about perfectly normal children.
Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Jill Knight: For the benefit of Opposition Members, I should make it clear that I intend to be brief, to allow them to make their speeches.
Should we continue to sacrifice the 92 per cent. of normal children for that 7·8 per cent? The Bill allows for abortion if the child is likely to be seriously abnormal. So perhaps the figure of 7·8 per cent. should be reduced to 5 per cent., and that is a conservative estimate.
What about that 5 per cent.? Should any handicap—a club foot, deafness, blindness or any other handicap—mean that the child should be aborted? Is it a sufficient reason to get rid of a child?
New techniques are being introduced all the time that allow a pregnant woman to know at an early stage—it is becoming earlier all the time — whether the child is handicapped. A CVS test is carried out at eight to 10 weeks; ultrasound scanning is coming on stream and, for quite some time, has been giving extremely important information about the unborn child; and there is amniocentesis. We shall shortly be able to know whether there is a blemished child in the womb before the time limit give in the Bill. If not, and if there is proof that a woman may not know until it is too late, I am sure that that vital point will be considered most carefully in Committee.
We must ask whether we think that a handicapped child—
Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the hon. Lady accept that the opponents of the Bill do not think that foetuses with severe abnormalities should not be allowed to continue to term? We believe that if severe abnormalities are discovered it should be the mother's right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, and that she should not be forced, on pain of the criminal law, to continue the pregnancy.
Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Lady should read the Bill, because that point is covered by it. It has been carefully considered and incorporated by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
If we send out from the House the message that handicapped people have no right to live, that is a very serious matter, and that is what people will think. I have talked to handicapped people outside the House —[Interruption.] Clearly, that is the implication. If the House sticks to the idea that a handicapped person can be destroyed, many handicapped people will have cause to be concerned.
If we think that it is right for the House to send out that terrible message, perhaps we should support the Bill. If we believe that because God, fate or anything else has denied a child so much, and that we in the House should not deny it the right to live, we should support the Bill.
All help, support and counselling and practical assistance should be given to parents coping with a handicapped child. I do not believe that sufficient help is given at the moment. Some doctors have been less than helpful to the parents of handicapped children; one could

1251
give many examples of that. We should do our best to help and support women and their husbands with that burden. It is true that blemished children often give great happiness to their parents; they often achieve a very special success; my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) gave such an example.
With regard to the 92 per cent. of perfectly normal children whom the Bill seeks to protect, no one dreamed, when the Abortion Act 1967 was debated in the House, of the huge numbers of children who would be destroyed under its provisions. The figures that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) gave were extremely suspect, because many of the countries that he purported to give figures from have no way of collecting such statistics.
During the debate in 1966, it was never said that there were as many as 200,000 illegally aborted children in Britain. We considered that point very carefully at that time, but it was virtually impossible to discover how many illegal abortions there were. We could say only that a certain proportion of illegal abortions finished in hospital with remedial treatment. On that basis, the figure was about 10,000 or 20,000. Currently, there are about 170,000 abortions a year. That figure shames me, and it should shame those who introduced that legislation. Children can be saved today who could not have been saved at that time. The caravan has moved on. The law should be reconsidered and changed. The public are undoubtedly concerned about abortions.
Those who support the Bill are not all zealots. We are not all —perish the thought—Roman Catholics. We are concerned, and we care deeply. We believe that contraception, not abortion, is the answer. We care about the children who are presently dying; we care about the women who often suffer after abortion; we care about the implications of a society that thinks that handicapped people should be destroyed —[Interruption.] I am worried about the opinion that a handicapped person has a right to live only as long as its mother wants it. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) cannot deny that that is what she is putting forward. A handicapped child has the right to live and that right should not be dependent solely upon whether its mother wants it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about Mencap?"] Figures can be bandied about, but the arguments given by all the organisations are balanced for and against.
The argument often used against the Bill is that a woman has the right to choose. We have never been so well informed about contraception as we are today, so woman has the right to choose not to become pregnant. Once she has become pregnant she does not have an automatic right to destroy the child in her womb, the child has rights too. The child has rights in law. There have been cases in which people have sued on behalf of the unborn child and won.
Choice should not be given only to one person. There is no one to speak for the child but us. We have a heavy responsibility in that regard. Because the child's voice cannot be heard by all of us, some of us must speak for him or her. That is what I am doing today and that is why I shall support the Bill.
11.19 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I have some sympathy with some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), yet as a woman she may have put another import
1252
on the Bill. I welcome the opportunity of speaking and especially of replying to the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) who first spoke against the motion. He spoke about not trusting those on the Committee if the Bill were passed today, and he made tremendous play on the question of choice. Representing people in the Province who have voted in different ways for choice, and he represents the Northern Ireland Office which does not listen to the choice of the voters, he had fair gall in making that point.
Some of us are aware that some people would like to see the 1967 Act extended to Northern Ireland, and in Committee it would not be beyond the capabilities of hon. Members to seek to insert a clause to that effect. Therefore, I take this opportunity to repeat that, by and large, the bulk of people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their religious outlook or political convictions, have no desire to see the 1967 Act extended to Northern Ireland.
Today we are debating the Alton Bill. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the Leader of the Liberal party—I had to pause to make sure that I did not make a mistake, because things change so quickly—pointed out that we were debating the principle of the Bill. He imported into the debate a motive which is not on the face of the Bill, thus departing from the principle of the Bill. For that reason he was basically arguing against himself. I understood that he agreed with a reduction in the upper age limit for abortions. That is the principle of the Bill, and I support it.
I welcomed several of the quiet arguments against the Bill which have put on the record issues which must be faced. However, we are debating in a moral climate which must be understood. We have moved into a moral climate where it is tempting to call evil good. A decade ago, for example, teenagers used a lovely word when they were enjoying themselves. They said, "That's fab." Now, unfortunately, the manipulators of opinion are trying to change a word of approval into an acronym for Fight Alton's Bill.
Many people who may have an open mind on abortion are nevertheless convinced that we should have better counselling which gives people a choice. I represent a constituency where, thanks to the fine work of the Life movement, carers have provided a hostel where young women are given a choice and the back-up to make that choice calmly, rather than being drawn into the mentality of what I call this disposable generation.
When we speak of choice we must also remember the choice for life of those who have the potential for life. It is ludicrous to spend millions of pounds, correctly in my judgment, on helping doctors in perinatal cases to give youngsters a chance of life and at the same time to create a climate of opinion which has allowed nearly 3 million human beings with potential to be denied such a choice.
For those reasons, I support the principle of the Bill and I leave it to the Committee to work out the points of contention on which people believe that there should be movement.
11.25 am
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I should have liked to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on his good fortune in being chosen third in the ballot, but I am sorry that he has proposed this Bill, which is so strongly opposed by

1253
hon. Members and many people outside the House who are so vulnerable in society. The hon. Gentleman is widely respected for the sincerity of his views and he is on record as saying that he is opposed to all abortions and to discrimination against the disabled. But his Bill does not meet either of those objectives.
The Bill will fail, because the hon. Gentleman has failed to strike a balance. This is a difficult issue, on which we must balance our feelings of compassion against our judgment. He has failed by taking the figure of 18 weeks. As has been pointed out, this is not an 18-week, but a 17-week Bill, which in practice and in medical terms will mean 15 weeks. There does not seem to be any reason for choosing 18 weeks. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had a coloured photograph which made him decide on 18 weeks. Medical opinion is that the foetus is fully formed at 10 weeks, so the argument about the formation of the foetus would apply equally well at 10 weeks.
The hon. Gentleman said that in his judgment 18 weeks was about right, but he fails to understand that modern medical diagnosis has its greatest capability at that stage. Ultrasound scanning equipment—the United Kingdom is a leading country in the use of this equipment—is at its most effective at 18 to 20 weeks.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the new developments of chorionic villus sampling, combined with ultrasound scanning and amniocentesis, mean that, increasingly, the thresholds are being pushed back. Although I have already conceded that there is an argument on the crucial question of whether or not a person has the right to decide to terminate where there is a detected disability, will the hon. Gentleman also say a word about the 92 per cent. of late abortions that occur after 18 weeks and which involve perfectly healthy children?
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many reasons for late abortions. The Bill does not deal with the 95 per cent. of abortions that occur before 18 weeks, so it fails to meet the hon. Gentleman's principal objective, which arises from the fact that he is wholly against abortion. [Interruption.]
There are many reasons for the 5 per cent. of abortions that occur after 18 weeks, but a principal reason is disability. Professor Stuart Campbell of King's college hospital has said that his practice would be destroyed by the application of a Bill such as this. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want to discriminate against disability, yet the Bill discriminates against many disabled people because they are in danger of giving birth to children who will carry a genetic disorder and babies whom they do not want to bring into this world, and they will be denied that choice.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. The people bringing in the Bill do so because they want to tackle a particular social abuse of late abortions, and we have clearly kept to that. Then we are accused of not spreading the Bill wider, when we are trying to obtain maximum support in the House for the issue. It is not true that disability is the main reason. Ninety-two per cent. of all abortions are on healthy children on social grounds, which is the issue that my hon. Friend has not addressed.
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Member for Mossley Hill said that he thought 18 weeks was about right. Yet that is highly discriminatory against disability. He said that he is against discrimination on the grounds of disability. He said in his briefing note that homes can be found for handicapped children. It is a monstrous lie to suggest that families are queuing up to take handicapped children. Hundreds of severely handicapped children are in residential homes up and down the country, and families cannot be found for them. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Catholic St. Margaret's Adoption Society has compromised its own beliefs in this area and come out with an extraordinary reported statement:
"Because of the extreme difficulty in placing severely handicapped children with families, we are taking the unusual stance of allowing divorcees to adopt only severely handicapped children that no one else wants if they promise never to marry again."
If that is not discrimination, I do not know what is.
The Bill is opposed by many organisations, including Mencap and ASBAH. We were told about a Gallup poll of gynaecologists, but it was a dishonest poll. It did not refer to spina bifida, which is one of the most serious disabilities that can be detected principally by ultrasound scanning after 18 weeks. The Bill lacks compassion. Why should mothers be forced to carry a child with spina bifida, when 70 per cent. of such children die in agony before five, and have to be sedated because of their pain? Must mothers be forced to go on with such pregnancies? Mothers who opt for termination in such cases do so out of love and for the sake of having a future healthy pregnancy. They would never risk another pregnancy again unless they had this choice.
Why does the hon. Gentleman want to make such a private decision into a public criminal act? He seems ignorant of the fact that modern medical practice has made it possible not only to ensure survival for some of the children who can be born at 24 weeks, but to pick up many more of these disorders, of which there are more than 2,000 or 3,000 of a structural kind, and 3,000 genetic and chromosomal. Many families who have the misfortune to have a severely handicapped child find that they cannot cope. It is a mirage to suggest that there are queues of people who want to take such children.
My wife and I chose to adopt a handicapped child who had been shunted from pillar to post for six years. It was only by chance that we saw him advertised in a newspaper. We chose, of our own free will, to take the child. Other hon. Members could choose to adopt a handicapped child, too. Interestingly, the latest figures show that there were 648 abortions after 18 weeks on the grounds of foetal handicap—648 abnormal foetuses that would otherwise have been born if the hon. Gentleman had had his way. That would allow one handicapped child for each hon. Member, excluding Madam Deputy Speaker and myself. If hon. Members would not find it convenient to adopt a handicapped child, why are they imposing that on other people?
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can I explain to the hon. Gentleman something that has not been made clear to the House? These matters will be dealt with in Committee. If, by some freak of circumstance, they are not, despite what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker can, at his discretion, allow on Report an amendment to secure precisely the same objective in the

1255
same language as could be effected in Committee. So, at the end of the day, the House will take a decision by majority vote on these matters.
Mr. Thurnham: That is the single point in the Bill to which I take the greatest exception. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill, could have put that clause in his Bill if he had believed it. He has said that he believes that 18 weeks is about right. I point out that the burden of having a handicapped child—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Thurnham: I have already given way several times.
The private financial burden of caring for a severely handicapped child has been estimated by the courts as £500,000. If one takes into account the cost to the state of the statutory provision, the cost could well be another £500,000. The school fees for the school to which, as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill well knows, my child goes, are £15,000 a year—twice those for a school such as Eton. Why should the House consider forcing people to accept such a burden if they do not want it.
The hon. Gentleman seems to regard suffering as a virtue. We have heard various speakers say that there is some great virtue in bringing up a handicapped child. No one should wish a child to be handicapped because, in some strange way, they can gain from that.
We all want fewer abortions, but not at this price. The way to fewer abortions is through education and understanding, not through criminal sanctions on private decisions. The country in Europe with the lowest rate of abortions is Holland, where the laws are most liberal. That is the example the hon. Gentleman should study if he wants fewer abortions. Hon. Members who are unsure how to vote, but in favour of the change to 24 weeks that has been recommended by various bodies, should reject this 17-week Bill as far too extreme, in favour of a private Member's Bill that is now in the House of Lords. It changes the existing law from 28 to 24 weeks. Hon Members should tell their constituents that they are rejecting this extreme 17-week Bill in favour of Lord Houghton's Bill in the House of Lords, which is currently in Committee. I remind my hon. Friends that the Conservative Women's Group came out against this Bill.
Even a 24-week Bill needs careful consideration. Of the 29 abortions carried out after 24 weeks, two were in Bolton. One was for a mother who had previously refused diagnosis and screening, and was found to be carrying a baby with one head and two bodies. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill would force that to go through—
Mr. Alton rose—
Mr. Thurnham: I shall not give way.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Alton: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark. My Bill makes it absolutely clear that, if a child is incapable of sustaining life, as in the example he just gave, it will be excluded by the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman's Bill uses the words,
"life … independently sustained".
What does he say about the baby featured on the front page of a newspaper recently which was born with two
1256
heads and is living'? It is showing it is capable of independent life. Would he force a mother to go through with such a pregnancy because the baby is capable of life?
Mr. Alton: In those circumstances, of course, it would not be the intention of my Bill to force someone to carry a child. If the hon. Gentleman is being sincere in his argument, he will ensure that it is put in Committee. He will now say something, too, about the 92 per cent. of late abortions carried out on perfectly healthy children.
Mr. Thurnham: I cannot accept that from the hon. Gentleman. He had plenty of time, when thinking about the Bill, to put into it the words that should be there. He has used wording that suggests that if the baby is capable of life the pregnancy should go on.
This monstrous Bill has been described by the royal colleges as inhumane. It hits at the most vulnerable people in society. If hon. Members want to vote for change, they should reject the Bill in favour of the 24-week Bill that is on its way through the House.
11.39 am
Mr. Cyril Smith: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on winning a prize in the annual raffle which allowed him to promote a private Member's Bill. I compliment him also on his courage in selecting this subject for a Bill and sympathise with him in the considerable personal abuse, and physical abuse to his home, to which he has been subjected as a consequence of promoting the Bill.
Those who oppose the Bill talk about the right to choose. Parliament has a right to choose, too. I hope that Parliament will be given that right by allowing the Bill to have a Second Reading and then discussing amendments that should be made to it during its passage through the House. There was a rumour that many petitions would be presented this morning, and I am glad that it did not happen.
During the 16 years that I have been a Member of the House, I have supported every attempt to amend the Abortion Act 1967, and it is interesting to note that all of them have been defeated on procedure, not on a straight vote. That is why I say that Parliament has a right to choose. I hope that this time the opponents of the Bill will allow it to be voted on at all its stages so that we may know the will of Parliament.
On "Question Time" last night, in which I appeared, and again this morning, we have heard people say that the Bill is the thin edge of the wedge and that if it is accepted we will attempt to introduce another. Perhaps that is because we have rumbled a few people and have decided that we are as entitled to use procedure as are those hon. Members who have tried to block legislation on the matter. It will be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to pass another Bill. That is democracy. That is what the law is about.
On the argument about the right to choose, what about the rights of the unborn child? Since it cannot exercise those rights for itself, is it not the job of the elected Parliament to exercise them on its behalf? It is the job of Parliament to protect the rights of the unborn child, and it is the right of Parliament to legislate on the matter.
I have heard all the arguments against the Bill. Some have already been exercised this morning and more will be

1257
exercised as the day proceeds. Some are perfectly valid arguments, but some are absolute rubbish, including the suggestion that if the Bill became law we would return to back-street abortions. Before 1967, back-street abortions were usually carried out earlier in the pregnancy, not after 18 weeks. As nearly 50 per cent. of abortions that take place after 18 weeks are carried out on women who are shipped to Britain by air and sea because they cannot obtain abortions in their own countries, Britain has become the country of back-street abortions for the rest of Europe. In 1986, of the 8,276 abortions after 18 weeks, 3,688 were carried out on women who came to Britain from abroad.
The opponents of the Bill tell us that many late abortions are carried out on girls aged under 16 who were scared or did not recognise their pregnancy. That is absolute rubbish. The fact is that, in 1986, only 4·7 per cent. of abortions on residents from 18 weeks onwards were on girls aged under 16.
One thing is certain: 88 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are carried out in private clinics for private profit. It is staggering to hear what Labour Members say about the Bill. All these people who are supposed to be ardent Socialists want to propagate a system that allows abortion for private profit—in private clinics not on the NHS—with millions of pounds changing hands. That is the system which these marvellous Socialists, on the Front Bench as well as the Back Benches, want to propagate. What sort of Socialists are they? They talk rubbish.
We are told that 18 weeks was picked out of the air. By 18 weeks, a foetus is fully formed, with all major organs, except its lungs, functioning.
What of the handicapped child? I confess that that is the most difficult area to defend, but first let me deal with a fact which the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) refused to acknowledge. In 1986, of 8,276 abortions after 18 weeks, only 7·8 per cent. were performed because the child was likely to be born handicapped. Despite all their pious speeches in defence of the handicapped, hon. Members ignore the 92 per cent. who were denied life because they were aborted after 18 weeks. They refuse to face that fact.
It must be wrong to discriminate against an individual at any stage of life simply because he or she does not meet the standards of physical or mental perfection set by others. We who support the Bill are accused of a lack of compassion. Is it compassionate to take the life of a handicapped child? I repeat that 92 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are carried out not because the child was likely to be born handicapped. Of the remaining 7·8 per cent. of abortions some would continue to be allowed under the Bill. Most abnormalities can be detected in fewer than 18 weeks—indeed, in 10 weeks—with the results being made available after a maximum of two weeks. Indeed, I put it to the Minister that a death certificate should be issued after an abortion that is carried out after 18 weeks stating the precise cause of death.
I support the Bill because I believe in human life. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, abortion after 18 weeks is murder in the womb.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said that he was not sure about the view of the Church of England. He quoted the Church of England when introducing his Bill.
1258
Yesterday, I and other hon. Members received a letter saying that the General Synod of the Church of England —I hope that I have the correct figures—voted by 247 to two in favour of the Bill. If it was right for my right hon. Friend to quote the Church of England in 1965, it is right for me to quote it in 1988. Again, 66 per cent. of gynaecologists were in favour. Some hon. Members may shout, "It was phoney. How many were done?" We can all quote those who are in favour. Opponents of the Bill quote the BMA. I do not want to embarrass my right hon. Friend — that has never been part of my function — but, in 1970, he said:
"they"—
that is, doctors—
"cannot dictate to Parliament what should be the provisions of an Abortion Act."—[Official Report, 13 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1693.]
Of course, that was when they were agin him. Now that they are for him—at least, he thinks that they are for him—he is in favour of quoting the BMA and doctors. But the gynaecologists' opinion poll — it was a representative sample — showed that well over 60 per cent. were in favour of today's Bill.
A child is entitled to have life. A child is entitled to be given the right to breathe, the right to love and the right to live. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I claim to be a Christian. This is a matter of human and Christian concern. That is why I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and why I commend it to the House.
11.50 am
Sir Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) seemed to imply that abortion was available on demand. If that is so, the existing law is being broken, and action can be taken. Like other hon. Members, I dislike abortion. I am naturally prejudiced against it. Nevertheless, I shall vote against the Bill.
What matters is not so much what I think or whether I am for or against abortion, but in what medical and social circumstances should abortion be allowed. If the law does not appear to be reasonable, there is bound to be a reversion to back-street abortionists, with all the health dangers that that implies. On the one hand, the law should discourage abortion, but, on the other hand, it should accept medical realities and be merciful towards social realities. In short, the law must represent a balance, and the Abortion Act 1967 succeeded in doing that.
On the basis of what information I as a layman have been able to gather since the matter came up for discussion again, I agree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). In a perfect world, there is much to be said for freedom of choice up to 12 weeks, but thereafter abortion should be allowed up to 24 weeks but only for medical reasons. The trouble is that we do not live in a perfect world.
If every young girl were intelligent, decisive, understanding, aware and rich and could effectively communicate with her parents, if every woman over 40 who became pregnant without wishing to do so realised immediately what happened, if every woman at times of stress could be rational, if the National Health Service were perfect, and if doctors were infallible in judgment and opinion, the restrictions to 12 and 24 weeks might be acceptable. But that is not the world in which we live. We live in a world in which some women of all ages are frightened, unwise, indecisive, uncertain, anguished, full of

1259
second thoughts, and impoverished, and in which the National Health Service and, occasionally, doctors are not perfect.
A 12-week limit on freedom of choice would be too restrictive and would be certain to lead to more illegal abortions. A 24-week limit for medical reasons could rule out a small number of the most necessary abortions.
We have been reminded by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) that, in any case, the 1967 Act operates in conjunction with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. That Act is the source of the 28-week limit and presumes that a foetus of 28 weeks is capable of being born alive. However, if it can be shown that a foetus of a lower age-27 weeks or even less—is similarly capable and is aborted, an offence would have been committed, because the life of a child capable of being born alive would have been destroyed.
The 1929 Act appears to me to be very strong. I have been reminded by the Library that it draws a firm distinction between
"capable of being born alive"
and
"capable of surviving".
It may be the case that, apart from healthy babies, some handicapped babies are
"capable of being born alive",
but are not capable of surviving for more than a brief period. None the less, if they were
"capable of being born alive",
an offence could be committed if such a foetus were aborted.
The 1929 Act is very strong. It should be a reassurance to those who are worried about apparently late abortions. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that, under the 1967 Act, the Minister for Health can make regulations. Indeed, the current regulations no longer license private clinics to carry out abortions over 24 weeks, and those carrying out abortions over 20 weeks must be specially approved.
A doctor must, therefore, act with the greatest care in respect of any late abortions— probably those over 20 weeks—for fear of transgressing the law. In addition, if it is judged necessary, it is always possible for the DHSS to introduce still more stringent regulations.
Thus, it seems to me far better to leave well alone. The grounds for abortion set out in the 1967 Act are, in my judgment, much more precise than the grounds in this Bill. The flexibility of the 1967 Act, coupled with the 1929 Act, provides a balance between the interests of the mother and those of the unborn child. I shall, therefore, vote against the Bill.
11.57 am
Ms. Clare Short: This is a most unsatisfactory Bill and a most unsatisfactory debate because the Bill is fundamentally and deeply dishonest. It is put forward by hon. Members who are anti-abortionists and want to remove all rights to abortion in this country, but they do not have the honesty to put forward that position. They know that it is not supported in the House or in public opinion, so they pretend that it is a Bill to prevent late abortion. It is not a Bill to prevent late abortion. The overwhelming bulk of people opposed to the Bill want to do everything possible to prevent late abortion when it is preventable.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Short: I shall give way in a moment.
There are all sorts of things that we could do. These matters are currently being considered in the House of Lords, and I appeal to anyone who thinks that he wants to consider the 24 weeks option not to support this muddle and to wait for that other more rational Bill to come to the House when it has been thoroughly examined in another place.
Mr. Beith: I fail to understand the logic of the hon. Lady's argument. Was not the 1967 Bill, and is not the 1967 Act, supported by people who believe that abortion should be more readily available than the Act states?
Ms. Short: I have no idea. I was not a Member of the House when that Bill was put forward and I have never met anyone who says that there should be an extension beyond 28 weeks. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's position.
Many people believe, in deep conscience, that abortion is always wrong. I respect that position. Within the existing law, people who hold that view can exercise their conscience. No one is required to have an abortion if she thinks it is wrong. We are not talking about that position. We are talking about people who claim the right to impose their conscience on other people whose conscience says otherwise. There are people who say in conscience that there should be no abortion but who introduce a Bill that says that abortion can be allowed up to 18 weeks. Where are the morality, conscience and ethics of that? It is a fudge and a muddle, and it is leading to a debate that is bringing the House into disrepute
At least some of the truth is coming out in the debate. Hordes of Members of Parliament who are not here yet will come in later to vote for or against the Bill and determine what will happen. The overwhelming bulk of them do not support the Bill but say that they support the 24-weeks proposal. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has adopted a deeply duplicitous position. He had the right to draft the Bill. He could have proposed a 24-week rule. He could have proposed an exception for foetal abnormality. But he has deliberately put in a provision that says that abortion would be al lowed up to 28 weeks only if the child would be born dead. The hon. Gentleman has the cheek—because, as he tells us, he taught disabled children for one year — to say to women and parents who have borne, cared for and loved disabled children who died in deep pain after some years that they should not have the right to make the choice next time. How dare the hon. Gentleman and others say that.
May I say to this House of Commons — this overwhelmingly male House of Commons — that it should have more humility when approaching this issue. When I was 10 I thought that I was against abortion. I came from a large, happy, Catholic family, and that was the teaching. It all seemed simple. Then I started to grow up. I am a woman, and my body changed. Some of my friends became pregnant because men sometimes misused them and walked away. Every man in this House who has ever used a woman's body and walked away and did not know the consequence has no right to vote on the Bill. Women's bodies carry the consequences of such behaviour. If men in the House were honest, most would have to walk away.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because at least she is putting the extreme case on the other side. I ask two questions. First, does she deny the right of men to have moral views on this subject? This is a matter of morality. Secondly, does she recognise the great concern in society in general at the way in which freely available abortion has changed the nature of society? We are entitled to a view on that change.
Ms. Short: Everyone in the world is entitled to a view on every question, but some questions should be approached with more humility than others. I am personally deeply impressed by the arguments of people who have borne and cared for disabled children. I have not had that experience, but I approach with humility the experience of others. I suggest that men should approach this question with humility because the women bear the consequences.
There is all this talk of care and love for disabled children. As has been said, residential homes all over the country are full of disabled children for whom no one cares. The divorce rate of couples who bear disabled children is high — and who is left to care for those children? The women.
Let us be clear about the existing law. There has been a lot of pretence and falsity about it. The law provides that it is an offence to abort a foetus capable of being born alive. As medical technology has changed and it has become possible to preserve the life of babies born very early, naturally the law and practice have changed. The number of post-24-week abortions has diminished massively as it has become possible to preserve the life of 24-week babies.
I wonder whether hon. Members really know about 24-week-old babies. Only 15 per cent. of them survive, and a third of them are brain-damaged. Those babies are on the very brink of life. The units that do such lovely work and care for those precious babies attempt to preserve their lives. The babies are kept in plastic boxes with tubes in their bodies. There is much evidence now that if they do survive they are emotionally hurt and damaged because they are not nurtured and cuddled in the way that babies need. They are on the brink of life, and medical practice already takes account of their survival rate.
Two thirds of post-24-week abortions are for severe foetal abnormalities. The Bill does not provide for that, but we are told that it will be adjusted in Committee. We are told about the other hard cases. Many involve very young girls who have been sexually abused in their families. They do not know that they are pregnant, or do not reveal it until late, and so have abortions after 24 weeks. We are told about menopausal women who have brought up their families and loved them and do not realise that they are pregnant — they think that their periods have stopped because of the menopause. Such women would be forced by hon. Members who claim to know better about their lives, their bodies and their families to bear those children. It is a disgrace. Let me say to hon. Members who believe in a 24-week limit that we already have that limit with exceptions. That is the practice now. I should like to see some changes, as there is no doubt that late abortions take place unnecessarily.
I should like to say something about private clinics. In my region, which is one of the worst in the country, many doctors and nurses in the National Health Service refuse to perform abortions to which women are entitled legally,
1262
so women go to charitable clinics to get their legal rights. No one makes any profit whatsoever, and the work is done with care, in the interests of the lives of those women. The cheap, snide remarks about people performing abortions for profit are not true. The issue is too important for such cheapskate lies to be thrown about the House.
As for foreign women, many come from Northern Ireland, where the law is different, and from the 26 counties of Ireland.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is the hon. Lady implying that the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland have changed? Is Northern Ireland still to be regarded as part of the United Kingdom?
Ms. Short: The hon. Member knows my view on that. I thought that he shared my view that Northern Ireland should not be part of the United Kingdom. I look forward to the day when there is a united Ireland. I know that Northern Ireland is not always treated as part of the United Kingdom. The law is different in all sorts of respects. The law on obortion in Northern Ireland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, Northern Ireland women come to Britain to get their rights under the existing law.
Mr. Mallon: Will the Lady give way?
Ms. Short: No. The hon. Gentleman should know that this is a serious argument and not a cheap debate.
Women travel to Britain for abortions, from Ireland, Northern Ireland and from other parts of Europe where the law is different from ours. There is nothing wrong or immoral about those women. If the law in their countries is not right and they come to Britain and go to a clean, charitably-organised clinic for an abortion, there is nothing wrong with that. We are extending a freedom to those women to which they are entitled. Let us not pretend that there is something disreputable in that.
I am puzzled that all the polling evidence shows that an overwhelming majority of hon. Members support the existing law, yet the overwhelming bulk of Tory Members seem to support the Bill, which restricts the right of abortion. I have thought about that carefully and I wonder why it is. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is wrong.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Lady is strangling her own argument.
Ms. Short: I am making the point I wish to make—the hon. Gentleman can make his.
I am perplexed by this. The underlying reason is that the new Right in America goes around bombing abortion clinics, photographing women who go there for abortions and sending the photographs to their neighbours. That is the kind of crude behaviour that comes from the new Right. The growing new Right in Britain is saying that women should stay at home and bear children and care for elderly and disabled people. They are not in favour of public expenditure; they want to push women back into a traditional role and deprive them of the freedom to control their lives—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. They always laugh and sneer when we talk about the status of women and their freedom. The behaviour of hon. Members is absolutely consistent.
I appeal to anyone who is in favour of preventing late abortions not to vote for the Bill. If the sponsor of the Bill wanted a 24-week limit with exceptions and wanted to

1263
prevent late abortions beyond that limit, he would have brought in a different Bill. There is much that we can do. We could have, as many other countries have, self-referral up to 12 weeks. Many women have abortions post-12 weeks because of delays in the National Health Service. The Health Service should be required to plan for the number of woman who will come for abortions so that the current delays will be reduced. Such things could be done to prevent late abortions. We have a 24-week limit, with exceptions for very hard cases.
A Bill is to come from the House of Lords which will enable us to have that position. If today's Bill is voted for, we will have an 18-week limit, which really means 16 weeks, with no exception for foetal abnormality unless the child would die. We are told that concessions may be made in Committee, but if the Bill is passed with a large majority the Committee will be dominated by anti-abortionists and the concessions will not be made. The hysterical public campaign will go on and people who think they may switch their votes will be under enormous pressure. This is not a rational way to decide such an important question.
I beg the House to vote the Bill down and to look at the much more considered Bill which will come from the House of Lords.
12.12 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: I would like to make one simple but important point. This matter is sensitive and controversial. The Abortion Act 1967 was of great importance, and the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) deserves full credit for what he did then. The Act removed many social ills which we all hated and has given us 20 years of comparative stability in dealing with the problems and arguments that go on.
Hon. Members can set an example on this matter by moving ahead with consensus. It is apparant that the debate on the Bill is not producing that. It has been said that the various alternatives could be fully discussed in Committee. We all know what happens with the composition of private Member's Bills Committees—without any disrespect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—and we know the difficulties of taking up on Report matters which have been fully debated in Committee, but that is part of our constitutional proceedings. If the Bill goes through Second Reading to Committee, it will be extremely difficult to debate any other position in the House.
We have a great opportunity to look at the problem from the point of view of moving ahead with consensus. The hon. Gentleman has not disguised the fact that, because of his religious beliefs, he is entirely opposed to abortion. The position of the Synod of the Church of England has been mentioned. I am a member of the Church of England and I understand that position, but I cannot help noting that there is much picking and choosing as to which view of the Synod of the Church of England one accepts on a particular subject.
However, allowing for that, I am aware of the religious beliefs that are expressed and held most strongly. Crusades do not always lead to the most desirable results, as we know from history. Above all, they lead to considerable intolerance. It is essential that we in this House should be tolerant of those outside whose ethical and religious views
1264
do not coincide with our own, and on this subject, there are a considerable number of our fellow citizens whose views do not coincide with our own.
The 1967 Act was based on a combination of provisions from the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and new provisions. The way ahead on the basis of consensus is now very clear. The 1929 Act could be amended to give a limit of 24 weeks, which would in fact mean 22 weeks. Such a proposal would gain the support of the whole medical profession, as cited in opinion polls and on television. According to all my inquiries, the medical profession accepts that a limit of 24 weeks—in practice 22 weeks — would deal with the advances in medicine over the past 20 years and at the same time with the practical arrangements available for dealing with these problems. If the House had been able to give a lead with a Bill containing that proposal, that Bill would have gained overall agreement and we could then have moved forward to another period.
The particular problems mentioned, such as that of private clinics, need to be dealt with in some other way. They are controversial in themselves and are not affected by the Bill. The problem of private clinics can be dealt with separately, through the Health Service or, if the House so wishes, by legislation. My greatest concern is that, after 20 years of stability, we should now take advantage of the advances in medicine and the practical arrangements that can be made—which in some cases may be lacking—to take a further step forward. I wish that that had been the purpose of the Bill. As it is not, I shall oppose the Bill, although I shall strongly support any Bill from another place that reduces the limit to 24 weeks—in effect 22 weeks. That would gain the overall acceptance of the medical profession, of whose advice the House should take great note.
12.17 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): As has been very clear, this is an issue on which there are deeply held and totally conflicting views; it is correspondingly difficult for any Minister to speak in a debate such as this. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), fairly acknowledged the difficulties of the subject. He also stated clearly, and I thought rightly, that the Bill does not itself set out to challenge the principle of legal abortion. He rightly made it clear that he thinks that abortion should not be legal, but he recognises that it is; indeed, a large part of his case rested on the fact that he did not propose to reverse the basic position. The hon. Gentleman presented the Bill as one that attempts not to return to the pre-1967 position but to modify the working of the law to make it more acceptable to the substantial body of opinion—whatever its exact size, none of us can dispute that it is substantial —that is affronted by the scale of abortion in recent years, and particularly by abortion at a relatively late stage in pregnancy. He argued that the gain from achieving a change in the balance would outweigh the contrary arguments adduced in the debate.
I would say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the hon. Gentleman is at least entitled to seek the judgment of the House on the proposal that he has put before it, rather than on what is in his mind but which he has not brought before the House.
I think that the House already knows that which I must state clearly, that the Government have no collective view

1265
on the merits of the proposal by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The considerations involved are clearly both moral and practical. Some hon. Members will see the moral considerations as overriding, while others will see as paramount the practical considerations. I think it is fair to say that most hon. Members who have spoken will not see the matter in such a clear-cut way, but will want to strike a balance between the two conflicting sets of considerations. At the end of the day, each hon. Member will have to decide for himself or herself what the balance should be and how we should vote on the Bill.
In such a debate, my role as Minister for Health is not to speak for the Government in the ordinary sense, but to set before the House such advice as I can give from the advice available to me, which I think might help hon. Members to make a decision. I must necessarily concentrate on the practical issues, because being Minister for Health gives me no special status to advise others on matters of conscience or morality.
First, I shall comment on the legal position. It has been clearly recognised in the debate that the Bill represents a clear change in principle from the abortion legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and passed in 1967. That is because the Abortion Act 1967 contains no upper limit for the gestational age at which an abortion may be performed. It must be accepted as a matter of law that to introduce such a limit is to introduce a distinct and new concept compared with the present position.
As hon. Members have said, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 applies in England and Wales and protects any foetus capable of being born alive. It also contains a rebuttable presumption, and the fact that it is rebuttable is significant. It is that a foetus of 28 weeks gestation is capable of being born alive. As the House knows, in the light of our capacity to keep very young infants alive, the Government have given their support, and similar support has just been echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), for a measure currently under discussion in another place. That measure seeks to reduce the gestational age at which this presumption is made from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. However, it is a proposition of a different kind from the one that is now before the House, because the Bill before the House would make illegal all abortions after the 17th completed week of pregnancy, except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the mother or if the life of the child could not be sustained.
I shall make the point a little clearer. Under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act—this is why I emphasised the word "rebuttable" — it is open to a doctor who has performed an abortion outside the limits thought to be provided by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act to prove that the child was not capable of being born alive. The onus of proof at that point is shifted; the House ought to bear that significant point in mind.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and I shall try to keep my speech brief. I had intended to spend a few moments advising the House as clearly as I can on the views about the current capacity of a foetus to be born alive. I shall say only that I am advised that the 22nd gestational week is considered by doctors to be the earliest
1266
time at which there is the slighest possibility of a foetus being born alive, because before then the lungs are not mature enough to function, even if ventilated.
The House will be aware that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as the British Paediatric Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association, produced a report in 1985 on foetal viability and clinical practice. That report recommended that the age at which a foetus is considered viable should be reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. Earlier this year, that recommendation was confirmed by that same group of organisations when they looked again at their 1985 report.
Alongside the support that I have already said the Government have extended to the proposition in the form of a Bill—not a Government Bill—introduced in the other place, the Department has taken a number of significant steps effectively to implement the recommendation about 24 weeks. We have done that in two ways. First —this has already been referred to, but I should make it clear — we have made it a condition of approval for private sector nursing homes that no abortions are carried out after 24 weeks. The position is less clear in the NHS, but the Department has arranged for the report to be drawn to the attention of the fellows and members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
As has been said on several occasions, the number of abortions after 24 weeks is now very small. On the latest figures for 1986, there were 29 at the 25th week or above. Hon. Members will have their own views about whether a number as small as even 29 is to be dismissed, bearing in mind that we are talking about individuals who will have their own views and circumstances, including in a large number of cases the fact that by then they will know that their baby is likely to be born handicapped. However, I think all hon. Members will accept that on those figures, and with the continuing likelihood of a further decline in the number of abortions occurring so late, the practical effect of introducing a 24-week limit into the Abortion Act would be small, according to our current experience.
Mr. Steel: Can the Minister tell us how many of those 29 abortions were carried out under section 2 of the Act — in other words, that were related to foetal abnormalities— and how many were carried out under the main section?
Mr. Newton: I do not have the breakdown of those 29 with me. However, I understand from a point made earlier that the figure is about 70 per cent. I think that that is right, but if it is wrong, I shall ask that some message be passed to me so that I can correct that later.
Mr. Alton: Before the Minister leaves that point—he is, of course, right — does he therefore recognise that inserting a 24-week rule will not make any difference if people are concerned about abortions on eugenic grounds? What does the Minister have to say about late social abortions, 92 per cent. of which after 18 weeks are performed on perfectly healthy children?
Mr. Newton: I shall come to that point in a moment.
I have already made it clear that it is important that to understand that the practical effect on reducing the number of abortions of a time limit of 24 weeks would be small. Nevertheless, there are some who would see

1267
establishing the principle of a limit as a significant gain. Hon. Members must judge those issues for themselves. I shall not try to give them a steer, as a Minister, on how they decide to vote.
There has been a good deal of reference to the statistics involved. I shall set them out as clearly as I can, although I fear that they do not add much to what has already been said. If such a Bill had been in force in 1986, about 8,000 of the 172,000 abortions that were performed in that year in England and Wales would not have taken place.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill pointed to the fact that many abortions at 18 weeks and over are performed on foreign women. The exact statistic is that, out of the 8,276 abortions in England and Wales at 18 weeks and over in 1986, 3,688 were to non-residents. For this purpose, non-residents include women from Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, as well as women from foreign countries. Abortions performed on women resident in foreign countries amounted to 3,461, which was 42 per cent. of the total. The vast majority of those women came from France, Spain and the Irish Republic.
That reflects—in one case it would be more accurate to say that it reflected—the difficulties that women have in obtaining abortions in those countries. In Eire, abortion is illegal. In France, abortion is available on demand up to 10 weeks gestation, hut is severely restricted after that. However, in Spain a law legalising abortion in certain circumstances was passed in 1985. The numbers of women coming to this country from Spain are now dropping rapidly.
Sir Bernard Braine: With regard to foreign women, can my right hon. Friend defend a practice whereby we are effectively breaking the law of other countries? Perhaps more importantly, from the point of view of those women, what guarantee is there that a quick abortion at a London clinic will be followed up by the aftercare that is absolutely essential, psychologically and medically, for women who have had an abortion?
Mr. Newton: As a matter of common sense, all of us would accept that it is less than desirable for women to be crossing international boundaries in order to receive medical treatment of that sort. Undoubtedly, many hon. Members on both sides of the House will take the view that it is wrong for women to come to this country for abortions when they cannot obtain them in their own country, and that view will be held partly for the reasons adumbrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). That is something about which I must leave hon. Members to make up their own minds.
Others will take a somewhat different view of foreign women coming to this country. For women to contemplate visiting another country and experiencing an unfamiliar health system in order to have an operation of this sort is an indication of the great pressure that develops for a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, to some extent it suggests that, if the limits are made too restrictive, the same consequences may follow for some women in our country, whether in terms of seeking to go abroad or returning to back-street abortions.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We should also look at that bearing in mind that there are clear financial links. There is a business contract involving foreign women coming to
1268
this country. Is it not the case, as shown by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, that 60 per cent. of late abortions carried out in private clinics were performed by 11 doctors?
Mr. Newton: I have inquired about that, and I am told that the Department is not aware of any evidence to that precise effect. The Department monitors carefully, on the basis of unannounced visits apart from announced visits, the operation of private sector clinics. If we find evidence of abuse, we act to deal with it.
That cross-boundary international flow raises the question what will happen when women with an unwanted pregnancy find themselves denied an abortion in their locality. That has to be considered by hon. Members.
I am not in a position to do what the House might like me to do, which is to make any sort of estimate as to what the possible effects would be in relation, for example, to illegal abortions if the Bill is passed in its present form. One of the happiest facts — I accept that there are unhappy facts too—of what has happened since 1967 is that the number of deaths from criminal abortions has dropped to nil in recent years. It is equally the case—I want to recognise this clearly — that because the Bill would not affect the vast majority of abortions that take place in this country, and because there would undoubtedly be added difficulties in undertaking illegal late abortions, it is unlikely that the passing of this Bill would lead to the sort of back-street abortions that we saw in the early 1960s and before.
Against the background of the number of women who go to great lengths in order to obtain an abortion, it would be rash to say that there would be no risk of some degree of return to abortions outside the law. That is something the House will have to bear in mind.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister accept that the delay in provision in some parts of the country might be responsible for the demand for late abortions in some areas?
Mr. Newton: It is very difficult for me to assess the various factors that may be involved. I am not in a position to confirm the proposition that the hon. Gentleman has put to me.
The hon. Member for Ladywood has mentioned that one of the difficulties is the variable availability of NHS abortions around the country, for reasons that I, at any rate, would frankly not wish to disturb. Whatever else we may disagree about, we surely agree it would be wrong to compel consultants and nurses, who have a conscientious objection to the performance of abortions, to undertake them.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Newton: I am happy to give way, but I am anxious about the pressure on time.
Mr. Morgan: The Minister has said that consultants should be free not to carry out abortions or late abortions if they find that repugnant. However, he is missing the point that those consultants may also appoint staff within their areas who agree with their views and that that may have a major impact on the availability of early or late abortions on the NHS in such areas.
Mr. Newton: I readily recognise that that is a matter on which there are a number of insoluble problems and many

1269
dilemmas. I stick to my fundamental proposition, that I would not wish to be a Minister for Health who is in the business of seeking to compel clinicians to undertake procedures of which they conscientiously disapprove.
Some reference has been made to particular cases that have been highlighted by the BMA concerning the possible implications for young girls who do not recognise or who attempt to conceal their pregnancies, and menopausal women who fail to recognise that they are pregnant until it is too late. To help the House to judge those points, and in recognition that they need to be balanced against other views, I can inform the House that, out of a total of 8,276 abortions at 18 weeks and over, 2,865, or over one third, are to women under the age of 20. A further small proportion, about 3 per cent., or 253 abortions at 18 weeks and over, are to women aged 40 and over. Again, hon. Members must make their own judgment about the significance of those figures.
There is one other category that has not been referred to in the House and for which I cannot give any statistics or evaluate in general terms, but which should be mentioned — the possibility of women whose infection with the AIDS virus is not recognised until a late stage of pregnancy. Clearly, under present circumstances, that problem will grow. I emphasise that it is for hon. Members to weigh all of these factors against many other considerations.
The last major point upon which I feel I ought to seek to offer some information and guidance to the House relates to the many references that have been made to handicap and, in particular, the tests and the timing of the tests that can presently or prospectively be available to discover handicap and allow choice to be made.
Mr. Toby Jessel: When my right hon. Friend gave us some figures just now, I thought that he would refer to the approximately 4,800 abortions per year at over 18 weeks that are carried out on women from England. He has not said what proportion of those abortions are carried out by the NHS for which he is responsible. The Minister and his colleagues have made us well aware of the immense pressures due to the increased demand on the NHS and thus the demand on its operating facilities. In view of that, how can it be argued that someone who is waiting for an operation — there are many people, some in pain, waiting for operations of all sorts on the NHS—should have a lower priority than the late abortion of a healthy baby?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's views. However, given the views implied by his question, I do not think that I would want, in return, to express an opinion about the particular needs of particular people without knowing rather more about the circumstances in which they find themselves and what has led them to request a particular form of medical attention.
It is important to say something about the handicap issue and the question of tests. Obviously, completely new tests may eventually become available that may alter the position, but, as I am advised, the position on the main tests currently available is as follows. The first test, serum alphafetoprotein, is usually done at 16 weeks. It is a test on the mother's blood to identify women who are more likely than average to have a foetus with an open neural tube defect, particularly a proportion of spina bifida cases.
1270
The test usually shows up as abnormal in an encephaly. Amniocentesis is normally done at 16 weeks. It is used to assist in confirming the presence of a foetus with open neural tube defect, or to give cells that can be cultured to determine whether there is a genetic or chromosomal abnormality if there is reason to suspect that they may be present.
That cell culture takes two to three weeks, and if it fails, as it sometimes does, the test may need to be repeated. Abortion stemming from the findings is seldom possible much before 20 weeks, and in latter tests it sometimes may be as late as 24 weeks.
Untra sound scanning is mostly carried out at 16 to 18 weeks. The later it is done, the more accurate it is in assessing foetal abnormality. Its main uses are to assist in determining the gestational age, which may be important in interpreting other tests for foetal abnormality, to detect multiple pregnancy and to see abnormalities of foetal structure.
The test that has perhaps been referred to most in the debate, and in which there is most interest in the future, is chorionic villus biopsy, which is normally carried out at the earlier stage of between 8 and 12 weeks gestation. It is a relatively new procedure and can be used as an alternative to later examination of cells in amniotic fluid obtained by amniocentesis at between 16 and 18 weeks. It is used for the detection of genetic or chromosomal abnormalities if there is reason to suspect that they may be present. I am told that it is not an alternative to the procedures of alphafetoprotein testing or ultrasound scanning.
The House must bear in mind that, as yet, chorionic villus biopsy is not universally available, and that its safety and accuracy are still being studied. Clinical experience so far shows that, in general, results are accurate, although a small percentage of chromosome abnormalities need to be confirmed later by amniocentesis. There may be a problem regarding safety, in that miscarriage after amniocentesis is between 1 and 2 per cent., whereas after chorionic villus biopsy it appears to be twice that figure. Sometimes, there is the further problem of infection following this procedure.
Mr. Wigley: Interpreting what the Minister has just said, will he confirm that at present—other tests may be developed in the future—it is essential to give a choice to mothers who may be passing genetic defects? Those defects may lead to severe disability. Does the Department have a view of the implications of the Bill in those terms, given the Minister's responsibility in regard to disability?
Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with a carefully noted piece. I shall cover the points that he has raised.
If the indications of accuracy and safety are confirmed by research, and no other hazards of the chorionic villus biopsy emerge in the study, obstetricians may be expected to want to offer a choice of chorionic villus biopsy or amniocentesis when women whose previous family history shows the need for genetic or chromosome studies present early enough in pregnancy. Women would be likely to be told that, although there are occasionally problems with accuracy and a somewhat higher miscarriage rate, chorionic villus biopsy can provide a good indication of whether the foetus has chromosomol or gene abnormalities that are otherwise detectable through amniocentesis.

1271
It can do so early in pregnancy, thus making possible .the option of a safer and less unpleasant termination before 12 weeks for some groups of women. There are indications that a majority of women would choose chorionic villus biopsy, but that a substantial number would opt for amniocentesis at 16 weeks.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The figures that the Minister has given are interesting. My wife and I lost our first baby because it suffered from hydrocephalus spina bifida after a full-term pregnancy. For the next four healthy children that we had, we were under a great deal of strain. For the first two there were no tests, but for the last two they were available, and we had the option, which we would have taken if we had had a severely disabled child. What worries me profoundly about the Bill is that parents such as myself and my wife will not have that choice.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that all hon. Members will wish both to extend their sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for his experience — it has been interesting to hear about that experience—and to take it into account in deciding what their view should be.
In considering these tests, there are one or two further points that I must make. First, in dating a pregnancy, the margin of error either way is commonly as much as 10 days. Secondly, if a foetal abnormality is detected by one diagnostic method, a further method may have to be used to confirm the diagnosis, and that can mean some delay, especially if the woman has to be referred to a different hospital. Thirdly, delays in systems can sometimes occur for a variety of reasons, whether staff absences, equipment failure, because the woman is ill, because a relative, perhaps a child, is ill, or because of something as mundane as transport difficulties.
All those matters must be borne in mind, but they lead to the conclusion that, as the Bill stands, with the provision that only a child likely to be born dead or with physical abnormalities so serious that its life cannot be independently sustained, would be excluded from its working, there is likely to be some increase in the numbers of severely handicapped children born, whose mothers might otherwise have decided to have an abortion.
Mr. Alton: Is the Minister saying that, if the 8 per cent. that fall into the category that he has described were to be excluded by an exemption clause in Committee, he would accept the ovewhelming burden of evidence that the 92 per cent. who would be perfectly healthy children, should not be aborted?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I have made it clear that I am seeking to put factors before the House which hon. Members should bear in mind and that I do not attempt to press my judgments upon them. I am sure that it is right for me to stick to that position. In view of the reference to the fact that more than 90 per cent. of abortions at 18 weeks and over are for reasons other than foetal abnormality, which is undoubtedly correct, it is also fair for me to put before the House—
Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Professor Stuart Campbell said on Tuesday that he would stake his professional reputation on the fact that there are far more class 4 terminations than are recorded, because of administrative failures in the system?
Mr. Newton: I note with interest what my hon. Friend said, but that is not a matter on which I shall attempt to make a judgment.
The House should also note that the proportion of abortions done on grounds of foetal abnormality increases considerably with gestational age. At 18 weeks, the proportion is 6 per cent.; that rises to 21 per cent. at 24 weeks and to more than 70 per cent. above 24 weeks. At least that is something which the whole House will wish to bear in mind.
I have probably said as much as I can usefully and helpfully say to the House as Minister for Health. I emphasise again that, neither in that capacity, nor in my capacity as a member of a collective Government, am I advising the House and hon. Members in any way as to how they should vote on this Bill. The House is perhaps entitled to know, and perhaps it is right for me to say, that in my capacity — I emphasise this strongly — as an independent Member of Parliament with his own purely personal views, I would be more than ready to support the introduction of a clear legal time limit for abortions. But I do not find myself conscientiously able to support the passage of the Bill in the precise form in which it has been presented to the House today.
12.49 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members who were in the House in the 1970s will remember that this is by no means the first attempt to restrict the Abortion Act 1967. I well recall, as if it were yesterday, the first attempt, in March 1975, because it was almost a year after I had entered the House; that was the James White Bill. It was followed somewhat later by the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), and then later by John Corriels Bill. All those Bills were fought off by the strength of public opinion and by the common sense and sense of justice—I use the words advisedly—of the House of Commons.
Now, in 1988, it is 20 years since the 1967 Act, during which back-street abortions, as the Minister said, have completely disappeared and a new generaton of young women and men has grown up with a law that has allowed women — often with difficulty even under the present Act and often with unnecessary delays—to obtain a termination safely and legally.
Let me dispel two myths that have been referred to here and in the press during the past few weeks. The first myth is that the present Act gives women the right to choose. It does not. Two doctors must agree, and the need to obtain an abortion must comply with one of the provisions in the Act. Abortion is not another method of contraception. That is another thing that is widely said, and quite untrue. Anyone who believes that can have no idea of the agony of mind that all women undergo before making the momentous decision to have an abortion.
The second myth is that women opt for an abortion on trivial grounds, such as that it would restrict their social activities or affect their figures. They are much more serious people than their critics give them credit for. Certainly an unintended pregnancy, often as a result of contraceptive failure, will give many women much to think about. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred to the choice that women have of being able to take contraceptive pills or use contraceptive devices. I am sure I do not have to remind

1273
her that there is such a thing as contraceptive failure, and that quite a number of women have had to resort to an abortion in the end because of it.
Dame Jill Knight: I said that contraception has never been so widely disseminated, that there has never been so much education about it, and that it has never been so good.
Ms. Richardson: I can recall a number of studies done in the past two or three years which have put much fear into the minds of women about the effectiveness of the contraceptive devices they are using — of the pill, for example. What about the cuts in family planning services that are being made? I was in Stevenage about 10 days ago and visited its family planning clinic, which is faced with a 50 per cent. cut in resources over the next 12 months. That will mean an increase in the number of women who may become pregnant as a result of not having proper treatment.
Whatever the reason for an unintended pregnancy, it affects the mental and physical health of a woman in terms of her children or other family responsibilities, adding further strains to an already over-strained household income. Damp, overcrowded housing conditions or homelessness may well be factors that must also be considered. Social research has proved many times that those factors have a direct impact on mental and physical health.
The British system of support for pregnant women is not all that good. Indeed, it is about the worst in western Europe. We have cut the maternity grant for all but the most needy and deprived — those on supplementary benefit—and even that is insufficient to provide the required diet for a pregnant woman. Girls aged under 16 are not given even that meagre benefit.
One of my constituents is a simple parent with a violent husband. She has three children, the oldest of whom is aged l4½. They live in a freezing, hard-to-let house. The house is so cold that they live effectively in one room. Last December, the 14-year-old daughter gave birth to a premature baby. The baby is ailing. The local hospital cannot keep it in, although its health demands that it returns to hospital frequently. That baby has been born and is physically perfect, although it is weak. Some people have tremendous stresses and strains on their lives. They might have forgiven that 14-year-old girl, and her mother, for having an abortion in those circumstances. I certainly would, and I hope that hon. Members who do not always agree with me would. That baby is loved, and I hope that it will survive.
I do not like the suggestion that those of us who opposed the Bill do not care about disabled people. Our record of care and concern for disabled people is as good as that of anyone else. I hope that no one will run away with the idea that there is any difference.
Many hon. Members have mentioned amendments that might be tabled to the Bill in Committee. It is said that a limit of 24 weeks might be acceptable. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has hinted that amendments might be accepted in Committee. But he drafted his Bill with remarkable precision. Had he been thinking about extending the time limit, he would not have
1274
tried to define the limit almost to the day. I beg the House to consider the words of the Bill. It is not an 18-week Bill, but a 17-week Bill. It says:
"A woman's pregnancy may be terminated in accordance with section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 at any time up to the beginning of the 18th week of gestation."
That is the seventh day of the 17th week. I do not know how anyone could be so precise about the period of gestation. If the hon. Gentleman now believes that a later limit may be acceptable, or that he could live with it, he should have introduced an entirely different Bill, or introduced none at all.
Mr. Alton: I fully understand the hon. Lady's view that this may not be the exact moment to fix the limit, and I have said that that will be a legitimate argument for the Committee. But every other country in western Europe fixes an exact date for an upper time limit? If it is possible there, why can we not do it?
Ms. Richardson: I shall tackle the point about which the hon. Gentleman is dismayed. He realises that that may not be the exact time. That point worries me, too. In Committee, we may talk about 22 or 24 weeks. Perhaps we will not. Perhaps some hon. Members will want to put forward 12 or 14 weeks. There is no guarantee that we will pass the Bill stating 17 weeks precisely, go into Committee, and come out with the Bill that we want. That is not on offer.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have Report stage.
Ms. Richardson: We have Report stage if amendments have not been properly discussed. Normally, Mr. Speaker will not accept the repeat of a matter that has been properly discussed in Committee.
Let me consider the remainder of the Bill and the way in which it is worded. Clause 1(2) allows terminations up to the end of 28 weeks. Thank goodness for something. However, it is restrictive in the extreme. It allows abortion to save the life of a mother. It allows abortion if a child is likely to be born dead or with abnormalities that are so serious that life cannot be independently sustained. In the briefing that he circulated to all hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman listed 11 types of handicapping disorder to demonstrate how his exemption clause will affect each group. I am informed by Professor Marcus Pembrey, Mothercare professor of paediatric genetics at London university, that over 2,000 different conditions can now be detected during pregnancy. Who will decide which conditions will be exempted?
Hon. Members who attended Professor Pembrey's presentation in the House a few weeks ago were visibly shaken by the examples of severe abnormality and multiple handicap that the professor assured us will fall outside the exemption as it is phrased in the Bill. How can, say, 16 or 20 hon. Members sit in Committee and decide? We are not doctors. We have some doctors in the House, but they are not necessarily specialists. How can we, as lay people, decide between different kinds of handicap, the names of which we probably cannot even pronounce, let alone understand? I would much rather leave that decision to informed medical opinion. That is where it should be left.
The hon. Gentleman has done one service for us. Practically everyone in the country now knows what an amniocentesis test is, that it cannot take place until the 16th week and that results are not available until 20 weeks.

1275
Perhaps, as a result of the debate that has gone on in the country, many more women will want to have an amniocentesis test because they have now heard of it, particularly if they are in any doubt about their pregnancies. We have the amniocentesis test, and the ultrasound screening to which the Minister referred, but it does not provide certain results until the 18th to 20th week, or even later.
There are known cases in which abnormalities or lack of development appear to be indicated by early ultrasound screening. If the pregnancy is continued with careful screening and back-up, further tests can reveal and have revealed that such abnormality has disappeared. If the Bill is passed with a much earlier upper time limit, it is entirely possible that, because they are cautious and worried, doctors will unnecessarily abort and that women will unnecessarily lose children whom they want. That is another reason why 18 weeks is a ridiculous time to put into the Bill.
I am sorry that those hon. Members who take a restrictive view of abortion were not present on Tuesday last in the Grand Committee Room to hear the moving and humbling testimony of mothers who have had abortions because they decided not to continue with their pregnancies after foetal abnormalities were detected. Some hon. Members were there. We heard from mothers who have since had or are going to have perfect babies. They said that if, because of the law, they had been forced to carry on with their earlier pregnancies and were now, against their will, trying to cope with handicapped children, they would never have risked having another child. They still grieve over the loss of their first baby, but they are all glad that the back-up of screening and our present humane and compassionate laws gave them the opportunity to make their individual choice and to go on with confidence to have more children. Who will sit in judgment on the first such woman to seek an illegal abortion, if the Bill is passed?
Nothing has been said this morning about mental handicap. It is specifically excluded from the Bill, because the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has excluded the reference to mental health which is in the original Act. There are approximately 160,000 severely mentally handicapped people in this country and almost 1 million mildly mentally handicapped people in England and Wales. As a society, we try to support their desire to live an ordinary life within the community, and that is right. That includes allowing them and helping them to develop relationships with the opposite sex and, for some, at some stage, marriage. Sadly, it also means being at risk or being exploited by others in the community.
The diagnosis of pregnancy in mentally handicapped women is often very delayed because of their unawareness of their condition and because they fail to seek medical advice. A child born to a mentally handicapped mother runs a high risk of being mentally handicapped and of having other congenital defects of varying severity. Pregnancy, delivery and fostering or adoption can have devastating effects on a mentally handicapped woman and her partner and, more commonly, on her aging parents who have devoted all their young lives to the care of their child. Any reduction in the upper time limit for therapeutic abortion would have a traumatic effect on this small but important group of people.
1276
I wish to refer briefly to another group of people. I received a letter, dated 4 January, from Dr. Lindsey Allan, senior lecturer in paediatric cardiology at Guy's hospital. She says that, since 1980, her unit has specialised in the
"detection of congenital heart disease in early foetal life. With present technology, the optimum time for foetal cardiac examination is about 18–20 weeks gestation. Major heart disease can be accurately detected from this time on. At least 25% of children born with heart defects will die in the first 10 years of their life, often after a restricted existence, chequered with repeated hospital investigation and major heart surgery."
Those children would certainly be excluded under the exclusion clause of the Bill because they would be born alive and, in other respects, able to exist independently, but they would die before they were 10 years old.
Dr. Allan goes on to say:
"Faced with the prospect of a very poor long-term prognosis for their child, the majority of parents elect termination of pregnancy — 32 of a possible group of 40 parents made this choice in 1987."
Mr. Alton rose—
Ms. Richardson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I should have liked him to deal with cases involving mental handicap and heart disease which will not be covered by the clause. Much has been said about chorionic villus sampling; the Minister has said that tests are going on at present. It will be quite a long time before these will be universally available, however.
We have talked about amending the Bill in Committee. I hope very much that we shall not get to that stage, but that we shall defeat the Bill today. We must keep repeating that 18 weeks is on offer — not 20, 22 or 24 weeks. Several permutations have been offered around, but we do not want to go down that road.
All informed opinion is against the Bill. I have a list of organisations, as I am sure do others, that have appealed to the House to vote against it. There are lists of royal colleges and organisations for the handicapped. It was somewhat sharp practice for those hon. Members—one of whom is not listening—who referred to the poll of gynaecologists to talk about 62 per cent. of gynaecologists being in favour of a much lower time limit. Let us be frank: there are more than 3,000 gynaecologists, only 40 per cent. of whom replied. That is a small sample of informed opinion.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Richardson: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has time to make his own speech.
In 1975, 9 per cent. of abortions in Tower Hamlets were performed at 17 weeks and above. In 1977, Peter Huntingford opened a day-care abortion service and, by 1981, 1.8 per cent. of abortions were carried out at 17 weeks and above. With proper day care, the number of late abortions can be reduced, and that is the way to do it. In 1981, when I proposed a ten-minute Bill to place a duty on all health authorities to make such provision available equally to all women, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill voted against it. He consistently said throughout the argument before this debate that he favoured a much better and more evenly spread provision of National Health Service facilities. The hon. Gentleman voted against my legislation, and so did every other sponsor of this Bill who was in the House at that time.
Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady is absolutely right—1 did vote against it. I am not in favour of earlier abortions. I

1277
am in favour of better care, better love and better resources—many of the things about which the hon. Lady has talked. That does not mean to say that we should favour abortion. The most repugnant part of abortion is late abortions, and that is all that my Bill specifically deals with.
Ms. Richardson: It is not any kind of answer to imply that one's concern for better and more even provision of NHS facilities is connected with the Bill and with abortion facilities and now to say that one is just concerned for general resourcing across the board.
We were all pleased that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the original sponsor of the 1967 legislation, was able to spare time to speak today. The good, courageous pioneers—there are many in the Strangers Gallery listening, including the Abortion Law Reform Association—who campaigned for the 1967 legislation within the framework of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and sought to help women and protect them against the dangers and exploitation of back-street and self-inflicted abortion. I remind hon. Members of the practices that claimed 95 women's lives in the one year alone that preceded the 1967 Act.
The Minister has said that he doubts very much whether, if the Bill is passed, there will be a wholesale return to back-street abortions. There may not be a wholesale return to the back streets—I hope that we will never find out — but there will probably be a return of some sort. I would not wish to see a return to those days.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Richardson: No.
I remember those days. I am of the generation when knitting needles, coat hangers, turpentine and iodine were used, resulting in a number of deaths.
Mrs. Mahon: I nursed one of those statistics. I spent the longest night of my life looking after a young woman who died at the age of 23. That is what a return to those days would mean.
Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has personal experience of such matters.
As the Minister said, there has not been one death from abortion in the past three years. Today, hon. Members will be searching their hearts. I beg them to think very carefully before voting for such a draconian and ill-thought-out Bill, which will do nothing to help deprived women and families, and everything to confuse the law and criminalise women. I hope that the Bill will be defeated.
If another Bill comes from the other place, we shall have to consider it and come to a decision. In the meantime, I prefer to keep the existing Abortion Act with the flexibility of a 28-week upper time limit, so that we do not criminalise women who are in pain, terror and worry, and so that we do not criminalise doctors. I ask
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It will be evident to the House that many hon. Members on both sides of the House still wish to speak, and that varying
1278
views are held on both sides of the House. I strongly appeal to any hon. Member who is called from now on to be extremely brief, in the interests of other hon. Members who wish to speak.
1.16 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I support the Bill. I am motivated by the fact that it endeavours to do what the 1967 Act lamentably failed to achieve. It tries to define where life starts, and the rights of one individual over the life of another.
We all accept that if someone is born perfectly healthy and then, through illness or a major accident, becomes grossly handicapped, that person still has the right to live and is classified as a separate human being with full civil rights. We all accept that if a child is damaged because something goes wrong at birth, such as oxygen failure, that child is a human being with fully established civil rights, and has the right to live, no matter how handicapped.
We do not allow a woman to choose whether to continue a pregnancy when she is more than 28 weeks pregnant. We already say that there must be some restriction of one individual's right of determination over another's right to live. I support the Bill because it asks whether we have that right, and, if not, why not, and what should be the correct limit. The Bill has been described by various hon. Members who oppose it as muddled. I maintain strongly that the 1967 Act was a muddle. The 1967 Act said that what is in the womb is not life because a woman has a right of abortion under certain loose circumstances. It also said that perhaps it is life, and perhaps we should protect it, so we shall define the circumstances in which a woman can have an abortion, be they ever so loose. It fudged the issue. We must decide when life is life and must be fully and absolutely respected, as hon. Members would respect each other's lives. It has been widely accepted that babies survive at 24 weeks, although it would be conceded by my hon. Friends, that it is a massive struggle and only a minority survive, but they survive.
I find it deeply objectionable— I will not use a pejorative word such as obscene— that we have a law that permits two babies to leave their mother's womb at 24 weeks; one is cherished while its life is fought over, and all the medical resources in the country are poured into saving it and its parents desperately want it to live, while the other is wilfully destroyed, being taken from its mother's womb unnaturally at the same age. I find that impossible to accept as a mark of a civilised society.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Member give way?
Miss Widdecombe: With respect to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), we have had four speeches in a row from the Opposition Benches on her side of the argument, and I would like us to have a little say. That is said with respect, because I know that she feels very strongly about this subject.
I find it unacceptable that we should have those two completely separate attitudes towards a child of the same age. It is even reflected in our language. I have never heard a woman who lost a baby prematurely say that she lost her foetus; she says she has lost her baby. Yet when we decide that we will wilfully destroy a 24-week-old baby, we call

1279
it a foetus. That is a dual standard. I am concerned that the Abortion Act 1967 legislated for that standard, and I want to see a revision.
Where do we draw the line? Is it at the presently recorded lowest survival rate of 24 weeks for permanent survival and 23 weeks for temporary survival, or at the point where we think medical science will move in the foreseeable future, or do we recognise as life the time when a child is fully formed, is sentient and can feel pain and react to stimuli? We have all reached different decisions of conscience. The Bill is a valid attempt to set down a line, and I support the line that the Bill has set down.
I recognise fully that other hon. Members have different opinions. For the sake of the 92 per cent. of healthy children who are aborted over the age of 18 weeks, I would not stick doctrinally to a position where the exceptions were so narrow that the Bill would be lost through that. I would rather compromise, even if it goes against what I personally believe, in order to save that 92 per cent. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) is not here to hear me say this, because his major concern was that he did not trust the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to put together a Committee that would be capable of absorbing that compromise. As an anti-abortionist, I will face that compromise if by doing so I can save unborn life, and many of my hon. Friends would take that view.
The same goes for the line we draw. To be perfectly honest, I would draw the line below the one that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has drawn, but if in order to save a certain proportion of unborn life I must accept a slightly higher line, I will, with reluctance but straightforwardly, accept that line. All that I ask is that this important Bill, which fills a gap that the 1967 Act left unaddressed and attempts to define the rights of individuals who cannot speak for themselves, should have a chance to be fully examined and to return to the House for final approval or disapproval. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East : let us not shut the door this morning. This matter is too important. We must keep the door open because what finally emerges will be a wise, humane, just and civilised Bill; and the present legislation fulfils none of those criteria.
1.25 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) set out graphically the nature of the compromise that we are required to support if we wish to reduce to some extent the number of abortions that take place annually.
This Bill is not an ideal Bill and was never advocated as such. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—my hon. Friend for the purposes of this debate—came top of the ballot. If every hon. Member had the right to introduce a private Member's Bill, we should not be faced with the dilemma that confronts my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill. He believes in a principle. He won the place in the ballot; it was not me or any other hon. Member.
My hon. Friend had to say to the organisations outside the House, "If you wish me to place this matter before Parliament, you will have to accept that, in framing the Bill that I propose, I shall not be able to compromise on one matter." That matter was the question of handicap. My hon. Friend was imprisoned in that position because of his experience of teaching handicapped children for six years.
1280
My hon. Friends may find that difficult to stomach, but they must understand that if one cannot secure any other route to abortion reform, one has no option but to accept offers from hon. Members who are prepared to offer their private Member's slot for reform that meets our objectives.
Before I speak to the Bill in detail, I should like to say something about the Labour party and what has happened in the past few weeks. We have been told that the Labour party has exerted pressure on its members. I want to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. I address myself to those outside the House who have misrepresented this debate and this argument in a most grotesque way when I say that the letter from the general secretary, Mr. Larry Whitty, was a fair and reasonable letter setting out the Labour party's policy. He was absolutely right to send that letter, and he said, as the great majority of members of the party would say, that it is for hon. Members to decide for themselves.
Then we were told that the Labour Chief Whip had sent out a letter over Christmas issuing instructions. That is not true; it never happened. I received the letter, which pointed out that two important private Members' Bills were to be debated at the beginning of January and expressed the hope that there would be a substantial attendance for those debates. I say again to those who have misrepresented these matters outside the House that that is the truth, and I say it as a supporter of the Bill. I hope that that information will be taken back to groups around the country.
Let me deal with the so-called demand for a three-line Whip. I have not heard a demand for a three-line Whip. It has never been part of the argument that there should be a three-line Whip. But I understand why, in certain circumstances, there should be a three-line Whip. If the Labour party takes a position, it is entitled—although it has not done so to date—to demand a three-line Whip on such matters. Hon. Members who want to be true to their conscience have the right to decide what they want to do if they find that a three-line Whip has been imposed upon them. That is their right, and my right and it is for me to decide whether to vote aye or no. If I believe in something, I shall apply what is for me an honourable tradition of the House and cast my vote accordingly.
One of the fiercest opponents of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), voted, against a three-line Whip, on a very important measure in 1978 — the Finance Bill. She expressed her view according to her conscience and judgment and was not penalised for so doing. If the party thinks that in these matters voting should be whipped, I do not take exception to that. I say to people outside the House and to people in the Strangers' Gallery that this is a matter for one's conscience but that even a three-line Whip allows one to follow one's conscience.
No one will ever drive me into a Lobby in support of a measure with which I do not agree. Some hon. Members who support the Bill, but particularly some of those who oppose it, are quick to flex their muscles when speaking about matters in which they think conscience is important.
I joined the Labour party for a specific reason. In the mid 1960s I built my Socialism on my perception of life and on the importance that I gave to life issues. I opposed hanging and was in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That was one of the things that brought me into the Labour party. I supported life issues from my first

1281
days in the party, and that was one of the crucial building blocks on which I built my Socialism. For many of us, that is an immutable position. As long as we remain in the political process and are able to advocate these matters we shall cast our votes in favour of reform of the law on an issue of this nature. That is because we believe in a principle. However, that does not detract from our right to recognise that some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), feel equally fiercely about such issues. She has the right to put a compromise before the House, knowing that it will be heard throughout the House for what it is.
I have outlined my building blocks, but they are also the building blocks for people throughout the Labour movement. Many people in the movement believe in the life tradition and support my position. In the last few weeks they have written to me and said that, although the party has taken a decision that they cannot accept, they are still Socialists. In formulating their case those people have drawn on exactly the same strands in their philosophy as those strands in my philosophy that hold me together politically. They are faced with the same conflicts.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. My hon. Friend has just arrived in the Chamber. If he had been here throughout the debate, I would have given way to him.
As I have said, those people are confronted by conflicts. On the one hand, we believe in a principle while, on the other, we know that thousands of women simply cannot find the courage to face the social difficulties that arise and have to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy. I strongly blame the Government for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said at a dinner the other night that she sat through a Bill or some meeting at which reference was made to an amendment moved in a Committee dealing with social security reform. She said that Conservatives had refused to accept the responsibility for funding families in which children were in their earliest years.
That is the contradiction for us in the Labour party who believe in the life tradition. We want reform of the law, but the other side of the argument is that many women come to us asking how we can possibly want reform of the law when the very framework and nature of the society that is developing under the Government does not provide the essential support services to ensure at least some help for families who find themselves in this position. That is the conflict that confronts us. In the letters that I have received in the last few weeks, people, especially Labour people, have repeatedly spoken specifically about these matters.
I have heard references to the photograph which was circulated in the newspaper advertisements that we placed in the national press and which was portrayed on hundreds of thousands of postcards that were sent throughout the United Kingdom. I suggest that my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill were distressed by the photograph because it was so graphic in its detail. It was a beautiful photograph of an 18-week foetus. It was clear, precise in colour and produced by the Swedish photographer Nielsson.
The campaign concentrated on that photograph because we wanted to draw the attention of the British
1282
people and, indeed, of hon. Members to the fact that we are not talking in grey abstract terms; we are talking about a child who is fully formed in the womb. There was no other way in which we could express, in any detail, what the debate was about. That is why the photograph was used and why the lobby decided that that was the way in which the campaign should be presented. —[Interruption.] If there were any words to which my hon. Friends might have taken exception, I do not know what they were. However, during the campaign all sides may have used words that we may later regret. Indeed, one such phrase was "foreign woman." I used it. I regretted that from day one because it denoted disrespect, but I have heard it used again in our arguments today. However, I agree that some language should have been modified or not used in the way in which it was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) referred to a Bill that she brought before the House in 1981. I agonised long and hard over that Bill. I am convinced now that in principle she is right. If we are to bring in legislation that will draw women into earlier abortions, we must set up the arrangements to facilitate that. Every time that a young woman is stopped from having an abortion in a clinic in, say, Birmingham, we cannot see that as a gain for the life movement. It is not a gain—it is cheating around the rules. We must ensure that, in the event that we set in place legislation—I hope—that the Bill goes through—
Ms. Abbott: Unamended.
Ms. Short: Unamended—go on say it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, I hope that the Bill goes through unamended. But I know that it cannot go through in that form. I believe that the Bill will go through in the way in which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has suggested if amendments are successful.
In the event that the Bill is accepted, I believe that it should be followed rapidly by legislation, or whatever is necessary, so that throughout the United Kingdom abortion is made available within the law as it exists at the time. Equally, there should be proper counselling services whereby woman are given the opportunity of advice so that they are able to make a balanced judgment. It seems utterly wrong that in one part of the country a woman is able to secure a service, which is her right in law, but that in another area she can be obstructed by the medical profession. That seems totally wrong. Part and parcel of the debate on the Bill must be about that provision.
1.38 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: I shall make my position on this issue clear straight away. I am in favour of the Bill because I see it as a first step to no abortions whatsoever. I say that to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who is now leaving the Chamber, and who asked us to be honest. I am being honest about this, because there is no point in behaving in any other way.
In saying that, I am aware of the implications for ladies who have been raped, and the implications relating to incest and for the handicapped children who might be born as a result. Nobody has felt more strongly about the impact of rape on ladies than I have, and nobody takes a stronger view about child abuse in the home.
We have heard a great deal today about women's rights, but nothing about women's obligations. The

1283
minute a lady takes part in a sexual act, other than by force, she loses the right to control what happens to her body, because at the time of conception there is the beginning of another life inside her. That second life has rights that have to be recognised.
I shall now deal with disabled and handicapped children who may not be born. For children to enjoy life, they do not have to have the speed of an athlete, the body of a bodybuilder or the agility of a gymnast. The book entitled "The Dam-Burst of Dreams" about Christopher Nolan shows that. That young lad has no physical coordination and no normal body movement, but he can perceive life through his words and thoughts clearer than many of us sitting in the House now. He, if anybody, represents the right to life no matter what the handicap. He has the right to life, irrespective of what his mother may have thought.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Mr. Dicks: I will not give way.
Fortunately for Christopher Nolan, he has a mother who wanted him and who has been a great help to him. He has made a major contribution to our lives in this country and elsewhere. There are many examples of handicapped children who have grown up to make contributions to our society.
I am being quick because there are others who want to speak, but I should say that this debate has caused me a great deal of heart-searching. Fifty years ago, a mother of 40 had a child who was born a spastic. That child was me, the Member of Parliament for Hayes and Harlington. I am concerned because I believe that, if the technology that is available now had been available 50 years ago, a doctor may well have said to my mother, "You are 40 years old and you are carrying a disabled child. There is brain damage. Please have it aborted." Opposition Members may wish that had happened; I do not know. I am saying that my right to life came about because the technology was not available to help a doctor advise my mother about whether to allow me to live.
I am a spastic. Of course I am nowhere near as bad as Christopher Nolan, but I have to cope with the stresses and strains of minor disability. However, there was loving care from my mother in my home. By the age of nine, she had taught me how to do up my shoelaces because I could not use my hands properly. She told me that I could take part in sport and lead a normal life. She told me that, if she had her way, which she did, I would make some sort of success of my life. I suppose that having arrived here as a spastic with cerebral palsy is a measure of success.
I have dealt mainly with handicap because people have said that mothers should have the right to decide whether to have a handicapped child. We are talking about a life inside a woman. The doctors advising that women could he wrong. That child could be born, survive and understand what is going on. Christopher Nolan represents the reason why we should not have any abortions at all. However, I understand and am concerned about incest and rape and the implication of a child being born as a result. I do not know the answer, but I do know that life is important from the minute that conception takes place. Of course ladies have rights and we must consider them, but they also have obligations and responsibilities that they have to face up to.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Richardson) raised the issue of the mentally handicapped having children.
1284
Perhaps in this enlightened society we should be thinking about telling such people that they should not have children and helping them to enjoy a full life. We cannot say that they have the right to have children and then say that they can have an abortion. That is inconsistent.
By its very nature, abortion is wrong. Abortion at any time is wrong. I support the Alton Bill, if I can call it that, because he is making a move in the right direction. Please let us not use handicapped or potentially handicapped children inside a woman's womb as a reason for taking a particular point of view. They have a right to life. In many ways, they lead a more fulfilled life than we do. I am convinced that that applies to Christopher Nolan, in his own way.
Mr. Wigley:rose—
Mr. Dicks: I beg people to support the Alton Bill, perhaps as a first stage.
1.44 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Sadly, in the twisted society in which we live, it is often impossible for a woman to say, "yes to life", to the life of the embryo growing within her, without damaging her own life and the life of her existing family.
The whole question of abortion is closely linked to other campaigns that women have been fighting for many years. Indeed, it has already been said that not only did we have to campaign for legal abortion, but we have had to campaign continually against repeated attacks on our abortion rights. The Bill represents the thin edge of the wedge; if it is passed, it will lead to further attacks on women's right to legal abortion.
If we were to win those other campaigns for which we are fighting, we would have a more civilised society, there would be few abortions, and late terminations would all but disappear. To achieve that end, we need improved sex education. We need contraceptives of all kinds, freely available and free. We need better housing and employment and training opportunities. We need safer childbirth—our record is not among the best in the advanced world. We must do away with some of the more recent "conveyor belt practices" connected with childbirth in hospitals, which have a traumatic effect on the baby during birth. We want nursery provision for young children. We want money for medical research into foetal abnormalities to discover them at an earlier stage. We need money for disabled people and money to provide facilities for them. We need money from the Government. as of right, for women who are carers of children, the disabled, the sick and the old.
If we win those campaigns, women will be able to have their children and we shall have a civilised society in which the rearing of children will be the joy that it should be. Nowadays, all too often the birth of an unwanted child leads to child abuse, and that is something we should not forget.
Last week, I sent the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) a copy of a letter that I had received. I received many sad letters, but I was especially struck by this one, perhaps because it came from an old man. Perhaps it was naive of me to send a copy of that letter to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, or perhaps it was a reflex action after 40 years of teaching, to try to make people face up to the consequences of their activities.

1285
That old man told me that he had for many years been looking after his handicapped son of 35, who is mentally disabled. The father was bitter and told how his wife had died in her fifties; he put that down to the strain of looking after their handicapped child. He was sad, he was tired, he was despairing, and above all he was haunted by the fear of what would happen to his handicapped son when he died. I have met many people with handicapped children who are haunted by that fear. It is another factor that has not been considered in this debate.
But the central issue, the most important question to consider, is whether women should have control over their bodies—the right to decide what happens within their bodies—or whether they should be controlled by others. Earlier in the debate, a Conservative Member raised the question of class. Money gives one a lot of rights. Those women, who have a lot of money and education, have the right to get round the restrictions of any kind of Bill. If this Bill is passed, such women will be able to find abortionists and will find a way to have their damaged foetuses aborted even at a late stage. However, poorer women would lose their rights. I am concerned for the rights of poorer women not only to have abortions, but to have children. Those two things are connected.
Some years ago, I was in a women's hospital for a check-up. I was shocked to see the number of women there for sterilisation operations. An unduly large proportion of them were black or Asian women. I went all round the ward asking the women why they were having this operation, and most of them had been advised by their doctor to have it as a form of contraception. It is because of my experiences as a young woman, long before 1967, that I am in favour of abortion on request in an adequate Health Sevice. It would solve almost all the problems of late terminations.
I do not know whether some hon. Members understand that no woman approaches abortion lightly. For the first few days after a woman has had a baby, her body trembles when she hears the baby cry. That is nature's way of tying the mother to the baby. This bonding starts from conception, so it is physically impossible for any woman to approach abortion lightly. They approach it after giving serious consideration to the factors involved.
We have all heard about the pre-1967 period and the gin, hot baths, quinine pills, knitting needles and soap suds. We know that the best doctors—those who were caring and kind—were often criminalised and struck off the register.
However hon. Members may not appreciate the constant shadow that was cast over the lives of women, both married and unmarried, by the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Every month, my generation and my mother's generation worried about becoming pregnant, especially if their period was late. They felt caged, trapped and frightened. They wondered what to do and where they would find someone who would give them an abortion if they could not cope with, or afford to have, another child.
The Bill will lead to the criminalisation of women and doctors once again. Hon. Members who are wavering about how to vote should think about their wives, girlfriends, daughters and granddaughters. They should vote for their choice to have control over their bodies; they should vote against this Bill.
1.52 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: One fact has emerged from the debate about which there has been no controversy—92 per cent. of all late abortions are of healthy babies. There is common ground on that fact, and it has been accepted and confirmed by the Minister.
People have rightly raised their convictions about womenfolk, handicapped children and other matters. They are entitled to do so, but surely we are entitled to speak for voiceless, defenceless, inarticulate healthy babies. The House must concern itself with that matter.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has made his personal convictions clear. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said that he was not a Roman Catholic. I need not tell the House my religion [Laughter.] We all have personal convictions.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear that our prime interest is healthy babies who should not be aborted. A strong voice should be raised in the House for those who cannot speak for themselves.
For more than 40 years, I have been a pastoral minister in a working-class district of east Belfast, and I know the anguish. I speak as one who has had the experience of sitting with young women faced with this problem. I have tried to counsel them and tell them that everything will not be over when they have an abortion. I have in my hand a poem which one of them sent to me, and it is the saddest communication that I have ever received. A young unmarried women who became pregnant decided that an abortion was the best way out for her and two months later she wrote:
"There is no more happiness any more
Those days belong now behind a closed door
Darkness and despair now take its place
I hate being a member of the human race"
That young woman's heart was completely broken.
Therefore, there is another side to having abortions; there is an aftermath and a harvest. I emphasis that those who adopt the same position as I do feel deeply and understand with compassion the heart-rending decisions that are being made by those people, but there is a more excellent way.
The purpose of abortion must be questioned. Is it for the convenience of others or for the good of the child? That is the prime question that must be asked. It is simply not enough to say in reply that children are unwanted, so should be destroyed. No one has the right to adopt that attitude. The gruesome act of abortion as it has been delineated here today has been repudiated, and it has been said that those facts should not be brought into the debate. But we are talking about a child—a real person—who is being destroyed. That a child should be destroyed within the mother's womb in that way is something about which we must righteously protest.
Those who are ardent campaigners for women's rights indict anti-abortionists as taking from women the right to exercise control over their fertility, but that is another matter from control over life itself, and that must be emphasised. Easy-going tolerance has contributed much to the current vague estimation of the value of life. It does not occur to many that what they call tolerance is in reality a sheer lack of conviction.
It is not particularly significant if a person with no great convictions says that he or she is tolerant. Tolerance is a virtue only if a person believes in something strongly, yet respects the rights of another to disagree. True Christian

1287
tolerance does not play footsie with the truth. A good law will not make good people—and we all know that—but evil law not only legalises evil but prevents the development of good and tears down the nation's morality.
The old saying that one cannot make men love by law is true. But Christian realism is not content with that, because it knows that love in social terms is expressed in justice for all, and that "all" includes the unborn child. The Bill calls for an immediate and definite response. The three avenues along which we make our decisions are intellect, conscience and emotion. I contend that in each of those three areas, support for the Bill is the most responsible line that we can take for our society.
1.59 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I want to pay tribute to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), for the time and effort that he has spent on it and for the amount of abuse that he has had to take because of it. We all know that he exercised a self-denying ordinance by refusing himself the right to be Liberal Chief Whip during these exciting times of trial. For that also he should be praised.
I have two points to make, one of them in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who implied that those of us who oppose abortion are somehow being hypocritical by supporting the Bill. That is a valid and understandable criticism, which must be answered. Anyone who believes, as I do, that abortion is wrong must surely take every opportunity to reduce its incidence, even if the step taken will save only one, four, ten or a hundred lives. The decision to compromise with one's own conscience will thus have been rewarded in the most practical way possible.
One thing that has been clear throughout the debate and that will always be clear in such debates is that the issue is not to do with the peripheral matters that have been raised, or with the emotions and anger that have been shown. The subject of our discussion has been variously called a child, a baby, a foetus, a person and a thing. Perhaps if we settled for a proper name, a proper terminology, that might help many of us to make up our minds. I suggest that we substitute the term human being. If we do, there remains one fundamental question to ask and answer as we vote today. What precept of morality, legality or civics can justify the death of 7,000 human beings in this country under a piece of legislation that was sanctioned on the Floor of the House? That is the only serious question for the legislator. We shall answer it today. I repeat it because it is stark, harsh and real, and we shall choose our answer to it when we choose which Lobby to enter. How can we justify in political, legal or civil terms the taking away of life from 7,000 people if we accept the name human being?
2.3 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have listened with great interest to all the arguments deployed in the debate. One aspect that has been neglected is the consideration of whether we should dignify the Bill that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has brought before the House by making it law. The hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce the heavy hand of regulation into human behaviour. Human conduct is largely defined by
1288
habit and arises spontaneously to be tested and refined in our courts of law. Whenever this issue has been tested in a court of law, the court has come down on the side of the woman. It has not accepted the precedence of an unborn child over the mother. In the latest case in which this was tested, when a young man brought a case against his girl friend who was some 20 weeks pregnant, the court ruled in favour of the young woman, so we are not a society that has no organisation or laws apart from those decided in this House.
The campaign that has been conducted by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill is largely based on emotion and on some very unpleasant, aesthetically revolting suggestions which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If those conditions apply to abortions, I am sure that we all deplore them, but they are no reason for denying a woman the right to have a termination if, after consulting her family, her doctors and, where appropriate, her religious advisers, she decides to have an abortion. It ill behoves the House to remove that right from her.
I appeal to my fellow Conservative Members, who are prevaricating on an issue of personal rights. The Conservative party takes great pride in having reduced the role of the state in people's lives during the past decade. We are rolling back the state, yet the Bill would push us back decades into the darker realms of human conduct to the time when the most common cause of female mortality was badly conducted abortions.
British women are solidly against the Bill—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.
Mrs. Gorman: All the polls and surveys that have been sent to us show that the majority of the population is against the Bill—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They do not.
Mrs. Gorman: If hon. Members can mention the biased poll conducted by gynaecologists, we can also mention the show of hands on a television programme yesterday, which showed that 90 per cent. of a balanced audience was in favour of a woman's right to choose. It should be noted that every responsible medical society opposes the Bill, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, the British Paediatric Association and the Clinical Genetics Society. They are not back-street abortionists making money out of foreign women, with whose plight I sympathise; they are some of the most responsible bodies in the land and they oppose the Bill.
Many other people oppose the Bill. With some of my colleagues—far too few—I attended a moving meeting conducted by parents of handicapped children who have had to live with the problem. I shall not repeat the arguments about physically and mentally handicapped children. Suffice it to say that some of those parents consider it a mercy that children born with appalling difficulties, who live their lives in pain and sorrow and who die young, are now capable of not being born. That is not just my view; it is the view of the parents who attended that meeting.
Many times, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has trotted out examples of handicapped people who have lived and who are pleased to have lived. I am sure that we

1289
all take pleasure in that. But we heard from a young woman with a genetic disorder whose blood must be changed several times a month, who has a pump under her skin to keep her going, who develops extremely painful lumps in her stomach and who is constantly in pain. She told us that she would rather not be alive. For every case that the hon. Gentleman raised, there is another case. I agree that it is only part of the argument, but it is an extremely potent and important point.
It is a matter of civil rights. It is a matter of a woman's right to decide her own future and her own fertility. This Chamber should not lightly take that right from her. Those who consider that abortion is wrong should test their prejudices in a court of law. Abortion matters should be decided in a court of law, not in the House, where our prejudices and religious attitudes are being used in a variety of ways in an attempt to influence the Bill.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill poses as a caring progressive. His Bill will bring misery and suffering to thousands of families. Those who really care, those who work with the situation, those who have lived with the situation, and even those who were born in the situation oppose him. I beg the House to oppose the Bill.
2.10 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I waited for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to deal with the detail of his Bill. In particular, I waited for him to define what he meant when he said that a woman's pregnancy may be terminated up to the beginning of the 18th week of gestation. I waited for him to tell us what the 18th week of gestation is and how he would go about proving it. There is no legal definition of pregnancy. As a legal matter, the 18th week of gestation does not exist. How would the hon. Gentleman define it? The hon. Gentleman may ask how we define 28 weeks. In practice, we do not; it is not necessary.
The present state of the law is not that abortion is legal up to 28 weeks. Section 1(1) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 states:
"any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony".
The term is:
"a child capable of being born alive".
The law in such cases is applied case by case. A doctor who performs an abortion after 24 weeks must be ready to justify in the courts that the child was not capable of being born alive. This Bill would not allow a case-by-case analysis. It is a general assertion that there is a particular day on which an abortion will become criminal. The hon. Gentleman does not tell us which day.
Which day represents the 18th week of gestation? Supporters of the Bill do not know. Doctors do not know. The woman concerned does not really know. In any case, the woman is in the best position to say, and she is the one to be criminalised, so she cannot be expected to be co-operative.
At the moment, the law is flexible. It puts a medical matter in the proper position to be argued medically, even if it has to be done in the courts. The Bill destroys that. If hon. Members pass the Bill, we will criminalize
1290
thousands of women and their doctors and be careless of the capacity to prove what was being asserted. That would be irresponsible.
We have been told a great deal about the possibility of amending the Bill in Committee. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, and I shall tell hon. Members what he is offering. He said that it would be "proper to examine" how to "rationalise the law". He said "examine", not "agree with you". He said that if it would result in a "useful measure", he would not be intransigent, but he also made clear that his view of a useful measure is not likely to be that of the House or of the people outside.
In the past, when we have sought to use the procedures of the House to examine in detail proposals for changing the abortion laws, we have been accused of procedural abuse. I have served on Committees of the House which have dealt with abortion. I have been guilty not of procedural abuse, but of trying to examine the nature and detail of the Bill. I do not believe that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, but, if it does, and we come to consider the matter in detail, we shall be abused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says that the matter will be considered in Committee and that it is a matter of compromise and give and take. The quality of his intervention in this matter can be judged by his comment earlier today that, from the beginning, he regretted the introduction of the subject of foreign women. I have a letter from my hon. Friend, dated 17 October 1987, which states:
"The reasons we have chosen 18 weeks are as follows."
The concluding sentence of his first paragraph states:
"Over half of these abortions are on foreign women."
He did not regret the matter sufficiently.
The offers to amend the Bill, being made so generously in the House today, arise for only one reason. The sponsors have calculated that they cannot win with the Bill as it stands at present, so they are trying to make us believe that the Bill, which was not published until 18 December 1987, will suddenly, by 22 January 1988, be subject to wholesale change.
Ms. Short: This issue is crucial to many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that if it were amended and still useful, he would continue to support it. He did not say that he would support any amendment to allow abortion for foetal abnormalities.
Mrs. Wise: The hon. Member for Mossley Hill clearly said that he is against abortion per se, whether early or late. That is why he voted against the attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) some years ago to make better provision for early abortion. We are being offered merely procedural gambles. It is a procedural ploy to persuade us to give way because its supporters cannot push through the Bill they have actually presented to the House.
This is a most important matter. We are dealing with the lives and happiness of many people and we should not subject them to a mere procedural gamble in the House. It is also very difficult to get matters which have been considered in Committee back on to the Floor of the House. We do so by all sorts of ploys, such as slightly changing the words. How can we change the words "24 weeks"? They do not lend themselves to that sort of ploy.

1291
The supporters of the Bill say that they are pro-life. I want to protest on behalf of everybody who will vote against the Bill. We are pro-life, but we do not neglect the fact that people also have a right to happiness. Unlike the sponsors of the Bill, on Tuesday, in the Grand Committee Room, we listened to the parents of handicapped children. They said that they had their abortions out of love and described watching their children die. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) says that those women have a choice—to remain childless. That will happen if the Bill is passed. We say that women should have the choice of termination of pregnancy and then to go on to bear a healthy child if possible.
I am not ducking the issue of those terminations that are not the result of foetal handicap. Women can be driven to desperation for reasons other than foetal handicap. In addition to the list of those who have said that the legislation is wrong, the Faculty of Community Medicine tells us —if hon. Members have read the brief—what happens to babies who are unwanted.
The remarkable consensus on this issue stretches from every woman Labour Member right across to the Conservative Women's National Committee. That consensus arises not because we have suddenly all become the same sort of people, but because as women we share some life experiences. Hon. Members must be careful in riding against this broad, strong view of women who, day after day, act out of love.
2.21 pm
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: We have had a debate lasting more than four hours which at times has been heated and emotional, as is right when we discuss such a subject. Some 23 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken. I trust that, because of the limited time left to me, the House will forgive my not referring directly to every contribution.
Not all the Bill's supporters are religious zealots, as has been suggested by the media. In fact, I have not been able to spot one. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) suggested that we are all religious zealots. Many who supported the Bill would not support the abolition of abortion, so may we please have that on the record. We are told that we are all anti-abortionists. That is not true. There is much support for the Bill in the House and throughout the country by people who would not wish to see the return of back-street abortions. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is, as he said, a Liberal and a Catholic, yet we have seen during today's debate and previously that the Bill attracts support, and opposition, on both sides of the House and among people of all religious and Christian backgrounds.
In 1966 the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) said:
"We want to stamp out the back-street abortions, but it is not the intention of the promoters of the Bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request."
I wonder whether that is still the case today. Later, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"there is a clear statement in the Bill that nothing in the Bill affects the protection afforded by the law to the viable foetus." —[Official Report, 22 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1075–77.]
Can we honestly say that that is the fact today? Perhaps not.
Britain's current limit of 28 weeks is the single reason, as we have heard repeatedly, why so many women from
1292
foreign countries come here for abortions. Some 43 per cent. of those seeking abortion in recent years have come from other countries. In short, we are becoming the foetal dustbin of Europe. The House should not let that continue.
It has been mentioned that this week the Irish writer Christopher Nolan was awarded a literary prize. That is a grand example of how disability can mask a great talent Hon. Members realise that that young man lacked oxygen during birth, causing his disabilities. We are not suggesting that he was a disabled foetus. However, we can learn a lot. from what Christopher Nolan has to say —[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This has been a very quiet and. serious debate. I hope that it will end in that way.
Mrs. Peacock: Perhaps the House will give me a moment to refer to a very short passage from Christopher Nolan's book in which he talks about his own life and says that the future for babies like him never looked more promising, but now society frowned upon giving spastic babies a right to life. Now they have threatened to abort babies like him, to detect in advance their handicapped state, to burrow through the womb and label them for death, to batter their mothers with fear for their coming. and yet the spastic baby would ever be the soul which would never kill, maim or hate brotherhood. Why, then, did society fear the crippled child? That is a timely lesson to us all.
I know that time is not on my side and I cannot say many of the things I would have wished to say. The House is now undecided about whether it should be allowed to legislate on issues that affect women, but that has been happening for centuries. There has always been a male-dominated House of Commons legislating for women. Why should that change today? Now, in 1988, there are more women in the House than ever before, so why should we change the rules? Of course, we should like there to be more women in the House, but at present we must put up with the number that is already here.
All too often, abortion is billed as a battle between the rights of the mother and those of her unborn child. The Bill is designed to provide a choice for mother and child. That is why I support it.
We make many claims to be a civilised society. How can such a society allow the dismemberment of human beings without anaesthetic for removal from the womb, followed by the careful rebuilding of the dead child in some hospital sluice room to check that nothing has been left inside the mother? The living unborn deserve better than obscene and macabre games.
It is important that the Bill should be debated more fully in Committee. We have heard many reasons why it should not reach Committee. I ask hon. Members who support the Bill to vote for it today to ensure that it reaches Committee so that many of the objections, worries and concerns that have been expressed today can be examined in much more detail and voted on by the House at a later stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Cyril Smith rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
Question put, That the question be now put—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to be quite clear that the House appreciates the Question that I put. The closure has been moved, and I put the Question on the closure. I will put the Question again.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second Time:—
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 251.

Division No. 150]

[2.28 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

Allason, Rupert

Devlin, Tim

Alton, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Amess, David

Dicks, Terry

Amos, Alan

Dixon, Don

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Dover, Den

Ashby, David

Dunn, Bob

Aspinwall, Jack

Durant, Tony

Atkinson, David

Eggar, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Emery, Sir Peter

Baldry, Tony

Evennett, David

Batiste, Spencer

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Battle, John

Fallon, Michael

Beggs, Roy

Favell, Tony

Beith, A. J.

Fearn, Ronald

Bell, Stuart

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bendall, Vivian

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Benyon, W.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forman, Nigel

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Franks, Cecil

Boswell, Tim

Freeman, Roger

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

French, Douglas

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Glyn, Dr Alan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gow, Ian

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

Bright, Graham

Greenway, John (Rydale)

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

Gregory, Conal

Budgen, Nicholas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Burns, Simon

Grocott, Bruce

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Butcher, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butler, Chris

Hanley, Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hannam, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hardy, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

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

Canavan, Dennis

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hawkins, Christopher

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayes, Jerry

Carrington, Matthew

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Cash, William

Hayward, Robert

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Heddle, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Chapman, Sydney

Hill, James

Chope, Christopher

Hind, Kenneth

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

Holt, Richard

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Howard, Michael

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Conway, Derek

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cope, John

Hume, John

Crowther, Stan

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cummings, J.

Hunter, Andrew

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, David

Irvine, Michael

1294

Irving, Charles

Pawsey, James

Janman, Timothy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Porter, David (Waveney)

Kennedy, Charles

Portillo, Michael

Key, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

Kilfedder, James

Price, Sir David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Kirkhope, Timothy

Redwood, John

Knapman, Roger

Reid, John

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Renton, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lambie, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lamond, James

Robertson, George

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lang, Ian

Roe, Mrs Marion

Latham, Michael

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Lawrence, Ivan

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rost, Peter

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rowe, Andrew

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rowlands, Ted

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lightbown, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lilley, Peter

Salmond, Alex

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lord, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

McAvoy, Tom

Shersby, Michael

McCrea, Rev William

Sims, Roger

McCrindle, Robert

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McCusker, Harold

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Macdonald, Calum

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McFall, John

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

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

McGrady, E. K.

Soames, Hon Nicholas

MacGregor, John

Speed, Keith

Maclean, David

Speller, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McNamara, Kevin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maginnis, Ken

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Major, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Stern, Michael

Mallon, Seamus

Stevens, Lewis

Mans, Keith

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marlow, Tony

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Stokes, John

Mates, Michael

Sumberg, David

Maude, Hon Francis

Summerson, Hugo

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mellor, David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Temple-Morris, Peter

Miller, Hal

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Moate, Roger

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Thorne, Neil

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thornton, Malcolm

Moore, Rt Hon John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Tracey, Richard

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Trippier, David

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moss, Malcolm

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Moynihan, Hon C.

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Neubert, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Nicholls, Patrick

Waldegrave, Hon William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walden, George

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

O'Brien, William

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Wcester)

Page, Richard

Waller, Gary

Paice, James

Walters, Dennis

Paisley, Rev Ian

Ward, John

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Parry, Robert

Watts, John

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Whitney, Ray

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilkinson, John

1295

Wilshire, David

Wood, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Worthington, Anthony

Mr. Toby Jessel and

Yeo, Tim

Miss Ann Widdecombe.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Dykes, Hugh

Adley, Robert

Eadie, Alexander

Alexander, Richard

Eastham, Ken

Allen, Graham

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Anderson, Donald

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Arbuthnot, James

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Fatchett, Derek

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Faulds, Andrew

Ashton, Joe

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

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fisher, Mark

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Flannery, Martin

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Flynn, Paul

Barron, Kevin

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Beckett, Margaret

Forth, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Derek

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

Foulkes, George

Bermingham, Gerald

Fraser, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Blair, Tony

Galbraith, Samuel

Blunkett, David

Gardiner, George

Boateng, Paul

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Boyes, Roland

George, Bruce

Bradley, Keith

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Gill, Christopher

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Browne, John (Winchester)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Buchan, Norman

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Buck, Sir Antony

Gould, Bryan

Buckley, George

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Callaghan, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cartwright, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Haynes, Frank

Clay, Bob

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Clelland, David

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Heffer, Eric S.

Cohen, Harry

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Coleman, Donald

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Colvin, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Holland, Stuart

Corbett, Robin

Hood, James

Corbyn, Jeremy

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

Couchman, James

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Geraint

Cox, Tom

Hoyle, Doug

Cran, James

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Darling, Alastair

Hunt, John (Ravensboume)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Illsley, Eric

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

Ingram, Adam

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jack, Michael

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

Janner, Greville

Dobson, Frank

John, Brynmor

Doran, Frank

Johnston, Sir Russell

Dunnachie, James

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

1296

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Redmond, Martin

Kirkwood, Archy

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Knowles, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Knox, David

Richardson, Ms Jo

Leadbitter, Ted

Riddick, Graham

Leighton, Ron

Robinson, Geoffrey

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Rogers, Allan

Lewis, Terry

Rooker, Jeff

Litherland, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Livsey, Richard

Ryder, Richard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Loyden, Eddie

Scott, Nicholas

McAllion, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McCartney, Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

McKelvey, William

Sheerman, Barry

McLeish, Henry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Maclennan, Robert

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

McTaggart, Bob

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McWilliam, John

Skinner, Dennis

Madden, Max

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Madel, David

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maples, John

Snape, Peter

Marek, Dr John

Soley, Clive

Marland, Paul

Spearing, Nigel

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Squire, Robin

Martlew, Eric

Steel, Rt Hon David

Maxton, John

Steinberg, Gerald

Meacher, Michael

Stott, Roger

Meale, Alan

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Michael, Alun

Strang, Gavin

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Straw, Jack

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thomas, Dafydd El is

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Tredinnick, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Trotter, Neville

Morgan, Rhodri

Turner, Dennis

Morley, Elliott

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Wall, Pat

Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

Walley, Ms Joan

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mullin, Chris

Wareing, Robert N.

Needham, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

Nellist, Dave

Wells, Bowen

Nelson, Anthony

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Wheeler, John

O'Neill, Martin

Wiggin, Jerry

Drme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wigley, Dafydd

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Patchett, Terry

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Patnick, Irvine

Wilson, Brian

Pike, Peter

Winnick, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Prescott, John

Wolfson, Mark

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Tellers for the Noes:

Raffan, Keith

Mr. Andrew MacKay and

Randall, Stuart

Ms. Clare Short.

Rathbone, Tim

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

Private Members' Bills

  UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 February.

  PLANNING PERMISSION (DEMOLITION OF HOUSES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 March.

  MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May.

  ABORTION (FINANCIAL BENEFIT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Second reading what day? No day named.

  REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL LOBBYING INTERESTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  DATA PROTECTION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 February.

  CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR STATE RETIREMENT PENSIONERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 February.

  SLAUGHTER OF DEER BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [ 11 December].
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 5 February.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (IMPROVED PROVISION OF SERVICES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 February.

Parliamentary Sovereignty
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
2.45 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for keeping her here at the end of a busy week. However, I welcome the opportunity to draw the House's attention to what I regard as a serious matter—the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty, stemming from recent actions of the institutions of the European Economic Community. Much of it has gone largely unnoticed, but the time has come to look at what has been lost and at what is at risk and to consider whether there is any action that we can take to curb the process, if that is in the national interest.
Much of the recent loss of sovereignty has obliged the Government to take steps against their will and judgment. Quite frankly, some have made the Government look silly and break pledges that they have given to Parliament. Our sovereign Parliament seems to be on the road to achieving county council status.
I shall give a few examples. In December 1984 the Prime Minister came to this House of Commons, about six months after agreeing to a massive increase in the Common Market's cash — an increase of about 25 per cent. in real terms—to announce that agreement had been reached on strict budgetary controls which would ensure that the Common Market's agricultural spending would not increase by more than the increase in the own resources base. That was not just a statement of intent. In the Prime Minister's own words, it was an agreement that was binding on the Council—the supreme authority of the Common Market. My right hon. Friend further explained that although the VAT base had been increased from 1 per cent. to 1·4 per cent., that was the legal limit of expenditure and could be increased to a maximum of 1·6 per cent. only by unanimous agreement in 1988.
While expressing doubts about the advisability of handing over more cash, the House welcomed the clear and unambiguous assurance from the Prime Minister. Nobody doubted her sincerity. However, since then those binding controls have proved to be a sick joke. Spending has rocketed well beyond the ceiling of 1·4 per cent. In fact, it has gone beyond the 1·6 per cent. ceiling which had never been agreed to by anybody.
That has been done by a series of devices operated by the Commission. For example, there has been the introduction of the metric year of 10 months, which was achieved by requiring payment into the Common Market a month early and paying out bills a month late. It has been achieved also by transferring the responsibility for costs, such as that of butter dumping, from the Common Market lo member states, although the Court of Auditors has stated that the device was wholly contrary to Common Market law.
Parliament's representatives have lost — it seems completely — their power to control expenditure to a non-elected body, the Common Market Commission, which is simply a group of European civil servants.
Mr. David Curry: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that all the measures that he has enumerated were agreed to by the Council of Ministers on a proposal by the Commission? Certainly, the Commission
1300
is the Executive in carrying out those measures, but the Commission did not invent or implement without the authority of the Council of Ministers, which is responsible to this House.
Mr. Taylor: I respect my hon. Friend's knowledge of European matters, but I should point out that a Common Market body, the Court of Auditors, has said that the transfer of responsibility for butter dumping was unlawful. That clear statement was put in a report to the Council of Ministers. However, it was never discussed by the Council of Ministers which, therefore, did not come to any conclusion on it. In effect, something that has been condemned as illegal was done without any authority from anybody. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is shaking his head. I wonder whether he would deny the fact that the Court of Auditors has said that it was unlawful and deny the fact that it was not considered or decided upon by the Council of Ministers. I suggest that he should check that. I think that he might get an unpleasant surprise. If British civil servants had. acted in that way, they would no doubt be behind bars by now.
We see the same loss of sovereignity over the iniquitous. common agricultural policy. When we consider the present debates about the financing of the Health Service and whether £1 billion might be provided to solve its problems, it is sickening to realise that the EEC is currently spending over £11 billion per year solely on dumping, destroying and storing food surpluses, with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe being the main beneficiaries. That spending is now wholly beyond the control of any democratic body. It has breached wildly the solemn and binding undertakings of the European Council. Our British intervention boards are forced to pay out massive subsidies to enable the Soviets to obtain butter at 6p a pound and beef at 11 p a pound. Our Prime Minister protests, rightly, about that direct subsidy of the Soviet war machine, but it seems there is nothing that the Government or Parliament can do about it.
Previously we considered that we had the ultimate power to use the veto on increases in own resources—a limited fall-back power. However, the devices of the Commission have made that worthless.
The one power that Parliament fought to secure and that is still regarded as the base of sovereignty is the right to determine our own taxes. It is true that in the Single European Act we agreed to work towards harmonisation of indirect taxation in so far as it was necessary to secure the internal market. However, the Prime Minister has pointed out that that section in the Act requires unanimity. In short, we can veto any change we do not like.
During the election the Prime Minister rightly stated that we would resist any plan to levy VAT on essentials such as food, children's clothing and fuel, including gas and electricity. Sadly, the European Court of Justice at this very moment is considering a complaint from the Commission which could force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose VAT on gas, electricity, water and sewerage provided to large and small businesses in Britain and to impose VAT on the construction of factories, shops and offices. At our current rate of 15 per cent., that alone would add £350 million to industrial costs apart from what could be raised by VAT on gas, electricity and water.
The Commission has neatly side-stepped the Council of Ministers and the veto in the Single European Act. If we

1301
lost that case, which seems almost inevitable after the initial opinion of the Advocate General, our Government and Parliament will, for the first time in their long history, be obliged to levy taxes on the instructions of a non-elected body—the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the court cases to which he referred flow from the 1977 sixth VAT directive signed by the British Government of the day. If the Government of the day signed that international treaty, they are obliged to observe the consequences that flow from it. Those consequences have not been imposed by a body acting other than under the authority given by the international directive to which the Government of the day agreed.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is very informed about European issues. However, I think that he will find that he is wrong about Parliament having agreed to the measures that have now been taken. In fact, he is saying that our Prime Minister is an ignoramus and does not know what she is doing. My hon. Friend is aware that during the election campaign the Prime Minister made a specific pledge about not allowing VAT on electricity. My hon. Friend is saying that the Prime Minister was hoodwinking the people because she knew that there was a court case taking place that would oblige Britain, against its wishes, to levy VAT on electricity.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: When the Government came into power in 1979 they nearly doubled VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. Did my hon. Friend support that?
Mr. Taylor: Indeed, I did. It was a measure taken by the British Parliament on levying our taxes. At that time I favoured a transfer from direct to indirect taxation. There is nothing strange about that. We were deciding. If I and other hon. Members had voted against that, it would not have happened. The crucial issue is that in this case we will not decide. The decision is made by the European Court of Justice and the result will have to be implemented by the British Parliament and Government, whether we like it or not. After 1992 I fear that, if tax harmonisation has not been agreed, the Commission could use the powers of the Single European Act to take the United Kingdom and other countries to court for not levying VAT on essentials. Time will tell.
Sovereignty has also slipped away on issues that affect the people more directly. Today I saw on the tapes—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon also noted it—that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made an appeal to the food industry to label its foods correctly and informatively so that consumers know what they are buying. Ever since 1972 we have had a British law on origin marking under which goods covered by the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 have been required to display a mark stating where they were made. The law, which is the basis on which goods are marked "Made in France … Japan … Germany … Italy" and so on, was unanimously agreed by Parliament as a means of giving more information to the consumer. It has helped me and millions of consumers in our purchasing choices.
Some time ago the Commission sent the Government a letter stating that it considered the law to be contrary to
1302
the treaty of Rome because it enabled British consumers to commit the crime of discriminating against goods produced in other parts of the EEC. The Government's legal advisers said that we could not win the case, so the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was passed providing for an order to be made in 1988 that will repeal the 1972 Act. The Government made it clear that they did not want to make that change and that it was against their policies to throw away a consumer safeguard. However, they were forced to do so simply because of a letter from a nonelected body.
The other day the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs stated that there would be a ban on the use of certain foams in furniture because they were a threat to children's lives. That statement received acclaim from all sides. However, the Minister then announced that the ban could not be implemented permanently without the approval of the Common Market Commission. So much for the sovereignty of a free Parliament. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon will stand up again and say that we agreed to this.
Mr. Curry: When the Minister said that, he was, in that instance, incorrect. Community authorisation is not required to implement the measures. Indeed, the Commission made that clear five days after the statement.
Mr. Taylor: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is again completely wrong. I have a copy of the Commission's press statement, and that said that there was nothing to prevent us making an interim emergency measure, but to make it permanent would require the permission of the European Commission. Once again my hon. Friend has taken up time in my Adjournment debate and, for the third time, my hon. Friend has said something that is not true. Given his long experience of Common Market matters, he knows that it is untrue, and I am surprised at him, bearing in mind that he is my European Member of Parliament.
In case my right hon. Friend should seek to argue that such losses of sovereignty were agreed by Parliament. I would ask her to tell me when regulation 83/189, which requires us to seek prior approval for the foam in furniture ban, was discussed, debated or approved by Parliament. I believe that she will find that this massive and far-reaching power was never debated. That is the advice that I have received from our excellent Library researchers who explained that it was one of a whole pile of directives considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation and for which it could not recommend discussion in the House because there were so many other vital EEC measures to debate.
Once again we are faced with a power that can stop us doing something that we believe is in the interests of saving children's lives, and that power was not debated in the House.
Mr. Dykes: NATO decides our specific weapons deployments collectively without this House being consulted in detail. Does my hon. Friend object to NATO as well?
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) knows that, once again, he is seeking to mislead us. Yesterday, for example, we had an agreement on a frigate, a common frigate. Britain made it abundantly clear that if it did not like the way things were going it still

1303
had the power not to accept that frigate. There is no compulsory power under NATO rules, and the new frigate is a perfect example of that. My hon. Friend, in common with my hon. Friend for Skipton and Ripon, should look at the facts.
The huge losses in our power to decide cannot be justified, but it could be argued that there was a case for surrender if there were compensating benefits. Where are they? Before we joined the Common Market, Britain had always enjoyed a favourable balance of trade in manufactures with that group of European countries. Indeed, that had been the case every year since the time of Napoleon. Ever since we joined the Common Market we have had a deficit, and last year it was £11,000 million. In a nutshell, for every £2 of goods we sent to the Common Market we imported £3 of goods and the net effect was the loss of a million jobs. The basic reason for that is our loss of competitiveness. We have lost our traditional advantage of access to cheap food that a previous Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, fought so hard to achieve.
According to the Common Market's consumer unit, the average British family spends an extra £13 a week on food as a direct result of the CAP. That figure is increasing as the gap between Common Market and world food prices grows.
We have heard much about rebates and refunds, but our contributions are at an all-time high. When the Government completed their first full year in office, our net contribution was £117 million. This year, after all refunds and rebates, the estimate in the public expenditure White Paper that has just been published is £1,400 million, and that all-time record may be an underestimate.
As Conservative Members walked into the Chamber they may have been handed a letter from a Minister giving details of the public expenditure White Paper. There are pages and pages about increases in public spending since 1979—up to 73 per cent. for employment and training—but, sadly, not a word about EEC contributions, in which the increase has been infinitely greater.
Looking to the future, we see a further erosion of sovereignty with the Single European Act, which will provide for laws to be imposed on the United Kingdom by majority vote. Yesterday, we discussed a tightening of the law on firearms. I found that rather sad and funny, as the Common Market is currently considering a directive, which will he decided by a majority vote, that will require Britain to allow Europeans to carry and possess any weapons they choose, as long as they have a certificate from their own countries, whether they be the Republic of Ireland, Greece or Sicily.
What worries me most is the Government's policy, particularly the Foreign Office's policy, of looking at Europe through rose-coloured spectacles. It produces figures to show a massive rise in exports without mentioning that most of it stems from the increase in the size of the Community and ignoring the fact that our share in the Original Six's market for manufactured goods has scarcely changed since we joined the Community; it was 6 per cent., but it is now 7 per cent.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a dramatic increase in the .percentage of British exports to Germany, for example, which is not because of the size of the European Community but because of the opportunities offered by that market?
Mr. Taylor: I have given my hon. Friend the figures that were given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Sadly, our share of the market for manufactured goods of the original Six, including Germany, was 6 per cent. when we joined the EEC, but it is now 7 per cent. As my hon. Friend is interested in our trade figures with Germany, our deficit with it is greater than any other country and is more than twice our deficit with Japan. When some of my hon. Friends bray their Common Market slogans, I wish they would consider some of the facts.
When the Government talk about contributions, they refer only to our huge rebates. They do not accept that, after rebates, according to the Chancellor's statement, our contributions are at an all-time high.
When we mention the waste, scandals and frauds of the CAP, the Government say that reform is round the corner. In reality, pledges of reform, which never happens. are simply an excuse to give more money to the Common Market to waste. When stuck for an argument, they say that the Common Market has brought peace to Europe, without mentioning the fact that defence is the job of NATO or that the one sector in which the EEC has no authority is defence.
There is a rising tide of concern in the United Kingdom about the activities of the EEC, its bungling, waste, bureaucracy and transfer of power from elected to nonelected bodies. We can do something about it. The time to do so is 10 February, when the European Council will ask for another gigantic cash injection. Will we stand firm and demand reform instead? Or will we simply pour in the cash by means of the so-called fourth resource in exchange for a package of worthless promises and silly ideas such as the so-called set-aside, which has been tried in America with disastrous effect and at a huge cost?
On 10 February we shall know whether the Government are facing reality or whether we shall simply hear more slogans, hopes and tragedies.
3.4 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) are important. But we have seen in his speech that underlying his arguments is another issue which is the issue that dominated our discussions before we joined the Community. It is the question of sovereignty and the extent to which our national freedom of action is curtailed or enhanced by membership of the Community. We joined the Community and are a part of it for several reasons.
Our initial instinct in the 1950s was to stay out—to share and admire the goals of the Community and to wish it well, but to believe that we could achieve the same goals on our own. We were a world power. We looked not just to Europe, but across the Atlantic to the United States and across the world to the Commonwealth.
We changed that early 1950s view for several good reasons. We saw the economic and political success of the Six while our standard of living relative to theirs dropped and our world role changed. We saw the importance of the Community as a vehicle for promoting peace and democracy in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that NATO has responsibility for the defence of Europe, but to get on with other nations is part of the peace process.
We saw the United States looking to the Pacific, as well as to Europe, in pursuit of her interests, and that within

1305
Europe the United States' interests, lay in a relationship with the whole of Europe, not just with Britain in particular. We saw, too, the power of the Community to negotiate collectively trade agreements which none of the members could have achieved on their own. We also saw the extent to which the Community was establishing patterns of political, trade, and economic behaviour to which we inevitably had to conform, but in the determination of which we would play no part so long as we remained outside the EC. Those are the reasons why we joined and why we shall continue as a most active member of the EC as it develops further.
Now we can see new technology and less regulation of trade opening up new opportunities for British firms, so helping to bring greater prosperity. But they also make the world even more interdependent. For such a complex world to work peacefully, not everything can still be done at a national level. For individual nations to prosper, we must agree certain rules and standards in common. That is why we joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. For individual citizens to prosper, the goods they buy must be made and distributed in the most economic way, and the companies which employ them must work on the most economic scale.
We must be able to work at the supranational level if we are to promote our national interests within Europe and defend them outside, and we need democratic institutions within which to do so. That is what the Community is for.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Why is there such a large trading deficit with EEC countries and a trading surplus with the rest of the world? Is there any particular figure at which my right hon. Friend would start to be worried about the trading pattern with EEC countries? If not £11 billion, would it be £15 billion, £20 billion or £30 billion?
Mrs. Chalker: I was just coming to that point. We have not been able to take up the full opportunities of trading in Europe; that is one area that we have been opening up through our great proposals for the 1992 single European market. Naturally, we do not want a trade deficit with the EC. This morning, I returned from Dusseldorf where I was talking to business men. They are pleading for more opportunities for British interests and companies to be active in Germany, particularly in the financial sector—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What about buses?
Mrs. Chalker—and British buses. Indeed, I have tried to help my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East to get British buses going across Germany, and I shall continue to do so.
What marks the Community apart from every other international organisation to which we belong is the significance of everything that is agreed within the Community for our national economic life. Where measures are proposed which affect our national life, the British Government and Members of Parliament should always scrutinise them vigorously. When we disagree, we say so loudly and we lobby effectively against those measures—and shall continue to do so. We must also examine where the overall balance of advantage lies.
My hon. Friend mentioned the recent example of a ban introduced by the Government on polyurethane foam. He
1306
mentioned the requirement of Commission approval. The directive that requires us to notify the Commission of any new measures that constitute a technical barrier to trade is one that is useful to us. It prevents member states from indulging in disguised protectionism, and there is a great deal of work to be done on that score. It is explicitly not designed to prevent genuine safety measures, such as the ban that the Government have announced. Similar bans have already been introduced in some other member states.
The EC treaty provides for the possibility of restricting imports on grounds of public security, as the Commission has acknowledged. Under the Community consumer legislation, the Commission has the ability to alert other member states to the existence of a dangerous substance on the basis of evidence produced by member states such as ourselves. That means that if evidence comes to light in, for example, France of the existence of a dangerous material, there is a good prospect of preventive action being taken in the United Kingdom or Community-wide before further avoidable tragedy occurs.
I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties, which he has mentioned frequently before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) made clear to the House, the United Kingdom is required by directive EC 83/189 to notify the Commission of any new measures that might constitute a technical barrier to trade. The purpose of that directive, as I said, is to prevent member states from indulging in disguised protectionism, which is why I said it was useful. I believe that the Commission wants that law to be a protective piece of legislation in the best sense of the word.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I genuinely appreciate the courtesy of my right hon. Friend's reply. However, does she not consider it significant and worrying that directive 83/189, which may be good or bad, was never even discussed in this House?
Mrs. Chalker: I understand my hon. Friend's complaint, but other things go through the House, after passing through special Committees, which I might very much like to have debated, but we do not have the time to debate every issue. If we have another way to solve the problem, as we do here, we should perhaps take it.
As regards budgetary discipline, I agree with my hon. Friend that spending must be under control—but it is not beyond control. I have spent all this week talking about measures to bring it under control. I agree with my hon. Friend that the budgetary discipline arrangements that are now in place have not worked as well as we wanted. That is why we are insisting on legally binding control before there can be any increase in Community resources.
Mr. Ron Leighton rose—
Mrs. Chalker: I have little time, and I want to answer my hon. Friend's points.
There can be no increase unless all member Governments and national Parliaments agree. so the decisive role of the House in this issue, as in others, is fully safeguarded.
My hon. Friend's concern about the metric year has often been expressed before. I am well aware that the Council adopted last October the proposal for a temporary switch from the normal system of advances to

1307
member states for expected FEOGA expenditure to reimbursements of up to two months, but that is helpful in improving budgetary control. We support a switch to reimbursement as a permanent feature of Community finance. It makes much more sense to reimburse member states for what they have spent than to pay them advances for what they think they will be likely to spend. I hope that my hon. Friend will re-examine that issue.
The butter stock disposal grieves us all, but the important thing is to ensure that the food mountains, once disposed of, are not allowed to grow again. We shall work on that as well.
I shall respond to my hon. Friend's other points in a letter, because it is important to set down clearly what is going on.
Community action is opening many opportunities in air services, financial trading services and capital liberalisation, and we want them to continue. They are massive opportunities for Britain.
1308
I applaud my hon. Friend's tireless scrutiny of Community legislation. All of it matters far too much to be allowed to go through on the nod. I applaud his campaign for financial and agricultural reforms, which I am convinced that we shall win. I applaud his vigilance, but I must remind him that the sovereignty of Parliament is, above all, the power to act in the best interests of the nation.
That power would be constrained if we were not members of the Community in today's world. Our power to act is strengthened by our ability to take action, in common with other like-minded democracies, in ways that may be unheroic, mundane or even boring, but are none the less essential for the secure future of Britain. My hon. Friend has some things just a little out of proportion.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Three o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Mr. Terry Waite
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether the money paid by the Church of England to Charles Armstrong and John Entwistle in order to help secure the release of Mr. Terry Waite was paid from funds provided by the Church Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The money paid to Charles Armstrong and John Entwistle for travelling and related expenses for the purpose of trying to secure the release of Mr. Terry Waite and other hostages has been paid entirely from discretionary funds at the disposal of the Archbishop of Canterbury, none of which was provided by the Church Commissioners.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

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

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

  Five formal complaints have been reported centrally to personnel division in the last five years. In the four proven cases appropriate disciplinary action was taken.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the current food situation in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The food situation in Ethiopia is serious: over 1 million tonnes of food aid is needed to feed people until the next harvest in November. Donors have responded promptly with pledges of food aid which at present total over 600,000 tonnes. Shipments are well under way and will meet requirements for the earlier part of the year. Rebel action in Eritrea and Tigre is severely hampering delivery of this food to those in need.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the applications from non-governmental organisations for joint funding of projects in Nicaragua in 1985–86 and 1986–87; which applications were successful; and what were the reasons for rejecting the applications that failed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There have been relatively few applications from non-governmental organisations requesting ODA support for projects in Nicaragua. The 14 received in 1985–86 and the 10 received in 1986–87 met the criteria for a 50 per cent. ODA contribution under the terms of the joint funding scheme. The details are as follows:

  Agency

  Project

  1985–86

  OXFAM

  Technical assistance for project evaluation

  OXFAM

  Health Education Programme

  OXFAM

  Food Production

  CAFOD

  Tool Bank

  CAFOD

  Poultry raising Co-op

  CAFOD

  Community housing programme

  CAFOD

  Piggery for rural Co-op

  Christian Aid

  Drinking water project in Trapiche

  Christian Aid

  CIIR water project

  Christian Aid

  Tools and building material for Miskito Indians in Rio Coco

  CAFOD

  Multiple Services Centre

  CAFOD

  Integrated Development

  OXFAM

  Agricultural Development Programme (1)

  OXFAM

  Appropriate Housing Programme

  1986–87

  OXFAM

  Mechanical Workshop, Malpaisillo, Leon

  OXFAM

  Integrated pest management programme

  Christian Aid

  Mother and child health care in Las Seqovias

  OXFAM

  Agricultural Development Programme (2)

  OXFAM

  Agricultural Development Rama Indians

  OXFAM

  Literacy Training

  OXFAM

  Appropriate housing, Special Zone No. 1

  OXFAM

  Assistance to displaced people

  OXFAM

  Training health promoters

  CAFOD

  Integrated Development Programme

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government have any plans to review their policy on overseas development assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Policy on overseas aid is kept under continuous review. The 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288 i. and ii.) published on 20 January shows that aid is now planned to grow in real terms up to 1990–91. The Government's observations on the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second Report, Session 1986–87, on bilateral aid (Cm. 225) published in October 1987 set out in detail the Government's aid policies and priorities.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has any plans to produce a new White Paper on overseas aid; when the last one was produced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government's observations on the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on bilateral aid (Cm. 225) are a detailed statement of aid policies and objectives. The last White Paper on overseas aid —
  865
  "Overseas Development: The Changing Emphasis in British Aid Policies (Cmnd. 6270)"— was published in 1975.

  Population Projects
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests for assistance with population projects were outstanding at 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  At 31 December 1987, following requests received, preparatory work was in hand on eight

  Exports finished manufactured goods less erratics current weighted volume indices

  1980=100 OTS basis seasonally adjusted

  Consumer goods

  Intermediate goods

  Capital goods

  Total

  Machinery

  Passenger motor cars

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  1986

  104

  66

  89

  116

  108

  111

  128

  101

  99

  152

  1986

  First quarter

  98

  58

  86

  110

  109

  112

  121

  98

  95

  151

  Second quarter

  102

  62

  91

  115

  107

  110

  125

  100

  98

  154

  Third quarter

  107

  68

  93

  120

  107

  109

  134

  97

  95

  152

  Fourth quarter

  107

  76

  87

  121

  111

  114

  132

  107

  106

  152

  1987

  First quarter

  117

  72

  109

  130

  108

  110

  134

  106

  108

  140

  Second quarter

  118

  71

  114

  130

  104

  106

  136

  105

  103

  149

  Third quarter

  128

  81

  121

  142

  107

  108

  142

  111

  112

  154

  1986

  January

  98

  53

  90

  109

  106

  1 1 1

  115

  99

  96

  152

  February

  100

  62

  89

  112

  109

  112

  123

  96

  94

  152

  March

  96

  59

  79

  109

  110

  114

  126

  98

  96

  151

  April

  103

  61

  96

  114

  106

  109

  122

  99

  97

  156

  May

  103

  59

  90

  116

  109

  113

  125

  105

  103

  157

  June

  101

  65

  86

  114

  107

  109

  129

  96

  94

  151

  July

  107

  70

  83

  123

  111

  113

  136

  100

  97

  155

  August

  108

  65

  105

  118

  103

  105

  133

  94

  93

  147

  September

  106

  68

  90

  120

  106

  110

  133

  98

  95

  153

  October

  102

  74

  93

  111

  111

  114

  130

  105

  103

  152

  November

  110

  77

  75

  131

  110

  111

  134

  104

  104

  150

  December

  108

  78

  93

  120

  113

  117

  133

  111

  112

  153

  1987

  January

  112

  70

  115

  120

  104

  105

  131

  104

  108

  125

  February

  125

  75

  96

  146

  113

  115

  141

  110

  109

  158

  March

  115

  72

  117

  124

  107

  111

  128

  103

  105

  136

  April

  128

  75

  129

  140

  105

  107

  140

  105

  105

  146

  May

  114

  70

  108

  126

  103

  107

  132

  104

  104

  137

  June

  113

  69

  106

  125

  104

  103

  137

  105

  100

  162

  July

  131

  78

  134

  142

  106

  106

  133

  108

  108

  150

  August

  115

  76

  108

  127

  104

  104

  137

  107

  107

  149

  September

  138

  88

  122

  156

  111

  113

  155

  118

  120

  162

  Exports finished manufactured goods less erratics

  £ million, OTS basis seasonally adjusted

  Consumer goods

  Intermediate goods

  Capital goods

  Total

  Machinery

  Passenger motor cars

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  1986

  7,074

  513

  1,362

  5,141

  13,682

  10,097

  1,365

  10,183

  7,704

  2,070

  1986

  First quarter

  1,615

  106

  299

  1,197

  3,343

  2,472

  320

  2,453

  1,841

  502

  Second quarter

  1,732

  117

  340

  1,261

  3,353

  2,467

  334

  2,523

  1,901

  519

  Third quarter

  1,832

  133

  362

  1,324

  3,407

  2,506

  356

  2,467

  1,856

  518

  Fourth quarter

  1,896

  157

  361

  1,360

  3,579

  2,652

  355

  2,740

  2,106

  532

  866
  population projects or projects with a population component. These are in India, Kenya, Pakistan and Tanzania.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Weights
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish a table in the Official Report giving for 1986 and the latest quarter the information in tables B6, B12, C7 and C14 of the monthly review of external trade statistics, using current weights.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:
  867

  Consumer goods

  Intermediate goods

  Capital goods

  Total

  Machinery

  Passenger motor cars

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  1987

  First quarter

  2,119

  156

  459

  1,485

  3,542

  2,600

  362

  2,745

  2,152

  491

  Second quarter

  2,141

  154

  488

  1,478

  3,517

  2,564

  374

  2,722

  2,065

  515

  Third quarter

  2,396

  175

  533

  1,641

  3,613

  2,638

  380

  2,918

  2,255

  530

  1986

  January

  528

  32

  103

  389

  1,084

  801

  103

  817

  609

  167

  February

  550

  38

  101

  405

  1,115

  820

  108

  806

  605

  165

  March

  538

  36

  94

  403

  1,144

  851

  110

  830

  627

  169

  April

  579

  39

  117

  419

  1,096

  809

  108

  834

  627

  174

  May

  580

  37

  113

  426

  1,133

  837

  112

  876

  662

  177

  June

  572

  41

  111

  416

  1,124

  821

  113

  813

  612

  167

  July

  603

  45

  106

  449

  1,165

  853

  120

  839

  632

  172

  August

  613

  43

  136

  430

  1,101

  809

  116

  801

  606

  168

  September

  616

  45

  120

  445

  1,141

  844

  120

  828

  617

  178

  October

  602

  50

  127

  418

  1,185

  885

  117

  900

  680

  179

  November

  655

  54

  105

  491

  1,179

  860

  120

  889

  682

  173

  December

  640

  54

  129

  450

  1,215

  908

  118

  952

  744

  180

  1987

  January

  674

  50

  161

  45

  1,115

  816

  118

  897

  717

  148

  February

  748

  53

  133

  555

  1,235

  902

  128

  953

  729

  183

  March

  697

  53

  165

  473

  1,192

  883

  116

  895

  706

  160

  April

  773

  54

  182

  530

  1,175

  858

  127

  913

  702

  170

  May

  690

  51

  156

  476

  1,165

  863

  123

  900

  694

  157

  June

  677

  50

  150

  472

  1,178

  843

  125

  909

  668

  189

  July

  794

  56

  192

  540

  1,183

  865

  120

  943

  728

  170

  August

  714

  55

  159

  492

  1,175

  848

  122

  937

  718

  171

  September

  861

  63

  183

  609

  1,254

  925

  138

  1,038

  810

  189

  Inports finished manufactured goods less erratics current weighted volume indices

  1980 = 100 OTS basis seasonally adjusted

  Consumer goods

  Intermediate goods

  Capital goods

  Total

  Machinery

  Passenger motor cars

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  1986

  142

  189

  134

  145

  169

  167

  158

  168

  173

  153

  1986

  First quarter

  132

  173

  128

  132

  158

  155

  150

  162

  166

  147

  Second quarter

  138

  181

  127

  141

  164

  163

  153

  157

  160

  146

  Third quarter

  150

  194

  144

  151

  172

  171

  159

  170

  175

  152

  Fourth quarter

  149

  208

  136

  153

  181

  179

  168

  183

  189

  166

  1987

  First quarter

  129

  180

  106

  141

  166

  165

  150

  167

  177

  139

  Second quarter

  147

  192

  124

  161

  182

  178

  164

  173

  180

  152

  Third quarter

  162

  214

  149

  168

  203

  199

  178

  194

  201

  181

  1986

  January

  128

  177

  122

  128

  154

  150

  142

  162

  167

  140

  February

  131

  177

  124

  131

  158

  154

  152

  164

  167

  149

  March

  137

  166

  138

  136

  162

  159

  155

  161

  164

  151

  April

  127

  170

  112

  134

  153

  152

  146

  152

  157

  138

  May

  143

  198

  135

  142

  169

  168

  156

  157

  161

  150

  June

  143

  176

  135

  148

  169

  168

  155

  161

  162

  150

  July

  149

  194

  142

  150

  172

  170

  164

  166

  169

  149

  August

  157

  197

  158

  155

  178

  177

  156

  173

  178

  155

  September

  145

  192

  132

  149

  167

  166

  157

  171

  176

  153

  October

  143

  191

  142

  139

  170

  167

  161

  175

  179

  166

  November

  157

  228

  141

  162

  197

  194

  181

  190

  194

  178

  December

  148

  204

  126

  158

  177

  175

  163

  183

  195

  155

  1987

  January

  124

  159

  113

  130

  167

  165

  147

  179

  191

  141

  February

  130

  219

  93

  143

  162

  161

  155

  167

  176

  141

  March

  133

  161

  111

  149

  168

  169

  147

  156

  164

  134

  April

  136

  185

  115

  146

  179

  177

  161

  166

  174

  145

  May

  151

  205

  127

  165

  193

  188

  174

  185

  191

  164

  June

  155

  185

  131

  172

  174

  169

  157

  167

  175

  148

  July

  157

  211

  145

  162

  202

  199

  174

  195

  203

  177

  August

  175

  226

  175

  173

  210

  207

  185

  192

  196

  188

  September

  153

  205

  127

  167

  196

  191

  176

  195

  203

  177

  868 869

  Imports finished manufactured goods less erratics

  £ million OTS basis seasonally adjusted

  Consumer goods

  Intermediate goods

  Capital goods

  Total

  Machinery

  Passenger motor cars

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  Total

  Machinery

  Miscellaneous

  1986

  14,987

  1,903

  4,809

  8,166

  12,706

  8,967

  1,609

  11,067

  8,526

  1,616

  1986

  First quarter

  3,391

  429

  1,116

  1,820

  2,862

  2,029

  369

  2,619

  2,002

  383

  Second quarter

  3,547

  460

  1,136

  1,927

  2,979

  380

  2,537

  1,941

  384

  —

  Third quarter

  3,932

  488

  1,279

  2,134

  3,268

  2,307

  412

  2,792

  2,150

  402

  Fourth quarter

  4,116

  525

  1,279

  2,285

  3,597

  2,509

  449

  3,118

  2,433

  446

  1987

  First quarter

  3,630

  456

  1,054

  2,086

  3,289

  2,290

  405

  2,952

  2,334

  399

  Second quarter

  3,981

  482

  1,196

  2,275

  3,549

  2,453

  440

  2,967

  2,336

  406

  Third quarter

  4,445

  523

  1,447

  2,442

  3,925

  2,726

  475

  3,308

  2,586

  474

  1986

  January

  1,067

  141

  342

  575

  916

  647

  115

  839

  643

  120

  February

  1,124

  146

  360

  606

  955

  675

  125

  893

  679

  132

  March

  1,200

  142

  413

  639

  992

  707

  128

  887

  680

  131

  April

  1,105

  144

  332

  621

  933

  668

  120

  824

  636

  123

  May

  1,221

  168

  405

  638

  1,015

  723

  129

  844

  648

  129

  June

  1,221

  148

  398

  667

  1,031

  731

  131

  869

  656

  132

  July

  1,285

  165

  420

  690

  1,055

  743

  139

  899

  681

  133

  August

  1,364

  164

  465

  725

  1,136

  801

  137

  947

  733

  136

  September

  1,283

  159

  394

  719

  1,076

  762

  136

  947

  735

  133

  October

  1,294

  160

  433

  691

  1,112

  770

  143

  984

  762

  145

  November

  1,445

  194

  440

  802

  1,305

  912

  160

  1,077

  827

  159

  December

  1,377

  171

  405

  792

  1,179

  828

  146

  1,057

  843

  142

  1987

  January

  1,163

  131

  375

  646

  1,111

  774

  131

  1,046

  835

  134

  February

  1,211

  186

  307

  705

  1,077

  744

  142

  986

  776

  137

  March

  1,257

  139

  372

  735

  1,101

  772

  133

  920

  723

  128

  April

  1,236

  155

  366

  706

  1,166

  807

  146

  961

  761

  132

  May

  1,365

  174

  414

  768

  1,253

  863

  156

  1,056

  821

  144

  June

  1,380

  153

  416

  801

  1,131

  784

  139

  950

  753

  130

  July

  1,427

  171

  468

  779

  1,307

  916

  156

  1,104

  870

  151

  August

  1,609

  184

  569

  844

  1,364

  947

  165

  1,092

  843

  165

  September

  1,409

  168

  410

  819

  1,254

  862

  154

  1,112

  872

  158

  Based on the United Nations broad economic categories analysis.

  Clywd (RDG)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the amounts of regional development grant in Clwyd for each year since 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested, which is only readily available for the financial years 1976–77 onwards, is as follows:

  £ million

  1976–77

  3·3

  1977–78

  7·4

  1978–79

  9·5

  1979–80

  4·9

  1980–81

  8·6

  1981–82

  15·8

  1982–83

  17·8

  1983–84

  12·2

  1984–85

  23·4

  1985–86

  22·8

  1986–87

  27·9

  Expenditure in 1985–86 and 1986–87 included payments respectively of £1·5 million and £8·7 million under the revised regional development grant scheme introduced in November 1984.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department is considering a network as an alternative to his Department's participation in the Government data network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Home Office has a number of current and future requirements for data communications, some of which are already served by networks. The proposed Government data network is one option to be considered in fulfilling each of these requirements.

  Parole
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated effect on the prison population of abolishing parole for prisoners serving under(a) two and (b) three years and replacing this with supervised or conditional release after one-half and one-third of the sentence, respectively.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as shown. The estimates assume no compensatory change in
  871
  sentencing practice. The effect also depends on the precise nature of the supervisory scheme and in particular the extent to which persons might be recalled to prison while under supervision. The estimates assume no offsetting increase due to such recalls or due to any additional reconvictions occurring as a result of earlier release.

  Estimated reduction1 in the England and Wales prison population2 from replacing parole with supervised or conditional release after one-third and one-half of sentence.

  Number

  Sentence lengths affected

  One half sentence

  One third sentence

  Under two years

  3 300

  5,900

  Under three years

  3 400

  7,900

  1 It has been assumed that release would be contingent upon good behaviour and that, as with the existing remission scheme, offences against prison discipline would cause release to be deferred by the equivalent of 1 per cent. of sentence on average.

  2 Estimates based on statistics for 1986, adjusted to reflect the subsequent increase in remission to one half for sentences up to 12 months (August 1987). Excluding fine-defaulters, non-criminal prisoners, lifers and those prematurely released from prison whose numbers are unlikely to be affected by the scheme. Estimates rounded to nearest 100.

  3 No contribution made by sentences up to 12 months which are already eligible for remission of one half sentence.

  Metropolitan Police
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of days off work sick reported for members of the Metropolitan police force for each of the last five years; and if he will express this as an average figure.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information supplied by the Metropolitan police is as follows:

  1Year

  Number of days

  Average per officer

  1984

  292,156

  10·9

  1985

  329,114

  12·3

  1986

  346,135

  12·8

  1987

  334,364

  12·2

  1 Information for 1983 is not available.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley on the average time taken, from application to determination, in processing applications for firearms certificates, since December 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police that this information is not available, though a rough estimate suggests that the normal procedures are completed in between two and six weeks.

  Michael Ryan
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley as to the reasons for the speed with which Michael Ryan was granted a firearms certificate in December 1986.
  872
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police that Michael Ryan's application for a firearms certificate was received at divisional level on 25 November 1986 and on completion of the necessary inquiries a certificate was issued on 11 December. Information that the application was received on 10 December relates to the date of its receipt at headquarters, after it had been processed at divisional level.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the working group on nuclear safety established after the Chernobyl disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the joint working group on Chernobyl which was set up jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland following representations from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales and the Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. The group is not concerned with nuclear safety generally but with the implications of Chernobyl for the fire services of Great Britain. It will in due course report to the two councils which will then advise my right hon. Friends what farther action should be taken in the light of the report. The question of publication will be considered at that stage.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Access)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions fire officers have been denied access to nuclear power stations to investigate a fire during the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Department does not routinely collect information of this kind. I understand, however, that two incidents were reported to the joint working group on Chernobyl but that any difficulties there may have been have been resolved.

ENVIRONMENT

  Winget-type Houses
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the total numbers of Winget-type houses in each housing authority area in England where such houses exist.

  Mrs. Roe
  Information on the distribution of all designated dwellings by local authority was obtained in 1983 and updated in July 1986; copies of this are in the Library. Further updated information is being assembled and I shall arrange for this to be placed in the Library shortly. The following local authorities reported Winget properties in their area:

  Dwellings

  Kingston-upon-Hull City Council

  889

  Norwich City Council

  469

  Wakefield City Council

  1210

  All but nine of these were in council ownership.

  Urban Programme Schemes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will itemise, by borough, approved current urban programme schemes in Greater London which utilise Manpower Services Commission community programme placements in their operation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department does not hold the information in the form requested, but the following schemes involving community programme placements have been identified in the current inner area programmes.

  Brent

  Kensal Green Day Centre

  Roundwood Community Association Play Areas

  United Indian Youth Centre

  Brent Energy Services Team

  Community Task Force

  NACRO city Farm

  Pakistani Workers Association

  Lincoln Parade Employment Resource Centre

  Neasden Community Workshop

  Rutland Park Renovation Scheme

  Kilburn Building and Training Centre Renovation

  Women's Home Improvements Scheme

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Family Welfare Association

  Colebrooke Community Programme Project

  Burnbake Trust

  Papersaver

  South Press for the Blind

  Family Welfare Association C P Vehicle

  Hammersmith and Fulham Amenity Trust Block Allocation

  —Hammersmith Bridge Road

  —101 Community Centre

  —Distillery Road

  —College Park Campaign

  —Dalling Road Nursery

  —Peabody Estate, Lillie Road

  Islington

  CSV Kings Cross Environmental Improvements Project

  Stoppers Inflatables

  Bentham Court Community Scheme

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Richard Costello Day Centre

  Alan Lennox Boyd Centre

  Wandsworth

  Doddington and Rollo Community Association Workshops

  Battersea Boatyard

  Balham Seventh Day Adventist Community Resource Centre

  Wandsworth Heatwise

  Southfields Sikh Community Centre

  Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details, using the most recently available figures, of how many non-domestic properties in England, Wales and Scotland paid annual rate bills of(a) less than £500, (b) less than £750 and (c) less than £1,000.

  Mr. Ridley
  This information is not collected centrally.

THE ARTS

  Wales Railway Centre
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will arrange to visit the site of the Wales railway centre, Cardiff, to discuss future funding.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no such plans. I understand the project has received financial assistance from a number of organisations sponsored by the Secretary of State for Wales.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised during the last year for which figures are available from value added tax on donations of equipment to higher educational institutions.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis value added tax on donations of equipment to higher educational establishments is calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 19 January at columns 652–53.

  Growth Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual average compound growth rate in 1960 to 1969, 1970 to 1979 and 1980 to date for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany, (c) Japan, (d) France, (e) Italy and (f) Sweden.

  Mr. Lilley
  The figures are given in the following table:

  Annual average compound growth rates1

  1960–69

  1970–79

  1980–86

  United Kingdom

  3·0

  2·1

  2·2

  Germany

  4·4

  2·9

  1·4

  Japan

  10·6

  4·7

  3·7

  France

  5·5

  3·9

  1·6

  Italy

  5·8

  3·0

  2·0

  Sweden

  4·4

  2·0

  1·6

  Sources: OECD, CSO·

  1 Using expenditure measure of GNP/GDP at market prices except United Kingdom (GDP(A) at factor cost).

  Co-operative Retail Societies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the co-operative retail societies registered at the Registry of Friendly Societies;

  (2) if he will list the trading subsidiaries of those cooperative retail societies that do not include the word coop in their title.

  Mr. Lilley
  A list of the co-operative retail societies registered at the Registry of Friendly Societies has been placed in the Library. Particulars of the trading subsidiaries for all these societies could only be extracted
  875
  from their annual returns at disproportionate cost. If my hon. Friend has a specific point in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  EC (Budget)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what information he has on the percentage of the annual EEC budget contributions of member states, other than the United Kingdom, which is made up from(a) value added tax contributions, (b) agricultural levies and (c) customs duties; and if he will give the figures for each of the last five years;

  (2) what percentage of the United Kingdom's annual EEC budget contribution is made up from (a) value added tax contributions, (b) agricultural levies, and (c) customs duties; and if he will give the figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information concerning all member states' gross contributions to the EEC budget is contained in the "Official Journal of the European Communities—Court of Auditor's Report", OJ 87/C336, 15 December 1987, a copy of which is available in the Library. Table 19 of the report (on page 177) presents information on gross contributions made by individual member states for the period 1982 to 1986 inclusive, broken down into the categories requested. Similar information is contained in the annual statements on the Community budget, the most recent of which was published last July as Cm. 194.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in tabular form the relationship between the rate of increase in M3 and the level of inflation 18 months later.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for the 12-month growth rates of M3 and the retail prices index are shown in the "Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin", table 11.3, and the Monthly Digest of Statistics, table 18.5, respectively.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1958 the velocity of monetary circulation in the United Kingdom, the reserve ratio of the banks and the banks' holdings of (a) Treasury bills, (b) other short-dated securities and (c) other gilt-edged securities, and the level of bank advances to (i) manufacturing industry, (ii) home loans and (iii) other purposes.

  Mr. Lilley
  The available information is not always in the form requested, nor back to 1958. Annual information on the velocity of circulation from 1963 is given in the table. Information on reserve ratios for the period in which they were in force may be found in the "Bank of England Statistical Abstract, No. 2", the "Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin" and "Financial Statistics". The most appropriate source for the other items requested is the monetary sector end-year balance sheets. These give information on outstanding levels of, inter alia, Treasury bills, British Government and Government-guranteed securities, loans for house purchase and total bank lending. Such information as is available is contained in the appropriate tables of "Financial Statistics" or the "National Income Blue Book" or on the central databank. Information on lending to manufacturing industry is 876
  available in the "Bank of England Statistical Abstract, No/", the "Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin" and in "Financial Statistics".

  1Velocity of circulation

  1963

  2·94

  1964

  3·01

  1965

  3·04

  1966

  3·06

  1967

  3·01

  1968

  3·00

  1969

  3·13

  1970

  3·23

  1971

  3·20

  1972

  2·89

  1973

  2·63

  1974

  2·56

  1975

  2·98

  1976

  3·26

  1977

  3·53

  1978

  3·53

  1979

  3·66

  1980

  3·67

  1981

  3·40

  1982

  3·14

  1983

  3·06

  1984

  3·00

  1985

  2·93

  1986

  2·64

  1 Derived as ratio of GDP(A) at current market prices to money stock M3, both series in seasonally adjusted form.

  Licensed Deposit Takers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a list of licensed deposit takers.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Banking Act 1987 eliminates the distinction under the Banking Act 1979 between recognised banks and licensed deposit takers. The Bank of England is required to list authorised institutions in its annual report, under the Banking Act, which is laid before Parliament. It also periodically produces updated lists of authorised institutions, and I am placing a copy of the list as at 8 January 1988 in the Library.

  Small Firms (VAT)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had in the EEC with a view to raising the level at which small firms become liable for value added tax and with what result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The EC Sixth VAT directive restricts increases in the VAT registration threshold to those which maintain its value in real terms. Removal of this restriction would require an amendment to article 24 of the directive, which would require the unanimous approval of the member states.

  In her address to the European Council in March 1985 the Prime Minister launched an initiative for deregulation to encourage the growth of small businesses. Late in 1986 the Commission produced a draft directive for small and medium-sized enterprises which proposes, among other things, a mandatory lower threshold of 10,000 ecu (about £7,000) and a higher optional threshold of 35,000 ecu (about £24,500).

  The European Parliament has given general support for the draft. The United Kingdom will maintain its insistence

  877
  that the optional higher threshold be no less than 35,000 ecu and will continue to argue vigorously for it to be increased. It is not possible to forecast when and in what form the directive will be adopted.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of domestic electricity disconnections in Northern Ireland; and whether he has any plans to overcome this problem.

  Mr. Viggers
  In the 12 months to 31 December 1987 the total number of disconnections for debt in Northern Ireland was 2,439, which is less than one half of 1 per cent. of the average total number of consumers on supply.

  Northern Ireland Electricity adheres to the electricity supply industry's voluntary code of practice in relation to disconnections, and as the rate of disconnections for debt has fallen in recent months no specific action is planned.

  ACE Schemes
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on(a) the likely uses of the increased funding for ACE schemes in Northern Ireland and (b) the use of ACE projects in activities relating to the community care initiative.

  Mr. Viggers
  The ACE programme will increase from the current average level of 6,200 to 8,000 places during 1988–89. In allocating the additional places, priority will be given to projects which have the potential to create self-sustaining jobs, to those which further the development of community health and social care and to environmental measures. Special attention will also be given to projects in areas where the level of ACE provision is lower than the local incidence of long-term adult unemployment would warrant. Four hundred of the additional places have been specifically allocated to support the Northern Ireland 2000 programme, which seeks to provide more and higher quality environmental projects.

  Sympathetic consideration is always given to proposals from sponsors seeking places for community care activities. Approximately 30 per cent. of ACE scheme places currently support such activities.

  Kilroot Power Station
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the expected completion date of the Kilroot power station.

  Mr. Viggers
  Northern Ireland Electricity expects to complete the conversion of phase I of the Kilroot power station to dual coal-oil firing by July 1989. The first of the two generating sets undergoing conversion should be operational by the end of January 1989.

  Hospital Beds
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland will encourage health boards to conduct audits of beds available at 12 noon on each day; what information he has as to the likely information to be gained from this, and if he will make a statement.
  878
  Mr. Needham
  Under the current arrangements information on daily bed availability is already collected in each hospital, summaries of which are provided by boards to the Department of Health and Social Services. This count of bed availability is measured at midnight each day.

  Information derived from this source provides indicators for measurement of performance and enables the continuous monitoring of levels of service provided.

  Industrial Pollution
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in the light of recent incidents at Carrickfergus and elsewhere, he is satisfied that there are adequate measures and supervision to control industrial pollution in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: Yes, they are broadly in line with those which apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The resources required to supervise the control of industrial pollution are kept under regular review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now instruct Her Majesty's ambassador to the United Nations to vote against the resolution which demands that Israel desists from the removal from camps and the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza strip.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. Israeli policy in the occupied territories has involved unacceptable pressure on Palestinian refugees to move against their will, and the forced demolition of their shelters. We and the overwhelming majority of the international community oppose this.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Standing Committees
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has anything to add to his answer of 18 January,Official Report. column 486, regarding the membership of Scottish Standing Committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my pursuant answer to that question on Wednesday 20 January, at column 740.

  Parliamentary Salaries
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Lord Privy Seal what information he posseses on comparable parliamentary salaries exclusive of allowances in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Australia and (e) the United States of America, for the latest published figures available.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The information requested is as follows:
  879

  Country a

  Salary (per annum)

  United Kingdom

  Member of the House of Commons

  Basic salary of £22,548. Maximum salary of £23,614 for those who draw the London allowance of £1,066 per annum, which is taxable. Whole of salary taxable.

  France

  Deputy in the National Assembly

  410,634 Fr (£40,863) of which 45 per cent. 184,785 Fr (£18,388) is tax-free

  Federal German Republic

  Member of the Bundestag

  DM 104,748 (£35,166). All taxable

  Australia

  Federal Member of the House of Representatives

  A$ 46,065 (£18,326). All taxable.

  United States of America

  Member of the House of Representatives

  US$ 89,500 (£49,958). All taxable.

  Note: The sterling figures are calculated using rates of exchange at the close of business on Wednesday 20 January.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Beds
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will encourage health boards to conduct audits of beds available at 12 noon on each day; what information he has as to the likely information to be gained from this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The "bed count" is taken at midnight because at that time there is the least amount of patient movement and greater statistical accuracy is assured. A count at midday would disrupt the work of the ward and be a less accurate reflection of ward work. The information derived from the bed count is published in "Scottish Health Statistics," copies of which are held in the Library.

  Homeless Persons
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will revise the guidance to local authorities concerning homeless persons which is given under section 37 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Although the code of guidance has been well received generally I am aware from voluntary organisations in the field that some revision of the code might be desirable. I have asked for details of proposed amendments and when these are received I shall consider the position further.

  The very difficult problems which can arise when dealing with homeless people call for the exercise of good housing management and close co-operation between all agencies involved. We are committed for our part to maintaining an effective legislative framework to help the homeless.

  Local Authorities (Staff)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most recent available figure for the total number of persons employed on a full-time basis, or full-time equivalent, by regional, islands and district councils in Scotland.
  880
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: This information is published quarterly in the "Joint Manpower Watch Survey", which is available in the Library of the House. The most recent figures available are for June 1987.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospital Services (Oswestry)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Security with regard to the services provided by the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital at Oswestry; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I assume the hon. Member's question relates to the recent decision of the Shropshire health authority to close a number of beds temporarily at this hospital. Health authorities are not obliged to consult over temporary closures, but should the authority decide to make a temporary closure permanent there is a set consultation procedure to follow. The Welsh Office together with local community health councils would be consulted formally.

  Crown Employees
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister whether all persons in public service who are paid from moneys supplied under Votes by Parliament are treated as employees of the Crown for all(a) legal, (b) pensions and (c) other purposes.

  The Prime Minister
  Civil Servants, including those whose salaries are borne directly on Votes, are regarded as servants of the Crown for all relevant purposes.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will introduce legislation to render all persons in public service who are paid from moneys supplied under Votes by Parliament and who are employees of the Crown liable to prosecution under the criminal law where they are alleged to have committed criminal acts.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Employees of the Crown are not exempt from the criminal law.

WALES

  Privatisation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by each Welsh local authority, each service which has been privatised or put out to tender and the savings which have been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  All local authorities in Wales have complied with the competition regulations introduced under part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and put out to tender as appropriate highways and sewerage work, new building works, new works and maintenance work. The Local Government Bill currently in the House of Lords will extend compulsory competition to refuse collection/street cleaning, building cleaning, school/welfare catering, other catering, vehicle maintenance and ground maintenance. In addition, the Government are considering extending competition to the management of local authority sport and leisure facilities.

  Information on the savings made is not held centrally. However, from time to time selective information on savings is published in the Local Government Chronicle and the "Public Service Review".

  Neonatal Units (Staffing)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1976, for each neonatal unit in Wales(a) the number of sister posts, (b) the number of staff nurses or staff midwives, (c) the number of support nursing staff, including nursery nurses and nursing auxiliaries and (d) the number of medical staff with specific commitment to neonates.

  Mr. Grist
  Data on hospital midwifery staff, analysed by district health authority, are available annually in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales", copies of which are in the Library of the House. Detailed information on specific areas of work is not yet sufficiently reliable for the Department to give accurate staffing figures for each neonatal unit. Information on medical staff with a specific commitment to neonates is not held centrally.

  Free Milk
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many children under five years of age and cared for by registered childminders are currently in receipt of free milk; and how many childminders are involved.

  Mr. Grist
  There were 5,571 places with 2,361 registered childminders in Wales at 31 March 1987. Information is not available centrally on the number and age of children using these places or on the number of children in receipt of free milk.

  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, and the agreement obtained in June 882
  1979 from the Treasury for the purchase by instalments of the Rubens cartoons to be spread over three years, what reservations concerning these cartoons were voiced by his Department at the time that its agreement was obtained.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 3 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's memorandum (PAC 37).

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 Welsh 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. Grist
  The information requested on rent arrears for 1986–87 is shown in the following table. Data on the number of tenants with arrears of more than four weeks are not collected centrally.

  1986–87 (provisional)

  Rent arrears1

  Arrears as per cent. Of rent roll

  £

  Ogwr

  538,105

  4·4

  Lliw Valley

  168,587

  3·2

  Glyndwr

  81,301

  2·8

  Arfon

  125,498

  2·8

  Wrexham Maelor

  271,190

  2·7

  Delyn

  120,246

  2·6

  Llanelli

  159,149

  2·6

  Preseli Pembs

  116,034

  2·3

  Rhuddlan

  46,281

  2·3

  Ynys Mon

  114,600

  2·2

  Dinefwr

  48,337

  2·2

  Monmouth

  114,878

  2·2

  Alyn and Deeside

  89,393

  2·1

  Vale of Glamorgan

  127,300

  2·1

  Neath

  101,779

  2·0

  Brecknock

  51,213

  1·9

  Torfaen

  260,961

  1·9

  Swansea

  301,254

  1·9

  Taff Ely

  148,158

  1·8

  Port Talbot

  100,770

  1·8

  Rhondda

  85,847

  1·6

  Colwyn

  42,661

  1·6

  South Pembroke

  46,429

  1·6

  Cardiff

  363,385

  1·6

  Carmarthen

  52,035

  1·6

  Aberconwy

  45,381

  1·5

  Ceredigion

  50,336

  1·5

  Newport

  191,000

  1·5

  Merthyr Tydfil

  91,063

  1·3

  Cynon Valley

  71,870

  1·3

  Radnor

  15,160

  1·3

  Dwyfor

  11,741

  1·1

  Meirionnydd

  19,992

  1·0

  Rhymney Valley

  110,043

  1·0

  Islwyn

  53,406

  0·9

  Blaenau Gwent

  111,843

  0·9

  Montgomeryshire

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Current and former tenants.

  Electorates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh counties in order of
  883
  percentage growth in electorate since 1982; and what has been the percentage growth and the actual figures in each case.

  Electorate

  Increase 1982–1987

  1982

  1987

  Number

  Per cent.

  Powys

  85,199

  90,239

  5,040

  5·9

  Gwynedd

  176,523

  184,828

  8,305

  4·7

  Clwyd

  299,115

  312,686

  13,571

  4·5

  Dyfed

  256,289

  265,497

  9,208

  3·6

  Gwent

  329,734

  335,829

  6,095

  1·8

  West Glamorgan

  283,663

  286,436

  2,773

  1·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  405,615

  407,227

  1,612

  0·4

  South Glamorgan

  291,825

  292,213

  388

  0·1

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Oswestry Orthopaedic Hospital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the appropriate authorities with regard to the problems at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital at Oswestry; and if he is satisfied that this hospital is at present being run in a way which meets the needs of patients from Wales who depend upon it.

  Mr. Grist
  Officials of the Department are in touch with appropriate health authorities about the problems at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital. The current closures are of a temporary nature and hence a matter for the Shropshire health authority. Shropshire health authority has undertaken to consult the Department, Welsh health authorities and other Welsh interests about any proposals for substantial permanent variation in the service provided at the hospital.

  Winget-type Houses
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report the total numbers of Winget-type houses in each housing authority area in Wales where such houses exist.

  Mr. Grist
  We have no record of any Winget houses in Wales.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to intensify his Department's monitoring on the state of the ambulance services in each part of Wales; whether he will review the procedure used for these purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Responsibility for the management and operation of the ambulance services in Wales is that of the district health authorities. I am satisfied with the Deparment's existing arrangements for issuing guidance and for monitoring its implementation.

  Library Authority (Newport)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce a decision on Newport borough council's application of 1984 to be designated a library authority under the provisions of the Local Government Bill 1972.

  Mr. Grist
  I expect to be able to do so shortly.
  884
  Mr. peter Walker
  Increases in local government electorate by welsh county since 1982 are given in the following table:

  Hospital Closure Procedure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer of 18 January on hospital closure procedure, he will now undertake to review the consultative documents issued by Gwynedd health authority on the future of(a) Mudog memorial hospital, (b) Caernarfon cottage hospital and (c) the care facilities for the elderly in Llangefni, with a view to determining whether these documents are prejudicial to proper consultation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the adequacy of the Gwynedd health authority's consultation documents on the future of these health services he should in the first instance bring this to the attention of the authority. If, following such an approach, his concern about the documents persisted we would be prepared to consider his representations.

  Greencroft Hostel, Aston
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the implications of the closure of the Greencroft hostel, Aston, Deeside, for the standard of living and opportunity to enjoy communal social life of residents and their families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  None. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him yesterday, at column 821, on this subject.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is able to announce his decisions on local authority higher education provision in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Having consulted the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the Welsh Counties Committee I have decided that the advanced further education quantum for 1988–89 should be set at £36·6 million. This represents a 7·3 per cent. increase between 1987–88 and 1988–89. I have decided that £400,000 of the quantum should be used to fund the following selective initiatives:Continuation of support provided in 1987–88 for the development of in-service training courses to increase the supply of Welsh medium secondary school teachers and for the development of commercial activities and professional updating (PICKUP) courses.
  Development of a manufacturing systems engineering degree

  885
  course at the Polytechnic of Wales.
  Development of an engineering access course at the Polytechnic of Wales.
  Support for research activities at the North East Wales Institute of HE and the Polytechnic of Wales.

  I have received advice from the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education on the planned disposition of academic provision and the number of student places on higher education courses in local authority colleges in Wales. The WAB proposals provide for a growth of 1 per cent. between estimated enrolments of 13,498 full-time equivalents in 1987–88 and target student numbers of 13,589 for 1988–89. The proposals provide for continued emphasis to be given to courses in science, engineering and other vocational disciplines; and for sub degree and part-time provision to be protected.

  The WAB has also provided advice on how the AFE quantum, net of the £400,000 for selective initiatives, should be distributed between local authorities. The proposals for distributing the quantum are related to the proposals for target student numbers for 1988–89 by institution, mode of attendance and subject; and they allow additional funding for degree and post-graduate courses. WAB have recommended that Dyfed should continue to receive some cash protection for 1988–89 in respect of the College of Librarianship Wales. WAB has considered bids from institutions against the £400,000 set aside for selective initiatives and has provided advice on how this sum should be allocated.

  I have decided to accept the WAB's advice on academic provision and student numbers, on the methodology for distributing the net quantum and on the distribution of the £400,000 for selective initiatives. The local education authorities have been informed of these decisions and of their individual allocations.

  Copies of a note explaining the methodology by which the AFE quantum for 1988–89 is being distributed have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Non-Civil Servant Advisers
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his non-civil servant advisers, giving their present main employment and their field of expertise.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: I have no special adviser.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Council for Licensed Conveyancers
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what have been the costs under convenient headings, and in total, of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers since its inception.

  The Attorney-General
  The expenses of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers for the 15 months from its inception to 31 March 1987 extracted from the audited accounts for that period are as follows:

  £

  Members' fees

  16,654

  Staff salaries

  55,163

  Examination costs

  13,669

  Accommodation

  12,668

  Travelling and subsistence

  9,162

  886

  £

  Telephone, stationery, printing, etc.

  7,838

  Audit and consultancy fees

  1,100

  Sundry expenses

  3,355

  119,589

  Mr. Rick Gibson
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions will prosecute Mr. Rick Gibson for using aborted freeze-dried foetuses in an artistic display; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Metropolitan police have forwarded a report to the Crown Prosecution Service concerning an exhibition at the Young Unknowns Gallery. The papers are currently under consideration.

  Anthony Cavendish
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what representations he received from The Observer on 16 January relating to its proposed publication of matter relating to Anthony Cavendish; and what response he made;

  (2) why he refused to make available to The Observer newspaper a copy of the revised terms of the injunction previously granted against both The Observer and The Sunday Times in relation to Anthony Cavendish.

  The Attorney-General
  On Saturday 16 January the Treasurer Solicitor received the following representations from The Observer newspaper.

  (a) The newspaper asked whether the Government did not accept that the order which the court had varied the previous day against The Sunday Times applied also to The Observer (The Observer having decided not to apply to the court on that day for a variation of the separate order made against it).

  The Treasury Solicitor replied that the Government did not so accept.

  (b) The newspaper asked the Treasury Solicitor whether the Government would consent to the court making the same variation of the order against The Observer as the one made in the case of The Sunday Times.
  The Treasury Solicitor replied that the Government would so consent.

  (c) Late in the afternoon the newspaper asked for a copy of the order against The Sunday Times.

  The Treasury Solicitor replied that it was of substantial length (its annex is 62 pages) and he had no means of letting The Observer have a copy that day before it went to press.

ENERGY

  Sellafield (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many workers at the British Nuclear Fuels reprocessing plant at Sellafield have exceeded the level for radiation at which an investigation has to be carried out; whether any of them is entitled to apply for compensation; what plans Her Majesty's Government have to improve the safety of such workers; and if he will make a statement.
  887
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have asked the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc to reply to the detailed questions raised by the hon. Member.

  BNF plc, like any other licensed nuclear operator, must continue to meet the requirements of the independent Health and Safety Executive. Good progress has been made in meeting those requirements specified in HSE's initial audit report on the implementation of safety changes at Sellafield.

  Windscale Fire
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if' he will make a statement on the implications for current nuclear policy of the new information released under the 30-year rule on the 1957 Windscale fire.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest release of records included no information on the causes or effects of the fire that was not already in the public domain.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what transmission line developments are to be made in association with the proposed Hinkley C and Hinkley D station developments; and what visual impact these would have.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  An application has been received from the CEGB for the Secretary of State's consent under paragraph 10(b) of the schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 for minor diversion of the transmission line entries to Hinkley point. The local planning authorities have objected to the proposal and it will therefore be necessary to hold a public inquiry into the matter.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received an application for a pressurised water reactor power station at Helbury, Dorset.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the estimates of radioactive emissions from(a) pressurised water reactors (b) advanced gas cooled reactors and (c) Magnox reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of radioactive emissions from nuclear power stations are published by licensed operators as follows:CEGB: "Report on Radioactive Discharges, Associated Environmental Monitoring and Personal Radiation Doses Resulting from Operation of CEGB Nuclear Sites."
  BNF plc: "Annual Report on Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment."

  I am arranging for a copy of the CEGB report to be placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the BNF report is already in the Library.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the estimated numbers of households not connected to the electricity grid in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales; what are the comparable figures in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1973; and what measures exist to enable households to become connected to the grid.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Electricity Council advises me that the electricity supply industry does not have these 888
  figures. Electricity boards are required to make a supply available to premises situated within 50 yd of a distributing main. Beyond this distance boards can arrange connection for an appropriate payment. In some circumstances it is possible to requisition a board to provide a distributing main to enable connection to be made.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he is in a position to announce his decision on the future role of the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  On 25 September I said that I intended to take stock of the Energy Efficiency Office's programmes, to assess their cost-effectiveness and continuing relevance and to consider the strategic options for the future. This I have now done, and conclude that there is a continuing role for the EEO to fulfil. Its programmes, especially in the industrial and commercial sectors, continue to benefit the United Kingdom by improving energy efficiency, which is reflected in price, export competitiveness and profits. In the domestic sector, the EEO's activities promote the economic and energy efficient construction, insulation, heating and use of the nation's housing stock. Accordingly, I plan no change in the EEO's 1988–89 budget of £20·9 million.

  However, general awareness of the case for energy efficiency is now well established and I have therefore asked the EEO to target its work in the most economically attractive areas. Moreover, I have also asked the EEO to examine how the contribution from those who benefit from the office's industrial and commercial programmes could be increased, including the feasibility of adapting those programmes where appropriate to recover part of their costs, and the extent to which programmes could be taken over for operation by the private sector. Developments on both counts will be taken into account when the 1989–90 budget is finalised and I am not committed to extending the present level of funding beyond 1988–89.

  The EEO will shortly begin consultations with those concerned and I hope to announce the result of this further work before the summer recess.

  Radiation (Research Study)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evaluation he proposes to make of the implications of the radiation effects research foundation study released at the end of 1987 with particular reference to its implications for(a) the economics of nuclear power programme in the United Kingdom and (b) standards of radiological protection for workers in the United Kingdom nuclear industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The study by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation — "The Effect of Changes in Dosimetry on Cancer Mortality Risk Estimates in the Atomic Bomb Survivors"—was taken fully into account by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) when issuing its GS-9 document, "Interim Guidance on the Implications of Recent Revisions of Risk Estimates and the ICRP 1987 Como Statement".

  The implications of the NRPB's interim guidance statement are being considered by a working group which is advising the Health and Safety Commission.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has had any discussions with(a) the Central Electricity Generating Board and (b) the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate with regard to the implications for emergency services and health services in Wales of the proposed emergency shutdown experiment at the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station scheduled for 12 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on Thursday 21 January 1988 at column 856.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  London Lighthouse
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial assistance he has given to London Lighthouse.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government intend to make a further grant of £750,000 towards the capital costs of London Lighthouse the West London hospice and community support centre for people with AIDS.

  The London Lighthouse centre will provide much-needed community support and hospice care for people with AIDS. The Lighthouse has caught the imagination of many people, and has done extremely well to attract funds from so many sources.

  The Government have already approved a grant of £500,000 towards the costs of the premises. This additional £750,000 will bring the total Government contribution to £1·25 million. This should enable London Lighthouse to open on time with its finances on a firm footing.

  NHS Statistics
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will set out a table for England and Wales showing for(a) 1961 and (b) the most recent available date (i) numbers employed in the National Health Service and (ii) the number of hospital beds available to the general public;

  (2) if he will set out a table showing the numbers employed in the National Health Service in England and Wales in (a) 1961 and (b) the most recent available date; and if he will list the population of England and Wales at the same dates.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information for England is given in the table. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  11971

  1986

  NHS directly employed staff 30 September (WTE)12

  629,500

  801,600

  Mid-year population (thousands)

  46,131

  47,255

  Average daily available beds4

  419,600

  315,700

  1 1971 is the earliest year for which staffing, population and bed information is available in England.

  2 The staffing figures for 1971 are not comparable with 1986 due to NHS reorganisation.

  3 Includes medical and dental locums and nursing and midwifery agency staff. Figures independently rounded to nearest 100 WTE.

  4 Figures are rounded to nearest one hundred.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many mentally ill people received treatment as in-patients and out-patients in the Durham health authority area during the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987 to date.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member the exact information he requires. Information on numbers of mentally ill people receiving treatment is not centrally collected.

  The available information on admission for in-patient care and attendances at out-patient clinics is shown in the table. It is possible for a person to be admitted more than once in one year or to attend an out-patient clinic several times. Central records cannot identify admissions or attendances for one person.

  Up until the end of 1986 information was collected by calendar year. No information is available yet for 1987.

  Durham Health Authority: Menial illness hospitals and units

  1985

  1986

  Admissions to mental illness hospitals and units

  725

  725

  Out patient attendances' (old and new patients) at mental illness clinics

  7,962

  7,652

  1 Clinics conducted anywhere by hospital psychiatric medical staff.

  Geriatric Patients
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many geriatric patients there have been in Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool health authorities in each of the last three years.

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

  Geriatric patients treated in NHS hospitals in the following District Health Authorities

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Sunderland District Health Authority

  In-patient cases treated

  4,721

  5,054

  4,254

  Day cases

  4

  27

  34

  New out-patients

  955

  964

  782

  New Regular day patients

  226

  226

  259

  Total regular day patients

  6,976

  6,823

  7,065

  Durham District Health Authority

  In-patient cases treated

  651

  670

  653

  Day cases

  —

  —

  —

  New out-patients

  154

  125

  121

  New regular day patients

  63

  50

  65

  Total regular day patients

  2,323

  2,042

  2,009

  Hartlepool District Health Authority

  In-patient cases treated

  817

  1,047

  1,326

  Day cases

  —

  —

  —

  New out-patients

  84

  80

  60

  New regular day patients

  224

  190

  218

  Total regular day patients

  6,599

  6,487

  6,211

  Hospital Construction (Spending)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total spending on the construction of new hospitals in England in each year since 1973.
  891
  Mrs. Currie
  Following is the information available centrally for the years since National Health Service reorganisation (1 April 1974):

  Capital expenditure on new and replacement hospitals and existing hospitals undergoing virtual reconstruction

  £000

  1974–75

  112,855

  1975–76

  139,949

  1976–77

  149,882

  1977–78

  136,840

  1978–79

  124,420

  1979–80

  125,615

  1980–81

  170,001

  1981–82

  209,444

  1982–83

  198,318

  1983–84

  184,113

  1984–85

  191,557

  1985–86

  224,896

  1986–87

  245,094

  Area

  1987 Electorate

  Average Electorate per Constituency

  Number

  Percentage difference from national average

  England

  36,393,203

  69,585

  Isle of Wight

  99,760

  99,760

  43·4

  Wiltshire

  418,708

  83,742

  20·3

  Gloucestershire

  404,523

  80,905

  16·3

  Dudley

  238,017

  79,339

  14·0

  Solihull

  158,291

  79,146

  13·7

  Cambridgeshire

  474,083

  79,014

  13·6

  West Sussex

  552,766

  78,967

  13·5

  Haringey

  157,835

  78,918

  13·4

  Berkshire

  550,173

  78,596

  12·9

  Harrow

  156,613

  78,307

  12·5

  Suffolk

  469,349

  78,225

  12·4

  Hampshire

  1,171,949

  78,130

  12·3

  North Yorkshire

  542,206

  77,458

  11·3

  Hounslow

  154,370

  77,185

  10·9

  Sunderland

  231,086

  77,029

  10·7

  Buckinghamshire

  461,401

  76,900

  10·5

  Bedfordshire

  383,437

  76,687

  10·2

  Sefton

  229,968

  76,656

  10·2

  North Tyneside

  152,645

  76,323

  9·7

  Hertfordshire

  753,542

  75,354

  8·3

  Shropshire

  300,615

  75,154

  8·0

  Warwickshire

  374,484

  74,897

  7·6

  Calderdale

  148,439

  74,220

  6·7

  Leicestershire

  667,016

  74,113

  6·5

  Essex

  1,181,599

  73,850

  6·1

  Cheshire

  734,959

  73,496

  5·6

  Humberside

  661,392

  73,488

  5·6

  Doncaster

  219,863

  73,283

  5·3

  Dorset

  512,764

  73,252

  5·3

  Avon

  730,224

  73,022

  4·9

  Surrey

  802,181

  72,926

  4·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  510,121

  72,874

  4·7

  Kent

  1,092,732

  72,849

  4·7

  Lincolnshire

  506,890

  72,413

  4·1

  Staffordshire

  791,913

  71,992

  3·5

  Ealing

  215,596

  71,865

  3·3

  Kirklees

  285,476

  71,369

  2·6

  Norfolk

  569,401

  71,175

  2·3

  Wigan

  234,836

  71,162

  2·3

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly

  355,134

  71,027

  2·1

  St· Helens

  141,878

  70,939

  1·9

  Derbyshire

  850,236

  70,853

  1·8

  Nottinghamshire

  776,815

  70,620

  1·5

  Somerset

  352,302

  70,460

  1·3

  Cleveland

  422,661

  70,444

  1·2

  Northamptonshire

  422,587

  70,431

  1·2

  Sheffield

  421,939

  70,323

  1·1

  Devon

  771,876

  70,171

  0·8

  892
  Source: Annual summarised accounts of health authorities in England.

  These figures do not take account of capital investment in smaller health building schemes in connection with the upgrading and refurbishment of existing hospitals. National Health Service capital expenditure has increased in real terms in each year since 1979.

  Electorates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the shire counties, London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs in England in ranking order according to the degree by which their electorates vary from the nationally averaged electorate appropriate to the number of parliamentary constituencies within them.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:
  893

  Area

  1987 Electorate

  Average Electorate per Constituency

  Number

  Percentage difference from national average

  Bradford

  346,000

  69,200

  -0·6

  Hackney

  138,190

  69,096

  -0·7

  Oxfordshire

  412,914

  68,819

  -1·1

  Enfield

  204,166

  68,055

  -2·2

  Bury

  134,615

  67,308

  -3·3

  Camden

  134,493

  67,247

  -3·4

  Sutton

  134,365

  67,183

  -3·5

  Durham

  468,998

  67,000

  -3·7

  Stockport

  227,629

  66,950

  -3·8

  Walsall

  199,949

  66,650

  -4·2

  Lancashire

  1,065,58

  66,599

  -4·3

  Wandsworth

  199,718

  66,573

  -4·3

  Salford

  179,445

  66,461

  -4·5

  Bolton

  197,674

  65,891

  -5·3

  Gateshead

  163,884

  65,554

  -5·8

  Leeds

  542,913

  65,411

  -6·0

  Wirral

  261,547

  65,387

  -6·0

  Rotherham

  194,250

  64,750

  -6·9

  Wakefield

  238,699

  64,513

  -7·3

  Rochdale

  154,025

  64,177

  -7·8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  224,530

  64,151

  -7·8

  Tameside

  166,589

  64,073

  -7·9

  Trafford

  172,743

  63,979

  -8-1

  Oldham

  165,901

  63,808

  -8·3

  Merton

  127,576

  63,788

  -8·3

  Cumbria

  381,759

  63,627

  -8·6

  Wolverhampton

  189,944

  63,315

  -9·0

  Manchester

  334,959

  63,200

  -9·2

  Brent

  188,259

  62,753

  -9·8

  Birmingham

  752,719

  62,727

  -9·9

  Liverpool

  375,803

  62,634

  -10·0

  South Tyneside

  124,966

  62,483

  -10·2

  Havering

  186,926

  62,309

  -10·5

  East Sussex

  555,401

  61,711

  -11·3

  Lambeth

  184,464

  61,488

  -11·6

  Croydon

  243,150

  60,788

  -12·6

  Lewisham

  182,279

  60,760

  -12·7

  Richmond upon Thame

  120,477

  60,239

  -13-4

  Coventry

  240,834

  60,209

  -13·5

  Knowsley

  120,039

  60,020

  -13-7

  Hillingdon

  179,744

  59,915

  -13·9

  Redbridge

  178,401

  59,467

  -14·5

  Bromley

  237,293

  59,323

  -14·7

  Northumberland

  235,174

  58,794

  -15·5

  Islington

  117,496

  58,748

  -15·6

  Cities of London and Westminster

  117,157

  58,579

  -15·8

  Sandwell

  233,303

  58,326

  -16·2

  Tower Hamlets

  115,487

  57,744

  -17·0

  Barnsley

  172,600

  57,533

  -17·3

  Barnet

  230,055

  57,514

  -17·3

  Southwark

  172,186

  57,395

  -17·5

  Barking and Dagenham

  114,486

  57,243

  -17·7

  Bexle

  171,654

  57,218

  -17·8

  Waltham Forest

  164,902

  54,967

  -21·0

  Greenwich

  164,657

  54,886

  -21·1

  Newham

  160,106

  53,369

  -23·3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  103,464

  51,732

  -25·7

  Kingston upon Thames

  101,253

  50,627

  -27·2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  98,201

  49,100

  -29·4

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Service if he will list the 30 English non-metropolitan districts which have the greatest 894
  percentage growth in their electorate since 1982; and what has been the percentage growth and actual figures in each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:
  895

  Total electors

  Non-Metropolitan County District (ranked by percentage growth)

  1982 Register

  1987 Register

  Difference

  Percentage growth

  Milton Keynes

  90,251

  114,252

  24,001

  26·6

  Wokingham

  83,321

  101,633

  18,312

  22·0

  Crawley

  56,283

  66,095

  9,812

  17·4

  East Hertfordshire

  79,942

  89,722

  9,780

  12·2

  Huntingdonshire

  86,175

  96,591

  10,416

  12·1

  Peterborough

  96,370

  107,949

  11,579

  12·0

  Wimborne

  56,060

  62,712

  6,652

  11·9

  Redditch

  48,423

  54,094

  5,671

  11·7

  Selby

  60,434

  67,394

  6,960

  11·5

  Hart

  54,406

  60,260

  5,854

  10·8

  West Oxfordshire

  58,595

  64,822

  6,227

  10·6

  Fareham

  66,633

  73,706

  7,073

  10·6

  Maldon

  36,013

  39,817

  3,804

  10·6

  South Staffordshire

  72,687

  80,324

  7,637

  10·5

  New Forest

  114,752

  126,690

  11,938

  10·4

  Test Valley

  67,263

  74,253

  6,990

  10·4

  South Cambridgeshire

  79,331

  87,571

  8,240

  10·4

  Bracknell

  60,523

  66,764

  6,241

  10·3

  Caradon

  51,991

  57,345

  5,354

  10·3

  Basingstoke and Deane

  95,287

  104,967

  9,680

  10·2

  Thamesdown

  113,080

  124,508

  11,428

  10·1

  East Hampshire

  67,644

  74,463

  6,819

  10·1

  Northampton

  117,467

  129,195

  11,728

  10·0

  Richmondshire

  28,268

  31,067

  2,799

  9·9

  North Cornwall

  50,408

  55,370

  4,962

  9·8

  Daventry

  42,647

  46,786

  4,139

  9·7

  Aylesbury Vale

  96,180

  105,466

  9,286

  9·7

  Lewes

  63,017

  69,080

  6,063

  9·6

  Chelmsford

  105,314

  115,438

  10,124

  9·6

  Northavon

  86,660

  94,872

  8,212

  9·5

  Cold-related Deaths
  Mr Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the numbers by deaths by hypothermia and other cold-related complaints in the Seaham and Peterlee areas of his Department.

  Mrs. Currie
  The number of mentions of hypothermia on death certificates, irrespective of whether or not it was the underlying cause of death, registered for usual residents of Easington county district was one in 1986, which is the latest full year for which data are available.

  Hospital Beds
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department will encourage health authorities to conduct audits of beds available at 12 noon on each day; what information he has as to the likely information to be gained from this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. It is for health authorities to decide how best to monitor available beds each day. I do not consider any useful additional information would be obtained from specifying the time at which this should be done.

  Social Fund Officers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what grade social fund officers will be given within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Social fund officers will be employed from existing grades of DHSS staff. They will be staff at the local officer 1 grade, higher executive officer grade and local office managers. The local officer 1 grade is the main 896
  grade at which decisions on applications to the social fund will be made. There will in addition be clerical and administrative support provided by administration officers and administration assistants.

  Genetic Metabolic Diseases
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the case for recognition of a supraregional service in genetic metabolic diseases; what is the Government's intention in regard to the funding of the work undertaken at Guy's hospital after next April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  A number of representations have been made concerning the application for supraregional designation of the services for genetic metabolic diseases at Guy's hospital. An application was considered by the Supraregional Services Advisory Group in 1987. My right hon. Friend accepted the advice of the advisory group that the service did not meet the criteria for supra regional designation.

  A further application for designation of these services will be considered by the advisory group this year.

  The funding of the service continues to be a matter for the health authority.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to make extra funds available for kidney dialysis in 1988–89 in the Birmingham health area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Decisions on the levels of funding in its seven renal units in the west midlands are a matter for the West Midlands regional health authority. The hon.
  897
  Member may therefore wish to write to the chairman of that authority for further information. For our part we will be allocating some £1·21 billion to the west midlands health region in 1988–89 which represents a 6·7 per cent. increase over the current year.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates he has made of the savings to his Department by the introduction of the restricted list of medicines that can be prescribed by general practitioners under the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1985–86 the selected list scheme saved £75 million on the drugs bill. It is difficult to make meaningful estimates for subsequent years, but we have no reason to doubt that significant savings continue to be made.

  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual administrative cost of the Oxford regional health authority, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 15 December at columns 493–95.

  Leicestershire FPC
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in the Official Report in tabular form the resources made available for the last two financial years, and planned for the next financial year, to the Leicestershire family practitioner committee for the discharge of its functions.

  Mr. Newton
  The financial allocations made to cover administration costs incurred by the Leicestershire family practitioner committee were £810,100 in 1986–87 and, to date, £766,500 in 1987–88. The former figure includes nonrecurring expenditure relating to a move to new premises, and the latter reflects the value of efficiency savings after the installation of computer facilities. The family practitioner committee has been informed of our willingness to increase this year's allocation by about £27,000.

  Guardians Ad Litem
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the rate support grant allocated for the current year to Leeds, Calderdale and Bradford was to allow for increased expenditure on guardians ad litem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Rate support grant is not paid in support of specified individual local authority services. Each authority is free to determine its own priorities between and within services. On provision for guardians ad litem, the position remains as set out in my letter of 1 December 1987 to the chairman of the City of Bradford metropolitan council, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member.

  Hospitals (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the hospitals and services proposed by 898
  Bradford health authority for closure or reduction in the Bradford area; what representations have been made by the authority chairman for increased funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Bradford health authority is responsible for managing services in Bradford and I suggest that the hon. Member approach the chairman for details of any planned changes. I have received no representation about funding from the Bradford health authority chairman.

  Special Payments
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to the statement made on 18 December 1987 about special payments to certain social security recipients following the discovery of the error in the calculation of the retail price index, what plans he has to compensate people who retire or become widowed between the time the special payments are made, in the first week of February and April 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  In the case of individuals whose benefits become payable after the special payments are made in the first week in February, we have decided not only to compensate those who retire or become widowed, but to make payments to broadly the same additional groups as received the £8/£5 special payments. The only exceptions will be those who have not lost as a result of the error in the retail prices index: married women with retirement pensions based on their husbands' national insurance records, and those people who receive invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance or the lower rate of attendance allowance.

  Pensioners and others who enter after the first week in February one of the groups covered by the £8 special payments will receive a special payment of £5·50. In respect of mobility allowance, the special payment will be £3. We will aim to make these payments as soon as practicable after individuals come on to benefit.

  There will be a cut-off point beyond which individuals entering the affected groups will not be eligible to receive special payments. This point will be the benefit week which ends on 2 October.

  Special arrangements will be made to give extra compensation to severely disabled war and industrially injured pensioners who will lose significantly more than other groups.

  AIDS
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will respond to the report by the Select Committee on social services problems associated with AIDS.

  Mr. Moore
  I have today presented to the House the Government's observations on the report from the Social Services Committee on problems associated with AIDS. The committee's report provides a valuable focus on the issues raised by HIV infection and AIDS, and the Government's response sets out the strategy which they have adopted to meet the challenge of AIDS.

DEFENCE

  UK-USA (Special Arrangements)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the dates of all agreements relevant to his Department and United Kingdom forces between the United Kingdom and the United States of America relating to special arrangements.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the lists of bilateral agreements between the United Kingdom and United States Governments in the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 7 May 1987 at columns 532–34, and to my reply to him on 2 December 1987 at column 593 about the special arrangements covering nuclear accident response issues, whose details remain classified.

  Military Uniforms (Unauthorised Supply)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will introduce legislation to provide controls over the unauthorised supply of British armed forces military uniforms by private arms dealers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what evidence he has of the incidence of the unauthorised supply of British Army uniforms by private arms dealers: and if he will make a statement.

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

  National Trust Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has received from the National Trust to his request for permission to erect military installations on National Trust land in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD approached the National Trust last year in relation to two projects connected with the upgrading of tracking and safety facilities for the Royal Aircraft Establishment Aberporth range in Cardigan bay. One project requires the provision of a mast and instrumentation system to cover the northern area of the range and, for this purpose, the MOD sought to lease a small area of National Trust land at Mynydd Rhiw. The second project involves the modernisation of a number of existing tracking stations around the bay. The MOD approached the National Trust about improvements to the access to two of these sites which adjoin National Trust land and about safety aspects of a third site. The National Trust turned down the Ministry's proposals just before Christmas and we are now considering this in relation to our plans for the development of the range.

  SS Castillion
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps his Department will take to ensure that all explosives are removed from the SS Castillion which sank off Ynys Môn in 1942; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The practicalities of resuming the clearance task later this year are being considered.

  Trident
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate for the cost of Trident.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 21 January.

  Employment (Suppliers)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of those directly and indirectly employed in the United Kingdom providing goods and services to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest figures available are for 1985–86, when it was estimated that 285,000 people were directly and 230,000 indirectly employed in United Kingdom industry providing goods and services to the Ministry of Defence. Estimates for 1986–87 should be available in the next two months.

  Nerve Cases
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what complaints or representations he has received from service men or women or their representatives about ill effects following the testing of nerve gases or other chemicals upon them; whether any compensation has been paid or is being considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the last 10 years there have been 15 inquiries from service men or women or their representatives concerning the testing of nerve gases or other chemicals upon them, none of which have resulted in any claims being made.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the recent non-stop flight from Britain to the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As part of an operational training exercise, an RAF VC1O flew non-stop from RAF Brize Norton to the Falkland Islands, leaving on 19 December 1987, and then returned non-stop. The aircraft was air-to-air refuelled both southbound and northbound. The direct operating cost was £140,000, all of which fell within the budget for the agreed flying activity levels for the RAF.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has carried out into verification of chemical weaponry.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Research is carried out at the chemical defence establishment into the detection and identification of chemical warfare agents. This work is part of the United Kingdom's programme to provide effective measures of protection for United Kingdom forces, and is also relevant to the development of methods and procedures to provide effective verification of a CW ban. In addition, the United Kingdom has contributed significantly to the thinking of the conference on disarmament on verification, for example, in the development of the concept of challenge inspection.

  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he intends to raise at the next North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It would not be approprate for me to say; the details of nuclear planning group discussions are confidential.

  China
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to meet his counterpart from the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  ; Defence relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China are good. My right hon. Friend does not, however, have any immediate plans to meet Mr. Zhang Aiping.

  Low-Flying Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities are provided to United States Army helicopter units based in the Federal Republic of Germany to conduct low-level pilot qualification exercises in the United Kingdom; on how many occasions such facilities have been utilised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom provides facilities for training by helicopter aircrew of the United States in a variety of ways, including, on occasion, the use of the United Kingdom low-flying system for training purposes by aircrew based in the Federal Republic of Germany. Detailed records of such usage are not maintained, but my Department is not aware of any occasion during 1987 when such usage included low-level pilot qualification exercises.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what procedures exist to permit military aircrew to report their own breaches of low-flying regulations to the relevant authorities;

  (2) how many breaches of low-flying regulations were reported to the relevant authorities by the aircrew involved in 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is standard procedure for aircrew to debrief, normally to their authorising officer, on all aspects of a training sortie in order to confirm that the requirements of a sortie have been met. The debrief provides the opportunity for the aircrew to report any difficulties encountered during the sortie, including breaches of low-flying regulations. If a breach of the regulations were sufficiently serious it would be reported to relevant authorities, otherwise the matter would be dealt with at station level. Central records of breaches reported during the debrief sessions are not held.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many confirmed breaches of low flying regulations in each year since 1974 were caused by negligence on the part of aircrew.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested cannot be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Holsworthy (Exercises)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what minimum separation distance was authorised for fixed wing aircraft participation in the exercise held in the vicinity of Holsworthy, Devon, on 11 and 12 July 1987;

  (2) what minimum separation distance was authorised for fixed wing aircraft participating in the no light exercise held in the vicinity of Perranporth and Mullion, Cornwall, from 10 to 16 October 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  The minimum separation distance authorised was 250 ft.

  Tactical Fighter Exercise
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a tactical fighter meet exercise is to be held in the United Kingdom in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No such exercise is planned.

  Decimomannu Range, Sardinia
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height at which Royal Air Force aircraft are permitted to fly over land at the Decimomannu range in Sardinia.

  Mr. Freeman
  RAF aircraft on temporary detachment to Decimomannu in Sardinia for training purposes make use of the air to ground range at Capo della Frasca. It is standard procedure that, in the course of that training, RAF aircraft on the range are not authorised to fly below 85 ft above ground level.

  Copper Flag Exercises
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Royal Air Force participation in Copper Flag exercises in the United States since 1977, giving the number and type of aircraft involved and dates of the exercise on each occasion.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Royal Air Force has participated once in a Copper Flag exercise, which took place from 14 to 25 July 1986. Eight Phantom aircraft were involved.

  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Davyhulme of 18 January, when he received the initial report of the National Radiological Protection Board into the mortality and cancer incidence in the United Kingdom participants in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental programmes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My hon. Friend is presumably referring to a preliminary draft of the report which the NRPB plans to publish towards the end of this month. This draft was sent to the Department and others in late December for comment on factual accuracy.

  Bates Project
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the contractor providing software for the Bates project has been changed since the contract was originally let in 1981.
  903
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Bates as a project has always been managed on a prime contractor basis with numerous subcontracts for various elements. Marconi Command and Control Systems (MCCS) employed subcontractors on the development of the software. However, since 1985 MCCS has increasingly taken on this work itself.

  RAVC, Melton Mowbray
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether horses in the ownership or control of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps at Melton Mowbray are used for foxhunting purposes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Seven horses held on the strength of the RAVC centre, Melton Mowbray, have been used in fox hunts this season.

  M16 and SA 80 Rifles
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations other than price influence the Government decisions on the procurement of either MI6 or SA 80 rifles.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Whilst price is of major importance in any value-for-money assessment, the Department also makes an analysis in detail of the performance characteristics of alternative weapons against the user's requirements before any decision is taken on a particular purchase.

  DROPS
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria have been used in the course of demountable rack off-loading pick-up systems/RTE procurements(a) for deciding whether to pursue trial equipments in preference to off-the-shelf equipments and (b) in deciding to whom to permit participation in the second round of procurement trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Following the initial DROPS evaluation trials in 1984–85, it was decided that the Department's production requirement for DROPS RTE equipment should be the subject of a full open competition to determine best value for money. As a consequence, the contract was awarded to Arbau Klaus in November 1987. Further RTE trials will be limited to pre-production evaluation and validation.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what respective numbers of the two types of demountable rack off-loading pick-up system trailer are now envisaged; what factors persuaded him of the advantages of a proliferation of types; to what extent the latter procurement is(a) to meet a new requirement not foreseen in 1982 and (b) to fulfil a role the previously selected trailers have proved unable to fulfil by virtue of not being manoeuvrable or operable by one man; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent announcements he has made to industry on forthcoming competition for a further substantial procurement of demountable rack off-loading pick-up system trailers; what will the relationship of such
  904
  procurement be to the original 1982 demountable rack off-loading pick-up low mobility requirements in respect of manoeuvrability and one-man operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: As a result of the 1982–83 DROPS competition and subsequent trials, an order is already in hand to provide 295 trailers for the low mobility roles and requirements for DROPS operation in rear zones. A requirement for some 209 trailers has since been identified for the improved low mobility roles specific to DROPS support of the multi-launch rocket system. In addition to their timings the trailer requirements are distinct in calling for equipment of significantly different performance characteristics. No question of proliferation thus arises. The MLRS requirements were announced in the "Contracts Bulletin" on 28 October 1987 and were presented to interested firms at a conference on 29 November 1987. Tender invitations are now in the process of preparation.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies and equipment were selected in 1983 for rail transfer equipment trials following the original demountable rack off-loading pick-up system/ CLOTS submissions from industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Ralph Blatchford and Co Ltd and EKA Ltd.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the off-the-shelf German rail transfer equipment now ordered meets the original specification published in the 1982 demountable rack off-loading pickup system/CLOTS tender documents; whether he has changed the specifications required; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The original performance requirements specified have not changed in significant regards although the engineering specifications for the supply of equipment are now more refined and detailed. The ordered equipments meet all essential requirements other than in regard to minimum clearance of overhead power cables and full ability to operate at different step heights.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on equipment, development and trials of the aborted design of rail transfer equipment for demountable rack off-loading pickup systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Costs of providing and supporting RTE equipment for the 1984–85 DROPS trials were some £500,000. Trials costs cannot be separately identified.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has reached on further use of the rail transfer equipment for demountable rack off-loading pick-up system flatracks selected in 1983 for trials; what consideration is being given to off-the-shelf German equipment used by the Army for concept trials in 1979–80; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No final decision has been reached on the further use or disposal of the RTE trials equipment
  905
  evaluated in 1984–85. The Department is currently giving no procurement consideration to German equipment used in concept trials in 1979–80.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the likely costs resulting from the failure of the medium mobility demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck to meet its specifications; and by whom these costs will ultimately be borne; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what effect the problems of the medium mobility demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck will have on the in-service date of this equipment; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if redesign will be required to remedy serious instability of the medium mobility demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the failure of trials involving a cross-country demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck turning over on hard level ground; whether any injuries resulted from this failure; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will provide further details on the failure of the demountable rack off-loading pick-up systems truck during trials at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: In the course of handling trials on 17 November at RARDE Chertsey a fully loaded medium mobility DROPS pre-production validation vehicle toppled over on to its side whilst executing a figure of eight manoeuvre on the slip bed, causing slight leg injuries to its civilian driver. The vehicle is one of 12 medium mobility and seven improved mobility vehicles commissioned for the trials: three medium mobility vehicles had previously completed the manoeuvre without mishap. Further examinations by the Department's project and engineering staff in association with the main contractor for the vehicles have indicated that the incident resulted from the fitting of a larger pattern of road wheel to provide enhanced off-road mobility in the vehicle for validation purposes.

  In the normal way the trials experience is to result in a number of detailed modifications involving the fitting of smaller wheels and other minor engineering changes. Accurate estimates are not yet available but the Department's modification costs are not expected to be substantial and will be contained within the approved programme limits. Major redesign work will not be involved and the vehicles are continuing to undergo their validation trials. The incident is not expected to have any major adverse affect upon the continuation of the DROPS programme or the in-service date of the vehicles.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the closure of Scamell's plant at Watford and the departure of Multilift's chief design engineer, he is satisfied that sufficient design expertise will continue to be available to ensure that the redesign of the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system trucks will be successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: There is no requirement to redesign DROPS equipment. Therefore, the question does not arise.
  906
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons have been learnt from the procurement of DROPS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: DROPS procurement is still proceeding and will not be complete for some years. None the less the programme has demonstrated how the widest possible competitive approach to industry based upon a performance specification can achieve real value for money solutions and at the same time avoid unnecessary research and development costs for the taxpayer. It has also demonstrated the importance of full internal recording of all procurement assessment considerations and processes.

TRANSPORT

  A20 (Improvements)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria were used in deciding to impose a 50 mph speed limit on the latest major A20 road improvements; and what discussions he has had with the police regarding the resources necessary to enforce this.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The first two kilometres of the recently completed improvement to the A20 Sidcup bypass have a speed limit of 70 mph. The 50 mph speed limit on the urban section of the bypass was imposed to increase safety through the interchanges at Crittal's corner and Frognall corner and to reduce the speed of traffic approaching the sharp bend at Kemnal corner which has a speed limit of 40 mph.

  Discussions were held with the police before the speed limits were imposed. I understand that they have the necessary resources to enforce them.

  Motorways (Hunting)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 360, relating to hunting adjacent to motorways, he has received any response from the Fox Hounds Association; and if he will place relevant papers in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Early-morning Flight
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what aircraft passed over central London at 5.25 am on Sunday 17 January en route for Heathrow; at what height it was flying; what was the maximum height at which it could have flown while still landing at Heathrow safely; and if he will, following his review of aircraft noise, ban such flights in future.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The aircraft was a Gulf Air Tristar.

  I shall draw the request for height information to the attention of the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and I shall ask him to write to my right hon. Friend.

  We are still considering the responses to the proposals for future night restrictions at Heathrow which my noble Friend has discussed with the right hon. Member. Our consultation document made it clear that we do not propose to ban flights arriving at Heathrow at this hour, but we shall continue to restrict the total numbers of night movements.

  Park and Ride (Cambridge)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the grounds on which his Department has refused to accept for transport supplementary grant in 1988–89 the Cambridge park and ride scheme proposed by Cambridgeshire county council and Cambridge city council; what alternative proposals for relieving congestion will attract support from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  TSG is intended to support capital improvements and traffic management measures on local roads which carry substantial flows of longer distance through traffic. The benefits from a park-and-ride scheme would be local in character. The scheme did not satisfy the criteria for TSG which are set out in the Department's circular 1/87; there is a copy in the Library. The responsibility for relieving local congestion rests with the local authorities to whom rate support grant is available.

  New Railway Stations
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about plans to open new railway stations in Scotland in 1988, 1989, and 1990; and at what locations.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that British Rail is planning to open new stations at Musselburgh in 1988 or 1989, and at Wallyford in 1989.

  It is also considering the recommendation of the Strathclyde rail review about stations on the rail network managed by Strathclyde passenger transport executive.

  Rail Crash, Colwich (Report)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish his inspector's report on the rail crash which occurred at Colwich, Staffordshire, in September 1986; what is the reason for the delay; and what steps officials of his Department have taken to inform the widow of the train driver killed in the crash of the date of publication.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The report on the inquiry into the collision between two express passenger trains at Colwich junction is in its final draft stage and will be published with the minimum delay as soon as essential consultations have been completed. The delay in publication is due to the extensive technical investigations that have to be carried out. The widow's son and her solicitor have been kept informed as to the progress of the report. The family will he informed in advance of the date of publication and arrangements have been made to send them a copy of the report.

  School Transport
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department holds on the incidence of injuries to, and deaths of children being conveyed in vehicles to or from school.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The number of deaths, serious injuries and slight injuries to children conveyed in vehicles to or from school is given in the table.
  908

  Child casualties in vehicles including family cars travelling to or from school: by severity: Great Britain: 1982 to 1986.

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  1982

  10

  168

  1,195

  1,373

  1983

  3

  142

  1,092

  1,237

  1984

  6

  184

  1,322

  1,512

  1985

  5

  157

  1,327

  1,489

  1986

  7

  129

  1,372

  1,508

  Cannibalised Cars
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in discussions with local authorities to extend the protection of the public from the sale of cannibalised cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs and I discussed the sale of unroadworthy cars with the Director General of Fair Trading, local authority, motor trade and consumer organisations on 15 December 1987. We are working with the Office of Fair Trading and the other organisations on the possible extension of trading standards officers' powers to inspect cars on garage forecourts. The repair of accident-damaged cars has been considered by a working party set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers, whose report I look forward to seeing. Buyers of secondhand cars would be well advised to arrange a pre-sale inspection.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the ACTRAM committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency on nuclear material transport and security with regard to the obligations discharged by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  ACTRAM is an independent body appointed to advise the Secretary of State for Transport and the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission on major issues relating to the safe transport of radioactive materials. It has no connection with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  ACTRAM's first report ("Transport of Radioactive Materials for Medical and Industrial Use") was published earlier this month. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  A second report, dealing with quality assurance and compliance assurance arrangements for the United Kingdom regulations covering the transport of radioactive materials, is expected to be published in the spring.

  Cabotage
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the potential implications for the competitiveness of the road transport industry when EEC rules on cabotage come into force in the United Kingdom, with specific reference to the differing safety standards applicable in the road transport and cabotage industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A recent study on the impact of cabotage carried out by the Polytechnic of Central
  909
  London has shown that there are likely to be more opportunities to be grasped by United Kingdom hauliers when cabotage is carried out under conditions of fair competition than there will be for foreign hauliers.

  Work within the EC is directed at gradually achieving common conditions. There is already agreement on drivers' hours and tachograph recording.

  £ million

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  11984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  11987–48

  Revenue support grant required

  142

  113

  156

  213

  214

  105

  69

  45

  Investment

  DLR net of external contributions

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  17

  8

  22

  Other

  190

  203

  162

  204

  192

  212

  241

  248

  Total

  190

  203

  162

  204

  207

  229

  249

  270

  Funded by:

  Capital grant

  179

  186

  161

  200

  151

  244

  240

  194

  Internal resources

  11

  17

  1

  4

  56

  (15)

  9

  76

  1 Fifteen months.

  2 Forecast.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the loss of hedgerows and their value to wildlife and the community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Hedgerows play an important role in the countryside and provide a wide variety of benefits. In addition to their agricultural role they can form an integral feature of the landscape, provide a valuable habitat for wildlife and, in some cases, be of considerable historical interest. Their value is, however, dependent upon positive action and sympathetic management to keep them in good condition.

  It is my Department's policy to enlist the voluntary co-operation of the farmers and landowners to whom the management of hedgerows necessarily falls. Our Agricultural Development and Advisory Service provides expert advice on hedgerow management, and initial advice for conservation purposes is free of charge.

  A certain amount of hedgerow removal has occurred in recent decades due to changing agricultural circumstances, but we would not condone the unnecessary removal of, or damage to, hedgerows. We no longer grant aid the amalgamation of fields which often involved hedgerow removal. On the contrary, we provide capital grants at very favourable rates for both the laying of hedgerows and the planting of new ones.

  Dead Sheep (Disposal)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library any literature relating to the disposal of dead sheep circulated to farmers in the restricted area of Cumbria between 20 June 1986 and 8 April 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 21 January 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 14 January, at column 376.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the revenue support for London Regional Transport for each year, in constant terms, from 1980; and what was the investment support for each year from 1980, excluding money, for the docklands light railway.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Capital grants and internal resources used to finance investment are not hypothecated to programmes. The figures requested (at November 1987 prices) are as follows:

EMPLOYMENT

  Skillcentre (Newham)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects a skillcentre to open in Newham.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no present plans to open a skillcentre in Newham.

  Radiological Protection
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department has taken following interim guidance on revised standards of radiological protection issued by the National Radiological Protection Board in November 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As announced on 18 November 1987, the Health and Safety Commission has set up a working group on ionising radiations which met for the first time on 9 December 1987. The working group will consider the recent guidance from the National Radiological Protection Board as part of its remit and will advise the commission on an appropriate course of action. I am content to await any subsequent recommendations.

  Government Employment Schemes
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each year since 1979 to date the number of persons employed on Government employment schemes.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures for each year since 1979 for the employment measures run by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission on which participants have contracts of employment are as follows:
  911

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987

  YWS13

  —

  —

  —

  174,266

  130,000

  66,182

  66,000

  2,800

  —

  CI2

  8,865

  8,176

  8,985

  8,849

  9,612

  9,532

  9,517

  9,813

  56,909

  STEP/CEP/CP2

  22,400

  18,400

  34,300

  51,645

  134,400

  161,437

  241,159

  307,999

  5189,134

  JSS/JS1

  —

  —

  —

  180

  656

  260

  268

  297

  6451

  NWS1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37,552

  618,700

  VPP4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  945

  961

  1,282

  1,634

  51,558

  1 Approved applications.

  2 Entrants.

  3 This scheme closed on 31 March 1986.

  4 These are estimated staff employed by sponsors to run projects.

  5 April to November 1987.

  6 April to December 1987.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each year from 1979 to date the numbers in employment by, categories, for(a) the

  Employees in employment

  Thousand

  September of each year

  All industries and services

  Agriculture forestry and fishing

  Energy and water supply

  Metal manufacturing and chemicals

  Metal goods, manufacturing and vehicles

  Other manufacturing

  Construction

  Distribution Hotels Catering and Repairs

  Transport and communication

  Banking Insurance and finance

  Other Services

  SIC 1980

  0–9

  0

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  United Kingdom

  1979

  23,262

  403

  724

  1,146

  3,386

  2,742

  1,252

  4,289

  1,490

  1,685

  6,144

  1980

  22,768

  403

  729

  1,048

  3,188

  2,529

  1,237

  4,268

  1,480

  1,754

  6,133

  1981

  21,816

  385

  706

  927

  2,903

  2,350

  1,108

  4,180

  1,421

  1,755

  6,082

  1982

  21,337

  382

  676

  868

  2,697

  2,236

  1,073

  4,114

  1,371

  1,810

  6,108

  1983

  21,182

  377

  642

  814

  2,534

  2,169

  1,061

  4,158

  1,346

  1,910

  6,168

  1984

  21,346

  368

  612

  808

  2,467

  2,162

  1,054

  4,276

  1,347

  2,017

  6,237

  1985

  21,597

  367

  577

  803

  2,433

  2,172

  1,019

  4,371

  1,351

  2,129

  6,373

  1986

  21,676

  355

  529

  781

  2,333

  2,140

  998

  4,425

  1,351

  2,250

  6,515

  1987

  21.978

  349

  498

  780

  2,282

  2,140

  1,026

  4,494

  1,371

  2.386

  6,654

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1979

  2,012

  33

  119

  164

  246

  298

  111

  362

  113

  100

  467

  1980

  1,945

  31

  119

  150

  228

  271

  109

  359

  112

  105

  464

  1981

  1,843

  31

  116

  126

  203

  251

  96

  348

  105

  106

  462

  1982

  1,801

  31

  112

  114

  186

  237

  93

  344

  105

  106

  473

  1983

  1,776

  30

  105

  102

  171

  229

  93

  351

  105

  112

  479

  1984

  1,774

  29

  100

  98

  161

  227

  93

  363

  105

  116

  483

  1985

  1,796

  29

  90

  93

  157

  233

  90

  376

  105

  135

  488

  1986

  1,791

  29

  79

  85

  151

  226

  88

  380

  103

  142

  509

  1987

  1,814

  29

  74

  80

  149

  227

  91

  390

  108

  145

  522

  Information about employment in local areas is available only for years in which censuses of employment are conducted. The available employee estimates for the Barnsley local authority district and the Barnsley, West

  Employees in Employment1

  (Thousands)

  Divisions SIC 1980

  District2Barnsley

  Constituency2 Barnsley West and Penistone

  1981

  1984

  1981

  1984

  All industries and services

  78·5

  73·0

  27·5

  25·5

  0 Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  0·5

  0·5

  n.a.

  0·4

  1 Energy and water supply

  19·1

  16·1

  n.a.

  4·5

  2 Extraction of minerals and ores other than fuels: manufacture of metals mineral products and chemicals

  4·6

  3·7

  n.a.

  1·8

  3 Metal goods, engineering and vehicles

  4·3

  3·1

  n.a.

  1·7

  4 Other manufacturing industries

  10·3

  9·6

  n.a.

  3·3

  5 Construction

  5·4

  4·4

  n.a.

  2·4

  6 Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs

  11·0

  10·6

  n.a.

  4·4

  912
  United Kingdom, as a whole, (b) Yorkshire and Humberside, (c) Barnsley metropolitan council area and (d) Barnsley, West and Penistone constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  and Penistone constituency, taken from the September 1981 and September 1984 censuses of employment, is as follows:
  913

  Divisions SIC 1980

  District2 Barnsley

  Constituency2 Barnsley West and Penistone

  1981

  1984

  1981

  1984

  7 Transport and communication

  3·2

  3·5

  n.a.

  1·4

  8 Banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing

  2·0

  2·3

  n.a.

  1·0

  9 Other services

  18·1

  19·1

  n.a.

  4·7

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

  2 The district and constituency are defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981. n.a. An industry breakdown for the constituency is not available for 1981.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been(a) the annual percentage change since 1979 in the total (i) employed and (ii) unemployed, and (b) the aggregate percentage change since 1979 to the latest available date in the total (i) employed and (ii) unemployed, in each of the categories of employment listed in tables 1.2 and 1.3 of the Employment Gazette.

  Mr. Cope
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the job creating schemes and training help for which companies located in the Blackpool travel-to-work area qualify.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission administers the following schemes/programmes which are available to companies located in the Blackpool travel-to-work area:

  YTS

  New job training scheme

  Training grants for employers

  National priority skills scheme

  Training for enterprise

  Community programme

  These schemes/programmes have individual qualifying criteria and these would need to be satisfied before companies were able to participate.

  Local employer networks and local collaborative projects also offer employers a chance to influence the provision of training in the area and there is a training access point which may help companies identify appropriate training.

  Departments Cash Limits
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1987–88.

  Mr. Cope
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the neccesary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made. The cash limit on class VII, vote 1, will be increased by £10 million from £1,414,276,000 to £1,424,276,000. This is due to additional expenditure of £15 million on the community programme, on which take-up is running higher than expected, partly offset by 914
  reduced expenditure of £5 million on the job release scheme, where take-up is slightly lower than expected. The net £10 million increase in the cash limit on class VII, vote 1, is more than offest by a reduction of £13,999,000 in the cash limit on class VII, vote 5, (Manpower Services Commission), from £1,949,853,000 to £1,935,854,000, due to lower than expected take-up of the new job training scheme. There is a token £1,000 increase in the DE administration cash limit (class VII, vote 2). Therefore, overall there is a net reduction in DE group cash limits of £3,998,000.

  The Department of Employment's running costs limit on class VII, vote 2, will be reduced by £2,590,000 from £474,347,000 to £471,757,000 and the MSC's running costs limit on class VII, vote 5, will be correspondingly increased by £2,590,000 from £346,543,000 to £349,133,000. This is to adjust for an over-provision on DE's running costs when expenditure for the employment service was transferred from MSC to DE in the Winter Supplementary Estimates. The running costs total for the Department of Employment Group as a whole remains unchanged at £924,159,000.

  Community Programme (Greater London)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Manpower Services Commission community programme places were allocated to Greater London in 1987–88 if he will itemise the number of these places managed under the scheme by(a) each local authority, (b) each voluntary sector managing agency and (c) each private sector managing agency; and what are the main categories of beneficiary for each scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of community programme places allocated to the Manpower Services Commission's London region for 1987–88 was 17,330.

  It is not possible to itemise these places by the various managing agencies as requested as this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the following information is available.

  The total number of community programme projects and authorised places for the London region, analysed by project and sponsor type is as follows. Table 1 gives information about projects, and table 2 authorised places as at 14 October 1987, the latest date for which statistics are available.
  915

  Table 1 Total number of projects by sponsor type MSC London Region

  London

  Total

  Local authority

  Local education authority

  Vohuntary organization

  Nationalised Industries

  Private Sector

  Health Authority

  Government Department

  Other

  Educational Indtitution

  Ex Offenders Organisations

  Churches

  Total

  506

  119

  0

  0

  4

  18

  20

  5

  0

  22

  25

  29

  Environmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Building and Landcaping

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Home Insulation

  18

  1

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Research and Surveys

  22

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Library

  29

  12

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  3

  0

  1

  Youth work

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Voluntary Acts

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other social services

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cultural

  31

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Workshop

  20

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  CP agent MGMT

  55

  13

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  0

  2

  7

  5

  Environmental and Landscaping

  41

  17

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Building and Construction

  54

  9

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  6

  5

  Archaelogical digs

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Childrens
  services

  29

  6

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  1

  Young peoples services

  55

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  1

  2

  Services for the elderly

  82

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  3

  10

  Services for the disabled

  66

  9

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  0

  0

  1

  3

  4

  Centres for the unemployed

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table 1 Total Number of Places by Project Type and Sponsor MSC London Region

  Youth Organisations

  Old Peoples Groups

  Disability Groups

  Ethnic Groups

  Environmental and Conservation Groups

  Other Voluntary Organisations

  Quasi Commercial Body

  Total

  24

  4

  34

  37

  13

  105

  42

  Environmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Building and Landscaping

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Home Insulation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  Research and Surveys

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  6

  2

  Library

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  7

  0

  Youth Work

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Voluntary Acts

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other Social Services

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Cultural

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1

  5

  4

  Workshop

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  9

  3

  Community Project Agent Management

  3

  0

  1

  4

  0

  10

  4

  Environmental and Landscaping

  0

  0

  2

  1

  8

  8

  2

  Building and Construction

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  13

  10

  Archaelogical Diggings

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Childrens Services

  7

  0

  1

  2

  2

  3

  1

  Young Peoples Services

  9

  0

  4

  4

  0

  17

  1

  Services for the Elderly

  0

  3

  0

  15

  0

  14

  8

  Services for the Disabled

  0

  1

  23

  2

  0

  9

  6

  Centres for the Unwmployed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table 2 Number of Places by Project Type and Sponsor (Total)

  Churches

  Youth Organisations

  Old Peoples Groups

  Disability Groups

  Ethnic Groups

  Environmental and Conservation Groups

  Other Voluntary Organisations

  Quasi Commercial Body

  Authorised places

  Total

  551

  741

  86

  763

  1,125

  315

  3,243

  1,183

  Environmental

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Building and landscaping

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Home insulation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96

  158

  —

  Research and surveys

  7

  —

  —

  79

  81

  —

  92

  11

  Library

  20

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  114

  —

  Youth work

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary acts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other social services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  Cultural

  —

  81

  —

  —

  85

  31

  216

  78

  Workshop

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89

  —

  301

  208

  916 917

  Churches

  Youth Organisations

  Old Peoples Groups

  Disability Groups

  Ethnic Groups

  Environmental and Conservation Groups

  Other Voluntary Organisations

  Quasi Commercial Body

  CP agent management

  62

  67

  —

  4

  165

  —

  261

  124

  Environmental and landscaping

  —

  —

  —

  114

  28

  157

  347

  28

  Building and construction

  173

  103

  —

  —

  17

  —

  379

  301

  Archaeological digs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Children's services

  11

  172

  —

  12

  38

  31

  41

  5

  Young people's services

  25

  318

  —

  60

  167

  —

  634

  29

  Services for the elderly

  220

  —

  74

  —

  371

  —

  460

  273

  Services for the disabled

  33

  —

  12

  494

  44

  —

  240

  108

  Centres for the unemployed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  918