Sitting of 7 June 1988

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

    TOR BAY HARBOUR (OXEN COVE AND COASTAL FOOTPATH, BRIXHAM) BILL
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (BARROW) BILL [Lords]
    Considered; to he read the Third time.
    BRITISH WATERWAYS (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
      EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
      Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    East Midlands
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of unemployment in the east midlands.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): In April 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the east midlands region was 154,200, compared with 189,300 in April 1987, a fall of nearly 19 per cent. over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is good news for the east midlands and yet further evidence that the Government's economic policies are working? Can my hon. Friend tell me the figures for my constituency of Derby, North? Does he accept that one of the biggest threats to future job creation in Derbyshire, emanates from the high-spending, irresponsible policies of the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council? Is it not the case that high rates cost jobs?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. High rates do cost jobs. The figures that I have just given show the success of the Government's economic policy in getting unemployment down. In my hon. Friend's constituency unemployment has fallen by more than 700 or 13·7 per cent. during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that last week the Corah company, a leading east midlands firm with a national reputation has made 780 people redundant? I visited the firm yesterday and there was tremendous anxiety among those who have kept their jobs as well as those who will
    700
    lose their jobs, about their employment prospects. There was special concern that, despite the financial position of the company, it continued to recruit workers during the last 12 months. What is the Minister prepared to do to boost the employment prospects of textile workers in the east midlands?
    Mr. Lee: Obviously, one sympathises with any redundancy, but even in the textile industry there are skill shortages. As for Government support, something like £100 million of regional assistance has gone into the region since May 1979. We have inner city task forces in Nottingham and in Leicester, and the full endeavours of the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, or the Training Commission as it is now called, are available to help those who, sad to say, have lost their jobs in the redundancies that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) mentioned.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent figures are due in no small part to excellent companies such as Rolls-Royce which, with its entrepreneurial approach, has just obtained a £1 million order in the United States? Is that not an example of the Government being able to free industry really to get going and do what it should be doing?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, he got it slightly wrong in that, if I am correct, it was a £1 billion order rather than a £1 million order. I follow the fortunes of Rolls-Royce very carefully because it has a major plant in my constituency at Barnoldswick which is doing very well. Of course, the very important plant at Derby is in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the closing down of the Corah knitwear plant in my constituency, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is a potential tragedy for more than 700 families, because the knitwear industry is still in recession, still having slack times and still getting no help from the Government?
    Mr. Lee: With the greatest respect, there is nothing I can add to the comment I made in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

    Trends and Opportunities
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet his opposite numbers in the European Economic Community Employment Council to discuss employment trends and opportunities.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I will be attending the next meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council on Thursday 9 June. I will take that and other opportunities to encourage the Community to stimulate market-led employment growth and to take advantage of the potential in the single European market.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confrm that the single European market, starting in four years' time, will create fabulous employment opportunities going beyond the internal growth prospects of each of the member states?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. The recent Cecchini report to the European Commission suggested that there may be 1·25 million to 2·25 million additional jobs. If certain other scenarios are followed, there may be as many as 5 million to 6 million, according to some estimates.
    Mr. Cryer: Has not the Common Market been full of promises that have never been fulfilled? Since 1973 there has been a talk of "jobs for the boys" being created, but all we have had is a huge millstone round our neck. Can the Minister tell us how the internal market will remove the £11 billion deficit in manufactured goods? Could not the £4·7 billion that the Government have paid to the Common Market since 1984 have been used to provide more jobs in our country?
    Mr. Cope: The single market will improve the situation by improving competition within the Common Market and by giving us a large home market on which to draw.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend consider during his meeting what extra assistance can be given to the creation of jobs in the south-west? That area does not seem to do very well, compared with the rest of the country, in aid from the EEC for job creation.
    Mr. Cope: No, but it does not do too badly in terms of jobs. From the Government's point of view, I had the pleasure yesterday of launching "Action for Jobs, South-West", which is intended to emphasise in the south-west what the Government are doing to assist in this matter.

    Care in the Community
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the implications for care in the community of the introduction of the adult training scheme; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on this subject. It is hoped that most community programme projects will continue into employment training, but I recognise that some may not do so. My Department's officials will be discussing this with representatives of the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Martlew: Is the Minister aware that there is deep anxiety among local authorities and the voluntary sector about the changes in the community programme? At its worst it could mean the loss of 88,000 places that have an input into the organisations of £436 million. In my local authority the projects under threat are health authority projects, a crime prevention project—the Conservative party claims to be the party of law and order—a drug abuse programme to help people come off heroin, which is a problem, and an unemployment centre. Will the Minister give an assurance today to organisations in my constituency and throughout the country that if finance is not found under the new programme, money will still be available for them to continue?
    Mr. Nicholls: Obviously, any period of transition is bound to give rise to anxieties. To a large extent, we have now been able to satisfy those anxieties. We are well aware
    702
    of the problems of operations such as centres run for the benefit of the unemployed. However, the important point about the new programme is that it brings training into what had previously been only community programmes. There may be many cases—for all I know, centres for the unemployed may be some of them—where, although groups may not be able to provide training in their own right, they can effectively become sub-contractors to the main scheme. To that extent, I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: In the context of the adult training scheme, will my hon. Friend recognise the importance of courses designed to bring women back into employment after they have had their families? Will he look extremely carefully at the rules for the new scheme to ensure that such courses will not be affected but will be encouraged?
    Mr. Nicholls: I share my hon. Friend's concern. One of the criticisms of the old community programme was that women not in receipt of benefit found that they could not get on the course and, therefore, found it that much more difficult to return to the job market.
    However, under the employment training programme special arrangements will be made for single parents whose youngest child is in full-time education to enter the programme after they have been on an order book for six months.
    Ms. Short: We know this—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady clearly does not know this. If she could contain herself for one moment, it might be welcome news to her. Special arrangements will be made for returners to be able to come back into the job market, and I hope that that will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that there is special significance in the change of the title of the scheme to employment training, with its telling acronym of ET—it was probably conceived on another planet? I visited four schemes in my area in the past week and discovered universal hostility to it. Many groups that have contributed prodigously to care in the community, such as those that help offenders coming out of prison and the settlement of people leaving mental institutions, are hostile and feel that the new scheme will at least cut the value of their work and, in some cases, cripple it.
    Mr. Nicholls: Even by the standards of parliamentary riposte that was a remarkably feeble jibe to make of a programme which will provide substantial opportunities for 600,000 people a year. Employment training will be very much to the benefit of every unemployed person in this country. I should like to think that if the hon. Gentleman cannot take his lead from the Government he could do so from the TUC and give at least conditional support to a programme that will be of massive benefit to his unemployed constituents.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what region of the United Kingdom has the highest number of long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the reduction in the number of long-term unemployed people over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Over the past 12 months there has been a record fall in long-term unemployment of 266,000. The region with the highest number of long-term unemployed in April 1988 was the south-east, with 206,500 people, although that is 65,700 lower than April 1987. The new employment training programme, which comes into operation in September, aims to achieve further reductions in long-term unemployment.
    Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the region with the highest number of long-term unemployed is the south-east shows that the north-south divide is a complete and utter myth? Does he agree that those figures show that, in the booming economy of the south-east, many people are working and claiming and many are not working even though jobs are available, which gives a truer picture of the number of people who are really unemployed?
    Mr. Fowler: Another way of considering the number of long-term unemployed around the country is to look at percentage figures as opposed to numbers. Where my hon. Friend is unquestionably right and the Opposition characteristically wrong is that in the south-east and around the country there is an increasing number of unfilled vacancies. One of the aims of the new employment training programme is to give long-term unemployed people the skills to take up those vacancies so that long-term unemployment decreases further.
    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in the figure for the number of long-term unemployed is quite remarkable? Will he say how many people under 25 fall into that category and how the figure compares with five years ago?
    Mr. Fowler: One of the biggest falls among long-term unemployed people has been among the under-25s. In the year to April 1988, there was a fall of about 34 per cent. Long-term unemployment among the under 25s is at its lowest level for five years.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister acknowledge—he mentioned percentages—that in all probability Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed people? Will he say what hope there is for the peripheral areas of the United Kingdom when the single European market comes into force in 1992, given that the south-east now has the highest number of long-term unemployed people?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed. The general policies to combat unemployment obviously apply to Northern Ireland and we hope, through the new training programme and other such measures, to provide skills for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland just as everywhere else in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman pledge not to overlook the real worries of the tens of thousands of textile and steel workers in all the regions of the north
    704
    who lost their jobs early in 1980–81? What real jobs is he planning to provide for the men who lost their job at that time who are now aged nearly 50 and have no prospect of work? Can we have less complacency and more action?
    Mr. FowlerThere is no complacency about unemployment or the long-term unemployed. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that new vacancies are now becoming evident in the economy. I hope that both sides of the House will unite behind our policy to provide good training to assist people to acquire skills so that they can take those jobs that are now becoming available. To obtain consensus on that would he a giant step forward.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone—every employer and every college—should now be involved in a skills crusade, because unless we can produce people with skills we shall not be able to continue to achieve the 21 per cent. reduction in the number of long-term unemployed that we have achieved this year? Does he further agree that such a crusade is not helped by the Opposition continuing to rubbish every programme that is brought forward to improve adult training?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that there are over 700,000 vacancies in the economy generally. We need training to help long-term unemployed people to take those jobs and opportunities. We now have a historic opportunity to reduce long-term unemployment in Britain even further and I hope that the country can agree to take that opportunity.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people who are in employment are participating in the youth training scheme.
    Mr. Cope: At the end of March 1988, there were 61,603.
    Mr. Cohen: Was not the youth training scheme orginally supposed to be part of a package of work training for all youngsters, but of those 16 to 18-year-olds in employment very few are on the YTS or obtaining proper training, while many others cannot afford to be on the YTS because of the poverty pay under that scheme? Young people are receiving next to no training whether or not they are on the scheme. Is it not the case that the Government are putting very little into the training of our youngsters?
    Mr. Cope: Oh no, we are putting a great deal into that. A total of 381,000 young people are on the YTS, and that is a lot. Of course, we should like more and we want it to be a normal route between school and work for young people.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When considering the youth training programme, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in Scotland many new jobs are emerging in leisure, recreation and tourism? We welcome the fact that, because of the strength of the economy, many English people can spend so much of their time on vacation in Scotland where the quality of life is so much better. Will he bear in mind that we must have more training schemes in leisure, recreation and tourism activities?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. That is one of the expanding areas in this scheme, as in others.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that until recently he and his colleagues were boasting and bragging about the fact that the school leaving age had been raised to 18? Is it not a sad fact that youth training has largely become a programme for unemployed youngsters? Even worse than that, is he not worried that up and down the country young people are now opting to go into low-paid, dead end jobs with no training at all? Is that the way in which he envisages our work force competing with other countries in the years to come? Should not employers be forced to provide a basic minimum level of training for young people between the ages of 16 and 18?
    Mr. Cope: I do not think that employers should be forced, but we want to encourage them and that is exactly what the YTS has done. That is why it has expanded over the years and why it is making a major contribution. I agree that we want as many young people as possible—if possible, all young people—to go into jobs in which they are supplied with proper training, leading, as YTS increasingly does, to qualifications which will at least set them on the right road for life.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about employment figures in the United Kingdom and such equivalent information as he has for her European Community partners.
    Mr. Fowler: In the latest three-year period for which information is available—between 1983 and 1986—the increase in employment in the United Kingdom of 920,000 was greater than in the rest of the Community combined. During 1987 the trend in the United Kingdom continued, and employment rose by a record 500,000.
    Mr. Thompson: That further good news on the employment front is welcome to all hon. Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proportion of people with jobs is considerably higher in the United Kingdom than in the rest of the European Community, and can he state how the increase in employment in the United Kingdom compares with the employment situation of our competitors, West Germany and France?
    Mr. Fowler: The proportion of the population of working age in employment is higher here than in any other Community country apart from Denmark. Four member countries experienced decreases in employment over the past 12 months; they were France, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Apart from Britain, only Germany showed a substantial increase, and the German increase was no more than half as great as the increase in Britain.
    Mr. Grocott: Are not international comparisons of unemployment figures related to the length of the working year and the length of the working life? Given that words such as "harmonisation" are so popular these days, is it not time that we copied best European practice by introducing a 35-hour week and providing for six weeks' minimum annual leave and retirement at 60 for men who want it?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not know what sort of bill the hon. Gentleman has run up in a matter of 30 seconds, but I do not think that that is a very sensible proposition; I should be surprised to hear that it was the Opposition's policy. The hon. Gentleman asked where the figures came from. They are published by the statistical office of the European Communities in Luxembourg. They are comparable and they show the very good performance of the economy of this country compared with those of other countries in Europe.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment prospects in this country will not be improved if the Government block takeovers of British companies solely on the ground that the bidding company is controlled from overseas?
    Mr. Fowler: We have to consider that matter case by case, but Britain and British companies have invested in or taken over companies overseas and we must expect the same to happen here at times.
    Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that comparable EEC figures for unemployment are based on the labour force survey? That shows a drop in unemployment of 157,000 in the United Kingdom since May 1986, yet the United Kingdom published figures claim a drop of 714,000. How does the Secretary of State explain the difference? Is not the bulk of the drop in United Kingdom unemployment explained by measures that push people off benefits and do not the figures give a very misleading account of the real level of unemployment in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady is typically and absolutely wrong. In her comparison with the labour force survey she omitted to say that that survey shows a lesser unemployment figure than the benefit count. In other words if we used the labour force survey to show unemployment in this country, it would show a reduced rather than an increased number.

    Productivity
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in productivity during the three months to January 1988 and over the same quarter to January 1987.
    Mr. Cope: Productivity in manufacturing, as measured by output per head, increased by 1·6 per cent. in the three months to January 1988. In the three months to January 1987 it fell by 1·1 per cent.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the immediate prospects for British industry are extremely rosy, those prospects depend on industry's ability to contain its unit labour costs? If it does not do that competiveness will deteriorate which will mean that orders will be lost and, worst of all, jobs will be lost. What urgent advice does he have for employers and the TUC?
    Mr. Cope: I certainly agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. He asked what advice I had. The watchwords for everyone concerned with pay bargaining must be realism and flexibility, but the point on this question is that improved productivity pays for real pay rises.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the great advances in productivity that we so much need come from the elimination of repetitive tasks by machinery, and that in that process a number of people who at present find it quite easy to work will find it increasingly difficult to hold down the jobs? As productivity changes, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will keep under review the medical criteria by which people are adjudged to be fit or unfit to work?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, but I would also point out that that is why training is so important, particularly the employment training programme that we discussed earlier.

    Disabled and Mentally Handicapped People
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there have been any changes in the treatment of disabled and mentally handicapped people under restart and the new availability for work test.
    Mr. Lee: There has been no change in the treatment of disabled and mentally handicapped people under restart. People who are limited in the work they can do because of their health are only required to be available for work they are able to do.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister clarify his answer? He failed to clarify the point that disabled people and the mentally handicapped either have to be registered for sickness benefit or they have to be available for work, like everybody else. The Minister said that the Government are interested in giving genuine training. If that is so, surely there should be a response to disabled people that relates to their disability, as the all-party Public Accounts Committee argued. What the Minister has just told us does not relate in the least to the needs of disabled people.
    Mr. Lee: The restart programme is extremely positive. To give an example, about 3·4 per cent. of the total restart interviewees, or 121,000 people, have been referred as a result of the restart interviews, to disablement resettlement officers, which emphasises the positive nature of the programme.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware of his Department's figures, part of which he has just quoted, which show that of the 114,000 people who attended the one-week restart courses last year, only 7 per cent. got a job? For those 7 per cent., restart was a success, but for the other 93 per cent. it was a failure. In Coventry, for example, there are still 30 unemployed workers for every vacancy registered at a jobcentre, restart or no restart.
    Mr. Lee: As my right hon. Friend has said repeatedly, there are 700,000 vacancies nationally. The restart programme is positive and beneficial. About 88 per cent. of those who attend interviews are offered something positive.
    Mr. Nellist: But only 7 per cent. get a job.
    Ms. Short: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House by saying that there has been no change in the eligibility criteria for disabled claimants. Will he confirm that his Department issued a circular on 17 March that described tightened eligibility criteria for disabled, mentally handicapped and disturbed claimants? Will he confirm that the circular makes it clear that
    708
    unemployment benefit offices have received more claims from disabled people than they expected and that, given that they have more money to gain from claiming sickness benefit, this shows the determination of disabled people to work? Is it not a disgrace that the Minister's Department is tightening up on the availability for work tests for disabled people when it has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for the service that it provides for disabled people?
    Mr. Lee: We are being very fair to the disabled. Both we and the Department of Health and Social Security have issued instructions to ensure that those who are eligible for alternative benefits are directed appropriately.

    Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding possible amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am not aware of any formal representations regarding amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. My Department does from time to time receive suggestions on possible amendments to the Act from various organisations and individuals and these are naturally given due consideration.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that the Froggat report showed that the health of non-smokers is seriously affected by people who smoke at work? Is he aware that legislation has already been introduced in Belgium, Spain, Norway, Austria and Canada? When the Minister wrote to me saying that the Government would block my Bill to outlaw smoking at work, he said that he did not believe that further legislation was necessary. Was this because the existing Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which requires employers to provide a healthy environment, could be used to stop smoking at work, or was it because the Government are totally complacent about the health risks?
    Mr. Nicholls: The Government certainly are not complacent about health risks, although on a personal level I can agree with the hon. Gentleman that smoking is a thoroughly beastly habit. One cannot go round legislating about smoking, however, simply because it falls into that category. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Government's view is that it is not necessary to introduce further legislation. If the degree of smoking at work is such that an employer, in allowing it to continue., is not providing a safe environment for people to work in, that is a matter that falls under present legislation. In other words, it is unnecessary to take any further action with regard to such an extreme case; the present law is sufficient.
    Mr. Madel: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent report on safety on construction sites in London and the south-east the Health and Safety Commission said that there were far too many accidents and that safety standards must be improved? The commission also suggested that the laws needed to be tightened. Do the Government have plans to change the existing laws so that we get improvements in safety on construction sites in London and the south-east?
    Mr. Nicholls: It is because the Government are very much aware of the situation on construction sites that they were completely supportive of the commission's recent blitz on accidents on construction sites. That was an extremely successful campaign, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises. As so often, there can be a mixed picture, and at the moment fatalities at work are running at an all-time record low.
    Mr. Madden: Is not the Minister concerned by the increasing numbers of people being seriously injured at work in west Yorkshire and elsewhere? What is he doing to ensure that more factory inspectors are appointed so that inspections can be carried out? What is he doing to ensure that places of work are inspected at least once a year, because there is now a mountain of evidence to show that places of work are going uninspected for years on end? What more is he doing to make sure that employers who are found to be in breach of existing legislation are fined far more heavily than at present?
    Mr. Nicholls: The enforcement of the law on a day-to-day basis is in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive, and it is right that that should be so. The Government devote substantial resources of public money to enable it to carry out its tasks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted the extra £6·7 million that has been contributed. I am afraid that in the end the campaign has to be won in the work place, among the people working there, and the employers. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, and since he is concerned about the number of inspectors, I can tell him that the number of inspectors engaged in relation to those whom it is their duty to inspect has remained pretty constant in recent years.
    Mr. Hayward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of industries complain that the safety restrictions imposed upon them are more severe than those imposed on competitive industries in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and other European countries, thereby making it more difficult to reach the levels of productivity achieved in other parts of Europe?
    Mr. Nicholls: I have never accepted that there is a trade-off between a proper safety standard and commercial viability. I can agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that when we frame and maintain safety legislation we have to make absolutely certain that it fulfils its task and that it is not unnecessary.
    Mr. Strang: When will the Minister accept that the £6·7 million increase to which he referred is wholly inadequate for the Health and Safety Executive to carry out its enormously important work? I refer not just to the need for additional inspectors but to coping with the new responsibilities that the Government have put on it, including the work under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 on agricultural pesticides, the full impact of which the HSE has yet to feel.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman knows that one can always make out a case for spending more money. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere. He is being unreasonably dismissive of a sum of money that was welcomed by the chairman of the commission.

    London Centre for European Business Information
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about his visit to the London Centre for European Business Information.
    Mr. Cope: I visited the London Centre for European Business Information in December. The centre holds information on a wide range of European matters which small businesses need if they are to take advantage of the challenges and opportunities of the European single market. The centre is located in the London branch of the small firms service, and the whole service can therefore draw on its information base.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital for small and large businesses to seize in full the opportunity presented by the single European market from 1992? Will he do all that he can to ensure that all business information centres do what they can to prepare small businesses for that challenge?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, indeed. The matter is important. Of course, small businesses are likely to have more difficulty in getting the information that they need. That makes it important for us all to do our best to publicise the information centres. Perhaps I can start by explaining that the address is 2 Ebury bridge road, SW1, and it can be contacted on Freephone Enterprise.

    Employer-School Compacts
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many urban programme areas have applied for development funding for employer-school compacts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: The Training Commission has invited applications for development funding by 30 June. Over 40 compact proposals are being developed by employers, education authorities, and other interested parties in urban programme areas. I hope to be able to announce which partnerships have been chosen for development funding at the end of July.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main benefits of compact schemes are, partly, the better understanding that grows between employers and teachers, and the raising of standards among school pupils? Will he take note of the report that shows that, whereas in London, all too often the rate of school attendance falls to one in three, in those east London schools where the compact has been experimented with, the rate of attendance has risen to four in five?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. It is still early days for the east London compact. The results are promising. The scheme is the result of the Boston compact, which pioneered the concept. We certainly hope that this will result in a major expansion of compacts around the country.
    Ms. Armstrong: I wonder whether the Secretary of State recognises that employers in London are concerned about the effect on their arrangements of the break-up of the Inner London education authority, bearing in mind the way in which its careers information in particular aided and enabled the compact programme to go ahead. What discussions is he having with the Secretary of State for

    711
    Education and Science to ensure that something is done to enable London schools and authorities to co-operate so that the scheme can continue?
    Mr. Fowler: We would certainly want to see a continuation of the great careers service in London. The east London compact is already running. We shall certainly look at any proposals for an extension and for financing it.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at present too many pupils leave school without a serious work ethic? How will the scheme improve that?
    Mr. Fowler: Fundamentally, it will improve it, because the whole aim of it is to come to an agreement between companies and schools, so that, provided the pupil meets attendance and academic requirements, he will be guaranteed a job afterwards.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the compact deserves maximum encouragement, that there is no magic in the figure of 12, and that, provided that bids are genuine, legitimate and well-researched, the Government might consider supporting and funding more than 12?
    Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. It is a recently announced pilot, as part of the inner city initiative. There has been a tremendous response to it. We want to get the pilot schemes started, but we shall certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman said and the proposals that he has just made.

    Benefit Fraud (West Midlands)
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources his Department devoted to the recent clampdown on fraudulent claims for unemployment benefit in the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: The two recent fraud investigations concerned private hir care and taxi drivers in the west midlands and an exercise in Coventry that examined claimants who had failed to collect their Girocheques, despite being advised to do so. A total of 18 fraud staff were employed by my Department on the two exercises, at a cost in salaries and expenses of £54,000. The net benefit savings that accrued from these exercises amounted to £510,000.
    Mr. Tredinnick: How many benefit claims were withdrawn as a result of the investigations? Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much money was saved nationally as the result of the investigations in 1987–88?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. The amount of money saved as a result of fraud investigations has increased from £11 million in 1984–85 to £54·6 million in 1987–88. The number who have withdrawn claims as a result of such investigations has increased to 80,000 in the current year.
    Mr. John Evans: If the investigation of fraudulent unemployment benefit claims has been so successful and has saved taxpayers millions of pounds, why does not the Secretary of State try to persuade the Government to mount a drive against fraudulent tax claims and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds?
    Mr. Fowler: We want to see both investigative activities taking place. I do not think that anything that the hon. Gentleman says should detract from the seriousness of the fraud that is being perpetrated here. We are not talking about people who are confused about their social security entitlement; we are talking about people who are deliberately defrauding the system. I think that it is about time that the Opposition supported this action.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Bowden: I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time today to send the congratulations of the House to Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev on their successful summit meeting in Moscow. Will she acknowledge the tributes that have been paid to the part that she, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has played in bringing about this historic meeting of understanding and warm friendship, which augurs so well for disarmament and world peace?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have already congratulated President Reagan at the Guildhall, which was a very successful occasion with a quite brilliant speech by the President, and I have of course already sent a message of congratulation to Secretary-General Gorbachev. I believe that the outlook for East-West relations is better than it has been for many a long year, and that that is so because we are strong in two directions in the West, first in defence and secondly in freedom under the law and human relations. I believe that this country's voice is heard because we have been strong in both defence and freedom under the law.
    Mr. Kinnock: While we are on the subject of human relations and freedom, has the Prime Minister seen the report on the young homeless called "No Way Home"? Does she not agree that the problems of the growing number of homeless young people on the streets of London, living in destitution and in moral and physical danger, require urgent action by the Government? Will she therefore change the new social security regulations to ensure that such young people can receive money in advance to obtain lodgings?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that a number of young people are leaving home who would not have done so in previous circumstances. We are having to provide more housing units than we should otherwise have done—and having to provide them when those young people already have a home to live in, belonging to their parents. The Government are indeed doing a great deal to tackle homelessness. The total support for housing is very much larger. We made £5 million available last year through the estates action initiative. Our mixed funding housing association initiative, with grants ranging from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of scheme costs, will help as well. We also

    713
    have a hostels initiative, with over 14,700 places approved since April 1981 to benefit young single homeless and others.
    Mr. Kinnock: That answer can only mean that the Prime Minister is willing to see huge numbers of young people at risk from crime, prostitution and even hunger. Does not she realise that in London alone there are 50,000 young, homeless people without secure accommodation, that the hostels are packed, and that there are 1 million fewer places to rent than there were at the beginning of the decade? Is she willing to see a new generation of street people increasing, or will she answer the first question I asked and change the regulations to revert to the original position so that these young people can get money, lodgings, jobs and look after themselves?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have listened to what I said. There is a hostels initiative to have places approved for these young people and to benefit the young single homeless and others. We made it much easier for council tenants to sub-let, which they used not to be able to do, and to introduce shorthold tenancies. We have increased this year the programme of grants to voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness. Those are three positive steps. There is a number of young people who choose voluntarily to leave home; I do not think that we can be expected, no matter how many there are, to provide units for them.
    Mr. Kinnock: The charities in this area, as in many others, are marvellous but it is neither fair nor realistic to ask them to do the job the Government should be doing. Will the Prime Minister answer the fundamental question? Will she revert to the original arrangements, which enabled young people to get money for lodgings? Does not she realise that if they have no home they have no job, and that if they have no job they have no home and they have no money? Is she willing to see those numbers increasing?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered twice in the negative to the right hon. Gentleman's fundamental question. I point out to him that there are now 1·6 million more housing units than there were eight years ago.
    Mr. Janman: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's policies on defence are clearly divided——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.
    Mr. Janman: In her busy day will my right hon. Friend consider that the Opposition's policies on defence——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue along that line.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister at all concerned about the huge explosion in domestic credit that has taken place in recent months? If so, what will she do about it?
    The Prime Minister: I think that an increase in personal credit is all right provided it is balanced on the other side by an increase in financial assets willingly held. That is the case. It has been so balanced.
    Mr. Curry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of schoolchildren are this week sitting their
    714
    written examinations for GCSE? Will she make sure that the A-level examination remains a genuine test of learning skills, discipline at work, and intellectual ability?
    The Prime Minister: The GCSE examinations are in their early years. Doubtless we shall learn a good deal from the way in which they are working. It is vital that children have the chance to get this qualification. It is a true test of what they do, both in their general work and with external moderation. With regard to A-levels, there is a report out, which I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with in reply to a written question today. It is absolutely vital that we continue to regard the deep study of some single subject as important during the years from 16 to 18, particularly for people going to university.
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister take time off from her duties to tell us why she asked for a private valuation of Richmond yard? Does she think that she received value for money at 26 times what it would have cost the Property Services Agency to carry out this valuation?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment about this. He has replied to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. He has pointed out that this is the first of the office blocks to be built in Whitehall. It was absolutely vital that we get an accurate estimate, by a commercial enterprise, of the amount of rent that it would fetch in the open market. I think that was done.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public concern felt throughout the country about recent attacks on police officers by affluent young people who have had far too much to drink? Does she not agree that this House should give every support to the police and that one of the best ways of giving that support is to ensure that we go on increasing police manpower throughout every force? Does she also agree that that should be the target of the Government throughout this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have substantially increased police manpower and pay. They also have very good equipment. I agree with my hon. Friend that the police are entitled to look to the ordinary citizenry for help on all occasions. They are entitled to look to schools and families to teach discipline and they are entitled to expect all of us to point out to those young people that they are responsible for their own activities, and no one else.
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago, knowing that I shall have no difficulty in hearing his supplementary question.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev have met on numerous

    715
    occasions and have agreed one important principle—the total elimination of nuclear weapons? Does she agree with them?
    The Prime Minister: They have not agreed on the total elimination of nuclear weapons. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there might one day come a time when that is possible. I must say that I doubt it, for reasons that he knows full well. What they have done—and I hope it will meet with acclaim—is to sign the first agreement to reduce nuclear weapons. However, I think they have done more than that. They have by their meetings—also supported by the West—brought about new hope in East-West relations and new hope for the future.
    Mr. Forth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the INF agreement and the resultant reduction in nuclear arms would probably not have occurred if one side had entered into the negotiations committed to the one-sided abolition of nuclear weapons? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the apparent statement made by the Leader of the Opposition on Sunday bears a remarkable resemblance to the unilateral policy of the Labour party in the past?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There would have been no agreement on reductions in nuclear weapons if one side had already said that they were going to give them up totally and utterly unilaterally. In those circumstances we should not have made the progress that we have made now.
    With regard to the latter part of the question, I am just not at all sure what the policies of the Labour party are.
    Mr. Heffer rose—[interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Such interruptions mean that other hon. Members cannot be called.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that while all the people of this country are absolutely delighted at the atmosphere that developed at the summit meeting and at
    716
    the possibilities of future reductions in nuclear arms, some of us are somewhat nauseated by the sycophantic attitude that she adopts towards President Reagan and the United States? When she considers human rights, does she also take into consideration the human rights of the people of Nicaragua, or of other states in south America and elsewhere? Will she stop having double standards in relation to human rights?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, yes, I did say thank you on behalf of the United Kingdom for everything that the United States does to uphold our basic freedoms. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot do the same.
    Secondly, yes, I did congratulate the President on the first treaty to reduce nuclear weapons and on his wisdom in knowing that the next step, beyond the START agreement, is to reduce conventional forces but that our defences must be strong.
    Thirdly, yes, I did congratulate President Reagan on the way in which he raised the issue of human rights, right in the heart of Moscow. He did not flinch from that at all.
    Fourthly, I note that the Sandinistas in Nicaragua do not have the sort of democratic government of which the hon. Gentleman takes advantage day after day.
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's victory in the Falkland Islands represented a tremendous achievement by our armed forces? Will she take the time today to consider why British television companies spend millions of pounds—[Interruption.]—putting the heroism of our troops in a bad light and mixing fact with fiction?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point extremely well. Whatever the policy of the broadcasting authorities, I believe that the whole country was behind that campaign, applauded its military brilliance and is totally indebted to all the people who took part in it and all who supported it.

Haverigg Prison, Millom
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the riots and escapes at Haverigg prison, Millom, Cumbria and whether he will institute a public inquiry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): During the night of 5–6 June 1988, a serious disturbance took place at Her Majesty's prison at Haverigg in Cumbria, which is a category C establishment with places for around 500 inmates. It started at about 7.30 pm when approximately 40 prisoners began causing damage to buildings. Extra prison officers were deployed to duty and appeared to be containing the action. At about 11 pm there was an escalation and the officers were forced to withdraw and police were deployed to secure the perimeter. Prison officers later gained control of the prison, but for a time a total of 34 prisoners either escaped or were unaccounted for. All except three escapees, none of whom has been convicted of offences of violence, are now back in custody. In all, 28 buildings were damaged and 300 prisoner places were lost temporarily. Repairs are already in hand.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked Mr. Gordon Lakes, the deputy director general of the prison service, to conduct an urgent investigation into the disturbance. It will be a comprehensive and wide-ranging inquiry which will consider all the relevant factors that may have contributed to the incident. When he has received Mr. Lakes' report, my right hon. Friend will report his conclusions to the House.
Dr. Cunningham: Was not this the largest mass escape from any prison in England for more than half a century? First, I praise the work of the prison officers and the Cumbria police for reacting swiftly and, on the whole, effectively to the serious situation that developed.
Why did the Home Secretary reject my call in December 1987 for a review of security at Haverigg, following a series of escapes from the prison that year? What action was taken following my letter to the Home Secretary in January this year about a serious drugs racket in Haverigg gaol?
Is it not the case that on Sunday night there were only two fully trained and qualified prison officers on duty, supported by seven auxiliary officers? Is it not also the case that local prison officers believe that the prison is seriously understaffed and that the complement set by the Home Secretary is inadequate to ensure the safe management of the prison, and have they not made those views known repeatedly to the Home Office? Is not their view confirmed by the Home Office report on the prison service for 1986–87, a copy of which I have here, which shows that the average manpower cost per inmate at Haverigg is the lowest for any category C prison in the whole country and the second lowest for any prison in England?
Following the massive and extensive damage, including the loss of more than half the total accommodation, can the prison continue to be operated safely or should it not now be closed? Will the inquiry—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) does not take this seriously——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question and the hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not a serious of questions.
Dr. Cunningham: Will the inquiry have the widest possible terms of reference and will the local authorities, which share my call for a public inquiry, have an opportunity to submit their views? Has not the cosmetic categorisation of prisoners as low risk to ease the massive strain on high security prisons led directly to these appalling consequences?
Mr. Hogg: This is a serious incident which we take seriously. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the kind words and support which he gave to the action of both prison and police officers. The inquiry will be wide-ranging and nothing relevant or credible will be excluded from it. Local authorities will have an opportunity to make representations if that is what they wish to do.
I do not think that manning levels are relevant to this issue. The Fresh Start complement is 92 discipline officers and now there are 94 in post, so manning is not relevant to this issue.
Drugs are a problem. We are aware of that and we are taking active steps to prevent the introduction of drugs into prison. The hon. Gentleman will recall the action that we took over the food for remand prisoners.
Mr. Michael Jopling: I add my congratulations to the police and prison officers for the way in which they dealt with the incident.
Will my hon. Friend answer two questions? First, will he confirm that when the incident happened the staffing level at the prison was proper to deal with it? Secondly, and more seriously, will he ensure that the inquiry deals with what has become a major local concern—that prisoners were deliberately given a lower category of risk in order that they should be sent to this prison which was not overcrowded? Will he confirm that that was a deliberate downgrading which, on reflection, perhaps should not have been done? Will he ensure that the inquiry deals with that point?
Mr. Hogg: There were about 20 prison officers on duty at the relevant time and I do not think that manning is relevant to this disturbance. However, the inquiry must be wide-ranging and questions of manning will inevitably be considered. I do not believe that anybody has been introduced to Haverigg who was inappropriate for that prison, but questions of categorisation must clearly be addressed and they will be during the inquiry which my right hon. Friend has set up.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister ensure that among the material that the inquiry considers are the accounts of prisoners who have been at Haverigg, including one lurid account on the front page of one of the quality papers today? Does he agree that, whereas a few pin-ups on a dormitory wall are harmless, the use of cannibis and hooch as currency in Haverigg prison over a long period shows extremely lax discipline during that time?
Mr. Hogg: I am aware of the issues and allegations to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. As I have already said, all relevant and credible allegations will be considered during the course of the inquiry and that will

719
include any allegation of the type made in The Independent which, upon examination, appears both relevant and credible.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that category C prisons can contain prisoners found guilty of any crime if they are coming to the end of their sentence?
Mr. Hogg: That is correct. Category C is a judgment as to the risk that individual prisoners may pose to the community should they escape.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the Minister agree that the present problem, serious though it is, is simply part of what can only be described as a widespread crisis in our prisons—a crisis of overcrowding? It was not so long ago that the idea of a prison population of 40,000 was considered impossible, but now 50,000 is common currency. Is it not time that the Government considered not so much how to build prisons, but how those prisoners who could he more economically and effectively treated outside receive that treatment?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has asked a general and a specific question. On the general question, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind what was said in the debate a few weeks ago. On his particular question, there was no overcrowding at Haverigg. The certified normal accommodation is in the order of 500 and at the time of the disturbance there were about 515 prisoners.
Miss Janet Fookes: As there is an admitted drugs problem at the prison, will my hon. Friend assure us that particular attention will be paid to the visiting arrangements for prisoners because that is often when drugs are smuggled in?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As part of the inquiry we will be considering the question of the presence of drugs in the prison and the methods by which they got in.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As prison officers, both directly and through their association, had made representations about manning prior to the incident, will the Minister tell the House what happened when those representations were received by his Department? Was an inquiry carried out at that time or was no action taken based upon preconceived views as to what warrants proper manning of prisons?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will know that, during the course of this year, we are recruiting 1,365 prison officers in addition to natural wastage. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Fresh Start came into place in early April this year. The discipline grades at Haverigg numbered 92 and that was the number fixed at that time. The number in post at the time of the disturbance was 94. Let us assume for the purposes of discussion that there was an under-manning of 50 per cent. It is an illusion to suppose that 30 officers on duty that night would have made the slightest difference to the type of disturbance that took place. The truth is that manning levels are, so far as I can currently judge, irrelevant to the issue.
Mr. Edward Leigh. Recently there was a packed meeting in my constituency to
720
discuss Home Office proposals to set up a category C prison in an ex-RAF camp. What credence can be given to the claims of Home Office officials at that meeting that category C prisoners have neither the wish nor the ability to escape when no fewer than 25 of them forced their way through a perimeter fence two days later? What confidence can be placed in Home Office claims that those prisoners are harmless when a Prison Officers Association official has revealed that high-risk prisoners are being placed in low category gaols to save cash?
Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of the question, I do not agree with the suggestion made by an unknown source. On the former part of the question, disturbances of this nature are, happily, relatively infrequent. We are setting up an inquiry. We propose to learn all the lessons that we can from this incident and to implement them.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister accept that this is just the latest manifestation of the problems associated with the real crisis in our present prison system? Although this riot appears to have been triggered off by something relatively trivial, it must have been the result of a build-up of frustrations over many months, or possibly years. Has the Minister considered the specific suggestion of introducing staff prison committees to discuss grievances or the recommendation of the chief inspector of prisons that a prison ombudsman should be appointed?
I should like to press the Minister on two matters that have been raised and not satisfactorily answered by him. He was asked about drugs and bullying in Haverigg. If the reports and allegations are correct, it is a disgraceful state of affairs. Surely these abuses have implications for manning levels, because if manning levels are inadequate prison officers cannot take action to deal with drugs or bullying.
I should like also to press the Minister on the issue of downgrading. Can he categorically tell the House that high security prisoners have not been downgraded in order to go to category C prisons, thereby reducing the overcrowding in high security prisons?
In view of all the implications of this matter, may I reinforce the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the inquiry should be in public and should include details of why the warnings given by my hon. Friend were not heeded at the time?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady has asked a variety of questions, and I shall try to respond to them.
We acknowledge that we have a problem in the prison system and that is why we have put in place a very extensive building programme that is unequalled in this century. The hon. Lady asked about an ombudsman. Our present view is that the complaints procedure works perfectly well. If in the course of the inquiry it appears that that is not the case, we shall have to reconsider our position.
The hon. Lady asked about categorisation. There is no reason to suppose that by some artificial device inappropriate prisoners have been downgraded to category C prisons, either to this one in particular or to prisons in general. I repeat what I have said about manning levels. In this prison the manning levels are up to complement, and at the moment I do not think that manning levels have any relevance to the events that occurred two nights ago.

Girobank plc
3.48 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about Girobank plc, a subsidiary of the Post Office Corporation.
Since 1968 the Girobank has grown into a successful banking arm of the Post Office, with a particular strength in money transmission and in handling deposits of corporate cash. It now has about 2·5 million customers and in 1986–87 made a profit before tax of £23·1 million.
Girobank now needs to expand vigorously and take on other activities in order to develop in the competitive world of modern banking. The Government believe that this expansion can best be achieved in the private sector. I therefore asked the Post Office to consider this and the Post Office Board has agreed that taking Girobank out of the public sector is indeed the best way to proceed. The Post Office and the Government have therefore agreed that the Post Office should offer Girobank for sale to a financial institution or other suitable company. Suitable bidders will now be given the opportunity to tender.
The Post Office Board and its chairman, Sir Bryan Nicholson, have agreed with me on the main factors that will be taken into account in evaluating bids. Price will, of course, be a major consideration in order to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer. We also agree that weight should be given to the prospect of selling to a purchaser who will widen choice for the general public in banking services. It will also be important to safeguard the close links between Girobank and Post Office Counters Ltd. A new rolling contract has been concluded between Girobank and Counters which will govern their relationship under new ownership. We will be looking for a purchaser capable of developing and expanding Girobank's business. Post Offices Counters can expect to see increased business opportunities from that expansion as it is achieved.
The management of Girobank is today explaining and discussing this decision with its employees and their unions. Prospective purchasers will be invited to propose arrangements to enable management and employees to share directly in the future success of the business. The successful purchaser will, of course, also have to satisfy the strict requirements of the Bank of England.
This is a major opportunity to promote competition and to widen customer choice in the banking market through the trade sale of a nationalised bank. I believe that the Post Office, Girobank, Girobank's staff and its customers will all be well served by this new and important stage in the bank's development.
Mr. Bryan Gould: The statement prompts one basic question—why? What possible justification can there be, apart from political dogma, for disrupting a successful public enterprise of which Girobank is such a splendid example? What evidence is there that Girobank customers are dissatisfied with the service that they receive, a level of service in which Girobank, a prime example of public sector innovation, has so often set the standard? What guarantee is there that that service will be maintained in private hands? What protection is there against the takeover of Girobank by a clearing bank or
722
other major financial institution which could only limit consumer choice and increase an already unhealthy concentration of British banking in a few hands?
Does the Chancellor accept that a continuing commercial relationship with Post Office Counters is absolutely essential to Girobank's continued efficiency? What guarantee is there that Girobank will remain regionally based? How safe are the 5,000 or more jobs in Bootle, and what is the future of plans for a second site in the north-west?
What guarantees are there as to conditions and pensions for Girobank employees? What commitment is there to new expansion and continuing investment, and what assurance can there be that a successful public sector initiative which has widened consumer choice and set new standards in banking services will not be damaged and weakened in the hands of private sector predators?
Mr. Clarke: On the first key question asked by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), it is a matter of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government that private sector ownership of businesses tends to improve their performance. We believe that the bank, which is now poised for further expansion and development, will carry that out most efficiently and effectively in the private sector where it is able to raise its capital in the ordinary way, to be free from political constraints on its management and to win its customers by offering them improved services.
The customer base in particular is extremely important. It is a very good approach to examine the whole question from the point of view of the customer. Obviously, anyone interested in merging with Girobank will regard its present customers—2·5 million of them—as one of the principal assets of the bank's business and will be looking to enhance and improve the service. I know that the bank is contemplating moving into plastic card cash dispensers and more corporate finance and is looking to extend its insurance and mortgage business. It will find it easier to do so in the private sector.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must be careful not to limit choice for the public as a result of the sale or merger. When he studies my statement, he will see that this is one of the things that I agreed with the chairman we should look at when considering the bids. The Post Office will evaluate the bids bearing in mind the need to widen consumer choice if possible. At this stage, I am not cutting out anyone from entering the first rounds of bids to the Post Office, but one of the major British clearers would have considerable difficulty in satisfying our condition that one result of the sale should be a widening of consumer choice in banking services in this country.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a continued connection between Counters and Girobank is extremely important. That is why we have waited for the conclusion of the new contract, negotiated at arm's length between Girobank management and Counters management, which ensures a continuing relationship through a rolling five-year contract capable of being terminated only upon five years' notice either way. I expect that anyone buying Girobank will be buying, among other things, access to the Counters network, and therefore will have no intention of terminating the business connection and will be aiming to expand the business that goes over the counters.
As the hon. Member for Dagenham said, one of the main things that will be purchased by any acquirer of

723
Girobank is the regional base—its staff and assets at Bootle and the headquarters at Bootle. I do not believe that anybody will make a bid for the bank with the intention of running it down. In so far as the bank prospers in the future, the position of its employees will be improved. Their precise position is being explained to them by management at the moment.
Above all, one of the things we will be looking for from the purchaser of the business will be a commitment to the continued development and expansion of Girobank. It is because we want to see the bank expand and because we want to see a widening of consumer choice in this area and improved banking services that we think that the time has come to put Girobank in the private sector where we think that that is most likely to happen.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be a warm welcome from Conservative Members for his announcement? There is no reason to believe that the future for Girobank is anything other than excellent, and, freed from the ultimate control of Treasury constraints on raising capital, there is plenty of opportunity for expanding jobs in the north-west. Although the Labour party seems to be learning something from the experience of Socialist parties abroad, which have been dumping their ideological baggage, it still has something to learn from President Mitterrand, who is denationalising banks in France.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. It seems likely that the Labour party, yet again living in the past, will be almost the only Socialist party in western Europe still committed to the idea of a nationalised bank, saying to the employees of the bank in the north-west that their future lies better in nationalisation than it does in the private sector with access to fresh capital and the possibility of expansion.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that everybody understands perfectly why he has done this? There are enormous profits to be made out of Girobank, which it was my privilege as a Minister to carry through the Cabinet and announce in the House 22 years ago. Is he aware that the British banks bitterly oppose Girobank, which is one reason why it was not introduced earlier? Even Ray Mawby, Assistant Postmaster-General in the Government of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, was unable to get Girobank through because the banks did not want competition.
Girobank has been wildly successful and the figures given by the Minister show that. What he has announced today is a naked act of plunder of assets that do not belong to the Government, that were built up by public enterprise, public imagination and public investment and are now, as with so many other assets, to be sold off to the very people who financed the Tory party in its last three election campaigns.
Mr. Clarke: May I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the process of inviting bidders to tender will ensure that we will get a good price from the sale of the bank which will accrue to the public good? We will ensure that the taxpayer gets a bargain and that the full value of the bank is realised and goes first to the Post Office. But with our arrangements with the Post Office, what is surplus to its requirements will be made available to the Government. I realise that originally, in what was a different political
724
and economic era, Girobank was the creation of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In those days, he believed that we needed to have a state nationalised bank on the high street. If he were to win the election for the leadership of the Labour party I have no doubt he would reinforce the commitment of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who at the moment speaks for his party, to the idea of nationalised banking. The current climate is against that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to inject more competition into banking services, so, as I have said, we have agreed with the Post Office that we will be looking for opportunities for increasing competition when evaluating bids. Girobank has been successful. It went through a difficult time but has been successful in recent years. Certainly it should be more successful—it will have the opportunity to be so—when it is in the private sector.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people will greatly welcome the Government's decision? The track record of privatisation shows that the success of Girobank in the private sector will be assured. Will he confirm that it is the Government's view that Girobank should not be allowed to go into the hands of one of the big banks, arid that it must remain, as my right and learned Friend has said, in independent hands away from the big banking groups so that it will not only be moved into the private sector so that it can do better but will create more competition and more choice for the private customer arid the corporate customer, who need more choice?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The past nine years have changed the climate. Few people still cling to the notion that it is right for a business such as this to be state owned. Privatisation has proved its value to employees, customers and everybody who has an interest in the business.
I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's second point, which he made so forcefully. It would not be right for me to say that a bank should be ruled out of putting in a bid, but we should need much persuading before we accepted a bid from a major English clearing bank. I share my hon. Friend's aim of increasing consumer choice, and I agree that it would be a mistake to narrow it in any way. A new player on the clearing bank business scene over arid above Trustee Savings Bank, which we successfully privatised, will be of value to customers in this country.
Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister has not given, but will he please give, an assurance that the 6,000 jobs in Bootle will be secure and that the bank will not be sold to another financial institution or bank that will not need the clearing house facilities on Merseyside? Does he accept that there is much anxiety among the work force and their families? Girobank is a major public sector success story. It is the only flagship of success in providing large-scale employment in my constituency. If the Government destroy it for doctrinaire reasons and reduce competition by selling off the only bank that competes with the private sector, they will be condemned on Merseyside arid throughout the country for an act of asset-stripping the like of which they have not yet undertaken. If Girobank is so successful, why do the Government want to sell it off if it is not simply for doctrinaire reasons and because they want to hand massive public-sector profits to their friends who donate to the Tory party?
Mr. Clarke: I understand the importance of Girobank to Bootle and its Member of Parliament. I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman that this proposed sale is a threat to business in Bootle. Anybody purchasing the bank will be purchasing the facilities in Bootle and will regard them as one of the assets that they are acquiring. I find it difficult to accept that anybody will find it remotely worthwhile or sensible to contemplate acquiring the bank but then running down the business at Bootle. Nobody can guarantee a set number of jobs on Merseyside. The Post Office has never guaranteed a set number of jobs at Bootle. Those jobs have been secure and the enterprise successful because the bank has done well in recent years. If in private hands the bank continues to expand and succeed, there will be enhanced employment prospects on Merseyside and not the reverse.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend be required before Girobank is sold to a purchaser? Are we right to conclude from my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that he would withhold his consent if the prospective purchaser were from overseas?
Mr. Clarke: As I have explained, bids will go to the Post Office and its board will handle the sale. The Secretary of State has a right to issue a direction to the Post Office if it proposes to do something with which he profoundly disagrees. We are content for the Post Office to evaluate the bids in line with the criteria that I have carefully agreed with the chairman of the Post Office, with which the Post Office Board agrees. We shall consider foreign bids on the same basis as any other.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Gnomes of Zurich.
Mr. Clarke: I gather that the widening of competition has narrow, nationalistic connotations for some Opposition Members. In addition to satisfying the Post Office, anybody who bids will have to satisfy the Bank of England, comply with its strict criteria and be subject to the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, who will advise on the implications, if any, for competition and merger policy. I can see nothing wrong in dealing with bids from overseas on exactly the same footing as those from this country.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister elaborate on the guarantees given to consumers that the sub-post office network will continue to be used and on the guarantees against major clearing banks buying it not on this occasion but perhaps on a future occasion on a resale? Will the Minister clarify whether the proceeds of the sale will go to the Post Office? If not, on what basis will they be redistributed into the Government's coffers? What debate and parliamentary scrutiny will there be in the House?
Mr. Clarke: We can tell the customer that the private sector purchaser will be seeking to maintain loyalty and expand the customer base. I am sure that any purchaser will wish to endorse the present plans of Girobank's management for expanding and improving its services. It was an extremely important precondition, without which we could not have proceeded, that there should be a satisfactory conclusion to the contract with Counters, which offers it every guarantee of being able to participate in the future success of Girobank.
726
If anybody were to try to acquire the business in the future, they would be subject to the ordinary rules of competition law and the banking Acts; that will be relevant to any future change of ownership. The proceeds of the sale will go to the Post Office, but by the unusual accounting devices that it has always operated, there will be an agreement about how much it needs for its own purposes, and any surplus, if there is one, is loaned to the Government for general public expenditure.
Parliamentary debate is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The debate about nationalisation and privatisation has become a one-way match. I should not have thought that the Opposition would have wanted to go over it again as they so plainly lost the general argument with the public.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the wide interest in this matter, but I must have regard to the other business before the House. I ask hon. Members to ask questions that have not been asked before. Then most of them will be called.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most hon. Members realise that there is no need for banking services to be owned by the Government or Government Departments? It is equally important that none of the big four banks should bid for Girobank because it should be a fifth force. Freedom for services and competition is important, as the Government have said.
Mr. Clarke: I take note of my hon. Friend's clearly expressed views. I cannot rule out anybody from making a bid at this stage, but I have probably given enough hints to show that I strongly agree with his instincts.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not Girobank being sold off because it is a highly successful public enterprise? It will not be improved by selling it to the private sector. Will the Minister give a categoric assurance that no purchaser who has contributed to Conservative party funds will be allowed to bid? If not, the public will regard this as a corrupt practice by which friends of the Tory party are buying their way into a highly lucrative business. Will he confirm that the Secretary of State will not exercise a veto over any prospective buyer, including any bank of Libya that might be interested?
Mr. Clarke: The lack of corruption in public life is extremely important. The lighthearted way in which some Opposition Members toss out allegations of corruption is extremely unfortunate. Plainly we shall sell Girobank to any suitable bidder who can satisfy the strict requirements of the Bank of England and who otherwise seems well poised to expand the business. We have no intention of ruling out any bidder who is prepared to recognise a trade union for negotiating purposes if it contributes to the Labour party's funds.
Mr. Derek Conway: What my right hon. and learned Friend has said will be welcomed by the majority of hon. Members. Will he assure those who represent large rural constituencies about the safeguards for the rural sub-post office network and the amount of information that will be given by the chairman of the Post Office to sub-postmasters?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's constituency is more rural than mine. I share his sensitivity about the interests of the rural sub-post office network, which is why it was so important to get the contract agreed before we offered the bank for sale. Any purchaser will be bound by it, and I do not believe that anyone will buy the bank intending to give five years' notice. One of the assets that will be acquired is the network of counters over which they can trade. If the purchaser is successful in expanding the business, our rural sub-postmasters and mistresses can look forward to an expansion in the work coming over their counters.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Minister aware that, since the Trustee Savings bank was stolen from its customers by the Government, Girobank is the only alternative not in the private sector for low income families who predominate in its customer base? What guarantees can the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer those low income families that their banking charges will not rise as a result of the privatisation?
Mr. Clarke: I shall not be drawn into discussing the TSB, but I remember the curious legal tangle that we got into. I think that it came as a matter of some astonishment to the average customer that he or she was regarded as having some proprietary interest in owning the bank; but that is all behind us. Anybody buying the bank will buy the bank's present customer base and I am sure will be aiming to retain and expand it. The customers will obviously stand to gain to the extent that the new proprietors succeed in broadening the services and making them more attractive. In the end, banking charges have to be determined by the management of each bank, including Girobank now.
Interest has been expressed on both sides of the House about increasing competition in clearing bank services, and it seems to me that increased competition will only exercise a downward pressure on the kind of charges that the ordinary customer has to face.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: In offering my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend, may I say how intrigued and fascinated I was by his comments on the Post Office management's attitude to this privatisation move, and how delighted I am that it acknowledges the importance of competition in creating new jobs, innovation and expansion? Will my right hon. and learned Friend use his persuasive powers to make the Post Office and the Government apply those principles to other more geriatric aspects of the Post Office's work, including the delivery of the letter post?
Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that on this policy I am in full agreement with the Post Office Board, the Post Office chairman and the management of Girobank. The Post Office is sensitive to the criticisms made of its service. I know that the chairman and the board are determined to raise the standard of service that they provide, and, looking at this aspect of the business with a view to entering the market place and making it more commercial and efficient, I have no doubt that they will apply the same principle to those parts of the business that remain in public hands.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that, when he talks of customer choice, 2·5 million people have chosen to bank with a bank that is publicly owned? Why should he deny them that option?
728
Will he also recognise that the north-west will have little confidence in the private sector maintaining the head office at Bootle when it looks at what the private sector has done to every other banking head office that used to be in Manchester?
Mr. Clarke: Customers are perfectly free to apply whatever criteria they want to their choice of bank. I have no doubt that a handful of eccentrics choose a nationalised bank rather than any other, but I suspect that they are a tiny minority of the 2·5 million customers who have gone to Girobank for other reasons.
I have already spoken about employment prospects in the north-west. I am glad to say that most of the bank's employees are based in Bootle and the Merseyside area. Any purchaser will be aware of that and, if the bank is successful in private hands, on balance that should be good news for the area, not bad.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure Conservative Members that this welcome addition to the enterprise culture does riot mark the end of the Government's review of Post Office businesses in their determination to ensure a much more commercial approach in all of them?
Mr. Clarke: A desire to improve customer service and to run the business as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible is an agreed aim between the Government and the Post Office Board. We are not studying any other privatisations and we are committed by our election statement not to privatise the Royal Mail. However, Girobank is plainly not within the Royal Mail, and I am not sure that the rest of the business is either.
Mr. Frank Doran: The Minister will be aware that Girobank does not just serve 2·5 million customers and make the profits that he outlined; it also serves a social purpose. What consideration has been given to the interests of those public sector institutions, particularly the Department of Health and Social Security, a major customer of the bank, to ensure that its interests and the interests of its customers—those millions of benefit claimants—are not prejudiced?
Mr. Clarke: The advantage to people such as DHSS claimants is the ready availability of the counter network. That is why the contract with Counters is so important, and that is why one of the principal attractions of the bank to someone looking to merge with it will be the immediate access to the nationwide counter network used by such a wide range of people. DHSS is a customer of the bank. That is the position now when it is nationalised, and it will be the position in future. I cannot imagine that the DHSS would contemplate moving to another network because this is the most readily accessible to its claimants. But the negotiations between the DHSS and Girobank remain those between a customer and a bank under whatever ownership.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his move which will remove much of the uncertainty that hundreds of my constituents who work for Girobank have felt for many months. Should there not be a suitable purchaser on the scene, will he consider floating the company, and at the same time giving the employees of Girobank an opportunity to subscribe to the shares?
Mr. Clarke: I agree that uncertainty is extremely damaging to morale in a business which at the moment is doing well and looking to expand. Therefore, we have made a clear and unambiguous statement today and we shall set out a timetable that I hope will move the business into private hands well before the end of this year.
We did consider the prospect of floating the bank, but at its present stage of development that would probably have been a fairly unsatisfactory way of proceeding, not least because newly floated as an independent bank it would have been vulnerable to early takeover. It will probably have greater strength through a trade sale to a strong financial institution which wants to come in from outside.
I hope that the announcement is reassuring to my hon. Friend's constituents. I think that when they consider carefully what has been explained to them today they will realise that this offers extremely good prospects and is an important stage in the bank's development. It is not a threat to the bank.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that large numbers of the British people will find it somewhat alarming that, at the time of a Swiss takeover of a British company, he is refusing to say that there will not be a foreign takeover of Giro? Is not that another example of pork-barrel politics by this grubby Government who will make sure that some of their friends in business will make money out of it so that they can hand it back to the Tory party? Will he give a guarantee that Johnson Matthey will not be allowed to make a proposal? Will he also bear in mind that, since the Labour party will vote against the takeover, logically we shall then be arguing for its return to public ownership?
Mr. Clarke: As it happens, I have more friends in business in Britain than I have abroad, so the hon. Gentleman had better decide on which objection he wants to concentrate. Does he object to selling to friends in the Conservative party or foreigners? Neither consideration will be material to any sensible evaluation of any bid. We shall be looking for reputable purchasers who can satisfy the requirements of the Bank of England which are essential to give security to customers and widen customer choice in Britain. I see no reason to adopt bizarre nationalist attitudes towards the ownership of shares either in our banks or in our chocolate companies.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement will be welcomed by the vast majority of customers of Girobank who recognise that when it has access to a wider capital market it will be a more effective competitor and will offer better job opportunities to its staff and better services to its customers?
However, will he confirm that the election pledge not to privatise the Royal Mail does not rule out the possibility that will be welcome to many Conservative Members of greater competition being introduced to that service?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's estimation of public opinion and the judgment of customers and those who work for the bank. It was unclear what the Labour party would do, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has laid down a clear line, so obviously a policy has now been determined and the Labour party will vote
730
against this, but I think that it will have the support of a clear minority of those who have a look at this and who have an interest in the banking service.
I hear my hon. Friend's views on his second point. At the moment we have no similar plans for any part of the Post Office business. We shall honour our election commitment, but all the time in these services, as in other industries, whether they manufacture or provide services, we are looking at means of improving efficiency, spreading the enterprise economy and getting more benefits from privatisation of the kind that we have already reaped in previous privatisations.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Minister aware that his nose grew nine inches during his statement? The real reason for privatisation is to allow his asset-stripping friends in the City cheap access to the high street properties that are worth billions and access to the DHSS benefits business, which is also worth billions. Is not the success of the Post Office to be put down to the sacrifice of the work force in addition to public investment? However, as soon as public investment makes a return, the Minister and the Government ensure that their friends in the City are allowed to take the profits for shareholders. Quite simply, it is theft.
Mr. Clarke: It always saddens me to hear that the Labour party's view of the capitalist economy is that any private share ownership is wicked theft by a few villains in the City. One of the many things that have changed since the Labour party was in office is that we now have a society in which wider share ownership is becoming an accomplished fact and has considerable public support. As I have already said, we shall be looking for a purchaser to suggest ways in which the management and the work force of Girobank might have a stake in any future success that the business earns. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) may live in the past, but if he catches up with what we have achieved during our economic revival over the past few years he will realise that this is a welcome step that bodes well for the bank, its customers and its staff.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To which specific requirements of the Bank of England was the Minister referring in his opening statement, and do they relate to foreign purchase?
Mr. Clarke: I was referring to the so-called prudential requirements of the Bank of England. The requirements of the Bank of England exist above all else to ensure that those who carry out transactions with a bank have complete security and that the bank is a creditworthy institution that is entitled to have a licence to operate as a banking institution in this country. We apply those provisions equally to banks from any country. Certainly for this business I see no reason to apply preconditions against foreign ownership. The provisions of the Banking Act can also be invoked in the case of an acquisition of a bank.
Mr. David Winnick: May we take it that it is Government policy that if a public sector concern is not making a profit it must be virtually given away but that if it is making a substantial profit, as in the case that we are discussing today, it must also be privatised? Why does not the Minister drop his explanations and admit the

731
truth—that the present proposal is simply part of a Thatcherite Right-wing dogma policy and that the Government require no particular logic to try to justify it?
Mr. Clarke: Our principle is that if a nationalised industry is losing huge amounts of money and thus draining away taxpayers' resources and diverting money away from the National Health Service or the education service, for example, we seek to improve the efficiency of the business, we let the management put things right and we return it to profitability and commercial success. We then return the business to the private sector where it can raise its capital in the ordinary way and, in all our experience so far, thrive. The best example that we have of that process is British Steel. Only six or seven years ago it was a dilapidated, rundown rust-bucket failure costing the country more than £1 billion a year following years of neglect by the Labour party. The steel industry that we are about to return to the private market is extremely profitable, successful and competitive.
Later——
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware—I am not sure that the whole House is—that the major proposal to privatise Girobank—it is a major proposal, equal to the privatisation of British Telecom—does not need legislation and therefore will not he brought before the House in the usual way. There will be no Second and Third Reading debates. When the negotiations are completed and when the proposals have been outlined, they cannot be scrutinised in Committee. I know that that procedure is dear to your heart, Mr. Speaker; you have explained that you believe that the Committee procedure is important. The Minister also implied that there might be no justification for a debate on the matter.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the question of how the House is to examine in detail the privatisation proposals and how it is to vote on them. It would be an absolute scandal if the House of Commons did not debate, examine, scrutinise and vote on privatisation proposals that affect a major concern in this country.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he knows that it is not for me to advise him on tactics. There are ways of raising these matters, either on the Adjournment of the House or by means of a motion.
Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further. It is not for me to advise hon. Members on tactics. That is not my responsibility. I am responsible for order in the House, and nothing out of order has occurred.

Bengali Families (Tower Hamlets)
4.22 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the eviction yesterday by the Tower Hamlets council from bed-and-breakfast accommodation of 10 Bengali families."
These families are in the United Kingdom lawfully and the husbands and fathers all came to Britain before 1973—many of them well before. For the past year Tower Hamlets council has sought to deny its responsibilities for housing the families or financing them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on the ground that, as the families must have had a home in Bangladesh, they rendered themselves intentionally homeless by coming to the United Kingdom. That wholly unexpected interpretation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was upheld in the Appeal Court in May, even though, with 46 children involved, it is accepted that the families are in priority need of housing.
The families spent last night in the church hall of the United Reformed Church in Bethnal Green, following—I am proud to report—a vote of the congregation to offer shelter to the families. However, this can only be a temporary arrangement, and their plight is urgent.
It is utterly wrong of Tower Hamlets council to do what it has done. The council has brought shame upon itself and much misery to the 10 families involved and to the further 24 families threatened with similar treatment.
The issue is specific to the families involved and no one will question that it is a matter of great importance to them; but it also raises issues whose importance goes far beyond Tower Hamlets. The decision affects immigration policy, as the clear implication is that the families, who waited years for their entry certificates, should now go back to Bangladesh. That would be compulsory repatriation by the back door. It is also extremely damaging to race relations in my borough and much more widely. It reveals a totally unexpected defect in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act as the words "intentionally homeless" were never meant to apply to lawful immigrant families. The Government are involved, because the one serious, but insufficient, excuse that Tower Hamlets council can offer for its conduct is the undoubted great shortage of accommodation in Tower Hamlets and the continued inadequacy of local authority housing finance provided by the Government.
These are matters of great importance to the House arid I submit that they merit an early debate.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific arid important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the eviction yesterday by the Tower Hamlets council from bed-and-breakfast accommodation of 10 Bengali families."
I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. I hope that he may find other ways of raising the matter.

Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy
4.25 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the murder of Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy of the UDR by the IRA on Saturday last, this being the 17th murder in the Castlederg area with not one person made amenable to the law for any of the 17 murders."
I appreciate the serious nature of the business before the House today, but I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, seriously to consider the gravity and importance of the matter that I have drawn to your attention. Yesterday, with more than a thousand of my constituents, I stood at the graveside of another gallant member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The murder of Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy is specific. He was gunned down on Saturday morning outside his widowed mother's home in Castlederg. His only crime was that he was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and a Protestant in a border village.
This sectarian murder is not an isolated incident, as Michael is the 17th member of the security forces to be murdered in the small Castlederg area. Not one person has been found guilty of, or charged with, any of the murders. The matter is important as it is evident that good, innocent, fellow British citizens are living in terror, knowing that soon the IRA murdering maniacs will strike, and possibly at them.
I believe that nothing is more worthy of urgent consideration than the lives and safety of our people. The cowardly cruelty of the murder of Michael Darcy joins a catalogue of similar depraved actions. The House must not let this death be in vain. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that a debate be held permitting the House and the nation to stop and consider the suffering of our citizens.
I deplore the fact that the murder happened after the visit to the Castlederg area of a well-known IRA godfather, Danny Morrison. Murders have occurred on two other occasions after his visits.
I salute the memory of this gallant soldier, Michael Darcy, and the bravery of all our security forces who stand between us and the terrorists, and I offer my sympathy and love to a broken-hearted widowed mother.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the murder of Lance-Corporal Michael Darcy of the UDR by the IRA on Saturday last, this being the 17th murder in the Castlederg area with not one person made amendable to the law for any of the 17 murders."
I am sure that the whole House has listened with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said on behalf of his constituents—as, indeed, I have done. As he knows, my sole duty in deciding whether an application should be granted is to decide whether it should have precedence over the Orders set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not think that the matter that he raised meets all the criteria laid down under the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Ministerial Documents (Leaks)
4.29
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the latest developments concerning the leaked documents emanating from No. 10 Downing Street and the Department of Education and Science."
The matter is specific because it refers to answers given on 17 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is present, and myself in the light of the leak of a ministerial briefing to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the text of which was released only yesterday.
I asked on 17 May one of many direct questions about the leak coming from No. 10 Downing street:
"What does the Secretary of State think would occur if he confronted the Prime Minister with the truth—namely, that the leak was authorised on the Prime Minister's behalf from Downing street?"
The Secretary of State for Education and Science replied:
"The hon. Gentleman's paranoid preoccupation with plots is one of his most enduring and, indeed, endearing characteristics. I am afraid that yet again he has let his imagination run wild, and the hon. Gentleman's imagination is one of the most unpredictable elements of British politics."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 788.]
That made the House laugh at the time, but it appears from the leak that was released yesterday, which has not been challenged as to its authenticity by the Government, that the responsibility was indeed that of No. 10 and that it was not a matter of my imagination running wild. The Secretary of State for Education and Science knew full well when he answered the question that it was not a matter of the questioner's imagination. Rather, according to his brief which has been leaked, it is what the Department of Education and Science actually thought at the time and now actually believes.
I quote from point 2:
"It is by no means certain that the leak emanated from the DES. The letter was circulated by No. 10 to members of the E (EP)."
That is the education policy committee. That is Civil Servicese for "Downing street did it." It is an important matter because, as an old-fashioned Member of Parliament, I think that the House of Commons should not be deceived by Ministers. The House of Commons is owed the truth.
The matter is urgent because, quite clearly, somebody inside the Civil Service, possibly for the same motives as Clive Ponting, thinks that Parliament is being deceived. The truth, to the House of Commons, is a matter of urgency. Although in some ways it is trivial compared with the issues that have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), surely to heaven truth to the House of Commons is still an important and urgent matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

735
"the latest developments concerning leaked documents emanating from No. 10 Downing Street and the Department of Education and Science."
I have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concerning the letter from the Prime Minister's Office to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. When I asked the Minister on 17 May whether he had any further information, he said that he had no further information. In the light of the information published in today's newspapers, I wonder whether the Minister would care to revise his answer.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Points of Order
4.36 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise the House whether you have received from the Secretary of State for Defence an application to make a statement today on the fatal crash of an RAF Meteor jet aircraft within the city of Coventry last Monday? If the Ministry of Defence has not approached you with a request to make a statement, then constituents of mine, who live within 100 yards of that crash, the relatives of Flight Lieutenant Peter Stacey, who heroically gave his life by crashing that aircraft in the only available small piece of land between a school and two adjacent housing estates, arid those within the city of Coventry who are worried about air pageants when low-level flying takes place over densely populated areas, will not understand why that approach has not been made. It would have given the Secretary of State for Defence the opportunity to make a pledge to the House that the crash investigation taking place in Coventry at the moment will, for the sake of my constituents and the relatives of Flight Lieutenant Peter Stacey, be made public.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I have received no request for a statement, but I think that the House will agree that it was a courageous act by this young pilot. I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about what happened in his constituency.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have raised with you previously the declared intention of the Department of Health and Social Security not to answer parliamentary questions concerning the social fund that was established on 11 April. Although it establishes an important precedent, it is not that which I wish to raise with you. I wish to raise with you the basis on which the refusal has been made.
The DHSS is to place in the Library regularly full information about the operation of social funds in each of the 500 local offices. I checked this morning with the Library. That information has not been placed there. It was available, or it should have been available, to the DHSS on 19 May.
I am sure that you recognise, Mr. Speaker, that one of your important responsibilities is to ensure that the Executive does not withhold information from the House of Commons. I should be grateful if you would make urgent inquiries as to when that information is to be made available. Failure to place the information in the Library flies in the face of assurances that we were given that there would be the maximum public monitoring of social funds. It denies all those who rely on Hansard for their information the information that is to be concealed from the public and the media by being placed in the Library. It is high time that this information was placed there. I should be most grateful for your assistance.
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House and by those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. It is a matter for the Government, not for me.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sought leave to move the

737
Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 about the answer of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, you said that you listened with great interest but that you did not feel that it could be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. One obviously accepts that, but surely that is not the end of the matter. I should like to ask you what you intend to do about a Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box and quite clearly misleads the House. According to The Guardian——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter which he knows is not my responsibility. I cannot be held responsible for what Ministers say or what questions are asked. [Interruption.] Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I can do nothing about it. I am not responsible for answers that are given. Furthermore, I do not know whether they are true or not.
Mr. Banks: May I ask you this, Mr. Speaker? If it were shown conclusively that a Minister misled the House, what then would be your attitude?
Mr. Speaker: If the allegation is that a Minister misled the House, the hon. Gentleman should write to me as a matter of privilege.

Renewable Energy Development Agency (Establishment) Bill
4.40 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent agency responsible directly to Parliament for the research, development, application, demonstration and monitoring of clean renewable sources of energy together with ways and means of proving and improving techniques of energy efficiency and fostering their positive adoption.
I arrived at the House today in a horseless carriage. Had that arrival been 150 years earlier, it would have had to be by steam-driven omnibus. Fifty years later it might have been by a bone-rattling car propelled by a spluttering internal combustion engine and accompanied, perhaps, by an attendant on foot with a red flag and a spotty dog. In whichever case, it would have been considered hazardous, unreliable, troublesome and very expensive. Today's horseless carriage, however, is considered quite safe, relatively reliable, comparatively clean and almost cheap.
The transformation between then and now was no accident; it came about as a result of investment in applied research and positively driven development, often motivated by the need of the military to react to some threat, either perceived or imagined. In the case of the infant transport technology, the allocation of such resources brought it from its stumbling beginnings to the effortless means of movement that we use today. Other technologies, particularly in renewable energy, have not had the same military-led stimulus and support.
Despite this lack of positive encouragement, some renewable sources of energy have established themselves as economic—or as near to being so as to brook no argument. In this category I would place direct biomass combustion, anaerobic digestion with added feedstock, small and medium-scale wind turbines, passive solar building design, tidal power, conventional geothermal from aquifers, photovoltaic small units, solar water heating and mini-hydro schemes. Other forms as yet less well established but still worthy of the commitment of the resources are the large-scale wind turbine, biomass gasification, hot dry rock, large-scale photovoltaic and, of course, wave power.
I travelled, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Members for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and for Erewash (Mr. Rost), to Tofteshallen, in Norway, to witness wave power being tamed to deliver electricity. We went by "sometime machine"—an aeroplane. It used to be called a sometime machine because it could only fly sometimes; initially it could not fly in fog or snow, in ice or rain, at night or in high winds. We flew that day through the most miserable winter weather and in the dark, and were able to do so because the sometime machine had been developed as a result of the quest for military dominance.
Having arrived at Tofteshallen, we looked upon two exciting applications of wave power, although there are others. Built into the cliffs there was the multi-resonant water column. Of semi-tech scale and hideously noisy, built of base steel as a prototype, it roared and vibrated as if in agony, as waves rising and falling inside the large metal cylinder alternately drove and drew the column of air through the Wells turbine that sits atop its steel stack.

739
All this din and drama produced electricity somewhat unsteadily but at 2·5p per kilowatt hour—cheaper than our best stations.
Immediately adjacent was the tapered channel—known as Tapchan. This computer-designed chute collected waves rolling in from the Atlantic and funnelled them from its gaping mouth to its ever-tightening throat. The waves, as if rejoicing in the opportunity to display their natural vigour, surged even faster landward up the concrete course, crashing against the solid terminus with a booming sound and spurting leap into the air, to come down as a spectacular dowsing shower into the landlocked lagoon that formed the gullet. This brilliant, inspirational and rhythmic rainbow display at the seaward gatherpoint contrasted starkly with the very placid character of the same lagoon at its innermost point, where water was smoothly siphoned from the still surface to be passed in the steadiest of streams, again through a Wells turbine and again producing electricity at less than 2·5p per kilowatt hour and in relentless style.
Both of these demonstration stations draw heavily on British technology. The Wells turbine was developed at Queen's university, Belfast, and the conceptual designs were British-born too. Both were built, together with the access road to the site, for a total cost of £1·2 million equivalent. And while the Norwegians were doing that, we were spending £2 million—almost twice as much—to produce a report centimetres thick that told us that our wave technology was not viable and was unworthy of development.
The Norwegians have hydroelectric capacity in abundance producing power that is dirt cheap for the consumer, so why should they go to such lengths to prove and improve our technologies? The answer is simple and twofold: jobs and export potential; jobs for a work force trained in the basic skills needed for a shipbuilding industry and the North sea oil and gas field requirements—industries that in Norway are declining and face the possibility of extinction by the turn of the century, jobs that are not just the high-tech, white-coated-boffin type, but the basic skilled manual jobs of the City and Guilds variety that every industrial community in the north and south of England, Scotland and Wales pleads for every day; export potential in the markets around the world among nations that recognise the benefits of renewables more readily than we in the United Kingdom do—not just Third world countries but nations such as the United States and Japan, export potential of equipment that is not the apparatus of technological dominance and high-tech imperialism but more the source of power that Third world peoples can understand readily, manage independently, operate safely and afford more easily. Export orders have already been secured by Norway for both types of wave-powered generator, and a tenfold increase in scale to 10 megawatts is planned for the multi-resonant water column.
Clearly, as inventors and innovators, we lead in renewable engergy, and that is acknowledged worldwide. However, as developers we present a portrait of unsurpassed indolence and neglect. Hence the need for the agency that I propose. It is needed to turn the undoubted promise of renewable energy and improved technological efficiency into reality. It is needed simply because the current framework is not up to that task.
Since the inception of the energy technology support unit we have laid out through its offices something like
740
£150 million on a 1986 base on renewable research and development—that is, on all renewable R and D. At first this sounds a lot of money, but we need to put it in perspective.
Since 1958, on the same base, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has expended £16·3 billion on nuclear R and D. To assess this clearly, we can view it as £1 spent on renewables for every £1,100 spent on nuclear. And £8·7 billion of that £16·3 billion was channelled through the Department of Energy. It is interesting to note that in the same period nuclear stations in the United Kingdom have delivered a total of 700 billion kilowatt hours. Ipso facto, in crude mathematical terms, the Department of Energy has expended 1·25p of taxpayers' cash on United Kingdom nuclear R and D for every kilowatt hour ever produced from United Kingdorn nuclear stations—a figure not accounted for in today's costings. In fact, the current rate of spend on nuclear R and D, even if we write off all previous investment, is estimated at 0·35p per kilowatt hour delivered. That is a hidden subsidy of major proportions. I do not decry such expenditure; what I criticise is the fact that more was not spent earlier on forms of energy transfer that are potentially safer, cleaner, cheaper and more efficient.
But cash is not the sole criterion. There are another three important reasons why a new agency is urgently needed. First, despite some excellent research work administered by the ETSU, renewable energies are entering a new phase, in that many forms are close to commercial viability, as I have already stated. However, businesses, Government Departments and the public generally know little, if anything, about them. Research work, together with its problems and solutions, needs to be promoted positively and disseminated widely. The ETSU is not geared to achieve that end.
Secondly, there are many institutional barriers to progress in respect of renewables. They include the well documented failure of the Energy Act 1983 in relation to electricity tariffs, the unfair levying of water and general rating charges on renewable energy installations, and the failure of statutory building regulations to reflect the promise of passive solar heating and the potential benefits of the most modern energy efficiency measures.
Thirdly, given that the ETSU is part of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and that, following privatisation, renewables are destined to rival nuclear power, there is an unavoidable clash of interest. As the Energy Select Committee argued in 1984, the ETSU's formal status——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes. He must bring his remarks to a close.
Mr. Cook: That is why I beg leave to bring forward this Bill.
I did not take 10 minutes, Sir.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Peter Rost, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. James Wallace, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, and Ms. Joan Ruddock.

Renewable Energy Development Agency (Establishment) Bill

  RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (ESTABLISHMENT)
  Mr. Frank Cook accordingly presented a Bill to establish an independent agency responsible directly to

  741
  Parliament for the research, development, application, demonstration and monitoring of clean renewable sources of energy together with ways and means of proving and improving techniques of energy efficiency and fostering their positive adoption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended ( in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Before we proceed, it might be of assistance to the House if I say a word about new clause 17, entitled "Modification of criminal law relating to abortion" in the name of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and other hon. Members.
  It is a long-standing rule of the House, referred to on page 522 of "Erskine May", that a Bill may not be proceeded with if a Bill containing similar provisions has already been given a Second Reading in the same Session. As the Abortion (Amendment) Bill has been read a Second time and is still before the House, it would not be in order to import provisions similar to the terms of that Bill into the Criminal Justice Bill. The new clause is therefore out of order and was not available for me to select. As to other new clauses that have not been selected, I shall not depart from the standard practice of not giving reasons for my selection.
  Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not for one moment would I challenge your decision on the matter. I am familiar with the passage on page 522 of "Erskine May". You will remember, however, that, a little further on on that page, "Erskine May" states that, if the first Bill were to be withdrawn, a new clause such as the one put down in my name and those of other hon. Members, if selected, would certainly be in order for inclusion in the second Bill, in this instance the Criminal Justice Bill.
  I trust that you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the immense dissatisfaction—indeed, anger—felt in many parts of the country and here at the way in which the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which not only had a Second Reading, to which you have alluded, but a Committee stage and debate on Report, with a majority thoughout its stages, was frustrated by procedural devices, if I may put it in the kindliest way. You will know too that the Government have offered no facilities for providing the time in which the vital votes on that Bill, which would have taken only a matter of minutes, could be taken. Therefore, I ask for your guidance as to whether, in the event of the Bill being withdrawn, it would be in order for new clause 17 to be selected for debate at a later stage in the consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter. If the right hon. Gentleman considers that that is an action that he should take, the new clause would undoubtedly become available for selection.
  Mr. David Alton: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that there will be considerable consternation, bewilderment and, indeed, a little cynicism that the House will today be able to provide so much time to debate the restoration of the death penalty, whereas we shall find no time to debate the further passage of a measure that has achieved considerable support in the House and would actually save life. Given that, in 1967, 25 hours of

  743
  Government time were provided for the 1967 legislation to make progress, would it be proper for you to have discussions with the Government to find ways in which the House could reach a resolution of the matter? If that were not to be done, would it not continue to bring the House and its institutions into disrepute?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me to have discussions on matters of that kind. As the whole House knows, I am bound by the rules laid down under the Standing Orders. If the House wishes to change them, it is a matter for the Procedure Committee.

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
      'The maximum sentence available to the Courts upon a conviction for murder shall be death in the manner authorised by law.
      The jury shall have the power, upon reaching a verdict of guilt of murder, to recommend that such a sentence be passed.—[Mr. Gale.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.56 pm
      Mr. Roger Gale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (b) to the new clause, after first "murder" to add—
      'in the course of an act of terrorism'.
      New clause 11—Death penalty for murder—
      'The maximum penalty for murder shall be death.'
      New clause 15—Sentences for murder—
      'The penalty for murder shall be life imprisonment, but the trial judge shall have the power to impose the death penalty where the circumstances of the murder reflect particular premeditation, brutality or callousness; or to recommend the imposition of a minimum sentence where public protection requires it.'.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we know your intentions as to which of these new clauses you will permit Divisions to be taken upon?
      Mr. Speaker: After new clause 1 has been divided upon—if it succeeds—there will be a Division on amendment (b).
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As new clause 11 is being debated with this, will a Division on it follow the Division on new clause 1?
      Mr. Speaker: New clause 11 would fall for Division, if it falls at all, in its proper place on Report. Its fate depends upon the decision taken on new clause 1.
      Mr. Gale: I am aware that a long list of names has been submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, by colleagues on both sides of the House who wish to speak on an important subject. For that reason, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I hope that the House will therefore understand if, within the normal courtesies, I give way to intervention as little as possible. Naturally, if a particular point is raised, I shall endeavour to accommodate it.
      On many occasions since abolition, the House has voted on the restoration of capital punishment. On each and every occasion, the House has consistently rejected
      744
      restoration. On each occasion, it was absolutely apparent that public opinion was in favour of restoration. Therefore, no hon. Member would fail to concede that the House has flown in the face of public opinion. [Interruption.] Please hear me. I think that it should be a matter of public record that I particularly, as the hon. Member who has moved the new clause, accept entirely that the House and its Members are not mandated, and never should be.
      I accept the deep moral and religious convictions of those of my hon. Friends, and personal friends on both sides of the House, who take the opposing view to mine. I believe that we, as Members of Parliament, have a duty to listen to public opinion, but a greater duty to exercise our judgment individually. For that reason in part, I have also never subscribed to the view that we should govern the country by referendum. While I have no doubt, having seen opinion polls, that a referendum on this subject would suit my purpose, once down that road we would have to question where we would stop and how we would govern the country in future. I hope and believe, therefore, that every hon. Member will exercise his own judgment when we vote tonight, without heed to official or unofficial party Whips or any other matters of which you, of course, have no knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
      New clause 1 seeks to reintroduce capital punishment as the maximum available sentence for the crime of murder, and does so without stipulating any categories. It therefore also seeks to give a jury power to recommend a sentence to the judge. What lit does not do—I wish to refer to this later—is seek to give the jury power to sentence. That power would remain, as hitherto, with the courts.
      The new clause and amendments have been the subject of much public debate in recent weeks, and therefore of much criticism. I have endeavoured to respond to the comments and queries raised by my hon. Friends on both sides of the House, and I should like to cover some of them publicly today. First, eyebrows have been raised over the proposal to introduce a maximum available sentence, rather than the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder that has been on the statute book in the past. Sir Ian Percival, when he was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport, informed the House in our last debate on this subject that he beleved that only a mandatory sentence would act as a true deterrent. While I supported the general thrust of his learned argument, I differed with him on that point. I believe that the reverse is true, and that the mere possibility that a criminal might face the capital consequences of his act would constitute a deterrent. I wish to pursue the deterrent argument again a little later.
      Some have questioned the fact that the new clause contains no category of murder. Should we reintroduce capital punishment for terrorism, for the murder of police officers or officers of the Crown while on duty and in uniform, for the murder of children or for premeditated murder? The new clause seeks to reintroduce capital punishment as a maximum available sentence for all crimes of murder, because no two crimes are the same. It seeks to take into account the particular circumstances surrounding any one crime.
      Perhaps most controversial has been the suggestion that the jury should have the power to recommend a sentence to the court. But it is the jury, is it not, who hear the evidence, see the demeanour of the accused and see each and every witness to the trial? The jury must therefore

      745
      be in a particular and privileged position to determine not only whether the alleged perpetrator of a crime is indeed guilty, but whether the crime is so heinous and so vile as to warrant the maximum sentence.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Mr. Gale: I have said that, within the courtesies of the House, I do not wish to give way——
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that he might.
      Mr. Gale: —because I want as many hon. Members as possible on both sides of the House to have the opportunity to make a full contribution.
      It has been suggested to me that a jury in such circumstances might feel intimidated, and would be less likely to return a guilty verdict knowing that they would then have to make some recommendation on what should happen after the verdict had been returned.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They used to recommend mercy. This is the obverse of that.
      Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am coming to that point. There is good precedent for such a recommendation. Juries in the past, and indeed today, not uncommonly recommend that clemency or, alternatively, stringency be exercised in the sentence following the verdict that they have delivered. There is no suggestion that juries were intimidated in the past when they not only had the opportunity to recommend a sentence, but knew for certain that if they passed a guilty verdict in certain circumstances they would be condemning a human being to death. Juries in the past have carried out that task, I do not say with pleasure, but certainly as an act of duty, and I have no doubt that a modern jury is just as capable of performing the same task.
      It has been suggested that in some way the jury will be given the power to pass sentence. This element of the new clause has been widely represented in the media. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) drew that salient fact to my attention this morning. It would not be possible for the jury to pass sentence, for only the judge and then the court, following the determination of guilt, have access to all the other factors—to a record of previous crimes or to previous sentences.
      For that reason, I believe that it is absolutely correct that the jury should return its verdict and then, on the evidence that it has heard in the trial, make a recommendation. It will then properly be left to the judge and the court, in the knowledge of all the other factors, to decide whether to adopt the jury's recommendation or to ignore it; or, where a jury does not recommend, perhaps—in the light of a previous record—to impose the maximum sentence nevertheless. It will, as always in the past, be open to the defence to appeal against sentence. Under the new Criminal Justice Act which the Bill will become, it will also be open to the prosecution in the light of a jury recommendation overlooked by the judge to seek the right to appeal against sentence.
      I have, of course, had to take into account the circumstances currently prevailing in Northern Ireland, where there are at present no juries. In those
      746
      circumstances, as with any other case that is currently tried in Northern Ireland, the judge alone will have to reach his decision. I fervently hope that the day will soon come when it will be possible to return to jury trial in Northern Ireland, but until that day I believe that we have courageous judges in Northern Ireland who are capable of carrying out that duty. Once again, if a judge decides not to impose the maximum sentence, the prosecution, under the new Act, will have the right to appeal.
      This is a moral issue and as such the subject, I hope, of a completely free vote. This is the time and the place for each hon. Member to exercise his or her judgment and to take into account deeply personal views. I should like to take just a few moments to place mine on record. I have never been an advocate of the reintroduction of hanging. I have said consistently that I believe the ritual of hanging to be medieval and barbaric. Notwithstanding a Daily Telegraph article titled by a sub-editor:
      "Why I believe in hanging",
      I do not believe that there is any nice way to take the life of another human being but there are available more humane ways, if it is necessary, than simply stringing somebody up.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose——
      Mr. Gale: I said that I did not wish to give way. I hope that my hon. Friend will make his own contribution later.
      I have also had to address myself, particularly in the light of the questions that have been put to me personally and publicly in recent days, to the possibility of error. I have to accept, as any hon. Member must, that human justice is fallible. So I have to accept that the possibility of error, and therefore of wrongful execution, exists. But since abolition, more than 50 murderers have been released from prison to kill again. I do not wish to suggest to the House that had this amendment been on the statute book all those victims would be alive today, because that would be nonsense, but at least some of them would be alive. If this amendment were to save one life, that would make worth while the risk that I and my hon. Friends accept.
      I have been asked why I am introducing the amendment. I do not seek vengeance or punishment; I seek solely a deterrent. Prior to the abolition of capital punishment, the overall trend in homicide was down. In the year immediately before abolition there was a slight rise, but the overall trend was down when the overall trend in every other crime was up. Immediately following abolition there was a dramatic increase not only in homicide, but, perhaps more significantly, in armed and violent crime.
      It is an absolute and substantiated fact that prior to abolition the professional criminal as a general rule did not carry weapons. Not only did he not carry weapons but he would search his colleagues before going out on a job to ensure that nobody was carrying a weapon. Hon. Members on both sides will no doubt remember the "George Davis is innocent" campaign. At that time, I, as a professional reporter, met a number of large and sinister gentlemen from the east end of London. I was informed that they used not to carry weapons and that they regarded those who did as amateurs but that since abolition it had become commonplace for the professional criminal to go out armed.
      We voted on this subject only a few months ago, so why am I introducing it again now? Of course, it is a new

      747
      Parliament and there are new Members who have not had the opportunity to voice their opinion on the subject. I hope and believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that new Members should have that opportunity, but for me there is a much more serious reason which lies in clause 42 of the Bill.
      Under clause 42, the penalty for carrying a gun in the perpetration of a crime will be the same as the penalty for using a gun and the penalty for murder—life imprisonment. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for whom I have the highest regard, has told the House that he believes that life imprisonment should mean life. His opposition to my new clause is well known. Therefore, when he addresses the House I have to ask him to tell me and others what reason the criminal will have, when cornered, not to pull the trigger.
      The police, security guards and the public-spirited will no longer be able to face with safety the duty which they wish to carry out unless we have capital punishment on the statute book as the ultimate deterrent. Tonight the House will vote not just for the death penalty but either for the reintroduction of capital punishment or by implication for the introduction within a short time of a fully armed police force. I do not like either option, but I prefer the former to the latter.
      This is an emotive subject. It is a matter of life and death. It is not only a matter of the life and death of the convicted criminal; it is a matter of the life and death of small children, of rape victims, of the elderly, and of the men and women of the police force whom we require to implement our law. I hope and believe that, having heard all the arguments, the House will vote for the new clause tonight.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. I should clarify what I said earlier to him. What we are voting upon today on new clause 1 is the principle of capital punishment. If it is carried, there will be a Division on amendment (b). I have not selected for Division new clauses 11 and 15.
      5.15 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has moved his new clause with force and clarity, as we would expect, and he has done more. I agree with him that it is natural and right that the House should wish to discuss the matter fairly early in the life of this Parliament. His initiative has given us an apt opportunity to do so.
      I think it would be right to follow today a convention which has grown up over the years—that the holder of my office should first set out some of the factual and statistical background, then offer some analysis of the proposal before the House, and finally, and in this case briefly, add his personal views.
      So we start with the statistics. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said during the debate in 1983, we cannot avoid doing so, but it would be a mistake if we expected the figures to give us an unequivocal answer. I do not think that anyone is likely to base his or her vote tonight on statistics alone, but here they are for what they are worth.
      748
      The number of offences initially recorded as homicide in England and Wales last year was 689. That figure has increased, with some fluctuations, since the late 1950s. In the decade from 1956 to 1965, the average number of recorded homicides each year was 294; in the following decade, from 1966 to 1975, it was 450; from 1976 to 1985, it averaged 580. We need to qualify those figures in a number of ways. In the first place many homicides turn out to have been manslaughter rather than murder. The number of convictions for murder has also been rising, although it is substantially lower. In recent years there have been between 150 and 170 convictions for murder each year.
      Secondly, the rise in the number of homicides has been markedly slower than the rise in other violent crime. The number of recorded homicides in the 20 years from 1966 to 1985 was 60 per cent. higher than in the preceding 20 years, from 1946 to 1965. But the number of' serious violent offences was 160 per cent. higher, and the total of recorded crime of all kinds—20 years against 20 years—was 220 per cent. higher.
      Perhaps it would be useful to take a longer historical view. The highest levels of homicide, as a proportion of population, were recorded in the latter part of the last century. The peak was 1·96 homicides per 100,000 population in 1865, compared with 1·38 last year. The period between the wars and immediately after the last war was one in which homicide was running at a substantially lower rate. Since the sixties, it has climbed back to roughly where it was in the late 1880s, but not to the level of the 1860s.
      If we are considering the figures, we must look also at the circumstances in which those offences are committed. It is fairly well known that about half of all homicides result from a quarrel, revenge or loss of temper. In about another 15 per cent., the suspect commits suicide or is mentally disturbed. Almost three quarters of homicides involve victims and suspects who are acquainted with each other, often within a family.
      So the statistics can and no doubt will he used both ways in the argument about deterrence. I have tried not to steer them in either direction. On the one hand, it is true that there has been a steady increase in homicide since the death penalty was abolished. On the other hand, that increase has not matched the general increase in crime; it is possible to trace it back to the period before abolition; and homicide was proportionately at its highest in the middle of the last century, when the death penalty was routinely imposed. As I said in the debate last year—I shall not repeat the figures—in the days of capital punishment, when the number of executions went up or down substantially from year to year, there was not a clear relationship between the number of executions in any year and the number of homicides in the immediately following period.
      As others have done, I have looked at the research in other countries to see if it would add to the picture. The two leading American studies point in opposite directions and give rise to much academic dispute, but give no clear conclusion. The only conclusion that one can draw from the American experience is that, both in states where they have capital punishment and in the others where they have not, their murder rates are consistently and substantially higher than ours.
      If the only consideration—the one my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North spent, understandably, some

      749
      time on—were to secure the public from even the smallest risk that a convicted murderer would kill again, then of course putting him to death provides that assurance. Offences of homicide committed by those who have previously been convicted of murder are rare. We know of only nine cases—I state this because other figures have been put—in which someone convicted of murder after the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 has later killed again. On the information available to us, we judge that at least six of those nine, and perhaps more, would not have been treated as capital murders under the Homicide Act 1957 had those offences occurred before abolition. In short, in only a handful of cases—at the most three—is it likely that a life would have been saved by the execution of a murderer in the period since abolition.
      Nevertheless, whatever the right figure—I would argue that it is a small one—no one can deny that the death penalty is a sure means, although imperfectly targeted, of preventing reoffending. Perhaps at this point I should remind the House that those most likely to suffer the death penalty were it to be reintroduced—the perpetrators of the most heinous murders—would as a result of the policy introduced in 1983 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, which I am continuing, normally expect to serve at least 20 years in prison and in some cases still longer. In a number of cases that will mean imprisonment until the end of the prisoner's life. There is no question of vicious murderers being let out after a few years of imprisonment.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Where does my right hon. Friend get the figure of nine for the number of murderers who have killed again? That is not the understanding of many hon. Members on this side of the House.
      Mr. Hurd: People use homicide as if it were the same as murder. The other is that, even in the case of murderers, of course, one has to ask whether in the days when there was capital punishment, or if in future we entered into one of the schemes proposed before the House, all murderers would or will be executed. We have to take both those matters into account in working out the figures. The result is then the result that I have given to the House.
      In reply to the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, I would say that the deterrent to the offender whom he postulated pulling the trigger is that he would be more likely to receive the maximum of life imprisonment if he did so, since we are talking about maximum penalties and not mandatory ones. Judges are generally imposing longer sentences for violent offences and the actual time served for punishment by life sentence prisoners—often called the tariff—will take account of that. Each case has to be considered by the Home Office on its merits, but I can tell the House that there will be an increase in the time thus served.
      I now come to the specific new clause and the amendments associated with it.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the new clause, will he tell the House two things? First, where a convicted person is already serving the maximum sentence, what is the disincentive to him murdering warders to effect an escape or murdering policemen who try to re-arrest him?
      Mr. Hurd: That is one question. The convicted murderer will have to assess the likelihood, which will vary according to circumstances, that he will spend all his natural life inside prison. Before he commits that further offence, he must weigh against that the chance of being let out to spend part of his natural life outside, which he will prejudice and sacrifice. That is the calculation that he will have to make.
      The big debate about capital punishment in the late 1940s and 1950s arose partly from a campaign for abolition as a matter of principle. However, it also arose from a dissatisfaction about the blanket nature of the penalty. For example, as the House has often recalled, there were the cases of Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis which mustered the anxiety of many people. The view which gained ground in the early 1950s was that, even though the system was softened because the Home Secretary could recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, it was unduly harsh for death to be the automatic penalty in all cases of murder.
      So the Homicide Act 1957 attempted to define degrees of murder, and gave a statutory definition of the murders which would in future attract the capital penalty. However, that ran into trouble. There were inconsistencies and anomalies that incurred a further sense of dissatisfaction which went beyond the principle of capital punishment. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North and my other hon. Friends are trying to get around that problem in a slightly different way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North would specify the death penalty as the maximum for murder, and would also give the jury an opportunity to recommend to the judge that he use the discretion in any particular case. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and others would simply specify death as the maximum penalty for murder, thus leaving the matter entirely to the sentencing judge, with no role for the jury. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), and those who have signed his amendment, would put the judge in a slightly different position, with a power to recommend to the Home Secretary that a penalty should be imposed where the murder has involved premeditation, brutality or callousness.
      All three approaches would confer on the sentencing judge a discretion which neither he nor the Home Secretary had in the days before the abolition of capital punishment. In those days, a judge had no choice but to impose the death penalty. Even the Home Secretary—although he had an unenviable job—was charged only with deciding whether the law should take its course, not whether the sentence in some cases should be death and in others a period of imprisonment.
      5.30 pm
      That was precisely the point which the Royal Commission on capital punishment, under Sir Ernest Gowers, reported on in 1953. The commission considered—and rejected—the idea that the sentencing judge might have discretion over the use of the death penalty. It feared that it would lead to inconsistent practice and that it would put an intolerable burden on the judge. A short extract from the commission's report states:
      "the responsibility of deciding whether a person convicted of murder should be sentenced to death or to a lesser punishment is too heavy a burden to impose on any single individual. The sentence of death differs absolutely, not in degree, from any

      751
      other sentence; and it would be wholly inconsistent with our traditional approach to such issues to lay on the shoulders of the Judge a responsibility so grave and so invidious."
      That was the judgment of the Gowers commission on that point.
      After I had seen the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, I thought it sensible to ask the Lord ChiefJustice to express a view, not on the merits of capital punishment, but on the possibility that the judiciary might have a role in deciding which murders should be punished by death. With Lord Lane's permission, I can tell the House that he would be strongly opposed to my hon. Friend's proposal. It should, in his view, be for Parliament, not the judges, to decide which types of murder should be met with death and which should not. Some individual variations in lengths of sentences of imprisonment are, the Lord Chief Justice believes, inevitable and acceptable, but individual variations in decisions of life and death would be inevitable and unacceptable. Quite apart from the wider question of whether capital punishment for murder should be restored, a matter on which I asked for no view from Lord Lane and on which he expressed no view, he regards my hon. Friend's proposal as unworkable.
      Lord Lane's point about consistency of outcome——
      Mr. David Ashby: Does not the view of the present Lord Chief Justice accord almost precisely with the view of Lord Chief Justice Parker who was also quite against the 1957 Act because of its arbitrary nature and because it was unworkable?
      Mr. Hurd: My history does not go back as far as that of my hon. Friend, but I will take his word for it if he tells me that that is so.
      Lord Lane's point about consistency is particularly important for the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, because of the way in which it brings the jury into the picture. I am not sure how that would work in practice. A jury is the right body to determine the question of guilt or innocence on a serious charge, but under our system a jury are never left without guidance. They are directed as to the principles of law which they should apply. The proposed new clause does not give an inkling as to how the jury should exercise the new discretion. It does not state or suggest the way in which the trial judge should direct them, nor even whether it would be right for him to attempt to do so. It does not state whether the jury should be unanimous—a crucial consideration, since conviction can be by a qualified majority.
      Although I could list other gaps in the proposal, those points are questions of principle and not of mere drafting detail. It is reasonable to put them to my hon. Friend because, after all, we are not discussing a general proposition or a motion; we are discussing a new clause which, if accepted, will become the law of the land, if it passes in another place.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North addressed the point about a right of appeal. As he said, making the penalty a maximum would mean that there would be a right of appeal, and I imagine that that would be exercised in almost every case. My hon. Friend did not shirk the consequences of that. However, as a result of another proposal in the Bill, it would be logical for the Attorney-General to be able to refer to the Court of Appeal an unduly lenient sentence under the provisions in
      752
      this Bill, with a view to a more severe sentence—presumably including death—being substituted. My hon. Friend made it clear that that is part of his proposal.
      Therefore, we would have the situation in which an offender had been convicted and sentenced, presumably to imprisonment, by the court in a perfectly regular way and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would be expected and would be able, if he wished, to go to the Court of Appeal and ask that the person serving that sentence of imprisonment should be taken out and put to death if the Court of Appeal so agreed. If we look at that prospect, we can, to put it mildly, see its difficulties.
      I fully understand the way in which the minds of my hon. Friend and his colleagues have worked in moving forward from proposals which have not found favour in the past. However, I do not honestly believe that my hon. Friend's proposal represents a completely satisfactory alternative to the blanket mandatory penalty which. for different reasons, proved unsatisfactory in the years after the war.
      If one is looking for a deterrent or at the theory of deterrence—which, for reasons that I have given, I do not accept, although my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North does—one comes to the conclusion that the point of a deterrent is that it should be reasonably certain and that the potential murderer should be reasonably sure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that he will suffer the worst punishment if caught and convicted. However, that would not be the effect of the new clause, which takes a broad-brush view of the question of life and death and which would ensure a good deal of inconsistency and uncertainty in the imposition of capital punishment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North also addressed the question of Northern Ireland, on which two points arise. The first is whether the imposition of the death penalty would, looked at coolly and objectively, help or hinder the struggle against terrorism. An amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) bears on that point. The second point is not in the form in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North put it. It is not really a question whether the judges in the Province are courageous or not; it is a question whether it would ever be right to impose the death penalty on someone who had not been convicted by the verdict of a jury. That is a substantial difficulty. However, it is hard to imagine how two terrorist actions taking place, perhaps simultaneously, in Liverpool and Belfast could be punished by the death penalty on one side of the water but not on the other.
      In that context I thought it right—as I did last time—to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and he in turn, as he has done in the past, consulted Sir John Hermon, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. My right hon. Friend's view is that the death penalty would not represent any significant deterrent to the terrorists. The Chief Constable's view is that the restoration of the death penalty for terrorist murders would increase the difficulties faced by the RUC, a view which is shared by his senior colleagues. These are conclusions which, from my own still fairly recent experience in the Province, I strongly endorse.
      Mr. David Winnick: Apart from making martyrs of those who are undoubtedly engaged in evil—and terrorism is evil—is it not the case that capital punishment would hardly act as a deterrent to the IRA or

      753
      other terrorists in the Province, bearing in mind that in 1981 the hunger strikers continued their strike until they died? If they were willing to take that action and to starve themselves to death, how could the death penalty be any kind of deterrent?
      Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will be able to develop that argument if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Looking to the future, we are now drafting a new Prevention of Terrorism Bill and we shall be——
      Rev. Ian Paisley rose——
      Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute if I can just finish my point.
      We shall seek, with the approval of Parliament, to strengthen our defences against terrorism, in particular by making it easier to get at the funds on which terrorists depend. It would be bizarre if, at the same time, we took a step which would, in my view, be likely to increase the flow of money, and therefore guns, into terrorist hands.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: When the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries in Northern Ireland of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was the Police Federation for Northern Ireland consulted? After all, the Chief Constable is not in the front line in Northern Ireland. It is the ordinary man who does his duty in difficult circumstances, so surely his voice should be heard.
      Mr. Hurd: I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman may well be right in his analysis of the view held by the Police Federation on that side of the water. I was simply recording the clear opinions, derived from experience, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and of the Chief Constable and his senior colleagues and those who are in charge of the campaign against terrorism in the Province.
      Mr. Tony Fayell: While on the subject of terrorism, will my right hon. Friend deal with two points? The first is that a terrorist expects, eventually, to win his argument. Therefore, a prison sentence is no real deterrent because he expects to be released eventually under political amnesty, whereas capital punishment deters because no amnesty will help. Secondly, what about further atrocities committed by colleagues of the terrorist to secure his release if he is not to have the ultimate punishment?
      Mr. Hurd: The second case would apply with even greater force and ferocity while the prisoner was awaiting execution if he had been condemned to death. I do not go along with my hon. Friend's analysis on his first point.
      I shall conclude with three short points. The first is about the nature of this debate. Every hon. Member and anyone in tune with the worries of this country is deeply concerned about violent crime, but if capital punishment were restored it would be applied only to some murderers. Yet we are all familiar with the argument which starts with anecdotes about broken windows or hooliganism—a minor disorder—and leads straight to the argument that capital punishment should be restored. Murder is the foulest of crimes, but it is one tenth of 1 per cent. of violent crimes and less than one hundreth of 1 per cent. of all recorded crime. It is right that we should discuss this proposal, but it may deflect our attention and energies
      754
      from the real issues of how to check and reverse the general rise in violent crime which has continued since the mid-1950s.
      I shall not labour my personal views, because they are the views of one Member of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must listen to the views of our constituents and each form his or her judgment on this matter and vote accordingly. Like many others, I am swayed by the prospect that if capital punishment were reintroduced, from time to time we would execute innocent people, and I am swayed by the point about terrorism. Two further short points which are not often developed seem to go to the heart of the matter.
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I am coming to the end, so if I may I shall conclude and my hon. Friend can make his speech later.
      After a brutal murder, there can be few people who do not have the immediate reaction that the perpetrator is too wicked to live. It is natural that that should most often be the view of the family and friends of the victim, although after Eniskillen we saw moving exceptions to that. Fierce, honourable anger immediately after the event is one thing; it is another to institute slow, cold processes of justice with months filled by the argument of lawyers and the hearing of appeals, at the end of which the judges or the Home Secretary may decide, long after the event, that the offender should cease to exist. An execution in this way, whether by hanging or by other means, can surely give only fleeting satisfaction, if any, to the public or those who knew the victim.
      There is another effect. In earlier centuries, executions were public, but these were abolished in 1868 and we had nearly a century of private executions in prison. Since capital punishment was abolished, we have seen an explosion in the pervasiveness of the media and in the power of the searchlight which they turn on dramatic events. If we restored capital punishment, we would restore, not private, but public executions. It would not be a matter, as in past days, of a date recorded in an alcove in the Home Secretary's office in Whitehall or later of some discreet notice posted on the prison gate to be read by a handful of watchers.
      Whatever the regulations and precautions, in practice in the weeks before execution a searchlight of publicity would beat upon the condemned man long after his victim had been forgotten. He and his family would become famous, and friends and family would be persuaded to record their story and emotions. I do not know what effect all that would have on the proposed deterrent power of capital punishment, but it might be the opposite of what was intended. Whatever the rules and efforts of Governments, such a circus would be created, as it has been elsewhere, and it would be greatly to the discredit of our society, which would soon sicken of it.
      The arguments surge to and fro on this subject, and I have tried to do justice to them. Each of us is left to make a fundamental and instinctive judgment, and mine is certainly that this is a form of punishment to which we should not return.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: Most hon. Members know how they will vote at the end of

      755
      today's debate and knew before the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) moved his new clause. Most of us knew of our intentions before the Leader of the House announced the date on which this long-heralded and much-publicised debate was to be held. On both sides of the argument, opinions on capital punishment are held with passions too deep and convictions too strong to be changed by one afternoon's debate. Those passions and convictions are based on two different sorts of argument and attitude. One is instinctive—the argument in principle—and the other pragmatic—the chief point made by the hon. Gentleman: that in some way the reintroduction of capital punishment would improve the safety and quality of life in our society.
      I shall spend the first of my few moments dealing with the instinctive call for the return of capital punishment—the feeling that it should be part of our society and penal practice. I well recall the Prime Minister on television during the 1983 general election campaign simply asserting that some murderers are so evil and some murders so hideous that capital punishment is instinctively the only appropriate punishment. That is not a judgment, but a statement of gut feeling.
      The notion that it is, in the common phrase, "only right" that murderers should die cannot be subject to logical examination. The insistence that the bestiality of one violent and unnecessary death should be paralleled by another act of similar violence sanctioned and carried out with the grotesque formality of the state cannot be justified in logic. It is at best the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth—a moral judgment which was later qualified out of existence by impeccable authority. The bald assertion that murderers "deserve to die" can be justified only by the belief that retribution and revenge are implicit and important ingredients of the criminal code. I do not believe that the House of Commons should or will write such a primitive instinct into our laws.
      The instinctive call for the return of the death penalty is typified by the opinion that some murderers have—I use the Prime Minister's phrase—
      "forfeited the right to live."
      The Home Secretary, criticising that view, offered his alternative: the feeling that some murderers are "too wicked to live". I do not believe that any individual or institution is entitled to make that judgment about a human being.
      Those of us who are opposed to capital punishment accept that our opposition is similar to the sort of support that I have just described—it is in part emotional. I confess that I cannot imagine circumstances in which I would vote for the return of hanging or any other form of execution for any offence. A reversion to such a practice would debase and literally demoralise us all, certainly if, as the Home Secretary fears—and I have no doubt that his fears are justified—in this modern era capital punishment were accompanied by all the horrors of media attention. [Interruption.] Even were I to believe that capital punishment was a deterrent to murder or violent crime, I would not vote for its reintroduction. It is wrong in itself, for it undermines the principle of the sanctity of human life on which all our laws are based.
      Having established my position in principle, I want mostly to turn to the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent, because that was the point that the hon. Gentleman made and that will inevitably take up a great deal of this debate.
      756
      When I say that I wholly reject the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent, I am quoting from virtually every authority that has made a judgment on the subject. That argument seems not only wrong but diametrically wrong. Murder and crimes of violence are, at least in part, related to the general mores of society—the acceptance or the rejection of the idea that violence can, in itself, solve some of society's problems. A violent society breeds violent crimes. To reintroduce the death penalty would be to institutionalise the most extreme form of violence. It would be an expression of Parliament's opinion that some lives are so cheap that they can be taken as a punishment. It is no good asking, as the Prime Minister has often done, the rhetorical question about whether murderers have such considerations in mind when they commit their horrible crimes. I expect the House of Commons to behave differently from them. I expect the House of Commons to have a different standard of values. We are supposed to act differently from such people., and we are supposed to respect the sanctity of human life.
      The Home Secretary was right to say that to concentrate upon the reintroduction of capital punishment as if it were the certain way of reducing murder and violent crime is to divert attention from the remedies that are potentially more successful Immense damage has been done to the serious consideration, and therefore reduction, of crime in this country by the weak-minded insistence that flogging and hanging will solve all our problems and reduce violence. That attitude has diverted us from the real deterrent, which is the certainty of arrest, the certainty of prosecution and the certainty of conviction if guilty.
      With regard to the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent, it is right to say that every authority that has made a judgment—save for a group of New Liberal economists in the United States who examined death in the language of supply and demand—has concluded that the evidence on death as a deterrent proves absolutely nothing. In the 1983 debate, the then Home Secretary said of statistics:
      "we should be making a great mistake if we expected them to give us an unequivocal answer."—[Official Report, 13 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 886.]
      As one might expect, in the previous debate his predecessor, Lord Whitelaw, was far more robust and categoric. Talking about the evidence on deterrence, he said:
      "the only sensible conclusion to reach is that their evidence is inconclusive."—[Official Report, 19 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2047.]
      That was also the judgment of the Royal Commission of 1953.
      That judgment is reinforced by a comparison of murder statistics in those American states that have abolished the death penalty with those that have not. That is the conclusion to be drawn from the Canadian experience, where the murder rate fell after abolition. If we are so minded to interpret British experience, that is the evidence from this country. Although the murder rate has increased since abolition, it has increased at a much slower pace than other crimes of violence.
      The truth of the matter is that one cannot say with anything resembling certainty whether capital punishment is a deterrent. That one is unable to say that should not surprise us. Sixty per cent. of murders are committed by men and women whose mental condition would allow them successfully to plead diminished responsibility; 75 per cent. of murders are committed within the family or in

      757
      a close circle of acquaintance, often as a result of sudden impulse or uncontrollable passion. Only an extremely small proportion of murderers pause to consider—even less, coldly, to premeditate upon—the consequences of their actions. If they do not think about that before they commit the murder, it is literally impossible for any penalty, no matter how severe, no matter how terrible, to influence their actions and prevent that murder from taking place. If there is a deterrent effect—I repeat that there is no evidence that can lead us to that firm conclusion—it can only possibly apply to one murder in five.
      Some hon. Members—traditionally the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and today the hon. Member for Thanet, North—argue that the death penalty for murder deters other crimes of violence. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds always quoted the hypothetical burglar who, before the days of abolition, would not allow his confederate to carry a gun. He claimed the knock-on effect which, by the expedient of hanging one or two murderers, prevented other crimes of violence from taking place. The hon. Gentleman's theory, true or false, demonstrates to me the great dilemma of the theory of deterrence or, at least, the deterrent of the death penalty. I am not at all sure that it is morally right to hang one man to deter another. I am sure that it cannot possibly be right to hang one man to prevent another from committing a violent crime that is less than murder itself, especially as we have no hard evidence to prove that that deterrent would work.
      If, once or twice a year, we are to hang one of our fellow citizens by the neck until he is dead—or if we are to gas him, poison him, electrocute him or shoot him—we need to justify the horrors that are involved by more than suspicions, vague impressions, hunches and venerable anecdotes. Among the horrors is the absolute bestiality of the process of execution, a subject about which the supporters of capital punishment naturally prefer not to speak. The hon. Member for Thanet, North almost broke a rule by confessing that the alternatives were "not nice". I believe that anyone who read the Gower report—the supplementary report on alternative methods of capital punishment—would agree with the hon. Gentleman at least about that.
      Mr. Peter Archer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once it is established that the statistics leave the matter open, that does not leave the argument neutral? If capital punishment were a deterrent, that, in view of the manifest research which has been carried out, would have been clearly established by now.
      Mr. Hattersley: I understand the statistical and logical argument that my right hon. and learned Friend makes. If the position is neutral, it is impossible to argue other than the likelihood that capital punishment has little or no effect. Were it a deterrent, that would be shown by curves, movements and trends.
      Let us consider the alternative methods of execution. There is no hope—supporters of a return to capital punishment should not hide behind the comforting pretence—that we can find an alternative method of execution that is any less barbarous than hanging. The Gower report on alternative forms of execution was
      758
      absolutely explicit. It said that the alternatives to hanging were equally macabre, debasing to those who took part and corrosive of a civilised society.
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the country what is nice about the murder of small, innocent children? How can he reconcile that with what he is saying about the punishment of the perpetrators of such crimes?
      Mr. Hattersley: I believe that such questions debase the entire argument. There is a clear implication in the question of the hon. Member that those of us who are opposed to capital punishment have some sympathy for the people she describes. We hold an opposite view. First, we do not believe that the return to capital punishment would deter the enormities that she has outlined; secondly, we believe that by being complacent about additional violence sanctified by society, by accepting the institutionalisation of such violence, we may encourage violent actions among our citizens.
      The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) does her cause no good by implying that those of us who want to take a rational view on this matter want to take a soft and weak view. I repeat that one of the reasons crime has increased in this country is that too many people like her have adopted the weak-minded alternative of thinking that flogging and hanging will solve the problems. They will not. We need a far more rational attitude to crime than she has been able to offer us.
      Rev. William McCrea: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would settle his mind on the situation in Northern Ireland at the time when we were told that if the Prime Minister and the Government did not yield to the hunger strikers there would be untold trouble. A few more people volunteered to go on hunger strike, but those who volunteered after that came off the hunger strike because they were afraid of death.
      6 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal explicitly with Northern Ireland and hunger strikers in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the creation of martyrs is more likely to continue the conflict in Northern Ireland, he is ignoring the troubled history of that Province over the last 300 years.
      I should like to continue the point that I was making before the interruption by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). I was talking about the consequential horrors of capital punishment. Some people, including the hon. Member for Thanet, North, speak about the risk, but many people, myself included, would argue that the greatest horror of all is the certainty that if we return to capital punishment an innocent man or woman will sooner or later be hanged.
      The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) sent to virtually every hon. Member the names of 10 men who in our recent history were wrongfully convicted, then pardoned. [Interruption.] It is a terrifying thought that decisions about capital punishment, the life or death of human beings, should be in some part taken by people whose emotional level is of the sort that we have seen in this debate. Of the 10 people on the hon. and learned Gentleman's list, one was executed and nine were eventually released. There is no doubt at all

      759
      that if the present proposal were in operation, five or six of those nine men would have been hanged. I cannot begin to justify a proposal that makes risk a possibility.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, North said that by hanging an innocent man we might save the lives of a dozen potential victims. That idea seems to be taking marginal utility to unreasonable extremes. The idea that we might sacrifice one innocent life and save 10 others is wholly unacceptable by any moral canon that it is possible to construct. I hope that on reflection no hon. Member will vote for the notion that hanging somebody by mistake is the price that we have to pay to create the order in society that we propose and want to see.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, North has attempted, as his predecessors have attempted, to win some support by saying that while he wants a return to the death penalty he does not want to return to it for all offences. By proposing a partial return of the death penalty he is offering the House judicial confusion and moral nonsense. The idea of hanging some murderers in the circumstances and in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described is barely less absurd than the notion of exceptional wickedness which supporters of capital punishment tried to write into law in the last debate.
      With respect, the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's case was demonstrated by his speech, because his proposal raises many hard questions and he attempted to answer none of them. He suggested that we should reintroduce hanging for some sorts of murder but he was not prepared to describe the categories. As he continued his speech he gave a few examples. To reintroduce hanging for premeditated murder, for murder in the furtherance of theft, for the murder of policemen and for murder by terrorists raises many questions which the hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer.
      Let us assume that the murder of a policeman might come into this category. That is what the hon. Gentleman implied towards the end of his speech. He must tell us why it is morally worse or deserving of a more severe punishment to kill a policeman rather than a civilian. How are we to determine in law what is meant by premeditated? Who judges the true meaning of premeditated?
      Mr. Gale rose——
      Mr. Hattersley: I have a list of questions for the hon. Gentleman; I shall ask them all and he can answer them.
      The proposed new clause sidesteps other great questions. There is the question whether the decision to hang should he made by a combination of judge and jury or a jury's recommendation and a judge's final decision. Will criteria to guide the jury be laid down or does a jury go into such matters with a totally open mind? Do jury members make their own subjective and instinctive judgments as they go along? I do not think that a judge and jury would be prepared to accept such a responsibility. How could a judge or jury possibly make a decision without being told the lines along which the decision is to be made? We must assume that they start by obeying the dictates of their consciences.
      Does the juror, or for that matter the judge, weigh expediency against morality in a case where a horrible crime has been committed and to execute the murderer may well result in a holocaust of reprisals? Are pragmatic questions to be put out of their minds? Does the jury or the judge call for a psychiatric report before making a
      760
      decision? Are we to get uniformity in sentencing? Are there to be hanging juries and hanging judges, and will some murderers be lucky enough to appear before lenient judges and jurors? Will hanging be a matter for majority decision? Could there be two men on the jury who think that the sentenced man is innocent but 10 who decide that he should die? Does the jury's decision on the death penalty have to be unanimous?
      All those questions are central to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and since he seemed anxious a moment ago to answer some or all of them, I shall now give way to him.
      Mr. Gale: I was reluctant to intervene, having denied other hon. Members the opportunity to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has sought so greatly to misrepresent my speech that I can only conclude that he did not hear it. I specifically said that I was not seeking to define any category of murder, and that the maximum sentence would be available for any and every murder at i he decision of the court and the recommendation of the jury. That is because each and every case is different.
      There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman sitting with a smug grin on his face suggesting that that is incorrect. The whole House heard what I said. I have deliberately sought not to lay down criteria, because I do not see how it is possible to lay down criteria for individual cases. The new clause seeks to allow the court and especially the jury who have heard the evidence to make a recommendation in each and every individual case.
      The right hon. Gentleman spoke about psychiatric reports. I specifically answered that point by saying that the jury would recommend but that it would be the judge, with the additional information before him, who would be required to make the final decision.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be uniformity. The answer to that is no, because, as I have said, there is no uniformity in crime. Each case is individual and must be judged as an individual case. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman asked about majority decisions. It is quite clear that I have not made any recommendation about that, because the country already accepts the principle of majority decision.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am reluctant to ridicule the hon. Gentleman, because his proposal seems too terrible to ridicule. However, since it is intrinsically ridiculous, if he is really saying that there is to be no recommendation and no uniformity, has he ever considered the pattern of sentencing for other offences throughout the United Kingdom? Does he not know that what happens in Bournemouth does not necessarily happen in Barnsley and that sentences in Southport are different from those in Stockton? Is he really contemplating a situation in which a murderer might know that he would be let off, at least from the death penalty, in one part of the country but hanged in another? The proposal is so intrinsically ridiculous that I cannot believe that anyone will vote for it this evening.
      Mr. Ashby: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that normally the prosecutor does not descend into the realms of sentencing? Are we now to have the prosecutor demanding the death penalty, as in some continental systems?
      Mr. Hattersley: My reply to the hon. Gentleman is, do not ask me. As the House has begun to discover, I regard the proposals of the hon. Member for Thanet, North as wrong in principle and unworkable in practice and wholly ridiculous the moment one begins to examine the details.
      Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hattersley: I must get on, as I had taken more time than I intended before giving way to perhaps too many interventions.
      I want to ask the hon. Member for Thanet, North at least one rhetorical question. It concerns the best example of why distinguishing between one form of murder and another would be wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. It can be demonstrated most clearly as it is a hard case to argue. This is the case of terrorism in Northern Ireland—or anywhere, but taking Northern Ireland as an example enables us to give it a terrifying clarity.
      From time to time we are told—no doubt we shall be told this afternoon—that terrorist offences ought to be subject to the death penalty. Are we really saying that if on some future occasion a post office in Northern Ireland is robbed and the postmaster is shot dead and the murderer is captured and convicted he is to hang if the money is intended for the IRA but not if it is intended to pay off a gambling debt? That is simultaneously terrible and ridiculous. It is also wholly wrong within the context of Northern Ireland, for two reasons.
      First, for almost 20 years to my certain knowledge, the IRA in Northern Ireland has tried to argue that its murderers are not common murderers and that its crimes are different from ordinary crimes. In the House, we have always insisted persistently that we are not prepared to designate terrorist crimes in any different way from the way in which we describe and categorise other crimes. To give a special category status to terrorist murder is to play absolutely into the hands of those who say, "We are doing something different." The resulting execution of IRA members would be to play into its hands in an even more dramatic form.
      I am shocked that the hon. Gentleman would even contemplate the death penalty being passed on a man who had been convicted through the Northern Ireland emergency—and, God willing, temporary—system. If a man should die, surely it should be the result of a jury trial with the extra fairness that that implies. But that is only half the problem. The other half is the way in which the IRA would respond to the death of members of their active service units.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the hunger strike. I remember the hunger strike very well and I remember the IRA's attitude towards it. Not only did one man die, but, as the hon. Gentleman will confirm, members of the IRA tried to intimidate some of the hunger strikers—their own comrades—by saying that they would take horrible reprisals against their families unless the hunger strike went on until death.
      The idea that people who could do anything as bestial as that would not glory in the death of their comrades and encourage their comrades to die to achieve the status of martyrs is a wholly misunderstood view of the situation in Northern Ireland. I regard it as pragmatically wrong in
      762
      terms of the peace and security of Northern Ireland to provide the IRA and other terrorists with that recruiting sergeant, which is what the death penalty would be.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: I must conclude. These are my final words.
      The more we consider the implications, the consequences and the results of capital punishment, the clearer it becomes that the restoration and the so-called practical benefits of restoration do not stand up to a moment's analysis. Ultimately, the call for the return to hanging is an emotional spasm, several of which we have witnessed in the House this afternoon. Were it to result in the change in the law, it would mean that society and the law had adapted to and was adopting the murderer's moral standards and the murderer's view of the sanctity of human life. For that reason, I shall certainly oppose the clause this evening, and it is with great pride that I believe that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same.
      Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I shall speak only briefly as many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. Perhaps it is no bad thing to look back for one moment at the history of this affair.
      There has not been a majority in the House for retaining hanging since 1945. The House has consistently repudiated hanging when given the opportunity. The Labour party sought to bring in a categorised Bill in the late 1940s and it was laughed out of court by a famous speech by Winston Churchill. The Conservative party introduced a Criminal Justice Bill in 1957 which undermined the whole concept of hanging because of its illogicality. Never mind free votes, it is worth noticing that that Bill was taken through the House on a three-line Whip by the then Government. Subsequently, since the Silverman Bill of the mid 1960s, there have been 18 attempts to change the law back to what it was. At least the last two occasions have got away from the concept of categorising murder because it is manifestly ridiculous. Indeed, as we have heard from both Front-Bench speakers, it is simply not possible for the House to lay down guidelines for the courts to decide before cases come to trial.
      On the last two occasions, recognising the impossibility of that, there have been two attempts. One imported the idea of wickedness, which in my view was legal illiteracy and was thrown out. We now have this proposal. I want to address it very shortly to see where it would take us and whether it is any better than previous attempts.
      The death penalty is to be available to the courts. I suspect that it is inevitable for hon. Members to say things that have been said before, but it is worth repeating that it is to be available to the courts. In my view, only one amendment is worth the paper on which it is printed—and I would vote against it—and that is to say that the punishment for murder shall be death and that thereafter there shall be a proper retrieve system. I would oppose that amendment as vehemently as I oppose the one under discussion, but at least it would leave us in a logical position with a straight result at the end of the trial. Everyone would know what was to happen and the case would be examined when all the facts were known.

      763
      If we leave it to the judges, what are we asking them to do? I do not know whether I am absolutely right, but I do not think that a single High Court judge is in favour of a return to hanging or capital punishment. I may be wrong on that, but I am not wrong in saying that the overwhelming majority of them are so opposed. That does not mean that they would not do their duty if they had to, but, inevitably, they would take different views. Justice would be as long as the judge's foot. The consequence of that would be that the most important duty for a solicitor would be to see which judge was coming, to look at his record and try to ensure that his client did not did not go into that court. We should not have any illusions that that would not be done.
      What is the wretched judge to do? It is said that he should pronounce sentence when he knows all the facts. As every lawyer knows, the judge does not know all the facts. If someone has pleaded not guilty, the judge cannot then have psychiatric reports done to decide what will happen if he is found guilty. He cannot ask for co-operation in that way. At the end of a trial a judge simply does not know. He could not make up his mind until he had seen such reports.
      The judge is then left with the unenviable task of reminding the jury before it considers its verdict that it has the right to make a recommendation. The moment a judge makes that remark, the jury will start to think that the judge has it in mind to hang the man. That will not help to obtain convictions. Let us have no illusions about that. The great British public is said to be baying for justice and talks about it in pubs, but when people are sitting in a jury box it is different. At the Old Bailey, 48 per cent. of defendants are acquitted and I would guess that about 1 per cent. are innocent. That is the problem that faces the judge. He would have to give some direction as to what considerations the jury should look at.
      I do not know how it is conceivable in judicial terms to give any such direction. Would the judge draw attention to particular bestialities that occurred in the case? Would he draw attention to the fact that the court may be deciding on what had become a more prevalent form of murder? Would he draw attention to the issue of public policy and would he look at what would happen if racial issues were involved? It would be a nightmare.
      However, it would not be much better for the jury. It would consider its verdict with nothing. It would go out having sat for perhaps 10 days opposite a stranger and having listened to a case presented to it of which, inevitably, it will have heard only half the story because the mitigating elements cannot possibly be put before it. Those jurors—train drivers, secretaries and housewives—would then have to make up their minds. Are they to say that a rope will he put round that person's neck? There will be plenty of murderers walking our streets after such trials. We will not achieve a conviction rate.
      The new clause is an attempt to avoid the crucial questions that cannot be answered by categories. It is an attempt to get round that issue for the second time. If anything, it is even worse than categories. We all know—we have the figures before us—that in the past we have buried our mistakes with the murderers who were convicted. The issue of whether it is a deterrent may be questionable. but we have evidence showing what has happened subsequently. It is no use my hon. Friends saying that people have been released. They were released after a decision that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
      764
      In this country, if one is released after a miscarriage of justice, in my book one is innocent and that should be made clear to everyone. Ten people are walking the streets today and one person was posthumously pardoned because of the ability to look back and examine the position. Bearing that in mind as well as the uncertainty of capital punishment being a deterrent and all the problems we would have if we passed the new clause, I believe that we would do well to stick for the 18th time to the decision that the House has made so consistently.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: We shall have a free vote in party terms, but I wonder whether it will truly he a free vote. I doubt whether many of us have changed our views since being elected and I doubt even more whether anyone will change his or her view during the debate. We are all hemmed in by our instinctive reactions to this topic. It comes down to a question of belief as to whether the state is entitled to take the life of a person who takes the life of another. I believe that it is not. I suspect that my belief will obtain whatever the evidence and however passionately such evidence may be marshalled during the debate. I also suspect that those who support the new clause will support it however compelling the evidence marshalled on the other side of the argument.
      I accept that my view is neither a popular nor populist one. However, I, like other hon. Members, come here as a representative and not as a delegate. It is my duty and the duty of others to take into account public opinion, but it would be a sad and sorry day for the House if we were but the reflection of that and the mouthpieces of the most vocal groups within our constituencies.
      As someone who has recently been elected to this honourable House, the debate has brought home to me in a sharp way the power that we wield and the responsibility that is incumbent upon us. I suspect, like others, that I recoiled somewhat to hear an hon. Member from a sedentary position suggest that hanging should be in public and should be accompanied by television coverage. I suspect that that remark was made as a result of his passion and emotion about the topic. I cite it only to underline the fact that there is a great responsibility upon us and that in the decision we take on this topic we exercise the power of life and death.
      I believe that I come to this debate with an informed view, although not an exclusively informed view. I have prosecuted successfully and defended unsuccessfully people who, with hanging, would undoubtedly have been hanged. That will not be unique in the House, but nothing in my experience as crime counsel or defence counsel has persuaded me to change my belief that capital punishment is something I could not support. A generation of lawyers has grown up with no experience of capital punishment and the way in which it would have to be administered through the legal system. In Scotland I believe that there is no judge still sitting on the bench who has pronounced the death sentence. The last such judge retired two or three years ago.
      The reintroduction of capital punishment into the legal system would impose an intolerable burden on lawyers, judges and juries. The issue of intimidation must surely be in the minds of all of us arising out of the events of last week. What would be the scope for intimidation if a jury had the power to recommend life or death? It would also be an intolerable burden on witnesses. If a witness is not

      765
      quite sure as to precisely what he saw at the material moment in the commission of a crime, what pressure would there be on him to give evidence in one direction or another, having regard to the fact that the consequence of that evidence might be the recommendation of a jury that the man or woman in the dock should be hanged? That would be a substantial price. We must ask whether we should be prepared to pay that price. The moral inconvenience of lawyers and the pressure on juries or witnesses might be a price that it would be justifiable to pay if it could be shown that the possible benefits outweighed the calculated horror of reimposition.
      6.30 pm
      The new clause is put fairly and squarely on the basis of deterrence. I do not wish to add to what was most eloquently said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but one is entitled to say, echoing the old but existing Scots verdict, "The case is not proven." If the case is not proven, it is not open to us to change the status quo unless we are presented with compelling evidence that justifies the reintroduction of capital punishment.
      It has already been said that the majority of homicides are domestic, and arise out of passion, emotion, rage and, frequently, drink. I find it hard to believe that those homicides would be deterred by the retrospective knowledge that capital punishment might be imposed.
      The issue of terrorism has been mentioned. We know that in many cases terrorists prefer martyrdom to life. Without passing judgment on the events in Gibraltar, may I say that any terrorist recalling those events must know that to be a terrorist on active service undoubtedly puts him at risk of his life.
      What about the position of police and prison officers? Shall we endure the calculated horror of the reimposition of capital punishment to protect them? What about security guards, public officials or those who run post offices in remote areas? Why should their lives be counted on a different scale? The truth is that whenever categorisation is introduced there are inherent illogicalities, and unjustifiable preferences inevitably arise. That was the experience following the Homicide Act 1957. These proposals would introduce into our law random categorisation—categorisation not so much at a whim but based on the attitude struck, first, by a jury and, secondly, by a judge. The Home Secretary referred to the comments of the Lord Chief Justice, which only serve to underline the nature of that random categorisation and the dangers that it would necessarily involve.
      The issue of capital punishment is for us to determine; it is not to be passed off to juries or judges. If the House believes that capital punishment should be available for murder, it should pass provision for it into law. It should not seek to hide behind the skirts of juries or judges.
      Dr. Blackburn: The hon. and learned Gentleman eloquently raised the question of categorisation of offences. Does he agree that a police officer, prison warder or public servant deserves extra protection because society asks them to do a specific task?
      Mr. Campbell: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman takes a particular view about the value of the responsibilities discharged by prison and police officers. How do they fall
      766
      to be distinguished from the categories of other public servants? Why should they be distinguished from those who might find themslves running post offices in rural areas? Categorisation leads to an inevitable need for value judgments and that comes close to a system in which justice is random and not uniform.
      Reference has been made to retribution. I understand the motive of retribution. I understand people's horror, alarm, concern and fright that someone close to them has been killed. I also understand the view that it is open to society or the state to exercise retribution. If human life is sacred, the murderer's act is immoral. The act of the state is equally immoral if one substitutes the institution for the individual. Clothing the proceedings with legality makes the taking of life by capital punishment no less immoral than the taking of life that prompted the conviction of the murderer.
      Fundamental to the debate—this matter should appeal to all the lawyers in the House—is the risk that capital punishment necessarily entails. I am pleased to observe the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) in his place. He defended Patrick Meehan, and in his autobiography, which was published recently, he writes movingly about the nature of the trial, the burdens that were placed on him, the result of the trial and the ultimate fight to have Patrick Meehan's pardon granted by the Crown. If Patrick Meehan had been convicted in a time of capital punishment, I have no doubt that, given the revulsion at the nature of the crime of which he was wrongly convicted, he would have been hanged. That is but one example. I shall not enter the argument about whether one can stand the loss of one innocent man for the protection of others because the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook dealt with it compellingly and comprehensively. The inherent weakness of capital punishment is that miscarriages of justice cannot be corrected.
      I return to the question of belief. No hon. Member is entitled to be more highly regarded on this issue than any other. We each have one judgment and one vote. I shall certainly cast my vote against the new clause.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I believe that I have a special and unique experience to share with the House, especially with its newer and younger Members. I believe that I am the only serving Member who has appeared in a capital trial of any kind. I have appeared in nine capital murder trials and defended eight men for capital treason. During those cases, affecting 17 lives, my conduct was a principal determinant of whether my client lived or died. Of all the questions that I asked, the judgments that I made and the views that the jury previously had of me—Scotland is a family, in which people in public life are known by reputation or otherwise—one question may have been enough to sway the jury one way or another.
      The first capital trial in which I appeared for the defence was that of Walter Scott Ellis, who, surprisingly, was acquitted of capital murder by nine votes to six. In Scotland we have a jury of 15 and three verdicts. Nine votes were for not proven, and six were for guilty. In another case—that of Smith—he was acquitted by eight votes to seven—eight for not proven and seven for guilty, which is one strand away from execution. I defended Boyle for capital murder on two occasions.

      767
      Before I leave the capital murder cases in which I appeared, let me deal with the deterrent question. Having been acquitted unexpectedly, Walter Scott Ellis went on almost immediately to a course of armed robbery of which he was convicted and sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment. If I am not mistaken, he is presently serving a further period of 10 years' imprisonment for armed robbery. So he was not deterred.
      Boyle was not deterred. for he went on to be convicted of non-capital murder when I was appearing for his co-accused who was acquitted, and he, now released, has not offended again. If we are looking for deterrents, why did the deterrent not deter Manuel, who was convicted of six murders, or Ruth Ellis, or Bentley, or Heath, or Ruxton, or Haig? What was it about them for whom death had no fear?
      I have also appeared for scores of others, indeed hundreds, charged with non-capital murder. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to one who was wrongly convicted—Patrick Meehan—and pardoned, not released—and John Preece, who also, after seven years, had his conviction quashed by the High Court in Edinburgh.
      There is no question but that both those clients would have been hanged, Meehan certainly. There was resistance to the pardon over seven years despite the fact that those who had committed the murder brazenly confessed to it in detail which could only have been known to them, and that they were in fact named in the special defence of incrimination at the trial.
      There is no question but that Meehan and Preece would have been wrongly murdered, and who would have murdered them? I shall deal only with Meehan. Would it have been the police who falsified the identification parade in order to justify his detention? Would it have been the Crown agent who issued a statement saying that with his detention and the death of his co-accused they were not looking for anybody else; in other words, that he was guilty? Would it have been the court which refused his request to he examined under the truth drug by investigating officers? Would it have been the detectives who, when they discovered that they had no evidence but the false identification parade, planted the paper evidence on his deceased co-accused? Would it have been the Solicitor-General who, when prosecuting, with the sanction of the presiding judge, broke so many of the rules of evidence? Would it have been the presiding judge who removed the special defence of incrimination of those who actually did it? Would it have been the appeal court which refused to hear the evidence of all those wrongs? Or would it have been the evidence of the officer in charge of the case, who suppressed the evidence of the presence of the actual culprit, McGuinnes, outside the murder house at the time of the murder, which evidence was found in the locked drawer of his desk when the investigation ordered by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), who had recently been appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, was put in the hands of Detective Chief Superintendent McDougall and Assistant Chief Constable Bell? Between them they would have murdered Meehan.
      But I said a moment ago that one of the greatest difficulties of capital murder is that it is the conduct of the defending counsel which is one of the principal determinants of whether his client lives or dies. I have not the slightest doubt that it was my cross-examination of Dr. Alan Clift which resulted in the conviction of John Preece.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: The forensic scientist.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Fairbairn: The forensic scientist—an English forensic scientist.
      On the Friday evening he was a feeble, doubting and bad witness, and I took home all the slides of the fibres that he alleged came from the accused's rug and the deceased's coat. On Monday morning, he was a different man. Although on none of the slides that he had identified were to be found the fibres upon which he had based his opinion, he was confident and never ceased to add to every answer—"The fibres may not be there, but I have no doubt at all that that coat and that rug were together." That alone wrongly convicted Preece.
      Mr. Mullin: Just like Dr. Skuse.
      Mr. Fairbairn: It might be easier in that case to know who to charge with Preece's murder.
      So we come to the next appalling question. In the capital treason trials, I as counsel had to ask some men to agree to plead guilty and be sentenced to death in order to save others. Fortunately, for reasons which I need not tell the House, those sentences were not carried out, but they had nothing whatever to do with justice.
      Then we come to an even worse characteristic of capital murder, which I believe has never been raised. Of those charged with non-capital murders whom I have defendled I could name straight off 20 or 30 cases in which I would undoubtedly have advised the accused—despite my belief, and correct belief, in their innocence, or in the justice of their defence, be it self-defence or whatever—to plead guilty to culpable homicide because I dared not take the risk that, because of the whims of a jury, they might convict him of capital murder; cases in which I knew that the Crown would happily have accepted a plea of culpable homicide, which, for English Members, is manslaughter. So I would wrongly have condemned 20 to 30 men—I have not counted them all, but I wrote down between 20 and 30 that I could think of in my head—to long periods of imprisonment because I dared not take the risk of advishng them to take the risk of being acquitted or being hanged. That is a much greater extension of the wrong of wrongful execution.
      It is important that we should understand the origin of capital punishment and how it came into our criminal system. If I contradict the law of England, I do so in ignorance rather than intentionally. Until there was a police force in this country, the only deterrent to crime—certainly to serious crime—was the deterrent of punishment. At different times in Scotland and England there were between 200 and 300 offences—from the meanest theft to the highest crime—for which one could be sentenced to death. The death sentence was not mandatory, but it was available, which is the basis of the new clause. It was ineffective; it did not work. Once there was a police force, all the categories of crime were removed from the list of between 200 and 300 except for three, for which capital punishment was made mandatory—treason, arson in the royal dockyards, and murder. Those three were excepted because they were the methods by which one could overthrow the constitution of the state. Once the fleet was built of steel and not of wood, arson in the royal dockyards was forgotten as a category of

      769
      crime. Before that, the burning of the fleet would have been a major method of overthrowing the constitution. After the failure of the 1715 and 1745 rebellions, in which the correct and superior claim to the throne of Great Britain by the Jacobite successor was overpowered by force and the Hanoverian successor sat happily on the German posterior of Queen Victoria, treason too became irrelevant. That left the third category of crime, which was kept only because it was the remaining method by which one carried out the overthrow of the state. It was murder.
      In the great cases of the romantic Victorian period when people killed their wives to marry their lovers, as Ruxton did this century, the fallacy grew up that the death penalty for murder was an extension, repeat, echo or exercise in the lex talionis—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a death for a death. That was a false deduction; it was never the case.
      When the matter came into consideration in 1957, it was obvious that the penalty was illogical. One English case which is rarely mentioned but which seems to me to highlight the illogicality of the death penalty is the A6 murder. There is argument and doubt as to whether Hanratty was correctly or incorrectly convicted. However, there is no question at all but that he was sitting in the back seat of a motor car and that in the front were Gregston, who was driving and his lover, Valerie Storie. There is no doubt at all on the evidence at its height that Hanratty shot Gregston—probably by mistake, when he turned suddenly, and for that he was hanged. After shooting Gregston he drove Valerie Storie round southern England. He forced her out of the motor car on to the verge and raped her at gunpoint. He then emptied the other seven bullets into her body to eliminate her and her evidence. He rendered her a quadriplegic, but he could not be hanged for that. Which of the two crimes in justice would deserve the supreme penalty if it were available?
      The penalty is illogical. The man who is a bad shot is not hanged, but the man who is a good shot is. The man who throws a stone into a pub and kills somebody by chance is guilty of murder by recklessness. The man who throws a hand grenade intending to kill everybody in the pub because they are thought to be of some other religion but instead blinds or maims them all lives. There is no justice or logic in a mandatory death penalty.
      The new clause is an amendment of chance. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we should look at the chances involved. The outcome does not depend only on the jury. I understand that the Bill would abolish the ability to manipulate one's jury by objection. In Scotland we still have that to some extent because I was persuaded as a Law Officer that to remove it would be to introduce absurd objections on alleged cause shown. Whichever way the matter goes, the 15 members of the jury are there by chance. One fact is never taken into account by those who listen to, or say that they are listening to, the public demand. The public who demand the death penalty are also the public who sit on the jury. When 15 members of the public are sitting on a jury, they do not represent the call of the public for capital punishment. If they did, Ellis, who I first defended on a charge of capital murder, would unquestionably have been hanged, and by a unanimous decision.
      770
      We do not just want a free vote. We ought also to come into the Chamber with a free mind. I am not encased by preordained attitudes in this matter—a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. I am open to any argument that persuades me. I have not necessarily always held the same view, but I am persuaded that the death penalty is illogical, irreversible, unfair and unjust. It may have been appropriate at times in the past, but I am persuaded that that is no longer so.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the age of television. We have already seen what happens. The House will remember the events surrounding the execution for cocaine smuggling in Malaysia. There were interviews with the family. The question was asked, "There is an hour to go; what does it feel like as the sister of a condemned man?" In the aftermath of "Spycatcher" and "Tumbledown", it is clear that if one of the two sides would stand to make money from an execution, it would not be the victim's family; it would be the family of the deceased.
      There are arguments in favour of those who say that there should be capital punishment. They say that it is a deterrent. It did not deter any of the first three people whom I defended for capital murder, who were very nearly hanged, from going on to commit appalling crimes with weapons.
      It is said that the supreme crime demands the supreme penalty. That is a misunderstanding. It is said that the death penalty should be imposed for retribution, which I translate as vengeance. I want to make the next point without emotion but seriously. When I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in a television debate on capital punishment eagerly putting up his hand as the first person who would want to leap up the steps of the scaffold to pull the lever—as volunteer No. 1 at the head of the queue—it seemed to me that he was more interested in the thirst for vengeance than in the justice of an appropriate penalty. It is important that passion and emotion should not play their part. The horror of any appalling crime immediately moves us, if we are human, to want to take revenge, but that is not the purpose of or the justification for the law, or the duty of this House.
      7 pm
      Those who vote for the new clause will inevitably vote to murder some innocent people. I defended two innocent people who were pardoned. I should not like to have to bear the thought that some act or omission of mine had resulted in their wrongful death. I have endured the agony of many capital trials. I have endured fear with the jury, the witnesses and the police, who are the investigators and prosecutors. I know what capital trials were about for all those involved. That awful event had nothing to do with hot justice and retribution, least of all for the jury.
      The new clause would be absurd, but that is not the point. It is said in Scotland, "Oor juries always convict." One would therefore try to make sure that there was a transfer of the trial to Edinburgh, as happened in the Meehan case. We said, "Oor jury is not going to acquit a man who murdered Mrs. Ross from Racecourse road in Ayr." That trial was held in Edinburgh and it would have resulted in an acquittal but for the events in the trial, and before it, that led to a conviction by two votes.
      For myself, and speaking only for myself, the power of life and death should, with limited exceptions, rest with

      771
      Almighty God and not with us. I do not believe that in any circumstances it is right for us to say that we should take unto ourselves that right, nor do I believe that it is right for us to say that the odd innocent, and hopefully also criminal, man who is murdered by the state is the right price to pay. There is no price to pay for life.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I do not propose to rehearse again the arguments that have already been canvassed at length about whether there should be the death penalty. Those arguments stand. Some people fundamentally believe that there should be the death penalty; other people fundamentally believe that there should not be the death penalty. I intend to deal with the proposed new clause.
      I have to declare an interest as a practising lawyer. In my view, this is a thoroughly bad new clause. It brings sentencing into the mind of the jury. It has always been a fundamental principle of our system that the jury should determine matters of fact—whether a man is guilty and, if he is guilty, of which counts of the indictment he is guilty. If he is found guilty, the judge sentences him. The minute that we begin to depart from that principle, we depart from the principle on which jury trial is based.
      The new clause seeks to do that. It says that the jury must consider whether a man is guilty of a capital crime. Having decided that question, it then has to consider whether that man should live or die. By asking a jury to take that second step, we are asking them to take a partisan view during the first step, which should be objective: whether, under the English system, the Crown has proved its case. It has always been a fundamental principle of our legal system that the defence has to prove nothing. It is for the Crown to prove its case. By seeking to introduce that aspect, the new clause takes us away from that fundamental principle and makes the jury very much partisan in the cause.
      The new clause is also bad because there can be no certainty of uniformity. In theory, the system has always been that, whether one is tried in London or Newcastle, the verdict should always be logical. We know from our experience that juries vary. There is no way in which there can be a guarantee that the same decision will be arrived at in all cases. There has been much talk recently in the newspapers about juries. Certain politicians have already begun to climb on the bandwagon, suggesting that at Snaresbrook it is difficult to convict a burglar. That is not true. It is difficult to convict a handler at Snaresbrook because everybody seems to buy something in a pub. It is said that at Knightsbridge it is difficult to secure a conviction in other sorts of cases. If those problems already exist, how can there be uniformity of decision?
      I notice that a few hon. Members are busy chatting about other matters, but I ask those who are in favour of the new clause to think about another simple issue. In future, jurors will not be selected at random, and there will be no right of challenge. The Bill takes away that right of challenge. How can we guarantee that a jury selected in Sheffield, Manchester or Leeds will be of the same sort and composition as a jury selected in London, Birmingham or Southampton? Without that certainty, there can be no uniformity of decision on the vital second question that the new clause seeks to ask—the right to live or die.
      There will always be those who want to hang, and there will always be those who are violently opposed to capital punishment. I say to those who want a return to hanging
      772
      that they should not ask for it to be brought back on the simple premise that is before the House. They should not put before the House a new clause that would lead to uncertainty and, more particularly, that would lead to the destruction of our trial system and to the imposition on a jury of a question that should never be asked. A jury should never be asked to decide the sentence. They are there merely to decide guilt or innocence.
      Mr. George Gardiner: I shall vote for the new clause for the same reason as I have voted for every proposed new clause, amendment or Bill that has been introduced since I was first elected in 1974 that had as its purpose the restoration of capital punishment to our judicial system.
      I have never been in any doubt that innocent lives would be saved if those who were motivated to murder knew full well that if they took the life of another person they could forfeit their own. All common sense tells us that this must be so. Are the opponents of restoration seriously trying to tell us that no one who sets out to burgle with a gun in his pocket will think twice before using it if the possibility of the death penalty exists? Are they seriously trying to suggest that no man raping a woman at knife point will be deterred from using that knife to obliterate his principal witness? Do they really expect us to believe that no criminal will be deterred from using his gun or knife to kill a policeman to avoid arrest?
      But tonight I want to consider a different aspect which should be of concern to all hon. Members.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Member consider for a second the fact that capital punishment could be an encouragement to further murder if the original murder has been witnessed? What does he say to that point?
      Mr. Gardiner: I would not accept that at all. I am speaking of deterrence as regards the original murder.
      My principal argument concerns the continuing gulf between decisions that we take on this subject and the view of the clear majority of the people whom we collectively represent. The view of the public on restoration has been remarkably consistent ever since capital punishment was abolished 24 years ago. I cite the evidence of two respectable opinion polls, National Opinion and Gallup, since they have taken a regular interest in this issue over the years in question.
      In 1964, before abolition, NOP recorded 67 per cent. wanting to keep the death penalty, but that did not slop Parliament abolishing it. In 1966 it recorded a staggering total of 82 per cent. against abolition, but still Parliament confirmed the experiment in 1968. Abolitionists assured us then that public opinion would in time come round to following this clear lead, but the public never did. Throughout the 1970s the proportion calling for restoration varied between 67 and 82 per cent., yet in 1979 the House still refused to heed that call. Since 1981 Gallup has recorded support for restoration from 64 to 69 per cent. Other opinion polls show even higher figures. Only last year NOP found 73 per cent. calling for restoration, and that was after 23 years' experience of abolition.
      The public feel even more strongly on specific categories of murder. In polls conducted between 1981 and 1987, Gallup found the number wanting capital punishment restored for the murder of members of the Army and the police forces varying between 66 and 75 per

      773
      cent.; for terrorist murders from 73 to 78 per cent.; and for murders of women following sexual assault from 69 to 72 per cent.
      Such figures cannot be dismissed as one-off verdicts following some particularly gruesome outrage; nor can they be dismissed as—to use the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—"an emotional spasm". They represent the consistently expressed demand of the British people over 24 years. Yet that clear demand has been blocked repeatedly in the House.
      I have spoken and written on the issue many times and the letters I have received afterwards have always made very sad reading for anyone who has the well-being of Parliament at heart. One comment repeated over and over again is:
      "It's no use telling our MP—he just won't listen."
      Another comment is:
      "It doesn't matter what we think—Parliament just doesn't want to know. Yet we're the people who are afraid to walk alone or answer our door at night."
      Yet another is:
      "Will Members of Parliament never listen?"
      Apparently not, for the will of the majority is consistently frustrated in this House.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the only way for the House to know the will of the people would be through a national referendum on capital punishment?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Gardiner: I have my doubts about a referendum, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). In my view, a referendum would tell us nothing that we do not know already from reputable opinion polls over 24 years. And, as we know, one cannot legislate as a result of a referendum; one can only conduct it in an advisory capacity. So it would tell us nothing more than we know at the moment. The majority view, recorded not in a referendum but in opinion poll after opinion poll, tells us that the vast majority of the population want restoration of the death penalty. Yet they are frustrated by the decisions of the House.
      Sir Winston Churchill said:
      "The will of the majority, in accordance with traditions that have come down to us from earliest times, is the only healthy foundation for the State. The much tried and often proved good sense of the mass of the British people is the only safeguard on which the British Constitution relies. Trust the people."
      Why cannot we trust the people in their judgment of what directly affects the safety of their daily lives?
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that Winston Churchill also said that the grass will grow green on the battlefields, but never on the scaffold?
      Mr. Gardiner: He did, but I do not think that that detracts in the least from the quotation that I have just made.
      We are told that this vote is a matter of conscience.
      Mr. James Couchman rose——
      Mr. Gardiner: No, I will not give way any more; I am sorry.
      774
      I accept that there are obviously some very deep religious convictions involved. Far be it from me to question the conscience of any hon. Member, but there is a danger that we all face of using conscience as an easy escape route to avoid taking a difficult decision. Surely our exercise of conscience must take cognisance of and embrace the clearly expressed wishes of the vast majority of those whom we represent.
      Edmund Burke is frequently quoted to us saying that we cast our votes here as representatives, not as delegates, which is fair enough. But Burke also said:
      "In all disputes between [the people] and their rulers, the presumption is at least on a par in favour of the people."
      That was in 1771. Again, he said:
      "The people are the masters."
      That was in 1780. Let us not forget that they are our masters still. Our duty must be to heed their voice.
      We are told that in the Division we shall lose. If that is the case, so be it. But this issue will come back to the House again and again so long as the people's wish is frustrated. Parliament cannot go on obstructing this consistent demand from the majority of people. The day must come when we cease to obstruct that judgment. I wish that that day were now.
      Mr. Mallon: I acknowledge the powerful and impressive speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). He brought us face to face not only with the legality but with the humanity of the matter. It is right that, on the strength of such a remarkable speech, we should welcome him to the House.
      It is a disturbing irony that we have had two almost simultaneous debates touching on the most central right of the individual—the right to live—and the right of society to state how individual rights will be decided. I refer of course to what is now known as the Alton Bill and this new clause. They have much in common. They are about the same thing—the sacredness of life and an individual's right to live out his God-given life until it ends in the way that it is supposed to end by that who gave him his life, and not by the abortionist's scalpel or the hangman's noose. I approach the debate from a pro-life and right-to-life point of view.
      It is a fundamental contradiction that, one week, people can be pro-life in terms of abortion and, the following week, be anti-life in terms of capital punishment. I cannot see consistency, logic, or the type of humanitarian approach that must be brought to both debates if they are ever to reach the fruition that I hope to see.
      There is danger in both debates. In effect, self-righteous indignation about both issues becomes self-righteous indulgence. Every year we trot out the sacred cow, give it its yearly outing, debate the issue, and then put it back out to pasture. That is bad for both issues. It diminishes the interest and the attitudes that we bring to the issues and the passion with which we should deal with them. We should debate this matter with passion, because we are dealing with the most fundamental principle—the sacredness of human life and whether it should be taken. Hon. Members should have no doubt that that is what we are discussing, and that is what we discussed in the abortion debate. We cannot allow the matter to become ritualistic.
      Winston Churchill was quoted earlier in the debate. He made another point that is relevant to all of us, and we should remind ourselves of it when we debate issues with a high moral content. Of some of his friends, Winston Churchill said that they carried their rectitude like a

      775
      banner and stopped every now and again to salute it. Let us not do that with such fundamental issues as the unborn child's right to live and the adult person's right not to have his life terminated by the hangman's noose. I must bring that fundamental approach to the debate.
      The Howard League for Penal Reform stated:
      "A judicially sanctioned execution is an inherently immoral action. It is a barbaric, brutalising and degrading form of punishment which is contrary to respect and value for human life."
      From that point of view, I have a closed mind. My mind was closed before I came to the debate. I shall vote against the new clause, because it involves the taking of a human being's life for reasons that simply cannot be justified.
      We are considering one of the most convoluted ironies that one could imagine. It has been implied and stated through the media by some proponents and supporters that new clause I would not apply to the north of Ireland. If it were so, we should have the most ridiculous situation in which a clause relating to capital punishment would not apply to that country under the Government's jurisdiction which, by comparison, had a remarkably high murder rate. That would make us the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am working on the assumption that the supporters of the new clause expect it to be applied in Northern Ireland. That might make the situation worse, not better, for the argument, but I should like the matter to be cleared up.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Whether or not it applies to the north of Ireland, it is nonsense. We are constantly told by no less a person than the Prime Minister that the north of Ireland is as British as Finchley. If we are so British, then all the legislation that is passed by the House should apply to us. Yet this legislation simply cannot apply unless one thing is done, and that is to reintroduce jury trials. What a black comedy it would be if we were to reintroduce the jury system so that juries could recommend that people be killed. That is the type of black comedy that we would face with the new clause if it were to apply to the north of Ireland.
      The ultimate protection for an accused person is his peers, and his peers are the jury. We do not have juries in the north of Ireland. To pass this legislation would be bizarre, contradictory, and macabre. We would be laughed at and scorned by every civilised country of the world.
      Many eminent and able lawyers in the House will deal more effectively than I shall with the legalities of the legislation, but one point must be made as forcefully as possible. New clause 15 refers to
      "particular premeditation, brutality or callousness".
      I wonder how that will be determined. I wonder what it will mean to a jury who are charged with giving an opinion and a judge who is charged with making a decision. Will it be "quite callous and premeditated", "slightly callous and premeditated", "very callous and premeditated", or "extremely callous and premeditated"? At which point will an offence become a hanging offence? That is the difficulty that we face, and that is the tragedy that we shall bring to the country if the new clause is passed.
      If the new clause means "very" or "extremely", rather than "slightly" or "quite", we shall get vengeance from society. If the wording is "quite" or "slightly", we shall get punishment from society. The aim of the law is not to do
      776
      either; it is to achieve the maximum protection for society. If we seek vengeance, we shall not deal with justice. Vengeance is for the terrorist, the maniacal killer and for the person who has no respect for the law. Vengeance should never be part of what we treasure as a proper system of justice. Over the centuries, the march of justice has been to overcome private vengeance. To leave our judicial and legal system in search of vengeance would be a disservice not only to this generation but to future generations.
      The Secretary of State stated that if the new clause were passed there would be media hype, media trials, and show trials, and he said also that, in a dramatic way, they would become the focus of attention. He looked at the matter from one point of view, but I specify another point of view. If the new clause is passed and we have hanging juries and hanging judges, can hon. Members imagine the type of media hype that will occur not when it is over but before and during a trial? I have seen it recently with terrorist trials. I venture to suggest that it is almost impossible for a person to be given a fair trial, with helicopters on the roofs, snipers all around and the media carrying pictures of the scenes of the crime in which he is supposed to have been involved, before the trial has even begun. That will be multiplied 10 or 20 times, until the law and the whole trial process become part of a substantial media hype which can only do it a remarkable disservice. Let us not forget that jurors are simply people. They read newspapers, watch television, listen to rumours and talk to their neighbours, and they would be substantially influenced by such a hype.
      7.30 pm
      It would he remiss of me, coming as I do from the north of Ireland, not to refer to the violence, terrorism and paramilitary activity there. I say with no fear of contradiction—because I come from a tradition in Ireland that knows it off by heart, has learned it the hard way and is still paying the price—that the most potent aspect of Irish political life is its martyrs.
      We should remember the famous words of Padraig Pearse at the grave of O'Donnovan Rossa. Speaking of the British Government, he said:
      "The fools, the fools. They have left us our Fenian dead".
      How right he was. Nothing is so potent in Irish political life as the martyr's gravestone; nothing is so tuned to the bugle in the blood, whether it be Protestant or Catholic blood, as that feeling of martyrdom for a cause. That is the motivation, the tremendous driving force, that has kept this series of troubles going for four times as long as the second world war. And I am told that the death penalty will be a deterrent in the face of that motivation. It is not, and it never will be.
      I ask the House again, as I asked in the last debate on this topic, never again to let this type of legislation apply in this country. It does nothing for Parliament or the people that it serves, and it will do a grave disservice to the whole process of justice.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: In Northern Ireland there are killings weekly and sometimes daily, and every public representative must search his own heart and conscience on this issue, and those elected to public office must at all times be careful to recognise the position that they hold.
      On Sunday afternoon, I was as at a home in Castlederg. There was a widow woman there. She had one son, who had been shot through the back of the head by the IRA.

      777
      The reason for his killing was his religion. He was a Protestant, and wore Her Majesty's uniform as a member of the UDR.
      As has been mentioned, there have been some 17 murders in that area, for which no one has been amenable in the courts. We heard from the Home Secretary about Enniskillen, but he did not tell us that no one has been made amenable for that terrible massacre. In Kilkeel, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)——
      Mr. Mallon: The hon. Member's geography is wrong.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I always thought that it was part of Newry and Armagh, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong. As he knows, we have experienced a great change of boundaries in the past.
      In Kilkeel, a former UDR member had a mercury tilt bomb put under his van. Fortunately, only the detonator exploded, or there would have been three other victims. Visiting such homes, one is faced with the realities of murder. At another home that I visited on Sunday, I was shown a picture of a wedding that had taken place just a few years ago. The mother said, "Only one member of the bridal party is still living—the bride." The groom and the best man, who were members of the UDR, were murdered, as was the bridesmaid, who belonged to the Greenfinch part of the UDR.
      When faced with such events, it is necessary to search one's heart and to realise that those people's convictions have a granite rock on which to rest. I do not believe that gut reaction is the foundation on which our convictions should rest, although there is nothing wrong with gut reaction in the immediate wake of such atrocities. It was Bishop Butler, the famous philosopher, who said:
      "The indignation raised by cruelty and injustice, and the desire of having it punished, which persons unconcerned would feel, is by no means malice. No, it is resentment against vice and wickedness: it is one of the common bonds, by which society is held together; a fellow-feeling, which each individual has in behalf of the whole species, as well as of himself."
      Perhaps that is a good illustration of gut reaction, but I must have something far more solid on which to rest my convictions.
      I was deeply impressed by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). In that speech, which was made as a sort of confession of his relationship with trials in which he had taken part, he said that the power of life and death was in the hands of the Almighty. That is absolutely correct, but he should have gone on to develop the theme.
      Capital punishment is in the hands of God, but God has delegated to mankind certain responsibilities and duties. Although we may not like those responsibilities or may resent those duties, we cannot get away from them. I have listened to some strange statements here today. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—the Scottish Liberal—said that the state had not the right to take life. Let us analyse that statement: it means that the state has no right to declare war. Where would we find ourselves if we followed the logic of that?
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that every man and woman in this country should have the right to be saved from the hangman's noose. They have that right, if they keep their hands out of crime. Every man
      778
      has a right to keep out of prison if he does not violate the law—I have some practical experience of that. We all have our rights. Let us not be carried away with this wonderful theme of saving men from the hangman's noose. Everyone can be saved if he stays in line with the law. [Interruption.] I do not believe that every court in the land, every police officer, every judge and every jury is crooked. If that were so, we should wipe out the House because it would have no authority. I apologise for raising the temper of some hon. Members.
      I believe with all my heart that capital punishment is a divinely revealed law that rests on the rock granite of biblical revelation. It rests on the very principle that some hon. Members have used to try to turn for their benefit. It rests on the sacredness of life. It is because life is not cheap and because life is sacred that divinely revealed scripture tells us that those who have responsibility in government should exercise the power of the sword.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) may turn round to smile at his friends but he talked about that authority which deals with capital punishment. I too want to deal with that authority. The word of God tells us, way back before the Mosaic epoch:
      "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
      Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
      The sacredness of life demanded that if a man took life, he should forfeit his. That is why life is so valuable and sacred.
      We come then to the Mosaic law where we have the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". I have heard abolitionists say in the House and in other places that that supports their case, but anyone who has studied the Mosaic law will have seen that the scriptures advocate that certain crimes should have capital punishment. That scripture is dealing with a person who goes out to commit the crime of murder. Some hon. Members may say that that is the Old Testament and that we should forget about it, but the Bible is one book and the Old Testament has within it the genius and grace of the New Testament.
      I turn to the greatest authority of all, the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. If ever any person set up the greatest of all deterrents, it was the incarnate Son of God when he walked this earth. He said that all that a man hath, he will give for his life. There we have the great deterrent from the one who spake as never man spake.
      I have been in and out of prison and have talked to prisoners, and I know that all that a man has, he will give for his life. But Christ went on to point out that those who take the sword must be punished by the sword. I remember hearing in the House an hon. Member say that no man could be a Christian and not believe in the abolition of capital punishment. I asked that Member, "Do you believe that Paul was a Christian?" He said that of course Paul was a Christian. What did Paul say? He said:
      "if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die".
      Let us remember that Paul wrote most of the New Testament under the inspiration of God. So let us get the facts right as they are revealed in scripture.
      The very genius of the Gospel is the genius that lies at the heart of this, because the genius of the Gospel is a cross and a death. If Christ had not died we could not live, for we all deserve death:

      779
      "The wages of sin is death"
      and
      "The soul that sinneth, it shall die".
      That is at the very heart of the Christian message; someone else took my place and died for me.
      I now come to the reality of the position as we have it in Northern Ireland today. When I first came to the House there was a debate on capital punishment. The IRA threatened to get everyone who voted against abolition. One man was got—the Rev. Robert Bradford, my near and dear friend. Two other Members of the House have been murdered by the IRA—the former Member for Southgate, Sir Anthony Berry, in the Brighton explosion, and Mr. Airey Neave, who was the Member for Abingdon.
      7.45 pm
      We were told by the IRA that if we dared show our hand in the House against abolition we would be on the line. What else were we told? We were told that for every person who was hanged, two would be shot dead. I do not bow to terrorist judgment. I have walked too long with death in Northern Ireland, as has every public representative; no matter what side of the fence he comes from, every public representative is in danger. Every public representative walks with death every day. I say to the IRA, "You will not dictate to the representatives of Northern Ireland how we cast our votes in this House." If it means death, so be it, because principle and liberty are more dear to me than life lived under the threat of the scum of the Irish Republican Army.
      I resent deeply on behalf of Northern Ireland what was said by the Home Secretary today. He said that he had consulted the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He said that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary had told him that his senior officers did not want capital punishment. Has ever a Chief Constable in Northern Ireland been attacked? Has ever an assistant chief constable been attacked? There is a trade union for police officers in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that that would appeal to the Opposition Benches. Why was the Police Federation never invited to give its views? Its members are the men who stand on the street. We heard today that a policeman is no different from a post office attendant. Policemen in Northern Ireland put themselves in the front line. Why were members of the UDR not consulted to find out their view? When they put on their uniform, they put themselves on the line. Those people are a special category.
      Rev. William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that the Police Federation has expressed an opinion which is totally contrary to that of the Chief Constable? The Police Federation has requested humbly that the House should give policemen the protection of capital punishment. That is the reality. Will my hon. Friend also tell the House that in Northern Ireland capital punishment is taking place? The killing of the innocent is happening. It is time that many hon. Members were more concerned about the innocent than the terrorists and the guilty.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I feel very sore that Opposition Members should think that that is something to smile about. I have been in too many police homes not to realise reality. We live with it day after day. We are not taking part in an academic exercise. We are walking and talking with these people every day. The clear teaching upon which the Government rest is their authority to use the
      780
      power of the sword. Government is a divinely ordained institution. The chief magistrate has responsibility under God and we, as part of this Parliament. have responsibilities to discharge. There is no way that we can escape from that.
      The power of the sword is in the hands of the chief magistrate to punish the guilty and to defend the innocent. Well, the innocent in Northern Ireland are not being defended today. I heard a graphic and gruesome description of hanging by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I can tell the House of murders that will make everybody here sick. Hon. Members have seen on their televisions something of what we have had day after day. However, they did not see half of it, because the eyes of one of those corporals were gouged out by a knife in the hand of one of the IRA killers. That kind of action calls for the Government to do something to defend the ordinary people of Northern Ireland and to give them a chance to exist and to live. Any Government who fail to exercise the power of the sword fail in their bounden duty and responsibility. Those are the things that concern us in Northern Ireland.
      I believe in jury trials. I do not believe that the juries should have been done away with. I voted against it in Committee with some of the hon. Friends of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, because it was not juries which were being threatened at that time; it was witnesses. I want to see jury trials. I believe that we must have jury trials if we are to have capital punishment. However, I will vote for the new clause because I believe that it is putting up a marker. It recognises that in our constituencies there are people who are saying, "We should have a return to capital punishment." Some hon. Members might close their ears to that, but that tide will rise and, as crime continues in that part of the United Kingdom, and as the IRA and terrorism worldwide tightens its grip on freedom-loving people, those Members will realise what we are really up against. They will have to come to grips with the fact that there is only one real deterrent, and that is to deal with the people who commit those crimes.
      I finish with the words spoken in this House by my late, beloved friend, Robert Bradford, who said:
      "The issue is not whether capital punishment is a deterrent. The fact that both sides resort to statistics to prove their point means that the exercise is futile because it is inconclusive. The one thing that is certain is that capital punishment deters the terrorist, who is removed from society by capital punishment.
      When capital punishment is applied, there is commensurate punishment with the crime and at least one terrorist has been deterred. It does the Northern Ireland people a grave injustice to suggest that the murder of educationally sub-normal boys and girls and the murder of a two-year-old girl will result in a kind of secular canonisation of IRA terrorists."
      That is what we have been hearing today: "If we deal with terrorism, there will be murders." There will be some sort of secular canonisation. Do hon. Members really think that the right thinking, decent Roman Catholic and Protestant people in Northern Ireland will give these murderous thugs some sort of secular canonisatlion because they meet their just deserts?
      I conclude with the words of my late lamented friend, who said:
      "I conclude by saying that we must all be realistic. Hostages will be taken, counter-murders will occur"—
      and they are occurring—

      781
      "but unfortunately hostage and murder are ironies of our fate. One thing is clear: terrorism will win if we compromise our attitude in respect of the punishment applied."—[Official Report, 11 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 709–10.]
      Mr. Tony Worthington: I want to return to the main theme of the debate which is concerned with criminal law and the use of capital punishment for orthodox crime.
      Of course, for many of us, the arguments about whether capital punishment is effective are independent. The argument about whether capital punishment deters is not the key issue. The key issue is how we feel about capital punishment. Whether the number of murders would be lowered is not the central issue. Every society has to decide which punishments, even if effective, are beyond the pale. Therefore, we deliberately reject some punishments, even when we know that they work. We reject the amputation of limbs, although we know that that would lead to fewer thefts. We reject some forms of drug therapy and brain surgery even when we know that they would lead to less horrific crimes. Many of us would also reject the idea of judicial execution even if the number of murders could be lowered by that route. However, there is no evidence that the number of murders would be lowered.
      We take the view that judicial executions degrade us. One of the memorable experiences of my life concerns a friend who was a prison officer. He was a member of a team who, through the last stages of a prisoner's life, had to befriend him, make the remaining days of his life as comfortable as possible and then accompany him to the scaffold. Just hearing about that scarred me and I know that it scarred that prison officer. Among the most impressive evidence we have received has been that from prison governors who have said that they would have to reconsider their position in the service if execution was brought back.
      We must continually be seeking to reduce the amount of violence. There is no other evidence other than that violence breeds violence. I have no evidence other than that which would show that, if we were to increase the amount of violence by judicial execution, it would be harmful.
      There is no evidence that deterrence works in the case of murder. Deterrence is a flawed idea in any case. All around us is evidence of deterrents that do not work. One finds evidence in public house car parks of deterrents that do not work. There is evidence among smokers of deterrents that do not work. On the streets of America all sorts of people carry guns. The legal enforcement agencies carry guns. Instant deterrents are available, but look at the level of crime in that country.
      We are constantly told that the certainty of detection is the best deterrence. The detection rate for murder is 97 per cent, yet that does not deter murder. Murder is a special crime about which the arguments for deterrents are even less effective than they are usually. We have heard several times that 75 per cent. of murders are among people who know each other—often very well. They are committed by people who are trapped in a unique situation—a once-in-a-lifetime situation of an emotional charnel house—that causes them to take this particular action. It cannot be those people that we are talking about today.
      782
      There is also a small minority of very disturbed people who will certainly not be deterred by the death penalty or anything else.
      We must get away from the tempting idea that has been suggested in this debate that anything can be put right by judicial execution. Murder is a loss that cannot be restored. No matter how much we want to restore it, nothing can. Judicial execution would not put matters right.
      New clause 1 is a cop-out and a fudge. It is put forward by people who basically want to reintroduce the death penalty but who know that a blanket provision for all murders is unthinkable and unsustainable in the House. They also know that choosing murders by category—for example, by the method or by the kind of victim—was completely discredited when it was used in the past. They have therefore gone for the idea of leaving it to the jury to choose who to recommend for the death sentence. That is a half-baked idea for reasons that have been mentioned. First, no one should add to the pressures on a jury in a murder trial. Imagine the pressures on those who oppose capital punishment when serving on a jury if they knew the consequences of a conviction.
      The issue of whether majority recommendations would be allowed has not been adequately dealt with. It is difficult to imagine unanimous recommendations. We know the sense of relief that juries in ordinary criminal cases feel when, having found someone guilty, they then find out that that person has previous convictions Even if wrongly, they then have a sense of guilt lifted from them. If jurors had to recommend that someone should be executed, that sense of guilt would be much greater.
      8 pm
      It has already been stated eloquently this evening that, compared with when the death penalty existed, we now have a much seamier media in this country which would exploit such trails for the basest of reasons, such as increasing the sale of newspapers or the number of television viewers.
      A second difficulty about leaving the decision to juries and about the new clause is that all the prejudices of the jurors would come out when making death penalty recommendations. From experience and from elsewhere, we know that it is much more likely that women would be sentenced to death. We know that unpopular minority groups—on the basis of sex, sexual behaviour or sexual orientation—would be much more likely to be recommended for the death sentence.
      Many people will remember the Jeremy Bamber case. Five members of the same family were killed by Jeremy Bamber. Colin Caffell, Bamber's brother-in-law, has written to me. He is the ex-husband of Sheila Caffell and the father of the children who were appallingly killed by Bamber. Mr. Caffell wrote to me on this issue, and to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), stating:
      "Had there been the death sentence, I suspect that Jeremy Bamber, who murdered my ex-wife and children, might have got off because people can't understand how 'a nice looking boy like him' could do something like that. Even though we can see, from the evidence, how dangerous he is, Jeremy doesn't fit the archetype image of a desperate killer. He is a good-looking and charismatic character with charm, a good education and everything to live for; a man who could, and almost did, sway the hearts of the jury; a man who could easily kill again!"
      All the evidence, especially from America, shows that if there is the death penalty for categories of murder, it is the

      783
      people from the poorest sections of society who are most likely to be singled out for that recommendation. I thought that this would be a controversial point, but after what the lawyers have said today, it is not. We like to think that the law and juries are perfectly objective. However, we have heard some stunning evidence today about the lack of objectivity.
      The third major difficulty about letting juries recommend the death penalty is that those who propose the new clause have seen that a tiny category of murders are so appalling and distressing that juries and courts will easily recognise them and recommend the death penalty. It must be realised that it is for precisely that category of murder that guilty verdicts are most unsafe. Timothy Evans would have been such a murderer. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) reminded us once again about Paddy Meehan. He would have been the kind of murderer who would have been recommended for the death penalty, having killed an elderly couple. David Blythe in Manchester, who was held for murdering two elderly women, would have been such a murderer. The Birmingham pub bombers and the Guildford bombers would have been such murderers. The Broadwater Farm murder was such a case.
      I do not know enough about the latter three cases to pronounce on whether the people concerned were guilty or innocent, but. I do know that there are grave doubts in each and every one of those cases about whether those people were guilty or innocent. Those were horrifying murders of the kind that engender intense emotion; when the pressures on the police to find the guilty are intense; when there are pressures to short-cut and where the evidence is much more likely to be circumstantial and flimsy rather than conclusive. Such murders might attract death penalty recommendations from juries, but it is in precisely such cases that the verdicts are least safe. At least those involved in those currently troubling cases are still in prison and alive. Under the new clause, they would not be.
      Mr. Charles Irving: Still vivid in my memory is the ordeal that I went through about 50 years ago as one of the pickets on the gates of Gloucester prison at the last hanging. I have never got over it. In all the years since, I have done my tiny bit to help to improve the appalling situation that existed in those days.
      The deliberate taking of another person's life in cold blood is an uncivilised act under any circumstances. To carry it out accompanied by the solemn ceremony of the state apparatus is totally obscene. I feel passionately, therefore, that it would be utterly wrong to reintroduce the death penalty without the most conclusive evidence that it acts as a unique deterrent. That evidence does not exist. In fact, throughout the world, the evidence shows that the death penalty does not reduce the murder rate, but leads simply to a greater coarsening of attitudes to human life.
      The arguments against capital punishment are well known to the House. So strong are they that they persuaded Parliament in 1965 to abolish the death penalty. So strong are they—[Interruption.] I thought that I heard somebody whispering or mumbling, but apparently not. So strong are they that they have persuaded Parliament time and time again not to reverse that momentous decision.
      With the indulgence of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I enumerate the compelling reasons why
      784
      capital punishment was wrong, is wrong, and will ever be wrong—[Interruption.] It is off again—there is something in the background. [Laughter.]
      First, capital punishment is not a deterrent. The Royal Commission of 1965——
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. Irving: No, I never give way and if you were the only girl in the world and I was the only boy, I would not give way to you.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his position perfectly clear.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is not a gentleman if he does not give way.
      Mr. Irving: First, capital punishment is not a deterrent. The Royal Commission of 1965 said that there was no evidence to prove it. Recent surveys in the United States of America, where some states have the death penalty and some have not, show exactly the same.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They always appeal.
      Mr. Irving: I appeal to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. to ask the hon. Lady to stop interrupting.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is reasonable to ask the hon. Lady not to continue interrupting from a sedentary position, as she has done most of the afternoon.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have sought to intervene from a standing position but the hon. Gentlemen did not give way, so it is scarcely my fault if I interrupt from a sedentary position.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: If one is not allowed to intervene from a standing position in this House, it is usual for hon. Members to restrict their comments until the Chair calls them.
      Mr. Irving: Some states have the death penalty and some have not, but they all say exactly the same: where a killing is done in the heat of the moment, whether by a jealous husband or a thwarted mistress, the threat of execution seems to hold no terror.
      Secondly, supporters of capital punishment do not call for it in every case. Surely that is a powerful admission by them that it is not necessarily a deterrent. Thirdly, we cannot restore life to a man wrongly convicted and executed. Alas, there have been in living memory the most appalling miscarriages of justice in a land which prides itself on its rule of law and whose legal system has been the object of worldwide admiration. Fourthly, hanging a terrorist would create a martyr and cause, not deter, more outrages. If capital punishment has the opposite effect, every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of both political parties would have come to this House to seek those powers, but we are told, and I accept, that it would create martyrs whose deaths would inspire a hundred fearful imitations.

      785
      I confess to feeling greater hostility to the terms of this new clause than I have felt towards any of its predecessors, and I have spoken in every debate on this subject since I have been a Member of this House. The new clause proposes to place on the shoulders of the jury the burden of deciding whether a killing is sufficiently evil to recommend the death penalty. That proposal is unprecedented in our legal history. For the first time, it places upon the jury, not the judge, the function of influencing the sentence of the accused. Further, by its very definition, it puts on the jury the burden of deciding fine matters of motive and morality.
      If a husband poisons his wife because she is dying of an incurable illness and he wishes to put her out of her pain. a jury in one place may find that evil and recommend the death penalty, whereas a jury in another area may not find it so. The provision would be wrong, unworkable and intolerable if it became law. Will the House insist in such a case, where the sanction is so terrible and final, that a jury must return a unanimous verdict? To do less would be to undermine the awesome nature of the punishment, and if the verdict must be unanimous it would require only one juror who is opposed to capital punishment in conscience to refuse to convict. The trial would then be stopped and the jury discharged. In those circumstances, would it be right for that man again to stand trial and again to fear for his life? That is not civilisation.
      We do not gouge out the eye of the person guilty of theft, we do not break the bones of the one convicted of battering, and we do not yet burn the house of an arsonist. While it is evil for an individual to take a life—I wholly agree with some of the comments and the cases that have been mentioned—it is equally evil and reprehensible for a civilised state to respond in the same way.
      8.15 pm
      In any discussion on capital punishment, certain matters must be taken for granted by abolitionists and non-abolitionists: that the whole apparatus of the death cell and the executioner is disgustingly squalid, repugnant to decent feeling and offensive to most; that capital punishment inflicts intolerable mental agony on the condemned man and particularly on his family; that it imposes a sordid responsibility on the prison staff, so consequently may well keep many people from joining the service if it were reinstituted; and that it creates a mystique around murder which the press grossly and irresponsibly exploit.
      If we pass the new clause, the bell will toll for this country and for the values which it should represent. The bell which tolls will be the death knell for a national reputation based on the solid foundations of civilisation and humanity.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Many moral issues cause right hon. and hon. Members on both sides great difficulty. I confess that I found the abortion issue particularly painful and had to reach a particularly painful decision about which way to cast my vote. Often we have great difficulty in deciding how to cast our votes. It is a great responsibility. We take these issues seriously and we work hard on them.
      I have never found any of those difficulties attached to my decision on capital punishment. We can all find good
      786
      reasons for opposing the reintroduction of the death penalty. We have heard many of the arguments rehearsed during this debate and doubtless they have been rehearsed on numerous occasions in this House over the years.
      There is the powerful argument that there could be a miscarriage of justice and an innocent man or woman would be sentenced to death. As hon. Members have eloquently said, while the system of justice remains fallible, and at present there are no grounds to believe that it is not, the danger will always be there. There are many well-documented cases, both when capital punishment was an option available to the courts and since then, where innocent people have been sentenced and condemned to death, and then under the old system pardoned or since capital punishment has not been an option pardoned and released. That is an extremely powerful and compelling argument.
      It is also been argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Many well-argued reports and research documents have been published and many conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that the presence and liberal use of the death penalty deters capital offences. Evidence from the United States shows that it is impossible to differentiate between homicide rates in those states that have capital punishment and those that have not. The Home Secretary has already said that the rise in the number of homicides committed in Britain is substantially lower than the rise in other violent offences.
      There is a great danger that the use of the death penalty would be arbitrary and unfair. We all know how difficult it was to differentiate between the types of murders that qualified for the death penalty under the Homicide Act 1957 and those that did not.
      The danger that lies behind the new clause is the public clamour for the use of the ultimate sanction. If the new clause were accepted that clamour would concentrate on certain well-publicised cases. The danger is that certain sections of the press would decide before a case was heard which defendant might merit the jury's recommendation for the death sentence. The pressure would build up day after day. Members of the jury, probably trying a case for the first time, would not be qualified to make a judgment. They would be under immense outside pressure to make a decision or a recommendation. I believe that those pressures would be intolerable and it would be most unfair to subject a jury to them.
      Another argument that has been canvassed today is the fact that the act of execution is both cruel and inhumane. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that he did not support hanging and that other methods of capital punishment should be considered. We all know that there is no humane way in which to kill a human being.
      All the arguments that I have outlined could be used against the restoration of capital punishment, but the most powerful, compelling and profound argument that could be deployed against its restoration is the moral argument. The taking of a life, even when it is sanctioned by the state, is a barbaric act. I believe that it is also an inherently immoral action. Such an act is based on the principle of revenge. We should base our sentencing provisions on the normal principles of justice and leave behind the feelings of private vengeance. That is why this is, above all else, a matter of conscience and why I shall vote against new clause 1.
      Mr. Lawrence: There has been much disagreement in the House tonight, but I believe that we all share certain views. We all share the belief that the level of mindless violence in our society is far too high. We are appalled at the level of murders, maimings, terrorist acts, rapes, muggings and hooliganism. We all share a desire to take whatever steps we can reasonably take to reduce that violence. We would all share a desire to avoid capital punishment as it is horrible to contemplate the cold-blooded taking of human life and we seek any alternative punishment that would achieve a reduction in violent crime. Unfortunately, for 23 years we have tried the only logical alternative and it has manifestly failed as violence has continued to rise.
      We must all agree that the overwhelming majority of people whom we represent believe that the one necessary and reasonable step that we should take to reduce murders, maimings, perhaps to reduce rapes and muggings or any other form of violence—the use of lethal guns, knives or other hideous weapons—is the restoration of capital punishment for murder. I am sure that all hon. Members agree with what I have said, but perhaps some would not agree that we have exhausted all the alternatives.
      There are a number of matters, however, on which we do not all agree. Some hon. Members would never, under any circumstances, feel justified in taking human life. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) has said that such an act is uncivilised. It is in an uncivilised society, however, that civilised punishment fails to deter. We shall not enjoy the luxury of a civilised society until we reduce the level of murders, maimings, rapes and serious violence.
      Some hon. Members are against retribution and that is an honourable view. If we are to have retribution, however, I should prefer state retribution according to the rules legally and properly laid down by it rather than the retribution of private individuals in back alleys. In any event, hon. Members who believe that society would be more civilised if capital punishment was not restored are in a minority in the country.
      Some hon. Members are against capital punishment because they believe that if it were applied to terrorists it would result in reprisals and they cannot face that possibility. But if we gave way to such blackmail or fear it would mean that the lawless would be making the laws of our country and we would be betraying the trust of the people who put us here.
      Some hon. Members are against capital punishment because mistakes could be made and innocent people might die. That argument rests on the reasoning that it can never be justifiable, under any circumstances, to run the risk of taking innocent lives. If that were the rule by which we lived our lives, would we have gone to war in 1939 or earlier? What do we think about Hiroshima, which resulted in the loss of countless innocent lives? Those lives were lost to save more lives that would have been lost had the war continued.
      Should not the saving of innocent lives lead us to ban the most lethal weapon known to man, which daily takes tens or hundreds of lives in our society—the motor car? We should not let the risk of taking innocent lives, which might inevitably follow with capital punishment, stop its reintroduction but we should endeavour to make those mistakes unlikely or impossible. That is our obligation.
      788
      We can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past if we make careful rules. After a jury have recommended the death penalty there is no reason why a tribunal should not consider carefully all the surrounding facts concerning the convicted person to see whether there is anything at all that can be said to prevent that person from dying. If that test had been carried out on Timothy Evans, who had a mental age of 12, he would not have died. If Hanratty, who may or may not have been innocent and about whom there is much mythology, had advanced the defence of diminished responsibility he might have succeeded. However, he chose to advance the defence of an alibi which failed.
      8.30 pm
      Those are the things that could be considered by a tribunal with access to all the background information. If the tribunal found that the killing was so horrible that nothing could be said to justify the saving of the life, so be it, but by that time it would be certain that the man condemned to die would be thoroughly, completely and utterly guilty.
      Some hon. Members are against capital punishment because they say that they could not bring themselves to carry it out and would not expect others to do it. There are all kinds of jobs that I could not bring myself to do. I could not inject an animal so that it died; nor could I carry out an abortion. We expect others to do those miserable jobs and it is a cop-out for us to advance that as a reason for not being in favour of capital punishment.
      Some hon. Members say that in Northern Ireland capital punishment would create martyrs. Of course it would, but martyrs will be created even if there is no capital punishment in Northern Ireland. The difference is that instead of martyrdom being continuous it would be anniversarial, and people tend to forget the names of the people whose funerals they were celebrating one, two or three years before. It is an insult to the Irish people north or south to advance the argument that the restoration of capital punishment would make martyrs.
      Some hon. Members will be convinced by what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about new clause 1: that it is a non-starter because it is imprecise about the powers of juries and impractical because it does not sit easily with the Criminal Justice Bill, which I remind my right hon. Friend is not yet on the statute book. My right hon. Friend said that it would be too difficult to have it in Northern Ireland where there are no juries. He said that it is contrary to the wishes of the Chief Constable of the RUC and other important people and that anyway murder represents only one hundreth of 1 per cent. of crime and one tenth of 1 per cent. of violent crimes. Does that mean that we should not entertain such a new clause but should shrug our shoulders and walk away? The new clause could be further amended in another place once the principle of restoration is established. If we do not like the way in which it is amended we can vote for the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) which is much simpler and does not raise those objections.
      Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the speech by the Home Secretary and to various aspects of what can be done in the Lords. He said that this is just a matter of principle. The Lord Chief Justice has offered

      789
      his view on it. As a recorder, what does the hon. and learned Gentleman think about the views of the Lord Chief Justice?
      Mr. Lawrence: As I understand it, the Lord Chief Justice did not express his view about whether there should be a restoration of capital punishment. The view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as being the view of the Lord Chief Justice was that in its present state the new clause would not work. I am saying that it can be further amended in the Lords and if hon. Members do not agree with that and are worried about it they can vote for the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North. It is much simpler and I do not think that the learned Lord Chief Justice has been asked to apply his mind to it. At any rate, we were not told that he had.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: When one boils the question down, does one not see that the principle of capital punishment comes to the simple question of one's individual conscience? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that every man's conscience, whether it be the Lord Chief Justice or Joe Soap in the street, is equal on this issue? If that is right, surely the House should reflect the views and the consciences of the overwhelming majority of our people.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful for the obvious support from my hon. Friend. I did not know until this evening that he was likely to support us. We look forward to hearing why he has changed his views.
      Some hon. Members may be against capital punishment because lawyers, judges, prison officers and witnesses might be intimidated and unwilling to do their duty and would want to resign or to reconsider their positions. What on earth did lawyers, judges, prison officers and witnesses do before capital punishment was abolished? Are any of us to be afraid of doing that which is right or necessary in order to save the lives of the innocent? Is that not a slur upon the sense of duty of those who make up the legal system?
      In the United States of America where capital punishment is constitutional it has been restored in many states and I have not heard that the system is breaking down in those states because of lawyers, judges and witnesses being unwilling to do their job. Why should the system break down in Britain?
      For one or some or all of the reasons that I have advanced, some hon. Members are opposed to the new clause. I remind them that in opposing it they represent a minority of the people of Britain.
      The arguments for and against must turn on whether capital punishment is a deterrent. If it is a deterrent it will save lives. It will stop the convicted killer or the potential killer from taking innocent lives, the lives of people who have a right to live. If it is a deterrent, to oppose its reintroduction is to prefer the life of the convicted killer to the lives of innocent people. It is to pity the killer rather than the victim or the potential victim. To do that would be unjust, immoral and thoroughly indefensible. I am getting a bit tired of being called bloodthirsty because I support the restoration of capital punishment. If it is a deterrent it will save lives and not to restore it would be more bloodthirsty and far less defensible.
      790
      Those opposed to capital punishment say that it does not deter because there is no evidence to that effect, but there is some evidence. Professor Erlich of Chicago has produced evidence to show that between 1933 and 1969 there was a distinct deterrent effect in the United States and that each execution may have resulted in several fewer murders. A professor of Yale has concluded that between 1939 and 1968 capital punishment was a deterrent in Britain. There is evidence throughout the world that the murder trend has risen more slowly in countries where there is capital punishment.
      Let me accept that the evidence is equivocal. If it is, it is because there is no way of registering statistically and convincingly the number of times that a murder was avoided because of the fear of capital punishment. We have to look elsewhere than the statistics., for evidence about whether it is a deterrent.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) made an interesting speech and gave examples of people who were not deterred. There will always be those who are not deterred, just as there will always be the poor.
      I do not say that everyone will be deterred by capital punishment, but some will be deterred and that will save many innocent lives. Why do I believe that? First, it is common sense that in many cases the consequences of being caught with one's wrongdoing must have a deterrent effect on what one does. If not, why do we have punishment at all? Why do we have sentences of any kind unless we feel that a substantial justification for them would be deterrence?
      Secondly, I believe that lives would be saved; the British people overwhelmingly believe that it would deter. The judgment of ordinary people about the motivation of ordinary people must be more compelling than the judgment of experts. We do not need experts to tell us how ordinary people would react to situations that sometimes end in murder.
      Thirdly, another stratum of our society believes that capital punishment is a deterrent. I am referring to the IRA. Why else does it use capital punishment to bring its people into line unless it believes that capital punishment deters terrorists? Why else was the House threatened by the leader of the IRA some years ago, when we debated capital punishment, that if we reintroduced capital punishment there would be greater reprisals against British soldiers in Northern Ireland? If the IRA believes it, why should we disbelieve it?
      I believe that capital punishment is a deterrent because in the 1960s I defended some really serious criminals in a number of serious criminal cases. I used to ask them, "Is capital punishment a deterrent? Did it ever deter you? Would it deter others like you?" I am talking about a time when capital punishment was just going out of operation. It was against their interests to say to someone who was interested in politics and might one day become a Member of Parliament, "Yes, we believe that capital punishment is a deterrent." They should have been saying, "No, it is not a deterrent." I do not remember one serious criminal sitting in the cells of any of our prisons of whom I asked the question "Is it a deterrent?" saying, "No." They said, "In the days when we knew that we might hang, we did not take guns on our enterprises. When we knew that we would hang, we did not take young tearaways with us who might go over the top and start killing people."

      791
      Serious criminals, who may or may not have killed and murdered, the IRA and the ordinary people who understand the motivations of ordinary people perhaps more clearly than the experts do with all their statistics make me sure that for some—not for all, but perhaps for many—capital punishment is a deterrent.
      We shall all vote as our consciences lead us. I shall vote for the restoration of capital punishment, as I have always done, because I believe that its restoration will reduce the killing of the innocent, and the carrying of weapons which might be used to kill or maim the innocent. Whether juries have difficulties does not matter. What matters is that the would-be killer could never be sure in advance that he would not die if he were caught having killed someone innocent. I think that he would be deterred.
      Of the two options I prefer the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, which states simply and clearly, as a matter of principle, avoiding all the criticism against it by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or the learned Lord Chief Justice, that
      "The maximum penalty for murder shall be death".
      Mr. Mullin: First, may I say how saddened I was to learn from the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that he is now in favour of the death penalty. Only recently I appeared with him on a television programme and he said the opposite.
      Mr. Devlin: May I elucidate that point? Personally I am not in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment, but 86 per cent. of my constituents are. I regard my conscience as being no superior to that of my constituents, so I am prepared to represent their view on this issue, which I believe to be outside politics, and which was not in my manifesto, and I shall carry that through into action this evening.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Mullin: It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman lacks the guts to do what he knows to be right.
      I am against the death penalty under all circumstances, for the reasons given by many hon. Members who have spoken so articulately tonight. I wish to dwell on only one aspect of the argument which has been touched upon by other hon. Members, and which I know a little about, and that is the possibility of mistakes because mistakes are the bottom line in this argument.
      In America, a study carried out in 1985 by the American Civil Liberties Union concluded that this century in the United States 343 innocent people had been convicted of capital crimes and of those 25 had been executed. I mention that only in passing because tonight hon. Members on both sides of the argument have accepted that innocent people would be executed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who robustly faced up to the possibility, or certainty, that innocent people would be executed, as in the past others who take his view have not.
      I believe that we have made rather more mistakes in convictions related to murder than we have been prepared to admit hitherto. I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) say that he personally knew of 20 or 30 cases in which he believed that innocent persons had been convicted of murder. That is more than I thought we were dealing with, but from my own experiences I realise that it is quite a big problem.
      792
      One aspect of that problem is the inability of our legal system to own up to mistakes. The bigger the mistake, the more difficult our legal system finds it to own up. That was acknowledged by the Select Committee chaired by Lord Eden six years ago. which considered miscarriages of justice. It acknowledged then that the present system of appeal does not do justice in most of the great alleged miscarriages of justice.
      Lord Denning, who often can be counted on to say out loud what other distinguished judges will say only in private, has illuminated another aspect of that problem. Faced with a choice between owning up to a mistake and discrediting public confidence in the legal system, many of our senior judges will choose to avoid owning up. That very serious allegation was made by Lord Denning in a programme in February. He was perfectly prepared to contemplate the possibility that innocent people had been and would be convicted and he felt that it was better that they should be, to avoid discrediting the legal system.
      The problem is compounded by our habit of convicting people on the most slender evidence. That is at the root of many great alleged and accepted miscarriages of justice, as are confessions given in police custody and repudiated in court. They run like a thread through many of the cases with which we are familiar.
      There was recently an even more remarkable example in the case of Winston Silcott, convicted of taking part in the murder of PC Blakelock. That was a particularly horrible murder that aroused great public feeling. He was convicted solely on the verbal evidence of a police officer. He did not sign any confession and there was no other evidence against him. He was, as they say in the trade, "verballed". I do not allege that Mr. Silcott was innocent, but it was not proved to my satisfaction that he was guilty. That is the view of many other reasonable people. No one is in any doubt that, had we had the death penalty, Winston Silcott would certainly have been an early candidate for hanging.
      There are other cases of mistakes to which our judicial system has eventually been persuaded to own up. Some of those cases have been touched upon by other hon. Members. Timothy Evans was convicted and hanged in 1950. In 1953, the police caught the person who committed the crime and it took another 13 years, with little help from the judges, before our judicial system or the Home Office was prepared to pardon Timothy Evans.
      A case that has not been mentioned is that of Cooper and McMahon who were convicted in 1970 of the Luton post office murder. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal by no fewer than four successive Home Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). On each occasion the judges sat stony-faced and said that they had heard nothing new. In the end, the Home Secretary of the day, now Lord Whitelaw, became so embarrassed at the inability of the Home Office to persuade the judges to own up to the mistake that he simply ordered the gates of the prison to be opened, gave the men a railway ticket each and sent them home without so much as an apology for the decade they had spent in gaol.
      The case of Patrick Meehan has been mentioned. He was convicted in 1969 and released in 1977 with a pardon. He was framed on the evidence of police officers and would certainly have hanged. The case of Jack Preece has been mentioned. He was convicted in 1973 of a murder involving sexual assault. He was released and pardoned in

      793
      1981 after it became clear that the Home Office forensic scientist had dabbled with the evidence. He would certainly have hanged.
      Geoffrey Mycock was convicted in 1969 and released in 1984. He was convicted on the basis of a confession obtained in police custody and on the evidence of our old friend the forensic scientist, Dr. Clift.
      I should refer to one of Dr. Clift's colleagues, Dr. Frank Skuse. His was the key evidence in the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. Dr. Skuse, like Dr. Clift, has also been dismissed on the grounds of what the Home Office coyly describes as limited effectiveness. In Dr. Clift's case, 17 or 18 convicted people, including several convicted of murder, had to be released. In Dr. Skuse's case, no one has been released; that is because everyone knows that it would lead back to the Birmingham pub bombings and no one dares face up to that.
      Ronald Leighton—no relation of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)—was convicted in 1972 of the Confait murder. He was released and pardoned in 1975. He would probably have been hanged. Hon. Members have mentioned other cases, including that of James Hanratty who was hanged.
      Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman might care to know that Ronald Leighton was 15 years of age at the time of the killing of Confait.
      Mr. Mullin: I thank the hon. Gentleman and accept that point——
      Mr. Allan Rogers: He was still not guilty.
      Mr. Mullin: James Hanratty was hanged. I do not know whether he committed the crime, but I do know that the evidence was extremely slender and depended on the identification evidence of a woman who had been shot many times. He went to the gallows protesting his innocence to the last moment.
      The case of the newsboy, Carl Bridgewater, has not been mentioned. That was a particularly emotive and wicked murder involving firearms. The people responsible for that would certainly have been sent to the gallows. Three men were convicted of that murder, but many people who have studied the case believe that they are innocent. I believe that the Home Secretary is looking into that case now.
      I shall now deal with the case known as the greatest contemporary alleged miscarriage of justice, the conviction of six men who I believe to be innocent of the Birmingham pub bombings. No case this century has aroused such revulsion and emotion as the wicked act of placing those bombs in those pubs killing 21 persons. I am sure that nobody in the House is in any doubt that had we had the death penalty at that time those six would have been sent to the gallows. I have studied that case in detail and I know each of those men and their families well. I can place my hand on my heart and say that those men had nothing more to do with the Birmingham pub bombings than any of the people in the House today. I go further than that. I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and probably on both sides of the argument
      794
      about the death penalty, know that to be the truth. The problem is that no one has yet devised a way to persuade our legal system to own up to a mistake of that gravity.
      The question of deterrence has been mentioned. It is perfectly obvious that one does not deter by putting away the wrong people. I cannot see any advantage in that. I have an advantage over the House, in that I know who did carry out the Birmingham pub bombings. That is an issue I am happy to debate at some time. One of the people who did carry out the bombings went on to commit another crime. Had he been captured, and had the police concentrated on catching the right people, he would not have committed that murder.
      The case of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings is well known. Three of the four people involved would certainly have been hanged. A total of seven or eight people were killed in those bombings. The only person convicted who would have survived is the woman who was too young to hang. All those people and another seven convicted with them were convicted on the basis of the confessions of one man, which were obtained in police custody.
      I might add that those confessions had to be rewritten six or seven times in order to meet each new set of facts as they become available. It is widely felt by many people on both sides of the House who are more distinguished than myself that those people had nothing to do with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings. In the year 1974, that would make a total of nine people who would have gone to the gallows for crimes they did not commit.
      Judith Ward was convicted in 1974 of the M62 coach bombing. Unlike the other two cases, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that she did not do it. However, persons more distinguished than I who have studied the case in detail believe that Judith Ward, now serving 30 years imprisonment, is entirely innocent of the bombing. If that is so, she certainly would have hanged and 1974 would have been a black year in which a total of 10 innocent people would have gone to the gallows. Most of them were convicted by forensic evidence, which is now extremely dubious, or confessions given in police custody.
      It has been suggested that perhaps we should have the death penalty only for terrorists, but that is precisely when mistakes are most likely to be made. In the wake of a terrorist atrocity, the police are most under pressure to get results, and public hysteria is at its highest.
      It is sometimes said—usually by other judges—that we have the best judges in the world. We have some of the smuggest and most self-satisfied judges in the world. We also have some of the finest and some of the lousiest lawyers. Even if our judges are the best in the world—and that is not necessarily something I believe—mistakes would still occur. The choice between admitting a mistake on the scale that has been mentioned and discrediting the judicial system is one that judges find too difficult to face.
      I said earlier that the hon. Member for Thanet, North had robustly faced the possibility of the wrong people being convicted. He was prepared, with equanimity, to face that possibility, but Labour Members and some Conservative Members are not prepared to do so. That, however, is not the real test. The test is whether the hon. Member for Thanet, North is prepared to be hanged for something that he did not do. Under those circumstances, I suspect that he might not be quite so keen on the death penalty.

      795
      9 pm
      If we had the death penalty, would our judges or the police be more willing to own up to mistakes that they know have taken place? I should like to think that that would he the case, but in the Birmingham case the police already know, or strongly suspect, that they have the wrong people. As to the Guildford and Woolwich cases, I believe that the authorities, including the police, have known probably from the third day, but certainly after six months, that they had got the wrong people. I believe that that is known all the way up the line to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The authorities understood that at the time because they caught the right people—the Balcombe street IRA unit. It is evident from the way in which the Balcombe street case was massaged, with the exceptional amount of fraud and perjury that had to be organised, that everyone involved understood what had happened. They had got the wrong people, and they were trying to cover up.
      As to the case of Judith Ward, a friend of mine recently had lunch with an assistant chief constable of a force that was not involved in the original investigation. They were discussing the Birmingham case, and the assistant chief constable said, "That lassie in Durham gaol did not do the M62 coach bombing either, did she? That was a cock-up by the Yorkshire police." It is common gossip, and they know that they have got the wrong people.
      I cannot help noticing that those who bay loudest for blood are the most reluctant to face up to the possibility of error. The fact that we have not had the death penalty for the past 20 years or so leaves open the possibility that one day we shall persuade those in authority to face up to the wrongs that have been committed in the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich cases. It leaves open the possibility that one day those people will be released and compensated, and justice will he done. Had we had the death penalty, this discussion would be academic.
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: It is 23 years since the death penalty was done away with in this country. There is no doubt, on the admission of the Home Secretary, that murder has increased. In particular, extreme violence has increased in every sphere of society. It is not only a question of the elderly lady who is frightened to live alone. People are frightened to take their children to a football match. The increase in violence has caused grave concern to the House and British society.
      What we have tried to achieve in bringing an end to violence has not succeeded. Indeed, violence is on the increase. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other hon. Members say that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder, how will they curb the further and greater violence that is continuing in our society? The Home Secretary, on his own admission, in the past week has realised the extent of this problem. He has said that he will further increase sentences for murder and extremely violent crime. Not before time, because there is no doubt that that is one of the most serious problems facing society today. It is no good having a society whose economy is improving and which sustains life through modern technology if that betterment of life is ruined by the type of violence that is going on in our society.
      It is right to seek to put the onus of capital punishment on the judge, as my new clause 11 proposes. I can see the problems and dangers of the jury making such a decision. However, it is no good the Home Secretary saying that
      796
      judges can decide sentences in cases of extreme violence but that it would be wrong to put the onus on the judge to decide whether to impose the death sentence. Whichever way one looks at it, that is to have double standards. After all, the most competent person to decide whether the maximum penalty should apply must be the judge. He is the person with the wealth of experience, not the jury. He would not have been appointed if that were not the case.
      There has been a lot of talk about the problem of martyrs in Northern Ireland. I should be extremely surprised if any hon. Member could easily remember the names of the hunger strikers, other than Bobby Sands. Let the House remember that it was the parents of those people on hunger strike who finally persuaded them to give up. Therefore, that argument does not arise.
      Capital punishment has been compared with abortion. The unborn child cannot argue about being aborted.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is innocent.
      Mr. Bendall: It is innocent. But the murderer has that decision in his own hands. Therefore, there is no comparison whatever.
      The death penalty would act as a deterrent. In the 23 years that we have been without the death penalty the situation has worsened. Give us three years and let us see whether it acts as a deterrent. It will act as a deterrent to the young, headstrong person who murders an elderly person in his flat for 25 shillings. That is the sort of person that it will deter. It will deter the criminal from carrying a firearm. People have been carrying firearms in much greater abundance in recent years.
      When I tried to introduce the death penalty in the House in 1982 I said that without the death penalty the use of firearms by criminals would continue to grow, and that is exactly what has happened. More and more, as time goes on, innocent people will be killed in the cross-fire when the police ferret out such criminals. If we had the death penalty, criminals would frisk one another to make sure that they did not have firearms. People would not go out with firearms. If the House decided to support the new clause, it would give the people a chance to see that the death penalty would act as the deterrent that they desire.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: It is not inconsistent to have supported the Alton Bill to date and to be committed to the restoration of capital punishment. I know—probably more than, or at least as much as, my colleagues from Northern Ireland—the real difficulty of sharing the sorrow of the relatives of those murdered in Ulster. Be they Protestant or Roman Catholic, their sorrow is the same. I have no hesitation in supporting efforts made to restore the death penalty, because it is the only appropriate punishment for murder.
      I am opposed to private vengeance, but I believe that we have a duty and responsibility to society and to protect the innocent and the defenceless. The premeditated killing of any human being—the taking of any human life—requires the maximum sentence that can be imposed for that crime. The death penalty is final and in my opinion it is the only just sentence.
      Reference has been made to moral arguments. I hope that the House will bear with me, because I speak with conviction. I accept God's word as my guide for life. Many eminent philosophers, academics and, indeed, gifted orators in this House believe that man-made laws are superior to God's laws for mankind. I do not share their

      797
      views. I remind those unfamiliar with Genesis, chapter 9, of the covenant made between God and Noah. God blessed Noah, but required acceptance by him of the principle that
      "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed".
      Also in the Old Testament, chapter 35 of Numbers contains examples of murder. After each example comes the specific verdict:
      "he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death."
      In verse 33 of the same chapter, we read the reason for the death penalty:
      "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it."
      Regrettably, our land is polluted by evil and by innocent blood. We as a nation must return to God's law.
      There is ample provision in God's law, through "cities of refuge", for lesser sentences than capital punishment for manslaughter; and I entirely agree that we must continue to make such provision. I also agree that life sentences must be applied where appropriate.
      There are many other Old Testament references. Some would say of them, "That is only the Old Testament." The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already referred to Acts, chapter 25, verse 11, in which St. Paul says:
      "For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die".
      That shows the continuity of the death penalty as between the Old and New Testaments.
      God's law should guide us all. The opponents of the death penalty argue that the absence of capital punishment is the mark of a civilised society. It could equally be argued that the present absence of capital punishment and the short sentences, with remission, for serious crimes are leading the United Kingdom into becoming an uncivilized society. Life sentences for murderers, those guilty of serious crimes against the elderly, against women and children should, in the absence of the death penalty, be sentences for the rest of the criminal's natural life. There is so much evil and so much injustice. There is too much sympathy for and with criminals. Too many excuses are made for them, and there is too little sympathy for the victims.
      The sentences still do not fit the crimes that are being committed in our society. Hon. Members have referred to Northern Ireland. Since 1969, more than 250 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the reserve have been murdered. Those figures refer only to one section of our security forces. There is no reference to the members of the regular Army or the Ulster Defence Regiment, but there are more than 2,000 innocent dead in Northern Ireland as a result of there being no real deterrent. Over 2,000 innocents have been murdered. Many of their murderers are still running free. The horror and tragedy of Enniskillen is almost forgotten.
      Some terrorists may be fanatics. If the death penalty were in place for murder, it might not deter the fanatics, but it would remove some of them from circulation and thereby reduce the number of active terrorists who are terrorising law-abiding people. It would also make young
      798
      people who have not yet become involved as active terrorists think twice before they joined a terrorist organisation.
      9.15 pm
      Society must not be held hostage and under threat, as it would be if the argument about the possibility of terrorists and criminals taking hostages were allowed to prevent the restoration of the death penalty for murder. The threat is already being carried out, as the release of prisoners is sought in exchange for hostages and as hostages are held for ransom to raise funds for terrorist organisations. Each hon. Member, according to his conscience, abhors evil, but we must also act so that the scales of justice are tipped towards greater detection, conviction and punishment for crime. It has already been said that there is too much sympathy for criminals and too little sympathy and help for the victims. The state has a basic responsibility to protect its citizens. I contend that, without the death penalty as the ultimate sanction, we cannot combat crime successfully or properly protect society.
      Mr. John Wheeler: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He proposes the restoration of capital punishment in Northern Ireland, but there is no jury system in Northern Ireland. For many centuries now nobody has been executed in the United Kingdom other than upon the verdict of a jury. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to implement capital punishment in Northern Ireland? Has he consulted the judiciary in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Beggs: That is a technical point. We are debating the principle of the restoration of the death penalty. If the decision is taken to restore the death penalty, the implications of its application to Northern Ireland will have to be dealt with. I have no doubt that there are honourable, upright citizens of both persuasions who are willing to do jury service and who should be given that opportunity. Hon. Members with constituencies in Northern Ireland continually say in this House, "Treat us as every other British citizen is treated." We ask for no more and no less. We ask for equal treatment. We shall accept the responsibilities that flow from it.
      We should like to see an end to the present generous remission system. Those who are in prison for serious terrorist offences become recycled terrorists. They rejoin their organisations when they are released after having served only a short sentence. The death penalty is imposed almost daily on innocents by terrorists, who are the most sophisticated criminals today. Capital punishment must be reintroduced to restore balance, and to protect the innocent.
      Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Member agree with me that in the history of Northern Ireland the 20 years of alternatives to the death penalty have been an abysmal failure? Will he agree with me that after 20 years murder is increasing? Does he therefore agree with me that the House owes it to the innocent to put pressure on the terrorists, on the guilty, to allow the innocent the right to live?
      Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The tragedy of the last 20 years is that Members of the House representing Northern Ireland constituencies have not been heard. Their advice has been

      799
      dismissed. A former colleague and member of my own party who served in this House, Robert Bradford, was himself a victim and was murdered. I ask all who have supported everything but the death penalty, including the failed Anglo-Irish Agreement, to consider seriously the value of introducing at this time capital punishment for murder.
      Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: For obvious reasons, this speech will he a short one. The House will forgive me if it is somewhat truncated and is not a natural development of arguments at the length that I would like.
      I respect the views of the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), with which I fundamentally disagree. I respect, as does everyone on my side of this argument—I almost said "on this side of the House", but it is not that sort of debate—the fact that he is in the front line. I hope that he respects our views too and remembers that on various tragic occasions we in mainland Britain have also been in the front line. The final point that I address to him for his consideration is that, in my humble and respectful view, if this new clause and an amendment to the new clause are passed we in mainland Britain will be more and more in the tragic front line that inevitably will follow capital punishment generally and capital punishment for terrorism in particular.
      The deterrence argument was very capably put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall). But if it is so obvious that capital punishment is a deterrent, it is an awfully long time in the proving. Various distinguished lawyers, and a very distinguished Royal Commission in 1953, have not been satisfied that capital punishment is a deterrent. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton agrees on this and says that it will never he possible to prove it because we do not know the motives for murder. We then had a whole stream of legal reminiscences about his various clients who were quite satisfied that it would have been a deterrent for them. But, by the very fact that he agrees that it cannot be proved, he is only stating his belief based upon his very considerable experience.
      Many hon. Members may not think of me as a legal eagle, but I had 14 years' practice at the Bar and a certain amount of criminal Bar experience, and also appeared as counsel in various murder trials, and I utterly and completely disagree with the conclusions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. Additionally, since everybody is speaking a bit personally about this subject. I also had certain experience as a very young member of the Bar as a judge's marshal in the days when capital punishment existed, when I sat next to the judge during a whole series of capital murder trials. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, in my view the worst murderer got off, and the most pathetic, who was almost the exact replica of the person to whom my hon. Friend referred in the midst of his oratory about an old person getting a battering and so on—one pensioner killing another in a lodging house in the course or furtherance of theft of a few shillings—was well, firmly and tragically hanged. So much for my hon. Friend's new clause and the example that he seeks to draw.
      I support what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. For three or four months, I actually sat with and, by the peculiar position of judge's marshal, I lived and ate with the judges who had to try such cases.
      800
      Even then, let alone now, the effect on them during a trial and when the moment comes—I dare say that not everyone has witnessed it—when the black cap goes on is not only formidable in itself but pretty traumatic for those who must wear it.
      Over the years, I have had varying views about capital punishment. I voted against capital punishment on the last occasion, and I shall vote against it tonight. I shall never vote in favour of it again. In 1983—this is purely personal—I sat in my usual place, waiting for the vote to be taken, having supported capital punishment. I waited with the first of recent Parliaments with a considerable Conservative majority. Hon. Members may remember that we were not quite as sure about the result as we perhaps have been on other occasions. The pride that I felt for those Conservative hon. Members who, on that occasion, voted against capital punishment was accompanied by a slight shame that I felt for what I had just done. It made me decide definitely that never again would I support such a measure.
      I shall make two final points in addition to, rather than by way of repetition of, what has been said. The amendments have already been described as crazy. Without going into legalistic argument, I thoroughly endorse that description. From his point of view, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was quite rightly anxious to emphasise that there would be appeals all round—that point has not really been made yet—whoever imposed the capital punishment. Whether there is a judge or a jury, it i highly likely that, from the defence or the prosecution, appeal there will be.
      What a nightmare it will be for the Court of Appeal when a whole parade of cases are put before it on exactly the same grounds as the case before them when capital punishment has not been decreed by either judge or jury. How on earth can the Court of Appeal ever sentence anyone to death in such circumstances? One has occasionally heard of Home Secretaries almost being made ill by the decision. The exercise of the Queen's prerogative of mercy in this sort of matter would be a crazy task and quite impossible to execute.
      With regard to terrorism, and without going into the details of the arguments, the same rules must apply, if ever this type of measure is introduced, in mainland Britain and Northern Ireland. I regret to say that that is the fact of the matter. If we cannot have juries in Northern Ireland, by way of caution trials may have to be brought across to mainland Britain. In the terms of the proposed measures, the consequences of terrorism, capital punishment, hostage taking, revenge killing and so on will not be confined to Northern Ireland. If this crazy legislation is passed by the House, we in mainland Britain will be in the same situation.
      I say finally to the House that we have had enough of these debates. There should be an end to them. For goodness sake, can we not get on with dealing with crime and murder and not excite false expectations about capital punishment?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: I have listened to nearly all the debate, but I shall be brief and try to avoid repeating points that have already been made. I shall confine myself to four points. Two are propositions that have, I feel, been established: during the debate, and two

      801
      are issues that have—surprisingly—been avoided, particularly by the proponents of the new clause and amendments.
      The propositions that seem to me to have been established—and I have listened carefully throughout—are these: first, that should we vote for the new clause and amendments, we shall undoubtedly be voting for a course of action that will result in the killing of innocent people. That was admitted by a number of speakers who favour the reintroduction of capital punishment, and spelt out very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who referred to many cases of people given life sentences since abolition who would otherwise undoubtedly have been executed. Without doubt, those who vote for the new clause will vote in the full knowledge that innocent men and women will be killed as a result of their decision. The second proposition is perhaps rather negative, but it, too, has undoubtedly been established. It is impossible to substantiate by statistics the case that capital punishment is a deterrent. In view of the first proposition—that the reintroduction of the penalty will result in innocent people being killed—it seems to me that the failure to establish the second means that it behoves everyone to vote against the new clause.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Grocott: No, I must be brief.
      Evidence exists—it has surprisingly been ignored today—particularly in North America where states exist side by side, some with the death penalty and some without. Such states as California and Mississippi, with murder rates of 10·5 and 10·6 per 100,000 of the population—those are the 1985 figures—have the death penalty. States without the death penalty have figures ranging down to the lowest in North Dakota, with one murder per 100,000 people. There is clearly no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters; far from it. If anything the evidence points in the other direction.
      Let me call in evidence someone who ought to know something about whether deterrence works—someone whose unique evidence is contained in his autobiography. Perhaps the best-known executioner, Albert Pierrepoint, said:
      "It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown … All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder."
      That was said by the executioner who, first as assistant and then as public executioner, carried out more than 400 executions between 1931 and 1956. His is surely a unique testimony which the House would be mistaken to ignore.
      That brings me to two points that have been ignored almost entirely—and, I have to say, in a rather cowardly way—by the proponents of the new clause. They have not talked at all about the method of execution. And, my word, it is very easy to talk in generalities in the relative comfort of these Benches when others must deliver the goods.
      802
      The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) at least gave us a negative statement; he said that he was opposed to hanging. As we know, there is no humane way to kill people. We know how revolting hanging is. Again I call in evidence the Pierrepoint autobiography which described the careful calculations which Albert Pierrepoint and his uncle had to make to determine the strength of the condemned man's neck so as not to give him too big a drop which would pull the head off, and not to give too small a drop which would result in strangulation rather than a speedy death. People must consider seriously any form of judicial killing, whether by the electric chair, by lethal injection or by gassing. There has been no reference to that. It is cowardly that the proponents of capital punishment, who want the House to change its policy after all these years, should not tell us precisely how they would carry out capital punishment.
      That brings me to my final point. Again the proponents of capital punishment have not told us who should carry it out. All too often the House ignores such matters. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) touched on this but he was not convincing. If we vote for the return of the death penalty, executioners will have to be recruited. They may be other kinds of executioners rather than hangmen, but executioners they will be. There was a strange tradition with the Pierrepoints whereby father passed on to brother who passed on to nephew the job of official executioner.
      Where would we find new executioners? Where would we train them? Would it be in South Africa where so many executions are carried out? Would executioners be recruited by public advertisement? These are the grisly and detailed questions which proponents of capital punishment have refused to face up to. Again I call in evidence the person who knows about these things in a way that no one in the House can possibly know about them. Albert Pierrepoint said at the end of his autobiography, and I remind the House that he said it with the awful burden of his experience, having carried out over 400 executions:
      "I now sincerely hope that no man is ever called upon to carry out another execution in my country. I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people."
      In my judgment, that is a responsibility which the House should never hand over to anyone.
      Mrs. Peacock: As we have heard, this subject has as always produced strong feelings inside and outside the House. Very few Members have mentioned the victims. Could we not give a little thought to the victims? What I have to say comes from deeply held convictions which have not been lightly or recently arrived at but which I have been persuaded over many years are right. My convictions are widely supported throughout the country.
      There have been many passionate speeches on both sides of the argument for many different reasons. In recent years there have been 16 debates in the House, all resulting in an abolitionist stance towards capital punishment. The arguments for and against have been well rehearsed and we have not heard anything new in today's debate.
      It is my belief and the belief of those who support the new clause that capital punishment is the supreme deterrent. If not, why do people appeal against it? If they are not afraid to die, why do they appeal? As evidence for

      803
      this, I draw the attention of the House to the fundamental and obvious changes which have taken place in society since partial abolition in 1965 and full abolition in 1969.
      Recent tragic events in this country relating to elderly people and especially to innocent children are graphic examples of the fact that the possession of and resort to lethal weapons have become commonplace in today's Britain. In the 10 years from 1973 to 1983, the number of offences involving guns rose from 1,754 to 8,067. The number of murders arising out of the commission of some other offence—usually theft or rape—rose by a staggering 73 per cent. from 1965 to 1977. Figures for the years since show similar increases.
      It is true that such rises reflect a general increase in the level of crime and that an overwhelming statistical case for the deterrent effects of capital punishment is always difficult to make, as is the argument that it does not deter. However, as with many other arguments over this issue, no absolute proof can be obtained. It is clearly impossible to calculate how many people would be deterred from carrying and using firearms if capital punishment was available to the courts.
      We are told that the reintroduction of capital punishment would encourage a nothing-to-lose attitude among certain sections of the public. Do we not already have a nothing-to-lose attitude on the streets of Britain today? We must emphasise what has been an undercurrent in my comments so far—that murder has become commonplace. We never thought that we would see it in the streets of our country, but we have it and it cannot be denied.
      Some people would argue that the absence of capital punishment is the mark of a civilised society. What is a civilised society thinking about when it encourages and enables elderly people to be battered to death in their homes and young children to be murdered when they are walking to their grandmothers? Recently there has been the "babes in the wood" murder in Brighton. I understand that the parents of those children have been in the House to see how Parliament debates these issues.
      When will we think of the victims? When will we ask the courts to think of the victims and stop just thinking about the murderers? The criminal law no longer provides credible sanctions for the most heinous form of wrongdoing. Something must he done, and the House must take that decision today. The majority of people in this country are in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty. Many polls have shown overwhelming evidence that that is so and that people would support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). While we cannot rule by a national referendum, if we had a national referendum today, I am sure that there would be overwhelming support for the reintroduction of capital punishment. Let us make no mistake about that.
      Of course, as Members of Parliament, we are representatives. We are not delegates, so we are not delegated to represent views. However, we have to take into account the views of our constituents; otherwise, why are we here? We must listen occasionally to what they have to say. If our constituents decide that their interests are best protected by the death penalty, who are we to tell them that that is not so? Do we think of ourselves as morally superior? Do we have some secret information which persuades us to decide otherwise? I suggest we do not. It cannot be that a small majority of 650 people,
      804
      elected to the House, are in a position to take such an arrogant attitude merely because of the letters MP after their name.
      On the streets, murder and violence are not distant and unreal, as many of our constituents are finding out on their own doorsteps. Fear of such happenings, not only perhaps to ourselves, but to our children and to our elderly relatives, is a constant companion and is real.
      Of course, we recognise the fear of miscarriages of justice, of hostage-taking and of martyrdom. However, I implore the House that we should take this giant step for sanity and reintroduce the death penalty. It is high time that some hon. Members came down from their ivory towers and listened to what the people of this country want and voted for new clause 1.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Couchman: There is little fresh to say in this debate. The arguments against the reintroduction of capital punishment have been repeated many times since its abolition in 1965. As a convinced abolitionist and strict non-reintroductionist since before the abolition of the death penalty, I for one have no shame in reiterating the three defects of capital punishment which have held me steadfast in my view.
      Although I am a fan of the British system of justice, I do not believe in judicial infallibility. I am persuaded that capital punishment is not a unique deterrent for a unique crime. Its reintroduction would further brutalise a society in which violence is already far too prevalent. A great deal has been said this evening about the mistakes that can be made. I fully admit that I am most persuaded against the reintroduction of capital punishment by the possibility of a mistake.
      We have heard about John Preece, Patrick Meehan, Albert Taylor and the three young men who were convicted of the Confait killing. We have heard about the Birmingham pub bombers. The common thing bringing all those people together is that they were all alive to benefit from a review of their conviction and sentence, and to enjoy a pardon, if granted. One can only speculate as to whether any of them would have been executed if the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) had been the law in force when they were convicted.
      Inevitably, those of us who oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty will always return to the case of Timothy Evans. The posthumous pardon that was granted to Evans in 1966 was cold consolation to his mortal remains, lying interred in quicklime in unconsecrated ground. Other cases cause us unease, such as the unequal treatment of Craig and Bentley—Craig, the killer, was spared but Bentley, the accomplice, was executed. We remember the doubts about Hanratty. I do not believe that anyone in the House does not regret the execution of Ruth Ellis. The irony of her case is that, had her lover, whom she subsequently shot, not assaulted her so brutally that she lost the baby she was carrying, she would not have been executed, because pregnant women could not be executed at that time.
      I re-read our debates of 1983 and 1987. No hon. Member who spoke against reintroduction failed to mention his concern about the possibility of the innocent being executed. No hon. Member who spoke in favour—an honourable exception tonight was my hon. Friend

      805
      the Member for Thanet, North when he moved his new clause—was prepared to shoulder the responsibility of the possibility of executing the innocent.
      New clause 1 places an impossible onus on the jury, because public expectations will be raised by media reporting in particularly notorious murder cases, stating that there should be a recommendation for capital punishment. Clearly it is essential that a majority verdict could not lead to the death sentence; otherwise, the dissenting jurors would feel that they were party to sending an innocent person to death. Juries which are cognisant of their full responsibilities might be inclined to find the accused guilty of a lesser crime. It happened before and it will assuredly happen again.
      I have never been convinced of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. More eloquent people than I have given reasons for that, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Therefore, I shall not delay the House any longer on that issue.
      The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) challenged those who are in favour of reintroduction to explain what method of execution they would prefer. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North does not like the idea of a return to the rope. What then would we have? Would we have the continental guillotine or garotte? Would we consider the transatlantic, high technology, electric chair or gas chamber? Or, if we are looking for a truly deterrent sentence, perhaps we should consider one of the brutal judicial murders prescribed by Sharia law, such as by stoning or the sword.
      Another deterrent would surely be the media representatives who would accompany any person who had been convicted and sentenced to death. We would have that horrible build-up, which we used to have without the benefit of television. I am young enough to remember the grisly ritual of trial and appeal; of consideration by the Home Secretary; the titillation of the visit by the relatives on the last occasion on the night before execution; the prospects and possibility of a last-minute stay of execution; and the climax of that little white notice being hammered on the board outside prison walls by the warden just after 8 o'clock to say that another poor soul had met his end.
      Our record on capital punishment is truly dreadful, from the days of Henry VIII when 72,000 were put to death in 38 years to the early 19th century when we were still hanging near-infants of seven years. Do we really want the brutalisation which would accompany the reintroduction of the death penalty? I think not.
      I differ entirely from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) who seemed to lay great stress on the opinion polls that have been published over the past 24 years and normally depend for their sample on about 1,000 voters. Interestingly, he rejected the notion that we should have a referendum, in which all electors should be asked for their opinion. If we were subjected to a referendum after a lead up period similar to that of a general election or the EC referendum in 1975, with the television showing mock executions and throwbacks to the Ellis trial and execution, the answer would probably be no to capital punishment. I urge all hon. Members to reject the new clause and to dispense with this matter once and for all.
      Mr. David Amess: Five years ago following the 1983 general election we had a similar debate on the restoration of capital punishment. I sat through all our proceedings and the debate had a lasting effect on me. I could not believe the sense of jubilation when the result was announced. I drove home feeling depressed because the House had not reflected the views of the general public.
      Murder has become so commonplace that it hardly draws any attention. The day after the 1983 debate the newspapers reported two further murders. I wondered how many hon. Members when they woke up the next day felt that they had done everything they possibly could to deter murder. Few could have answered yes.
      Two years ago my cousin's wife was murdered. She took her children to school, parked her car in a multi-storey car park and was stabbed to death 52 times. The murder and the conduct of the trial were reported, but then the media dropped the case. No one wants to know what happens to the victims of crime. It is not good media copy. I hope that the 650 Members of this honourable House are interested in the victims of crime and that each and every one of us in doing our duty will ensure that we make laws which will deter crime.
      I thought that the purpose of a sentence was not only to protect society from the criminal, but to teach the person who committed the crime not to repeat it. How on earth can one teach a person who has murdered someone not to murder again? How can we justify keeping someone such as the Yorkshire Ripper in gaol? He murdered 13 women; he raped a further seven and he destroyed the lives of more than 100 people. We continue to keep him in gaol and no detail is given as to how he is guarded.
      Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Yorkshire Ripper is kept in a secure mental home? The man is mad and he would never have been executed.
      Mr. Amess: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opinion, but I am not sure that that is the case. I certainly do not believe that every person who kills another is insane. A number of people know perfectly well what they have done.
      How can we justify keeping people such as Brady or Hindley in prison? I am sick to death of the endless media stories about them and of people pleading that they should be released. I do not believe that any hon. Member has the right to ask a person who has had a loved one murdered to forgive.
      I hope that when we vote we shall not see scenes of jubilation similar to those that followed the vote in 1983. This is a serious matter. On the 18 occasions on which we have discussed it we have been rather arrogant and we have not reflected the views of the public.
      I believe that murder is the ultimate crime and it should receive the ultimate sentence. When we wake up tomorrow morning we might unfortunately read of more murders, such as the three young women who were recently murdered in separate parts of the country. I hope that following our vote, however, we shall all have a clear conscience and feel that we have done all in our power to deter such crime.
      Mr. Tom Sackville: Capital punishment is usually discussed in legal or moral terms. The underlying assumption is that all that has to happen is for Parliament

      807
      to bring in a Bill and there we are. I question that assumption and I believe that if we brought back hanging it would not work.
      The first reason why capital punishment would not work is that the attitude and behaviour of juries have changed enormously in the past few years. Any prosecution lawyer will tell the House that it is extremely difficult to get a conviction in a murder trial. The attitude towards civic responsibility has changed and, because of sympathy for the accused or whatever, it is difficult to get a conviction. A leading prosecution lawyer who has spent most of his professional life dealing with murder trials told me that if hanging were in prospect his job would be impossible. If that were the case, what would happen? The prosecution might try for a reduced charge of manslaughter and therefore someone who should go down for life would come out with a four or five-year sentence. If an obvious premeditated murder had been committed it would not he admissible to bring a reduced charge. Therefore, there would be a strong risk that someone who had committed a murder would be acquitted and would walk from court. We should not do that and I should not be asked to expose my constituents to that risk.
      Hon. Members have mentioned the much vaunted 70 per cent. of public opinion that is in favour of hanging. If people were asked the abstract question, "Do you want to bring back hanging?" many of them would say yes. But what matters is what happens when the public are confronted with a real case of a person who will be hanged and the broadcasting media being let loose on the family. We did not have that in the 1950s.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Sackville: The time when the broadcasting media get loose on the families and start interviewing the weeping daughters and the mother and relations of the accused man and when people start focusing on the physical method of execution is the moment when opinion needs to be tested.
  I remind the House that a large proportion of the present adult population have been brought up since abolition and their attitude is different from that of people who were brought up when the death penalty was in force. To carry out such a drastic and uncivilised act as marching one of our fellow citizens to the end of a passage, putting a rope round his neck and dropping him through a trapdoor to break his neck, a democratic Government in peace time would need at least 90 per cent. of public opinion behind them. We would be lucky to get 50 per cent. If the House votes in favour of the new clause and in the more unlikely event of its being passed in another place, the legislation would not work and hanging would not have the effect that people want. I do not
  808
  underestimate the public concern about crime and violence, but this is the wrong way to go and I urge the House resoundingly to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: It is said, and I accept, that Parliament cannot characterise capital murder. We cannot say that only terrorists should hang, because of the difficulties of determining whether a bank robbery is committed in the course of terrorism. It is said that we cannot hang those who kill warders because the man who kills a warder in escaping from prison and then kills a young woman outside could not be executed for one murder and not for the other. It is said that we cannot have a referendum on these matters because the issues are too complex to put to the people. It is said that we cannot impose life sentences that mean life because we could not control people who were serving perhaps 30 years in prison. If we accept all those things we are left with the new clause.
  We cannot return to the days of the automatic death penalty for all murders, because about 75 per cent. of murders fall within a tightly knit group. I do not deny for an instant the awesome responsibility that would be placed on a jury by the new clause. It is not a perfect solution, but I suspect that for modern conditions it is the only solution that makes any sense. It is said that the state should never commit judicial execution, but where does that leave the concept of the just war? It is said that the state should never take life judicially and legally, but where does that leave the concept of abortion? It is said that judicial execution is not a deterrent. but why is it that before the abolition of the death penalty professional criminals took great care not to go armed when committing a robbery?
  The arguments are evenly balanced, but in the end this is a moral issue. In moral issues the judgments of our constituents, inexpert as many of them may be, are as valid as ours. We in the House have a duty to respect and to honour the judgment of our constituents. If we do not honour those judgments, an increasing number of people may become alienated from the parliamentary process because they feel that Parliament is not prepared to take the ultimate step to defend their freedom and their liberty under the law. For those reasons, I shall vote for the new clause.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Five hours ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) introduced the new clause, he said that he wanted this debate so that new Members would have a chance to say what they thought and to cast their votes. Not many new Conservative Members have had the chance to speak. I am one of those 53 new Members. Like the other 52, tonight I have to move from a personal belief to a public opinion. Like the other 52, I have been subjected to a fair amount of persuasion to vote yes. But, unlike most of the other 52, I am a long-standing opponent of capital punishment. Earlier this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who joined the House last June at the same time as I did, said that he had decided, after pressure, to change his mind from voting no to voting yes. I, too, have thought along those lines.
  Mr. Devlin: It is not pressure to consult one's constituents; it is not pressure to consult representatives from every part of one's constituency—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Devlin.
  Mr. Devlin: I would contend that this is a moral issue and the moral opinion of the highest in the land is as good as that of the lowest in the land; therefore we in the House should reflect the majority of the moral opinions in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that point in a moment. I want to explain why the train of thought which we have just heard is wrong.
  I have not found the past few weeks easy. I have come to realise that it is much easier to have personal views than it is to have public opinions and a public vote. I have come to understand very clearly the force of a widely held public opinion. I accept that the majority of people in this country want us to vote yes tonight. I have also come to appreciate the great advantage of trying to please my electorate and my party supporters. I freely admit that I have been tempted to go down that track.
  In the past few weeks, I have been doing a number of things. I have been thinking, I have been reading everything that has been sent to me, and I have been listening. I have contacted all my local Church leaders and I have looked for new facts and evidence. I have concluded that there is no new information and there is no consensus from the Churches. I have had very little direct input from my constituents saying one thing or the other. But in the past few days I have come to appreciate something else. If I may paraphrase the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I have been looking for a pragmatic way out of an instinctive tight corner.
  I have to admit that some of my motives were to try to please my electorate and to protect my future. I have ended up not very proud of myself. However, despite all my wriggling, I still believe that judicial killing is wrong. I still hold the view that vengeance has no place in the law of the land. I still know that I could not pull that lever. Yet it is predictable that I will be criticised by quite a lot of people for taking this view. In my defence, I would say that Members of Parliament are often criticised for having no principles. They are often criticised for trying to curry favour at any price and for not standing up for their beliefs. What price a Member of Parliament who has lost his self-respect?
  I end by telling my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and anybody else who is thinking of switching their vote from no to yes that we should stand by the principles that we all had before we came here. Remember the need to like what one sees when next looking in the mirror and, above all, hang on to a vision of a future that is caring and compassionate, a future that will override vengeance and will not return to judicial killing.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We have heard a lot today about terrorism. Many of the worst terrorist attacks are conducted during hijack. Most hijacks are carried out in order to free imprisoned terrorists. In the hijacks, innocent lives are lost. In the recent Kuwaiti hijack, if there had been no terrorists in prison in Kuwait, there would have been no hijack.
  Most terrorist crimes are carefully planned and entail work and organisation by many people. One need only deter a single person in that chain of terror, and the act is never committed.
  810
  Sands and his friends believed that the Home Secretary would succumb to blackmail. To his great credit, he did not do so, and no one afterwards starved himself to death.
  Since the abolition of the death penalty, figures for murder have been misleading. Once the death penalty had been abolished, the prosecution was more ready to accept a plea of diminished responsibility. Therefore, the figures are completely distorted. Hon. Members have argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent. If that is so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) pointed out, it is strange that people condemned to death always appeal.
  What frightens me about the present position is that there is a premium on wiping out witnesses. Twenty years ago the noble Lord—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are coming to the end of an important debate and I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a fair hearing.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Twenty years ago the noble lord who until recently was the Lord Chancellor pointed out that if criminals receive no higher penalty for killing than for robbery they would simply eliminate witnesses to reduce the probability of detection. How much more is that the case now that we have introduced the concept of criminal bankruptcy? That means that criminals lose not only their liberty but their loot. They can no longer serve their sentences contemplating living a life of luxury on their ill-gotten gains. That will be even more the case when the Criminal Justice Bill becomes law and drug dealers will also be deprived of their loot.
  The crucial point is that, whatever one does in law, in practice one can never abolish the death penalty. One takes it from the calm atmosphere of the court and places it on the streets. If criminals carry guns, which are now standard items of criminal equipment, the police must be armed when they face death on our behalf in apprehending armed criminals. In the shoot-out that follows, innocent bystanders receive the death sentence, while the criminals, when they are apprehended, receive a custodial sentence. As with abortion, the innocent are killed. That cannot be right, so I shall have no hesitation in voting for the restoration of the death penalty.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The House is always restless at this time because it wishes to vote. If I am given a fair hearing, I shall be brief.
  I should like to remind hon. Members of the sort of country in which we live. Women cannot pass freely without fear of being molested, raped or murdered. The elderly do not feel safe if they are out after dark and even do not feel safe in their own homes. Children cannot play safely without fear of being abused or perhaps murdered. That is the society by which hon. Members stand to be judged.
  Every hon. Member has a duty to protect the citizens of this country by every means possible.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that motion. We are coming to the last speech, and we have not had the winding-up speech yet.
  Mr. Dickens: It would be quicker if I were to be allowed to finish; it will save a vote.
  That is the sort of country that we have produced, and the state has a duty to protect its citizens. Members of Parliament, whatever sentencing powers we are giving our judges, are not getting it right to the satisfaction of the public. If we get the highest tariff right—for murder, to restore the death penalty—I am sure that it will be reflected throughout sentencing provisions and the attitudes of judges.
  If the police, who are at the sharp end of the job, feel that it is a sanction and deterrent that they would wish to have, who are we to deny them it when we expect so much from them to protect everyone?
  I hope that every hon. Member, even those weak-willed hon. Members who do not reflect public opinion, will realise that many hon. Members treat this place as a glorified club. They are here to carry out the will of the people, not for the glory of being Members of Parliament. I hope and pray that we shall go through the Lobby and once again lower the majority. There will be a bigger vote than ever in favour of restoring capital punishment, which will show the way for the future. This matter will not go away, so let us show the way forward in the Lobby.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is right: there is concern among our people about the crime rate. It has steadily become worse under every Government, and it is a good deal worse than it was in 1979. Perhaps we would do better to investigate why that has happened and why I am concerned because I made arrangements to collect a lady at 10 o'clock who was worried about walking near the House in the centre of our capital city. Perhaps we should be considering that rather than pretending that there is a simple answer that will sweep all the problems away.
  I have spoken in many debates on capital punishment, but tonight we are voting on new clause 1, not on the principle of capital punishment. Many hon. Members have sat and listened to the debate as it has gone backwards and forwards, and a very good debate it has been. However, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is mistaken if he thinks that we have been talking about the principle of capital punishment. He has to decide whether the new clause would work. My argument is that it would not, and it is that argument that I wish to pursue.
  There is anger and anxiety in our inner cities. People are asking what can be done, and some think that if we only had capital punishment all would be solved. They forget that when the crime rate was last at the height it is—in the words of the Home Secretary—in the 1880s, there was capital punishment. It was not long since people had been hanged in public. There was no shortage of punishment by hanging, and in other ways, but still the crime rate was high. Perhaps we should figure out why matters improved just after the first world war. It could not have been because of the death penalty, because that had existed before.
  Political manifestos at the time of elections say, "We shall solve the problem of law and order." Such claims bring us into disrepute with the electorate because they know it is not true. We know that it is not true. I was in the United States last week, in mid-town New York with its guns and drugs. If America leads the way, God help us.
  812
  That cannot possibly be due to the lack of capital punishment. The new clause certainly could not repair the situation.
  New clause 1 is nonsense. The Lord Chief Justice has given his views on it, not on the principle. It is not his duty to give us his views on capital punishment in principle. It is his job to tell the Home Secretary whether he thinks the new clause would work, and lie has said that he does not think that it would. It gives duties to jurors and the courts that they were not designed to have. It also gives powers to the Court of Appeal, which I had not realised until that was referred to today. In his reasonably good opening speech, the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said that the new clause was not a return to 1957 and categorisation. Nevertheless, the new clause brings random categorisation which would make life for the courts, and certainly for the appeal courts, so difficult that they could not carry out their job.
  Our job is to pass legislation that can be interpreted by the courts and will work. Whatever the views of right hon. and hon. Members, the new clause cannot go to the other place to be corrected. It would be turned aside straight away. It is not worth voting for. Those who are concerned about capital punishment—I understand their concern—can do better than this. However, it is on this that we are voting today.
  I shall vote against the new clause. If this were put before the Home Secretary by someone from the drafting department, the Treasury solicitors or wherever, he would not have to consider it. As the Home Secretary knows, the best Home Secretaries are not lawyers. The motive for the new clause is misconceived. It is a return to the 1880s. Suffice it to say that capital punishment would not deter. It certainly would not have prevented the two burglaries that I have had in the past year. One of the young men involved was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and another to one year. They would not have been deterred by capital punishment. [Interruption.] They would not have been affected in any way. The reason for the rise in the crime rate has nothing to do with the absence of capital punishment.
  I do not find the statistics neutral. I feel strongly about the moral aspect, but if I felt for one moment that the statistics showed that captial punishment deterred, I should have to take note of that—perhaps not as a Back Bencher but certainly as a Home Secretary. I do not believe that that is what the statistics show. They do not show that the number of homicides, however classified, would be reduced.
  I am conscious of the time and I shall keep to the limits that we agreed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Members who are cheering are those who have not been here for the debate. In view of the interest outside, and before we go into the Lobbies to vote, it might be as well to consider all the aspects of this matter. If it is so important, we should surely do so. It is certainly important to our colleagues from Northern Ireland who live with death and who have expressed themselves in such terms this afternoon. I warrant that those cheering do not fall into the same category as Northern Ireland Members, on both sides of the fence.
  Hon. Members have referred to terrorism. I understand their feelings and the bestiality of it. One could not think of Arab terrorism and what the Arabs have done to people without feeling ashamed of humanity. However, I reflect that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

  813
  I do not believe that that is true in Northern Ireland; that is why I ended political or special category status in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland everybody over the age of 18 has a vote. They can express themselves at the hustings. If the terrorists on both sides of the divide stood for election and could win a majority, it would put us in a different position, but they do not. It is hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent the people of Northern Ireland, just as Mr. Haughey represents the people in the south of Ireland. The ballot box is there.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: A fixed ballot box.
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend says "a fixed ballot box", but there is a ballot box in Northern Ireland, which is not the case elsewhere. There is sometimes a certain weariness when the Irish speak because it is felt that the Irish never forget. As I consider the new clause, I sometimes think that the English never remember. They forget what happened in 1916. They ignore the question of martyrs on both sides of the divide.
  As there are no juries in Northern Ireland it is impossible to implement the new clause. It could not possibly be applied in Northern Ireland. It would be nonsense to vote for the proposal and expect it to apply in Northern Ireland.
  Like the Home Secretary, I do not believe that capital punishment for murder in general and terrorism in particular is the answer to our problems. As I said, I do not call in aid a moral judgment. In any event, the principle of capital punishment is not the issue tonight; it is the new clause on which we are to vote. It is not fit to be passed, and it should be voted down this evening.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends who would like to see the return of capital punishment, and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North, (Mr. Gale) who tabled the new clause. I must take issue with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), for whom I have great respect. This is the second time that we have met across the Chamber on this subject.
  To most hon. Members attending the debate the issue is capital punishment. Three new clauses and an amendment have been selected and we are debating the question whether the House feels that capital punishment should return. If we decide that it should return, we shall consider the whole situation again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] We can change the new clause in another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Just let us have it and we will show hon. Members; give us the chance and we will deliver. I have not the slightest doubt about that. Let us try it and we will not disappoint. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let us vote"] We shall have a vote, but there must be a summing up on this side, as there was on the other. That is what democracy is about.
  For most of the time during civilised life, there has been capital punishment. We have only to look at the Scriptures. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred to them in his speech. There has been much talk of morality but little of the Scriptures in this debate. There is reference to the death penalty in both the Old and the New Testaments. It is referred to in the 37th article of the Church of England and in St. Augustine's writings. It
  814
  was only about 40 years ago in this country that the movement to abolish capital punishment began. It coincided with the beginning of the permissive society. The abolition of the death penalty has been the flagstaff of the permissive society. We know what that has meant for the people of this country.
  Local newspapers are full of articles about robbery, murder, rape and, literally, pillage. These are bad times for the weak, the handicapped, the old and the young.
  10.30 pm
  Capital punishment could be used to deter terrorism. Six airliners have been hijacked, the last one in the middle east. If hijackings continue, nobody will want to fly in aeroplanes. What will happen to the Channel tunnel then? Political terrorists believe that they will be released, their friends will continue to take hostages and there will be more deaths.
  Some of my hon. Friends have said that unless capital punishment is restored the police will have to be armed and there will be shooting in the streets. There is already shooting in the streets. I find it very strange that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important debate and it is coming to a close.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: It is very odd that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said that the state has no right to take life. If that is the case, they should all be conscientous objectors when there is a war. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and I both served in the last war, he for much longer than I, and we were given the right by the state to take life.
  There must be something wrong with the conscience of those who vote for the abortion of a conceived but unborn child yet vote against capital punishment for evil murder. Quite a few of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that most people want the return of capital punishment because they believe that it will act as a deterrent. They want a return of capital punishment not because they are more evil than hon. Members of other opinions on both sides of the Chamber but because they believe that it will be a deterrent.
  Good government means that the Government and the people must not draw too far apart. If we stroke the cat one way it purrs; if we stroke it the other way it hisses. Human nature and democracy react in the same way. Most of the people in this country disagree with Parliament on this big issue. We should pay careful heed to what they say. As has been said time and time again, when conscience is involved the conscience of the man in the public bar is as good as the conscience of the man in the saloon bar or the conscience of hon. Members in the bars of the House of Commons.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition hon. Members to support the new clause. If they do, I believe that a cheer will go up throughout this country that Parliament has listened to the people on an issue that causes them serious concern.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 341.

  Division No. 342]

  [10.33 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Amess, David

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  815

  Atkins, Robert

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndbum)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hayward, Robert

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bendall, Vivian

  Holt, Richard

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Jackson, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Janman, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Key, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bright, Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Burns, Simon

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Butcher, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Lang, Ian

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Cash, William

  Lightbown, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Lord, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  McCrea, Rev William

  Chope, Christopher

  McCrindle, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  McCusker, Harold

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

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Colvin, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Conway, Derek

  Maclean, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Cran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Mans, Keith

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

  Marlow, Tony

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Day, Stephen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Devlin, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Dicks, Terry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Dover, Den

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Dunn, Bob

  Miller, Hal

  Durant, Tony

  Mills, Iain

  Eggar, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Evennett, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fallon, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Farr, Sir John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Tony

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mudd, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Neubert, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  French, Douglas

  Paice, James

  Fry, Peter

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gale, Roger

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gardiner, George

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Pawsey, James

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Portillo, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Price, Sir David

  Gregory, Conal

  Redwood, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Riddick, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Grylls, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Rost, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  816

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trippier, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shersby, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Ward, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Stevens, Lewis

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stokes, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Yeo, Tim

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Thorne, Neil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. John Greenway and Mr. Ian Bruce.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tracey, Richard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Caborn, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Callaghan, Jim

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Amos, Alan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Anderson, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Cartwright, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clay, Bob

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beith, A. J.

  Cope, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

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

  Couchman, James

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cox, Tom

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Critchley, Julian

  Blair, Tony

  Cryer, Bob

  Blunkett, David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Darling, Alistair

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dewar, Donald

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dixon, Don

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Douglas, Dick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Buchan, Norman

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Buckley, George J.

  Eastham, Ken

  817

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Fisher, Mark

  Irvine, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Irving, Charles

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Janner, Greville

  Forman, Nigel

  John, Brynmor

  Foster, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Foulkes, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Franks, Cecil

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Fraser, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Freeman, Roger

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Galbraith, Sam

  Kennedy, Charles

  Galloway, George

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Knox, David

  George, Bruce

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Leighton, Ron

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Gordon, Mildred

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gould, Bryan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Gow, Ian

  Lewis, Terry

  Graham, Thomas

  Lilley, Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Grist, Ian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ground, Patrick

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Loyden, Eddie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  McAllion, John

  Harris, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  McCartney, Ian

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  McFall, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  McGrady, Eddie

  Hayes, Jerry

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Haynes, Frank

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  McKelvey, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  McLeish, Henry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  McNamara, Kevin

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Madden, Max

  Hinchliffe, David

  Madel, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Holland, Stuart

  Mallon, Seamus

  Home Robertson, John

  Maples, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Howard, Michael

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Howells, Geraint

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoyle, Doug

  Maxton, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Meale, Alan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Mellor, David

  818

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Michael, Alun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Short, Clare

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moate, Roger

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

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

  Morley, Elliott

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mullin, Chris

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Needham, Richard

  Squire, Robin

  Nellist, Dave

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stern, Michael

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  O'Brien, William

  Strang, Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patchett, Terry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Turner, Dennis

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prescott, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walden, George

  Radice, Giles

  Wall, Pat

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Waller, Gary

  Redmond, Martin

  Walley, Joan

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Walters, Dennis

  Reid, Dr John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Renton, Tim

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  Richardson, Jo

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Robertson, George

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Brian

  Rogers, Allan

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ryder, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mr. David Ashby and Mr. Bruce Grocott.

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Salmond, Alex

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Bill, as amended (in the standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Mr. R. C. Arnold
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.51 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: Portugal is our oldest ally, a partner in NATO, in the EEC and, of course, in the Council of Europe. We have all admired the transition of Portugal to a democracy in recent years. However, one of the characteristics of democracy is that the rights of individuals should be respected. It is because such rights have been transgressed in the case of my constituent that I raise the subject tonight. The failure to settle and the prevarication of the Portuguese Government over some 13 years can only be described as an international scandal.
  In January 1970, my constituent, Mr. R. C. Arnold, of Harston, Cambridgeshire, with his partners, acquired 11,000 acres of land at Galveias farm, Alentejo, Portugal, with a lease of 18 years, which was later increased to 24 years. They successfully operated until the Portuguese revolution. Then, in October 1975, they were dispossessed by the Sindicado, which is the Communist trade union. I understand that valuations of the property were made by Portuguese valuers at the time of expropriation.
  When democratic government was established in Portugal, the Government recognised the need to adhere to the treaty of 1914 and to compensate for the expropriation, which was agreed in principle. The amount of money involved was approximately £1 million, much of which was for repaying banks.
  Subsequently, my noble Friend Lord Pym and then my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), one of whose constituents was a partner in this venture, have pursued the matter vigorously on behalf of their constituents. However, no progress has been made, despite continued expressions of agreement.
  I then came into the picture. On 4 July 1985, Baroness Young, who was then Minister of State, told me that "welcome progress" was being made. That was after 10 years. She told me that the Portuguese had set up an inter-ministerial commission in October 1984. On 10 July, we were told, "Rest assured, we shall continue our efforts" to pursue this matter on behalf of my constituents.
  On 8 November, we were told that the claim was about to be settled but a general election intervened in Portugal and caused further delay. However, we were told that it was "agreed in principle". The Foreign Office told me:
  "Your constituents' claim will be treated first against those still outstanding".
  That was in November 1985, but absolutely nothing happened.
  I understand that in May 1986 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told Senor Cavaco Silva that she viewed the matter with some concern. On 22 July, my constituents told me that the Portuguese lawyers acting for them had been
  "trying for weeks, without success, to bring the Portuguese authorities to the negotiating table".
  On 31 July 1986 Baroness Young told me that the Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture officials would contemplate their valuation report by September 1986, but once again nothing happened. At that stage, my constituents counted up the number of promises of settlement and they came to no fewer than 44, but not a single escudo had been produced.
  820
  On 21 October 1986, we were told by the Foreign Office that the
  "valuation work was all hut completed"
  and that continued pressure would be brought to hear at the highest level to ensure that, but absolutely nothing happened.
  On 4 December 1986, we were told that on 28 November 1986 the British ambassador had handed a message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Portuguese Prime Minister expressing concern that the matter had still not been resolved. The Portuguese Prime Minister agreed that it had gone on for "far too long". We were told:
  "the way is clear for direct negotiation".
  Another six months elapsed and an 80-page document in Portuguese descended on my constituents. Much of their claim was ignored but a derisory offer of less than £300,000 was offered on terms which were by no means clear. On 21 May 1987, my noble Friend Lord Pym was told that the Portuguese Foreign Minister was
  "anxious to resolve the matter".
  There were elections in Portugal on 19 July last year but the Foreign Office said that they "should not delay matters". Once again the time-honoured Foreign Office words were, "We shall continue to press hard". My constituents had received about 69 letters on the subject, but not a solitary escudo.
  On 17 August 1987, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate emerged on the scene and informed me that the Foreign Secretary himself had raised the matter twice. The new Portuguese Government had an overall majority for the first time and I was told that the Foreign Office view was that its officials would press hard for the earliest possible decision to be made. However, all that tremendous pressure makes one wonder that the Portuguese have not been ground into the soil. Nevertheless, on 5 November 1987, the Foreign Office said that Senor da Costa Pereira was "urging an early decision" and that they would
  "not let the matter rest".
  We now come to 16 November 1987 when the Portuguese Foreign Minister said that he
  "appreciated the seriousness of the matter"
  and that he would do what he could to clear it up. The last thing that happened was that on 22 March this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told me that prior to the Portuguese Prime Minister's visit to this country on 10 to 12 March the Portuguese Government had informed the embassy that they were prepared to compensate British subjects for expropriation "in a just way". My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that she hoped that the matter would be settled quickly, but absolutely nothing has happened.
  Thirteen years have now elapsed and, frankly, that is just not good enough. I have always loved Portugal, have admired its people and worked closely with the Portuguese parliamentarians during the 10 years that I was a member of the Council of Europe. However, this is not the behaviour that we expect from our oldest ally and partner. If it had happened in the middle east we should have had hostage taking and violence by now.
  Nor does the Foreign Office come out of this affair well. All the talk of pressure has led to nothing. It has been far too feeble in its approach—I exonerate entirely my right hon. Friend the Minister of State from this—and far too wishy-washy. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend

  821
  will have some better news for my unfortunate constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, who has fought, as I have, on their behalf.
  10.59 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful for the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has given me to explain the Government's action on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Arnold, and the managers of the Galveias farm.
  First, let me express to Mr. Arnold and his partner the Government's sympathy for the considerable financial loss which they have sustained. I share my hon. Friend's sense of frustration and that of Mr. Arnold that, despite the enormously long lapse of time, no compensation has yet been paid. I hope that I can demonstrate to the House that this is not due to a lack of vigorous and continuous action by this Government or our predecessors. It is due to a lack of response from those who alone can make the positive decision to alter this wrong state of affairs.
  The Galveias farm was one of nine British-owned or rented farms in the Alentejo area which were expropriated in 1974–75. The British were not the only ones to have their farms expropriated: Portuguese, Germans, Belgians and other nationalities were also faced with the loss of their livelihood.
  It was not for the British Government to negotiate the terms of compensation with the Portuguese. Our role was to do what we could to ensure that compensation was paid. To this end, successive British Governments have made repeated calls on the Portuguese Government on behalf of the owners of the nine expropriated British farms.
  We finally appeared to be getting somewhere when, in 1983, five of the original nine farms were returned to their original owners. We believed then that a satisfactory solution for the other four claims was at hand. I am as cross and disappointed as they that our good friends the Portuguese, which they are, have not found it possible to resolve these four remaining claims. The Galveias farm issue and the other three claims are of grave concern which I will raise next week when I see the Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs in Luxembourg at the Foreign Affairs Council. I have arranged for the ambassador to have a copy of the report of this debate tomorrow so that he will be fully aware of the seriousness with which we regard this issue.
  During her visit to Portugal in April 1984, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the question with the then Portuguese Prime Minister, who is now the President, Dr. Mario Soares. They agreed that the issue should be resolved by officials. We continued persistently to lobby in both London and Lisbon.
  The Portuguese Government set up an inter-ministerial commission in November 1984 to investigate the claims. Our efforts seemed about to succeed when the inter-ministerial commission accepted the principle of the claim lodged by Mr. Arnold and his partners, and set a deadline for the cases to be resolved by the end of April 1985. Any optimism again proved to be illusory. In the
  822
  summer of 1985, the Portuguese National Assembly was dissolved, elections were called and again the decision-making process ground to a halt. But our ambassador in Lisbon continued to press for a resolution of the case as soon as the new Government were in place.
  In January 1986, the ambassador raised the question with the new Prime Minister, Professor Cavaco Silva. The ambassador provided him with a list of the claims and Professor Cavaco Silva promised to get the new Minister of Finance to look into the matter. The embassy followed up by leaving an aide memoire with the Foreign Ministry in February. On 12 May 1986, when Professor Cavaco Silva called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in London, she again pressed for a speedy resolution of the problem. Professor Cavaco Silva told her that a settlement was close and only the amount had to be decided. I visited Lisbon later that month and I too took up the issue. Despite constant pressure from our embassy in Lisbon, no sign of a satisfactory conclusion has appeared.
  As my hon. Friend has mentioned, on 28 November 1986, my right hon. Friend sent another message to Professor Cavaco Silva expressing her concern that the problem had still not been overcome. In reply, Professor Cavaco Silva said that the commission report evaluating the four outstanding claims had just been completed. We subsequently learned from the Portuguese embassy that the report had been agreed and that the way was clear for direct negotiations with the claimants.
  Pressure on the Portuguese Government continued throughout last year. In particular, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with the Portuguese Foreign Minister when they met on 15 June and again on 22 June.
  The Portuguese elections in July last year again delayed progress. The ambassador raised the matter with the Secretary-General of the Portuguese Foreign Ministry in September, as soon as the composition of the new Government was known, and with the Foreign Minister in October. The next part of the litany is that the ambassador reminded the Foreign Minister of the assurances given by the present and previous Governments to settle the claims, and referred in particular to Professor Cavaco Silva's remarks to the Prime Minister in May 1986.
  Our ambassador again emphasised that the delay in settling the claims was becoming intolerable and that we did not want the issue to cast a shadow over our otherwise excellent relations. He warned the Portuguese that adverse publicity could be expected if a settlement was not reached soon. The Foreign Minister said that he appreciated the seriousness of the matter and that he would do what he could to clear it up.
  Shortly before the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister to London in March this year, the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified our embassy in Lisbon that the Portuguese were prepared to compensate, as my hon. Friend has said, "in a just way." They said that they now had sufficient information to allow them to enter into direct negotiations with the parties concerned or their representatives.
  I must tell the House that, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw Professor Cavaco Silva in London on 11 March, she again impressed on him the need to resolve the issue quickly. The embassy in Lisbon subsequently told all the claimants that they should make the necessary contact with the Foreign Ministry and the four British claimants have now provided full details of

  823
  their claims to the Portuguese Foreign Ministry. Only last week, our ambassador also spoke again to the new Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, as he explained to me earlier today.
  I make no apology for running through the chronology of events in some detail. That is important if we are to understand the efforts that have been made by the Foreign Office—I must correct my hon. Friend—and by successive British Governments. We have sought to resolve this matter, but it is not in our hands to give the solution into the hands of my hon. Friend's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice).
  This outstanding bone of contention with the Portuguese Government has gone on far too long and it is high time that it was sorted out. Portugal is our oldest ally. We have very good relations, and in 1986 we celebrated the 600th anniversary of the treaty of Windsor. We are friends and partners, and we sit next to one another in European Community meetings. We have a good spirit of friendship
  824
  that normally solves problems without them ever having to come even to the notice of hon. Members. Certainly they should not take up debating time late in the night.
  I believe that the Portuguese Government are aware that such cases are doing harm to their reputation. I hope that they will take it from me tonight that we are determined and convinced that this problem can and should be solved forthwith.
  The debate will have provided the Portuguese Government with a demonstration of the depth of feeling aroused by the matter. As I mentioned earlier, our ambassador in Lisbon will be instructed to hand over a copy of the Hansard record of this debate to the Portuguese Foreign Minister. I shall speak to him next week about this matter. I hope that we shall very soon see the grave problems of Mr. Arnold and the other three people solved so that once and for all this issue can be put behind us, which is what should have been done many years ago.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Brush Ltd.
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Brush Ltd. of Loughborough has filed its accounts or completed an annual return at Companies house for the last financial year.

  Mr. Maude
  The Registrar of Companies informs me that there is no company registered in England and Wales with the name Brush Ltd. However, there are five companies with the prefix Brush which have their registered office in Loughborough. None of these is currently in default of filing annual returns or accounts. Copies of documents are available from the search rooms at Companies house, London and Cardiff.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what submissions he has made to the European Community review of competition policy.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government are participating fully in working party discussions of the European Commission proposal for a merger control regulation. Discussion has so far largely concentrated on clarification of the text of the proposed regulation.

  Rural Development Areas
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether in other parts of the EEC there are assisted areas comparable in nature to the rural development areas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information available to me relates to systems of national regional aids which attract European Community financial support. These all include some rural areas, as do the assisted areas in Great Britain. I have no readily available information about additional rural areas which may attract some measure of national assistance. This could not be obtained without disproportionate expense and probably some difficulty of exact comparison with British rural development areas.

  Local Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures currently exist to stimulate local manufacturing investment through the restraining of imports from Japan and Taiwan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are no such restraint measures on imports from Japan or Taiwan, except for some quantitative restrictions on certain textile and clothing imports from Taiwan. These restrictions form part of the Community arrangements for textiles and clothing to 426
  allow European industry to adjust to new competition from low-cost suppliers. There are, however, some informal, inter-industry voluntary arrangements with Japanese producers, details of which were given in the written answer of 30 March, Official Report columns 478–79, to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon).

  Fab Fashions
  Mr. Giles Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what report he has received from the Official Receiver investigating the affairs of Fab Fashions; and what action he intends to take against Mr. Godfrey Barnard for auditing the accounts of a company of which he was a director.

  Mr. Maude
  Inquiries into these matters are continuing. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further or speculate on the outcome of those inquiries at this time.

  House of Fraser plc
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the estimated cost to public funds so far of the current inquiry into House of Fraser plc.

  Mr. Maude
  The cost of the investigation up to and including 30 April 1988 totalled £1,032,747.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when inspectors were appointed to carry out the current inquiry into House of Fraser plc; and what is the earliest date on which he expects to receive their report.

  Mr. Maude
  Mr. Phillip Linnell Heslop QC and Mr. Hugh Graham Cazalet Aldous FCA were appointed on 9 April 1987 under the provisions of section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 to act as inspectors to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc. Mr. Heslop resigned his appointment on 13 May 1987 and was replaced by Mr. Henry Brooke QC on 15 May 1987. The inspectors are continuing their investigations but I am unable to say when a report will be received.

  Cemetery Assets United Kingdom
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who was the receiver in the case of Cemetery Assets United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  The Registrar of Companies has no record of the appointment of a receiver to this company.

  Mr. John Wyebrow
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions M r. John Wyebrow has been employed by Her Majesty's Government in the capacity of receiver.

  Mr. Maude
  Records in a form which would enable any such appointments to be readily identified are not maintained by my Department.

  Voluntary Restraint Arrangements
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the nature of Her Majesty's Government's support for those voluntary restraint arrangements which remain in effect.
  427
  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the case of those voluntary restraint arrangements which are continuing, the Government have told the industries concerned that for the present they are prepared to accept that the arrangements are justified. The negotiation of the arrangements is a matter for those industries.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date each of the voluntary restraint arrangements listed as remaining in effect in his answer of 30 March to the hon. Member for Darlington,Official Report, column 478, is known to have started.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The inter-industry voluntary restraint arrangements covering footwear from Korea, special steels from Spain and cars and light commercial vehicles from Japan began in 1979. The arrangements for fork-lift trucks, machining centres and numerically controlled lathes with Japan began in 1983.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what assessment he has made of the net cost to the economy of the voluntary restraint arrangement on numerically controlled lathes as against any benefit to United Kingdom industry of its continuation;

  (2)what assessment he has made of the balance between the net cost to the economy of the voluntary restraint arrangement on cars from Japan and the benefits to the United Kingdom motor industry of its continuation;

  (3)what assessment he has made of whether the net cost to the economy of the voluntary restraint arrangement on commercial vehicles from Japan outweighs the benefit to United Kingdom industry of its continuation;

  (4)what assessment he has made of whether the net cost to the economy of the voluntary restraint arrangement on fork-lift trucks from Japan outweighs the benefit to United Kingdom industry of its continuation;

  (5)what assessment he has made of whether the net cost to the economy of the voluntary restraint arrangement on machining centres from Japan outweighs any benefit to United Kingdom industry of its continuation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 92–93, to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). The Government have no plans to carry out such assessments for vehicles VRAs with Japan.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list those orderly marketing arrangements of which his Department is aware.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am not aware of any orderly marketing or similar arrangements between United Kingdom industries and third country suppliers affecting imports into the United Kingdom, other than those arrangements set out in the written answer to my hon. Friend on 30 March,Official Report, columns 478–479.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will place in the Library a copy of the document in which Her Majesty's Government set out their support for the voluntary restraint arrangement between the United Kingdom footwear industry and the Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No, I do not propose to make available correspondence about voluntary restraint arrangements which are continuing.
  428
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the voluntary restraint arrangements listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 26 April,Official Report, columns 91–92, December 1987 have ended, and which remain in effect.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government have told the industries concerned that the arrangements should end on 31 December 1987. This information has of course been made public.

  European Single Market
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes will be necessary in United Kingdom company legislation in order to satisfy the harmonisation requirements of the European Community for the achievement of the single market in 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  The European Community has been working for many years on a series of proposals from the Commission for harmonising company law. The first, second, third, fourth and sixth company law directives have been agreed by the Council of Ministers and implemented in United Kingdom legislation. Agreement has also been reached by the Council of Ministers on the seventh directive on consolidated accounts, the eight directive on qualification of auditors and the regulation for a European economic interest grouping; proposals for relevant changes in United Kingdom company legislation necessary to implement these will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity. A further seven proposals on company legislation were included in the Commission's 1985 White Paper "Completing the Internal Market" but the Government do not consider them all to be necessary for achievement of the single market by 1992. Negotiations have not been completed on any of these—indeed the Commission has not yet published all of its proposals. It is therefore not possible to say at this stage what legislative changes might be necessary if any of these was adopted.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research has been undertaken by his Department into the effects of the completion of the single European market in 1992 on the economies of the regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 13 April at column 159.

  Companies Registration Office
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the current costs of running the Companies Registration Office and the charges made for services.

  Mr. Maude
  Provisional figures for 1987–88 shows that expenditure on a memorandum trading account basis at the companies registration offices amounted to £21 million. Fees and charges to cover these costs, together with a contribution towards the costs of running a system of registered companies, amounted to £28 million in the same period.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new businesses were
  429
  started up in the latest year for which figures are available (a) nationally and (b) in Ealing borough; in what broad areas of commerce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  During 1986, 193,000 new businesses first registered for VAT in the United Kingdom, and 1,130 in the London borough of Ealing.

  The table gives the analysis of broad trade categories:

  United Kingdom

  Ealing

  Agriculture

  5,500

  —

  Production

  19,600

  105

  Construction

  28,200

  174

  Transport

  8,600

  55

  Wholesaling

  15,100

  131

  Retail

  34,900

  161

  Finance and professional

  16,800

  100

  Catering

  19,400

  65

  Motor trades

  8,800

  45

  Other services

  36,000

  294

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what sterling-dollar exchange was assumed in assessing the likely rate of return on the £450 million launch aid to British Aerospace for the A330/340 projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 27 May at column 371.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the departmental review of all the research establishments of his Department announced in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm 278) of January will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to the answer, 12 May 1988]: In the White Paper, "DTI—the department for Enterprise", my right hon. and noble Friend and I announced our intention to review DTI's four research establishments (the national physical laboratory, the national engineering laboratory, the laboratory of the Government chemist and Warren Spring laboratory). The review has now been completed.

  We have decided that in future the REs should concentrate on research that is required by Government, whether for statutory, regulatory or policy reasons. We wish to encourage technology transfer and non-research activities arising from this work so that the widest possible benefit can be drawn from it. Consistent with the focus on work for Government as customer, industrially relevant R&D and repayment work for industrial customers will each be limited in future to approximately 10 per cent. of the full cost of each RE. Additionally, each RE will be able, as at present, to spend on strategic research up to 10 per cent. of the full economic cost of such work carried out for DTI. Programmes of industrially relevant R&D will, in general, receive up to 50 per cent. support and will be carried out for groups of companies which have agreed to collaborate to share the benefits and the remaining cost of the work. These criteria are consistent with those announced in the White Paper for the support of extramural R&D.
  430
  WSL will in future concentrate more heavily on environmental engineering, largely for public sector customers, with a reduction in industrially relevant R&D.

  To give greater flexibility and responsibility to the laboratories, we plan to consider establishing NPL. LGC and WSL as separate agencies, within the public sector. in line with the policy described in "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps". This seems an appropriate structure for laboratories whose main task is to undertake research for public sector customers.

  NPL, LGC and WSL would thus retain their identities, but the benefits of common services would be fully exploited within the new structure. Work will now be put in hand to develop the agency framework for these laboratories together with that for a fourth agency for the national weights and measures laboratory, and we hope that it will be possible to have them operational by April 1989.

  Roughly three quarters of the work at NEL currently falls into the category of industrially relevant R&D. The principal beneficiary is industry, not Government, and strong signals from industry are needed in guiding the development and direction of the work. This "market pull" is more easily provided and understood when the R&D is carried out in an organisation whose progress depends directly on its success in providing services to industry.

  We have therefore decided in the first instance to invite organisations which have experience of carrying out R&D to make proposals to DTI by 22 July to develop NEL within the private sector. In addition we would be happy to receive proposals from NEL staff.

  We would wish to make suitable arrangements with any new owner for the continuation of the work that NEL does for Government on flow measurement, or to retain that work within DTI, as part of an agency. There will also need to be proper arrangements for the ownership of the assets of NEL. Finally, DTI would be prepared to continue to support industrially relevant R&D carried out at NEL by any new owner, subject to the normal criteria applied to extramural R&D.

  We have taken steps to inform the staff of the REs and their trade union representatives in parallel with my announcement. There will be full consultations with the trade union side on the implications for staff.

WALES

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total staff and administration cost to his Department of the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The main staff costs have been borne by my Agriculture Department and whilst precise figures are not available their associated staff costs (to the end of May 1988) are estimated to be around £1 million. It is not possible to quantify separately the staff and administration costs incurred on Chernobyl work by other divisions of the Welsh Office.

  Some £385,000 has also been spent on purchasing sheep and other produce for testing, in meeting the costs of laboratory analysis to establish their levels of radioactivity, purchasing live monitoring equipment and for paint used in connection with the mark and release scheme.
  431
  Compensation to affected north Wales producers amounts to some £3·3 million.

  Health Projects (Joint Funding)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table of the total of funds allocated to joint funding health projects in Wales showing how much came directly from his Department and how much from local authorities and area health authorities, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: The information is available in the form requested only at cash prices for the year in which a project was approved, in respect of commitment rather than expenditure and for projects approved from 1981–82 to date. The year-on-year commitments in each year for newly approved projects and continuing commitments on projects approved since 1981–82 are set out in the following table:

  Welsh Office

  Health Authorities

  Local Authorities

  £

  £

  £

  1981–82

  490,788

  22,070

  26,593

  1982–83

  806,058

  248,696

  175,381

  1983–84

  1,019,520

  642,431

  917,765

  1984–85

  1,304,154

  889,007

  894,609

  1985–86

  1,414,240

  1,089,919

  1,139,697

  1986–87

  1,957,441

  1,379,747

  1,854,967

  1987–88

  1,862,279

  1,473,319

  2,130,813

  1988–89

  2,303,767

  1,816,921

  2,813,395

  Farm Woodland
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to ensure Welsh farmers are fully aware of the opportunities involved in developing and managing farm woodland.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: My Agricultural Development and Advisory Service staff and the Forestry Commission together offer an expert advisory service on farm woodlands. Advice is also available from the Countryside Commission, Nature Conservancy Council and the Agricultural Training Board through the "Coed Cymru—Welsh Wildwoods" initiative.

  A series of joint ADAS/Forestry Commission displays and exhibitions have been provided at various sites and exhibitions over the past year. Further advice will be available in the publicity material and technical literature which we shall be issuing in the course of the next few months in connection with the new farm woodland scheme which will become operative in the autumn.

  Member

  Affiliation

  *Sir Francis Tombs, FEng (Chairman)

  Chairman, Rolls-Royce plc.

  *Mr. Andrew Bain, FRSE

  Group Economic Adviser, Midland Bank plc.

  Sir John Collyear, FEng

  Chairman, Technology Requirements Board

  *Professor Gordon Edge

  Chief Executive, Scientific Generics Ltd.

  *Mr. Anthony Gill, BSc, FEng

  Chairman, Lucas Industries plc.

  *Mr. Eric Hammond, OBE

  General Secretary, Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union

  *Mr. Terry Harrison

  Chairman, Northern Engineering Industries plc.

  *Dr. Graham Hills, FRSC, FRSE

  Principal and Vice Chancellor, University of Strathclyde

  Professor Leonard Maunder, OBE, FEng

  Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  *Mr. David McMurtry

  Chairman, Renishaw plc

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Language Assistants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many language assistants went to which countries under the auspices of the exchange of language assistants scheme in the last year for which figures are available; and how many came from which countries in exchange.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The language assistants scheme administered on behalf of my Department by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges does not operate on the basis of exchanges but of individual appointments arranged with reciprocating countries. In 1987–88, the central bureau arranged for the following English appointments:—

  Countries

  Outgoing

  Incoming

  France1

  1,126

  1,699

  Federal Republic of Germany

  392

  454

  Spain

  114

  156

  Austria

  92

  78

  Italy

  30

  11

  Switzerland

  22

  20

  Canada (Quebec)

  14

  6

  Mexico

  12

  7

  Colombia

  9

  9

  Belgium

  8

  12

  Paraguay

  3

  3

  Uruguay

  3

  3

  German Democratic Republic

  2

  1

  Senegal

  2

  7

  Peru

  2

  4

  Chile

  1

  2

  Costa Rica

  1

  —

  Algeria

  —

  7

  Burkina Faso

  —

  5

  Ivory Coast

  —

  1

  Morocco

  —

  18

  Nigeria

  —

  2

  Tunisia

  —

  4

  1 Including nationals of other Francophone countries studying in France.

  Advisory Council on Science and Technology
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the membership and affiliations of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology; and what criteria are used for making appointments to the council.

  Mr. Jackson
  Appointments to the Advisory Council on Science and Technology are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I understand that the initial members of ACOST from July 1987 are as follows. Those whose membership of the predecessor body, the Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development was transferred over are asterisked.
  433

  Member

  Affiliation

  *Professor Stan Metcalfe

  Department of Economics, Manchester University

  *Dr. Dennis Oliver, CBE, FEng

  Business Consultant

  *Professor Sir David Phillips, FRS

  Chairman of Advisory Board for the Research Councils

  Professor Keith Peters, FRCP

  Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith

  Sir George Porter, FRS

  President of the Royal Society

  *Dr. Charles Reece, FRSC

  Director of Research and Technology, Imperial Chemical Industries plc.

  *Dr. Alan Rudge, OBE, FEng, FRSA

  Director of Research and Technology, British Telecom plc

  *Dr. David Smith

  Business Consultant

  *Professor Desmond Smith, FRS, FRSE

  Department of Physics, Heriot Watt University

  Professor Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, FRS

  Chairman, University Grants Committee

  Mr. Hammond has since resigned because of pressure of work. Mr. Gill and Professor Smith have completed their present term of appointment. New members will be announced shortly.

  There are three ex-officio members: the chairmen of the Department of Trade and Industry's technology requirement board, of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and of the University Grants Committee. All other members are appointed in their personal capacity and are chosen for their eminence and experience in science, technology and industry.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make it his policy to make public at the earliest possible stage the possible reopening as a city technology college of a school for which his permission for closure has been sought; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to seek to establish a city technology college based on a school subject to closure proposals before him for determination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Any plans to convert existing schools into CTCs require the publication of statutory proposals which will be decided on their merits. Should potential sponsors wish to approach local authorities to school governors with a view to seeking to establish city technology colleges, they are free to do so. It is for sponsors to make public at a time appropriate to them their plans to establish a CTC.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements have been made by his Department for funding groups for the under-fives, currently funded by the community programme, after September 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The community programme is funded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I understand that the under-fives groups currently assisted by it operate in the field of child care rather than education and are therefore unlikely to be eligible for grant from my Department.

  A-levels
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to publish the Higginson report on GCE A-levels; and if he will make a statement.
  434
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales, and I are publishing today the report of the committee chaired by Dr. Higginson on GCE advanced levels. We are grateful to Dr. Higginson and his colleagues for the considerable time and energies that they have devoted to its preparation. We broadly welcome the general principles for A-levels set out by the committee in chapter 2 of its report and, in particular, its endorsement of A-levels as demanding, single-subject examinations for able candidates of all kinds and all backgrounds. We have reservations, however, on the committee's detailed proposals for streamlining syllabuses by reducing their factual content. The report indicates widespread support for increased breadth of study for 16 to 18-year-olds undertaking A-level courses in full-time education. It recommends that such students should., if possible, study five subjects, some at A-level and some at GCE advanced supplementary level and, to allow for study of more subjects, that A-level syllabuses should he streamlined, and students should devote more of their timetables to examination studies.

  The Government endorse the general aim of broadening A-level students' programmes of study but do not accept the committee's proposals for achieving that objective through a five-subject programme incorporating leaner A-level syllabuses. The education service already has a substantial agenda for reform: we want the new School Examinations and Assessment Council in particular to concentrate on the tasks of introducing assessment and testing arrangements for the national curriculum and of the establishment, monitoring and review of GCSE.

  We see AS-levels as the key to achieving greater breadth, and hence we welcome the committee's backing for a continuing role for these new examinations, both in securing breadth of study and in supplementing main areas of study. Following the introduction of AS-levels last year, A-level students, by choosing a mix of A and AS-level syllabuses, are already able to put together broader and more balanced programmes of study. The Government will continue to monitor closely the introduction and take-up of AS-levels and will consider, in the light of progress, whether further steps are needed to secure the necessary broadening of post-16 education.

  Assessment and Testing
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now able to publish the supplementary advice from the task group on assessment and testing and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I published in January the report of the task group on assessment and testing, I asked the group to give further advice on the administrative and
  435
  other arrangements needed to support its recommendations, on the application of the framework it proposed to the full range of national curriculum core and other foundation subjects, and on any modifications it might suggest in the light of comment on its report. It has submitted that advice, and we are publishing it today.

  The recommendations of the group have been well received. The Government have therefore decided, in the light of the responses to TGAT's recommendations, and to the interim reports of the mathematics and science working groups, and to consultations on the national curriculum, to adopt the following main principles as the basis for a national system of assessment and testing related to the national curriculum attainment targets:

  (a) attainment targets will be set which establish what children should normally be expected to know, understand and be able to do at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16; these will enable the progress of each child to be measured against national standards.

  (b) pupils' performance in relation to attainment targets should be assessed and reported on at ages seven, 11, 14, and 16. Attainment targets should be grouped for this purpose to make the assessment and reporting manageable.

  (c) different levels of attainment and overall pupil progress demonstrated by tests and assessment should be registered on a 10-point scale covering all the years of compulsory schooling.

  (d) assessment should be by a combination of national external tests and assessment by teachers. At age 16 the GCSE will be the main form of assessment, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science.

  (e) the results of tests and other assessments should be used both formatively to help better teaching and to inform decisions about next steps for a pupil, and summatively at ages seven, 11, 14 and 16 to inform parents about their child's progress.

  (f) detailed results of assessments of individual pupils should be given in full to parents, and the Government attaches great importance to the principle that these reports should be simple and clear. Individuals' results should not be published, but aggregated results at the ages of 11, 14 and 16 should be so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or LEA. There should be no legal requirement for schools to publish such results for seven-year-olds, though it is strongly recommended that schools should do so.

  (g) in order to safeguard standards, assessments made by teachers should be compared with the results of the national tests and with the judgments of other teachers.

  We expect these principles to inform the consultations which will take place later this year on the recommendations of the national curriculum mathematics and science working groups, and likewise to inform the thinking of the working groups on English and on design and technology which we announced last month.

  There is a considerable amount of work to be done on the detail of cost-effective arrangements needed to support such a system. The suggestions made by the task group on assessment and testing in its third supplementary report on the moderation system appear complicated and costly;
  436
  whilst the Government recognise that the issues involved are complex, the support arrangements adopted must be sufficiently simple to enable good progress to be made in introducing the national assessment system. We shall be discussing the issues with the School Examinations and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council and also with the local education authorities, the examining groups and other appropriate organisations. We shall also set in hand work on the development of in-service training for teachers, and on the development and piloting of national tests, starting with an examination of available tests to see whether they can appropriately be used.

  As I have already informed the House, our intention is that the first cohort of pupils in primary schools should begin work in autumn 1989 on national curriculum attainment targets and programmes of study for the three core subjects of mathematics, science and English and if possible on technology which is closely linked with science in the primary phase. We also expect first-year pupils in secondary school—11 to 12-year-olds—to start work on attainment targets and programmes of study for mathematics and science in autumn 1989. These subjects will be introduced in Wales on a similar timetable. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales expects to introduce Welsh for the early years of both primary and secondary schools in autumn 1990. We shall give priority to developing assessment and testing arrangements for these subjects and age groups with first results expected for seven-year-olds in 1991 and 14-year-olds in 1992. However, the arrangements will be tried out in schools before there is any formal public reporting of results. We therefore expect that the first results of assessment and testing for seven-year-olds will be available to parents and for publication in the summer of 1992, and for 14-year-olds in the summer of 1993. Assessment in other subjects and for other age groups will be brought in progressively thereafter.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of any revised cash limits for his Department's votes.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 May, column 341]: Part of the answer was omitted from the Official Report; the full text is as follows:

  Subject to parliamentary approval to the necessary Supplementary Estimate, cash limits for the following votes will be revised as follows:

  Vote

  Current cash limit

  Increase/ decrease

  Revised cash limit

  £

  £

  £

  Class XII, Vote 1

  463,655,000

  16,366,000

  480,021,000

  Class XII, Vote 3

  11,843,563,000

  -53,000

  1,843,510,000

  1As announced on 22 April (Official Report, column 577) the cash limit for class XII, vote 3 was increased by £3,100,000.

  Of these changes, £1,900,000 will be charged to the Reserve and £14,436,000 is contained within the planned provision for programmes. There will therefore be no increase in the planned total of expenditure.

  Additional provision is sought for class XII, vote 1 as follows:
  £53,000 to enable the Cranfield Institute of Technology to participate in the programme for manufacturing

  437
  systems engineering courses. This increase to be offset by a matching reduction in provision on class XII, vote 3.
  £11,413,000 for costs associated with the establishment, subject to the passage of the Education Reform Bill, of the National Curriculum Council; the Schools Examination and Assessment Council; the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board.
  £1,900,000 for my Department's donation to public services charities to offset the effects of the understatement of the retail price index for centrally administered public service pensions, as foreshadowed by my right hon. friend the Paymaster General's announcement to the House of Commons on 3 May 1988 (Official Report, 4 May, column 400). This increase will be charged to the Reserve, so will not add to the public expenditure planning total.
  £3,000,000 for grants to Inner London boroughs, subject to the passage of the Education Reform Bill, to assist with transitional costs of taking on local education authority responsibilities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Disadvantage Budget
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were his Department's estimates for expenditure for the racial disadvantage budget for the years 1985–86 to 1988–89, respectively; and what grants have been given out of that budget to assist organisations or projects working to reduce racial disadvantage during each of the years since the grant was established;

  (2)what steps he has taken to ensure that the grants available out of the racial disadvantage budgets are adequately publicised;

  (3)what measures are taken to ensure the accountability to his Department in respect of grants under the racial disadvantage budget.

  Mr. John Patten
  Supply estimate provision and grants given in each of the years since this subhead was established were as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  Supply estimates provision1

  250,000

  Grants

  Deptford Enterprise Agency

  40,000

  North London Business Development Agency

  40,000

  Black Business in Birmingham

  17,048

  Business in the Community

  5,000

  Total

  102,048

  1986–87

  Supply estimates provision1

  260,000

  Grants

  Deptford Enterprise Agency

  50,000

  North London Business Development Agency

  50,000

  Black Business in Birmingham

  50,000

  Bristol Black Business Association

  20,000

  Business in the Community

  5,000

  Total

  175,000

  1987–88

  Supply estimates provision

  1,170,000

  Grants—Voluntary Services Unit

  National Federation of Self Help Organisations

  30,000

  Leicester Racial Awareness Consortium

  29,338

  438

  £

  Community Roots

  28,065

  Manchester Council for Voluntary Service

  14,950

  Urban Trust

  13,533

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  9,500

  Confederation of Indian Organisations

  6,250

  Other Grants

  Project Fullemploy

  89,926

  British Black Business Association

  42,000

  Black Business in Birmingham

  37,500

  Harlesden People's Community Council Bus Garage Project

  26,748

  Wandsworth Enterprise Agency

  20,000

  Opportunities Industrialisation Centre (UK) Ltd.

  15,000

  Tower Hamlets Association for Racial Equality

  15,000

  Tower Hamlets Enterprise Outreach Service

  13,402

  Deptford Enterprise Agency

  10,000

  North London Business Development Agency

  10,000

  Total

  411,212

  1 Ethnic minority business initiative only.

  In the first two years, grants were restricted to projects under the Home Office ethnic minority business initiative: since 1987 grants have also been made to voluntary organisations which work to relieve racial disadvantage and which fall within the normal grants criteria of the voluntary services unit and to other organisations, national or local, for strategic work in relation to racial disadvantage. Many proposals and projects take some time to develop to the point where grant can be given, and the portfolio of grants given under the subhead is building up slower than had originally been hoped.

  The criteria for VSU grants are publicised through a leaflet which is made available to enquirers and are further described in handbooks on the availability of government grants. The ethnic minority business initiative, under which grants are also available, have been widely publicised. The availability of some grants for other strategic purposes has not been given general publicity but relevant Home Office contacts in other Government Departments (including city action teams and task forces), the Commission for Racial Equality, voluntary organisations and charitable trusts know of it and encourage relevant organisations known to them to apply.

  Grants are given on formal conditions which include the timely provision of audited accounts and annual reports, and of copies of any publications, and which reserve the right of the Home Office and National Audit Office to examine books and records and of the Comptroller Auditor General to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the use of the grant. According to circumstances, indicators of performance are also sought and monitored.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Hurd
  We use data collected on the ethnic origins and sex of staff to help identify disparities in recruitment and promotion. Steps taken to promote greater equality include the use of part-time work, job sharing, flexible working hours, and arrangements for special leave to
  439
  make it easier for those with domestic responsibilities to continue to work; attendance by a number of female staff at women's management development courses run by the civil service college; contacts with ethnic minority communities; and the placing of advertisements in the ethnic and local press.

  All our management training courses, and those for members of recruitment and promotion boards, address equal opportunities and we are currently exploring, with OMCS, what further contribution training might make to progress in this area.

  Westminster Bridge (Parking)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to why the Metropolitan police are not enforcing parking restrictions on Westminster bridge.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am advised by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the parking restrictions imposed on Westminster bridge by the highway authority allow vehicles to stop to set down or pick up passengers, and that the Metropolitan police take suitable enforcement action if parking offences come to light.

  Petrol Stations (Alcohol)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many petrol stations are licensed to sell alcohol in(a) Dyfed, (b) Wales and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 27 April columns 158–162. The available figures relate to England and Wales only.

  Police
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 541, when he next intends to take a decision on the allocation of police manpower.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is too soon to say.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed police posts were civilianised in the financial years 1980–81 to 1987–88(a) nationally and (b) in the area of the Northumbria police authority.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available does not cover the period requested. It is estimated that some 3,300

  Weekly arrival numbers of asylum applicants commencing week ending 16 January 1988 until week ending 28 May 1988

  Week ending

  Asylum applicants on arrival

  Afghanistan

  Angola

  Bangladesh

  Bolivia

  Chile

  Colombia

  Ethiopia

  Ghana

  Hungary

  16 January 1988

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  23 January 1988

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30 January 1988

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6 February 1988

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13 February 1988

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20 February 1988

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  27 February 1988

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5 March 1988

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12 March 1988

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  19 March 1988

  40

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  26 March 1988

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  440
  police officers, both uniform and plain clothes, have been redeployed in England and Wales as a result of civilianisation in the period 1983–84 until the end of December 1987. I understand that in Northumbria, between 1982–83 and 1987–88, 115 police officers were released in this way.

  England v Scotland Football Match
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those arrested at the England v Scotland football match on Saturday 21 May at Wembley stadium, were arrested(a) in the immediate vicinity of the ground before the kick-off, (b) within the ground before, during and after the match and (c) in the immediate vicinity of the ground after the match; what was the nature of the charges brought in respect of the persons arrested in categories (a), (b) and (c) above; and how many persons were charged in respect of each category.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In category(a) 48 were arrested, of whom 21 were charged; in category (b) 27 were arrested, of whom 11 were charged; and in category (c) 37 were arrested, of whom 26 were charged. The charges related mainly to a variety of public order offences.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, for each week from 10 January to the nearest available date, he will indicate(a) how many people arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed political asylum and (b) of which countries they were nationals; and how many of them were (i) refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom, (ii) refused leave to enter and detained, (iii) refused leave to enter and granted temporary admission and (iv) granted temporary admission pending a decision.

  Mr. Renton
  For the period commencing week ending 16 January 1988 and finishing week ending 28 May 1988, the numbers of persons seeking asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom each week, are listed, by nationality, in the table. The available statistics refer only to the London airports and the Dover seaports.

  There is no central record separating asylum seekers refused leave to enter, detained, granted temporary admission and removal from other passengers in these categories and the rest of the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  441

  Week ending

  Asylum applicants on arrival

  Afghanistan

  Angola

  Bangladesh

  Bolivia

  Chile

  Colombia

  Ethiopia

  Ghana

  Hungary

  2 April 1988

  30

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  9 April 1988

  14

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  16 April 1988

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  23 April 1988

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30 April 1988

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7 May 1988

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  14 May 1988

  32

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  21 May 1988

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  28 May 1988

  20

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  562

  8

  4

  1

  1

  3

  11

  5

  7

  2

  Weekly arrival numbers of asylum applicants commencing week ending 16 January 1988 until week ending 28 May 1988

  Week ending

  Asylum applicants on arrival

  Iran

  Iraq

  Lebanon

  Pakistan

  Peru

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Somalia

  South Africa

  16 January 1988

  37

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  23 January 1988

  33

  7

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  30 January 1988

  18

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6 February 1988

  25

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  13 February 1988

  34

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  20 February 1988

  26

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27 February 1988

  23

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5 March 1988

  14

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12 March 1988

  13

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  19 March 1988

  40

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  26 March 1988

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 April 1988

  30

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9 April 1988

  14

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  16 April 1988

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  23 April 1988

  53

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  30 April 1988

  40

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7 May 1988

  36

  13

  2

  3

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  14 May 1988

  32

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  2

  —

  21 May 1988

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28 May 1988

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  562

  51

  6

  6

  7

  3

  16

  4

  7

  1

  Weekly arrival numbers of asylum applicants commencing week ending 16 January 1988 until week ending 28 May 1988

  Week ending

  Asylum applicants on arrival

  SriLanka

  Sudan

  Surinam

  Turkey

  Uganda

  USSR

  Zaire

  Zimbabwe

  Nationality doubtful

  16 January 1988

  37

  4

  —

  —

  16

  8

  —

  —

  —

  1

  23 January 1988

  33

  12

  —

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  30 January 1988

  18

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  6 February 1988

  25

  11

  —

  —

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13 February 1988

  34

  4

  —

  —

  14

  8

  —

  —

  1

  —

  20 February 1988

  26

  6

  —

  —

  13

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27 February 1988

  23

  9

  —

  —

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5 March 1988

  14

  7

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  12 March 1988

  13

  5

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  19 March 1988

  40

  5

  —

  —

  10

  12

  —

  —

  —

  2

  26 March 1988

  44

  11

  —

  1

  25

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  2 April 1988

  30

  9

  —

  —

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  9 April 1988

  14

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16 April 1988

  14

  7

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23 April 1988

  53

  —

  —

  —

  6

  36

  —

  —

  —

  2

  30 April 1988

  40

  13

  —

  —

  10

  9

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7 May 1988

  36

  5

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14 May 1988

  32

  9

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  21 May 1988

  16

  5

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  3

  —

  —

  28 May 1988

  20

  5

  —

  —

  10

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  562

  135

  1

  1

  147

  105

  1

  3

  1

  25

  Advanced College of Business and Cultural Studies
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and immigration were involved in the operation on 8
  442
  May in connection with the Advanced College of Business and Cultural Studies; how many people and of what nationalities were both interviewed and detained in the operation, for how long and where; what was the immigration status of those who were arrested but not

  443
  charged and for how long they were under arrest; and with regard to what breaches of immigration control people were interviewed or charged as a result of the operation.

  Mr. Renton
  Sixty-six immigration officers and 104 police officers were involved in the operation on 8 May concerning the Advanced College of Business and Cultural Studies.

  Sixty-three persons were arrested of whom sixty-one were identified as being apparently in breach of immigration control. Two persons, both Ghanaian, were found not to be offenders and were released after being detained for less than six hours. The remainder have been identified as follows:
  Twenty-nine illegal entrants (twenty-six Ghanaians, two Nigerians, one Sierra Leonean)
  Twenty-two served with notices of intention to deport (nineteen Ghanaians, two Nigerians and one Ivory Coast National)
  One subject of a current deportation order (Nigerian)
  One charged with overstaying (Ghanaian).
  Two charged with working in breach of their conditions (Ghanaians)
  Two found to be offenders but not charged (Ghanaians).

  Inquiries into the immigration status of the remaining four persons (Ghanaians) are continuing. Nineteen of the twenty-nine illegal entrants detected have been removed, and four persons served with a notice of intention to deport have left the United Kingdom.

  Periods Spent detained following arrest were as follows:

  Number

  Six hours or less

  17

  6 to 15 hours

  9

  15 to 20 hours

  12

  1 day

  1

  More than one day

  24

  Of the 13 offenders still detained, three are illegal entrants (two Ghanaians, one Nigerian), nine have been served with a notice of intention to deport (all Ghanaians) and one is subject of a current deportation order (Nigerian).

  Colleges (Immigration Rules)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operations have been mounted over the last year by his Department on colleges whose bona fides under the immigration rules were suspect; at which colleges and on which dates such operations took place; how many(a) staff and proprietors and (b) students at such colleges were detained in connection with suspected or alleged immigration offences; and how many were charged with such offences.

  Mr. Renton
  Two operations related to educational establishments have taken place during the last year. The first involved the London School of International Business and took place on 12 February 1988. The proprietor and one other person were arrested and subsequently charged with various offences. No students or alleged students were detained during the operation. The second involved the Advanced College of Business and Cultural Studies and took place on 4 May. Three persons, believed to be the proprietor and two members of staff, were arrested and subsequently released on police bail. No students or alleged students were detained on that day, but on 8 May 444
  63 persons who claimed to be students at the college were arrested. Of these, three have been charged with various immigration offences. Of the remainder, 29 were found to be illegal entrants, 22 were issued with notices of intention to deport, one was found to be the subject of a deportation order, two were found to be offenders but not charged, two were found not to be offenders and four are the subject of further inquiries.

  Clapham Way (Police Raid)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those arrested on 14 April in the raid on a house in Clapham way were(a) interviewed in connection with immigration offences and (b) detained in connection with such offences; and with regard to what suspected or alleged breaches of immigration control these people were interviewed or charged.

  Mr. Renton
  Nine persons were interviewed by immigration officers in respect of their immigration status. Five of these persons were found to be lawfully in the United Kingdom and the police were informed accordingly. The remaining four persons were found to be illegal entrants and were detained under the Immigration Act prior to their removal.

  Students (Immigration Rules)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he is contemplating in the immigration rules governing those seeking entry to the United Kingdom as students or seeking variations of leave in order to remain in the United Kingdom as students; what is the aim of such changes; and with which organisations he has discussed the case for them.

  Mr. Renton
  Consideration is being given to possible changes in the immigration rules so as to ensure that only those pursuing genuine educational courses are treated as students. We are in regular communication with the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs on immigration issues affecting overseas students generally, and we have received representations from that body expressing concern about bogus educational establishments. There have been no discussions yet on the specific question of possible changes.

  Mr. Charles Ferrier
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report on the escape of Mr. Charles Ferrier from Verne prison, Weymouth, on Monday 23 May; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which it took place.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Detailed inquiries are being made into the circumstances of the escape of this prisoner, who was recaptured in Weymouth on 25 May. I will write to the hon. Member when the results are available.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received concerning overcrowding at Her Majesty's prison, Armley, in Leeds; and if he will make a statement;
  445
  (2) what plans he has to relieve the overcrowding at Armley prison, Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 22 April 1988 at columns 592–93. My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations concerning overcrowding at the prison.

  Litter-related Offences
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government have any plans to seek to increase the penalties for litter-related offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the Litter Act 1983 a person convicted of leaving litter in an open place may be fined up to £400. We have no plans to increase this. The Government have, however, given their full support to the Tidy Britain Group, which has initiated a programme of experimental projects designed to examine ways of dealing with the problem of litter.

  Leicestershire Constabulary
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reasons for his decision not to allocate any further police manpower to the Leicestershire constabulary, following the official request from the chief constable; and whether he will now reconsider his decision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Increases for provincial forces are granted under a phased programme for which total demand far exceeds the number of additional posts available. My right hon. Friend after careful review of the requests received was unable to meet the request from Leicestershire.

  I appreciate the disappointment which was caused to Leicestershire and to other authorities whose applications were not met. The police authority has been informed that its application will be considered again, together with the applications of other forces, when my right hon. Friend next takes decisions on the allocations of posts to be approved under the programme.

  Guildford and Woolwich Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of the inquiry he authorised into the case of the four persons convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings; and what is the reason for the delay.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend will announce his decision on whether to intervene in this case as soon as he has considered fully the police report on the new statements that have been put forward, together with the other material which has been brought to his attention. He hopes to complete this in the not too distant future.

  Downing Street (Hon. Members' Access)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to remove all restrictions on the number of hon. Members who can go into Downing street at any one time; if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 446
  as to when the present instructions were given to the police on duty there on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I regret that restrictions placed on the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wished to enter Downing street on 26 May to present a petition were the result of a misunderstanding by the police officers on duty there. Fresh instructions have been issued by the police to make it clear that, as hitherto, no restrictions should be placed on the number of hon. Members who need to enter Downing street in the course of their parliamentary duties.

  Dogs (Spiked Collars)
  Miss Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to ban the use of spiked collars for dogs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so. Where the use of such a collar caused an animal unnecessary suffering, a prosecution could be brought under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to provide that the Government data network is not used routinely for the purpose of collecting the personal data relating to individuals who are of interest to the security services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We see no need to do so. The Government data network is a means of transmitting, not of collecting, data.

  Computer Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will establish a committee to inquire into the implications of the advent of the Government data network, the enhanced police national computer network and the community charge for the Data Protection Act; whether he will call for a special report from the Data Protection Registrar concerning these issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Prisons and Prisoners (Definitions)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 286, regarding the definitions of prisons and prisoners in different Council of Europe countries, what information he has as to which institutions in Council of Europe countries are comparable to prisons run by the prison department in the United Kingdom but which are not classified as prisons in the Council of Europe's prison statistics.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available in the comparability of the statistics published by the Council of Europe was given in a recent article in the Home Office research bulletin, "International Comparisons of Prison Populations" by Patrick Collier and Roger Tarling, (issue number 23, 1987, pages 48–54).

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Lord Chancellor has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department, in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has agreed policies on race relations and equality of opportunities for women which comply with the appropriate code of practice. The policy statements were circulated to all staff in 1984. The Department has recently sent a copy of the first of a series of leaflets on equal opportunities to each member of staff. A second leaflet on sexual harassment will be issued. Specific guidance on equal opportunities is given at relevant training courses and there is compulsory training on equal opportunities for all managers.

  Other examples of action taken are: the provision of women-only training and a career break scheme; advertising part-time working and job-share opportunities for staff; a survey of the ethnic origin of all staff; participation in feature articles to publicise career opportunities in the Department; participation in the schools liaison scheme and the use of inner city job centres to fill vacancies.

  NHS (Lottery)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions have taken place between the Crown Prosecution Service and the organisers of the proposed lottery for the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The National Health Lottery scheme was first referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Gaming Board of Great Britain on 16 May on the basis that the proposed scheme appeared to contravene the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. The Director obtained counsel's opinion and formed the view that the operation of the scheme would result in the commission of offences under the 1976 Act. Letters were written on 23 and 24 May to the company responsible for running the lottery, the latter indicating that the Director would request police inquiries if the lottery draw took place, and on 26 May to the company's solicitors stating which provisions of the 1976 Act the Director considered would be contravened. There has been no meeting between the Director's staff and the company, or its solicitors, to discuss the proposed lottery.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he intends to take in the light of the divisional court ruling of 23 May, to ensure that each case is screened by a legally qualified person employed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  The divisional court ruling of 23 May is currently the subject of an appeal. Meanwhile the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued a circular to all chief Crown prosecutors advising them of the terms of the court's declaration and stating that those terms must be complied with.
  448
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer of 21 April,Official Report, columns 507–8, as to the number of legally qualified persons employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in its Crown court sections, what steps he intends to take to ensure that in those cases where additional or new evidence comes to light after committal proceedings the case will be reviewed by a legally qualified person.

  The Attorney-General
  Where additional or new evidence or information comes to light after committal, particularly where doubt is cast on the initial decision to proceed, it is the normal practice for the material to be considered by the Crown prosecutor, and, if necessary, for the advice of counsel to be sought. In any event, the material will be included as an additional enclosure in the brief to counsel.

  Paragraph 10 of the code for Crown prosecutors stresses that even when proceedings are under way the Crown prosecutor should continue to exercise a reviewing function. The function is a continuing one, as it is important that cases should be kept under continuous review, not least because the emergence of new evidence or information may sometimes cast doubt on the propriety of the initial decision to proceed.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether in the light of the divisional court ruling of 23 May, he will state the duties and responsibilities of counsel instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service to appear on behalf of the Crown in a criminal matter in the Crown court.

  The Attorney-General
  The divisional court ruling of 23 May is currently the subject of an appeal. Meanwhile the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued a circular to all chief Crown prosecutors advising them of the terms of the court's declaration and stating that those terms must be complied with. The duties and responsibilities of counsel conducting a case in the Crown court remain as before the decision and are conveniently set out in the report of the committee chaired by the hon. Mr. Justice Farquharson.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he intends to take any further steps to encourage legally qualified staff to remain within the Crown Prosecution Service where they have reached the grade of a senior Crown prosecutor.

  The Attorney-General
  The retention of experienced staff within the Crown Prosecution Service is of the greatest importance. With the Director of Public Prosecutions I shall encourage senior Crown prosecutors to take advantage of the new pay offer which includes substantial salary increases at the senior Crown prosecutor grade with additional special salary awards for consistently high performance. These will make career prospects in the service more attractive. In the development of the service careful heed will be taken of the 1987 study of internal communications, as well as of the views of senior Crown prosecutors themselves as to how the attraction of the role of an experienced lawyer in the service may be enhanced.

  Daniel Morgan
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions has completed his
  449
  deliberations following the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest into the death of Daniel Morgan in March 1987 at Southwark coroner's court in April 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  At the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Daniel Morgan at Southwark coroner's court on 21 April 1988 the Crown Prosecution Service requested a full transcript of the shorthand note of the proceedings. This transcript has not yet been received and consequently a final decision has not been reached by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Juries
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps are taken to ensure that all those called for jury service can understand the language in which evidence will be given in court.

  The Attorney-General
  The Juries Act 1974 requires jurors to be summoned from amongst all those on the electoral register who are not disqualified by age. However, the jury summons form both explains to the summoned person that excusal may be sought on the grounds of insufficient understanding of English and warns that they may be discharged from duty if there is doubt as to their competence. Though the summons and the accompanying leaflet are printed in English, material is available in Welsh and five major Asian languages. In those comparatively rare cases in which evidence is given in a language other than English, interpreters are used.

  Discontinuance of Cases
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will authorise suitably qualified barristers or solicitor agents in appropriate cases in the magistrates' courts to authorise discontinuance or the offering of no evidence where appropriate or to accept pleas to lesser charges; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The provisions of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 do not allow the Director to delegate powers to discontinue proceedings to barristers or solicitors in private practice instructed on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The withdrawal of cases, or the offering of no evidence where appropriate, or the acceptance of pleas to lesser charges than those originally preferred, are matters upon which barrister and solicitors instructed on behalf of the service are instructed to consult with a CPS officer unless there are compelling and urgent reasons for not doing so.

  The policy, practice and procedures of the CPS are kept under a constant review with a view to improving fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. At present there are no plans for the alteration of instructions given to barristers or solicitors instructed on behalf of the service.

  Civil Justice Review
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Attorney-General when it is expected that the report of the civil justice review will be published.

  The Attorney-General
  The report of the review body on civil justice has been laid before Parliament today. It contains wide-ranging recommendations, put forward by 450
  an independent advisory committee working with a team of officials. A further announcement will be made when the Government have considered all the proposals.

TRANSPORT

  Bexley Bus Service
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the Bexley bus service since Easter.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received one letter from the London Regional Passengers' Committee. The operation of the Bexley bus service is a matter for the management of London Regional Transport.

  Casualty Rates
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport what is the casualty rate per mile travelled, or nearest appropriate indicator, for(a) private vehicle drivers, (b) private vehicle passengers aged over 18 years, (c) private vehicle passengers aged under 18 years but over five years, (d) private vehicle passengers aged five years and under, (e) motor cyclists, (f) motor cycle pillion passengers aged over 18 years, (g) motor cycle pillion passengers aged under 18 years, (h) cyclists aged over 18 years, (i) cyclists under 18 years but over 11 years., (j) cyclists aged 11 years and under, and (k) commercial lorry drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The casualty rates for drivers and riders of pedal cycles, motor cycles, private vehicles and goods vehicles are given in the table:

  Total driver-rider casualty rates: Great Britain 1986

  Rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres

  Rate

  Pedal cyclists

  618

  Motor cycle riders

  888

  Private vehicle drivers

  37·3

  Goods vehicle drivers

  18·0

  Age-specific driver and rider casualty rates cannot be calculated because total annual mileage is only available by type of vehicle and cannot be subdivided by the age of the driver or rider. The total number of casualties for each of the requested road user types is as follows:

  Total casualties: by age and road user type: Great Britain 1986

  Age of casualty

  Type of road user

  0–5

  6–17

  18 or more

  1Total

  Private vehicle driver

  —

  2,361

  88,115

  91,156

  Private vehicle passengers

  3,839

  13,575

  49,579

  68,022

  Motor cycle riders2

  —

  11,147

  36,257

  47,922

  Motor cycle passengers2

  3

  1,022

  3,282

  4,358

  Goods vehicle drivers3

  —

  115

  8,284

  8,480

  Age of casualty

  Type of road user

  0–11

  12–17

  18 or more

  Total

  Pedal cyclists

  3,043

  8,345

  14,388

  26,129

  451
  1 Includes age not known and age unreported.

  2 Includes mopeds, scooters and motor cycle combinations.

  3 Includes light goods vehicles and heavy goods vehicles.

  Miss Lynda Lee-Potter
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will appoint Miss Lynda Lee-Potter as a member of the British Railways Board.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No, there are currently no suitable vacancies.

  Carlisle-Settle Railway
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what bus services will be available for the present passengers on the Carlisle-Settle line when the service is withdrawn.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I will want to consider that issue in the the light of the further report on hardship which I have asked the TUCCs to submit.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available the details of British Rail's current and estimated revenue and operating costs on the Carlisle to Settle line.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  British Rail estimates that the gross cost of running the line in 1987–88 will have been £2·7 million and revenue about £1 million. Its estimates of costs and revenues in the future if the line stayed open were set out in its financial case for closure, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 25 February 1987. I have now asked BR to update those figures.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the capital and revenue contributions of the joint local authorities to the running of the Carlisle-Settle railway were not included in the list of public and private bodies in the Official Report of 16 May, columns 683–84.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The local authority contributions had already received wide publicity. But I did refer to them in my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 16 May,Official Report, column 677.

  Dual Carriageways
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the average annual daily traffic flows required by his Department to justify dual carriageways on trunk roads; and if he will list the dates and numbers by which this figure has been increased during the last 40 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The justification for trunk road schemes is based on a comprehensive appraisal of costs and benefits, not simply on traffic flows. The Department produces guidelines on carriageway standards in relation to traffic flows only for the purpose of establishing which options should be appraised. Dual carriageway standard will be considered for a rural trunk road if the forecast average annual daily traffic flow in the design year, 15 years after the road opens, is in the range 11,000–46,000 vehicles.
  452
  The guidelines reflect the costs and benefits of the different carriageway widths during both normal operating conditions and maintenance. They also take account of the performance of modern vehicles and road design. Earlier figures were not produced in the same way and are not properly comparable.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the proportion of British Rail's passengers on(a) the provincial sector lines in central Wales, (b) the Fort William to Mallaig lines and (c) the Carlisle to Settle line who travel for leisure purposes.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  So far as(a) and (b) are concerned, no information, because these lines have not been proposed for closure. So far as the Settle-Carlisle line is concerned, a Cumbria county council survey showed that over 60 per cent. of passengers travelled simply for the pleasure of the line, and that 80 per cent. were travelling for leisure purposes generally.

  Private Railways
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average length of time taken for a private concern to be granted statutory authorisation to operate a railway after receipt of the application.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There is no meaningful "average" time. That depends on the procedure adopted, the complexity of the case, the objections received, and the speed with which the applicants themselves respond to correspondence.

  A33
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have taken place in each of the last three years on the A33 road between the Chilworth roundabout and the start of the M3 at Bar End; and how many have been fatal.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is available as follows:

  Year

  Personal injury accidents

  Accidents involving fatalities

  July 1984 to June 1985

  67

  2

  July 1985 to June 1986

  74

  3

  July 1986 to June 1987

  73

  1

  July 1987 to March 1988

  47

  1

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will authorise the necessary work to commence on the upgrading of the Chandler's Ford bypass in the borough of Eastleigh (A33) to motorway standards.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I hope to let a contract for the Compton-Bassett section of the M3 motorway at about the end of the year.

  M1 and M6 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects(a) the M1 and (b) the M6 will be free from major road works; and if he will make a statement.
  453
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Not soon.

  This year's major maintenance work on the M I and M6 is due to be completed by the end of November. The volume of traffic on these motorways is high. A continuous programme of maintenance is necessary to keep the roads in good condition. Most major works take place between April and November. We plan and phase work to minimise disruption to road users.

  It may be helpful to explain the arithmetic of motorway renewal. As on average 5 per cent. (about 20 route miles) of M1, M6 are renewed each year, the hon. Member may experience major road works for some time.

  Motorways (Overtaking)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he proposes to take in order to inform motorists that the middle and fast lanes on the motorways are for overtaking purposes only; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  One and a half million leaflets about motorway driving and safety are currently being distributed to motorists. Like all other driver guidance, these emphasise the importance of good lane discipline.

  Dartford Tunnel
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the general manager of the Dartford tunnel joint committee; and if on that occasion he will discuss the case for escorting tankers through the tunnel in view of the delay this occasions to other traffic.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet the general manager next on 2 August. Officials have already discussed this subject with him.

  The Dartford tunnel joint committee decided on 3 June to increase from four to six the maximum number of vehicles carrying hazardous goods in escorted convoys in order to cut the number of convoys and the consequent delays to other traffic. The change will come into effect on 1 July. Other improvements have been made recently, including the construction of a new marshalling area for these vehicles on the Essex side.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the tunnels in the United Kingdom where tankers are escorted other than the Dartford tunnel.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The authorities responsible for the Mersey tunnels and the Tyne tunnel operate procedures similar to those which apply at Dartford.

  Dartford-Thurrock Bridge
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current state of progress on the proposed Dartford to Thurrock bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Dartford River Crossing Limited plans to begin construction of the bridge on 1 August if the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill receives Royal Assent by 30 June. The bridge is expected to be complete by early 1991.

  Rolling Stock and Locomotives
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 71, what allowance as regards the maximum height and size of a passengers seated comfortably, was made by BR in the specifications for Sprinters submitted to his Department; whether there has been any variations in these figures for the super Sprinters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  This is entirely a matter for British Rail's judgment.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 71, what data or measurements of interior noise levels were included by BR in the specifications for class 155 units submitted to his Department; and what change these figures represented in comparison with current Inter-City rolling stock.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. These are entirely matters for British Rail.

  Perivale Underpass
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to improve the drainage arrangements for the Perivale underpass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The severe storms in West London flooded the underpass on Sunday 8 May 1988. Our agents, the London borough of Ealing, is investigating whether any improvements to the drainage system are required.

ENERGY

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress in the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Discussions with the industry are continuing satisfactorily and our aim is to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Industry Matters Scheme
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the Industry Matters scheme.

  Mr. Viggers
  The work of encouraging a better understanding of the importance of industry, begun during Industry Year 1986, is being carried forward in Northern Ireland by an independent company limited by guarantee, Industry Matters (NI) Ltd. The company is involved in a wide range of projects designed to create and develop links between industry and education at all levels, and has also launched an initiative to promote the concept of total quality throughout Northern Ireland industry. Industry Matters' costs are met by contributions from the
  455
  private sector matched by the Department of Economic Development on a pound-for-pound basis up to a limit of £50,000 in any one financial year.

  Fair Employment
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many(a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics are employed at present by the Housing Executive in the grades or salary bands (i) PO2 and above, (ii) PO1 and (iii) P/T and 1–4, in each of the six housing areas or regions and in Belfast functional departments;

  (2) how many (a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics are employed at present by the Housing Executive in the grades of director and assistant director within the central directorates of development; planning; finance; housing; and personnel and management services;

  (3) how many (a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics are employed at present by the Housing Executive in the grades or salary bands PO2 and above in the department of the chief executive and in the departments of information and corporate planning.

  Mr. Needham
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand that the information requested is not currently available.

  A report conducted by the Fair Employment Agency in October 1985 into the religious composition of the non-manual staff of the NIHE concluded that equality of opportunity was being provided. Following a recommendation of the FEA, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is currently undertaking a survey of its staff which is intended to provide a profile of its religious composition. It is anticipated that the report of this survey will be available by the end of the year.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics employed by the Housing Executive in October 1985 have been transferred to different duties, or have resigned their employment, or have been dismissed in the grades or salary bands (i) PO2 and above, (ii) PO1 and (iii) P/T, 1–4, and what were the respective affiliations of their replacements in post in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I understand from the chief executive that the information requested is not available.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Catholic managers at grade or salary bands SOI and above have instituted grievance proceedings, or complaints to the Fair Employment Agency, or the Commissioner for Complaints, or have concluded or are pursuing legal proceedings against the House Executive in consequence of their failure to obtain promotion, or the loss or downgrading of their posts since the Fair Employment Agency report was published in October 1985; and what has been the total cost to the Housing Executive of defending such actions and making compensatory or out-of-court settlements.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I understand from the chief executive that the information cannot be provided in the form requested. Details of cases raised by existing members of staff since October 1985 are as follows:
  456

  Case and means of raising case

  Costs £

  A—One individual

  In-house grievance procedure relating to failure to obtain promotion.

  130

  Finding:—No grievance to answer

  B—One individual

  Complaint to the Fair Employment Agency relating to failure to obtain promotion.

  Not yet determined

  Case continuing.

  C—Two individuals

  Legal proceedings relating to contract of employment case.

  6,000 compensation, 9,433 legal costs

  Settled out of court.

  Legal proceedings relating to contract of employment.

  2,918 to date

  Case continuing.

  These figures do not include in-house administration expenses relating to the investigations. These costs are not readily available and could only be determined at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the full list of organisations of which membership by its employees is proscribed by the Housing Executive on grounds of conflict of interest in any duties involving the planning or maintenance of housing, the planning or apportionment of financial expenditure, the management of tenant-occupied housing, or the recruitment, selection, management and training of employees.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chief executive that the Executive does not maintain a list of organisations of which employees may not hold membership.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Roman Catholic personnel or training staff have instituted actions against the Housing Executive since May 1983, through industrial tribunals or the civil courts on grounds of wrongful dismissal or breach of contract; in how many cases compensatory payments were made in preference to reinstatement; and what were the total legal costs involved in defending these actions on behalf of the Housing Executive and in paying compensation.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chief executive that four officers in the personnel/training section have initiated action against the Executive since May 1983 through a tribunal or civil court.

  The Executive is unable to comment on the religious affiliation of the individuals concerned.

  The Executive made a compensatory payment in lieu of re-engagement in one of these cases, as directed by the industrial tribunal.

  The total costs involved including the compensatory payment amount to £51,644·75 to date.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints by year under the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 have been discontinued by virtue of section 42 of the Act listing the employing body in each case.
  457
  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: It is not the practice to release the names of parties in individual complaints. The following table shows by year the number of requests for the issue of a certificate under section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.

  Year

  Number

  1977–78

  3

  1978–79

  1

  1979–80

  Nil

  1980–81

  1

  2

  1981–82

  3

  1

  1982–83

  1

  1983–84

  Nil

  1984–85

  3

  1985–86

  1

  1

  1

  1986–87

  0

  1987–88

  4

  1

  Two of these cases are now the subject of judicial review.

  Orange Parades
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Orangemen's parades take place in Northern Ireland each year; and what is the cost of policing them.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is not available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  However, in his annual report for 1987, the Chief Constable reported that 1,863 Loyalist parades and 249 Republican parades had taken place during the year and involved a substantial monetary cost.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the number of new jobs produced by the work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit.

  Mr. Viggers
  In the year ended March 1988, the Local Enterprise Development Unit entered into contracts with companies to assist 4,570 jobs. Of this total, 523 related to the development of existing jobs and 4,047 to proposals for the creation of new employment. These results bring the overall total of jobs assisted since the unit's inception in 1971 to 35,271.

  Language Assistants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many language assistants went to which countries under the auspices of the exchange of languages assistants scheme in the last year for which figures are available; and how many come from which countries in each exchange.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures for the current academic year are as follows:
  458

  Countries

  From Northern Ireland

  To Northern Ireland

  France

  61

  65

  Morocco

  —

  2

  Canada

  1

  2

  Ivory Coast

  —

  1

  Switzerland

  1

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany

  8

  15

  German Democratic Republic

  1

  —

  Austria

  1

  3

  Spain

  11

  16

  Mexico

  1

  1

  Italy

  4

  3

  Further Education (Staff)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of the investigations by(a) the Fair Employment Agency and (b) the Northern Ireland Commissioner for complaints into the 40 cases of complaints about selection and promotion of staff in further education colleges during the past five years.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Fair Employment Agency estimates the total cost of its 12 completed investigations at £24,000. Two further cases are pending and are expected to cost some £4,000.

  The office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints does not hold information in a form which would enable it to provide a meaningful estimate of the cost of investigation of individual complaints.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 51, whether he has revised the guidelines to the five education and library boards during the past five years about the criteria for the selection and promotion of staff in further education colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The selection and promotion of lecturing staff in further education colleges are matters for the management committees of the colleges and education and library boards operating within schemes approved by the Department of Education. There has been no recent revision of these schemes.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what stage are the proposed schemes for new primary schools at(a) Ballyharry and (b) Ballyhalbert; and what are the anticipated dates for the acceptance of the first pupils at these schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Ballyharry: the scheme is now 40 per cent. complete.

  (b) Ballyhalbert: the scheme commenced on 23 May 1988.

  Both schools are expected to accept pupils in September 1989.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the names of all primary schools which have been closed during the past five years; what was the number of pupils at each school at the date of the final decision to close the school; and whether each school listed is controlled or maintained.
  459
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of the primary school closures since 1983 are as follows:

  Controlled

  Enrolment

  Ballymiscaw

  22

  Woodvale

  40

  Robert Bell

  57

  Throne

  27

  Malone

  52

  Agnew Balzani

  22

  Ballyhome

  16

  Ladyhill

  23

  Seacon

  12

  Derrykeigan

  10

  Maxwells Walls

  24

  Ringsend

  7

  John Stewart Memorial

  21

  Ballymontena

  25

  Kirkhills

  21

  Blagh

  11

  Ballystockart

  29

  Ballytrira

  21

  Annadorn

  13

  Castlerobin

  23

  Milford

  16

  Ballynahatty

  22

  Douglas

  25

  Calkhill

  20

  Balteagh

  13

  Mayne

  17

  Riddle Memorial

  132

  Porters Memorial

  38

  Aughagash

  22

  Ballyoran

  221

  Voluntary

  Star of the Sea Boys, Belfast

  90

  St. Anthony's, Belfast

  75

  St. Teresa's, Tullyorier

  15

  Cabra

  40

  St. Columb's Infants, Londonderry

  32

  Ballyphillip Boys'

  171

  In addition, primary school amalgamations involving closures since 1983 are as follows:

  Enrolment

  Controlled

  Hazelbank

  25

  Mullindrean

  30

  Upper Buckna

  30

  Ardmillan

  92

  Ballydrain

  19

  Ballymacashon

  28

  Killinchy

  47

  Lisbarnet

  36

  Magheraberry

  80

  Soldierstown

  19

  Wastelands

  26

  Ballynewry

  33

  Mullabrack

  28

  Markethill

  173

  Cladymore

  64

  Sion Mills

  273

  Urney

  12

  Voluntary

  St. Malachy's Girls', Belfast

  171

  St. Colman's Boys', Belfast

  158

  Note: The above amalgamations involved the closure of the schools bracketed together and the erection of a new school on a new site.

  Crumlin Road Prison
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to improve the sanitary arrangements for prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Crumlin road, Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  There are currently no firm plans to improve the sanitary arrangements at HM prison, Crumlin road, but a survey is being carried out with a view to drawing up a plan to upgrade certain aspects of the building, which may include the sanitation.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently serving prison sentences in Northern Ireland; what percentage of these are serving sentences for terrorist and related offences; and what percentage of the terrorist offences category are (i) republican and (ii) loyalist.

  Mr. Stanley
  On 15 May there were 1,442 persons serving prison sentences in Northern Ireland. Of these 72·1 per cent. were serving sentences for scheduled offences as defined in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. An unknown number of these offences would however have been treated as non-scheduled at court after being certified out by the Attorney-General. Of the persons serving sentences for scheduled offences, based on their believed paramilitary affiliations, 44·7 per cent. are classified as Republican and 33·3 per cent. as Loyalist. These figures do not reflect those prisoners currently held on remand or awaiting trial, nor those persons ordered to be detained in a young offenders centre.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many female prisoners are currently serving sentences in Northern Ireland; and what percentage are serving sentences for terrorist offences.

  Mr. Stanley
  On 15 May there were 19 women serving prison sentences in Northern Ireland. Of these 14 (73·7 per cent.) were serving sentences for scheduled offences as defined in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Some of these offences might however have been treated as non-scheduled at court after being certified out by the Attorney-General. These figures do not reflect those prisoners currently held on remand or awaiting trial, nor those persons ordered to be detained in a young offenders centre.

  De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money owing to public funds as a result of the collapse of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd has so far been recovered; how much is still outstanding or unaccounted for; and what has been the cost to public funds to date in fees and other related administrative expenses.

  Mr. Viggers
  Of the £77 million public funds invested in De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd, the total amount recovered to date by the joint receivers, Sir Kenneth Cork and Mr. Christopher Hughes of Cork Gully, is £12·6 million. That amount included an award in specie of £1·8 million in respect of property at Dunmurry and a total of £3·54
  461
  million paid to Government Departments as preferential creditors. £53·7 million of the Government's claim against the company, which excludes share capital of £17·8 million but includes interest and royalties due, remains outstanding. At 29 February 1988 the fees, expenses and costs incurred so far in the receivership and various legal actions amounted to £3·9 million.

  Belfast-Dublin Road, Newry (Parking)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State Northern Ireland how many prosecutions have been brought during the period 1 June 1987 to 1 June 1988 in respect of illegal parking on the Belfast-Dublin road, Newry, in the vicinity of the customs station.

  Mr. Stanley
  Records of parking offences are not maintained on a road by road basis and this information could not therefore be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Newtown Hamilton (Security System)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to change the security barrier system currently in operation at Newtown Hamilton, County Armagh.

  Mr. Stanley
  I understand from the RUC that there are no plans to remove the security barriers at present, although the situation is under review.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers in Northern Ireland exceeded their allocated milk quota during the year 1 May 1987 to 31 April 1988.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is not possible at this stage to state precisely how many milk producers in Northern Ireland exceeded their quota during the year 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988. A number of quota adjustments still require to be made but it is estimated that approximately 4,000 producers may have exceeded their quota. As a result of temporary reallocation of unused quota, the number who have to pay levy could be significantly lower.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in improving the cost-effectiveness of the Northern Ireland prison service.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Government are continually seeking to improve the cost-effectiveness of the Northern Ireland prison service, as is the case with the provision of other public services. Progress has already been made but a particular source of concern for some time has been the increasing cost of housing special category prisoners in three compounds in the old part of Maze prison, even though their numbers have fallen. Accordingly, on Sunday 5 June the remaining 90 special category prisoners were transferred from three compounds in the old part of Maze to two cell blocks in the prison. The prisoners will continue to be held separately from other inmates, and to be treated as special category. Arrangements have been made to reproduce the previous regime to the extent that this is practicable in the different accommodation.
  462
  The closure of the remaining compounds will result in more cost-effective use of prison accommodation. The transfer will also result in more contact between staff and these prisoners than was possible in the compounds; most of the men are serving indeterminate sentences, and the new situation should enable a better assessment to be made of their suitability for release into the community on licence.

  I have therefore agreed that the case of each special category prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment or detention at the Secretary of State's pleasure should be reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board within about six months. The board will review the cases in accordance with the normal criteria which it applies to all prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. The prisoners concerned are being informed of this review, and will have the normal opportunity to make their own written representations to the board.

  Artificial Insemination Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether firms or individuals proposing to operate an artificial insemination service for animals require his approval.

  Mr. Viggers
  No. A licence is required from the Department of Agriculture.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Strangford of 11 May, whether the licensing of the artificial insemination services to AI Services (NI) Society Ltd. gives this firm a monopoly for artificial insemination services in Northern Ireland;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Strangford of 11 May, whether other private persons or firms can undertake an artificial insemination service in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: AI Services (Northern Ireland) Society Ltd. will be the only organisation authorised to undertake the artificial insemination of cattle on farms in Northern Ireland through a technician service.

  Other private persons or firms can be licensed by the Department of Agriculture to sell semen to cattle producers who will continue to be free to buy semen from other sources other than Al Services and to perform artificial insemination on their own cows under licence from the Department of Agriculture.

  European Charter on Local Self-Government
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had from individuals and organisations in Northern Ireland concerning ratification of the European charter on local self-government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 April 1988]: I have received two representations concerning the ratification of the European charter of local self-government; these came from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland.

  North Eastern Library and Education Board
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will place in the Library a copy of the Fair Employment Agency's report on the North Eastern Library and Education Board.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 24 May 1988]: When the report is published by the Fair Employment Agency, a copy will be placed in the Library in the normal way.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many milk producers were contracted into the Community non-marketing premium schemes during the base year for the calculation of milk quotas.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: In Northern Ireland, 801 producers were contracted out of production under the EC non-marketing of milk and dairy herd conversion premium schemes during at least part of 1983, the base year used for the calculation of primary milk quotas.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he decides which political leaders in southern Africa to consult about developments in southern Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our policy is to maintain contact with a wide range of political opinion in southern Africa.

  Iran (Arms Sales)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the United States Government concerning the alleged sale of arms to Iran; and what response he has sent.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received no representations from the United States Government on this matter, and we have no reason to think that they hold the views attributed to them in a recent press article.

  Gulf War
  Sir Russell Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are taking all steps open to them to prevent the direct or indirect supply of weapons from the United Kingdom to either of the protagonists in the Gulf War.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes. Exports of defence-related equipment to Iran or Iraq continue to be subject to the guidelines announced in the House on 29 October 1985. These are strictly applied.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens are working for relief agencies inside Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.
  464
  Mr. Eggar
  We have no firm information. The British working in the refugee camps along the Thai-Cambodian border appear to outnumber the few who are working in Cambodia.

  Transylvania (Hungarian Minority)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to the Romanian Government on the subject of the alleged persecution of the Hungarian minority in Transylvania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Romanian authorities are aware of the concern in the United Kingdom about human rights in Romania. We have raised these issues in ministerial contacts. In a speech at the CSCE follow-up meeting in Vienna on 15 April, I drew attention in particular to religious rights and those of national minorities in Romania. We hope that the Vienna meeting will result in improved respect for the rights of national minorities, in Romania as elsewhere.

  Southern Africa (Defence Capability)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on supporting the defence capability of Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference states; and if there are any plans to increase the level of support.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We wish to encourage stability in the region and, to that end, give civil aid, military training assistance and limited non-lethal defence equipment to SADCC states to encourage their independent development. We will continue to do so.

  Amritsar (Representations)
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from Indians resident in the United Kingdom asking him to make representations to the Indian Government on recent events in Amritsar.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received 24 identical written requests from the International Sikh Youth Federation and a number of Sikh temples. In addition the federation sent a telemessage. We have also received similar requests from four of the temples under cover of letters from hon. Members. We have had no other requests.

  Entry Clearance Fees
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any changes are proposed to entry clearance fees.

  Mr. Eggar
  Revised fees have been introduced along with a new category of entry clearance (double entry), with effect from 1 June 1988. the charges were approved by the Privy Council on 25 May. The principal fees will be as follows:

  £

  (£)

  Single entry clearance

  20

  (no change)

  Double entry clearance

  30

  (new category)

  Multi entry clearance

  44

  (40)

  Settlement and other long term entry clearances

  60

  (50)

  465
  The last fee has been non-refundable since 1 January 1986. All entry clearance fees will be non-refundable from 1 June 1988. From the same date fees will be charged on a per capita, not per passport, basis.

  Mrs. Susan Donnelly
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct Her Majesty's consul in Johannesburg to stay in regular contact with British passport holder Mrs. Susan Donnelly (nèe Wescott); if he will press the South African authorities for an explanation of the circumstances of her arrest and what charges are to be laid against her and how soon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State told the hon. Member on 23 May 1988, consular access has already been obtained to Mrs. Donnelly. Consular officials are also in regular touch with the local police authorities, who are holding Mrs. Donnelly under the provisions of South Africa's Internal Security Act. Our officials will continue to monitor her case and do all that they properly can to assist her.

  Gibraltar (Shooting)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what precise information was available to his Department in the period prior to the shooting of three Irish Republican Army members in Gibraltar on 6 March regarding the nature and scope of any alleged terrorist attack which they were suspected of preparing; what were the sources and timing of that information and what action was taken as a result; whether any civilian employees of Her Majesty's Government were involved at any stage in the operation to locate and apprehend the terrorists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The hon. Member is clearly referring to intelligence matters on which it is not our practice to comment.

  Departmental Officials (Language Qualifications)
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his officials at administrative grade are qualified, respectively, at(a) O-level, (b) A or S-level, (c) diploma and (d) university degree level in (i) French and (ii) another European Community language; and what procedures are operated by his Department to ensure that documents of the European Communities placed before the House are properly translated.

  Mrs. Chalker
  For diplomatic service staff the information on language qualifications is as follows:

  (i)(a) 1,383; (i)(b) 914; (i)(c) 367; (i)(d) 313; (ii)(a) 1,733; (ii)(b) 757; (ii)(c) 495; (ii)(d)

  Information on the language qualifications of ODA staff is not held in the same way as information for diplomatic service officers. But my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to the hon. Member when the information that is available has been assembled.
  466
  The Commission is responsible for the translation of Community documents. To check all translations in London would not be operationally feasible and would greatly delay the depositing of documents in Parliament.

  Arms Control Panel
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last meeting of the Ministers' panel on disarmament arms control and non-proliferation; and what is its composition.

  Mr. Mellor
  The advisory panel on disarmament last met in April 1987. Since 1983 its composition has varied from one meeting to another, according to the agenda. It was established in 1964 to enable Ministers to discuss arms control issues with politicians, academics and non-governmental organisations. In recent years this dialogue has been continued and expanded through a number of increasingly specialised groupings.

  BBC (External Services)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the allocation of resources to the external services of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. The grants-in-aid for the BBC external services for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 were set out in the 1987 public expenditure survey at the level necessary to carry out the prescribed broadcasting output and sustain the 1981 audibility improvement programme.

  Derrick Gregory
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Government of Malaysia to commute the death penalty on Derrick Gregory.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are considering the content and timing of a plea for clemency on humanitarian grounds, which might be submitted by the British High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur to the Malaysian Government in support of a petition which Mr. Gregory's lawyer is preparing.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey concerning the European conventions on the repatriation of prisoners and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Both the United Kingdom and Turkey are parties to the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons. The convention came into force for Turkey on 1 January 1988. There have been no discussions between our Governments on the operation of the convention, but there has been direct contact between the Home Office and the Turkish Ministry of Justice about individuals who have expressed an interest in transfer, under the terms of the convention, to serve the remainder of their sentences in their home countries. These exchanges are continuing.

  Chile (Exiles)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by Her Majesty's ambassador to Chile in respect of(a) the detention of former United Kingdom resident Jamie Caro and (b) the safety of other returning exiles.

  Mr. Eggar
  Sri Caro is a Chilean citizen. We have therefore no consular standing to intervene on his behalf. We are, however, aware of the practical difficulties faced by some Chileans now returning to their own country. Her Majesty's ambassador is in regular touch with returnees from the United Kingdom, who seem to find this helpful. He has discussed some of the returnees' practical difficulties with the Chilean authorities. We do not, however, believe that returning exiles are in any greater physical danger than others in Chile.

  Population (millions)

  GNP per capita (dollars)

  AGR GNP per capita per cent.

  Percentage of Population 15 years old

  Population 15 years old (000s)

  1986

  1986

  1973–86

  1985

  1985

  Brazil

  138·4

  1,840

  1·6

  36·4

  49,366

  China

  1,054·8

  280

  5·9

  29·7

  315,050

  Ethiopia

  43·6

  120

  -0·5

  44·8

  19,528

  India

  780·2

  270

  2·2

  36·8

  279,370

  Kenya

  21·2

  300

  0·2

  52·5

  10,820

  Nigeria

  103·7

  620

  -2·7

  48·3

  45,940

  Sri Lanka

  16·1

  400

  3·3

  34·5

  5,596

  USA

  241·15

  17,450

  1·4

  21·9

  52,083

  United Kingdom

  56·56

  8,890

  1·2

  19·5

  10,942

  Note: AGR =Annual Growth Rate

  Sources: Population, GNP per capita and AGR GNP per capita:

  Social indicators of Development 1987 (World Bank & International Finance Corporation 1987)

  Recent Social and Economic Indicators 1987 (World Bank 1987)

  Population less than 15 years old, percentage and totals:

  World Demographic Estimates and Projection, 1950–2025 (United Nations 1988)

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish as a table in the Official Report, for all African countries for the years 1960, 1970, 1980 and the latest year for which figures are available, information available to him on the

  Primary School Enrolment Rates

  1965

  1973

  Most recent estimate

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Algeria

  81

  53

  109

  75

  106

  83

  Angola

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Benin

  48

  21

  51

  22

  92

  43

  Botswana

  59

  71

  65

  79

  104

  28

  Burkina Faso

  16

  8

  10

  1

  20

  4

  Burundi

  36

  15

  42

  20

  36

  4

  Cameroon

  114

  75

  108

  87

  116

  97

  Cape Verde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central African Republic

  84

  28

  88

  41

  98

  51

  Chad

  56

  13

  51

  18

  55

  21

  Comoros

  36

  12

  64

  29

  107

  76

  Congo, People Republic

  134

  94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cote d'Ivoire

  80

  41

  71

  45

  64

  19

  Djibouti

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Egypt

  90

  6

  85

  57

  94

  72

  Equatorial Guinea

  79

  52

  69

  11

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  16

  6

  32

  15

  29

  12

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Statistics
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing information available to him for Brazil, China, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, the United States of America and the United Kingdom on (a) the total population, (b) the per capita gross national product in constant 1987 United States dollars, (c) the average annual rate of growth for the period 1970 to 1987, (d) the percentage of the population under 15 years of age and (e) the size of the population under 15 years of age.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Available information on question(a) and for the latest available year on questions (a), (b),(d) and (e) is in the table.

  percentage of infant mortality rates, the percentage of children in school with boys and girls listed separately, and the female percentage of the illiterate population.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Information for the years in question is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Available information is as follows:
  469

  1965

  1973

  Most recent estimate

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Gabon

  146

  122

  105

  100

  124

  121

  Gambia

  29

  12

  44

  21

  91

  55

  Ghana

  82

  57

  80

  62

  75

  59

  Guinea

  44

  19

  40

  20

  44

  20

  Guinea-Bissau

  38

  13

  90

  39

  84

  40

  Kenya

  69

  40

  103

  87

  101

  94

  Lesotho

  74

  114

  87

  123

  97

  126

  Liberia

  59

  23

  80

  45

  95

  57

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  11

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  70

  59

  103

  88

  125

  118

  Malawi

  55

  32

  67

  44

  73

  52

  Mali

  32

  16

  32

  17

  30

  18

  Mauritania

  19

  6

  24

  13

  45

  29

  Mauritius

  105

  97

  108

  106

  105

  106

  Morocco

  78

  35

  78

  45

  97

  62

  Mozambique

  48

  26

  104

  70

  94

  71

  Namibia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Niger

  15

  7

  25

  14

  34

  19

  Nigeria

  39

  24

  47

  27

  103

  81

  Reunion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  64

  43

  61

  51

  64

  60

  St. Helena

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Sao Tome and Principe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senegal

  52

  29

  48

  34

  66

  44

  Seychelles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  37

  21

  47

  30

  —

  —

  Somalia

  16

  4

  76

  42

  32

  18

  South Africa

  91

  88

  105

  105

  —

  —

  Sudan

  37

  21

  59

  34

  57

  41

  Swaziland

  76

  71

  100

  97

  112

  110

  Tanzania

  40

  25

  62

  44

  91

  84

  Togo

  78

  32

  130

  68

  118

  75

  Tunisia

  116

  65

  116

  78

  127

  105

  Uganda

  83

  50

  53

  35

  65

  49

  Western Sahara

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zaire

  95

  45

  104

  72

  112

  84

  Zambia

  59

  46

  105

  88

  105

  95

  Zimbabwe

  128

  92

  79

  67

  135

  127

  Secondary School Enrolment Rates

  1965

  1973

  Most Recent Estimate

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Algeria

  10

  5

  26

  14

  54

  39

  Angola

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Benin

  5

  2

  6

  3

  32

  12

  Botswana

  5

  3

  16

  16

  26

  30

  Burkina Faso

  2

  1

  2

  1

  5

  3

  Burundi

  2

  1

  3

  1

  5

  3

  Cameroon

  8

  2

  23

  8

  29

  18

  Cape Verde

  —

  —

  9

  8

  12

  9

  Central African Republic

  4

  1

  7

  2

  24

  8

  Chad

  3

  0

  6

  1

  11

  2

  Comoros

  5

  1

  5

  2

  30

  15

  Congo, People Republic

  15

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cote d'Ivoire

  10

  2

  13

  4

  27

  11

  Djibouti

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Egypt

  37

  15

  54

  31

  70

  46

  Equatorial Guinea

  11

  4

  20

  4

  —

  —

  470 471

  1965

  1973

  Most Recent Estimate

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Ethiopia

  3

  1

  9

  4

  14

  8

  Gabon

  16

  5

  22

  12

  30

  20

  Gambia

  8

  4

  15

  5

  29

  13

  Ghana

  19

  7

  45

  28

  45

  27

  Guinea

  9

  2

  20

  7

  20

  7

  Guinea-Bissau

  2

  2

  5

  2

  19

  4

  Kenya

  6

  2

  16

  9

  22

  16

  Lesotho

  4

  4

  12

  14

  17

  26

  Liberia

  8

  3

  25

  8

  33

  13

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  24

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  10

  5

  14

  10

  43

  30

  Malawi

  3

  1

  5

  2

  6

  3

  Mali

  5

  2

  11

  3

  10

  4

  Mauritania

  2

  0

  7

  1

  19

  6

  Mauritius

  34

  18

  42

  35

  54

  48

  Morocco

  16

  4

  21

  12

  37

  25

  Mozambique

  3

  2

  4

  2

  8

  4

  Namibia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Niger

  1

  0

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  7

  3

  12

  6

  —

  —

  Reunion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  31

  1

  3

  1

  3

  1

  St. Helena

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senegal

  10

  3

  14

  6

  17

  8

  Seychelles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  5

  3

  16

  7

  —

  —

  Somalia

  4

  1

  9

  3

  23

  12

  South Africa

  16

  14

  20

  19

  —

  —

  Sudan

  6

  2

  19

  8

  23

  16

  Swaziland

  9

  7

  35

  29

  44

  43

  Tanzania

  3

  1

  4

  2

  4

  2

  Togo

  8

  2

  29

  9

  32

  10

  Tunisia

  23

  9

  21

  28

  32

  27

  Uganda

  6

  2

  6

  2

  10

  5

  Western Sahara

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zaire

  8

  2

  23

  8

  81

  33

  Zambia

  11

  3

  20

  10

  22

  12

  Zimbabwe

  8

  5

  10

  7

  46

  31

  Infant Mortality Rate (/1,000 births)

  1950–55

  1960–65

  1970–75

  1980–85

  Algeria

  185

  160

  132

  88

  Angola

  231

  200

  173

  149

  Benin

  210

  176

  151

  120

  Botswana

  130

  115

  95

  76

  Burkina Faso

  234

  207

  162

  150

  Burundi

  172

  145

  135

  124

  Cameroon

  190

  154

  119

  103

  Cape Verde

  165

  135

  103

  75

  Central African Republic

  197

  178

  148

  142

  Chad

  211

  189

  166

  143

  Comoros

  140

  124

  106

  88

  Congo, People Republic

  170

  131

  90

  81

  Cote d'Ivoire

  216

  188

  153

  110

  Djibouti

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Egypt

  200

  175

  150

  100

  Equatorial Guinea

  204

  183

  160

  137

  Ethiopia

  190

  170

  155

  155

  472

  1950–55

  1960–65

  1970–75

  1980–85

  Gabon

  194

  163

  132

  112

  Gambia

  207

  204

  192

  174

  Ghana

  148

  127

  110

  98

  Guinea

  225

  202

  181

  159

  Guinea-Bissau

  204

  183

  163

  143

  Kenya

  150

  118

  98

  80

  Lesotho

  160

  145

  130

  111

  Liberia

  194

  176

  155

  132

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  185

  150

  117

  97

  Madagascar

  126

  104

  84

  67

  Malawi

  212

  204

  191

  163

  Mali

  213

  208

  203

  180

  Mauritania

  204

  176

  157

  137

  Mauritius

  99

  61

  55

  28

  Morocco

  180

  155

  122

  97

  Mozambique

  177

  173

  168

  153

  Namibia

  168

  150

  134

  116

  473

  1950–55

  1960–65

  1970–75

  1980–85

  Niger

  207

  186

  166

  146

  Nigeria

  207

  185

  148

  114

  Reunion

  141

  87

  41

  13

  Rwanda

  160

  142

  140

  132

  St. Helena

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senegal

  191

  176

  162

  142

  Seychelles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  226

  224

  203

  180

  Somalia

  190

  170

  155

  155

  South Africa

  152

  130

  110

  83

  Sudan

  185

  165

  145

  118

  Swaziland

  160

  150

  144

  129

  Tanzania

  160

  143

  130

  115

  Togo

  204

  170

  121

  102

  Tunisia

  175

  155

  120

  85

  Uganda

  160

  125

  116

  112

  Western Sahara

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Zaire

  157

  146

  127

  107

  Zambia

  150

  130

  100

  88

  Zimbabwe

  120

  106

  93

  80

  Notes:

  1. School enrolment rate—percentage of the school-age children as defined by each country and reported to UNESCO. Most countries consider the primary school age to be 6 to 11 years and for secondary 12 to 17 years.

  2. Most recent estimates are generally for 1986.

  Source:

  1. Social Indicators of Development 1987—The World Bank and International Finance Corporation.

  2. World Demographic Estimates and Projections, 1950–2025—United Nations 1988.

  Activity Rates (per cent.) Females

  Activity Rates (per cent.) 1985

  1960

  1970

  1980

  Males

  Females

  Argentina

  16·81

  19·48

  19·53

  52·06

  19·41

  Bolivia

  13·99

  13·85

  13·85

  48·01

  14·85

  Brazil

  11·25

  14·33

  19·63

  53·41

  19·88

  Chile

  14·2

  13·87

  18·27

  51·68

  19·67

  Colombia

  11·84

  12·7

  13·94

  49·63

  14·29

  Costa Rica

  9·75

  11·14

  14·67

  53·99

  15·21

  Dominican Republic

  5·94

  5·98

  7·06

  51·15

  8·22

  Ecuador

  10·69

  10·12

  11·63

  48·59

  11·74

  E1 Salvador

  11·02

  13·56

  16·53

  49·23

  16·62

  Guatemala

  7·83

  8·05

  7·95

  47·67

  8·66

  Haiti

  51·52

  46·42

  38·14

  49·65

  36·23

  Honduras

  7·92

  8·53

  9·2

  49·17

  10·31

  Jamaica

  30·69

  31·56

  39·5

  51·25

  42·53

  Mexico

  9·12

  10·08

  17·32

  48·1

  17·89

  Nicaragua

  11·24

  11·88

  12·84

  46·49

  14·23

  Panama

  14·28

  17·35

  17·94

  50·14

  18·98

  Paraguay

  13·92

  13·67

  13·7

  52·72

  13·78

  Peru

  13·47

  11·97

  15·16

  47·4

  15·35

  Trinidad and Tobago

  17·84

  19·41

  20·91

  53·54

  22·55

  Uruguay

  19·53

  20·7

  22·81

  54·95

  23·27

  Venezuela

  11·55

  12·18

  17·18

  49·18

  18·3

  NOTE: The activity rate is the ratio of the economically active population (all employed and unemployed persons including those seeking work for the first time) aged 10 years and over to the population of all ages.

  Source: World Demographic Estimates and Projections, 1950–2025 United Nations 1988.

  Aga Khan Foundation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what controls will be put on the use of food granted to the Aga Khan Foundation.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom gave to Nicaragua in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will publish a table showing how the aid was used in individual projects.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The United Kingdom has given both bilateral and multilateral aid to Nicaragua. In 1986, bilateral aid was £86,000 of which £82,000 was for disaster relief and the remainder for technical co-operation. In 1987, bilateral aid was nil. The latest figures for multilateral aid to Nicaragua attributable to the United Kingdom are for 1985 when £2·9 million was contributed through all agencies of which £2·3 million was provided through the European Community. In that year, our bilateral aid was £116,000.

  In addition to these amounts, we have co-financed with British voluntary agencies a number of small development projects in Nicaragua.

  Latin America
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for all countries in Latin America, information available to him for the latest year for which figures are available on the proportions of the male and female population who were economically active and the proportions of the female population economically active in the years 1960, 1970 and 1980.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Her Majesty's Government have not made any donations of food to or through the Aga Khan Foundation; nor do they have any such plans.

  Group of Seven
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average percentage of gross national product given in aid by members of the Group of Seven leading industrialised countries, excluding the United Kingdom, in 1987 or in the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1986, the latest year for which official figures are available, the net official development assistance of the Group of Seven leading industrialised countries excluding the United Kingdom represented 0·32 per cent. of their combined GNP.

  World Bank
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report all those votes taken at meetings of the World Bank since 1979, stating the position Her Majesty's Government took on each vote; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to disclose how our executive director voted in the World Bank's executive board.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. Ieaun Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  Blandford Fly (Dorset)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the co-ordination between the Department 476
  of the Environment, the Department of Employment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in taking action to combat the scourge of the Blandford fly in Dorset.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that there is to be a meeting on 8 June between representatives of the Health and Safety Executive, North Dorset district council and the Freshwater Biological Association to discuss the problem of the Blandford fly. Subsequently, if advice from the Independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides is required, all the approving Departments will automatically be involved. I am satisfied that there is good co-ordination between the Departments involved in pesticide approvals.

  Church of Scotland (Reports)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Prime Minister what response she will be making to the reports dealing with housing and the gap between the rich and poor presented to her at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on 21 May.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will, in due course, respond on behalf of the Government, to the report "Housing Scotland's People".

  The discussion of poverty appears to rest heavily on the old DHSS low-income families statistics, which used the supplementary benefit scale rates as the yardstick for the measurement of low income. This series has been the subject of a recent technical review, the report of which has been placed in the Library. The report highlights a number of significant weaknesses in the approach, including the fact that under it the more help provided to those dependent on benefit, the more people will appear to be on "low incomes". In addition, there are significant statistical reservations about estimates for Scotland in isolation. The hon. Member may be aware that the recently published "Households Below Average Income—a statistical analysis 1981–85" shows that those in the lowest income groups have seen higher than average increases in real incomes.

  President Evren
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister whom President Evren of Turkey will meet when he visits Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  As guest of Her Majesty the Queen, President Evren will meet members of the royal family and Ministers, as well as a number of right hon. and hon. Members, officials, business men and others with an interest in Turkey.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Rifle Club Range
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has as to how much public money was spent on establishing the Palace of Westminster rifle club range; and as to how much public subsidy goes towards its annual expenditure.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There is no record of the Palace of Westminster rifle club range ever having received any public subvention or annual subsidy.

  Sports and Social Club
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has as to how much public money was spent on establishing the Houses of Parliament sports and social club; and what subsidy is given towards its annual expenditure.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There is no evidence of public money having been spent on the establishment of the Houses of Parliament sports and social club. Its annual expenditure is financed by the annual appeal to Members of both Houses, by subscriptions and by profits from the club's facilities.

  Palace of Westminster (Visitors)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to protect from inclement weather visitors to the Palace of Westminster queuing for admission via the Norman Porch.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A number of possible measures has been considered by the authorities of both Houses. No acceptable arrangement has yet been agreed, but the matter is regularly reviewed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet completed his assessment of the report of the efficiency scrutiny into project management in the Property Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We have now considered the report, and have produced an action plan which sets out our response to its recommendations and our plans for implementation. I have today placed copies of the report and action plan in the Library.

  Prospect Estate, Rushmoor
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the purpose of discussions currently taking place between his Department and officers of the borough of Rushmoor on the subject of major technical repairs for the Prospect estate; and when he will receive a deputation from the borough.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I met a deputation from the borough of Rushmoor on 26 May and discussed with them the effects of the subsidy rules on projects for the renovation of dwellings on the Prospect estate.

  European Sporting Events (Policing)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the co-operation between British Transport Police and their European counterparts regarding the policing of European sporting events involving United Kingdom clubs, including arrangements for travelling thereto and therefrom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am advised that the British Transport police have excellent communications with their counterparts in Europe. I understand that they maintain close co-operation, as appropriate, on police intelligence and the travel arrangements of supporters.

  Waste Tips (Gases)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to tighten controls over the emission of methane and other gases from waste tips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government put forward a number of proposals for strengthening the regulation of waste disposal in a consultation paper in September 1986. These proposals include empowering local authorities to require continuing precautions at waste disposal sites until they are safe. An announcement will be made shortly about the Government's decisions on these proposals.

  An urgent survey by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to establish the extent of the landfill gas problem is currently in hand. When that exercise is complete, the Government will consider whether further measures are necessary.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to increase the penalties for pollution of water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The maximum penalties which can be imposed by Magistrates for offences under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are fines not exceeding £2,000 and terms of imprisonment of up to three months. On indictment there is no limit on the fine that may be imposed, and the term of imprisonment can be up to two years. Penalties for pollution offences are kept under regular review, but there are no immediate plans for increasing them.

  British Waterways Freight Organisation
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions took place with his Department concerning the sale of the British waterways freight organisation; what consultation took place with interested parties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The British Waterways Board discussed with the Department its proposed approach to the sale of its road freight depots. The board advised staff and trade unions in February that it was seeking private sector involvement to secure the future of the depots. Staff and unions have been given details of the terms of the sale, which enabled staff to transfer on their existing conditions of service.

  Dog Wardens
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in light of the renewed suspension of postal deliveries to the Hanway Estate, Hanwell W7, as a result of canine attacks on postmen, he will exempt local authority expenditure on dog wardens from the ambit of expenditure control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Secretary of State has treated this request that he exempt local authority expenditure on dog wardens from the ambit of expenditure control as a representation that he make a specification subtracting this expenditure from total expenditure for block grant
  479
  purposes under powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1987. He has considered this request very carefully but is not minded to make such a specification in the light of the information available to him.

  Sewage Discharges
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which water authorities have so far submitted to his Department their reports for 1987 detailing works which have failed to comply with discharge consent conditions.

  Mr. Moynihan
  All water authorities have submitted reports detailing sewage treatment works which failed to comply with numerical discharge consent conditions in 1987.

  Palace of Westminster Toilets (Cleaning)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the last five occasions prior to 24 May when the wall tiles in the ladies' toilets of the Committee Room Corridor were fully cleaned; when the floor was cleaned; and if he will give the same information for each of the ladies' toilets in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  The wall tiles and floors were cleaned in accordance with the terms of the contract on 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 May.

  Ramsgate Harbour (Access Road)
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the planning application for the Ramsgate harbour access road.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Shortly.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he has taken of the potential usefulness of using dates of birth in the community charge register as a means of assistance for the assessors.

  Mr. Howard
  There will be no assessors in England and Wales. The Government's view of the usefulness of dates of birth to community charges registration officers in England and Wales was set out by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, during the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill(Official Report, Standing Committee E; 9 February, c. 524).
  480
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether community charge officers will be able to have access to the personal data that may be carried by the Government data network.

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when methods of litter collection and disposal were last updated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The collection of litter and its disposal within the general waste stream together with other refuse collected in their respective areas is the responsibility of the relevant local authorities. It is for them to assess and utilise the most up-to-date and cost-effective methods available which are most suitable for their particular areas.

  Hazardous Waste (Shipments)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to make sure that the Government comply with all EEC directives relating to transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste; when Her Majesty's Government will agree a definition of what is hazardous; whether it will adopt the current Belgian definition, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We plan to implement the directives by means of regulations to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess, to come into effect in the early autumn.

  The control and supervision procedures introduced by the regulations will apply to special wastes as defined in the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 and will replace existing controls on imports and exports contained in the 1980 regulations. In addition, the procedures will apply to such imports of non special waste as are notified to waste disposal authorities by a holder in another member state as being "hazardous" in terms of that country's implementation of the directive.

  The effect of the regulations will be to provide waste disposal authorities, both at the port of entry and at the disposal site, with prior notification of shipments and better information on the nature of the waste. Details of the proposed procedures have been circulated to local authority and industry associations.

  Uranium Discharges
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of uranium were discharged into Rivacre brook, and from there into the river Mersey, by British Nuclear Fuels plc Capenhurst in each year from 1983 to 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The annual total uranium alpha activity discharged into the Rivacre brook by British Nuclear Fuels plc from its Capenhurst works in each year from 1983 to 1986 is as follows. Data for 1987 and 1988 are not yet available.

  Year

  Annual discharge in mega becquerels

  1983

  500

  1984

  800

  1985

  900

  1986

  2,000

  These levels demonstrate that the discharge represents an insignificant radiological hazard to members of the public.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will impose an absolute level on discharges of uranium by British Nuclear Fuels plc at Capenhurst; and at what level that will be set.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The certificate of authorisation for the disposal of low level liquid radioactive waste from British Nuclear Fuels plc Capenhurst works into the Rivacre brook, which sets concentration limits on uranium discharges is currently subject to review by the authorising Departments. It is the intention to include limits on total quantities discharged. The review will be completed before the end of the year.

  Ozone Layer
  Miss Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the results of research into the damage to the ozone layer over the Arctic and the Antarctic from the production of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It seems evident from recent experiments that the Antarctic ozone hole is caused by man-made CFCs in the special conditions which exist over Antarctica each spring.

  The effect of CFCs on the stratosphere over the Arctic is still far from clear; a large experimental programme (in which the United Kingdom is participating) will take place in the Arctic in January 1989 to try to resolve this. Our stratosphere ozone review group has agreed to provide an up-to-date report on these matters as soon as possible.

  Ealing Council (Borrowing)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will investigate borrowing by Ealing council against current and future housing investment programme allocations and capital receipts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The means by which a local authority may borrow are specified in schedule 13 to the Local 482
  Government Act 1972 and regulations made thereunder. If my hon. Friend has reason to believe that Ealing council is raising money by other means, I invite him to place the evidence before the council's auditor.

  Water Byelaws
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will implement water byelaw s in England and Wales in accordance with the model issued by his Department in 1986.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 27 April 1988, at column 165.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in view of the recent outbreak of Legionnaire's Disease at the British Broadcasting Corporation he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to give wider publicity, including advertising, to the dangers of improperly managed water systems in large buildings.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive has already published advice in guidance note No. 48 of its environmental hygiene series on the precautionary measures that can be taken to minimise the occurrence of legionnaire's disease. Copies of this guidance note are available from HMSO and I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend to publicise it further. Copies of the note will be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met the president of the National Farmers Union on 16 May when we discussed the Commission's 1988–89 farm price proposals.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 25 April, when a number of issues of current concern to the dairy industry were discussed.

  Food Industry (Exports)
  Mr. Bovis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the performance of the food industry in increasing exports to Community partners.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Exports of food from the United Kingdom to other countries of the EC 12 have
  483
  more than doubled since 1980 and now comprise over 70 per cent. of the total of our food exports. This is a considerable achievement. However, given that this represents a little over £2,000 million in a total food market in the rest of the EC12 estimated at over £350,000 million, there are clearly further opportunities to be exploited.

  Surplus Food and Drink
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current total volume and value in sterling of surplus food and drink in the European Economic Community.

  Numbers of Farmers, Partners and Directors on Agricultural holdings, England, June 1987

  Farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  County by standard statistical region

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  Total farmers, partners and directors

  Cleveland

  314

  116

  430

  78

  62

  140

  570

  Cumbria

  4,531

  1,610

  6,141

  947

  676

  1,623

  7,764

  Durham

  1,526

  503

  2,029

  370

  240

  610

  2,639

  Northumberland

  1,657

  666

  2,323

  381

  316

  697

  3,020

  Tyne and Wear

  190

  56

  246

  53

  32

  85

  331

  North Region

  8,218

  2,951

  11,169

  1,829

  1,326

  3,155

  14,324

  Humberside

  2,412

  1,109

  3,521

  620

  508

  1,128

  4,649

  North Yorkshire (North Allerton)

  5,502

  2,006

  7,508

  1,282

  962

  2,244

  9,752

  North Yorkshire (Beverley)

  619

  273

  892

  146

  118

  264

  1,156

  South Yorkshire

  926

  344

  1,270

  312

  201

  513

  1,783

  West Yorkshire

  1,707

  515

  2,222

  971

  386

  1,357

  3,579

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11,166

  4,247

  15,413

  3,331

  2,175

  5,506

  20,919

  Derbyshire

  2,422

  728

  3,150

  816

  466

  1,282

  4,432

  Leicestershire

  1,807

  666

  2,473

  520

  338

  858

  3,331

  Lincolnshire

  4,004

  1,638

  5,642

  1,065

  893

  1,958

  7,600

  Northamptonshire

  1,213

  450

  1,663

  392

  281

  673

  2,336

  Nottinghamshire

  1,304

  559

  1,863

  348

  284

  632

  2,495

  East Midlands Region

  10,750

  4,041

  14,791

  3,141

  2,262

  5,403

  20,194

  Cambridgeshire

  2,497

  921

  3,418

  667

  513

  1,180

  4,598

  Norfolk

  3,189

  1,082

  4,271

  1,121

  691

  1,812

  6,083

  Suffolk

  2,242

  870

  3,112

  757

  524

  1,281

  4,393

  East Anglia Region

  7,928

  2,873

  10,801

  2,545

  1,728

  4,273

  15,074

  Bedfordshire

  858

  332

  1,190

  218

  167

  385

  1,575

  Berkshire

  460

  136

  596

  265

  119

  384

  980

  Buckinghamshire

  1,085

  326

  1,411

  503

  280

  783

  2,194

  East Sussex

  1,185

  315

  1,500

  677

  295

  972

  2,472

  Essex

  2,151

  872

  3,023

  675

  597

  1,272

  4,295

  Greater London (E)

  99

  26

  125

  21

  24

  45

  170

  Greater London (SE)

  169

  67

  236

  77

  35

  112

  348

  Hampshire

  1,665

  518

  2,183

  771

  410

  1,181

  3,364

  Hertfordshire

  720

  268

  988

  236

  177

  413

  1,401

  Isle of Wight

  323

  84

  407

  107

  63

  170

  577

  Kent

  2,328

  702

  3,030

  1,316

  734

  2,050

  5,080

  Oxfordshire

  1,263

  428

  1,691

  472

  298

  770

  2,461

  Surrey

  833

  190

  1,023

  548

  228

  776

  1,799

  West Sussex

  1,179

  331

  1,510

  556

  285

  841

  2,351

  South East Region

  14,318

  4,595

  18,913

  6,442

  3,712

  10,154

  29,067

  Avon

  1,308

  357

  1,665

  450

  212

  662

  2,327

  Cornwall

  4,405

  1,111

  5,516

  1,600

  750

  2,350

  7,866

  Devon

  7,348

  1,821

  9,169

  1,999

  1,111

  3,110

  12,279

  Dorset

  1,800

  518

  2,318

  697

  435

  1,132

  3,450

  Gloucestershire

  1,937

  542

  2,479

  784

  397

  1,181

  3,660

  Isles of Scilly

  47

  6

  53

  9

  8

  17

  70

  484
  Mr. MacGregor
  A note setting out the volume of EC intervention stocks of agricultural commodities which includes only the surplus quantities held in EC intervention is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated monthly. The estimated book value of the EC stocks excluding depreciation, set out in the most recently deposited note, is £4·0 billion.

  Farmers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers there are in each county in England at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  485

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  County by standard statistical region

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  Principal farmers and partners

  Other partners and directors

  Total

  Total farmers, partners and directors

  Somerset

  3,686

  1,005

  4,691

  1,207

  646

  1,853

  6,544

  Wiltshire

  1,805

  603

  2,408

  636

  397

  1,033

  3,441

  South West Region

  22,336

  5,963

  28,299

  7,382

  3,956

  11,338

  39,637

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,142

  1,282

  5,424

  1,622

  839

  2,461

  7,885

  Shropshire

  3,331

  1,002

  4,333

  866

  597

  1,463

  5,796

  Staffordshire

  2,944

  866

  3,810

  909

  510

  1,419

  5,229

  Warwickshire

  1,465

  500

  1,965

  514

  290

  804

  2,769

  West Midlands

  296

  93

  389

  122

  69

  191

  580

  West Midlands Region

  12,178

  3,743

  15,921

  4,033

  2,305

  6,338

  22,259

  Cheshire

  2,883

  886

  3,769

  840

  472

  1,312

  5,081

  Greater Manchester

  936

  292

  1,228

  358

  200

  558

  1,786

  Lancashire

  3,814

  1,300

  5,114

  1,050

  703

  1,753

  6,867

  Merseyside

  352

  115

  467

  88

  73

  161

  628

  North West Region

  7,985

  2,593

  10,578

  2,336

  1,448

  3,784

  14,362

  England

  94,879

  31,006

  125,885

  31,039

  18,912

  49,951

  175,836

  Source: June census.

  Note: Figures exclude minor holdings not included in June census.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm workers are employed in each county in England at the latest convenient date.

  Numbers of workers and salaried managers engaged on agricultural holdings, England, June 1987

  All workers (excluding salaried managers)

  County by standard statistical region

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Salaried managers

  Cleveland

  443

  94

  537

  27

  Cumbria

  4,228

  659

  4,887

  83

  Durham

  1,731

  487

  2,218

  31

  Northumberland

  2,723

  480

  3,203

  80

  Tyne and Wear

  322

  99

  421

  8

  North Region

  9,447

  1,819

  11,266

  229

  Humberside

  5,491

  1,831

  7,322

  234

  North Yorkshire (North Allerton)

  7,058

  1,739

  8,797

  224

  North Yorkshire (Beverley)

  1,370

  1,437

  2,807

  62

  South Yorkshire

  1,356

  495

  1,851

  31

  West Yorkshire

  2,343

  808

  3,151

  71

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17,618

  6,310

  23,928

  622

  Derbyshire

  2,601

  796

  3,397

  50

  Leicestershire

  2,703

  934

  3,637

  108

  Lincolnshire

  9,393

  4,701

  14,094

  447

  Northamptonshire

  2,207

  551

  2,758

  121

  Nottinghamshire

  2,550

  1,088

  3,638

  121

  East Midlands Region

  19,454

  8,070

  27,524

  847

  Cambridgeshire

  5,514

  3,016

  8,530

  244

  Norfolk

  8,556

  4,615

  13,171

  368

  Suffolk

  5,722

  2,653

  8,375

  314

  East Anglia Region

  19,792

  10,284

  30,076

  926

  Bedfordshire

  1,676

  756

  2,432

  90

  Berkshire

  1,299

  568

  1,867

  109

  Buckinghamshire

  2,121

  783

  2,904

  154

  East Sussex

  2,362

  1,241

  3,603

  124

  Essex

  5,082

  2,658

  7,740

  289

  Greater London (East)

  243

  203

  446

  22

  486
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  487

  County by standard statistical region

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Salaried managers

  Greater London (South East)

  414

  330

  744

  29

  Hampshire

  4,616

  2,351

  6,967

  349

  Hertfordshire

  1,768

  614

  2,382

  141

  Isle of Wight

  543

  269

  812

  19

  Kent

  7,363

  8,240

  15,603

  376

  Oxfordshire

  2,950

  982

  3,932

  198

  Surrey

  2,272

  1,655

  3,927

  192

  West Sussex

  3,499

  2,827

  6,326

  283

  South East Region

  36,208

  23,477

  59,685

  2,375

  Avon

  1,929

  1,565

  3,494

  113

  Cornwall

  4,428

  1,314

  5,742

  68

  Devon

  7,687

  1,813

  9,500

  151

  Dorset

  3,378

  859

  4,237

  149

  Gloucestershire

  3,202

  1,363

  4,565

  180

  Isles of Stilly

  56

  35

  91

  2

  Somerset

  5,104

  1,562

  6,666

  142

  Wiltshire

  4,006

  882

  4,888

  249

  South West Region

  29,790

  9,393

  39,183

  1,054

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,473

  3,931

  10,404

  247

  Shropshire

  4,654

  1,506

  6,160

  121

  Staffordshire

  3,739

  1,048

  4,787

  79

  Warwickshire

  2,397

  872

  3,269

  120

  West Midlands

  440

  312

  752

  14

  West Midlands Region

  17,703

  7,669

  25,372

  581

  Cheshire

  4,261

  1,006

  5,267

  159

  Greater Manchester

  1,138

  469

  1,607

  18

  Lancashire

  4,883

  1,911

  6,744

  137

  Merseyside

  634

  289

  923

  18

  North West Region

  10,866

  3,675

  14,541

  332

  England

  160,878

  70,697

  231,575

  6,966

  Source: June census.

  Note: Figures exclude minor holdings not included in June census.

  Somerset Wetlands
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long he estimates the Somerset wetlands will continue to qualify as an environmentally sensitive area at current rates of drying out; and whether he will facilitate the introduction of a system of water table management aimed at preserving the levels, and moors, wetland status.

  Mr. Gummer
  My officials have met representatives from Wessex water authority, the NCC and RSPB to discuss their recent report on declining water levels and breeding wading bird numbers in the Somerset levels and moors. As a result, it has been agreed that a joint technical assessment of the current situation will be carried out in consultation with IDBs, environmental and farming interests. Proposals for remedial action will be examined if they are found to be necessary.

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications have been received under the farm diversification grant scheme; and what progress has been made towards meeting the targets for applications under the scheme.
  488
  Mr. Gummer
  By the end of April we had received 514 applications under the scheme in England. Grant has now been approved worth £686,000 on total capital investments of £2·745 million. We are delighted by the enthusiastic response from farmers to this new scheme.

  Feed Additives
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had on the use of(a) Carbadox and (b) Olaquindox as an animal feed additive.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am not authorised to consult representative organisations on the authorisation of medicinal feed additives. The following committees have been consulted at various times on one or other of these products:

  (a) the veterinary products committee.

  (b) the chief medical officers committee on mutagenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment.

  (c) the chief medical officers committee on carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment.

  Radionuclide Sampling
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available the
  489
  information contained in the document "Radionuclide Sampling in the Environment 1987", in the form of a map with sampling points marked as accurately as possible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I assume the publication referred to is "Radionuclide Levels in Food, Animals and Agricultural Products 1987". The information in section A of the document is given by product and by country. Section B gives a summary of live monitoring of sheep in Cumbria, Wales and by county outside the restricted areas. Section C gives laboratory results of sheepmeat sampling by zones within the restricted areas. The document summarises 279,000 monitoring results and the cost of individual mapping would be disproportionate.

  Badgers (Tuberculosis)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers have been killed by his Ministry in each parish in 1986 and 1987 as a result of herd breakdown of tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4 May to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) at columns 482–84. All badgers taken in those removal operations were killed for post mortem examination.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 569, when he expects the live testing of badgers for tuberculosis to begin and on what scale.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: Until the laboratory tests have been completed and the results validated it is not possible to say when the live testing of badgers for tuberculosis will begin, or on what scale.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any further information regarding the timing and scale of use of the tuberculosis vaccine for badgers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 20 May at col. 612.

  Sheep Paint
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the paint issued to farmers in Cumbria to mark their sheep following the restrictions after Chernobyl contained no label indicating that it was harmful.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The tins did carry a warning in the form of a manufacturer's label.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the data sheet of application details of Dac-Chlor A.A. paint issued to farmers to mark sheep in the restricted areas following the Chernobyl disaster.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Examples of the written instructions issued by the Ministry to farmers concerning the application of Doc Chlor AA paint are being placed in the Library of the House.
  490
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the tins of paint issued to farmers to mark their sheep in the restricted area of Cumbria, following the Chernobyl disaster were collected in by his staff when the paint had been used and the tins emptied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The used tins were collected for accounting purposes and to ensure that all supplies had been fully utilised.

  Whaling Commission
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Whaling Commission; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I opened the 39th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission last year and issued a statement to this year's meeting which has just taken place in New Zealand re-emphasising the need to uphold the moratorium on commercial whaling, stressing that it should not be undermined by misuse of provisions for scientific whaling and stating that further attention should be paid to a number of issues including humane killing to further the IWC's important responsibilities in the conservation and proper use of the world's natural resources.

  Free Food
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make arrangements for the constituents of South Hams to receive free deliveries of beef and butter recently announced, which are currently unavailable because of a lack of delivery arrangements.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Applications were invited until 29 February from non-profit making organisations willing and able to distribute beef and butter to the needy. Although a large number of applications were received, none were from South Hams. Since the whole of the United Kingdom's allocation of funds has been divided between the 127 designated organisations, it would not be appropriate to entertain late applications. Nor do the rules of the scheme permit us to accept late applications as qualifying for the use of European Community funds.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total staff and administration cost to his Department of the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Precise figures are not available, but on a broad assessment of the Department's programmes for food safety and for the radiological protection of our food supply I estimate that staff costs resulting from the Chernobyl accident are of the order of £1·9 million. In addition, my Department has spent some £0·4 million on the purchase of samples and of materials and equipment for analytical purposes and for monitoring.

  Nutrition Information
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to provide
  491
  consumers with suitable information to assist them in using the nutrition information provided voluntarily by manufacturers on food labels designed to enable individuals to achieve a balanced diet.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The major step we have taken in this area is the issue of voluntary nutrition labelling guidelines to encourage manufacturers and retailers providing nutrition information to do so in a standard format. This will enable consumers to compare foods more easily and to make healthy choices. We fully recognise the need to provide consumers with educational material to help them obtain maximum benefit from nutrition labelling. We have a very successful free booklet "Look at the Label" on understanding food labels and this is currently being updated to take account of the advent of nutrition labelling. Another valuable guide is our "Manual of Nutrition". The Health Education Authority has produced material on diet and health and there are numerous books by private authors available to the general public. A wide range of useful nutrition information is also produced by food manufacturers and retailers.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is in a position to announce the Government's conclusions on the recommendations made by the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture and by the forest windblow action committee for further financial assistance for the restoration of woodlands damaged by the storm of 16 October 1987.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am replying today to the Select Committee and a copy of my response will be placed in the House of Commons Library. Both the Select Committee and the forest windblow action committee recommended further financial assistance to deal with the rehabilitation of storm damaged woodland. The action committee in particular recommended:

  (i) a short-term transport subsidy aimed at encouraging the movement of pine and beech wood to more distant markets (supported by the Select Committee);

  (ii) a supplement to the normal Forestry Commission grants for replanting woodlands damaged in the storm of 16 October 1987.

  After careful consideration of these recommendations, I have taken the view that the action committee's second proposal would provide a longer-lasting and more direct benefit than a transport subsidy in respect of the woodlands concerned. I recognise that owners whose woodlands suffered storm damage on 16 October 1987 will incur additional costs both in preparing sites for planting and in the planting itself. As an incentive to replant in these circumstances, I therefore intend to make special supplements of £150 per hectare for conifers and of £400 per hectare for broadleaves available over the next five years on top of the Forestry Commission's normal planting grants in respect of restocking in these storm-damaged woodlands. These supplements will be provided for eligible restocking carried out by applicants under the new woodland grant scheme and for those who still qualify under the commission's old schemes. On mature consideration the Government have concluded that such a supplement is the best way of meeting the Select Committee's concern that we consider whether
  492
  more support should be available to help repair the damage. The European Commission is being informed under the provisions of article 93 of the treaty of Rome.

  I have decided that there is an insufficient case for a transport subsidy. In reaching this conclusion, I have to take account of the fact that the loss of timber value, as opposed to the replanting cost, is insurable. The effect of a subsidy would be to reduce the insurable loss which it is not appropriate for the Government to undertake. Moreover, where there is a local glut after a storm prices will decline in any event and as a result it will be more economic for purchasers of timber to transport it, including over greater distances. Such a subsidy in these circumstances would be unlikely to provide cost-effective benefits.

  Full details of the administrative arrangements for the new supplements will be announced by the Forestry Commission as soon as possible, but any owners who have already taken steps to secure the replanting of their storm-damaged woods under the commission's grant schemes will not be placed at a disadvantage as we have agreed that the supplement may be applied to them retrospectively.

  It is estimated that the total cost of the supplements, covering the replanting of some 5000 hectares of conifers and 7000 hectares of broadleaves, will come to £3·5 million over the five-year period. There will be no addition to the overall provision for public expenditure programmes set out in Cm 288-II.

  I hope that full advantage will be taken of these special supplements, so that the much-loved landscapes so sadly affected by the storm can eventually be restored to their former state.

  Budgie Seed
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposal to increase the levy on budgie seed made by the European Commission; and whether this proposal will fall under the majority voting procedures within the Council of Ministers

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We remain firmly opposed to this proposal, which would lead to unjustifiable increases in the import levies for canary seed, buckwheat and millet. The proposal is made under article 43 of the treaty of Rome, and may therefore be adopted by qualified majority.

  New Zealand Lamb
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider pressing for a minimum import price for New Zealand lamb imported into the European Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: The European Council in February 1988 invited the Commission to prepare a mandate for negotiations with third countries on the import arrangements for sheepmeat. The Commission envisaged that this might contain a number of points including the respecting of import price discipline.

  We shall consider the draft mandate and the appropriateness of the individual elements in it once the Commission submits it to the Council.

  Pigmeat MCAs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the pigmeat monetary compensation amount regime.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: We have received a substantial number of representations on this subject. My right hon. Friend has made clear in the Agriculture Council our commitment to press for the complete elimination of all United Kingdom MCAs in the pigmeat sector.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are at present employed in agriculture and related employment in the United Kingdom, the English regions, Wales,

  Table 1

  Numbers engaged on agricultural holdings: 1958–1987

  Thousands

  Farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Spouses of farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Salaried managers

  All workers

  Total labour force

  1987

  United Kingdom

  284·9

  76·9

  7·9

  297·3

  666·9

  England

  188·4

  51·9

  7·0

  236·0

  483·2

  Wales

  33·8

  7·8

  0·3

  19·7

  65·6

  Scotland

  27·2

  7·8

  0·6

  23·0

  58·6

  Northern Ireland

  35·4

  5·3

  not collected

  18·6

  59·4

  1978

  United Kingdom

  303·3

  79·8

  8·3

  365·6

  757·0

  England

  200·8

  54·6

  7·2

  286·9

  549·4

  Wales

  34·9

  0·8

  0·4

  22·7

  68·7

  Scotland

  28·5

  8·0

  0·8

  35·9

  73·2

  Northern Ireland

  39·1

  6·5

  not collected

  20·2

  65·7

  1968

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  —

  450·1

  —

  England

  —

  —

  —

  344·2

  —

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  23·1

  —

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  50·2

  —

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  32·5

  —

  1958

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  —

  730·3

  —

  England

  —

  —

  —

  551·3

  —

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  39·3

  —

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  88·4

  —

  Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  —

  51·2

  —

  Source: June census.

  Table 2

  Numbers engaged on agricultural holdings in England by region 1978 and 1987

  Thousands

  Region

  Farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Spouses of farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Salaried managers

  All workers

  Total labour force

  1987

  North

  14·3

  3·9

  0·2

  11·3

  29·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20·9

  4·9

  0·6

  23·9

  50·4

  East Midlands

  20·2

  4·7

  0·8

  27·5

  53·2

  East Anglia

  15·1

  3·7

  0·9

  30·1

  49·7

  South East

  29·1

  7·6

  2·4

  59·7

  98·7

  South West

  39·6

  11·7

  1·1

  39·2

  91·6

  West Midlands

  22·3

  4·1

  0·6

  25·4

  54·4

  North West

  14·4

  4·1

  0·3

  14·5

  33·3

  494
  Scotland and Northern Ireland; what are the corresponding figures for 1978, 1968, and 1958; and in each case what is the percentage difference compared with the present situation.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 27 May 1989]: Numbers of persons engaged in agriculture in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole at June 1987 are shown in the following table (1) along with corresponding figures for the years 1958, 1968 and 1978 as far as these are available. No figures are available for employment related to agriculture. Table 2 shows the numbers engaged in agriculture in the regions of England in 1978 and 1987. This table excludes minor holdings which do not make an annual census return. Comparable regional figures are not available for 1958 or 1968 because of change in definition. The final table shows the percentage reductions between each of the previous dates and 1987 in the number of farm workers, the only category for which data are available for all years.
  495

  Region

  Farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Spouses of farmers, partners and directors (doing farm work)

  Salaried managers

  All workers

  Total labour force

  1978

  North

  15·3

  4·0

  0·3

  13·9

  33·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22·5

  5·1

  0·6

  27·9

  56·0

  East Midlands

  22·7

  5·3

  0·8

  34·4

  63·3

  East Anglia

  17·7

  4·1

  1·0

  40·0

  62·8

  South East

  32·2

  7·7

  2·5

  72·7

  115·2

  South West

  43·3

  11·5

  1·0

  46·0

  101·9

  West Midlands

  24·3

  6·0

  0·7

  30·1

  61·1

  North West

  16·0

  4·3

  0·3

  16·5

  37·1

  source: June census.

  Table 3

  All workers—Percentage reduction

  1958 to 1987

  1968 to 1987

  1978 to 1987

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  United Kingdom

  59·3

  33·9

  18·7

  England

  57·2

  31·4

  17·8

  Wales

  49·9

  14·7

  13·2

  Scotland

  74·0

  54·2

  35·9

  Northern Ireland

  63·7

  42·8

  7·9

  Regions

  North

  n/a

  n/a

  18·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  n/a

  14·3

  East Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  20·0

  East Anglia

  n/a

  n/a

  24·7

  South East

  n/a

  n/a

  17·9

  South West

  n/a

  n/a

  14·8

  West Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  15·6

  North West

  n/a

  n/a

  12·1

  n/a = Not available.

EMPLOYMENT

  North-West (Tourism)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals to encourage foreign tourists to visit the north-west of England.

  Mr. Lee
  The British Tourist Authority has, in conjunction with the North West tourist board and the Northern Consortium developed a range of promotional activities to encourage overseas visitors to the north-west of England. These include brochures and videos on holidays in the region, travel guides and sales missions aimed at overseas tour operators and travel agents.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's policies on the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, in the light of the decision in Hayward v. Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government fully support the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. We monitor closely the working of the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts to see whether they are operating fairly and effectively. We shall continue to do this in the light of this important decision and of other test cases still before the courts.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about current proposals to deal with skill shortages.

  Mr. Cope
  The strength of the economy is leading to increasing demand for skills. We have made a massive increase in our investment in training since 1979, particularly for young people and the unemployed. Employers need to continue to take advantage of this whilst also stepping up their own investment in the skills of their employees.

  Adult Training Programme
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the plans for the new adult training programme employment training.

  Mr. Fowler
  The new employment training programme is to come into operation on 5 September on the basis of the unanimous recommendations of the Training Commission which I have accepted in full. The commission has made considerable progress on the detailed implementation arrangements and has just begun the process of signing contracts under the new programme.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is considering making any changes in the proposed adult training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State accepted in full the recommendations made to him by the Training Commission—and recently announced his decisions on some detailed issues arising from the Commission's recommendations. The new employment training programme will come into operation as planned on 5 September.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local authorities and voluntary organisations have indicated that they will not participate in the adult training scheme unless the arrangements for the scheme are changed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Commission is currently in negotiation with potential providers of training for the new programme including local authorities and voluntary organisations. They were asked for proposals or clear expressions of interest by 3 June. It is, therefore, too early to take a firm view on how many will take part. But it is clear that large numbers are serious about getting involved. Training Commission officials have been and are
  497
  giving them all possible help. I urge all local authorities and voluntary organisations, particularly existing community programme sponsors and agents, who have indicated interest to submit proposals as soon as possible.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the adult training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The community programme and our provision for unemployed adults will be replaced by employment training from 5 September. I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about this important new programme which will provide quality training for longer-term unemployed people.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the principle of trainees on the adult training scheme receiving their full entitlement to benefit plus a training allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about the payments to be made to participants on employment training. Decisions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the training allowance implement the unanimous recommendations made by the Training Commission and will ensure that all participants will be better off on the programme than remaining unemployed and claiming benefit.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what conditions single parents who wish to participate in the adult training scheme will be eligible for child care allowance.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All lone parents who participate in employment training will be entitled to have child care costs of up to £50 a week for each child placed with a childminder, nursery or creche registered with a local authority met by the Training Commission.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Trade Union Council general council to discuss the adult training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the TUC general council on 18 May to discuss employment training. There are no plans for a further meeting.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the maximum weekly top-up payable to participants on the adult training scheme beyond the £10 to £12 per week to be paid by the Manpower Services Commission without incurring benefit loss or tax liability; and what would he the effect of employers deciding to make a payment of more than £5 weekly.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Under DHSS regulations, regular voluntary payments of up to £5 a week per family unit may be disregarded for the purposes of assessing entitlement to income support or housing benefit. Such payments are not liable to income tax. If a payment in excess of £5 were made to a trainee in receipt of income support, the first £5 would be disregarded and the balance deducted £1 for £1 from his or her benefit entitlement. The payment would not be liable to income tax.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in Hampshire and the south-east.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the county of Hampshire was 40,800, a fall of 17,000, or more than 29 per cent. compared with a year ago. The comparable figure for the south-east region was 549,700, a fall of 171,700 or nearly 24 per cent. over the year.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the counties of South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire was 205,700, a fall of 39,400 or more than 16 per cent. compared with a year ago.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the proportion of population of working age in employment in the United Kingdom and in the European Community.

  Mr. Lee
  Taking working ages as 15 to 64 years the proportion in 1985 was 66 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 57 per cent. in the European Community as a whole.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current levels of unemployment in the south-west.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the south-west region was 145,400, compared with 186,900 in April 1987, a fall of 22.2 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the west midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the west midlands region was 249,200, compared with 313,000 in April 1987, a fall of 20.4 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 24,735,000 people in the employed labour force in Great Britain. The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and H.M. forces.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of employment in Suffolk.

  Mr. Lee
  Employment statistics for counties and smaller areas are available only for dates when censuses of employment are taken, and the most recent are for September 1984. There were then 221,000 employees in employment, excluding self-employed people and members of Her Majesty's forces, in the county of Suffolk.
  499
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in East Anglia.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the East Anglia region was 55,400 compared with 76,000 in April 1987, a fall of 27·1 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in the London borough of Southwark.

  Mr. Lee
  Employment statistics for local areas are available only for dates when censuses of employment are taken and the most recent are for September 1984. There were then 130,700 employees in employment, excluding self-employed people and members of Her Majesty's forces, in the London borough of Southwark.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Liverpool, Riverside.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Liverpool, Riverside parliamentary constituency was 9,922, a fall of 1,126 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of job vacancies at jobcentres for the last month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 April 1988, the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the United Kingdom was 253,700, seasonally adjusted and excluding community programme vacancies. This figure represents only about one third of all vacancies in the economy.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988 the level of seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,455,000, a fall of 566,000 over the last 12 months—the largest annual fall since similar records began in 1948.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in the level of unemployment since July 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment (seasonally adjusted excluding school leavers) fell by 755,000 between July 1986 and April 1988. This is the largest sustained fall on record.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of fall in long-term unemployment during the last 12 months in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the 12 months to April 1988 there was a record annual fall of 266,000 in the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for one year or more in the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the number of unemployed persons in the Leicester travel-to-work area has changed in the past 12 months.
  500
  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in the Leicester travel-to-work area was 19,075, a fall of 5,505 or 22·4 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for the percentage increase in unemployment since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between May 1979 and April 1988 the seasonally adjusted level of adult unemployment increased by 113 per cent. on a consistent basis. However, since July 1986 unemployment has fallen by 755,000. It is now, 2,455,000, the lowest figure since October 1981.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of employment in Greater London.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 3,937,000 people in the civilian employed labour force in Greater London. The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self-employed.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on levels of unemployment in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the north-west region was 341,100, compared with 410,800 in April 1987, a fall of 17 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Miscampbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of unemployment in the Blackpool and Fylde travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Blackpool travel-to-work area, which includes within its boundaries the Fylde local authority district, was 14,757.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the respective numbers of unemployed, as at June 1979 and June 1987 in the following constituencies(a) Amber Valley, (b) Mid-Worcestershire, (c) Lancashire, West, (d) Staffordshire Moorlands, (e) Hendon, South, (f) Darlington and (g) Fylde.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants, for each of the parliamentary constituencies requested, at June 1987. Figures for parliamentary constituencies are available only from June 1983.

  Unemployed claimants: June 1987

  Parliamentary constituency

  Amber Valley

  3,825

  Mid Worcestershire

  5,086

  West Lancashire

  6,309

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  2,867

  Hendon South

  2,553

  Darlington

  5,326

  Fylde

  2,486

  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local enterprise agencies are currently in existence.
  501
  Mr. Cope
  There are currently 416 local enterprise agencies throughout the United Kingdom. Of these, 365 are approved under the terms of the 1982 Finance Act, which allows business sector sponsors tax relief on their contributions to the agencies. There are 309 agencies in England of which 189 receive Government support under the local enterprise agency grant scheme.

  Redundancies (Northern Region)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies were notified in the northern region(a) at the latest month and (b) in the same date in 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In April, there were 2,693 advanced notifications of redundancies in the northern region compared with 2,134 in April last year. Some of the advanced notifications of redundancies are normally averted.

  European Year of the Traveller
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on proposals to make 1990 the European year of the traveller.

  Mr. Lee
  The European Parliament has adopted a proposal that 1990 be designated European year of the traveller. The European Commission is now involved in drawing up detailed proposals on the activities that might be involved. I await these proposals with interest.

  Vacancies
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies were advertised in jobcentres in January 1983 and in January 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1988 the number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding community programme vacancies, was 249,500. The corresponding figure for January 1983 was 121,600. It is estimated that about one third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  Factory Inspectors
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new factory inspectors have been appointed in the latest period for which figures are available; and how many have left in the same period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between 1 May 1987 and 30 April 1988, a total of 20 factory inspectors joined the Health and Safety Executive and 44 left. Some 30 successful candidates from a recent recruitment exercise should be joining H SE shortly. A further recruitment programme for factory inspectors is under way.

  Part-time Workers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider the extension of full employment protection rights to part-time workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. To do so would impose additional costs on employers and discourage them from recruiting part-time workers.

  Community Work
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made in linking unemployment benefit to work associated with benefiting the community; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is open to people in receipt of unemployment benefit to undertake voluntary work in the community if they wish. This does not affect their entitlement to benefit so long as they remain available for work.

  Hotel Building
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total of section 4 tourist grants awarded for hotel building in England and Wales in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The total section 4 assistance offered to hotels and guesthouses in England and Wales in the 1987–88 financial year was £4·6 million.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have been helped to start a business during the last 12 months through the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  During the year April 1987 to March 1988, a total of 106,305 people joined the scheme. 110,000 places will be available during the current year.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently receiving the trading allowance on the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  At the middle of May 1988 there were over 93,000 people receiving the enterprise allowance.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently participating in the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  At the middle of May 1988, over 93,000 people were participating in the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Job Vacancies (Bury)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies in Bury were reported in the first quarter of 1988 and what were the figures for the previous five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of new notified vacancies, excluding community programme vacancies, at the Bury jobcentre in the first quarter of each year from 1984. Vacancy statistics for local areas are only available on a consistent basis from April 1983.

  Bury jobcentre—Inflow of notified vacancies

  Quarter ended March

  Year

  Number

  1984

  773

  1985

  827

  1986

  1,001

  503

  Year

  Number

  1987

  1,150

  1988

  1,631

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries were handled by the small firms service during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries were received by the small firms service during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In the period May 1987 to April 1988 inclusive, the small firms service in England handled 266,497 inquiries.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I shall be meeting Mrs. Foster on 4 July for an initial discussion following her appointment as EOC chairman. I expect our discussion to range over a variety of topics concerning the promotion of equal opportunities in employment.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the present level of youth unemployment in the London boroughs, and the prospects for jobs.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1988 the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18 years of age in the Greater London region was 7·777, a fall of 28·2 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  Self-Employment
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 2,863,000 self-employed people in Great Britain.

  Restart
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to extend beyond the pilot areas the practice of recalling for further restart interviews those who have not taken up any of the offers made at their earlier interview.

  Mr. Lee
  As announced in the White Paper, "Training for Employment", the restart programme will be further developed during 1988–89. An important aspect of this development will be the gradual introduction of follow-up interviews throughout the country. They will be carried 504
  out by both restart counselling staff and by claimant advisers, and will be offered to those who most need additional help. This will include those who decline all offers of help at their main restart interview.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of jobs created by the construction of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is estimated that about 100,000 man years of work will be generated in the United Kingdom by Eurotunnel and British Rail work on the Channel tunnel and its equipment during its construction.

  Retraining Grants
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to review the availability of Manpower Services Commission grants for retraining; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Commission has a range of grant schemes to encourage the training of employees, including retraining. These are regularly reviewed to ensure that they continue to meet employers' needs and provide value for money.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to improve the services provided by his Department for disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment during the debate on the Local Government Bill on Wednesday 9 March,Official Report, column 346, I am reviewing the policies and programmes that my Department supports for disabled people. Plans for improvements to services will be developed in the light of this review.

  Young Persons (Advice)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements are being made by his Department to provide advice on employment or training to young people who cease to be eligible for benefits on 4 September.

  Mr. Cope
  From September 12 when most young people under 18 will cease to be eligible for income support, the Government are extending their guarantee of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in work or further education. As a result, no young person under 18 need be unemployed. Advice and help in applying for training and employment opportunities will be promptly and readily available, as now, from the careers services provided by local authorities and from my Department's jobcentres.

  Building and Construction Sites (Safety)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss safety on building and construction sites; and if he will make a statement.
  505
  Mr. Nicholls
  I have not planned to meet the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss safety on building and construction sites. The Government fully support the Health and Safety Executive's approach to improving safety standards in this area, which was outlined in the debate on 2 December 1987. It includes the current series of blitzes and other initiatives designed to effectively impress on employers and others the importance of safety.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of enterprise agencies.

  Mr. Cope
  There are now over 400 local enterprise agencies in the United Kingdom. My Department, through the local enterprise agency grant scheme, encourages the development of viable agencies in England; 189 agencies were supported in 1987–88.

  Lost Working Days (Strikes)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost by strike action in January 1979 and January 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in January 1979 is 2,966,000. The comparable figure for January 1988 is provisionally estimated as 92,000 lost working days.

  Overtime
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average number of hours of overtime worked per manufacturing industry employee during the last quarter of 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The information available relates to overtime hours worked by operatives in manufacturing industry. During the last quarter of 1987 the average number of weekly overtime hours worked per operative was 3·7 seasonally adjusted. This compares with between 3 and 3·25 hours per week observed in each quarter of 1985 and 1986.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs are currently in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  At 31 March 1988, a total of 1,204 job clubs were in operation. The employment service expects to increase substantially the number of places available in job clubs in 1988–89 compared with 1987–88.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the two year youth training scheme.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of the YTS.
  506
  Mr. Cope
  At the end of April 1988 there were 381,000 young people training on the two-year YTS. Over 50 per cent. of trainees entering their second year on the scheme have already gained a vocational qualification. Latest survey results show that when young people leave YTS, 75 per cent. go into jobs or into further education and training. The YTS is firmly established among young people as a natural and valued start to working life, while employers welcome YTS as the means to ensuring a highly trained and adaptable work force.

  Accidents at Work
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to reduce accidents at work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission and Executive currently have a number of initiatives under way to reduce the number of accidents at work. I expect the commission to submit proposals for the next three years to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later this year.

  Centres for the Unemployed
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to ensure continuance of the centres for the unemployed after the ending of the community programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Applications for the continuance of centres for the unemployed will be considered in the same way as all other proposals under the new programme for unemployed adults, employment training.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the results of the trial use of outreach workers and video facilities to make contact with the longer-term unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  The employment service is trying a number of outreach activities to make its services more accessible to unemployed people, including the long-term unemployed. The main projects are:Specialist "inner city officers" working from jobcentres.
  Direct access to jobs and information through videos and information technology.
  Advertising of jobs on television.
  These projects are still being evaluated.

  Registered Disabled People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of registered disabled people unemployed on 30 April.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available. The only count made of unemployed registered disabled people is of those who choose to register for work at jobcentres. The latest figures available show that on 8 January there were 21,765 unemployed registered disabled people registered for work at jobcentres.

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases his Department's attention or that of the Manpower Services Commission
  507
  has been drawn to individuals in the various employment and training schemes being placed in difficulty as a consequence of the social security and housing benefit changes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None.

  Growth
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which sectors of the industrial and service industries are currently showing the most growth and potential for growth throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  During 1987, employment in the United Kingdom grew fastest in banking, insurance and finance (by 7 per cent.), construction (by 4 per cent.) and transport and communications (by 3 per cent.). In addition, employment in tourism-related industries grew by over 3 per cent. in 1987.

  The Department does not make forecasts of employment changes. However with the economy about to enter its eighth successive year of growth, all sectors of the economy should benefit from the continuation of the Government's current economic policies.

  Child Care Payments
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the reasons for the current rate of take up of the child care payments in the 10 pilot programme areas.

  Average hourly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates excluding overtime, in April of each year

  Pay not affected by absence;

  Pence per hour

  In cash terms

  In real terms

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Full-time males

  South East

  507· 0

  553·6

  607·9

  544·6

  577·0

  607·9

  East Anglia

  410·9

  443·7

  477·5

  441·3

  462·5

  477·5

  South West

  422·0

  455·1

  491·4

  453·3

  474·4

  491·4

  West Midlands

  418·7

  454·8

  482·1

  449·7

  474·0

  482·1

  East Midlands

  401·0

  439·7

  496·6

  430·7

  458·3

  469·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  417·3

  441·4

  470·5

  448·2

  460·1

  470·5

  North West

  434·0

  464·0

  497·8

  466·2

  483·6

  497·8

  North

  419·9

  451·1

  482·0

  451·0

  470·2

  482·0

  Part-time males

  South East

  418·2

  422·1

  427·6

  449·2

  440·0

  427·6

  East Anglia

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  South West

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  West Midlands

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  East Midlands

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  North West

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  North

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  ¨

  Full-time females

  South East

  370·3

  403·6

  438·1

  397·7

  420·7

  438·1

  East Anglia

  299·0

  328·8

  345·3

  321·2

  342·7

  345·3

  South West

  316·2

  342·1

  361·2

  339·6

  356·6

  361·2

  West Midlands

  313·6

  340·0

  361·6

  336·8

  354·4

  361·6

  East Midlands

  298·5

  327·6

  342·6

  320·6

  341·5

  342·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  307·8

  323·1

  346·1

  330·6

  336·8

  346·1

  North West

  323·3

  349·9

  363·2

  347·3

  364·7

  363·2

  North

  311·3

  334·2

  359·2

  334·4

  348·3

  359·2

  Part-time females

  South East

  281·7

  300·8

  323·8

  302·6

  313·5

  323·8

  East Anglia

  260·5

  272·9

  286·5

  279·8

  284·4

  286·5

  South West

  246·6

  267·8

  280·5

  264·9

  279·1

  280·5

  West Midlands

  252·6

  266·5

  284·9

  271·3

  277·8

  284·9

  East Midlands

  240·3

  264·0

  280·7

  258·1

  275·2

  280·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  247·5

  263·2

  284·1

  265·8

  274·3

  284·1

  508
  Mr. Cope
  Under the pilot scheme in 10 areas, child care payments were made available for lone parents who are eligible for the new job training scheme. People who are registered as unemployed for more than six months are eligible for the new job training scheme, but those, including lone parents who are on benefits, who are not registered as unemployed, are not eligible.

  The employment training programme, which will replace the new job training scheme from September, will extend child care payments for lone parents, on these terms, nationally. In addition, we have announced that lone parents, all of whose children are in full-time education, and who have received income support on DHSS order books for at least six months, will be eligible for the programme and for child care payments.

  Wages
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average hourly wage for(a) full-time female employees, (b) part-time female employees, (c) full-time male employees, and (d) part-time male employees, in the English regions since 1985, in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information, based on average hourly earnings excluding overtime, is provided in the table.
  509

  In cash terms

  In real terms

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  North West

  248·7

  267·4

  284·8

  267·1

  278·7

  284·8

  North

  247·5

  258·3

  276·3

  265·8

  269·2

  276·3

  Note:

  Cash figures revalued to April 1987 prices using the Retail Price Index (all items) as at April each year.¨denote not available.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of unfair dismissal because of trade union activity have been brought before industrial tribunals in each of the last 10 years; and what percentage were successful.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The best available information on the number of complaints since 1979 of unfair dismissal because of trade union membership or activity which have been heard by industrial tribunals is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of complaints heard by-industrial tribunals

  Percentage of complaints successful

  1979

  263

  12·5

  1980

  255

  13·3

  1981

  82

  22·0

  1982

  126

  16·7

  1983

  132

  15·9

  1984

  150

  14·0

  1985

  179

  32·4

  1986–87

  226

  22·6

  Figures for 1987–88 are not yet available.

  Figures for 1978 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Single Market
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes will be necessary in United Kingdom employment legislation in order to satisfy the harmonisation requirements of the European Community for the achievement of the single market in 1992.

  Mr. Cope
  No directives have been adopted in the context of completion of the single market in 1992 which require changes in the United Kingdom employment legislation.

  Building Sites (London)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the estimated number of building sites in London during 1987 and the number of inspectors in the field in London, inspecting these sites during 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: The HSE does not keep estimates of the number of building sites and cannot provide the information sought. On 31 December 1987, a total of 12 qualified inspectors were employed on construction work in London.

  Building Sites (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the final outcome in terms of 510
  (a) construction sites visited, (b) prohibition and improvement notices issued and (c) prosecutions initiated, with the results, for the series of visits to construction sites carried out by the Health and Safety Executive in 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: During the series of construction site blitzes carried out by the Health and Safety Executive in 1987, a total of 4,289 construction sites were visited, 1,006 prohibition and 28 improvement notices were issued, and 25 prosecutions were initiated. The present series of construction blitzes will continue until September 1988. The results of prosecutions initialed are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

THE ARTS

  Libraries
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many complaints he has received in the past 12 months from library users that public libraries are not sufficiently client-orientated.

  Mr. Luce
  None, but a number of the representations made on the Green Paper, "Financing our public library service: four subjects for debate", have advocated the development of more client-orientated services.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on sponsorship of the arts undertaken by British Telecom.

  Mr. Luce
  I am delighted by the recent increase in British Telecom's programme of arts sponsorship. Under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, I have made 12 awards of £115,394 to match new sponsorships by BT headquarters, BT mobile communications and seven BT regions. I know that a number of other BT regions also support local arts activities.

  Premium Book Subscription Schemes
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has of the outcome of premium book subscription schemes in(a) New Zealand and (b) West Germany.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: I understand that the schemes operated in New Zealand and West Germany are not premium book subscription schemes of the kind proposed in my Green Paper.

SCOTLAND

  AIDS
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report for each health authority in Scotland the number of persons suffering from AIDS; and if he will disaggregate the statistics by age and sex.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To the end of April 1988, reports had been received of 56 cases of persons with AIDS in Scotland, of whom 50 were male and six were female. 26 of the males and five of the females were alive at that date. Disaggregations by age are not available. As the figures of AIDS cases and deaths for particular health board areas are, in some cases, very low, and as their publication may in consequence endanger medical confidentiality, geographical breakdowns are not published.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of people in Scotland that are currently HIV positive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have not made an estimate of the number of people in Scotland who are HIV positive. Of those who have chosen to be tested for HIV antibodies, by the end of March 1988 1,436 had been found to be HIV positive.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many terminations of pregnancy have occurred in Scotland because the mother is HIV positive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been 26 terminations of pregnancy since 1985 on women who were recorded as HIV positive.

  New Hospitals
  Mr Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the dates of approval for all new hospitals approved since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows.

  All projects approved since 1979

  Approval-in-principle

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ravenscraig Phase III(a) (Alcohol and Rehabilitation Unit)

  November 1985

  Oban Hospital

  May 1986

  Campbeltown Hospital

  December 1987

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  April 1982

  Merchiston Hospital

  May 1984

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Dunlop House

  March 1985

  Seafield Hospital

  March 1985

  Acute Hospital, Ayr

  October 1985

  Biggart Hospital

  April 1984

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Services for the Mentally Handicapped

  October 1985

  Annan Hospital (geriatric)

  October 1980

  Forth Valley

  Bonnybridge (psychogeriatric)

  January 1982

  Royal Scottish National Hospital Larbert

  April 1979

  Sauchie Hospital

  June 1979

  512

  Approval-in-principle

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  June 1979

  Grampian

  Royal Cornhill

  October 1985

  Woodend Geriatric Hospital

  April 1979

  Inverurie Hospital

  June 1980

  Woodend Hospital—Glenburn Wing

  April 1979

  Greater Glasgow

  Parkhead Psychiatric Development Phase II

  September 1982

  Rutherglen (geriatric)

  May 1981

  Leverndale Support Services

  June 1985

  Eastern District College of Nursing

  June 1979

  Lennox Castle (2 intensive care units)

  September 1986

  Woodilee 3 x 30 bed units

  December 1987

  Leverndale Phase I(a)

  November 1983

  Lennox Castle

  May 1983

  Lanarkshire

  Kirklands Phase II

  July 1979

  Geriatric, Psychogeriatric and Psychiatric Project:

  a. Hairmyres

  December 1985

  b. Udston

  December 1985

  (including 30 place day hospital)

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I

  July 1979

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I(a)

  July 1979

  Kirklands Residential

  July 1979

  Lothian

  Princess Margaret Rose Spinal Paralysis and Rehabilitation Unit

  September 1982

  City Hospital (Pharmacy)

  May 1983

  Edinburgh Dental Hospital

  May 1986

  Orkney

  Balfour Hospital

  August 1985

  Tayside

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  April 1979

  Western Isles

  Stornoway Lewis Hospital

  May 1986

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether community charge officers will be able to ask for information concerning an individual from gas, water and electricity boards; and whether those boards could exchange information about individuals to the community charge officer.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 17(3) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, community charges registration officers have access, for the purpose of carrying out their functions, to information held by regional councils as water authorities. They have no access to information held by electricity boards or British Gas plc (Scotland), except in the unlikely event (which may also apply to regional councils as water authorities) of these bodies being "responsible persons" in relation to particular premises for community charge registration purposes. None of the bodies mentioned will have access to the community charges register beyond that provided for in section 20(2) of the 1987 Act.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish all cost estimates made in relation to the implementation of the community charge in Scotland.
  513
  Mr. Lang
  The only cost estimates made by my right hon. and learned Friend were those contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill. A record of all the estimates made by local authorities and others is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue advice to Scottish local authorities to inform community charge officers that they should indicate on the forms they send to members of the public that the names and addresses of individuals which are collected in relation to the community charge can be sold or disclosed to other organisations without their consent or knowledge.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering whether any restriction should be placed on the parts of the community charges register available for inspection by the public which may be made available for sale. Pending that consideration, I do not consider that formal notification to individuals of the present position on sale of the register is required. It is already made clear in the notice to be sent to registered persons informing them of their entry in the register (schedule 1 to the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988) that certain parts of the register will be available for public inspection.

  Prosthetists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has costed a National Health Service workshop and prosthetists limb fitting service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the numbers of prosthetists working in the Health Service who are(a) contractor employed and (b) employed by the health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are two contractor-employed prosthetists working in the Health Service in Scotland and 18 employed by health boards.

  Kerb Crawling
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many arrests for kerb crawling have been made by Strathclyde police in Glasgow in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months;

  (2) how many convictions there have been in Glasgow for kerb crawling in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no statutory offence of kerb crawling in Scotland. Depending on the circumstances, incidents involving kerb crawling may be charged as breach of the peace but statistics on such convictions are not separately identifiable in the Scottish Home and Health Department classification of crimes and offences.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many convictions there have been in Glasgow for soliciting in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months.
  514
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1987, 444 persons were convicted in Glasgow of offences relating to prostitution. The figure for 1986 was 504.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many owners of saunas in Glasgow have been arrested for offences in connection with prostitution in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months;

  (2) how many managers of saunas in Glasgow have been arrested for offences in connection with prostitution in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on arrests are not held centrally.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many owners of saunas in Glasgow have been convicted for offences in connection with prostitution in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months;

  (2) how many managers of saunas in Glasgow have been convicted for offences in connection with prostitution in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licence holders operating saunas in Glasgow have had their licences revoked because of reasons connected with prostitution in the last 12 months and the previous 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that saunas in Glasgow are not required to be licensed by the local authority.

  Fishing Vessels (Pressure Stock Licences)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of pressure stock licences attaching to fishing vessels in each port of registration(a) at the outset of the scheme and (b) at the most recent date for which information is available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Licences issued by DAFS to vessels based on Scottish ports numbered 1,204 at the start of the scheme and 1,168 at 30 April 1988. The table below gives the port of registration of vessels concerned, including a small number registered outwith Scotland.

  List of numbers of pressure stock licences by registry ports issued in Scotland

  Registration port

  3 February 1984

  30 April 1988

  Aberdeen (A)

  43

  35

  Alloa (AA)

  —

  1

  Arbroath (AH)

  28

  27

  Ayr (AR)

  6

  9

  Ballantrae (BA)

  78

  66

  Buckie (BCK)

  93

  103

  Banff (BF)

  123

  119

  Broadford (BRD)

  7

  15

  Campbeltown (CN)

  47

  32

  Castlebay (CY)

  10

  9

  Dundee (DE)

  —

  1

  Fraserburgh (FR)

  104

  115

  Inverness (INS)

  97

  96

  Kirkwall (K)

  28

  23

  Kirkcaldy (DY)

  58

  49

  Leith (LH)

  90

  87

  Lerwick (LK)

  79

  66

  Montrose (ME)

  6

  11

  Oban (OB)

  36

  33

  515

  Registration port

  3 February 1984

  30 April 1988

  Peterhead (PD)

  109

  111

  Rothesay (RO)

  3

  3

  Stornoway (SY)

  47

  42

  Tarbert (TT)

  22

  21

  Ullapool (UL)

  16

  23

  Wick (WK)

  31

  29

  Belfast (B)

  1

  6

  Blyth (BH)

  1

  2

  Berwick (BK)

  5

  6

  Brixham (BM)

  1

  —

  Boston (BN)

  1

  —

  Beamaris (BS)

  2

  1

  Colchester (CK)

  1

  1

  Caernarvon (CO)

  1

  1

  Castletown (CT)

  1

  1

  Exeter (E)

  —

  1

  Fleetwood (FD)

  4

  2

  Grimsby (GY)

  2

  2

  Guernsey (GU)

  2

  —

  Hull (H)

  5

  3

  Hartlepools (HL)

  —

  1

  Lynn (LN)

  1

  —

  Lowestoft (LT)

  —

  1

  Newry (N)

  1

  1

  Penzance (PZ)

  1

  1

  Rye (RX)

  —

  1

  Ramsey (RY)

  1

  2

  Swansea (SA)

  1

  1

  Scarborough (SH)

  2

  2

  North Shield (SN)

  2

  —

  St. Ives (SS)

  2

  2

  Whitehaven (WA)

  2

  1

  Whitby (WY)

  3

  3

  Totals

  1,204

  1,168

  Note: All English, Welsh, Manx, Channel Islands and Northern Ireland registered vessels are based in Scotland.

  Cervical Tests
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to publish figures showing how long patients in the Greater Glasgow health board area are having to wait for results of cervical smear tests, as well as the comparable figures for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on 17 May 1988 at column 395.

  Private Hospital, Clydebank
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the level of private funding for the proposed Health Care International hospital at Clydebank.

  Mr. Lang
  The company and its financial advisers have provided, on a commercially confidential basis, full details of the financial structure which is proposed for the projected Health Care International hospital at Clydebank.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives from Health Care International; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives from Health Care International during a visit to the Harvard university medical centre on 12 516
  October 1987. The subjects discussed were American public and private sector provision, and arrangements for the supply of blood to the hospital which HCI proposes to build in Clydebank.

  Beaches
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to clean up the beaches on the south-west coast of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the cleanliness of beaches rests with the district or islands council concerned, while monitoring the quality of bathing waters is the responsibility of the river purification authorities. If, however, the hon. Member has a particular problem in mind he may like to write to me about it.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1970 the number of patients on hospital in-patient waiting lists in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of persons on in-patient waiting lists for National Health Service hospitals in Scotland at 30 September in each year is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1970

  51,482

  1971

  51,675

  1972

  52,468

  1973

  61,079

  1974

  56,182

  1975

  54,614

  1976

  53,381

  1977

  55,387

  1978

  62,464

  1979

  71,247

  1980

  67,387

  1981

  65,228

  1982

  86,365

  1983

  88,338

  1984

  83,077

  1985

  77,677

  1986

  80,732

  11987

  77,772

  1 Provisional.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1970 the amount spent at 1970 prices on new hospital building in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures are given below. They relate solely to hospital and community health new works and exclude spending on upgradings, repairs, maintenance and equipment.

  £ million

  1970–71

  9·4

  1971–72

  8·2

  1972–73

  9·5

  1973–74

  11·3

  1974–75

  11·7

  1975–76

  11·3

  1976–77

  8·8

  1977–78

  10·4

  1978–79

  10·4

  1979–80

  10·9

  517

  £million

  1980–81

  10·4

  1981–82

  2·6

  1982–83

  13·3

  1983–84

  11·5

  1984–85

  9·9

  1985–86

  10·0

  1986–87

  7·8

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for every hospital completed since 1979 the date on which the appropriate health board was notified of approval.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: The information is as follows.

  All projects completed since 1979

  Approval-in-principle

  Argyll and Clyde

  Johnstone Hospital

  1978

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  April 1982

  Merchiston Hospital Phase I

  January 1973

  Merchiston Hospital

  May 1984

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley

  December 1971

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Crosshouse Hospital

  September 1964

  Biggart Hospital

  1April 1984

  Borders

  Hay Lodge, Peebles

  May 1974

  Borders General

  May 1974

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annan Hospital (geriatric)

  October 1980

  Fife

  Glenrothes Hospital

  January 1974

  Whyteman's Brae, Kirkcaldy

  November 1973

  West Fife District General Hospital

  March 1976

  Forth Valley

  Royal Scottish National Hospital, Larbert

  April 1979

  Sauchie Hospital

  June 1979

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  June 1979

  Grampian

  Woodend Geriatric Hospital

  April 1979

  Inverurie Hospital

  June 1980

  Spynie Hospital, Elgin

  November 1972

  Ugie Hospital, Peterhead

  October 1978

  Woodend Hospital—Glenburn Wing

  April 1979

  Woodlands Hospital

  November 1976

  Greater Glasgow

  Blawarthill Hospital

  May 1978

  Canniesburn Hospital

  May 1978

  Gartloch Hospital

  May 1978

  Gartnavel Hospital

  May 1978

  Mearnskirk Hospital

  May 1978

  Stobhill Hospital

  May 1978

  Belvidere Hospital Phase I

  May 1978

  Woodilee Hospital Phase I

  May 1978

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary Phase I

  December 1966

  Stobhill Hospital

  May 1978

  Gartloch Hospital

  June 1978

  Leverndale Phase I(a)

  November 1983

  Lennox Castle

  May 1973

  Highland

  Lochaber Hospital

  June 1976

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  June 1973

  Caithness Hospital Phase II

  October 1973

  Lanarkshire

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I

  July 1979

  518

  Approval-in-principle

  Kirklands Hospital Phase I(a)

  July 1979

  Kirklands Residential

  July 1979

  Lothian

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary Phase I

  December 1959

  Royal Edinburgh Phase I

  March 1972

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  October 1974

  Herdmanflat Hospital

  April 1974

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  January 1974

  Shetland

  Montfield Hospital

  May 1978

  Tayside

  Irvine Memorial Hospital, Pitlochry

  June 1977

  Murray Royal Hospital, Perth

  January 1977

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  June 1977

  Royal Liff Hospital, Dundee

  October 1977

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  June 1977

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  June 1977

  1 Date of approval of tender.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the number of acute medical and surgical beds in private clinics in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on which countries export coal to Scotland, via Rotterdam, in the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  Such information is not held by my tight hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland: questions concerning Government policy on imports into the United Kingdom are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate for Energy. The latest information on coal imports is set out in the reply given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 4 March.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how much coal, expressed(a) in tonnes and (b) in monetary value, had been imported by the South of Scotland Electricity Board so far in the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that it has taken delivery of approximately 30,000 tonnes of imported coal in the current financial year to date. The monetary value of the imports is a confidential matter between the board and its suppliers.

  Housing Transfers
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has given any advice to any of the new town development corporations on the transfer of blocks of houses with sitting tenants to any private developer or any other housing body; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Lang
  No such advice has been issued.
  519
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to give advice to any of the new town development corporations on the transfer of blocks of houses with sitting tenants to any private developer or any other housing body prior to the announced intention to amend the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No transfer of tenanted houses to other landlords in the period before wind-up of the development corporations will take place without the consent of the tenants involved. Advice to development corporations will be issued following enactment of the Housing (Scotland) Bill currently before Parliament.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that no new town tenant can be transferred to any other landlord under a management agency agreement without the prior consent of the tenant.

  Mr. Lang
  Any decision to transfer to another landlord in the period before wind-up of a development corporation is a matter for the tenant, as was made clear by my hon. Friend, the Minister responsible for home affairs and the environment when he responded to the hon. Member during Committee stage consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill—First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 February 1988, column 1023. The options for housing transfer at wind-up will be considered in the detailed and wide-ranging review which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 13 May.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that any new town tenant transferred to a new landlord under a management agency agreed between a new town development corporation and a private developer or any other housing body will retain existing security of tenure.

  Mr. Lang
  Since ownership of the house in such circumstances would remain with the development corporation, any tenants affected by a management agency agreement would retain their existing statutory right to security of tenure.

  Housing Debt
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to write off existing housing debt on any blocks of new town houses purchased by a private developer or any other housing body from a new town development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No specific proposals have yet been submitted by development corporations to the Secretary of State and any such proposal would require to be considered on its merits.

  New Town Housing Stock
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each of the five new towns details of any discussions which have taken place between new town officials and private developers or any other housing body on the management under an agency agreement of any part of the new town housing stock.

  Mr. Lang
  Preliminary discussions have taken place between representatives of Quality Street and Glenrothes 520
  development corporation, which included the possibility of a management agency covering a portion of the housing stock. Those discussions were exploratory and no commitments were made on either side. No such discussions have as yet taken place in the other four towns, although an exploratory meeting has been arranged between Livingston development corporation and Quality Street, at the latter's request.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any advice has been given to any of the new town development corporations to enter into discussions with private developers on the disposal or management of the new town housing stocks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish new town development corporation continue to receive advice on the Government's housing policy objectives in the regular meetings which take place between officials of my Department and those of the corporations. There is nothing new about discussions between private housing developers and development corporations.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the total staff and administration cost to his Department of the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Staff and associated administration costs relating to the Chernobyl accident which have been incurred by the Scottish Office in the period to the end of May 1988 are estimated to be in the region of £0·9m. In addition, some £464,000 has been spent on such matters as purchasing sheep and other produce for testing; the laboratory analysis of these to establish the levels of radioactivity; associated transport costs; and purchasing live monitoring equipment and paint used in connection with the mark and release scheme. Compensation to farmers in the restricted areas in Scotland has so far amounted to £1·6m.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total area of land for which forestry grant applications were submitted in each year from 1 April 1983 to date in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; and in each country what was the area of land (i) withdrawn before decision on forestry grant was reached and (ii) refused grant-aid by the Forestry Commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 May]: The information is as follows

  Hectares

  Year to 31 March

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Area of land for which applications for grant were submitted

  1984

  16,537

  3,314

  60,567

  1985

  20,505

  2,977

  56,570

  1986

  28,709

  5,824

  78,479

  1987

  37,528

  6,920

  103,634

  1988

  32,881

  5,317

  89,164

  Area of land for which applications for grant were withdrawn

  1984

  511

  155

  14,737

  1985

  143

  300

  26,979

  1986

  1,690

  113

  13,902

  521

  Year to 31 March

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1987

  7,243

  905

  27,143

  1988

  4,265

  738

  31,207

  Area of land for which applications for grant were refused

  1984

  175

  1

  Nil

  1985

  36

  634

  944

  1986

  2

  Nil

  1,870

  1987

  32

  425

  Nil

  1988

  587

  119

  1,091

  Notes:

  1. The figures given in the above tables comprise the total areas of land covered by applications, and include unplantable land areas which it is proposed to leave unplanted for other reasons

  Discharges1 ofnon residents treated in each health board 1979–86

  All specialties

  Health board of treatment

  1979

  1980

  1981

  21982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Argyll and Clyde

  5,214

  4,785

  5,174

  4,215

  4,911

  4,760

  4,466

  4,813

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,493

  1,178

  1,263

  1,239

  1,416

  1,435

  1,443

  1,430

  Borders

  342

  377

  319

  345

  332

  296

  368

  421

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,033

  798

  826

  755

  734

  726

  712

  798

  Fife

  542

  476

  474

  462

  422

  490

  488

  543

  Forth Valley

  2,435

  1,985

  1,599

  1,614

  1,683

  1,606

  1,816

  1,733

  Grampian

  4,230

  3,858

  4,083

  3,832

  4,293

  4,515

  4,564

  4,549

  Greater Glasgow

  39,589

  41,496

  42,689

  39,315

  44,947

  47,766

  50,183

  50,645

  Highland

  3,133

  2,969

  3,139

  3,123

  3,349

  3,453

  3,353

  3,550

  Lanarkshire

  4,905

  4,318

  4,146

  4,212

  4,229

  3,891

  3,583

  3,952

  Lothian

  17,814

  17,929

  18,675

  17,452

  19,001

  18,146

  19,544

  18,411

  Orkney

  47

  42

  58

  40

  36

  49

  58

  61

  Shetland

  326

  226

  210

  153

  135

  126

  94

  141

  Tayside

  7,689

  7,845

  7,950

  7,610

  8,751

  9,048

  9,852

  9,319

  Western Isles

  124

  76

  71

  66

  105

  75

  47

  61

  TOTAL

  88,916

  88,358

  90,676

  84,433

  94,344

  96,382

  100,571

  100,427

  1 Including day cases.

  2 Low figures coincide with industrial action in the health service.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to the total amount of additional revenue which would be collected if child benefit were to be counted as part of taxable earnings; and what this sum would represent in terms of a reduction in the standard rate of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The income tax liability arising from taxing child benefit in 1988–89 would be about £1,100 million. This estimate assumes that child benefit received by married couples would be taxed as the husband's income. A reduction of Ip in the basic rate of tax would cost about £1,400 million in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income.

  Band of gross income

  Families receiving child benefit

  Number of children

  Child benefit expenditure

  (thousands)

  (per cent.)

  (thousands)

  (per cent.)

  (thousands)

  (per cent.)

  Under £5,000

  560

  (8·3)

  780

  (6·4)

  290

  (6·4)

  £5,000 to £10,000

  1,770

  (26·2)

  3,350

  (27·6)

  1,260

  (27·6)

  £10,000 to £15,000

  1,830

  (27·1)

  3,210

  (26·5)

  1,210

  (26·5)

  £15,000 to £20,000

  1,220

  (18·1)

  2,280

  (18·8)

  860

  (18·8)

  £20,000 to £25,000

  650

  (9·7)

  1,150

  (9·5)

  430

  (9·5)

  £25,000 to £50,000

  640

  (9·4)

  1,180

  (9·8)

  450

  (9·8)

  Above £50,000

  80

  (1·2)

  180

  (1·5)

  70

  (1·5)

  6,750

  (100·0)

  12,120

  (100·0)

  4,570

  (100·0)

  Notes:

  (1) Estimates are based on the 1985 family expenditure survey, supplemented by the survey of personal incomes, and updated to 1988–89 levels
  522
  and existing woodland, as well as land intended for new planting or restocking.

  2. The areas of land shown as withdrawn include cases in which applicants decided not to proceed because of objections or modifications to their proposals put forward by the Forestry Commission or consulted authorities which were expected to result in the application being refused in whole or in part.

  Patients (Treatment Statistics)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1979 the number of patients treated in each health board from outside that health council's area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 May]: The information is given in the table.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total amount of child benefit together with the number of families and children in respect of which it is paid arid the percentage which each figure represents for the following income bands(a) under £5,000, (b) £5,000 to £10,000, (c) £10,000 to £15,000, (d) £15,000 to £20,000, (e) £20,000 to £25,000, (f) £25,000 to £50,000, (g) £50,000 to £100,000, and (h) £100,000 and over.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: Information about the incomes of families receiving child benefit is not routinely collected. The following estimates of the distribution of gross incomes of recipient families in 1988–89 are therefore made on the basis of sample survey data which are subject to normal sampling and response variation.
  523
  of earnings and benefit rates.

  (2) Income is measured on a gross basis and is the family's total income from all sources including benefits.

  (3) No detailed breakdown is possible for an income band above 50,000 because of sample sizes.

  (4) All figures rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  (5) Estimates assume 100 per cent. take-up of income-related benefits.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in employment in the United Kingdom since 1983; and what equivalent figures he has for those countries subject to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for civilian employment in the United Kingdom and in the member countries of the ERM are given in "Eurostat", March 1988, page 39.

  Growth Rates
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to what has been the average rate of growth of the countries subject to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system since 1985; which country has enjoyed the highest and which the lowest rate of growth; and what have been the respective rates of growth.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for GDP for each of the ERM countries are given in "Eurostat", March 1988, page 35.

  Inflation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to what has been the average rate of inflation of the economies subject to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system since 1985; which country has enjoyed the lowest rate of inflation and which the highest; and what were the respective rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Consumer price indices are given for all ERM member countries in "OECD Main Economic Indicators", monthly.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rate of inflation in the British economy since January 1985; and what information he has as to how many countries within the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system have had a higher rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  Consumer price indices for the United Kingdom and for all the ERM member countries are given in "OECD Main Economic Indicators", monthly.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The retail prices index rose by 3·9 per cent. in the year to April.

  Productivity
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth in productivity in the United Kingdom since 1983; and what equivalent figures he has for productivity of each of the economies subject to the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  One measure of the productivity of labour is real GDP divided by the number of persons employed.524
  GDP figures for the United Kingdom, on the average basis, are given in "Economic Trends", April 1988, page 6 and for the other countries in the "OECD National Accounts", volume 1. Figures for civilian employment for all the countries can be found in "Eurostat", March 1988, page 39.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual growth of productivity for the whole economy since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  Between 1980 and 1987, output per head in the whole economy increased by 20·5 per cent. This represents an annual average increase of 2·7 per cent. over the period.

  Pound Sterling
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the rate of exchange of the pound sterling with the currencies subject to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system has altered since January 1986.

  Mr. Lilley
  The average sterling exchange rate index against those currencies participating in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system has fallen by 3·7 per cent. since January 1986.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Burnley on 20 May,Official Report, column 583, how many of the representations received on the value of the pound were from the glass-making industry; to what effect they were made; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Burnley on 20 May, Official Report, column 583, how many of the representations on the value of the pound were from the aerospace aviation industry or its supplier; to what effect they were made; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Burnley on 20 May, Official Report, column 583, how many of the representations received on the value of the pound were from the textiles industry; to what effect they were made; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Burnley on 20 May, Official Report, column 583, how many of the representations received on the value of the pound were from the motor industry or its suppliers; to what effect they were made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the exchange rate from several different sectors of industry.

  Job Creation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to what has been the average level of job creation since 1983 of the economies whose currency is subject to the exchange rate
  525
  mechanism of the European monetary system; which country enjoyed the highest level of job creation and which the lowest; and what were the respective levels.

  Mr. Lilley
  "Eurostat", March 1988, page 39 gives data on civilian employment for each member country of the ERM. These data generally relate to numbers of jobs rather than numbers of persons.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of the United Kingdom economy since January 1985; and what equivalent figures he has for those economies subject to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  Growth is usually measured as the increase in GDP (or GNP) at constant prices. Quarterly and annual GDP figures for the United Kingdom are given in

  Planning total by function in real terms1

  1978–79 to 1990–91

  Index numbers (1978–79 = 100)

  1987–88

  1978–79 outturn

  1979–80 outturn

  1980–81 outturn

  1981–82 outturn

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1900–91 plans

  Defence

  100

  105

  108

  110

  118

  121

  129

  127

  125

  124

  121

  122

  122

  Overseas services, including overseas aid

  100

  96

  60

  57

  71

  82

  87

  78

  86

  95

  78

  94

  90

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  100

  105

  115

  107

  129

  139

  132

  149

  110

  121

  123

  124

  128

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  100

  89

  94

  109

  91

  89

  112

  83

  83

  69

  72

  64

  58

  Of which: Employment and training2

  100

  101

  131

  137

  129

  151

  155

  158

  177

  173

  178

  175

  172

  Arts and libraries

  100

  101

  102

  109

  110

  112

  116

  116

  124

  128

  127

  128

  128

  Roads and transport

  100

  104

  106

  104

  100

  96

  97

  92

  91

  89

  91

  89

  88

  Housing

  100

  108

  91

  61

  52

  57

  55

  48

  43

  40

  44

  42

  42

  Other environmental services

  100

  102

  99

  93

  96

  99

  98

  91

  90

  90

  84

  85

  85

  Law, order and protective services

  100

  108

  112

  120

  124

  130

  140

  137

  145

  158

  161

  162

  162

  Education and science

  100

  99

  101

  100

  101

  101

  101

  98

  104

  109

  109

  109

  109

  Health and personal social services

  100

  103

  111

  113

  114

  116

  119

  119

  124

  130

  131

  133

  135

  Of which: Health

  100

  102

  110

  113

  115

  116

  119

  119

  124

  129

  131

  133

  135

  Social security

  100

  101

  103

  114

  121

  126

  130

  134

  139

  139

  139

  142

  144

  Miscellaneous expenditure

  100

  101

  100

  108

  107

  82

  86

  88

  95

  101

  105

  130

  108

  Planning total

  100

  101

  102

  104

  106

  107

  111

  108

  109

  110

  113

  116

  119

  1 Real terms figures are the cash outturns or plans adjusted by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  2 Includes expenditure on employment and training in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Source: Table 5.12, Public Expenditure White Paper, 1988–89 to 1990–91, Cm 288–1.

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each developing country for each year from 1983 the proportion of export earnings constituted by debt service charges.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is contained in the 1987–88 edition of the "World Debt Tables" (volume II) published by the World Bank. A copy is available in the statistical section of the Library.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the percentage of all non-oil developing country debt, for each year from 1973 to 1987, at variable interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  The percentage of public and publicly guaranteed long-term debt outstanding and disbursed at
  526
  "Economic Trends", April 1988, page 6. (The average estimate at 1980 prices is the preferred measure for calculating growth rates.) Annual figures for the United Kingdom and all the member countries of the ERM, are given in the "OECD National Accounts." volume 1.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing public expenditure by main programme in real terms for each year from 1975 onwards, taking 1975 as the base year at 100.

  Mr. Major
  The table shows, in index form (1978–79= 100), the changes in real terms in the public expenditure planning total by function since 1978–79. Figures for earlier years are not readily available on a comparable basis.

  variable interest rates for non-oil developing countries, for 1975 and for each year from 1980 to 1986 (the latest available year), is as follows:

  Percentage of public and publicly guaranteed long-term debt outstanding and disbursed at variable interest rates, non-oil developing countries, 1975, 1980–1986

  Year end

  Percentage

  1975

  16·6

  1980

  31·1

  1981

  34·4

  1982

  35·5

  1983

  39·8

  1984

  39·9

  1985

  39·8

  1986

  43·6

  Note:

  Non-oil developing countries are defined as all countries included in the World Bank debt tables less those classified as "oil exporters".

  Source: World debt tables, 1987–88 edition, World Bank.
  527
  Comparable information for each year from 1973 to 1979 (other than for 1975) may be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures for the percentage of total debt at variable interest rates are unavailable.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking an exemption from value added tax for hospital radio stations in respect of equipment bought by them; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received no further representations since the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 6 May at column 649.

  Period

  New registrations

  Deregistrations

  Net increase

  From

  To

  30 December 1978

  21 December 1979

  169,058

  122,258

  46,800

  22 December 1979

  5 January 1981

  173,907

  149,979

  23,928

  6 January 1981

  5 January 1982

  142,961

  103,235

  39,726

  6 January 1982

  2 February 1983

  164,990

  148,032

  16,958

  3 February 1983

  3 January 1984

  180,310

  147,243

  33,067

  4 January 1984

  4 January 1985

  184,333

  154,324

  30,009

  5 January 1985

  6 January 1986

  184,392

  170,448

  13,944

  7 January 1986

  5 January 1987

  190,259

  167,266

  32,993

  6 January 1987

  7 January 1988

  202,232

  154,426

  47,806

  Economic Output
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of economic output over the latest 12 months period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  Preliminary estimates show that the output-based measure of gross domestic product increased by 4½ per cent. between the first quarter of 1987 and the first quarter of 1988.

  Customs Posts
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was by port the number of customs posts at 1 May; and what was the figure on 1 June 1986.

  Mr. Lilley
  For operational reasons the number of customs officers employed in each of the 155 ports and airports controlled by customs is not published.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of customs posts at ports and airports at 1 May; what was the figure on 1 June 1986; and how the customs budget has changed over the same period.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total number of customs officers deployed at ports and airports at 1 June 1986 was 6,900 and at 1 May 1988 the provisional figure is 7,700.

  The total cost of administration of customs work for the financial year ending 31 March 1986 was £161·8 million and for the year ending 31 March 1988 the provisional cost is £203 million.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has estimated the effect of the exchange rate on the rate of employment; and if he will make a statement.
  528
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the overall costs of administration, collection and enforcement of value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The overall cost of the administration, collection and enforcement of value added tax is estimated to be £244 million for the year ended 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of companies(a) registering for value added tax and (b) deregistering for value added tax in each available year since and including 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Figures for businesses registering and deregistering for value added tax in each year since 1979 are as shown by the table:

  Mr. Lilley
  Exchange rate policy is part of total economic policy. The firm financial discipline inherent in the Government's economic strategy has contributed to the longest period of continuous employment growth in almost 30 years.

  Civil Servants (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to set up monitoring procedures to examine the religious affiliation of civil servants employed by his Department in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Her Majesty's Treasury does not employ any civil servants in Northern Ireland.

  Customs Station, Donnally
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the new customs station, currently under construction at Donnally, Newry, to become operational.

  Mr. Lilley
  The new customs station at Damolly, Newry is expected to become operational on 1 November 1989.

  Business Investment
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for business investment in 1988.

  Mr. Major
  Business investment is forecast to grow by 9 per cent. in 1988, as shown in chapter 3 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table

  529
  showing the increase in the retail prices index for each of the last nine years and his estimate for this figure in the current year.

  Mr. Lilley
  The figures are given in the table.

  Retail Prices Index

  Percentage increase on previous year

  per cent.

  1979

  13·4

  1980

  18·0

  1981

  11·9

  1982

  8·6

  1983

  4·6

  1984

  5·0

  1985

  6·1

  1986

  3·4

  1987

  4·2

  Forecast 1988 Q4 on 1987 Q4 is 4 per cent.

  Government Departments (Personal Data)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to ensure that any new use or disclosure of personal data between participating Departments on the Government data network is subject to prior approval of the Data Protection Registrar;

  (2) if he will describe the intended process of authorisation of disclosures of personal data between Departments that may arise following the introduction of the Government data network; and if he will make it his policy to place a copy of any document or future document which describes that authorisation process in the Library.

  Mr. Brooke
  The process of authorisation of disclosures of personal data between Departments is governed by their registrations under the Data Protection Act 1984. Compliance is a matter for the Departments concerned.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will describe the changes brought to the design of the Government data network as a result of his discussions with the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Data Protection Registrar has been kept informed from the outset of the proposals for

  Married couples liable to income tax 1988–89

  Number of couples

  Average income

  Total income (lower limit)

  all

  where wife has no income

  with wife's income1

  where wife has no income

  where both spouses have income

  husband

  wife1

  £'000

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  £

  £

  £

  4

  110

  100

  10

  4,500

  4,600

  50

  5

  310

  130

  180

  5,600

  4,500

  1,100

  6

  440

  190

  250

  6,500

  5,300

  1,300

  7

  470

  200

  270

  7,500

  5,900

  1,600

  8

  630

  270

  360

  8,500

  6,500

  2,000

  9

  590

  230

  360

  9,500

  7,400

  2,100

  10

  1,440

  520

  920

  11,000

  8,500

  2,500

  12

  1,950

  570

  1,380

  13,400

  10,400

  3,100

  15

  2,420

  480

  1,940

  17,300

  12,700

  4,600

  20

  2,000

  340

  1,660

  23,500

  17,400

  6,400

  30

  530

  80

  450

  34,400

  26,000

  8,000

  40

  150

  30

  120

  44,500

  34,600

  9,600

  50

  80

  20

  60

  54,800

  43,500

  10,700

  60

  40

  10

  30

  64,700

  51,100

  13,500

  530
  maintaining security on the Government data network, including arrangements for controlling access. He has expressed no reservations about the proposals.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now quantify the cost savings that will arise over the next 10 years as a result of the Government data network.

  Mr. Brooke
  In assessing the value for money of the Government data network, its costs were compared with the viable alternatives—using comparable public services, or implementing separate networks similar to GDN.

  The savings from using the GDN service are estimated at around 45 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. Actual savings will depend on the use made of the service.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about manufacturing output during the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  In the first quarter of 1988 manufacturing output was 5½ per cent. higher than a year earlier.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give, for the latest year available, the number of tax units who are married couples falling within each £1,000 income band up to an income of £30,000 and thereafter in £10,000 income hands up to £100,000; and if he will specify the number of wives and husbands falling within each band, giving the average incomes of wives and husbands within each band separately and the same figures in aggregate for those tax units on incomes in excess of £100,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 13 May 1988]: Provisional estimates for married couples liable to income tax in 1988–89 are given in the table. I regret that a more detailed analysis is not possible, because estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes. The table shows the average income of husbands where the wife has no income and average incomes of both husband and wife where both spouses have income.
  531

  Number of couples

  Average income

  Total income (lower limit)

  all

  where wife has no income

  with wife's income1

  where wife has no income

  where both spouses have income

  husband

  wife1

  £'000

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  £

  £

  £

  70

  80

  20

  60

  117,000

  92,600

  22,200

  All

  11,240

  3,190

  8,050

  14,500

  13,700

  4,400

  1 Earnings, pensions, and investment income.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of companies paying corporation tax at(a) the full rate and (b) the small companies rate as applicable for each available year since and including 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Estimates of the numbers of companies liable to pay corporation tax on their profits in accounting periods ending in financial years 1978–79 to 1985–86 are shown in the table. Figures for more recent years are not sufficiently complete to provide a reliable estimate. The 1985–86 estimate is provisional. These numbers have on this occasion been reduced to take account of the fact that CT liabilities are eliminated for some companies by tax already deducted or paid.

  Companies liable to Corporation Tax

  Accounting periods ending in:

  Numbers '000

  1978–79

  195

  1979–80

  200

  1980–81

  210

  1981–82

  220

  1982–83

  235

  1983–84

  245

  1984–85

  260

  1985–86

  300

  In respect of 1985–86 about 20,000 companies have liabilities at the full rate and a further 20,000 are in the transitional band between the small companies rate and the full rate. Equivalent figures for earlier years are not available. Membership of company groups affects the point at which marginal and full rates apply and recently available information on this aspect has been used in deriving these estimates.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total amount of inheritance tax payable in respect of an inheritance of £1 million of a capital distribution made to an individual from an accumulation and maintenance trust where the settlor has survived for seven years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Gifts are exempt from inheritance tax where donors

  Name of public body or department (1,2,3)

  Category of public body (4)

  Statutory requirement

  Form and place of publication (5)

  Agricultural Training Board, The

  NDPB

  Agricultural Training Board Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Arts Council of Great Britain

  NDPB

  Royal Charter 1967

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales

  NDPB

  Local Government Finance Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  532
  survive seven years. This applies also to distributions from accumulation and maintenance trusts where the settlor has survived seven years.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much inheritance tax would be payable in respect of an inheritance in 1988–89 amounting to £1 million by a single individual on his or her 21st birthday comprising(a) a gift of shares from his father in an unquoted company comprising a controlling interest and constituting business property valued at, before relief £200,000, (b) cash from his mother who has made no previous gifts of £100,000, (c) a gift of a farm from his uncle who survives for seven years after the gift of the value of £500,000 and (d) capital distribution of £200,000 from an accumulation and maintenance trust set up by his father who survives for seven years, where no gifts have been made by his father other than (a) and (d).

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Because the donors at (a) (c) and (d) have survived their gifts by seven years and the gift by the donor at (b) is below the 1988–89 taxable threshold, (an exemption which also applied under capital transfer tax) no inheritance tax would be payable in 1988–89 on any of these gifts. However, if the donors at (a), (c) and (d) had died within seven years of their gifts, inheritance tax would have been payable at their deaths with business and agricultural property reliefs on the gifts at (a) and (c) as under capital transfer tax.

  Trading Services (Accounts)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the accounts for trading services operated by departments of certain other public bodies for which the Treasury has directed or approved the form of accounts according to the procedure of section G, paragraph 4 of Government Accounting (1986), indicating (a) the category of accounts so prescribed, (b) the statutory basis for this requirement of the period over which this has been done by convention and (c) the form and place of publication of such accounts.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: The information available is as follows:
  533

  Name of public body or department (1,2,3)

  Category of public body (4)

  Statutory requirement

  Form and place of publication (5)

  Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Black Country Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Board of Trustees of the Royal Armouries

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  British Museum

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  British Tourist Authority

  NDPB

  Development of Tourism Act 1969

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Local Government Planning and land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Central Office of Information

  Department

  Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts 1866 and 1921

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Clothing and Allied Products Industry Training Board

  NDPB

  Industrial Training Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Co-operative Development Agency

  NDPB

  Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland

  NDPB

  Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Commission for the New Towns

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Construction Industry Training Board

  NDPB

  Industrial Training Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Countryside Commission

  NDPB

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  NDPB

  Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board

  NDPB

  Crown Agents Act 1979

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations

  NDPB

  Crown Agents Act 1979

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Crown Suppliers Trading Fund, The

  Trad Fund

  Government Trading Funds Act 1973

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Cwmbran Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  NDPB

  Development of Rural Wales Act 1976

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Development Commission

  NDPB

  Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Engineering Industry Training Board

  NDPB

  Industrial Training Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  English Industrial Estates Corporation

  NDPB

  English Industrial Estates Corporation Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from Body

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  NDPB

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  English Tourist Board

  NDPB

  Development of Tourism Act 1969

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Erskine Bridge Tolls

  Supp'l Account

  Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  Department

  Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 s5

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Fleet Air Arm Museum

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Food from Britain

  NDPB

  Agricultural Marketing Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  General Practice Finance Corporation

  NDPB

  National Health Service Act 1966

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Greater Manchester Residuary Body

  NDPB

  Local Government Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Health and Safety Commission

  NDPB

  Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Health and Safety Executive

  NDPB

  Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office Trading Fund

  Trad Fund

  Government Trading Funds Act 1973

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  NDPB

  Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  NDPB

  Cereals Marketing Act 1965

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Horticultural Development Council

  NDPB

  Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Hotel and Catering Training Board

  NDPB

  Industrial Training Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Housing Corporation

  NDPB

  Housing Act 1964

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Imperial War Museum

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  534 535

  Name of public body or department (1,2,3)

  Category of public body (4)

  Statutory requirement

  Form and place of publication (5)

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Department

  Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 s5

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Irvine Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Land Authority for Wales

  NDPB

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Livingston Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  London Docklands Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from Body

  London Residuary Body

  NDPB

  Local Government Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Manpower Services Commission

  NDPB

  Employment and Training Act 1973

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  NDPB

  Agriculture Act 1967

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Merseyside Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Merseyside Residuary Body

  NDPB

  Local Government Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Milton Keynes Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  NDPB

  Royal Charter 1986

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Army Museum

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Biological Standards Board

  NDPB

  Biological Standards Act 1975

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  NDPB

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  National Dock Labour Board

  NDPB

  Dock Work Regulation Act 1976

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Enterprise Board

  NDPB

  Industry Act 1975

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Galleries of Scotland—Board of Trustees

  NDPB

  National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Gallery

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Library of Scotland—Board of Trustees

  NDPB

  National Library of Scotland Act 1925

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Maritime Museum

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  NDPB

  Museums and Galleries on Merseyside Order 1986

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Portrait Gallery

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  National Research Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Development of Inventions Act 1967

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Nature Conservancy Council

  NDPB

  Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Board

  NDPB

  Industrial Training Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Oil and Pipelines Agency

  NDPB

  Oil and Pipelines Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Ordnance Survey

  Department

  Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 s5

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Peterborough Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Pilotage Commission

  NDPB

  Pilotage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Plastics Processing Industry Training Board

  NDPB

  Industrial Training Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Registrar of Public Lending Right

  NDPB

  Public Lending Right Act 1979

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Road Transport Industry Training Board

  NDPB

  Industrial Training Act 1982

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Royal Air Force Museum

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Board of Trustees

  NDPB

  National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Royal Mint, The

  Trad Fund

  Government Trading Funds Act 1973

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Royal Navy Submarine Museum, Gosport

  NDPB

  National Heritage Act 1983

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Science Museum

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Scottish Development Agency

  NDPB

  Scottish Development Agency Act 1975

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Scottish Sports Council

  NDPB

  Royal Charter 1972

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Scottish Tourist Board

  NDPB

  Development of Tourism Act 1969

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  NDPB

  Fisheries Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Severn Bridge Tolls

  Supp'l Account

  Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  South Yorkshire Residuary Body

  NDPB

  Local Government Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Sports Council

  NDPB

  Royal Charter 1972

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Sports Council for Wales

  NDPB

  Royal Charter 1972

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Tate Gallery

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Teesside Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Telford Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  536 537

  Name of public body or department (1,2,3)

  Category of public body (4)

  Statutory requirement

  Form and place of publication (5)

  Trafford Park Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation

  NDPB

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Trad Fund

  Atomic Energy Authority Acts 1954 and 1986

  Annual accounts available from Body

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  NDPB

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Wales Tourist Board

  NDPB

  Development of Tourism Act 1969

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Wallace Collection

  NDPB

  Legislation pending

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Warrington and Runcorn Development

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Corporation

  (Dev Corpns Report)

  Washington Development Corporation

  NDPB

  New Towns Act 1981

  Annual accounts available from HMSO (Dev Corpns Report)

  Welsh Development Agency

  NDPB

  Welsh Development Agency Act 1975

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  NDPB

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979

  Annual accounts available from HMSO

  West Midlands Residuary Body

  NDPB

  Local Government Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  West Yorkshire Residuary Body

  NDPB

  Local Government Act 1985

  Annual accounts available from Body

  Notes:

  1. This information has been extracted from a new computerised database being built up by the Treasury. There is a risk that the names of some bodies may not yet he on the database, but the list is substantially complete.

  2. The list includes bodies producing commercial style accruals accounts, and some bodies at present producing cash accounts which in tend to move over to an accruals basis shortly.

  3. The list excludes Memorandum Trading Accounts (MTAs): as Government Accounting paragraph G: 4(c) explains these are informal working documents. Treasury "direction" of the form that MTAs take is through the dissemination of general guidelines to departments.

  4. The abbreviations used to categorise public bodies are:

  "NDPB": non-departmental public body;

  "Department": a Government department;

  "Trad Fund": a trading fund established under the Government Trading Funds Act, plus the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and

  "Supp'l Account": an account for a service conducted by a department, for which audited commercial style accounts are produced and published.

  5. The references in the final column to indicate the form and place of publication mean:

  "Annual accounts available from HMSO": these are formal "White Paper", accounts as defined in Government Accounting (Section 0 Paragraph 185), printed by HMSO and laid before Parliament;

  "Annual accounts available from Body": the accounts are not laid before Parliament, but copies may be obtained from the body itself.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated capital cost of the proposed customs facility at Waterloo station for Channel tunnel passengers.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: Discussions are at present taking place between Customs and British Rail about the facilities that will be required at Waterloo for the clearance of Channel tunnel passengers. The provision and capital funding of the facilities are the responsibility of British Rail.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual running cost of the proposed customs facility at Waterloo station for Channel tunnel passengers.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: The arrangements for Customs clearance at Waterloo station have yet to be finalised and it is too early at this stage to estimate what the running costs will be.

  European Investment Bank (Loans)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) why exchange risk cover for European Investment Bank loans of over $25 million will not be applied to loans made to local authorities which are not 538
  part of a European Community integrated operation; and what was the cost to the Treasury of the last five years of the operation of the scheme;

  (2) why the ½ per cent. interest rate subsidy formerly available for European Investment Bank borrowers has not been reinstated; and, over the last five years of the scheme's operation, how much local authorities in the United Kingdom benefited from the ½ per cent. interest rate subsidy.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answers 26 May 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) on 2 December 1987 at column 614, which sets out the reasons for the withdrawal of interest rate subsidy available under the official exchange cover scheme. Loans over$25 million made to local authorities, whether or not they are part of a European Community integrated operation, are eligible for exchange risk cover.

  In the period to 2 December 1987 local authorities borrowed £570 million under the scheme. During this time, the interest rate benefit available to borrowers has varied from¼ to ½ per cent. However, this does not reflect the true cost of operating the scheme. Local authorities borrow under the scheme for the benefit of the reserves, so any calculation must take into account the interest earned on that part of the United Kingdom's official reserves raised by this means and the cost to the Government of the

  539
  sterling finance, but the sums involved cannot be hypothecated. Moreover, the calculation would also have to take into account any exchange rate gain or loss made on repayment of the loans and any changes in overseas interest rates in relation to those charged on public sector debt during the life of the loans. These calculations cannot be made until the loans have run their full term.

  European Community (Contributions)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the United Kingdom net contribution to the EEC for each of the last eight years; and what is the most likely estimate for the current year and 1989 expressed both in terms of payments made during the year and payments attributed to the year in question.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: The information requested for the period 1980 to 1987 is set out in the table. Estimates of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget for 1988–89 and 1989–90 (on a payments basis) and 1988 and 1989 (on a budget basis) are contained in the last public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288-II, pages 33 to 36). These estimates did not take account of the agreement at the Brussels European Council on 11 to 13 February on the future financing of the Community. This agreement is likely to increase our net contribution to the Community budget by some £200 to £300 million a year.

  Net contribution to Community budget

  Payments basis1

  Budget basis2

  £ million

  £ million

  1980

  706

  269

  1981

  397

  115

  1982

  606

  682

  1983

  647

  766

  1984

  656

  709

  1985

  1,808

  759

  1986

  572

  943

  1987

  1,713

  31,135

  1 These figures show the net payments actually made during calendar years, irrespective of the Community budget to which they relate or from which they are financed. Receipts flowing directly to the United Kingdom private sector are excluded.

  2 These figures show the United Kingdom's net contribution in respect of particular budgets, regardless of when the payments and receipts actually took place. They include an estimate of receipts flowing directly to the United Kingdom private sector and certain payments to other member states which nevertheless benefit the United Kingdom by allowing us to import CAP produce at prices below CAP levels. They take account of our net contribution to the "unallocated budget", which consists mainly of the Community's aid expenditure.

  3 Estimate.

  EC (Budget)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing details of total payments to the European Economic Community budget for 1987 and total receipts for each of the member countries of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: Details of payments made by the European Economic Community to member states in 1987 are not readily available. The own resources payments made by member states to the Community in 1987 were as follows:—
  540

  mecu

  Belgium

  1,702

  Denmark

  845

  Germany

  9,385

  Greece

  340

  Spain

  1,700

  France

  7,330

  Ireland

  338

  Italy

  5,192

  Luxembourg

  74

  Netherlands

  2,372

  Portugal

  342

  United Kingdom

  5,728

  Source: European Commission documents.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date in August mortgage interest tax relief becomes applicable to a property.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the proposed change to a residence basis for mortgage interest relief. Under clause 41 of the Finance Bill this will take effect from I August 1988.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of successive Budget changes on investment in manufacturing industry in the regions.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of successive Budget changes on investment in manufacturing industry in the north.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of successive Budget changes on investment in manufacturing industry in the north.

  Mr. Major
  The reductions in tax rates and increases in allowances in recent Budgets have improved incentives and stimulated enterprise, which will have contributed to higher investment throughout the country.

DEFENCE

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the role of the proposed deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell in relation to(a) the United States Air Force global positioning system and (b) any other systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 21 March 1988 at column 7.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the overall rates of low-level flying accidents in the Royal Air Force, expressed as a percentage of flying hours and low-level flying hours since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  As was explained to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) at column 82 on 8

  541
  December 1987, records of hours flown at low level by military aircraft are not held centrally. The rate of major accidents (per 10,000 hours flown by Royal Air Force aircraft at all levels worldwide) which occurred during low level operations was as follows:

  Per cent.

  1980

  0·12

  1981

  0·11

  1982

  0·22

  1983

  0·17

  1984

  0·14

  1985

  0·10

  1986

  0·08

  1987

  0·18

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were flown by the RAF in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Federal Republic of Germany; in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  Separate records of low-level sorties flown by the RAF in the United Kingdom are not available, but those for all British military aircraft (both fixed wing and helicopter) were as follows.

  Number

  1980

  180,860

  1981

  194,620

  1982

  1106,920

  1983

  1118,920

  1984

  109,244

  1985

  115,063

  1986

  123,488

  1987

  123,293

  1Before 1984 sorties were not recorded directly but have been calculated from movements. On average there are 2·5 movements per sortie.

  Figures for RAF fixed wing low-level sorties in the Federal Republic of Germany are not available prior to 1984. Those for 1984 onwards are given below. These do not include helicopter sorties because these are not centrally recorded.

  Number

  1984

  18,752

  1985

  18,124

  1986

  16,853

  1987

  15,900

  RAF Jets (Accidents)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the overall rate of fast jet major flying accidents in the Royal Air Force, expressed as a percentage of fast jet flying hours, for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 April to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), at columns 336–8.

  RAF (Accidents)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the overall rate of major flying accidents in the Royal Air Force, expressed as a percentage of flying hours, for each year since 1980;

  (2) what are the annual totals of serious flying accidents to United Kingdom military aircraft for each year since 1980;
  542
  (3) how many aircrew have been injured in Royal Air Force Tornado accidents since 1980;

  (4) how many aircrew have been killed in Royal Air Force Tornado accidents since 1980;

  (5) how many Royal Air Force Tornados have been seriously damaged in flying accidents since 1980;

  (6) how many Royal Air Force Tornados have been destroyed in flying accidents since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual Statements on the Defence Estimates which, since 1980, have published relevant information about all accidents to aircraft of the three Services which have involved loss of, or serious damage to the aircraft or which have resulted in fatalities or serious injuries. The most recently published information is in Cm. 344-II, tables 5.8 and 5.9.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serious accidents involving Royal Air Force Tornados have occurred during low-flying operations since 1980 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Federal Republic of Germany and (c) other locations.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since entering service with the Royal Air Force in 1980, major accidents to Tornado aircraft during low-flying operations have been as follows:

  Number

  United Kingdom and surrounding waters

  6

  Federal Republic of Germany

  4

  United States of America

  1

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to order an attrition batch of Tornado aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Nine Tornado GR1 aircraft have already been ordered as replacements for expected attrition losses. A possible further purchase of Tornado aircraft is under consideration.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many night vision targeting pods he intends to order for the Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A contract for the supply of 10 advanced laser designator pods for Tornado GR1 aircraft has been awarded to Ferranti Defence Systems Ltd.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to sell Tornado F2 aircraft withdrawn from RAF service to overseas customers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: There are no plans to sell the Tornado F2 aircraft currently in storage at RAF Athan to overseas customers.

  Chipmunk Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average number of flying hours carried out per trainee Royal Air Force pilot in de Havilland Chipmunk aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sixty-five.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects de Havilland Chipmunk aircraft to remain in Royal Air Force service.
  543
  Mr. Freeman
  The Chipmunk is expected to remain in service with the Royal Air Force until about the turn of the century.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of rewinging Royal Air Force Hawk aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  An initial order for an improved design of wing for Hawk aircraft in Royal Air Force service has been placed with British Aerospace. The total cost of the programme will be governed by the outcome of a competition which my Department currently plans to hold for the supply of further production quantities.

  Redtop Missiles
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends to use the Redtop missiles from Lightning aircraft for training purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. When the Lightning is withdrawn from service later this month, the remaining Redtop missiles will be disposed of as no further economical use has been found for them. The Lightning is being replaced by Tornado F3 armed with Skyflash medium-range and Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles.

  ASR 1238
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on ASR 1238.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A decision on ASR 1238 is not expected for some months.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects a decision to be made on the ordering of an interim engine for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The assessment of the competing bids is well advanced and I would expect the result to be announced later this year.

  Canberra Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much longer he expects Canberra aircraft to remain in Royal Air Force service.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  On current plans the Canberra is expected to remain in service into the next century.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Canberras are still in Royal Air Force service.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Four units of Canberras are currently in service with the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any intention of selling Canberra planes presently in Royal Air Force service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No Canberra aircraft presently in service with the Royal Air Force are being offered for sale. A few non-effective aircraft may, however, be disposed of later this year once spares recovery has been completed.

  Jet Provosts
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects Jet Provost aircraft to remain in Royal Air Force service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The majority of Jet Provost aircraft are due to be replaced by the Tucano by the mid-1990s, although a few Jet Provosts are expected to remain in service with the Royal Air Force until the turn of the century.

  RAF Waddington
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of building hangars for Boeing AWACS aircraft at RAF Waddington.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  One hangar is being built at RAF Waddington for the United Kingdom E-3 fleet, at a cost of some £5 million.

  Jet Provosts and Chipmunks
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Shorts of Belfast contribute any funds to his Department to keep Jet Provost and de Havilland Chipmunk aircraft in Royal Air Force service.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  United States Navy, Brawdy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to whether there are any plans to withdraw the operating personnel from the United States naval facility at Brawdy, Wales, with a view to introducing remote control operation of the facility.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I understand that there are no current plans to change the United States Navy manning at RAF Brawdy.

  Air Combat (Manoeuvring Instrumentation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the deployment of an air combat manoeuvring instrumentation range off the east coast of Britain; and whether any decisions on research, development or procurement of such a system have been made.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 11 May at column 134, to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter).

  Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel are currently serving with the joint strategic target planning staff; and what is their function.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  A senior RAF officer is serving as a member of SACEUR's liaison team with the joint strategic target planning staff. There are no representatives of Her Majesty's Government with the staff.

  Netway
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the Netway communication system; what is the total cost of procuring the system; and where it will be deployed.
  545
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Netway communication system is being procured as part of the RAF station transport management aid (STAMA), a system for the routine management and operation of vehicles which will be deployed in most RAF stations. The Netway system will be used to provide communications between remote terminals and the computer processor on the larger STAMA installations. The costs of the system are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  North Sea Platforms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military use is made of offshore oil and gas platforms in the North sea.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Offshore oil and gas platforms are occasionally used by the armed forces for training purposes. Military helicopters may also refuel on such platforms when crossing the North sea.

  AWACS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is planned to fit Royal Air Force AWACS with the radar upgrades currently being developed by Boeing for the United States Air Force AWACS fleet.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  When the time comes to upgrade the radar in the United Kingdom's AWACS we shall look very closely at the benefits of participating in any United States air force programme.

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which Departments' Votes the salaries and operating costs of United Kingdom loan service personnel serving in overseas countries are borne.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The salaries and other costs of loan service personnel, which are borne initially on Defence Votes, are charged to the foreign Governments concerned or to the FCO and are recovered to Defence Votes as appropriations-in-aid.

  Aerazur Parachutes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Aerazur/GQ 8m low-level parachute is in service with British forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No such parachute is in service with British forces. However, initial trials to assess possible contenders to satisfy a requirement to replace the existing in-service mass drop parachute have taken place. No final decision on a future development and production contract has yet been taken.

  Nirex
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice on the disposal of defence radioactive wastes is being provided to his Department by United Kingdom Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive Ltd.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence liaises with UK Nirex Ltd. on a regular basis on the disposal of defence radioactive wastes; the advice received is similar to that given to other nuclear operators.

  British Geological Survey
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts currently held by his Department with the British Geological Survey; and what is the purpose of each.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Three contracts were placed with the British Geological Survey in 1986 but these were all completed in 1987. No further contracts have been placed. It is not the Department's practice to release details of individual contracts for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  United States Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the United States authorities concerning the possibility of basing United States air force F-15E aircraft in Britain; and what is the Government's policy on such a deployment.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 3 December 1987 at column 709.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to what contracts have been awarded to British Aerospace to service United States air force F-15 aircraft; and what arrangements have been made in support of such contracts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The servicing of United States air force F-15 aircraft, based in the Federal Republic of Germany, is a commercial matter for British Aerospace and the United States air force.

  Joint Medical Support Plan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the joint medical support plan in United Kingdom home defence.

  Mr. Freeman
  The joint medical support plan for the United Kingdom base covers the management and care of battle casualties arising from general war operations within the United Kingdom and NATO areas.

  Services Medical Planning Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the functions of the joint services medical planning committee.

  Mr. Freeman
  The function of the joint services medical planning committee is to co-ordinate joint operational medical policy to meet the requirements of operational planning conducted on behalf of the United Kingdom commanders in chief, and advise the United Kingdom commanders in chief, as appropriate, on medical matters arising from joint operational plans.

  Artillery
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the number of nuclear-assigned units of 155mm artillery is to be increased to compensate for the withdrawal of 8in howitzers; and if he will make a statement.
  547
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In accordance with long-standing plans, the number of 155mm systems deployed in BAOR will be increased for the purpose of replacing 105mm Abbot guns. There are, however, no plans to increase the number of 155mm nuclear certified systems to compensate for the withdrawal from the 8in nuclear artillery role.

  Weapons Storage and Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to purchase the weapons storage and security systems from the United States of America for use on RAF airfields.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Various options are being examined to improve the storage of our air-delivered nuclear weapons but no firm decisions have yet been taken. There are, consequently, no plans at present to purchase the United States weapons survivability and security system for use by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has been given by the United States authorities concerning the year in which the United States Air Force is expected to seek Congressional approval for the commencement of construction of weapons storage and security system vaults at(a) RAF Bentwaters, (b) RAF Upper Heyford, (c) RAF Lakenheath, (d) RAF Greenham Common and (e) RAF Molesworth.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is understood that the United States Administration seeks Congressional approval each year for the funding of the construction programme for weapon survivability and security systems for the following fiscal year. No decision has yet been made on the year in which approval would be sought for sites in United Kingdom.

  Submarine Reactors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any options for disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarine reactors on civil-owned land have been considered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 13 April at column 137.

  United States Forces (Mildenhall)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist to move the headquarters of the United States third air force from Mildenhall; and what is the location of its new base.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 12 April at column 35.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans exist to move the United States naval air facility from Mildenhall to Greenham Common;

  (2) what plans exist to move the United States air force airborne command and control EC-135 aircraft from Mildenhall to Greenham Common.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  None.

  NATO Force Goals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if the forces specified in NATO force goals are necessarily to be assigned to NATO command in time of crisis or war; if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.

  United States' HI-CAMP Programme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been provided by the United Kingdom to the United States Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency's HI-CAMP programme; and whether the United States of America is providing the United Kingdom with any technical or scientific results from this programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Under long-standing international arrangements the MOD has collaborated in the United States defence advanced research projects agency's HI-CAMP programme by participation in joint trials and in the analysis of the data resulting. There has been a full exchange of scientific results between the United States and the United Kingdom.

  Polaris
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Polaris missile test launches have been conducted in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There have been a total of 31 test launches of United Kingdom Polaris missiles since 1979. These took place as follows:

  Year

  Number of missiles fired

  1979

  5

  1980

  5

  1982

  4

  1983

  6

  1985

  3

  1986

  4

  1987

  4

  Defence Exports Sales Organisation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries in receipt of official development assistance from the United Kingdom which were visited by representatives of the Defence Exports Sales Organisation in any year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply.

  Representatives of Defence Export Services Organisation travel very extensively and there must be few places in the free world which they have not visited at some time. Because of the confidentiality of many of the matters involved it is not the practice to list individual countries which have been visited.

  Non-nuclear R and D Establishments
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the report of the study groups inquiring into the feasibility of agency management in the non-nuclear research and development establishments of the Ministry of Defence.
  549
  Mr. Sainsbury
  I expect to receive the report of the study group during the summer.

  Naval Documents (Firth of Forth)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discovery of naval documents floating in the Firth of Forth.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The document in question, classified restricted, listed work which had been specified during the recent routine refit of HMS Hermione in Rosyth royal dockyard. The circumstances of the loss and subsequent discovery are being investigated.

  Greenham Common
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times since 1979 he has consented to building on common land at Greenham Common under the Law of Property Act 1925.

  Mr. Freeman
  Developments at RAF Greenham Common have been subject to the planning procedures applicable to Crown land; no consents have been sought under the Law of Property Act 1925.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many orders of compulsory purchase have been made concerning common land at Greenham Common; and how many negotiated purchases have been agreed, in the past two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  No compulsory purchase orders have been made by the Ministry of Defence for land at Greenham Common; parts of Greenham and Crookham Commons were requisitioned under emergency powers in the last war and the freeholds were later acquired by agreement.

  No land has been purchased at RAF Greenham Common in the past two years.

  Mr. Michael McNair Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the officer commanding the 3rd United States air force about the likely future use of RAF Greenham Common once the INF treaty has been ratified and the first cruise missiles have been taken back to the United States of America.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The withdrawal of ground-launched cruise missiles from RAF Greenham Common will not be complete until towards the end of the three-year reduction period which commenced on the entry into force of the INF treaty. No detailed discussions have yet taken place on the future use of the base after the missiles are withdrawn and firm decisions are not expected for some time.

  Bullying
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the measures to combat bullying in the Army, outlined to the House in the Army debate on 26 January,Official Report, columns 256–58.

  Mr. Freeman
  The further detailed examination mentioned in the statement in the Army debate, which in many cases has been concerned with quantifying the 550
  manpower requirement for the measures outlined, has been continuing; the Army Board of the Defence Council has strongly endorsed the outcome and the way ahead. Taking them in the order announced in the House, the present position on the various measures is as follows:

  At the recruiting and entry stage, medical screening will be improved, by increasing the medical cover at five particular depots where such support is currently provided on a part time basis. In addition, the briefing of civilian medical practitioners will be improved, to give them a fuller appreciation of service medical requirements and the rigours of military training. As part of this process, the Army will implement by March next year a sytem under which all civilian doctors engaged in recruiting attend an annual training day.

  The review of the current procedures for selecting and training instructors for recruit training establishments continues. One improvement already agreed, and now being implemented, is the introduction of a new man-management pack, to be included in the training of all instructors. Additionally, a specialised training and management course will be mandatory for either the second in command or the training officer of each training unit.

  In order to allow officers and NCOs to devote more time to their primary training and supervisory roles, just over 100 extra posts are to be re-established in the Army's training organisation in United Kingdom, to undertake and alleviate the pressures of unit administration. The additional posts will provide for 22 extra company seconds in commands, 14 additional company quarter-master sergeants, and 66 more corporals. All these posts will have been re-established, and filled, by the end of March next year.

  As a means of improving welfare arrangements for single personnel in the Army, an additional 92 posts will be established for members of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS). Roughly one third of these posts will be within the United Kingdom Army training organisation where the build-up will start later this summer. Other posts will be added, as recruitment allows, in major units and barracks complexes in Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, and throughout north-west Europe. An additional WRVS personnel management post will be created at the beginning of July, to co-ordinate the recruitment, training and administration of these extra supporting staff.

  The content and extent of man-management training on all Army officers' warrant officers', and noncommissioned officers' courses is being re-examined. Special attention is being devoted to young officers' courses, and to the guidance on man management given to commanding officers.

  All improper initiation ceremonies have been formally banned, and instructions and guidance issued throughout the Army relating to such practices, to the handling of alcohol abuse which has sometimes led to such incidents, and to the importance of "out of hours" supervision of soldiers. In addition, the chain of command throughout the Army has been formally reminded of the need for all cases of alleged bullying or other unacceptable behaviour to be reported without delay, thoroughly investigated and appropriate action taken where substantiated.

  The costs of these measures are estimated at £500,000 for the current financial year, rising to £2 million a year thereafter as the additional staff are recruited.

  House Sales (Boscombe Down)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will offer for sale to sitting tenants houses in Cadnam crescent, Beaulieu road and Lyndhurst road at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sitting tenants living in Cadnam crescent, Beaulieu road and Lyndhurst road, whose houses have already been declared surplus to Defence requirements, will receive letters by the end of July asking them if they wish to purchase their houses. Consideration is currently being given to whether any additional houses in Cadnam crescent can be declared surplus and a decision on those will be made in due course.

  Property Services Agency (Restructuring)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for the management of the Salisbury Plain training area and the management of the housing stock occupied by military and civilian personnel in south Wiltshire, following the announcement of the restructuring of the Property Services Agency by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Freeman
  I do not foresee any changes in the policy for management of the Salisbury Plain training area or the housing stock occupied by military and civilian personnel in south Wiltshire as a result of the restructuring of the Property Services Agency. South Wiltshire will continue to be managed by the defence land agent at Durrington who will, from 1 October 1988, report directly to the Ministry of Defence rather than to the Property Services Agency.

  Great Britain

  Republic of Ireland

  Northern Ireland

  Others

  5th Royal Enniskillen Dragoon Guards

  413

  6

  101

  2

  Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

  346

  24

  154

  4

  Irish Guards

  486

  51

  235

  9

  Royal Irish Rangers

  492

  82

  978

  18

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits from(a) Great Britain, (b) Northern Ireland and (c) the Republic of Ireland joined each of the Irish regiments in the Regular Army during each of the past five years.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Forged CIA Documents
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brent East, 28 March,Official Report, column 362, whether forged CIA identity documents have been prepared by members of the Army information services in Northern Ireland at any time from 1971 to the current date.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters.
  552
  Defence estate management policy has always been the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and will remain so in future.

  Civil Servants (Religious Affiliations)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring procedures he has implemented to examine the religious affiliation of civil servants employed by his Department in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In common with other home Civil Service Departments with personnel located in Northern Ireland the Ministry is collecting data by means of a voluntary survey which will be regularly updated.

  Royal Irish Rangers
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to deploy the Royal Irish Rangers Regiment in Northern Ireland within the period between 1 July 1988 and 30 June 1989.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The possibility of deploying Irish named regiments to Northern Ireland is kept under consideration.

  Irish Regiments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers from(a) Great Britain, (b) the Republic of Ireland and (c) Northern Ireland now serve in each of the Irish regiments of the Regular Army.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The number of soldiers currently serving in Irish Regiments in the Regular Army is listed by place of birth:

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to encourage British companies to tender for, and to obtain, contracts for the supply of vehicles and field communications systems to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our general policy is for contracts in these particular fields—along with most others—to be gained competitively. To help provide the fullest measure of encouragement for Companies to compete arrangements have been established to provide for the regular publication of all tender opportunities over £500,000 in the MOD Contracts Bulletin.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to restrict tendering for contracts to supply his Department to companies on an approved list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry seeks to offer the widest practicable opportunity to companies to bid for MOD requirements where this can lead to better value for
  553
  money. Accordingly invitations to tender are not restricted to companies on an approved list. However, the Ministry would normally place headquarter contracts only with companies on its defence contractors list.

  M.L. Vehicles
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will place orders for the supply of M.L. vehicles for his Department; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Ocean Venture 88 Exercise
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's forces participated in the Ocean Venture 88 exercise held earlier in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No British forces participated in Exercise Ocean Venture 88.

  Nuclear Weapons Accident Training
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the nuclear weapons accident training that currently takes place at Catterick will be moved when the Royal Air Force fire service is transferred from Catterick to Manston; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to discuss the locations or roles of particular units which may he involved in responding to, or training for, an accident involving nuclear weapons.

  SDI (Contracts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts for research and development that have been awarded to universities and other research institutions in the United Kingdom as part of the strategic defence initiative programme, together with the purpose and cost of each contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. It is for those universities or other research institutions who hold SDI research contracts to decide whether to divulge such information publicly.

  Harriers (Crash)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a United States Navy pilot was killed flying a Royal Air Force Harrier on 2 November 1987;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the estimated frequency of pilots from other nations flying the aircraft of the British armed forces, the level of authority required for pilots of other nations to fly British armed forces aircraft and whether that authority was given in the case of the accident on 2 November 1987 involving a Royal Air Force Harrier piloted by United States Navy pilot.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 2 November 1987, two Royal Air Force Harrier aircraft from No. 3 squadron, RAF Gutersloh collided over the Otterburn training range while undertaking bombing practice during Exercise Mallet Blow. The pilots, Flight Lieutenant D. R. Sunderland and 554
  Lieutenant (United States Navy) J. R. Carver, were both killed. The accident has been the subject of an RAF board of inquiry. A summary of its findings will be published in due course and a copy placed in the Library of the House in the usual way.

  Lieutenant Carver had been flying with the RAF as an exchange pilot, in accordance with the usual regulations governing such arrangements. Aircrew exchanges between the services and those of other countries take place on a regular basis. In addition, non-UK personnel occasionally undertake flying training with the services as part of sponsored training schemes, or familiarisation flights for commercial or other reasons. All aircrew are subject to the same rigorous procedures as United Kingdom personnel. It would not be possible, without undue cost and effort, to quantify precisely the frequency of flights undertaken in service aircraft by non-United Kingdom personnel, since this varies over time. All such flights are, however, authorised by the appropriate authority.

  Vehicle Checks
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Wiltshire concerning the reports received of Army personnel stopping vehicles on 11 May at 11.45 pm on the A345 at Figheldean.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. These allegations have not been substantiated by the civil police.

  Search and Rescue Stations
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secrertary of State for Defence what search and rescue stations presently exist; what facilities are present on these stations; what equipment is used; what planes and helicopters are used; what are their numbers; how many sorties were flown in the last five years, by year; how many rescues took place; and what new facilities have been provided in the past year.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 26 May 1988]: Military search and rescue helicopters are currently based as follows:

  Helicopters

  RAF Lossiemouth

  2 Sea Kings

  RAF Leuchars

  2 Wessex

  RAF Boulmer

  2 Sea Kings

  RAF Leconfield

  2 Wessex

  RAF Coltishall

  2 Sea Kings

  RAF Manston

  2 Wessex

  RNAS Portland

  2 Sea Kings

  RNAS Culdrose

  2 Sea Kings

  RAF Chivenor

  2 Wessex

  RAF Brawdy

  2 Sea Kings

  RAF Valley

  2 Wessex

  HMS Gannet at Prestwick

  1 Sea King

  The helicopters at all these stations are fitted with standard rescue helicopter equipment to meet national and international standards and are supported by appropriate ground facilities. With regard to the ground facilities provided in the past year, I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 13 May to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) at column 262 in respect of RAF Leuchars.

  In addition, one RAF Nimrod operates from RAF Kinloss or RAF St. Mawgan as appropriate in the long-range search and rescue role. It is fitted with droppable rescue equipment.
  555
  Suitably equipped RAF mountain rescue teams are based at RAF Leuchars, RAF Kinloss, RAF Valley, RAF St. Athan, RAF Stafford and RAF Linton-on-Ouse. Within the past year a new headquarters has been built for the team at RAF Stafford; a new headquarters is currently under construction at RAF Leeming for the team at RAF Linton-on-Ouse.

  With regard to sorties flown and rescues achieved, I refer the hon. Member to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", Vol. 2, table 6.2.

  Helicopter Orders
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders he has placed for new helicopters since 1 January; and what new orders he intends to place between now and the end of the year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: A development contract for a light battlefield version of the Lynx helicopter was let in March and, subject to satisfactory resolution of contractual issues, an order for 16 of the type is expected to be placed shortly. Delivery is planned to start at the end of 1990.

  Low-frequency Transmissions (Rugby)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation in the context of very low frequency transmissions in the Rugby area; what is regarded as the minimum safe distance for persons living or working in the vicinity of such a transmitter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: Such transmissions pose no health threat to people living and working in the area.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the role of the very low frequency communications facility at Rugby; whether it is subject to United Kingdom control; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many United States personnel are based at the very low frequency communications facility at Rugby; what are their ranks; and what are their functions.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 27 May 1988]: The facility, which is an unmanned site, provides a communications relay station for United States forces stationed in Europe.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Aborted Foetuses (Tissue)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will establish an inquiry into the implications for medical ethics of the operations performed on 3 March and 7 April at the midland centre for neurosurgery and neurology which involved the transplant of live tissues from aborted foetuses;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to prevent the use of National Health Service facilities for the performing of operations involving the transplant of live tissue from aborted foetuses;

  (3) what information he has as to whether the mothers of the aborted foetuses used as donors of live tissues in
  556
  operations performed on 3 March or 7 April at the midland centre for neurosurgery and neurology were in any way related or connected with the recipients of the transplanted cells;

  (4) what information he has to whether the mothers of the aborted foetuses used as donors of live tissues in operations performed on 3 March or 7 April at the midland centre for neurosurgery and neurology received any payment in connection with the procedures.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what special administrative procedures were adopted prior to the operations performed at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology on 3 March and 7 April which involved the transplanting of foetal cells to the brains of adult patients suffering from Parkinson's disease;

  (2) if consent was obtained from (a) those patients receiving transplanted foetal cells, (b) the mothers of the aborted or stillborn foetuses from whom the transplanted cells were taken, (c) the local ethical committees and (d) his Department prior to the operations performed on 3 March and 7 April at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology which involved the transplanting of foetal cells to the brains of adult patients suffering from Parkinson's disease;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report the guidelines issued by his Department on the use of transplant operations of live cells taken from aborted or stillborn foetuses;

  (4) if the parents of the aborted or stillborn foetuses used as donors during operations performed at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology on 3 March and 7 April in the treatment of Parkinson's disease were told the precise use to which the foetal material would be put;

  (5) how many of the foetuses from which live cells were taken for operations at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology on 3 March and 7 April in the treatment of Parkinson's disease were (a) aborted or (b) stillborn; and in the case of (a) what was the number of weeks of gestation;

  (6) under which statutory grounds the foetuses involved as donors of living cells for transplant operations at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology on 3 March and 7 April were aborted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make it his policy to incorporate into the forthcoming Bill on human embryo experimentation a clause protecting aborted foetuses from being used as donors of live tissue in transplant operations;

  (2) whether his Department is aware of any evidence that the use of live cells from aborted babies in transplant operations is of long-term benefit to sufferers from Parkinson's disease; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to introduce a moratorium on the use of aborted foetuses as donors of live cells in transplant operations until such time as the House can legislate on this matter;

  (4) if he will list the names and occupations of the members of the local ethical committee which gave permission for the use of live cells from aborted foetuses to be used in transplant operations at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology on 3 March and 7 April; and

  557
  if he will publish in the Official Report the details of the application which they were asked to consider and the form in which such an application was made;

  (5) if he will call for a report from the chairmen of the relevant regional and district health authorities as to the circumstances in which operations involving the transplant of live tissue from aborted babies were performed on 3 March and 7 April at the midland centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the status and responsibilities of hospital ethical committees; if he will monitor use of foetal material; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines have been issued by his Department with regard to the ethical implications involved in the use of human foetal brain cells in the treatment of Parkinson's disease; what is the source of supply of such material; how that supply is organised; what the required age of gestation of the foetus involved; what is the method of abortion used; what pain is caused to the foetus in the operation; if an anaesthetic is used separately on the foetus; what steps are taken to obtain the mother's consent in each case; whether any payment is involved and to whom; what information he has as to whether there is any connection between the doctors involved in these abortions with those requesting the foetal material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department's current guidance is that any research involving a foetus or fetal material should be subject to approval by the local ethical committee, and that such committees should base their consideration on the code of practice set out in the report on the advisory group on the use of foetuses and fetal material for research (known as the Peel report, published in 1972). The code's provisions include that there should be no known objection on the part of the parent; that no payment should be made for the material; and that responsibility for deciding whether the material may be used for research should not rest with those conducting the research.

  Local ethical committees, which are also the subject of separate guidance, are advisory bodies to safeguard patients' interest and to advise health authorities on the ethics of clinical research investigations. Information on ethical research committee membership is not held centrally.

  In the two cases to which the questions refer, the fetal material used was obtained from a nursing home approved under the 1967 Abortion Act, under arrangements approved by the Secretary of State for that nursing home to supply fetal material to the Birmingham university medical centre for a number of research projects. It is a condition of the Secretary of State's approval that the provisions of the code of practice recommended by the advisory group on the use of foetuses and fetal material for research are adhered to. All women whose foetuses may be used to provide material which may be passed to the medical centre are invited to sign a declaration to the effect that they have no special wishes concerning the disposal of material arising from their pregnancy. Material provided to the medical centre is provided anonymously. Information about patients and the circumstances of their abortions cannot be released for reasons of confidentiality, but I am assured that the women concerned received no
  558
  payment in connection with the procedures, nor were they known to be in any way related to or connected with the recipients of the transplanted cells.

  I understand from inquiries made of the appropriate health authorities that the transplant operations were conducted with the consent of the patients who received the transplants and the consent of the local ethical committee, which I understand considered the issues involved with great care and over a long period of time.

  A third operation involving the transplantation of fetal brain tissue to a patient suffering from Parkinson's disease has now been performed at the midland centre for neurosurgery and neurology. This also was done in accordance with the Peel code of practice and existing clinical guidance.

  In view of the continued advance of medical techniques since the Peel report was published, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, has decided to set up a committee with the following terms of reference:
  "In the light of recent developments in the field of human tissue transplantation, and other relevant medical research, to review the Report of the Advisory Group on the Use of Fetuses and Fetal Material for Research (the "Peel Report"), and in particular to consider whether any modifications or additions should be made to the Recommended Code of Practice in that Report."

  The committee will be chaired by the Rev. Dr. J. Polkinghorne FRS, Dean of Trinity hall, Cambridge arid its membership will comprise Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, president of the Royal College of Physicians of London, Professor Ian Kennedy, Professor of medical law arid ethics, Kings College, London and Dr. Sally McIntyre, director MRC sociology unit, University of Glasgow.

  Influenza
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of flu' were reported in each year since 1982.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Since influenza is not a notifiable disease no national statistics are collected; however the communicable disease surveillance centre does monitor the types of virus in circulation. During the winter of 1987–88 this sample monitoring indicated that the level of influenza infection in England and Wales was relatively low. The last epidemic was in 1975–76.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual total of cases in which section 136 of the Mental Health Act was used for the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures in the table show the number of admissions to NHS mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units in England under the provisions of section 136 of the Mental Health Act for each year since 1977.
  559

  Admissions under section 136, Mental Health Act

  Year

  Number

  1977

  1,497

  1978

  1,608

  1979

  1,561

  1980

  1,883

  1981

  1,907

  1982

  1,885

  1983

  1,853

  1984

  1,959

  1985

  1,832

  1986

  1,523

  Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of national income Her Majesty's Government spend on programmes for elderly people.

  Mr. Moore
  About 8·2 per cent. of national income in the United Kingdom is spent by the Government on the social security benefit expenditure and the health and personal social services programmes for elderly people.

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much is being spent on benefits for disabled people at the current time; and how much was being spent in 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The amount, in cash terms, spent on benefits for people who are long-term sick or disabled was as follows:

  Great Britain

  £ million

  1978–79

  1,780

  1987–88

  6,750

  Black Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action his Department is currently taking arising from the publication of the Black report, "Inequalities in Health."

  Mrs. Currie
  The Black report was published in 1980. Since then the Government have made significant increases in the resources available to the Health Service, and the overall health of the nation has continued to improve. Many of the underlying objectives behind the recommendations of the report were in line with the Government's polices set out in "Care in Action", so in many instances the same end has been pursued by different means.

  The Government have taken a number of steps to promote good health and to ensure the equitable distribution of health care resources. Unhealthy lifestyles and unhealthy diets create major risks to health. One of the Government's main aims in setting up the Health Education Authority was to give greater emphasis to disease prevention and health promotion. We are determined that all social groups should have the information they need to make wise choices to protect their health. The first major campaign of the new
  560
  authority, in conjunction with the Government, has been directed at coronary heart disease, which disproportionately affects men from lower socio-economic groups.

  The Government have pursued a policy of allocating health authority resources more fairly across the country using the resource allocation working party's approach. Substantial progress has been made in bringing regions closer to their RAWP targets, and this year all regions are within 96 per cent. of target. The review of the RAWP formula has been looking, amongst other issues, at whether the formula should be revised to make it more sensitive to the impact of social deprivation or need for health care.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how much money was spent on preparing for and publicising the changes in the housing benefits system introduced on 11 April; and how much he estimates will be spent on preparing for and publicising the amendments for the housing benefits scheme announced on 27 April;

  (2) how much money each local authority administering the housing benefits scheme, introduced on 11 April, has spent on preparing for and publicising the scheme; and how much he estimates each authority will spend on preparing for, and publicising the amendments to the scheme announced on 27 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department centrally spent about £400,000 on publicising the changes to the housing benefit scheme introduced on 1 April, and made available to local authorities in total a grant of £25 million to support their costs in preparing for the reformed housing benefit scheme; information on actual costs incurred by individual authorities is not available centrally. The cost to authorities of implementing the changes to the scheme announced on 27 April cannot be estimated until the Department completes consultations with the local authority associations on the detailed procedures, and until figures are available for the number of claims expected.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the numbers of housing benefit claimants as at June 1979 and June 1987 in each of the following constituencies(a) Amber Valley, (b) Mid Worcestershire, (c) West Lancashire, (d) Staffordshire Moorlands, (e) Hendon South, (f) Darlington and (g) Fylde.

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

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest details of the arrangements under which claimants will be able to apply for and receive their transitional payments of housing benefit; and what steps his Department is taking to make sure that all those who qualify will receive their transitional help.

  Mr. Portillo
  Leaflet RR4 "Housing Benefit—New Rules" which contains a claim form for transitional payments is available from local authorities, DHSS local offices and post offices. A separate leaflet outlining the scheme has been sent to the various organisations advising
  561
  claimants. Advertisements drawing attention to transitional payments and to the availability of the leaflet appeared in the national press during the week commencing 23 May.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a revised version of the table showing gainers and losers from the structural change to housing benefit, Official Report 18 December 1987, columns 915–918, resulting from his increase in the capital cut-off limit announced on 27 April, and a similar table showing the cash position as a result of the transitional help announced on the same date, excluding the effect of local authority rate and rent increases.

  Mr. Portillo
  The tables published previously remain the best guide to the structural effect of the reforms. The increase in the capital limit to £8,000 is expected to bring back into the scheme about 100,000 households. The transitional payments reduce the size of cash losses but do not affect the overall structural figures for housing benefit.

  Artificial Limbs
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the companies that currently supply artificial limbs to the National Health Service;

  (2) if his Department has costed a contract-based limb fitting service for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Scott
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority, to which the hon. Member should address his questions.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many babies have so far been born in England who were HIV positive at birth;

  (2) how many babies have been born in England to mothers who are HIV positive.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of babies born to mothers who are HIV positive is not known, since pregnant women are not routinely tested for HIV antibodies. However, to the end of March the communicable disease surveillance centre had received reports of a total of 20 children who have antibodies to HIV and whose mothers are known to he infected or at high risk. The presence of antibody at birth is not necessarily an indication of infection, and it is probable that some of these babies will eventually be shown to be free of infection.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on 20 April,Official Report, column 463, if he will give the nature and extent of the drug misuse services for solvent abuse.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has asked health authorities to give priority to the development of services for drug misusers and has provided extra resources to enable them to do so. These services provide counselling, advice and information and, where necessary, detoxification.

  Information on the full extent to which local drug misuse services are able to help solvent misusers is not held
  562
  centrally. Recent research, based on reports from local drug projects, shows, however, that for about half of those seeking help, solvent misuse was, in varying degrees. a problem.

  Mental Institutions
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many former mental institutions have been disposed of by his Department as surplus assets, how many have been retained by his Department for other use; and of those sold off, what proportion of the income has been retained by the originating district health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not routinely collected and to collect it by means of a special exercise would involve disproportionate cost. I would however refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 16 February at column 564. That information was the result of a special exercise.

  Our policy is that all proceeds should be retained by the health service for reinvestment in the service with a significant proportion being passed to the district health authority which initiated the sale. Proceeds from the sale of former mental institutions are required to be used for the development of services for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped.

  State Pension
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current value in real terms of the basic state pension in 1979 terms.

  Mr. Scott
  The basic pension of £19·50 payable from November 1978 would be worth £40·19 at April 1988 prices. The current basic pension rate is £41·15, a real terms increase of 2·4 per cent.

  Supplementary Benefit (Gallup Survey)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the results of the Gallup survey for the National Audit Office of supplementary benefit claimants' satisfaction with the service provided by his Department's local offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have found the results of the Gallup Survey to be a valuable supplement to the Department's own customer research. Some of the findings are encouraging; for instance the local office service provided for supplementary benefit (now income support) pensioners is generally well received. But there are criticisms too, for example, of a lack of privacy for local office callers, which officials will be seeking to put right. It is our intention to commission independent customer research of this type on a regular basis from 1989–90 onwards.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the pensioners' organisations; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Scott
  I met representatives of Pensioners' Voice on 9 May, when we discussed a wide range of matters affecting the elderly.

  Surplus Property (Sale)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what criteria will be used to determine the proportion of receipts from the sale of surplus property by health authorities which will be allocated to the district health authority initiating the sale.

  Mrs. Currie
  No criteria are issued, but the policy is that district health authorities should benefit from the disposals they initiate subject to regional health authorities' retaining the flexibility to exercise their strategic role.

  Disability Premium
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether offices of his Department will accept backdated certificates where a claimant of disability premium in receipt of income support who is under 60 years of age and who has been incapable of work for 28 weeks, but who has not previously submitted medical certificates for this period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The award of the disability premium is, in the first instance, a matter for the office of the chief adjudication officer and local adjudication officers. I refer the hon. Member to the guidance issued by that office to local adjudication officers, a copy of which is held in the Library. The relevant guidance is at paragraphs 27092 and 11459 et seq.

  Long-term Institutional Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were discharged from long-term institutional care for each year since 1979; what proportion they constituted; and how many were subsequently detained by the police within 12 months of the date of discharge.

  Value of child support1 for each child in standard rate tax-paying families expressed at April 19882 prices (£)

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  Date3

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  April 1958

  7·04

  9·27

  9·96

  8·75

  11·07

  11·59

  10·56

  12·79

  13·39

  April 1959

  6·44

  8·76

  9·36

  7·99

  10·39

  11·00

  9·62

  11·94

  12·63

  April 1960

  6·40

  8·70

  9·38

  7·93

  10·32

  10·92

  9·55

  11·86

  12·54

  April 1961

  6·23

  8·47

  9·13

  7·72

  10·05

  10·63

  9·30

  11·54

  12·21

  April 1962

  5·89

  8·01

  8·64

  7·31

  9·51

  10·06

  8·80

  10·92

  11·55

  April 1963

  6·62

  8·70

  9·31

  8·01

  10·24

  10·70

  9·47

  11·62

  12·16

  April 1964

  6·49

  8·53

  9·13

  7·85

  10·04

  10·49

  9·28

  11·39

  11·92

  April 1965

  6·51

  8·51

  8·94

  7·93

  9·86

  10·37

  9·36

  11·29

  11·79

  April 1966

  6·28

  8·21

  8·63

  7·66

  9·52

  10·01

  9·04

  10·90

  11·39

  April 1967

  6·10

  7·97

  8·37

  7·44

  9·25

  9·71

  8·78

  10·59

  11·05

  April 1968

  5·84

  7·31

  7·76

  7·12

  8·60

  8·98

  8·40

  9·81

  10·26

  April 1969

  5·53

  7·23

  7·66

  6·75

  8·45

  8·87

  7·96

  9·66

  10·03

  April 1970

  5·24

  6·85

  7·25

  6·39

  8·00

  8·40

  7·54

  9·15

  9·50

  April 1971

  6·10

  7·73

  8·10

  7·05

  8·73

  9·10

  8·05

  9·68

  10·05

  April 1972

  5·74

  7·27

  7·62

  6·63

  8·21

  8·56

  7·57

  9·10

  9·45

  April 1973

  5·21

  6·52

  6·84

  6·16

  7·43

  7·75

  6·93

  8·20

  8·52

  April 1974

  5·98

  7·08

  7·36

  6·88

  7·91

  8·22

  7·63

  8·65

  8·97

  April 1975

  5·24

  7·24

  7·24

  5·98

  7·99

  7·99

  6·63

  8·66

  8·66

  April 1976

  5·49

  7·21

  7·21

  6·12

  7·83

  7·83

  6·69

  8·38

  8·38

  April 1977

  5·28

  6·04

  6·04

  5·81

  6·57

  6·57

  6·27

  7·01

  7·01

  April 1978

  6·28

  6·28

  6·28

  6·78

  6·78

  6·78

  7·19

  7·19

  7·19

  April 1979

  7·79

  7·79

  7·79

  7·79

  7·79

  7·79

  7·79

  7·79

  7·79

  November 1980

  7·23

  7·23

  7·23

  7·23

  7·23

  7·23

  7·23

  7·23

  7·23

  November 1981

  7·14

  7·14

  7·14

  7·14

  7·14

  7·14

  7·14

  7·14

  7·14

  November 1982

  7·49

  7·49

  7·49

  7·49

  7·49

  7·49

  7·49

  7·49

  7·49

  November 1983

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  7·94

  November 1984

  7·97

  7·97

  7·97

  7·97

  7·97

  7·97

  7·97

  7·97

  7·97

  November 1985

  7·72

  7·72

  7·72

  7·72

  7·72

  7·72

  7·72

  7·72

  7·72

  July 1986

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  7·70

  564
  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member all the information he seeks, as no record is kept centrally on individual patients or the outcome of patients after discharge.

  The table shows the numbers of discharges, after a stay of five years or more, into the community from National Health Service mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units in England. The table also shows these discharges as a percentage of all discharges inclusive of transfers and irrespective of duration of stay. Comparable figures for 1979 are not readily available.

  Discharges from mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units in England, after a duration of stay of five years or more.

  Mental Illness

  Mental handicap

  Year

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  1980

  804

  0·5

  657

  3·5

  1981

  818

  0·5

  764

  3·5

  1982

  733

  0·4

  764

  3·0

  1983

  821

  0·5

  967

  3·1

  1984

  981

  0·5

  1,375

  3·8

  1985

  987

  0·5

  1,522

  3·9

  1986

  1,082

  0·6

  1,951

  4·7

  Note: Excludes transfers to other NHS hospitals and Special hospitals.

  Child and Family Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update the information in his reply about child and family allowance of 15 January,Official Report, columns 441–444, expressed in April prices to include the years 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:
  565

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  Date3

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd4 child

  April 1987

  7·54

  7·54

  7·54

  7·54

  7·54

  7·54

  7·54

  7·54

  7·54

  April 1988

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

  7·25

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

  2 Based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices at April 1988.

  3Child Tax Allowance ceased after the 19787–79 Tax Year end and benefit up-rating dates are shown from 1979 onwards.

  4And subsequent children.

  Cyclotron Trust
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a grant to the cyclotron trust.

  Mr. Newton
  We are making a grant of £6 million to the cyclotron trust, as a contribution towards the £10·4 million capital cost of the cyclotron which the trust plans to provide in a new facility at St. Thomas' hospital. The cyclotron is used for treating cancers including some which are not normally responsive to conventional radiotherapy and can also enable some patients to avoid disfiguring surgery; 60 per cent. of the cyclotron's capacity will be reserved for NHS patients, and we shall meet up to 60 per cent. of the direct running costs in so far as they are not met from other sources. The project is an important instance of partnership between the public and voluntary sectors.

  Mentally Senile Patients
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure health authorities have adequate nursing provision to allow for mentally senile patients to be cared for separately from those recovering from physical illnesses.

  Mrs. Currie
  Decisions on the numbers and deployment of nursing staff are matters for local National Health Service management. Health authorities are aware of the need to provide separate services for elderly physically frail and elderly mentally ill people so that mixing of mentally alert with confused patients on the same ward is avoided as far as possible.

  Registered Homes Act 1984
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether residents of homes not required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 will be entitled to income support.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are certain circumstances in which residents of homes not required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 will be entitled to income support to the appropriate residential care or nursing home limit. These are set out in regulation 19(3), of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, as amended by the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988, which define "nursing home" and "residential care homes". All residents of homes mentioned specifically in this regulation will be entitled to income support, subject to the normal qualifying criteria.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether residents of homes with less than four beds not required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 will receive income support.
  566
  Mr. Portillo
  Subject to the normal qualifying criteria people in homes with fewer than four beds not required to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 will be entitled to income support up to the appropriate residential care home limit if the conditions set out in regulation 19(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 are met. Where the conditions are not met residents will be entitled to income support up to the ordinary board and lodging limits.

  Child Abuse (Cleveland)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss's inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The report was received yesterday. Arrangements are in hand for publication as soon as is practicable, which is likely to be in about a month's time.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of cases in which electro-convulsive therapy has been administered in each year since the treatment became available; what proportion of patients voluntarily submitted to electroconvulsive therapy treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks in the form requested, as no record is kept centrally of either the number of individual patients to whom electro-convulsive therapy was administered, or the circumstances of its administration.

  The data held centrally are in the table which shows the number of courses of treatment and the total number of treatments by electro-convulsive therapy administered each year in special hospitals and National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units since statistics were collected in 1979. A patient may undergo more than one course of treatment during the year.

  Electro-convulsive therapy treatments and courses: England 1979–80

  Year

  Treatments

  Courses

  1979

  159,193

  26,400

  1980

  160,277

  25,441

  1981

  147,419

  24,407

  1982

  139,307

  22,578

  1983

  128,526

  21,350

  1984

  125,357

  19,850

  1985

  137,940

  20,948

  1986

  129,757

  19,308

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the preparation procedure for the administration of electro-convulsive therapy to an involuntary patient.
  567
  Mrs. Currie
  The clinical management of a detained patient prior to the administration of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT), as with any other patient, is a matter for the professional judgment of the medical and other staff directly involved in the patient's care.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report those institutions which employ electro-convulsive therapy treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table lists all the mental illness hospitals and units, in England, whose medical staff administered electro-convulsive therapy during 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, irrespective of whether the actual treatment was carried out at this site or another.

  ECT-Mental illness hospitals and units in England 1986

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Winterton

  St. George's Morpeth

  St. Nicholas

  Cherry Knowle

  Garlands

  St. Mary's

  St. Luke's, Middlesbrough

  North Tees

  South Shields General

  Hartlepool General

  Durham County

  Newcastle General

  West Cumberland

  Brighton Clinic

  Royal Victoria Infirmary

  Darlington Memorial

  Furness General

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  High Royds

  Stanley Royd

  Clifton, Moorlands and Southfields

  De La Pole

  Scalebor Park

  Broadgate

  Naburn

  St. James', Leeds

  Lynfield Mount

  St. Luke's, Huddersfield

  Airedale General

  Pontefract General

  Bootham Park

  Halifax General

  St. Mary's, Scarborough

  Leeds General Infirmary

  Grimsby District General

  Scunthorpe General

  Norman House Day Units

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  University, Nottingham

  The Pastures

  Middlewood

  St. John's, Lincoln

  Carlton Hayes

  Saxondale

  The Towers

  Kingsway

  Rauceby

  Mapperley

  Northern General Psychiatric Unit

  Loversall

  Rotherham District general

  Barnsley District general

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary

  Walton

  Kings Mill

  Whitleywood Clinic

  Leicester General

  568

  St. Francis

  Bassetlaw District General

  Chesterfield and North Derby Royal Mental Health Unit

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  Fulbourne

  St. Andrews

  St. Audry's

  Hellesdon

  St. Clements, Ipswich

  St. Nicholas

  New West Suffolk General

  West Norwich (Yare clinic)

  Heath Road Wing, Ipswich

  Fermoy Unit, Queen Elizabeth

  Peterborough District

  Hinchingbrooke

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Shenley

  St. Bernards Wing, Ealing

  Horton

  Napsbury

  Fairfield, Hitchen

  Hillend

  Northwick Park

  Barnet General

  Ashford

  Queen Elizabeth II

  West Middlesex

  Lister

  Bedford General

  Luton and Dunstable (Faringdon Wing)

  Shrodells Wing (Watford General)

  St. Mary's (Patterson Wing)

  Hillingdon

  Charing Cross (Fulham)

  St. Mary Abbotts

  Central Middlesex

  Wembley

  Gordon Hospital

  St. Charles Hospital

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Claybury

  Friern and Halliwick

  Warley

  Goodmayes

  Severalls

  Runwell

  London (St. Clements)

  Basildon

  Princess Alexandra

  German

  Chase Farm

  Whittington

  St. Luke's, Woodside

  Hackney

  Royal Free

  St. Anns General

  St. Pancras and University College

  London (Whitechapel)

  The Middlesex

  Whipps Cross

  St. Bartholomews

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Hither Green

  Bexley

  Cane Hill

  Tooting Bec

  Maidstone District

  St. Augustine's

  Hellingley

  Stone House

  Farnborough

  Guys

  All Saints Chatham

  Joyce Green

  Greenwich District

  569

  Lady Chicester

  New Cross

  St. Thomas

  Dulwich (North Wing)

  Burmarsh Ward (William Harvey)

  Queen Charlotte's Eversfield

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Springfield

  Netherne and Fairdene

  Brookwood

  Long Grove

  Graylingwell

  Warlingham Park

  St. Francis

  Abraham Cowley (St. Peters)

  Epsom District

  Frimley Park

  Atkinson Morleys

  Kingston

  Queen Mary's Roehampton

  Crawley

  Sutton (Chiltern Wing)

  The Ridings (Southlands)

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  Basingstoke District (Park Prewett)

  Roundway

  St. James: Portsmouth

  Herrison

  Knowle

  The Old Manor

  Whitecroft

  Moorgreen

  St. Ann's, Poole

  Depatment of Psychiatrity (Royal S. Hants.)

  Seymour Clinic

  Royal United Bath

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  St. Marys (Martin Roth Unit)

  St. John's, Stone

  St. Crispin

  Fairmile

  Littlemore

  Warneford

  Wexham Park

  Tindal General

  Wycombe District

  Kettering and District

  Horton General (The Elms)

  Milton Keynes

  Stoke Mandeville

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Exe Vale

  St. Lawrence's, Bodmin

  Horton Road and Coney Hill

  Tone Vale

  Glenside

  Mendip and Meare Manor

  Moorhaven and the Gables

  Barrow

  North Devon District

  Yeovil District

  Bristol District

  Royal Cornwall (City)

  Lexham Lodge Day

  Gloucester House Day

  Langdon

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  St. Matthews

  St. Edwards

  All Saints

  Highcroft

  Central, Warwick

  St. George's, Stafford

  Royal Shrewsbury (Shelton)

  Rubery Hill

  570

  Barnsley Hall

  Hollymoor

  Walsgrave

  New Cross

  Burton Road

  Worcester Royal (Newtown Branch)

  John Connolly

  City General, Stoke

  Midland Nerve

  Kidderminster General

  Department of Geriatric Medicine (Dudley Road)

  George Elliot

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Winwick

  Rainhill

  West Cheshire

  Parkside

  Sefton General

  Greaves Hall

  Whiston

  Walton, Liverpool

  Leighton

  Fazakerley

  Royal Liverpool

  Arrowe Park

  Clatterbridge

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  Prestwich

  Whittingham

  Lancaster Moor and Ridge Lea

  North Manchester General

  Withington

  Bolton General

  Stepping Hill

  Oldham and District General

  Billinge

  Burnley General

  Bridgewater

  Tameside General (Hyde ESMI)

  Fairfield General

  Victoria

  Brich Hill

  Queens Park

  Ormskirk and District General

  Leigh Infirmary

  Rossendale General

  Wesham Park

  Royal Preston (Avondale Unit)

  Ribbleton

  Hope

  York House

  Gaskell House

  Eaves Lane

  Cheadle Royal

  Special Health Authorities

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley

  National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  Special Hospitals

  Rampton

  Broadmoor

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to take steps to increase the level of staff provision available to undertake electro-convulsive therapy treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  The allocation of staff to the administration of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is a matter for the professional judgment of those responsible for the clinical management of the patient concerned.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Social Services if he has any plans to change the

  procedures under which electro-convulsive therapy treatment is administered.
  571
  Mrs. Currie
  The clinical procedure for the administration of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is a matter for the professional judgment of those staff with direct responsibility for patient care.

  There are no plans at present to change the legal requirements governing the administration of ECT to patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. A code of practice for the guidance of professionals involved in the treatment of mental disorder is in preparation, as required by section 118 of the Act, and this will cover procedures for the administration of ECT.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time between a recommendation of electro-convulsive therapy treatment by an involuntary patient's consultant, the agreement of an independent consultant under the Mental Health Act 1983, and the beginning of treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not collected centrally, although the Mental Health Act Commission does arrange for the independent "approved" doctor to provide a second opinion within two working days of receiving the request for that opinion from the detained patient's consultant.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases the recommendation of electro-convulsive therapy treatment on an involuntary patient by that patient's consultant was overruled by the Mental Health Act Commission, in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not readily available, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, the second biennial report (1985–1987) of the Mental Health Act Commission (section 7) contains statistical information collected by the commission relating to "Consent to Treatment and Second Opinions" which the hon. Member may find of interest. A copy of this report is in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines his Department issues on the circumstances in which a person who expresses his wish not to receive electro-convulsive therapy treatment may have that wish overruled.

  Mrs. Currie
  Other than in cases of emergency and in the case of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, ECT cannot be given to patients without their consent. The Act provides that treatment can be given without the patient's consent where a second medical opinion from an independent, approved doctor (obtained through the Mental Health Act Commission) is obtained to the effect that the treatment is necessary and should be given. Before providing this second opinion, the independent doctor must consult two other persons who have been professionally involved with the patient's treatment; one a nurse, and the other neither a nurse nor a doctor.

  GP and Hospital Visits
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in 1987(a) visited a general practitioner at least once, (b) had at least one consultation in a National Health Service hospital and (c) were admitted as an in-patient to a National Health Service hospital at least once.
  572
  Mrs. Currie
  Figures are not available in the form requested. The 1986 general household survey has provided the following figures on the use of health services in Great Britain.

  (1) 14 per cent. consulted a NHS general practitioner in the 14 days before interview.

  (2) 13 per cent. attended an outpatient or casualty department in a three-month reference period.

  (3) 9 per cent. underwent an inpatient stay in a I2-month reference period.

  Health Care
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average expenditure per person in the United Kingdom in 1987 for total health care provision broken down into convenient age groups.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986, the latest year for which information is available from the national accounts published by the Central Statistical Office, the average expenditure per person in the United Kingdom on health care (public and private) was £384. No breakdown of this total is available by age, but an analysis of gross expenditure on health and personal social services in England in 1985–86 is published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm 288-II)—chart 14.4.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average expenditure per person in the United Kingdom in 1987 for health care provision in the public sector, and private sectors respectively.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986, the latest year for which information is available from the national accounts published by the Central Statistical Office, the average expenditure per person in the United Kingdom on health care was:

  £

  Public sector1

  361

  Private sector

  23

  1 Excludes expenditure on Local Authority personal social services.

  It is estimated that in 1987–88 United Kingdom gross expenditure on the National Health Service was equivalent to £380 per person. Later figures for private sector expenditure are not yet available.

  Tendering
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Waveney on 24 May, in respect of regional health authority competitive tendering, he will undertake a central initiative to make all solicitors', architects', quantity surveyors' and engineers' services subject to tender.

  Mrs. Currie
  Not at this time. I am satisfied with the pace at which health authorities are themselves opening up these services to competition.

  South West Thames RHA (Land)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on how much surplus land is owned by South West Thames regional health authority; how much has been disposed of during the last five years; and what disposal plans it has for the future.
  573
  Mrs. Currie
  The South West Thames regional health authority held 130 acres of land on 21 March 1987, comprising sites exceeding one acre which had been declared surplus. Disposals during the last five years were as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Total area (acres)

  Total receipts

  1983–84

  7

  2·4

  1984–85

  38

  10·5

  1985–86

  32

  9·1

  1986–87

  98

  30·2

  1987–88

  Not available

  25·4

  During the 1988–89 financial year the Regional Health Authority anticipates disposal of about 100 acres of land.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) of 19 May,Official Report, column 559, why no formal meetings have taken place since October 1987 with local authority associations on the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services Representation and Consultation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Since October 1987 much work has been done on the Act which has not required formal meetings. We are now, however, in touch with the associations to arrange a further meeting.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if those multiple sclerosis sufferers who are under pensionable age and who because of the varying effects of the condition work intermittently, thereby failing to meet the two-year period requirement, will be taken into account for disregard payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Where entitlement to income support is interrupted for longer than eight weeks because a member of a couple is in work, it will be necessary for them to receive benefit for a futher two years in order to qualify for the higher earnings disregard. However, multiple sclerosis sufferers will qualify sooner if they are entitled to the disability premium. Entitlement to the disability premium depends on whether the person satisfies the criteria for receiving it, as set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 of schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.

  Teenagers (Detention)
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the transitional social security payments protection becomes operative for teenagers who have been held in detention.

  Mr. Scott
  The new rules for people who lost significant sums in housing benefit and income support when the new schemes were introduced are set out in leaflets RR4 (housing benefit) and SB22 (income support). These leaflets explain how people may claim. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986
  Mr. Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the hon. Member for Westbury can expect replies from the Minister for Health to his letters of 22 January and 28 March about the need for speedy implementation of the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act.

  Mr. Newton
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 2 June.

  Rent Rebates
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of tenants, by tenure, who would cease to qualify for a rent rebate allowance, and the savings in expenditure that would be made, if the rent taper were increased to 70 per cent.

  Mr. Portillo
  We estimate that if the rent taper were increased from 65 to 70 per cent. there would be a public expenditure saving of some £50 million; 90,000 local authority tenants would lose their rent rebates and 20,000 private tenants their rent allowances.

  Disability Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what he anticipates will be the time scale for the review of disability benefits the Government expects to undertake following publication of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey reports; and what arrangements for consultations it will include

  Mr. Scott
  When all the relevant results of the surveys are available, we shall consider what conclusions can be drawn from them concerning benefits for disabled people. We have not yet decided what form that consideration will take, but will make an announcement in due course about consultation with interested organisations on the implications of the survey results.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there will be any exemptions other than for one registered disabled to one eight-week limit for the payment of the bridging allowance; and whether young people who are not incapable of work but unable through disability to find a suitable YTS place will be able to claim income support after September.

  Mr. Portillo
  Payment of bridging allowance will be limited to a maximum of eight weeks in any period of 12 months in all cases except where a young person is registered disabled.

  The Government have guaranteed a youth training scheme place to all young people under 18 who are capable of work, whether disabled or not. We cannot envisage a situation in which a young person would be too disabled to take up a YTS place and yet would be judged by the adjudicating authorities to be insufficiently disabled to be entitled to income support.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the first part of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey of disablement; what areas will be covered by this and the further reports; and what the timetable is for publication of the further report.

  Mr. Scott
  There are four surveys covering adults and children separately, with each group further separated
  575
  between private households and communal establishments. Fieldwork for the last—children in communal establishments—was completed earlier this year.

  We hope to publish the first report early in September. This will contain information about the overall prevalence of disability in adults and also report on the methods and concepts used in all the surveys, including the approach taken to the scaling of severity of disability. The second report, containing information about the financial circumstances of disabled adults, is likely to be published in November. Further reports will follow in 1988 and 1989 to cover disabled adults' use of services (including communal establishments), and to provide the same general range of information about children as about adults.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether 16 and 17-year-olds who satisfy any one of the conditions of regulation 13(2) of the Income Support (General) Regulations will ever be entitled to income support while in relevant education for longer than the child benefit extension period; and when regulations on these matters will be available.

  Mr. Scott
  Amending regulations will be laid before Parliament shortly to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds who satisfy the conditions of regulation 13(2) (a) to (e) or (h) will be entitled to income support at all times from September 1988.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the 40 per cent. voluntary unemployment deduction is applied to the income support of those(a) who are not required to be available for work on grounds of severe hardship and (b) who are appealing against a decision that they are not incapable of work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  One of the basic conditions of entitlement to income support is that a person must be available for work unless he or she comes within one of the groups of people who are exempt by regulations from that condition. If a person who is normally required to be available for work is not in fact available, but an adjudication officer is satisfied that refusal of income support would cause hardship to the claimant or his or her family, income support will be paid with a 40 per cent. reduction in the claimant's personal allowance.

  If a person who has been sick, and therefore exempt from the availability requirement, is considered by the regional medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security to be fit for work, and he or she declines to seek suitable work, or places unreasonable restrictions on his or her availability, the adjudication officer may disallow the claim. If the claimant appeals against the decision that he is fit for work, income support can continue to be paid pending the outcome of the appeal. A 40 per cent. reduction in the claimant's personal allowance will be made but there will be no requirement to show hardship in order to receive payment.

  In each case the reduction is modified to 20 per cent. if any member of the claimant's family is pregnant or seriously ill and there is less than £200 capital.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants lost their transitional 576
  addition because of the change in the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (SI 663) which specified that the disability or higher pension premiums were awarded only if the partner who receives invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance is the claimant, rather than, as previously, either partner; what was the reason for this change; and what advice was given or is being given to claimant couples in such circumstances.

  Mr. Scott
  No claimants lost their transitional addition as a result of this amendment to the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations. The amendment affects members of couples, one of whom has been in hospital longer than 52 weeks. In this situation income support no longer treats the couple as members of the same household and requires a separate claim from each partner. However, under the rules governing invalidity pension and severe disablement allowance, any dependency benefit is normally paid to the partner at home. Thus a fully fit person claiming in his or her own right could have qualified for the disability premium by virtue of another person's entitlement to a qualifying benefit.

  The change restored the original policy intention. As it was made before 11 April 1988 no claimant lost benefit, and no special advice was or is considered necessary.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether the Government intend to disregard savings or mobility allowance in applying the capital rule for income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris) on 17 May 1988 at columns 412–13.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people fail to satisfy the conditions of entitlement to income support because their mobility allowance savings take their capital over the limit allowed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have no knowledge that anyone has failed to satisfy the conditions of entitlement to income support because their savings of mobility allowance exceed £6,000.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether copies of local social fund guidance indicating local priorities will be made available to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the interests of good liaison we expect local office managers to make available, by such means as they judge best, copies of the local office priorities to interested agencies and individuals.

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners currently receive an enhancement of 25p per week on account of their being aged 80 years or more; and what is the additional administration cost of this arrangement.

  Mr. Scott
  Nearly 2 million pensioners were receiving the age addition in September 1987. The addition is added automatically by computer and the extra administrative costs of paying it are therefore small.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all those official engagements in the previous 12 months at which the subject of the illness myalgic encephalomyelitis has been raised.

  Mrs. Currie
  Representatives from the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association met my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 21 March and had earlier had a meeting with officials.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the British Medical Association on the illness myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has had from organisations seeking help for the sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has received representations from the ME Association and from the Tayside post viral fatigue syndrome support group.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis are at present being treated in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that these figures are not held centrally.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of the total cost to the National Health Service of psychiatric care; and what percentage of the health budget, is attributable to such care.

  Mr. Newton
  It is estimated that the cost of providing psychiatric care covering the treatment of in-patients, out-patients and day patients for mental illness and mental handicap patients was £1,555·5 million at 1985–86 prices, some 16 per cent. of total expenditure on hospital and community health services. Because of data limitations, this figure does not fully cover all community health service expenditure on this care group, neither does it cover expenditure on the family practitioner services.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give the approximate cost to the National Health Service for an in-patient in a mental hospital for(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) 12 months;

  (2) if he will give the approximate cost to the National Health Service for an out-patient in a mental hospital for treatment lasting (a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) two years.

  Mrs. Currie
  For information on the average treament costs per inpatient day and per outpatient attendance by type of hospital (including those categorised as "Mental Illness" or "Mental Handicap") for health regions and England as a whole I refer the hon. Member to the 578
  Department's annual publication "Health Service Costing Returns" (the latest being for 1986–87)—copies of which are held in the Library.

  Health Commissioner
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial support he will make available to enable families to meet the costs of bringing matters to the attention of the Health Commissioner.

  Mrs. Currie
  No costs need to be incurred by complainants in bringing matters to the attention of the Health Service Commissioner.

  Benefit Claimants (Banks)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the use by benefit claimants of banks as opposed to post offices; and what weight he gave to the likely impact of his policy on sub-post offices.

  Mr. Portillo
  Claimants in receipt of benefits paid by computer are offered the choice of payment either by direct credit to a bank account or by order book at a post office. Full consideration was given to the likely impact on the post office network but it is clear that many claimants find payment directly to a bank more convenient.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many families with children have incomes in excess of £30,000 in 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated number of families with children with gross incomes from all sources (including benefits) in excess of £30,000 per annum in 1988–89 is 370,000. This figure is based on projections from the 1985 family expenditure survey, supplemented by information from the survey of personal incomes.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for 1978–79 and 1988–89 the average income before and after tax of(a) families with children and (b) families and individuals without children.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimates for the financial year 1978–79 can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Only projections are available for 1988–89 which cannot be provided on a basis consistent with historic data. The latest year for which historic data are currently available is 1985; estimates for that year and the calendar year 1979 are as follows:

  £ per week

  Families with children

  Families and individuals without children

  Income Before Tax

  1979 (1979 prices)

  123

  75

  1985 (1985 prices)

  225

  138

  Income After Tax

  1979 (1979 prices)

  101

  62

  1985 (1985 prices)

  180

  112

  Notes:

  1. Income is the family's total income from all sources including benefits.
  579
  2. The figures used for tax include National Insurance Contributions.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1979 and 1985.

  Women Doctors
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report on the research project funded by his Department on women doctors' careers.

  Mr. Newton
  The report "Doctors and their Careers", by Isobel Allen, published today, is the outcome of a research project funded by the Department. We are grateful to Ms. Allen for her work. Women already account for more than 50 per cent. of the intake at several medical schools, and are forming an increasing proportion of the medical work force. It is essential that we make full use of their talents.

  We shall of course take account of Ms. Allen's findings in considering the wider report we expect later this year from the national steering group on equal opportunities for women in the National Health Service. Meanwhile, action is already under way, or is being set in hand, on a number of the issues identified by her report. In particular, the "Achieving a Balance" programme for reforming the hospital medical staffing structure addresses the problem of career blockages in the hospital service, and of ensuring better careers guidance and counselling at all stages of training.

  We have already reviewed, with representatives of the medical profession and the NHS, the system for part-time training of senior registrars, and a review for the registrar grade has started. We are also examining the doctors' retainer scheme which aims to help doctors with domestic commitments keep in touch with medicine. We recognise the demand for more part-time career posts and will discuss with representatives of the NHS and the medical profession the possibility of increasing these.

  I have today announced new measures to reduce the pressures on some junior hospital doctors arising from undesirably long contracted hours of duty.

  We will be bringing to the attention of the royal colleges and faculties, and consulting them about how to address, the report's findings of a perception among young doctors that assumptions about appropriate career patterns are too rigid, that patronage is too important in determining advancement, and that certain specialties are seen as unsuitable for women. We shall also discuss with the royal colleges and faculties, with post-graduate deans and with health authorities, ways of eliminating questioning by appointments boards which can be seen as discriminatory.

  To assist this process, we are arranging two seminars to promote consideration of Ms. Allen's report by representatives of the health authorities and the medical profession.

  Junior Hospital Staff
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to reduce the hours of work of junior hospital medical and dental staff.

  Mr. Newton
  I am today publishing a new scheme to reduce the hours of work of junior hospital doctors and dentists. Under the scheme, local professional working parties will be set up in every district to advise on the elimination, wherever possible, of regular rota commitments which require a junior to be on duty, on average,580
  more than one night and weekend in three. This initiative will be carried forward in conjunction with a systematic review to assess the number of medical staff required in each region to provide essential support for consultants in the acute specialties.

  Some progress has already been made as a result of action taken in 1982 to ban regular rota commitments for junior hospital medical staff more onerous than one night or weekend in every two, and to set one night or weekend in every three as the target maximum commitment. The number of rotas more onerous than one in three in England fell from 5,000 in 1982 to 3,500 in 1985, representing in the latter year less than 20 per cent. of junior posts. The average number of contracted hours of duty fell from 87·7 in 1982 to 85·7 in 1986. As reported by juniors themselves, average weekly hours of work (as distinct from hours of duty) fell from 58·3 in 1981 to 57 in 1985.

  There remains nevertheless a significant number of juniors whose commitments are undesirably heavy: a recent survey identified 1,463 juniors in England whose contracted hours of duty exceeded 104 per week, which is broadly equivalent to a one in two rota. We have therefore concluded that further measures are needed to reinforce the progress already made.

  We are establishing a scheme under which, in every district health authority, local professional working parties will be set up to advise on the elimination wherever possible of regular rota commitments which require a junior to be on duty more than one night or weekend in every three. This will be accompanied by a systematic assessment of the number of medical staff required in each region to provide essential support for consultants in the acute specialties, which is itself part of the "Achieving a Balance" programme for reforming the hospital medical staffing structure.

  Details of the scheme are set out in circular EL(88)P82, which is being sent to health authorities this week and of which a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Dental Charges (Forms)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average cost of processing the four-page form F1D, filled in by patients wishing to claim exemption from National Health Service dental charges; what was the average cost of processing the eight-page revised form F1D that replaced it; and what is now estimated to be the cost of processing the 17-page form AG1 that replaced the revised form F1D on 11 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: I regret that reliable estimates which would provide cost comparisons between the forms F1D, the revised F ID and the AG1 are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Form AG1 covers a variety of possible situations and the length of time it will take to process will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. However, as the AG1's new design replaces a number of previous separate claim forms which will now be processed in one central office rather than locally, I do not expect there to be higher processing costs.

  Weekly Spending Power
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for
  581
  Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) of 17 May, Official Report, columns 402–6, if he will provide figures for net weekly spending power on the same basis and for the same groups with weekly earnings of £190, £200, £210, £220, £230, £240, £250, £260, £270, £280, £290, £300, £350 and £400.

  New System from April 1988

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Single person aged 25 or over

  190·00

  34·98

  17·10

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  107·68

  200·00

  37·48

  18·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  114·28

  210·00

  39·98

  18·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  120·88

  220·00

  42·48

  19·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  127·48

  230·00

  44·98

  20·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  134·08

  240·00

  47·48

  21·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  140·68

  250·00

  49·98

  22·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  147·28

  260·00

  52·48

  23·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  153·88

  27000

  54·98

  24·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  160·48

  280·00

  57·48

  25·20

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  167·08

  290·00

  59·98

  26·10

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  173·68

  300·00

  62·48

  27·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  180·28

  350·00

  74·98

  27·45

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  217·33

  400·00

  87·48

  27·45

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  254·83

  Married couple

  190·00

  27·81

  17·10

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  114·85

  200·00

  30·31

  18·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  121·45

  210·00

  32·81

  18·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  128·05

  220·00

  35·31

  19·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  134·65

  230·00

  37·81

  20·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  141·25

  240·00

  40·31

  21·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  147·85

  250·00

  42·81

  22·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  154·45

  260·00

  45·31

  23·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  161·05

  270·00

  47·81

  24·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  167·65

  280·00

  50·31

  25·20

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  174·25

  290·00

  52·81

  26·10

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  180·85

  300·00

  55·31

  27·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  187·45

  350·00

  67·81

  27·45

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  224·50

  400·00

  80·31

  27·45

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  262·00

  Married couple with one child aged 11

  190·00

  27·81

  17·10

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  119·39

  200·00

  30·31

  18·00

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  125·99

  210·00

  32·81

  18·90

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  132·59

  220·00

  35·31

  19·80

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  139·19

  230·00

  37·81

  20·70

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  145·79

  240·00

  40·31

  21·60

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  152·39

  250·00

  42·81

  22·50

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  158·99

  260·00

  45·31

  23·40

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  165·59

  270·00

  47·81

  24·30

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  172·19

  280·00

  50·31

  25·20

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  178·79

  290·00

  52·81

  26·10

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  185·39

  300·00

  55·31

  27·00

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  191·99

  350·00

  67·81

  27·45

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  229·04

  400·00

  80·31

  27·45

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  266·54

  Married couple with two children aged 8 and 11

  190·00

  27·81

  17·10

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  124·82

  200·00

  30·31

  18·00

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  131·42

  210·00

  32·81

  18·90

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  138·02

  220·00

  35·31

  19·80

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  144·62

  230·00

  37·81

  20·70

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  151·22

  240·00

  40·31

  21·60

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  157·82

  250·00

  42·81

  22·50

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  164·42

  260·00

  45·31

  23·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  171·02

  270·00

  47·81

  24·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  177·62

  280·00

  50·31

  25·20

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  184·22

  290·00

  52·81

  26·10

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  190·82

  300·00

  55·31

  27·00

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  197·42

  350·00

  67·81

  27·45

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  234·47

  400·00

  80·31

  27·45

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  271·97

  582
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is provided in the tables. The assumptions are as set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 17 May at columns 402–6. Typically, however, families in these income ranges are unlikely actually to be paying average local authority rents and rates. Income tax is on a post-budget basis.
  583

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Married couple with three children aged 8, 11 and 15

  190·00

  27·81

  17·10

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  132·07

  200·00

  30·31

  18·00

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  138·67

  210·00

  32·81

  18·90

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  145·27

  220·00

  35·31

  19·80

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  151·87

  230·00

  37·81

  20·70

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  158·47

  240·00

  40·31

  21·60

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  165·07

  250·00

  42·81

  22·50

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  171·67

  260·00

  45·31

  23·40

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  178·27

  270·00

  47·81

  24·30

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  184·87

  280·00

  50·31

  25·20

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  191·47

  290·00

  52·81

  26·10

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  198·07

  300·00

  55·31

  27·00

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  204·67

  350·00

  67·81

  27·45

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  241·72

  400·00

  80·31

  27·45

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  279·22

  Married couple with four children aged 3,8, 11 and 15

  190·00

  27·81

  17·10

  1·45

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  140·77

  200·00

  30·31

  18·00

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  145·92

  210·00

  32·81

  18·90

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  152·52

  220·00

  35·31

  19·80

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  159·12

  230·00

  37·81

  20·70

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  165·72

  240·00

  40·31

  21·60

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  172·32

  250·00

  42·81

  22·50

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  178·92

  260·00

  45·31

  23·40

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  185·52

  270·00

  47·81

  24·30

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  192·12

  280·00

  50·31

  25·20

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  198·72

  290·00

  52·81

  26·10

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  205·32

  300·00

  55·31

  27·00

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  211·92

  350·00

  67·81

  27·45

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  248·97

  400·00

  80·31

  27·45

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  286·47

  584

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

British Companies: Foreign Control
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to ensure the British control of companies such as Rowntree in the face of bids from overseas companies.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, as I made clear on the day I announced my decision not to refer the merger situations involving Rowntree and Nestlé and Suchard to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I believe that open markets are the best means of encouraging efficiency and generating wealth and jobs. I have no plans to introduce measures to inhibit foreign enterprises from investing in the United Kingdom by whatever means.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Will he accept that our monopolies and mergers policy as it stands at present looks decidedly vulnerable, when on the one hand it prohibits two British companies that wish to merge and by such a merger to control, say, 25 per cent. of a given market—even if that merger is in order to meet the challenge of the single European market in 1992—yet on the other hand allows a foreign predator to take over a British company, thus enabling it to benefit from that very market?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, on this occasion I fear that I cannot agree with my noble friend. The simple fact is that the Fair Trading Act and the work of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are intended to secure competition in our land, and it is competition that is important. Later on this year or early next year I very much hope that the British Steel Corporation will be returned to its rightful place in the private sector. At that time it will have well over 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, but there will be no competition difficulties because there is fair and adequate competition from Europe. It depends on the individual sector in each case.
My noble friend also raised the matter of reciprocity. There is no power for the Swiss Government to block foreign takeovers, just as there is no power for our Government to block foreign takeovers as such. Both legal systems permit companies to make themselves proof from hostile bids. The Swiss regime may be more restrictive than ours but I believe that a heavy price is paid for that restriction.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in order to have a logical discussion about this matter, can the Minister give us a figure to indicate the number of British companies
1230
that have invested overseas and bought foreign companies and say roughly how much that investment is worth?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, at the end of 1986 overseas investment in the United Kingdom was some £4,300 for every man, woman and child in this country. In 1987 we spent some 30 billion dollars in the United States alone. We own more American companies than the Americans own British companies. There is only one country in the world that has more net overseas investment today and that is Japan. We should be very careful indeed before we, of all countries, restrict people in buying companies in the United Kingdom.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, would the Minister consider making some small amendment to the Financial Services Act so that in the event of a hostile bid—and I mean a hostile bid—the fund managers would have to refer to their board before selling their shares or accepting the bid? That would at least slow down to a certain extent unsatisfactory dawn raids and such activities. The same would apply to the fund managers of trusts, who would have to refer to their trustees. I also think that before decisions are taken consultations should take place with the directors of the company under attack.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Seebohm: Such consultations would not in any way interfere with the shareholders' rights to sell and it seems to me that it would give considerable satisfaction to people to know that there is at least some chance of the long view being taken rather than the short one.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The restrictions put on those who receive a bid would not necessarily be attractive to those who make a bid. It is a market and it has appeared to work satisfactorily for decades past. I suspect that it will continue to do so in the future. We must be very careful indeed before we listen to special pleading. It is important for companies to realise that they are vulnerable and that they must always consider the interests of their customers as well as their shareholders. If they do that, they have little to fear.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is open to any company so to arrange its affairs, in particular by means of a special resolution, as to alter its articles of association in order to protect itself from any hostile foreign bid?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is possible for companies to protect themselves from a hostile foreign bid unless the word "foreign" is defined as being outside the European Community. I suspect that otherwise it would be against Community law. However, the shareholders would have to agree to such a course. There are many companies in this country whose shareholders have been so advised and have agreed to make their companies secure against bids, but it is a matter for them and them alone.
Lord Somers: My Lords, can the Minister explain to a complete layman what advantages the private monopoly possesses over a nationalised one?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hardly have to make that case. I think that the sum of £40,000 million that the nationalised industries have lost since we first started that experiment speaks for itself.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Secretary of State have no view at all as to how and how far British controlled companies should remain under British control? Can he seriously say that he is happy that British industry should be put up for sale in the way that it is? Is there no point at which he will stop and say, "So 70 per cent. is owned by the Japanese and 80 per cent. owned by the Chinese and that is enough. Enough is enough"? If so, where is that point?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have had many good questions from the noble Lord in the past but I fear that this is not one of them. At the moment we are in the position of buying up companies around the world. I wonder at times what constitutes a British company. Today if one were to look at the shareholders of, say, Jaguar—which is as British as the Union Jack—one would find that there are many shareholders who live in the United States of America. If one looks at other companies one finds that the British own many of what are apparently foreign companies. What is important is the process of wealth creation. It is that process alone on which all our future depends.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. Does what he has said up to now apply to those few but very important industries which are extremely closely related to matters of defence?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. There are of course "golden shares" and special arrangements in companies such as Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and others where there is this particular dimension. Those cases speak for themselves. The arrangement is already agreed; it has been accepted by your Lordships' House at different times in the past.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that he welcomed the restructuring of companies in order to protect them from predators? I refer to companies with which he is familiar. Alternatively, does he not believe that this would be against the principle of widespread share ownership and responsibility which he has advocated?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. No, I did not welcome it. I merely reported as a matter of fact that companies can so structure their arrangements, with the agreement of the shareholders, as to render themselves immune from hostile bids, be they foreign or domestic. It is a matter for the shareholders to decide. I believe these days that, put to the vote, very
1232
few shareholders would wish to so organise their affairs because it does not help either the attractiveness of the company or its competitiveness in the future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the Stock Exchange frowns upon such arrangements and will not list companies which have A shares and B shares, non-voting shares—for instance, the National Freight Consortium is trying to get a listing—and employees' shares that carry more votes? Will the noble Lord respond to the noble Lord, Lord Morris? Will he say whether he would encourage in this country laws or practices such as those in the state of Delaware where, as the noble Lord knows, there is an open market with all kinds of matters such as poison pills and scorpion stings if shareholders want them? Will he encourage this practice?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I live opposite Regent's Park Zoo. I should hate to be part of it, and therefore would not welcome the menagerie of devices the noble Lord suggests. It is a matter very much for shareholders of companies. I suspect that the majority of shareholders accept that by adopting these devices they would make companies less competitive and less worthwhile. If one looks at the case of Nestlé, which has two classes of shares, those shares which carry a vote and which are restrictive are, I believe, one half of the price of those which have no restriction and are bearer shares.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord made an extremely serious statement when he said in reply to my noble friend that there is no limit to the number of British companies that can pass under foreign control. Will he confirm that that is what he said? While investment abroad is an excellent thing can he go further and say how many foreign companies are under British control?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have already said that at the end of 1986 the average holding of overseas investments was some £4,300 for every man, woman and child. As the holders of the second largest mountain, in value, of overseas investment, it ill behoves us to be restrictive of foreign investment. If the noble Lord would like a list of those companies I shall see whether I can provide such a list. It is another matter, but I shall happily write to the noble Lord. However, we have to be very careful indeed before we, of all nations, put up the shutters.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that with the dramatic development of perestroika in eastern Europe there may be some very interesting opportunities for overseas investment by Western companies? Will he advise British companies to keep their eye on the situation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is a very different matter. I am quite sure that companies looking at developments not only in the Soviet Union but in many parts of the world will find where there are good opportunities. I am sure that they will do so with a very clear and critical eye.

Spring Bank Holiday: Timing
2.48 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will restore the late May Bank Holiday to its old relationship with Whit Sunday.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government have no plans to do so. The change from the Whitsun Bank Holiday to a fixed Spring Bank Holiday was made in the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 following a trial period between 1967 and 1971 and after widespread consultation.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is wholly regrettable to separate national holidays from the religious events which originally gave rise to them? Is it not the case in this instance that Whitsun—one of the greatest feasts of the Church—has virtually vanished from the public consciousness? Since this is a government who wish to promote morality, would it not assist if they gave public recognition to the religion on which that morality is based?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the logic of the very last part of my noble friend's question. However, I am told that the Churches were fully consulted—this took place over 20 years ago—about the move from Whit Monday to a Spring Bank Holiday and accepted the change at that time. It was following widespread consultation, I believe, that there was agreement that this change should be made.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, with regard to the European aspect rather than the religious aspect, would it not make more sense if we tried to re-allocate our hank holidays to coincide with those of our friends in Europe? I refer to Whit Monday and May Day. When their stock exchanges and businesses are running, we are closed, and vice versa. In 1991 would it not make more sense if we were to co-ordinate these matters?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure, but I believe that in Italy there are 17 public holidays and I have no doubt that that idea would receive considerable approbation from many in your Lordships House, but not necessarily from industry. It is essential that in some ways we always work at the same time, but there are different habits in different countries. I agree with the noble Lord that it is rather unfortunate that in the period between Easter, which is movable, and the spring bank holiday, which we have just had—some seven weeks or less—there could be four holidays, but nothing from then until Christmas, apart from the August bank holiday. I suspect that it will have to be done by consultation which is continuing at present.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that because the original meaning of the word "holiday" is "holy day" there may be a case for re-opening the discussion with the Churches, whatever may have taken place 20 years ago?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that consultations are going on about the spring bank holiday. No doubt they could be widened to introduce this matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that his proposal concerning Whitsun would make a great deal of sense if the Government proceed—as I understand they are considering proceeding—to do away with the bank holiday at the beginning of May and to transfer it to October? One would then have Easter and Whitsun, both feasts of the Church and both with a fairly constant margin between them.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are consultations going on about the holiday at the beginning of May. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who is concerned with this matter, will pay attention to what is said in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that for families heading for the Continent over the May hank holiday period there is a positive advantage in the fact that English public holidays do not always coincide with Continental public holidays?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are the tourism and holiday and working aspects and somehow we must come to a balance between them.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister give us an assurance that the traditional May Day or Labour Day in this country—which is traditional not only in celebration of organised labour but also in our folk culture—will not be moved without adequate consultation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure how long that has been a tradition in this country. Indeed there are some who sit behind me who may not consider that it is necessary to continue that tradition. It is a matter which is included in the consultations and I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will produce a report in due course.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister said that the present arrangements followed discussions with Church leaders. May I ask the Minister what Church leaders? I do not think that the Roman Catholic Church was asked and that is the biggest.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it was some 21 years ago. My information is that the Churches were fully consulted. I have no reason to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was not consulted. However, I shall check and I shall write to the noble Lord and put a copy of the letter in the Library should I be wrong.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in view of the Premiership under which the change was made, the Whitsuntide bank holiday is now commonly known as Wilsontide?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is there not a case, especially for this Government, also to take special account in their considerations of the Day of Atonement?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am qualified or unqualified to answer that.

Interest Rates
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to ensure a reduction in interest rates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, bank base rates are 8½ per cent. While the Government never speculate on the future course of interest rates, they will continue to be set at the levels necessary to bear down on inflation.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was most encouraged to find that the Bank of England reduced interest rates on the day after I put down this Question? I was rather less encouraged when, a week or so later, it put them all up again. Is the noble Lord aware that if both interest rates and exchange rates stay for too long at recent levels there is a real risk of unemployment beginning to rise again before the end of the year?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, but I suspect that there was no connection between him putting down his Question and the fall in interest rates which took place at that time. As I said in my original Answer, we are committed to maintaining a firm monetary policy and a downward pull on inflation. That, as far as unemployment is concerned, is the most important aspect.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government's policy is that of the Prime Minister—a policy of no intervention so far as concerns the value of sterling—or is it that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to regulate the value of sterling, or that of the Foreign Secretary who wants to join the European Monetary System?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can do no better than to quote from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 17th May. She said:
"My right hon. Friend [the Chancellor] and I entirely agree that we must maintain a firm monetary policy and a downward pull on inflation. I totally agree with my right hon. Friend's Budget speech, every bit of it … We use the available levers, both interest rates and intervention, as seems right in the circumstances … it would be a great mistake for any speculator to think at any time that sterling was a one-way bet".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/1988; col. 794.]
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, so far as—
Noble Lords: Jenkins!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, have the Government recently considered joining the EMS as
1236
a recipe in most circumstances for having lower interest rates? Do the Government seriously consider that we can achieve 1992 and have Britain playing a significant role in the single market while standing out both from the free movement of individuals across frontiers—as is now the Government's position as emerged this week—and standing out from the EMS and the possible creation of a European Central Bank?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, I can do no better than to repeat an answer that I have given in your Lordships' House on many occasions; namely, we will join when the Government consider that the time is right.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, countries within the ERM are not protected from realignments and sometimes suffer some quite painful readjustments. As regards the proposals for a Central Bank of Europe, most of those who have put forward these proposals have recognised that they are very much in the long term. The immediate priority must be given to achieve liberalisation of capital movements throughout the Community.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Now the great moment has arrived!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that the money crossing the exchanges every day is roughly 20 times the amount required to finance ordinary trading transactions and that therefore the in-flow of money, mainly hot money, has a profound influence on rates, will the noble Lord take early steps to reduce the interest rate by at least 2 per cent? Is he aware of the contents of page 11 of the DTI press notice which reveals that of our imports into the United Kingdom only 6 per cent. are in respect of raw materials and 15 times as much is in respect of manufactured goods into the United Kingdom, which are being subsidised to the detriment of the products of British industry? Will the noble Lord please take steps to advise his colleagues in the Treasury to adopt in future a more logical and reasonable interest policy?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if, as I suspect, the noble Lord is arguing for a sharply lower sterling exchange rate, I am certainly not prepared to advise or even to mention it to my right honourable friends in the Treasury. It would surely lead to a vast increase in inflation, which is the most damaging thing that could happen.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble Lord will not accord me the normal courtesy of referring the matter to his Ministry, is he aware that I shall take other steps to ensure that his right honourable friend is fully informed and also the public at large?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am obviously fearful of what the noble Lord might do and therefore I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real moral of this, both here and in another place, that while these are serious matters of debate they are not suitable for supplementary questions and answers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a very good point. I do not flatter myself that the markets would take a great deal of notice of what I say in this House this afternoon but it certainly does no good to speculate about such matters.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, as regards joining the EMS, does the noble Lord agree with the right honourable Sir Geoffrey Howe when he stated that the Government cannot carry on indefinitely giving the reply which the noble Lord has just given to the House?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is the only reply that I have.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for asking a supplementary question, but can he explain to the House how raising a price—namely, the rate of interest—lowers the rate of inflation? Surely raising a price is inflationary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord. I was replying to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who suggested that we should lower interest rates. That would result in a fall in the exchange rate which would be inflationary.

Takeovers: EC Legislation
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether existing legislation adequately protects the national interest in takeovers conducted by companies in member states which afford no similar rights of takeover and whether, pending consultation in the Council of Ministers, consideration will be given to the introduction of interim safeguards.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government believe that the existing legislation adequately protects the national interest in the kind of situation that the noble Lord has in mind and have no plans for change in this respect.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that there is no true reciprocity of treatment as regards the disposal of major shareholdings on takeovers as between our financial institutions and those of certain other member states? Does he agree that the proposed merger and takeover regulations, to be discussed at the Council of Ministers on 22nd June, are a crucial and urgent consequence affording some form of Community solution? Secondly, if, as the noble Lord said on a previous occasion, reciprocity is to be the test by which we refuse or allow a takeover bid, is there any statutory provision to give effect to
1238
that test? If not, should he not introduce some protective measures pending a European solution?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, authority already exists for the Commission under Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome to look at mergers which cross national boundaries and which have competition implications. It is a power to look backwards; to look after the event.
Proposals emanating from Commissioner Sutherland are before the Council of Ministers at the present time to see whether we can agree upon a European merger control. That has many implications. The proposals are in the early stages of discussion and, to my knowledge, all member countries are paying serious attention. We must consider them to discover whether they affect the operation of Articles 85 and 86 and whether they will be necessary in future as regards mergers. That is a matter which we must look at in the future.
Financial institutions are covered in different ways. However, my powers to look at reciprocity are those which are open to me under the Fair Trading Act for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to assess public interest. I can look at the matter under those powers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as regards the discussions which my noble friend has said are taking place, have industry and commerce been consulted in those discussions? Those who are having to run the show find it difficult enough when one government put their oar in. If 12 of them do so we may well be interfering with the whole of the business community in the European Community.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, discussions are not easy because one of the difficulties in this area is to determine the precise boundary between national competition implications and European competition implications in order to discover when a European or a national monopolies authority would have authority. When one looks at the many mergers which take place over two or three countries the whole area becomes very complicated. The matter will be thought out and consultations are taking place. I cannot see that there will be a quick and speedy decision on the matter because of the difficulties which arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's Answer to an earlier Question when he advocated an open market, does he not agree at least that open markets require "level playing fields", to use the old expression? Secondly, does he not agree that the real reciprocity between us and other members of the Community—by which I mean the behaviour of financial institution investors—does not exist?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in the past governments have found it exceedingly difficult to legislate for the behaviour of individuals or institutions. We must ensure, as far as we can, that there are level playing fields. However, it is admitted that the existing systems in many of the countries of the community are different in nature. In many cases they owe their origin to the Code Napoleon and not to English common law. They have very different

1239
grounds and I suspect that there will be a long process during which we shall gradually bring the differing situations closer together.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook will, with the leave of the House, repeat a statement that is to be made in another place on Girobank PLC.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stages of the Access to Medical Reports Bill and the Malicious Communications Bill will be taken.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Joint and several liability: spouses]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 11, line 13, leave out from ("year,") to ("is") in line 17 and insert—
("(b) the liability arises under section 12 above (read with section 13 above, where it is appropriate) or section 14 above, and
(c) on any day in the chargeable period the chargeable person").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 73 gives effect to a commitment made by the Government in another place concerning the scope of joint and several liability for husbands and wives. As Clause 16 stands, joint and several liability applies to personal, standard and collective community charges. We have accepted that it would not be appropriate for joint and several liability to extend to the collective community charge.
This amendment which, as I have said, was promised in another place will therefore limit joint and several liability to personal and standard community charges. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: As the Minister has said, the amendment implements an assurance made at an earlier stage to take collective community charge
1240
contributions out of the remit of joint and several liabilities. It means that a previously married or co-habiting couple would have been jointly liable for their contributions if they were temporarily resident in a short-stay hostel, perhaps for only a few days.
As I understand it, the amendment is merely a tidying up process because the idea that anyone would pursue a spouse of a homeless person to obtain a comparatively small amount—perhaps only a few pounds—is difficult to understand. I believe that the amendment is helpful to the extent that it improves the Bill by making it more practical. However, the Minister will agree that it will affect virtually no one in the real world.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baroness has given to my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 11, line 26, after ("shall") insert ("subject to subsection (9) below").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 75. The Bill provides that married and cohabiting couples shall have joint and several liability for the payment of their combined community charges. If one spouse defaults and disappears, the other spouse may have to pay the community charge arrears of the defaulting spouse.
I have an example which will indicate how this could bear very hard indeed on the remaining spouse where that spouse has little or no income. More often than not it will be the woman who is in that position as 50 per cent. of married women have no independent income. That applies particularly to women caring for young children or a sick or aged relative. Despite having no or very little independent income, the majority of women living as part of a couple would not qualify for a community charge rebate unless the partner was unemployed or on a very low wage. That is because the benefits system is based on a joint assessment of a couple's income.
My example is this. Mrs. F, a mother of two, works as a dinner lady during the school term earning £20 a week for 10 hours' work. Her husband works full time in a garage earning £180 gross per week. If benefits were individually assessed, Mrs. F would qualify for an 80 per cent. rebate of the community charge. However, the benefit calculation is based on a couple's combined income. In Mr. and Mrs. F's case, their joint earnings are marginally above the qualifying level of family credit and housing benefit. Both are liable to pay the community charge in full. Since her own income is so low, Mrs. F will have to rely on Mr. F to pay both their charges. However, if he has allowed arrears to accumulate and subsequently deserts his wife and children, disappearing without trace, Mrs. F would be liable to pay both their arrears despite the fact that her own income during that period was only £20 per week during the school term.
It would not be inconceivable for Mr. F to fail deliberately to pay the community charge when it became clear that his marriage would end, in the knowledge that his wife would be held liable. I should make it clear that on these Benches we oppose the joint and several liability principle completely,

1241
believing in individual assessment for husband and wife in both benefit and tax systems. The principle of joint and several liability is objectionable as between man and wife and is additionally objectionable as between a cohabiting couple where prying into the privacy of the individuals concerned might be necessary to determine whether they are cohabiting.
However, the amendment does not seek to remove the principle but merely to remove the harm which its application does in the case of the poorest. Amendment No. 74 ensures that the application of the principle of joint and several liability shall be modified by reference to a new subsection (9) set out in Amendment No. 75. That new subsection would relieve the spouse of liability to pay the community charge in respect of arrears incurred by both partners during the marriage—and cohabiting counts as marriage for the purposes of this clause—if he or she is no longer married to the spouse in question. The chargeable amount is in respect of the period during which they were married to each other and the remaining spouse was in receipt of community charge benefit during the period, or would have been but for circumstances such as I outlined in the example I gave. In other words, as Mrs. F was no longer married to Mr. F in the terms of subsection (7), as she would have received benefit during the chargeable period but for M r. F's income, modest though it was, she would not have to pay the arrears for herself or her husband.
Amendment No. 75 also covers cases where the former couple were in receipt of benefit, and although they would only have to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge in those circumstances, a deserted wife whose husband disappears or simply refuses to pay could be held liable for both their arrears. Consequently a single parent may be faced with deductions from benefits to cover arrears accumulating at 40 per cent. of the community charge in addition to having to pay the ongoing 20 per cent. which she is due to pay. She may well be repaying a debt to the social fund for some article of household equipment which was necessary and she may also be paying bills to the electricity authority for fuel. The amendment would relieve her of liability to pay the community charge arrears.
These two amendments prevent a heavy burden being placed on remaining spouses—perhaps I should say remaining former spouses—who are deserted, perhaps with little or no income other than income support and with a liability for arrears of community charge incurred by the deserter. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this amendment and the effect on the single parents whom these amendments are designed to help. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to speak primarily to Amendment No. 74A, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 but which addresses a slightly different situation. As the noble Lord said, Clause 16 provides for couples to be jointly and severally liable for each other's community charge. One objection is that it makes nonsense of the Government's much-repeated insistence on the value of individual liberty as essential to individual accountability. Another
1242
objection is that, in principle, it is utterly wrong to legislate for women to be dependent on men, or for that matter vice versa. Apart from anything else, it goes against the general trend in social policy and taxation towards financial independence between spouses.
The justification for these amendments does not lie purely in these arguments of principle. This amendment addresses quite precise and severe practical problems which will face often the most vulnerable people as a consequence of joint and several liability. Amendment No. 75, as the noble Lord explained, deals with a situation faced by an abandoned partner with possible very large arrears of bills for the period immediately before the relationship breaks down.
My Amendment No. 74A is a complementary amendment designed to protect the non-earning partner while a relationship still exists. Both problems have a common cause; namely, that rebates are to be calculated on the joint earnings of the couple. Therefore, a non-earning partner can be liable to pay 100 per cent. of the community charge because of the earnings or the savings of the other partner. Joint and several liability adds insult to injury by making the non-earning partner, who is usually the woman, also liable for her earning spouse's 100 per cent. community charge. Of course, joint and several liability works both ways, so that by the same token the earner is liable for his own and his partner's community charge bills. The problems arise where the earning partner is for some reason less accessible to the local authority than the non-earning partner.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, relates to where the local authority cannot get at the earnings partner because he, or possibly in some cases she, has disappeared following the breakdown of the relationship. The noble Lord gave a very clear example of the single parent who remains behind.
Amendment No. 74A requires that local authorities should have regard to the resources available to each spouse when collecting the community charge while the marriage or relationship is continuing. It applies to current bills but, more importantly, also to arrears. I believe that the Government recognise that there is a problem. Indeed, they have promised to issue a code of guidance to local authorities to encourage them to pursue an earning husband rather than a non-earning wife.
However, it must be recognised that local authorities will have a strong interest in collecting the charge as quickly and as cheaply as possible. That consideration is likely to override the weak counter-argument provided by a mere code of guidance. Amendment No. 74A would at least back up and reinforce such a code by putting the requirement—namely, a bias in favour of pursuing the earner—on the face of the Bill.
None of the amendments strikes at the heart of the clause, let alone at the heart of the Bill. They are designed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society—those on benefit and single parents. I believe that the Government could easily accept these amendments without damaging the community charge as a whole. We urge them to do so.
Lord Monson: While I believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, are a great improvement on the existing wording, and I would certainly support him if he were to take us through the Division Lobbies, this might be an opportune moment to discuss the whole principle of Clause 16.
It is an extremely odd clause. In the first place, it gives the lie to the claim made by the supporters of the Bill that the community charge is people-related rather than property-related, because unless the people concerned are living together in a specific property the legal liabilities imposed by Clause 16 will not apply. That is reinforced by the fact that the standard community charge specifically relates to property and not to people, as Clause 36(1) on page 21 makes clear.
Secondly, the clause flies right in the face of the principles laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his notable 1988 Budget; namely, that husbands and wives should henceforth (at least as soon as administratively feasible) be separately liable for their own tax. Ironically this radical change is scheduled to come into effect at about the same time as the community charge comes into effect. I am glad that both the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, drew attention to that total inconsistency.
Before we decide whether Clause 16 should stand part of the Bill, can the Minister kindly explain why the Government propose to take away with one hand from men and women what they are giving them with the other?
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble friend replies I should like to ask him one question. I give an example of a home in which live a grandfather who is a widower and his grand-daughter who is widowed, with two very nice young children. From the wording of subsection (7) they are in a way living as man and wife but obviously legally they could never marry. I quote subsection (7):
"For the purposes of this section people are married to each other if they are a man and a woman"—
and in this case they are a man and a woman—
"who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife".
Why make the difference between, say, a brother and sister living together and a man and wife living together? I believe that is worth bearing in mind.
Baroness Lockwood: I support this group of amendments. As Members of the Committee have already said, and as I indicated on Second Reading, this clause sits ill in the present Bill, which is intended to impose an individual charge and not a collective family charge. Yet in this clause we have collective and several liability, which places a spouse in a position of responsibility for any debts imposed by the other spouse.
At an earlier sitting of the Committee I moved an amendment to alleviate the position of those women who are seeking temporary accommodation in women's refuges. This clause is again something that such women are concerned about. They feel that when domestic and family relationships have reached the position where the woman needs to seek refuge from her husband away from the matrimonial home, there is always a strong possibility that the husband
1244
will not only refuse to accept responsibility for his wife's debts during the period in which they were living together but he might also default on his own debts and in that case the wife would be responsible.
We were seeking relief for the wife herself, which the Minister was unable fully to concede at the time my amendment was debated. In this case we are concerned with a clause that imposes a liability on the wife not only for her own debts but also for the debts of her husband, if they are incurred. I should like the Minister to take that position into consideration in his response to the amendments.
Lord Hylton: As I go through this Bill it becomes ever more clear that the costs of collection will be much higher than is at present the case with rates. Moreover, it also becomes clear that the Bill as drafted will cause a serious degree of hardship in special cases. In my view it will impose new stresses and strains on family relationships. On all those grounds I support the amendments and ask the Government to think again.
Lady Kinloss: The women's committee of a city council has written to me expressing considerable concern about the joint and several liability payment of the tax. As many women are financially dependent on their partners, should a man leave his partner without having paid, would the joint debt remain with the woman? If a woman leaves her partner because of violence, joint liability allows partners to see each other's entry in the register, therefore enabling her partner to trace her whereabouts and putting her in danger of more violence. I ask the Government to reconsider the position.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: In his Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has identified a problem that would exist with Clause 16 if local authorities were to use the joint and several liability powers in the way that he described. I believe that his fears are misplaced and I hope I will be able to explain to the Committee exactly why.
The noble Lord is rightly concerned about individuals who have no incomes of their own and who are financially reliant on their spouses. Most of them will be non-working wives. However, I have to tell the noble Lord that joint and several liability is not intended to be a burden to such people. Indeed, it is specifically designed to relieve them of a burden; to ensure that the liability passes to their spouse. Without joint and several liability a married woman with no income would indeed have cause for concern.
In the situation described by the noble Lord, in the period during which the couple are living together there would be no reason for the local authority to exercise joint and several liability against the partner with no income. If her husband did not pay the community charge the local authority would pursue him. The local authority would be right to do so because it would know that, in the circumstances the noble Lord described, the husband would have an income out of which to pay.
The noble Lord then asked what happens if the couple separate. Of course in the circumstance he describes not only would the couple have to separate but the husband would have to leave owing

1245
community charge for the period during which the couple lived together. I have already explained that when the couple were living together the local authority would not pursue the non-earning wife for her husband's community charge. However, there will be circumstances where a husband leaves his wife with part of his community charge unpaid. The local authority will then need to trace the husband, who will of course in any case be strictly required to notify the registration officer of his new address and ensure that he pays the debt that he incurred. Indeed, to protect the wife it may well also need to ensure that, if he left before paying her community charge, he should be enforced against for that debt too.
The noble Lord has raised a legitimate worry. I understand that in the circumstances he describes a wife might feel that she had an obligation to pay the outstanding community charge not paid by her husband. But there is no reason for her to think that any more than she would expect to pay his community charge if she had no income and the couple were living together.
I further reassure the noble Lord by saying that I believe that local authorities can be trusted to use sensibly the enforcement powers that this Bill gives them. Furthermore, in advising local authorities on the use of their powers, it is the Government's intention to recommend authorities to bear in mind the kinds of circumstances described during this debate and to devote their energies to tracking down the husband rather than pursuing the deserted wife.
I turn now to Amendment No. 74A moved by the noble Baroness. As she explained her amendment I became convinced that it was based upon a misapprehension of the way in which we see the joint and several liability provisions operating. I must emphasise that the personal community charge will be first and foremost an individual liability. Every individual will receive a bill and if they have resources of their own they can be expected to pay that bill. For example, if both partners in a couple are in employment, there is no reason why if one partner fails to pay his or her community charge the other partner needs to be involved at all.
With a married or an unmarried couple, if only one partner has an income, he or she will be providing for the needs of the other partner. That provision will need to extend to the community charge as it will to other bills and expenses. It may be that the partner with the income will simply pay both hills or they may choose to pay over money to enable the non-earning partner to pay their own bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, raised a point about the operation of the charge while the couple were living together. This clause is not about those arrangements for payments which are reached by each married or unmarried couple. How it is arranged is up to the couple and it is of no concern to the local authority. What the clause is about is what happens if one bill is not paid. As I have said, where the person who has not paid the bill has resources, any enforcement action can be taken against him or her direct. It is only where they are reliant financially on the spouse that joint and several liability will be needed.
Perhaps I may now turn to answer some of the points raised and in particular that of the noble Lord,
1246
Lord Monson, when he spoke about income tax treatment. In the Budget of 1988 my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that from the tax year 1990–91 all married couples will be separately assessed for the purposes of income tax. However, this makes absolutely no difference to the case for joint and several liability, which is designed to deal with couples where one partner has no income but not those where both have incomes that could be taxed and out of which community charges could be paid.
My noble friend Lord Balfour raised the point of a grandfather and grand-daughter living together or a brother and sister. They will be eligible for rebates and income support separately and in their own right. That is the reason why there is no need for joint and several liability in these instances. I repeat to the Committee that joint and several liability is designed to deal with the case where one partner of a couple has no income. That cannot happen with the example that my noble friend gave.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, raised the important point that we discussed at an earlier stage. I said to her at that stage that while the wife is perhaps in a hostel for wives who are suffering from violence, she will be there in all probability on a short-term basis and will not need to move her sole or main residence. Though she might not be living at home, she might be assessed at home. However, if her husband has been responsible for the community charge until that period of separation—they might go back together or she might go to live somewhere else with the family or be given a council house—the local authority will pursue her husband.
I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was not with us last night when the Committee discussed in some detail the extra cost incurred by the introduction of the community charge. We all agreed then that it was going to be more expensive than rates, but we agreed that the rates were highly discredited and that it was a system which we wished to move away from.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl must speak for himself. He made that point and it was not discussed by other Members of the Committee. As he correctly said, what we all agreed upon was that the community charge system is going to be enormously more expensive to operate than the rating system.
The Earl of Caithness: I am surprised that the noble Lord did not take me up on the point yesterday. Perhaps he is moving back towards the rating system as a preferred system in view of his recent comments.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that if he prefers local income tax, that would be considerably more costly to collect than the community charge. He says that in his opinion certain groups will be badly affected by the community charge, but I can assure him that there are an awful lot of groups that are very badly affected by the present rating system.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Perhaps I may ask the Minister before he sits down about the assertion which he makes repeatedly that local income tax would be much more expensive to collect than the community charge. On what basis has he made these costings? Are the costings made up to date following the computerisation of the Inland Revenue?
The Earl of Caithness: The basis upon which I make that statement is that the local income tax system that the noble Lord wants would be far more intrusive because the registration officer would need considerably more information than he would to collect the community charge. When the incomes of certain people, particularly the self-employed, are not known until some time after the end of the financial year, the maintaining of such a register will add considerable extra cost to the collection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the Minister is dragging the Committee away from the impact and the purport of these amendments. He is getting himself into difficulty by forcing other people to defend alternative ways of collecting finance for local government. He is trying to put words into my mouth which I do not find acceptable. He is getting himself into an unnecessary dispute with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I suggest it would be better if we return to the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I was trying to answer the questions that I was asked.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I was very interested when the Minister told us about all the happily married husbands and wives. It was a strange thing for him to describe that perhaps at the end of each month the husband will say to the wife, "There you are, darling, here is your community charge. You can go off now and pay it". One can hardly imagine that happening. However, he continued by saying that most likely the husband would pay both of the charges. Therefore, we come to the whole basis of the Bill, which is the question of accountability.
We understand that there are approximately 11 million women who are non-earners. In other words, the husband is the mainstay of the family. The wives are non-earners and therefore they will be non-payers. Accountability for those 11 million voters will not be because of any money that they are spending to defend services, because they are not paying out any money. Can the Minister say how accountability is brought into operation for those 11 million non-paying, happily married wives?
Baroness Lockwood: Can the Minister also explain why he feels so confident in saying that this clause is an attempt to help those non-earning spouses? He has indicated that the intention of the clause is to put the responsibility to pay on the earning spouse, but the clause does not say that. A great many women in this country are concerned that they will be responsible not only for their own community charge but for their husband's as well.
The Earl of Caithness: In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, there are many husbands who give their wives a housekeeping allowance to pay some of the bills and might give a further allowance out of their income to meet the wives' community charge. The accountability about which the noble Baroness was concerned comes with the fact that for the first time the wives will be receiving a charge bill on a regular basis.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: She will be receiving a bill but she will not be paying it.
The Earl of Caithness: Receiving the bill is very much the key to the argument. As the noble Baroness will doubtless be aware, the recent opinion poll for the Audit Commission showed that people who receive rates bills are three times more likely to know whether rates have gone up or down than people such as spouses who do not receive bills. When we transfer that from rates into charges, there will be the accountability which the noble Baroness, I am glad to say, is so keen to support.
I can try to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. The point of Clause 16 is to help the non-earning spouse. That is where the safeguard is and where the position would be far worse if that clause was not in the Bill. Without the guidance that we shall be able to give local authorities on this matter and without the procedure that we can lay down for them, they would perhaps go for the non-earning spouse rather than the earning spouse.
Lord Jay: It seems to some of us at any rate that the more we hear about this tax the more extraordinary it appears. I should like to ask the Minister to elucidate one point further. He has explained that the liability to pay in this case will not fall on the non-earning partner of any couple—that is to say, it will not fall on somebody who has no income. How exactly will the local authority know whether all these individuals, whether or not wives, have an income? With the rating system up to now, all the local authority needed to know was the value of the property. It did not have to inquire into everybody's income. We are now apparently being told that the local authority will have to know the incomes of, at any rate, a very large number of people resident in its area. Is it to get these from the Inland Revenue, or is it to have some rival system of assessing people's incomes which may not be the same as that of the Inland Revenue? I am sure that there is an answer to this and some of us would like to know what it is.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps it would be right for me to go into more detail on the point which I believe the noble Lord. Lord Monson, intends to raise about clause stand part. With the Committee's agreement, perhaps I may deal more fully with the whole of Clause 16.
We have demonstrated already in the discussions on the Bill that the Government are concerned to have a system which works. We want registration officers to have access to the information that they will reasonably need to compile their registers. We have devised the collective community charge to cater for circumstances where people stay at one address for too short a period for individual registration to be practical. That was the kind of case which I have just discussed with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. We are, as we shall discuss further on Schedule 2, concerned that billing and paying of the community charge should run smoothly and easily for local authorities and individuals alike.
Clause 16 is a provision without which local authorities simply would not, in certain circumstances, be able to collect the money that will be owed to them. If joint and several liability were not available, then it would become widely known that, where one partner in a couple had no earnings from employment, was not receiving social security benefits direct, and had few personal possessions in

1249
his or her own name, he or she would be virtually immune from having to pay the personal community charge and there would be a virtual tax haven so far as the standard charge was concerned. The very fact that joint and several liability is available will make it much less likely that people will try to evade payment in this way. The local authority concerned will be able to point out that such attempts will be fruitless.
It may be worth explaining in some detail how joint and several liability will work in practice, to disprove the claim that joint and several liability somehow undermines the Government's claims to extend accountability as concerns married and unmarried couples, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. Separate community charge bills will be sent to everyone. If there are two adults in a household, they will each receive a bill. There is no question of combining the two liabilities, nor even of sending both hills to one partner. To Members of the Committee who suggest that such a process is inappropriate, I would make two points. The first is the importance of ensuring that each individual sees a bill of his own—especially when the community charge bills will show clearly the level of spending of local councils in the area. The second is the fact that 60 per cent. of married women now have some earnings of their own. That figure has risen steadily in recent years, and continues to increase. Other married women may have investment income of their own; and, as occupational pensions become more widespread, the number of women with pensions in their own right is also growing. So many married women will be able to pay their own bills.
Of course, some married and unmarried couples may want to pay both community charge bills together. There will be nothing to stop them from doing that, just as there is nothing to stop someone paying another person's credit card bill. But, in the first place, each individual will be liable if his community charge bill is not paid. It is to the individual that the reminder will be sent, and the individual who will be invited to discuss with the local authority any problems he has in paying it.
So what are the circumstances in which joint and several liability may come into play? I now come to answer in detail the noble Lord, Lord Jay. They concern couples where only one partner has an income and for some reason is unwilling to let the other partner have money to pay the community charge bill. Some of these may be couples wholly reliant on state benefits, which are normally paid only to one partner. But those benefits will include an amount towards both partners' 20 per cent. community charges; and the benefits can be paid to the woman rather than the man. Other couples with only one income will include households where the person who is earning is very well off indeed. In all these households, joint and several liability is a fallback for those few cases where the person with the income is unwilling, for some reason, either to give the other partner money to pay the community charge—just as money is to be provided for other purposes—and unwilling also to pay both bills direct.
Regulations under Schedule 2 will provide that, where joint and several liability under Clause 16 applies, it will be the local authority which judges that
1250
recovery against the individual to whom the bill was originally sent would be unproductive or undesirable. It is only when this stage is reached that the authority will need to establish that joint and several liability exists. It will do this by determining that the individual concerned has insufficient income of his own and is reliant on the partner in the same household. If the local authority reaches this position, it will send a bill to the person it believes to be the spouse of the individual liable. It will be made plain to that person that he or she is regarded jointly and severally liable for the bill. Often, we can safely assume, this will be enough to ensure that the bill is paid, though of course if the person concerned believes he or she is not jointly or severally liable then he or she will tell the local authority.
If neither of those things happens and the bill is still not paid, a reminder will be sent. The next stage is then to seek a summons against the person concerned. Even at this stage it will be open to him or her to persuade the magistrates that a warrant should not be granted because the couple are not jointly and severally liable. I must emphasise that if it is discovered that no one is jointly and severally liable with the individual concerned for his or her bill, then it will undoubtedly mean that he or she is eligible for a rebate and income support in his or her own right—unless they have income of their own in which case they should pay the bill in any event.
I hope that that explanation has clarified the position for the Committee. I believe it confirms the point I was trying to make earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that this is a situation where Clause 16 is a benefit to the non-earning spouse who is left in difficulties by the earning spouse.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Almost by accident we seem to have discovered a procedure which I think will help everyone in trying to arrive at the real purpose behind the Bill. However, it must be said we have arrived there by accident. Can we not have, when there are many intricate details which need explaining as shown by the amendments on the Marshalled List, a detailed explantion of the clause—as my noble friend has just given—which anticipates some of the queries that may arise? It would save a great deal of time. This in no way precludes Members of the Committee pursuing their arguments in greater detail; rather they would be pursuing them as part of a picture which is generally understood. As I said, we have arrived accidentally at this position. Indeed, I had begun to think that there was quite a lot in the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. When one wants to arrive at the right conclusion, there is bound to be such controversy. However, when I see the explanation inserted into the total picture, as my noble friend has just done, it makes the whole concept much easier to understand. It is a procedure we have dropped on by accident.
We should perhaps thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who expressed concern about the purpose behind the clause, as distinct from the parts of it being examined in discussion on the amendment. I hope that we can follow the procedure in the future; the noble Earl can be assured that I shall support him against most of the amendments which have been tabled now that I understand the whole picture.
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand it, the procedure in Committee is to have clause stand part at the end of the debate. Of course, should it be dealt with at the beginning, it might help to clarify matters. However, I am not sure that I am the right person at this stage to comment further upon the matter. I shall nevertheless draw it to the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Lord Jay: It does not seem to me that the Minister has answered my question. I asked how the local authority would ascertain the income of every person. The whole of his recent speech was dependent upon the assumption that the local authority knew who was in receipt of income and who was not. We have still not been told about the way in which local authorities will gather such information. After all, it is a vast operation to discover everyone's income.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I should like to supplement the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I speak as someone who has just completed his community charge form, since the system is now in operation in Scotland. There is no question on the form—although it is quite a complicated questionnaire—as to who is the earner in the household. Therefore, what is the follow-up? Having completed the form and submitted it to the local authority, how will that authority—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jay—then find out who is the earner, and who has the liability? Does it perhaps require another questionnaire?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I must say that I was confused about the Bill, and especially this clause, before we started the debate. However, I am now even more confused. My mind has been completely boggled—if that is the right term to use.
The noble Earl suggested that the rating system was discredited. Well, if it was discredited, it was at least discredited after 387 years. On the other hand, this community charge has been discredited even before it has started. It has been discredited in the main because people do not understand how it will work.
Let us take, for example, the position of husband and wife. Each partner receives a community charge bill. That is perfectly understood. The husband is 50 years of age and the wife is 45 years of age. The wife has had her children and is therefore perfectly capable of going out to work and her husband thinks that she should. However, she refuses to do so. Of course it must be said that the situation could work either way; that is, it could be the male or the female these days.
Nevertheless, let us consider the situation. Perhaps there is a dispute in the family as to whether a person is capable of going out and earning their own wherewithall to pay the community charge. The local authority then receives one of the charges from the husband or the wife—it does not matter which—and says, "There is only one community charge here, we should have two payments." So the authority calls the partner who has not paid and says, "Why have you not paid?" The answer is, "Well, that is the responsibility of my husband/my wife." The local authority then sends for the husband, or the wife, and says, "You are responsible for paying your
1252
husband's/your wife's community charge". The person concerned then says, "Absolutely not. He/she is perfectly capable of going out and earning money to pay his/her own community charge."
What will the situation be under those circumstances? Who will resolve that conundrum? Will it be the local authority? Will the local authority say to the husband, or the wife, who is not working, "You are capable of going out to work and your husband/wife will not pay your community charge. You must go out and earn so that we can collect our community charge." That is a reasonable proposition, it is not? I think the Committee is entitled to an answer from the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness: In order to answer the queries raised by the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I must say that of course the local authority will not be especially concerned about who earns the income until the husband, or wife, does not pay the community charge and when joint and several liability starts. At that stage I should refer both noble Lords to paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 which sets out how that situation will be dealt with should it ever reach the courts.
In answer to the hypothetical situation so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I must say that there is little difference between this bill and any other bill with which the husband or wife might be faced. For example if the wife goes out and purchases a dress and subsequently the bill is sent, the situation is well known to the noble Lord should the husband refuse to pay. He has isolated the community charge quite unnecessarily from any other bill that a household could face. Should it come to that situation I should think that the marriage is almost certainly one that is already suffering from other strains. Such a situation will be taken into account by the local authority or the courts when assessing who should be liable for that portion of the community charge which remains unpaid.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Earl must understand that many marriages are in exactly that position. They are not exactly on the rocks, but they are getting there. The ship is still afloat but it may sink at any moment. Many marriages are in that unfortunate situation. Similarly, there are couples who are divorced, or who live apart, but who are forced to remain in the same house because of the housing shortage. That, again, is a difficult conundrum to solve. In the last analysis someone has to decide in such circumstances who will appear in court so that a community charge order can be enforced. The Government must pay some attention to the matter because they will find themselves in many such difficulties.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Can the noble Earl tell the Committee what is meant by the word "income"? Does it include a capital sum?
The Earl of Caithness: The word "income" includes earnings.
Lord Monson: The noble Earl has dealt most fully and helpfully, if I may say so, with the cases where one partner has no income, whether or not they are

1253
capable of earning income. However, it seems to me that there remains a very grey area indeed—for example, where one partner has a full-time job bringing in £250 a week gross whereas the other partner, employed in a part-time job, brings in only £50. Under the clause as it stands, is it not the case that the partner earning only £50 could find his, or herself, taken to court for the liabilities of the partner who earns £250?
4 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The local authority and the court will look for who has been responsible for the community charges until they cease to be paid. Of course, if the husband or wife has walked out, the respective spouse will be entitled to rebate if his or her income is below a sufficient level, and to income support if there is no income, and will not be meeting the full community charge. The point made by the noble Lord is covered.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Perhaps I may put to the Minister a scenario that I know exists. I asked whether income means earnings, so that I could base my scenario which I assume will be supported by the Bill. If a subsequent court case takes place I assume the assurance will stand. A man has capital, regardless of how he got it—he may have won the pools, bet on the horses or used some illegal operation—and his wife has nothing. His wife does not pay the community charge. On the basis of what the noble Earl has told us, the court will go for the husband on earnings. He says, "I have no earnings. I have no income." The court will say, "Why are you not claiming rebate?" He will say, "I do not need to claim rebate; I do not want to claim rebate." I know plenty of people who have done that. I suggest that Members on the other side of the Chamber know plenty of people who are living on capital. Not too many questions are asked about how they obtained the capital—like Ken Dodd and the jockey in gaol. We can go through the higher echelons of our society and find such cases. That is a diversion.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked how we could find out about income. I do not believe that we have yet had an answer. How does the community charge officer set about determining income? What happens if he determines that there is no income because there are no earnings and someone is living on capital? I consider that that is a way someone can get out of paying the community charge. Unless we get that point clear, we will not know where we are in the future.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. I draw his attention once again to paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 which will be used by the local authority to establish means of income and the source of income if there is non-payment of the charge. I understand the noble Lord's concern that that provision may not be adequate, and I therefore look forward to his support for Amendment No. 86E which I intend to move.
Lord Underhill: The Minister has referred time and time again to paragraph 4 of Schedule 4. Under that paragraph, information can only be obtained where a magistrate has made a liability order. Are we not
1254
just piling bureaucratic machinery upon bureaucratic machinery? That is the only way the information can be obtained.
The Earl of Caithness: That is correct. I have explained—I went into some detail on Clause 16 as the Committee gave me permission to do so—the various stages at which a local authority would be involved and the representations that could be made by either spouse in any discussion as to whether liability for payment was due. I said that should that fail, the matter is then taken to the magistrates' court. At that stage, the information that is required, set out in paragraph 4 which is to be extended by Amendment No. 86E to be moved later, will cover the point made by the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 seems to explain the position. I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. If the matter gets to the magistrates' court and the magistrate finds out that one spouse has an income of £250 a week and the other has a part-time income of £30 or £40 a week, is the magistrate in a position to allocate, according to income, each spouse's responsibility as a proportion of the payment of the debt?
The Earl of Caithness: At that stage the magistrate will determine the liability for the community charge that has not been paid. The magistrate will rightly he allowed to look at the income of both spouses.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: There is one other matter which has not yet been raised and which should be mentioned. The clause is grossly discriminatory against those of us who happen to be heterosexual and could be construed as promoting homosexuality. Clause 28 of an earlier Bill was designed to prevent local authorities promoting homosexuality. We know as a matter of fact that there are homosexual couples who will not be caught by Clause 16's "joint and several liability". I am one of those who is happily married heterosexually. I must say I do not care that the Government should now promote homosexuality in this way.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord's ingenuity seldom ceases to amaze me, and today he has not let me down. The extensive provisions that we have made at the lower end of the income scale to benefit those on low wages who may be faced by the community charge are, as the noble Lord will be aware, based on the social security regulations. They deal with married couples. They do not deal with the case of homosexuals which the noble Lord just mentioned.
Lord Diamond: We cannot let this matter go in the vague fashion in which it is being discussed at the moment. I charge the Minister with making statements from the Front Bench for which he has no authority. It is all very well for him to say what the local authority will do. Neither the local authority not the courts will have the benefit of reading and following the Minister's speech. They will have to be guided by the Act in its final form. The most recent example is the Minister telling us that when the magistrate considers making the order, which he is invited to make by the local authority, he shall assess

1255
how much should be paid by each partner to a marriage and shall have the information available to him. He will not.
The clause makes it clear that the information which is regarded as relevant—I shall come back to that point in a minute—is supplied to the charging authority concerned. That is after, not at the time, the magistrate makes his order as to liability. That is what the magistrate is concerned with and that alone. As has been pointed out by several noble Lords, these are not questions of black and white. It is a not a question of one partner having the whole of the income of the marriage and the other partner having none. The normality will be that each partner will have some kind of income. The noble Lord has said that income is taken into account, but it is not taken into account according to the schedule to which the noble Earl is continually referring us. What is taken into account is some of the income—the income which arises from earnings.
Paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 4 says provided:
"it falls within a prescribed description of information and relates to the debtor's employment and earnings".
Not a word about income on capital.
Various Members of the Committee have referred to people having capital. The Bill is creating an impossibly imprecise situation and apparently leaving it to the local authority to exercise its discretion in some way or another. The noble Earl is telling us which way the local authority will exercise its discretion. He is not entitled to do that. We are talking about what is in the Bill; in the Bill there is total confusion.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I refer him to the amendment to be moved in my name, Amendment No. 86E, which I think covers quite a lot of the noble Lord's concerns about the definition of paragraph 4(2)(c). It goes on to define the earnings:
"(if any) or income (whether or not from employment)".
So I think that the anxiety about income from capital with which the noble Lord was concerned a moment ago is met by the amendment which I hope to move shortly.
The authority gets a liability order against the person who has not paid and then the authority will pursue that person. If he or she has an income, he or she should pay. If not, that will become obvious as a result of the inquiries which will be made and the authority will pursue the spouse through the joint and several liability.
I think we should pause for a moment and consider what would happen—what benefit there could be for the local authority to pursue the non-earning spouse. We must all agree that there would be very little point in doing that. That is the protection which Clause 16 offers. That is why the regulations will be designed so that the local authority, via the courts, will determine who has the income and will then be able to pursue that person.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I apologise for my confusion, in which I am not alone. I am not sure whether the noble Earl is telling us that capital is included in his amendment. I have looked at the amendment, as have my colleagues. We cannot find
1256
any reference to a person owning a capital sum. We cannot find that anywhere in the noble Earl's amendment. If that is so, if it does not refer to a capital sum, then again I ask: how will the charging authority which starts proceedings to get some money, find out the information about that person? If the noble Earl's amendment, which he may amend again before we see it, refers to capital, do I take it that the charging officer will be entitled to look into the capital sum of anybody who is disputing the payment of a community charge? If that is so, it hinges on our debate yesterday about the invasion of privacy and just how far the community charge officer can go. It would only require somebody who had won the pools to say "I have no earnings; I have no income; I am living on a capital sum and, according to this Act of Parliament, I am not entitled to pay for my wife. You cannot ask me to pay for my wife".
It is suggested that we should then go to the magistrate and, as has already been pointed out, the duty of the magistrate appears in Schedule 4, paragraph 4 which I have read. It does not mention anything about capital; it specifically says that the magistrate shall concern himself with employment and earnings. I do not hold a brief for anybody who lives on capital sums because they are usually ill-acquired, if only by gambling. But if we are to have an Act of Parliament, we want to know where and what the regulation is before this House gives its final approval. I do not think we should leave this clause without getting a solid answer to the questions which the noble Earl has been asked.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It is surely very unusual to be in possession of a capital sum and not receive any income from it. I know that there are a few people who keep used fivers under the bed, but it is not a very usual situation.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: In order to answer the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, I shall try again to draw his attention to Amendment No. 86E which refers to the income from the capital. At this stage we are determining the question of joint and several liability—who should be liable for an unpaid portion of the community charge. Capital is taken into account in the assessment of whether the person is entitled to a rebate under social security at the lower income. That is the important place where capital is taken into account.
However, when we come to Schedule 4, paragraph 4, we are looking at the liability for a period where the community charge was not paid by or on behalf of one spouse for another. It is the income on capital which will be taken into account then.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I asked what "income" meant. The noble Earl expressly excluded capital.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Yes, the noble Earl said "earnings".
Lord Jay: In fairness to the Minister, I think we have made some progress. As I understand it, we have established that the local authority has no information about income of any of these people

1257
until it has taken them to court. Therefore, it has to issue a demand for payment to all the individuals in the area and, when it does not receive payment, to take all these individuals to court. Presumably that will be a long, complicated and expensive business. When it has done so and reached the end of the process, all the information that it has is about the earnings of the individuals concerned, and there is none about their capital or any other resources whatever. If that is the case—and that is how it appears to me—it is an extraordinary basis for proposing an impost of this kind.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I too think we have made considerable progress and have clarified the point with which the noble Lord was concerned. Of course, he will be fully aware that under the present rating system if a person is sent a rate demand and does not pay it, then he is also liable to end up in court.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the lengthy debate on this section of the Bill. When I look back to the example which I gave at the outset, it not only seems a long time ago but it also seems to me that we have had no satisfaction that the Mrs F in the example which I gave would not suffer in the way which I described. This amendment would prevent such suffering. Why need there be such an elaborate defence against the introduction of this simple amendment which would serve to put the matter right, to put people's minds at rest and to make it less necessary for the Committee to spend a great deal of its time examining the detailed procedure which will be used if the Bill eventually becomes law? It seems to me that this lady, Mrs F, will suffer in the way I have described; I am not satisfied that that is not so. I believe that my amendment would put her into a satisfactory position. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the Committee on this proposal.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 169.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addinglon, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Amherst, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Diamond, L.

Attlee, E.

Donalds on of Kingsbridge, L

Aylestone, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Banks, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Basnett, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blackstone, B.

Ezra, L.

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Flowers, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Foot, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Caradon, L.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grey, E.

1258

Grimond, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Hanworth, V.

Nicol, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Oram, L.

Hayter, L.

Parry, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Peston, L.

Hughes, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hunt, L.

Porritt, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hylton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jay, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Scanlon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kearton, L.

Serota, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stallard, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L,

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thurlow, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tonypandy, V.

McNair, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mais, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Underhill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Walston, L.

Milverton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Molloy, L.

Whaddon, L.

Monson, L.

White, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Mulley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cross, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Allerton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Ampthill. L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Auckland, L.

Dormer, L.

Balfour, E.

Dundee, E.

Bauer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elibank, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Erroll, E.

Bellwin, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Beloff, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Foley, L.

Biddulph, L.

Fortescue, E.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gainford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bramall. L.

Glenarthur, L.

Braye, B.

Grantchester, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Butterworth, L.

Greenway, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Camden, M.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harvington, L.

Carnock, L.

Havers, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hesketh, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hives, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hood, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Ingrow, L.

Cox, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

1259

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renton, L.

Killearn, L.

Renwick, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rochdale, V.

Layton, L.

Romney, E.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

St. Davids, V.

McFadzean, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sandford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Seebohm, L.

Manton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Margadale, L.

Shannon, E.

Marley, L.

Sharples, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Somers, L.

Middleton, L.

Southborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Stockton, E.

Morris, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Moyne, L.

Swinton, E.

Munster, E.

Terrington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teviot, L.

Nelson, L.

Teynham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Northesk, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Torphichen, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Trafford, L.

Onslow, E.

Tranmire, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Peel, E.

Ullswater, V.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Windlesham, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Wise, L.

Radnor, E.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Reigate, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may suggest that this would be a suitable moment for us to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Girobank plc
4.29 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place about Girobank plc, a subsidiary of the Post Office Corporation. The Statement is as follows:
"Since 1968 the Girobank has grown into a successful banking arm of the Post Office, with a particular strength in money transmission and in handling deposits of corporate cash. It now has about 2½ million customers and in 1986–87 made a profit before tax of £23·1 million.
"Girobank now needs to expand vigorously and take on other activities in order to develop in the competitive world of modern banking. The Government believe that this expansion can best be achieved in the private sector. We therefore asked the Post Office to consider this and the Post Office
1260
Board has agreed that taking Girobank out of the public sector is indeed the best way to proceed. The Post Office and Government have therefore agreed that the Post Office should plan to offer Girobank for sale to a financial institution or other suitable company. Suitable bidders will now be given the opportunity to tender.
"The Post Office Board and its chairman, Sir Bryan Nicholson, have agreed on the main factors which will be taken into account in evaluating bids. Price will of course be a major consideration in order to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer. We also agree that weight should be given to the prospect of selling to a purchaser who will widen choice for the general public in banking services. It will also be important to safeguard the close links between Girobank and Post Office Counters Ltd. A new rolling contract has been concluded between Girobank and Counters which will govern their relationship under new ownership. We will be looking for a purchaser capable of developing and expanding Girobank's business. Post Office Counters can expect to see increased business opportunities from that expansion as it is achieved.
"The management of Girobank is today explaining and discussing this decision with its employees and their unions. Prospective purchasers will be invited to propose arrangements to enable management and employees to share directly in the future success of the business. The successful purchaser will of course also have to satisfy the strict requirements of the Bank of England.
"This is a major opportunity to promote competition and to widen customer choice in the banking market through the trade sale of a nationalised bank. We believe that the Post Office, Girobank, Girobank's staff and its customers will all be well served by this new and important stage in the bank's development."
That, my Lords, concludes the Statement.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place. I should perhaps draw attention to what I believe, subject to correction from the noble Lord, to be certain differences between the Statement which the noble Lord has read out and the text of the Statement I was given which I think was made in another place. In particular, the first person singular has been omitted. The Statement made in another place read "I therefore asked"—that is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Then it went on to say that the Post Office Board and its chairman "have agreed with me". Finally it said "I believe"—that is again the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In each case the noble Lord has used the first person plural: "we", "with us" and "we".
I am sorry that the Secretary of State who is responsible for this department is not making this Statement. I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord. I imagine he is indisposed and of course we all wish him a speedy recovery, but it is difficult to avoid the impression that in some senses there are two DTIs now. There is a DTI for which the Secretary of State is responsible and a DTI for which the Chancellor of

1261
the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible. Indeed this is quite in keeping with the enterprise culture which the noble Lord the Secretary of State has advocated, having two competing departments doing more or less the same thing.
Turning to the Statement itself, the main question that I have is, why? Why is Girobank being sold off not into the open market, not to benefit small shareholders and not to widen share ownership, which has been the justification for many measures of privatisation; but, as the Statement says, to,
"a financial institution or other suitable company"?
The Girobank is, after all, a successful bank. It runs a successful money transmission service. It is efficient and cheap, and diversification could proceed in a perfectly normal manner if the Post Office were so disposed. Indeed it would be possible to finance that diversification through the market—through an issue of loan stock or other form of capital stock if necessary— because the Girobank, as I think the Statement points out, depends on its relationship with the counter services of the Post Office for its success. That is where the Girobank should build and, in our view, it should build within the ownership of the Post Office. So why change the ownership at the point at which the Girobank has grown into a successful banking operation?
Is the answer that the Post Office was directed to sell? We see in the Statement the expression,
"I therefore asked the Post Office"—
or, in the noble Lord's version—
"We therefore asked the Post Office".
Was that a direction from the Government? The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to make a direction to the Post Office but we should like to know whether the Post Office sought to sell the Girobank in the first place or whether the Secretary of State directed the Post Office to do so.
Why is there to be no opportunity for flotation on the open market? There are to be no small shareholders, no wider share ownership and no diversity of ownership. Why not? There appears to be no restrictions on foreign ownership. What the Secretary of State said at Question Time was that he would be perfectly happy, so far as I could see, for foreign owners to own all British industry and all the financial institutions. There is no restriction here at all on the foreign ownership of the Girobank after this form of privatisation. Is that really what the Government intend?
The requirements of the Bank of England are mentioned in the Statement. Which requirements of the Bank of England is the noble Lord referring to? Are they the "fit and proper person" requirements of the Bank of England or are they the full requirements of the Bank of England under the Banking Act which we have passed in the last year or so? If the latter, does that not rule out building societies and insurance companies, which are the natural purchasers of the Girobank? Would the noble Lord give us some clarification on that?
The rolling contract between the Giro and the counter service is referred to. This is the basis of the Girobank's success. The rolling contract, if one can interpret this expression, means a contract that can be terminated at any date given suitable notice.
1262
Which side has the right to terminate the contract? Do both sides have the right to terminate? Does the Post Office only or does the acquiring institution have the right? If it is the latter, their intention will not be to build on the counter services, which is the meat and drink of the Girobank, but to turn it into something quite different and unrecognisable.
What guarantees will there be that the acquiring institution will expand the services of the Girobank? What assurances will the Post Office require from any acquirer on that point? Will the contract with the Post Office be on a commercial arm's length basis or will it be determined in some manner which we do not yet quite understand? In other words, will the Post Office, if the Girobank is sold and if the rolling contract is continued, get the full benefit of the counter services that the Post Office will be offering? By "full benefit" I mean full profit. Why not, other than dogma, keep this as a public institution? What is wrong with entrepreneurial public ownership? Until there is a satisfactory and logically coherent answer to that question, we are bound to oppose the proposal.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to put three questions to the noble Lord on this Statement which he has been kind enough to repeat to us, some of which tie in with the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. First, on the question of competition it seems to me implicit in the Government's proposal that this measure, this way of disposing of Girobank, would increase the area of competition. I am not at all sure that it would. If Girobank, which has established itself as a successful banking operation and created a clearly defined niche in the banking marketplace, is to be absorbed in another financial institution, it could lose its identity and its niche and the area of competition could thereby be reduced.
On many occasions the objective of mergers and takeovers, far from being to increase competition, is to diminish it. That could well happen in this case. I join the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in asking why, if there is to be a change of ownership, this successful banking organisation is not being offered to the public. Why is it not being offered to its own management to continue to run as a separate banking operation, expanding through its success and contributing more to competition, rather than being absorbed, possibly without trace, by a larger financial institution? I believe that that is an important and fundamental issue. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord will say about that.
Secondly, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in asking about the rolling contract. One of the major features, if not the major feature, of Girobank's operation is the offer of banking services to small users in country districts who could not have such services otherwise. Those services could well turn out to be onerous and uncomfortable for the new owner to provide. Over a period of time, the objective might be to wind up those services. That would leave a gap in the banking situation which no other organisation could fill. How firm will the commitment be?
Thirdly, what will happen to the proceeds? This successful banking operation, based on its balance sheet and profitability, is obviously going to realise

1263
several hundreds of millions of pounds. That money will come to the Post Office. What will the Post Office do with it? Will it reduce the price of postal charges, improve postal services or both? We are entitled to ask what will happen to the proceeds. Will they be used for our benefit or in some other way?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Ezra, for their questions. Perhaps I may first apologise to the House and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. While reading the Statement, I changed the first person singular to the first person plural. I accept that that changed the Statement slightly from the Statement which was in front of the noble Lord. I apologise and I am sure that the noble Lord accepts that there was no intention to change the meaning of the Statement.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about why I am repeating the Statement, the responsibilities of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy are directly concerned with the Post Office and therefore with Girobank. It is appropriate that he has made the Statement in another place today and that I am repeating it rather than my noble friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this stage. Does not the Secretary of State have responsibility for the entire Department of Trade and Industry?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Duchy is the Minister most responsible for the Post Office. That is why it is appropriate that he has made the Statement in another place. I emphasise that to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why the Girobank is being sold off. As I have said to the noble Lord in debates on other privatisations, the Government believe that the business will do better in the private sector. It can develop there free from the many restrictions which apply in the public sector. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also raised that point. The Government accept that Girobank has flourished. However, it needs to expand and the Post Office agrees that it can do so subject to the same rules as other banks and without the additional controls that are applied in the public sector.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I did not query the Government's intention of selling the bank off to the private sector; I queried the method that they propose to adopt.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord queried why it was being done, whether his query related to the method or the principle. However, I hope that to some extent I have answered his question.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on how the decision to sell Girobank was arrived at, the Post Office Board was not in any way forced by the Government. The Government and the Post Office Board agreed that Girobank could develop best in the private sector. Therefore, it was
1264
agreed that the Post Office should sell Girobank. The Post Office was of course aware of the Government's general policies and agreed that Girobank should be sold.
The noble Lord also asked why the business should not be floated. We believe that at this stage, as Girobank is currently investing heavily in information technology and management information systems in order to put it in the forefront of competition, such systems should be operating before the bank can be a suitable candidate for flotation. At some stage in the future it could well be that those systems are sufficiently up and running to enable the business to be floated. However, at this stage the Government feel that that would be premature.
As regards foreign ownership, any proposal from a prospective purchaser from abroad would be evaluated on the same criteria as proposals made by any UK company. Any purchaser would need a licence from the Bank of England and would have to satisfy the Bank's prudential requirements. Those would be the full requirements under the Banking Act. In looking—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does that exclude building societies, which are regulated by the Building Societies Commission under the Building Societies Act? They are not regulated by the Bank of England and do not meet the prudential requirements of the Banking Act.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not have an answer at the moment. I shall look into the matter. I prefer to answer the noble Lord after ascertaining the exact position; I should not like to mislead either the noble Lord or the House.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the rolling contract, I understand that either side can give notice on the contract. Details of the contract are commercially confidential. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the contract has been negotiated at arm's length and I understand that each side believes that it has won the best possible deal.
I am now informed that insurance companies and building societies would not be excluded from submitting proposals to Girobank. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on whether the disposal will increase or decrease competition, I believe that with a suitable purchaser competition will be considerably increased. Girobank will be enabled to undertake activities which it is currently prevented from carrying out. At the moment, it is less competitive with the big four high street banks. After it is sold off there could well be activities that it could undertake, so that it could increase competition in the high street in banking services.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord what assurance there would be that the purchaser would necessarily agree to Girobank doing all these things, or indeed to completing its substantial investment in information technology.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in looking at the bids for Girobank, we would very carefully consider plans that each potential purchaser had in respect of developing the business. The business can flourish

1265
only if the new owner is willing to undertake capital investment, investment in staff and investment in systems. The criteria that would be applied to assessing who was the successful purchaser would of course include looking at their plans for developing the business.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend referred to "we" and to views as to the suitability of particular purchasers. Can he tell the House with whom the decision will lie as to acceptance or non-acceptance of particular bids by particular purchasers? Will it be the Government or will it be the Post Office? Who will take the final decision and be answerable for it to Parliament? Secondly, am I right in assuming that legislation will not be required?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if I may take my noble friend's second point first, I understand that legislation will probably not be required. As to the decision as to who will be the successful purchaser, I understand that both the Post Office and my noble friend the Secretary of State will be employing separate investment banking advice in this respect, but it is the Post Office that is actually selling. Of course it will consult the Government as to the choice of purchaser.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry, my Lords, but does that mean that the final decision is with the Post Office?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Post Office is the owner of the business. Therefore I understand that, having consulted the Government, the board of the Post Office would be responsible for choosing the ultimate purchaser.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I confirm for our information that legislation will not be required for this proceeding?
Lord Beaverbrook: No.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Not "probably", but not?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I make a general statement, as we usually do from these Benches on cases of privatisation? We have no doctrinaire attitude to privatisation versus public ownership and each case will be judged on its merits, but we have a strong inclination to support the idea of a mixed economy. In that connection I support some of the concerns which have been expressed.
First, since this is a very general Statement which talks about suitable candidates, suitable bidders and so on, without any clearly defined structure, and about rolling contracts that are ill-defined, I should have hoped that legislation or some other form of approval would be sought before this very dramatic change took place. I invite the Minister to respond as to whether there will be opportunities for looking at this in greater detail once we know the shape of the deal.
Secondly, I wonder whether the Minister is concerned about the impact in the public sector of this whole development. Some of us watched the Girobank from early days and sticky beginnings, and
1266
now it is a successful bank. But to say, "As soon as you are successful we will sell you off", is not an incentive to the employees and to management efficiency. It certainly is not morale building to know that at the end of the road you will be sold off.
May I ask the Minister to be a little more precise as to why a flourishing business of this kind will be sold off? He has not answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Is he at all concerned about the competitive aspect? He advocates competition, but what is happening now is the elimination of the one publicly owned sector in the banking industry, leaving no choice and no competition between the private sector and the public sector. Is there not a case in terms of his own philosophy of competition for retaining a public sector involvement in the banking industry?
I have sat on the boards of companies which have looked at Giro and have used Giro for commercial organisations because it was competitive. We compared it to other clearing banks' terms and made our decisions. We are going to lose that opportunity, because the clearing banks arc pretty well a closed shop. They frequently act in concert. But the Girobank was at least outside the magic circle. Is there no real reason in competitive terms, on the basis of the noble Lord's own philosophy for retaining this alternative system?
The Minister says that we can expect expansion. Is he sure about that? If this is acquired by a clearing bank or a building society with branches that are available in all the main streets, does he suggest that that guarantees expansion of the Girobank'? I cannot understand the philosophy that argues that you are expanding by being absorbed by a major competitor in the industry.
Finally, I repeat the question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I am assuming from what the Minister said that foreign ownership of the Girobank would even he acceptable in this case since we are now in a period of free-for-all. Does not the Minister get a little alarmed about the fact that the TSB has now been privatised and building societies are now talking about turning into commercial banks? Does he not feel that this imporatnt sector of industry, with public ownership and mutual ownership alongside capitalist or private ownership, is something that should be safeguarded in a healthy democracy?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord enters into areas of basic philosophy, and I am quite sure that I am not going to convince him today that the way in which we look at this matter is the one that he should follow. But I can certainly assure the noble Lord that the way in which he looks at this matter is not one that we are likely to follow. We believe that businesses should operate in the private sector where possible. We believe that they do better there, that they can develop better and can compete better, because they are able to operate away from the restrictions of government and to undertake all the functions of other businesses in the private sector. Girobank is prevented from carrying out certain functions that its rivals perform at the moment because of its existence in the public sector. So I believe that there is a very clear rationale for Girobank moving from the public to the private sector.

1267
The noble Lord asked whether there may be an opportunity to debate the terms of any arrangement that may be made with a prospective purchaser. I can only say to him that it is of course open to him to take up this matter with the usual channels. If any debate should be arranged, of course I shall be very interested to participate and hear the noble Lord's views upon the terms that are arranged.
The noble Lord mentioned the expression "imprecise rolling contracts". There is no such imprecision in this rolling contract. It has been very carefully negotiated. It is a contract that has the full force of law and I believe will be a very satisfactory framework for the co-operation that will be necessary between post office counters and the privatised Girobank.
Turning to the interests of the customers and the employees, the noble Lord said that so often banks started off in a small way offering personal service and then grew, with the result that the personal service could diminish. I believe that when Girobank is privatised the management would be very foolish indeed to throw away its excellent reputation for dealing with its customers. When considering who are to be the shortlisted purchasers, the Government will of course take into account the potential purchasers' proposals for management and staff participation in the success of the business. I believe that there is a logic which ensures that the interests of those two groups of people will be protected.
I understand that the MMC will consider any deal that is put forward. The Director-General of Fair Trading has to look at any transaction worth over £30 million, so this prospective deal will have to be scrutinised in the normal way under the mergers control legislation. Therefore the director-general in due course will advise my noble friend the Secretary of State upon whether to refer any proposal to the MMC.
5 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I presume that the Government have made up their mind as to their priorities. It may be that they want to obtain the best price that they can for this asset, and that is fair enough. They have built up from nothing an asset which now has a value. If they want to turn that asset into money now because they are not in a position to expand it any further and make it more valuable, there is nothing wrong with that. However, should they want to sell at the best price, I hope that they are not thinking of cluttering the transaction up with too many conditions and terms which will weaken the freedom of those people who will have to diversify and expand in the future, which, as my noble friend has said, is something to be hoped for.
Those two courses can never run together. If the price is wanted, one should sell and not attempt to retain management powers by inserting special conditions into the contract. I suggest that since there is no question of anybody being able to obtain a monopoly in this field—there are too many competitors in banking for that to happen—concentration ought to be on getting the best price. That should be done by offering or desiring the minimum of control once the asset has been sold. It should be allowed to compete in the market with the
1268
new people offering better or wider service. To try to have both things simply does not work.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, before other noble Lords come forward with their questions, perhaps I may respond to my noble friend. An excess of what he describes as clutter in any deal that is made with the new owner of Girobank would be self-defeating. It would defeat the whole point of moving the Girobank from the public to the private sector. However, I should emphasise that the Post Office will take into consideration not only the price indicated by a prospective purchaser but also the support that the company may give to the development of Girobank, plans to use the counters network, the desirability of increasing competition in retail banking in the United Kingdom and of course the ability of the potential purchaser to meet the requirements of the Banking Act.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in putting forward this rather absurd proposition, the noble Lord said several times that the Government believed that the business would do better in the private sector. I am bound to say to him that he is standing both logic and history on their heads. The Girobank came into existence precisely because its business was not being undertaken properly in the private sector. The commercial banks have always been in a position to offer money transmission services of that kind and they failed to do so. That is precisely the point at issue. As I understand it, the Statement referred to the particular strength of the Girobank in money transmission, but that is a euphemism; the Girobank is superb in effecting money transmission. It is the commercial banks that have failed in this area.
I return to the point about competition. There is nothing to stop the private sector competing with the National Girobank. As the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Ezra, pointed out, the danger is that once it gets into the private sector, although it may stay independent, it may not. The one thing that we are guaranteed if it stays in the public sector is that it will be independent and will maintain competition.
Perhaps I may conclude by asking a question. I understand that one of the less successful commercial banks could make a bid for the Girobank. There is nothing to stop that happening. There is nothing to say, however, that that will increase competition. Indeed, it is pretty obvious that it will lower it. I do not think that this move is any other than a doctrinaire action. On any grounds of belief in competition and the working of free markets, the Girobank is one enterprise that absolutely ought to remain in the public sector and be encouraged to improve itself within that sector. It is perfectly capable of doing so, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said. It has access and is in a position to gain access to appropriate funds to undertake all the activities of the private sector.
We are taking immense risks with a major national asset. I ought to declare an interest and say that I certainly use it for money transmission purposes, as do many other noble Lords. I very much resent the Government fiddling around on purely ideological grounds with something of this kind.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have already said that the Girobank developed very well in the public sector. However, we believe that it will develop faster

1269
and better under private ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised the question of competition and I think it is a point which I have already covered. He spoke of the prospect of Girobank being bought and absorbed into an existing competitor, but I cannot see that that position is not safeguarded by the duties of the Director-General of Fair Trading.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I must say that he cannot give us a guarantee of that. I cannot see, in terms of the normal criteria, that any of them would have a dominant market position. It would simply be a stronger market position and that would be a source of concern.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course I cannot give a guarantee and the noble Lord would not expect me to do so. I was asked a question about competition and I answered in respect of how the competition policy of this Government is carried out.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I feel that I am not alone in being very concerned about this Statement. I hope that my noble friend appreciates that it will cause a great deal of worry for purely practical rather than doctrinaire reasons, not least in the City of London. Behind this scheme lie some fundamental conflicts of interest not least of which is the fact that any potential bidder who has any sense at all will look very carefully at the assets underpinning the shares that will be issued.
There are three fundamental assets of the Girobank. One is goodwill, which covers the professional skills of the staff and management. Another comprises a considerable amount of information technology hardware. The third and quite the most important is the so-called rolling contract between the Post Office and the Girobank itself. A contract invariably hangs on the good will of both contracting parties. I ask my noble friend not to repeat his words about a contract having the full force of law because when one goes to law it is already too late. No dispute can be properly settled if there is recourse to lawyers.
There is bound to be a situation of conflict between the postal and allied services and the banking services per se. I am convinced that in the end there will be conflict within the post offices themselves—between the elegantly dressed yuppie banking side of the Post Office and the postal services. There is bound to be dispute. One may move out of the premises, set up in competition with the local post offices or try to take over entirely the postal services. In other words, will they be post offices running banking services, or banking services running postal services? I see large problems there. Unless a potential investor can obtain contractual terms which are strongly on his side, he should think very carefully before even considering bidding.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point, However, the best contracts are those which are operated with much goodwill on both sides. The post office counters will provide the retail outlets for Girobank. Girobank will provide considerable income for post office counters. There is a considerable shared interest here. Perhaps my noble friend is being somewhat pessimistic when he says
1270
that he believes there are areas of conflict. Of course there will be some areas for discussion, but I do not believe that the issues are insurmountable.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the last statement was rather idealistic in assuming that the acquiring institution and the Post Office will work hand in hand. When Girobank was first established in Bootle there were other considerations for government. One was that they attempted to move from the South of England to the North of England an activity which would generate more economic activity.
I do not ask the Government why they are privatising Girobank. Long ago I made up my mind why they would do that. It is because the financial establishment in Great Britain never accepted Giro. To the financial establishment it was an intrusion into its affairs. Let us assume that one of the clearing banks will acquire Girobank. Does anyone believe that it will allow people to go into post offices to pay their accounts? Last week I rang up Telecom because I received a final notice for a bill that it was supposed I had not paid. What do I find? There was a delay inside British Telecom. When I rang British Telecom up and asked why the account had not been received, I was advised that I should change my way of paying the account.
I am concerned about the overall effect if an acquiring bank finds itself at odds with the Giro system and decides to do its best to get rid of it—because in fact it can. Why should Barclays Bank maintain another method for paying accounts into its branches but still support Giro? We know that it has always opposed the concept that a publicly-owned institution should involve itself in that aspect.
I ask the Minister a brief question but I wish for a clear answer. Was any consideration given to the fact that once it is in the private sector the private sector will determine where the head office of Girobank will be? If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will tell me. The private sector will determine whether or not the main activities of Giro should be moved to the South of England where there is the biggest business. This may well be another step towards shifting economic activity from the North of England to the South. In coming to this decision, did the Government give that any consideration? If so, with whom did they discuss it?
When Girobank came to Liverpool, it was a typical example of good relationships between the major local authorities and the Government. Let me tell noble Lords what happened. The favourite site was in Liverpool, but there were some problems. Liverpool City Council was united in saying, "We do not care whether or not Girobank comes to Liverpool so long as it is on Merseyside". That is how it finished up in Bootle. That was a very good example of cooperation with central government. We finally achieved its siting in Bootle.
If Girobank goes out of the control of the Government and into the private sector, let nobody shirk this responsibility. The diminution of activity in Girobank at Bootle could have a catastrophic effect upon the social and cultural life of the people in that area because, of all areas in Merseyside, that was livened up and rejuvenated because of the existence of Girobank. I believe that the dogma of the Tory

1271
Party is responding to the people in London who have never liked Girobank. They have wanted to get rid of it and now they are achieving that aim. It is a damned disgrace.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the main thrust of the noble Lord's question was the matter of jobs on Merseyside. I cannot give any assurance as to the continuity of employment in Bootle or Merseyside, nor can the Post Office. However, Girobank is successful and ambitious. It has the majority of its facilities on Merseyside; I am fully aware of that. The benefits to Merseyside have been considerable. I believe that the Girobank management is very satisfied with the decision that was made to locate on Merseyside. However, I should say to the noble Lord that I fully expect it to be in the interests of any purchaser of Girobank to maintain those facilities.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, have the Government sought, or will they seek, any assurances from the acquiring bodies to maintain the head office at Bootle?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a second. This Statement has attracted a lot of interest and I therefore did not wish to intervene. However, there are two points that I ought to make. First, the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House recommended, and the House accepted the recommendation not so long ago, that Statements ought not to exceed 20 minutes. We have now taken very nearly 45 minutes over this Statement. On a day when we have debated only two amendments in the period of two hours before the Statement began, we seriously need to consider whether we are organising our time to the best of our ability.
Secondly, our Standing Orders for a very long time have recommended to the House, and have been accepted by the House, that we should not turn these discussions into a debate. I know that it is very easy to extend the time and slip into discussion on a subject that has attracted a lot of interest. Perhaps I may end by suggesting that we take the question of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and the House may then consider it right to continue with other business. Perhaps I may have a word with the Leaders and the Whips to see whether we can streamline our arrangements for Statements and return with recommendations by the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House for acceptance by your Lordships.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, it is one brief question which I assume that the noble Lord has forgotten to answer. I refer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. What happens to the proceeds from this sale?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have already indicated that the Post Office is selling Girobank. The Post Office will receive the proceeds. However, I should say that the Post Office lends surplus resources to the Treasury. It has agreed with the Government that resources that are surplus to its own requirements can be lent back to the public sector.

Local Government Finance Bill
5.18 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 16.
[Amendments Nos. 74A and 75 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 76 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No 76A:
Leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new clause:
("Joint and several liability.
16.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a man and woman are married to each other and are members of the same household, or

(b) are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife.

(2) They shall be jointly and severally liable to pay an amount (the chargeable amount) to an authority in respect of a community charge as it has effect for a chargeable financial year in respect of the liability arising for either or both of them under section 12 above (read with section 13 above, where it is appropriate) or section 14 above.").
The noble Earl said: We have had a very useful discussion on Clause 16 this afternoon. Many of the points on marriages which have gone through stormy waters, some of them even ending up on the rocks, have been covered. However, I should like to ask one or two questions on a problem that may arise in the first year of marriage.
I am grateful for having received a letter from my noble friend. Although I tried to draft a very much simpler clause than Clause 16, the proposed new clause is clearly defective in its drafting. We need a longer clause. However, these questions deserve an answer. Perhaps the easiest way that I can ask them is to give an illustration.
Let me assume that the year is 2000. Mr. Sydney living in Kent, marries on 1st July a girl Susan from Durham, where there are a lot of pretty girls. They are both over 18. My first question is this. Mr. Sydney has paid his community charge for the year 2000 to Kent. Susan will have paid her community charge to Durham. Can Susan immediately have her name deleted from the register in Durham and reclaim her community charge from Durham for the remainder of the year? My second question is: Can Susan have her name registered in Kent as Mrs. Sydney as from 1st July, the date of the marriage? There does not appear to be any provision in the Bill compelling the Durham registrar to communicate with the Kent registrar, so that Susan can change her residence and avoid paying the community charge to both Durham and Kent.
Clause 16(4) as written seems to make Sydney responsible for an amount represented by A/B for the period from 1st July to 1st April. In other words, to put that into figures, 275 divided by 366 (because I have chosen a leap year) will be Susan's community charge for Kent for that year, although she may not yet have cleared her name with Durham.
I believe that part of this may be covered by the amendment which I have now had a chance to study, Amendment No. 81A, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, but Clause 16 as drafted is very hard for young married couples to understand. That is my reason for asking these questions. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I believe that the noble Earl was referring to the year 2000 in his example. He said that it was a leap year. I believe he will find that the century is never a leap year.
The Earl of Balfour: Actually that one is, but I shall leave that to my noble friend.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for so clearly explaining the reasoning behind his amendment. It follows very closely, almost identically, the letter he wrote to me. Now that the noble Earl has spelt out the contents of his letter, I have put a copy of my reply that he has admitted he has received in the Library. Rather than repeating the whole contents of my reply to my noble friend I shall repeat just the key point which my noble friend may not have taken fully into account. Under Clauses 3 and 12 an individual's liability for the personal community charge accrues on a daily basis during the course of the financial year. This makes it necessary to provide that joint and several liability should also be assessed on a daily basis. That is why it is necessary to follow the rather more involved course adopted in Clause 16 rather than the simpler course advocated by my noble friend.
An example may help to illustrate the point. If a couple marry on 1st June during the course of a financial year, they will be jointly and severally liable in the financial year in question from 2nd June until the end of the year. But they will not have been jointly and severally liable between 1st April and 1st June. Clause 16 as it stands spells that out in detail. By contrast my noble friend's amendment does not make clear whether the couple is jointly and severally liable for the whole year—which I think the Committee would agree would be unfair—or for only that part of the year during which they were married. In short, this is one matter where a little complexity in the form of the formulaic approach of Clause 16 is absolutely necessary. But as regards some of the detailed points, I believe that the Committee will find that I have answered those to my noble friend's satisfaction and I shall ensure that a copy of my letter is in the Library as soon as possible.
The Earl of Balfour: With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: As the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has just said, We have had a useful and fairly full debate on the clause. The Minister has been extremely helpful in explaining Clause 16 at length and I believe that to some extent he has reassured the Committee. But I doubt that he has succeeded in calming all the fears expressed from many quarters of the Committee. In other words the clause is certainly not yet right. Whether it is better to ask the Government to take the clause away and think again, or whether it is better to come back ourselves at the next stage with amendments of our own is a difficult choice.
I do not intend to divide the Committee, but should other Members decide to do so I shall support them.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I realise that Clause 16, for the reasons the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has explained, has to be fairly complicated. At line 38 I find subsection (7). It reads:
"For the purposes of this section people are married to each other if they arc a man and woman—
(a) who are married to each other and are members of the same household".
I should have thought that was fairly obvious. Or—
"(b) who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife".
As far as I am concerned if you are not married, you are not married, whether you are living together, sharing a house or whatever you may be doing.
Subsection (8) says:
"For the purposes of this section people are not married to each other on a particular day unless they are married to each other throughout the day".
I just wonder whether the drafting of the clause could be reconsidered.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As a general rule we take the view that if we have had a debate on what we have chosen to be the most significant item in a clause and the Committee has decided not to accept our opinions, it would be inappropriate for us to vote against the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill. As inevitably one has had to be selective in putting down amendments to the clause, it is appropriate to repeat the view that has already been expressed by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I am referring to the fact that we find the whole concept of joint and several liability as expressed in the clause to be profoundly unsatisfactory, to be reactionary in social terms and to be in conflict with some of the small measures of progress which have been made in social security and other legislation by this Government. We very much regret that the complexity of the community charge system which the Government have wished upon themselves, and are now proposing to foist upon the nation, involves us in this reactionary piece of social legislation.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that it was his belief that I had not calmed all the fears of those concerned with this part of the Bill. Nevertheless I do not believe that I shall calm all the fears however much I continue to try to persuade the Committee. There will always be some noble Lords who are concerned about the Bill. What I hope I have achieved is to get rid of some of the misconceptions that have been aroused.
I was interested in the point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in respect of Clause 16. As I am sure she is aware, it was originally our intention that the joint and several liability applied only to spouses; in other words, to married couples. It was in our willingness to be helpful to the Opposition that we accepted an amendment from the Labour Party which included those people who were living together but were not married.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Will the noble Earl explain what subsection (8) means? It seems to me to be meaningless.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should like to ask why we have the complicated subsection (7) to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred when a style was agreed during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act which, I suggest, puts the matter more clearly. It states:
"persons who are married to each other and live together or, being a man and a woman, live together as if they were husband and wife".
That puts over the idea in much clearer language than is contained in this Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: We come back to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has never ceased to make throughout the passage of the Bill. I look forward to the numerous occasions on which he will make it in the future. It is that there are some drafting differences between this Bill and the Scottish Bill. The intentions are exactly the same, as the noble Lord will be aware.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I was not saying anything about the intention. I was saying that the language is easier to understand. Why, when there is clear language which this Government introduced last year, can we not stick with it? Why make it difficult?
The Earl of Caithness: As a lawyer the noble Lord will understand that lawyers differ. A different parliamentary counsel is involved on this occasion.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Caithness: That is right. As regards the point raised in respect of subsection (8), my answer is slightly covered by the point I made to my noble friend Lord Balfour earlier. They will not be jointly or severally liable on the day they get married but on a subsequent day.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is a small point but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is right and that the phraseology used in the Scottish Bill is more appropriate. I believe that it is clearer and that, in this particular context, it is more decent. Will my noble friend look at the matter again? If it is due simply to a variation of parliamentary counsel, it may be possible to swap them?
The Earl of Caithness: I take careful note of what my noble friend has said. Perhaps I may refrain from making the last suggestion to parliamentary counsel; but I shall make the first suggestion.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur) moved Amendment No. 76B:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Co-owners.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as regards any prescribed case where (apart from the regulations) co-owners would be subject to different standard or collective community charges by virtue of the same property.
(2) The regulations may contain—

(a) provision that as regards the period for which the co-ownership subsists there shall be one charge only, that the co-owners shall be jointly subject to it, and that the registration officer for the charging authority concerned shall enter an item in the register accordingly;

1276

(b) provision that the amount payable in respect of the charge concerned as it has effect for a chargeable financial year shall be calculated in a prescribed manner, and that the co-owners shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount;

(c) provision that, notwithstanding that the co-owners are jointly and severally liable, section 16 or 17 above shall have effect to make a spouse or manager of any of the co-owners jointly and severally liable as well;

(d) where the charge concerned is collective, provision as to the person or persons to whom any amount payable under section 9 above is to be paid.

(3) The regulations may provide that there shall be different charges as regards each of the following—

(a) the period for which the co-ownership subsists (that is, for which the co-owners concerned are co-owners);

(b) any period for which one only of the co-owners has an interest in the building, part of a building or dwelling concerned, or is owner of the caravan concerned;

(c) any period for which there is a co-ownership as regards the property concerned but the participants of it do not correspond with those of the co-ownership mentioned in paragraph (a) above (whether because the number of members differs or because any of the personnel differs).

(4) The regulations may include provision conferring rights of recovery as between parties (whether co-owners, spouses or managers).
(5) Without prejudice to section 141(2) below, the regulations may include provision amending or adapting provisions of this Part; and in particular the regulations—

(a) may provide that section 11(4) above shall apply where different charges arise because of the operation of the regulations;

(b) may amend or adopt provisions of this Part which themselves confer power to make regulations (such as Schedules 2 and 4).

(6) References to co-owners include references to persons who together have an interest under a lease or underlease, and references to co-ownership shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is necessary in order to remove an anomaly which arose unintentionally in the drafting of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 5 provide for the owners and tenants of properties to be subject in appropriate circumstances to the standard or collective community charge. It has always been our policy that there should be only one standard or collective community charge liability in respect of a single property. If, for example, a second home is jointly owned by two people it has always been our policy that there should be only one standard charge liability.
It has been pointed out that, as drafted, Clauses 3 and 5 may not conform to that policy. They may make each joint owner or joint tenant liable for a separate charge. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—raised the point during the discussion on 24th May. I was not then able to respond but I can now say that he had indeed spotted an anomaly in the drafting. This amendment will put that anomaly right by making it clear that there should be only one charge per property. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I apologise to the Committee but before putting the amendment I should put the Question that Clauses 17 and 18 stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the intention of the amendment is to be helpful and we are not opposed to it in principle. However, I am bound to say that it contains many detailed provisions about what regulations may contain in order to achieve the kind of flexibility in the situation

1277
of co-ownership which the Government envisage and which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out. It does not say what the circumstances will be when co-owners are subject to different standard or collective community charges. In other words, there are plenty of frills around the plate but there is no meat in the amendment.
It would be enormously helpful if the Minister would indicate the kind of circumstances he envisages in which the regulations may become necessary. Secondly, having set out those circumstances, how does he propose to ensure that Parliament has a chance to take a view on them?
I should like to raise one particular drafting point in relation to the amendment. It appears in subsection (3)(a), which reads:
"the period for which the co-ownership subsists (that is, for which the co-owners concerned are co-owners);".
That is the first time that I have come across an attempt in legislation at a definition of a phrase within the same and a subsequent line. Either the phrase,
"the period for which the co-ownership subsists"
is the same as the phrase,
"for which the co-owners concerned are co-owners",
in which case the words in brackets are unnecessary, or they are different, in which case the gloss on the first phrase is misleading. Perhaps the Minister will tell us which is the case.
Lord Havers: I make a simple plea for those who must read the Bill when it becomes law. I ask the Government to find a new Clause 18, which is spread over more than a page of the Marshalled List and which raises complications which I find difficult. I should like to ask my noble friend to consider whether he can shorten the clause into a more readable and easily understood form before the Report stage.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his understanding that there is nothing sinister in the amendment and that it is designed to be helpful and to remove the existing anomaly.
He asked about the circumstances which may arise to cause that to be necessary. The kind of circumstance we envisage is one where perhaps a property is in the names of two, three, four or more people. Were it not for the amendment there would be three, four or more standard or collective community charges instead of one. It might be a second home in the Lake District, for example, which gives rise to the kind of circumstance that we envisage arising.
As regards the view that Parliament may take of the regulation-making power, I understand that it would be subject to the negative procedure and not the affirmative procedure. That is because there would be many cases which would be required to be debated in Parliament if it were to be by the affirmative procedure.
In answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Havers I should like to say that, while I understand the point that he makes, it may be helpful if I run through the terms of the amendment which I did not
1278
do in the interests of time. It gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has pointed out.
In cases where co-owners would otherwise be liable to more than one charge by virtue of the same property, the regulations will provide, in accordance with subsection (2)(a), that there should be only one charge and that the co-owners should be jointly subject to it. Under subsection (2)(b) the regulations will also provide that the co-owners should be jointly and severally liable for the amount payable in respect of the charge. Under subsection (2)(c) the regulations will further provide that joint and several liability of spouses and managing agents will continue to apply. Under subsection (2)(d) the regulations will make provision for the payment of collective charge contributions to co-owners.
Under subsection (3) the regulations will make provision for what happens if co-ownership is established or ceases or changes during the course of a chargeable financial year. Under subsection (4) provision may be made for recovery between those who are jointly and severally liable.
I appreciate that this seems a fairly large amendment to move. The necessity to insert it as a separate clause comes from its complexity. However, I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel at least partially satisfied.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not had an answer to my second question. Is there a difference between,
"the period for which the co-ownership subsists"
and
"(that is, for which the co-owners concerned are co-owners)"?
If there is no difference, why are they both in the Bill; and if there is a difference why is it claimed that they are both the same?
Lord Glenarthur: I am sorry, but I missed that point. Perhaps I can assure the noble Lord that subsection (3)(a) is simply intended to deal with the period during which the co-ownership subsists. The words in brackets simply make it absolutely clear beyond doubt what is meant by the period of co-ownership. The noble Lord may find those words rather confusing and may not find them in other statutes, as he was unable to give examples, but I assure him that those words would be absolutely clear before a court and that is what we are keen to ensure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not find the words confusing. I find the drafting to be defective. If it is made clearer by the use of the second phrase then why use the first phrase at all? If the second phrase is better, it should be used by itself. I do not believe that the noble Lord has got himself off that hook.
In regard to the questions which have been raised both by myself and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, I do not find at all satisfactory the Government's explanation of the complexity of this clause. I believe it is partly the result of the political pit into which the Government have been digging themselves by proposing the community charge as a whole. They are now finding that the pit is full of mud. I wish them joy of it.
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am afraid that I shall rise to that bait. The noble Lord has sought to challenge various aspects of this Bill. Wherever possible, the Government have done all they can to improve it. That is the purpose of this Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Contributions in aid]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: I rise merely to seek clarification of the position with regard to United States servicemen, many of whom live off base with their families and now pay rates but in future will not pay the community charge. For example, in the case of the United States air base at Alconbury, I am told that some 1,500 personnel plus their wives and families live off base and Huntingdon District Council estimates that it could lose up to £600,000, which would mean an increase of between £6 and £7 for all other Huntingdon district charge payers.
In another place it was said that foreign governments would pay. I seek to clarify whether that payment will be sufficient and whether it will be paid to the district concerned. I am told that a Department of the Environment representative informed the National Association of Local Councils at a conference in April that the Government were aware of the problem and would be making appropriate arrangements. I ask the noble Lord to be good enough to tell the Committee what those appropriate arrangements will be, what will they cover and to whom the payment will be made.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for raising this important matter. I was fully expecting the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to raise it because she tabled amendments to cover this point and has withdrawn them. Therefore I suspected that that matter would be raised at this stage. I am grateful that the National Association of Local Councils wrote to my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government in advance of this debate to explain its concern about the issue of visiting servicemen.
The first thing I should do in response to the noble Lord's remarks is to reassure him that it is the Government's firm intention to provide compensation to charging authorities for the loss of revenue arising from community charge exemptions. That applies not only in respect of visiting servicemen but in respect of all exemptions and also the student discount arrangements. It is our intention that compensation should be payable through the grant system. The precise mechanics of the compensation arrangements remain to be resolved but I confirm that the principles are clear. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will be pleased to hear that we have been consulting with the local authority associations before finalising the precise procedures.
Lord Diamond: I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Perhaps I may explain that my noble friend Lady Stedman would have been here
1280
making the same comments were it not for the fact that unfortunately she is engaged on other parliamentary business at present. I am very grateful to the Minister and I will take careful note of how the matter proceeds.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 79:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Factors to be considered by charging Authority.
A charging Authority shall not take into account the payment or nonpayment of any community charge by a person in the exercise of any of its functions not related to the collection of the community charge.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment. I apologise for standing on my noble friend's foot in doing so, but it was quite a feat trying to avoid it! That is not bad for a Tuesday night, is it?
The amendment is one which I hope the Minister will at least understand. We appreciate that in another place the Minister and his colleagues have made it clear that they would certainly frown upon any charging authority which acted in what one would call a punitive way by withdrawing services or, by virtue of the fact that a payer was not paying, was in some way or other visiting retribution upon him or her. The purpose of this amendment is that any authority which exercises its wide range of functions—and the Minister will know what they are—shall in no way take into account, in discharging its responsibilities to the ratepayer and the taxpayer and the resident in its area, the fact that for one reason or another there is some dispute or some nonpayment. If the Minister accepts that, we ask why he does not have it written on the face of the Bill. However, if the Minister can say that he has other means of consultation, advice and guidance for local authorities that will meet the point, we certainly will not press this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton moving his amendment and I can assure the Committee that I do not dissent from the principle that charging authorities should not discriminate, in providing services, against people who fail to register for or pay the community charge. This is no different from saying that authorities should not discriminate, in providing services, against people who fail to pay their rates, or people who have been convicted of a criminal offence—or, for that matter, people with fair hair! I accept the principle without reservation. Local authorities are service providers and they must carry out that role in accordance with the statutes which empower them to provide the services, without favour or discrimination.
The Government have made their position clear on this issue. When, in December 1986, we published a policy document on the community charge after the consultation period on the Green Paper had ended we included several paragraphs about the checks which registration officers would be able to run on the use of local services in order to maintain the community charges register. We used the following unequivocal form of words in explaining that those

1281
checks would not affect the availability of local services:
"In no circumstances would people be prevented from obtaining services that they were entitled to".
So, for once, not only can I understand but I can agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on a matter of principle.
Where I must part company with him is over the need for this amendment. The amendment itself is otiose and would achieve nothing. The reason is that nothing whatever in this Bill would authorise any local authority to behave in the discriminatory way that the noble Lord suggests. Local authorities carry out functions and provide services under a very wide range of statutes, and nothing in this Bill will override the provisions of those statutes governing the terms and conditions on which services may be provided.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has made a fair statement. Those outside the Committee who have sought our assistance in obtaining assurances are entitled not only to take what the Minister said at its face value but to read into it, as I do, that if an authority acts in the way that we fear, without authorisation, or there are suspicions that it is doing so, the Minister and his colleagues will consider what steps are open to them.
I accept that the amendment is unnecessary in the light of what the Minister said, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Community charges: administration]:
[Amendment No. 79A not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No.79B:
Page 82, line 38, at end insert—
("A regulation under this schedule shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I take the Committee through the precise consequences of the amendment. In Schedule 2, on page 82, the Bill deals with the administration of the charges. The Committee will appreciate that this schedule gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations concerning such provisions as he sees fit.
There are some very important matters that the schedule empowers the Secretary of State to act upon, such as,
"the collection of amounts persons are liable to pay … the collection of amounts individuals are liable to pay … [and] other aspects of administration".
Our amendment seeks to add a further paragraph:
"A regulation under this schedule shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
The Minister who is to reply is well aware of the general anxiety of Oppositions who are denied precise words written into a Bill and who wants a further opportunity—another bite of the cherry—to approve the Secretary of State's proposals. This amendment is along those lines.
We do not remotely consider that the intentions of the Minister are other than to carry out what he is empowered to do. However, because this Bill is a revolution in the payment for local services and because, without over-larding the pudding, there will be anxiety for a period, we suggest that, when the Minister and his colleagues have precise details of the instrument that will give effect to the words on the face of the Bill, instead of simply acting upon it, in a negative way, they should come before both Houses to have the matter debated and approved.
We are not thinking in terms of delay but of bona fide accountability and scrutiny, which is one of the functions of this Chamber as well as another place. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly accept that the affirmative procedure can be a useful check on the exercise of the power of the executive. However, I do not believe that its use would be as appropriate as the noble Lord suggests it might be in the case of Schedule 2.
The noble Lord would not, by any stretch of the imagination, describe Schedule 2 as a wide and general power. It prescribes in great detail what the Secretary of State may include in regulations dealing with the administration of the community charge. It is no exaggeration to say that anyone reading the schedule will have a clear idea of what the regulations will look like. So great is the level of detail that the Committee could, if it wished, by amending the schedule virtually rewrite the regulations.
In those circumstances, I suggest that it would be completely superfluous for the Committee, having examined the schedule both in Committee and on Report, to have a debate and vote on the regulations. It is important that Parliament should be able to exercise control over secondary legislation, but the regulations under this schedule are exactly the kind for which the negative resolution procedure was designed. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate that the Minister's answer is in the negative. However, we are looking for further opportunities for the Chamber to exercise its function. The Minister is absolutely right that the schedule is tightly drawn on precisely what it seeks to do. However, one must consider exactly what it will do. We are debating regulations that make provision for the collection of amounts that persons are liable to pay for community charges. Although that is precise, it is enormous in its impact. We are referring to the collection of amounts that individuals will have to pay in contribution to amounts which other persons are liable to pay in respect of collective community charges. Those regulations will have an enormous impact on many people.
The Minister is entitled to say that we have debated the nuances and other aspects in various parts of the Bill, but we are also debating regulations on the administration of the community charges and contributions. That is the catch-all, belt and braces subsection that one would accept and to which one takes no exception.
However, this is a significant era in respect of raising local taxes. The Minister, because he is the

1283
Minister and this is his Government, may well know a great deal more than we, as an Opposition, about how the system will work and its impact on communities and individuals. The Minister will understand, however, that from this side of the Chamber we are not privy to the details of the regulations. We are disturbed that the Minister is not prepared to give Parliament a further opportunity to debate those measures.
The Minister can be assured that it is not a time-wasting exercise either tonight or in the future. I should have thought that the Government, in order to get this matter accepted more cleanly by the public as regards their intentions, would not have baulked at giving Parliament as a sovereign responsible body an opportunity to make this provision. I see that there is not even a flicker from the Minister than I can latch onto. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 79C:
Page 82, line 40, leave out ("this paragraph") and insert ("subparagraph (2) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 81A and 86A. This group of amendments deals with the question of a person's liability to pay the community charge or a penalty where he or she has appealed against registration or against the imposition of that penalty.
The first amendment—that is to say, Amendment No. 79C—is simply a drafting amendment. Generally, if a person has appealed against being entered on the register, he or she will have to pay the community charge pending the resolution of that appeal. I am sure the Committee will agree that is only reasonable. Without the provision, it would be all too tempting for people to lodge an appeal simply in order to defer paying what they should rightfully pay.
However, there may be occasions when people are registered in two different places at the same time. For instance, this may happen if a person worked away from home and had been registered by the registration officer at his main home or at the home from which he worked. Obviously, such a person would wish to appeal against registration in the place where he or she did not think he should pay. It would be very hard on him if, pending the outcome of the appeal, he had to pay the community charge in both places.
Amendment No. 81A provides that in such cases the person has only to pay one of the charges. In order to avoid complications about which he should pay, the regulations will provide that he should pay only in the area in which he was first registered. The regulations will also contain rules for deciding whether an appeal is outstanding and which of the register entries came first.
The last amendment deals with penalties imposed under the provisions of Schedule 3. Clause 22 provides a right of appeal against the imposition of a penalty. People will normally appeal because they believe that the penalty was not justified and has been improperly imposed. In these circumstances it would
1284
be hard to justify requiring a person to pay the penalty in the expectation that he will be repaid if he is proved to be right. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this would be contrary to natural justice. If the penalty is subsequently confirmed by the valuation community charge tribunal, it will then become payable. The person would still be required to pay his community charge if he were subject to the charge.
I hope the Committee will agree that these amendments provide the most equitable way of dealing with the liability of people to pay pending an appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may deal with this matter in the form of questions as regards Amendment No. 81A, because I have no questions on Amendment No. 79C. In Amendment No. 81A we read:
"The regulations may include provision that where—
(a) a person is entered in the registers of two"—
and it continues,
"(b) he has sole liability to pay".
Does that mean that it excludes all married people because they have joint and several liability? That is what this amendment seems to say. I hope that it is not the intention of the Government that this should not apply to people who are married or who are even living together. "Sole liability" seems odd in that phraseology. Is it necessarily the best choice to say that when this difficulty arises—it will undoubtedly do so—it is the entry which is first in the register? I believe that the most obvious case for this to happen is where someone moves from house A to house B and therefore is put on two registers at the same time without the necessary steps having been taken. Surely it would be fairer that a person should pay the community charge where he actually is rather than as regards the first entry. Subject to those comments, it will be interesting to know if I am making life too complicated for the Minister.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps what the noble Lord has missed when he refers to sole liability is that everyone has sole liability in their own right. Therefore, it does not exclude married couples. As far as I remember this was a feature of the Scottish Bill. As regards Amendment No. 81A and the reason the regulations provide that they should pay only in the area in which they were first registered—which I believe to be the noble Lord's second point—that was an arbitrary decision for simplification and no other reason.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may first declare an interest which no doubt is similar to that of many Members of the Committee, and then ask my noble friend a question about my position in this matter. Like most of the Members of the Committee, my home is at some distance from London. My noble friend knows because he has been there. It is in East Anglia. Owing to my work as a parliamentarian and at the Bar, I have always had a pillow in London. I have a flat in Lincoln's Inn, but, alas, it is in that part of Lincoln's Inn which lies in Camden rather than in that part of it which is 20 yards away and lies in Westminster. At present I believe I am a rather substantial ratepayer in Camden as well as a moderate ratepayer in Cambridgeshire.

1285
As I understand the position, when this Bill comes into force I shall be liable for the community charge in Huntingdonshire and in Camden. Therefore, I shall be paying two community charges. I shall not complain at having to do so because, quite frankly, it will be to my advantage. Perhaps my noble friend can confirm and clarify the position that I am in, which, as I say, must be similar to that of many Members of the Committee; namely, that nothing here will prevent me from paying two community charges.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord might be very well advised to complain. The fact is that his situation is not dissimilar from that of many of us, including me. It will be up to the noble Lord and the registration authorities to decide which is the noble Lord's main residence. For example, if he decides that his home in East Anglia is his main residence, then upon his flat in London, wherever that might be, he would be subject to the standard community charge. It will be for him to resolve with his local authority which is the main residence. The other would be liable for the standard charge. I hope that clarifies the position.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I believe it is relevant for me to say that for income tax purposes and for other purposes such as the allowances made in your Lordships' House, my home in East Anglia is my principal residence.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The information which has come from the Government expresses a point of view on that matter. That is the information contained in the document from the Department of the Environment, Welsh Office. A few people have two or more homes or spend part of the year abroad. It will be necessary to decide which is the main residence. Though such people may well wish to express a view, they will be unable simply to choose which it should be. The decision will be made by the community charge registration officer and there will be no right of appeal. If for some reason the registration officer decides that it will be Camden, according to the information in the document Community Charge: Paying for Local Government, published by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, there will be no right of appeal.
Lord Glenarthur: I am sure the noble Baroness would expect the community charge registration officers to be reasonable people. It would be up to an individual to take up a case with the registration officer to establish at which of his two residences he spent more time. One can move into the realms of hypothesis with these matters, but it is the registration officer who decides, subject to the right of appeal. However, the individual can make his case to the registration officer in the way I have described. This will be a fairly common feature for many noble Lords who, like my noble friend, Lord Renton, will have a house in one part of the country and a flat in London. It is up to the individual to sort this out with the registration officer. The circumstances will vary from one person to another, but I do not think that it need be as complex as the noble Baroness fears.
Lord Trafford: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask for clarification of that point. In the case of my noble friend Lord Renton, what if both registration officers decide that his main residence is in their respective areas?
Lord Glenarthur: I believe that to be impossible.
Lord Morton of Shuna: To take the position of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the registration officer for Camden may say that the noble Lord's main and principal residence is in Camden. The registration officer in Huntingdonshire may come to a different decision and say that his main residence is in Huntingdonshire. The noble Lord will have to sort that out with two registration officers. As I understand it, that is where the appeal procedure comes in. In that procedure, how will it be decided which is the first? One pays for the one that is first made, but in the example we are discussing they may be made simultaneously.
Lord Glenarthur: I take the noble Lord's point. This was picked on arbitrarily because it seemed sensible. I should like to look at that point. I imagine that in the case of two authorities which claimed that one place was to be the sole or main residence, the two registration officers would be able to get together with the aid of the individual concerned. However, if making this arbitrary choice has compounded the problem, I should like to look at those words. I do not believe that it has, but, without commitment, I shall certainly look at the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Is it really a question for the election of the individual who says, "This is my main residence", and then both or either registration officers accepting it? Is the election of the individual binding on the registration officer? Is that election open to question by either or both of the registration officers? If it is, there will be administrative turmoil and muddle with these wretched registration officers, one saying one thing and the other saying another thing. Would it not be far simpler to make the election of the individual—for example, my noble friend Lord Renton, who says, "This is my main residence"—binding? That would be conclusive.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Part of the problem might be that from time to time the pattern of people's lives will change. For example, I spend most of my time in London and can legitimately claim, I suppose, that my sole or main residence is a small flat in London. What I regard to be my home is very much my second home because I am hardly ever there. However, things may change and I may find myself spending more time in Scotland than I do in London.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenarthur: Noble Lords opposite may wish that to be the case, as I rather anticipated they might. At any rate, it has not happened yet.
Circumstances will change, and there will need to be a dialogue in every individual case between the person concerned and the authority in each place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will agree to

1287
the amendment. The actual technicality in the second of the three amendments I shall happily look at to make sure that we have it right. The principle is certainly correct, and I hope that he will accept it.
Lord Trafford: Before my noble friend sits down, why is it not possible for him to take this back? As in other elections for tax, it is for the individual to decide. In terms of capital gains tax on primary or secondary residences the individual makes the election to the tax authorities. Why is it not possible to follow the same practice? My noble friend has suggested that times change. In that case the election would have to change as well. This is already the common practice, and has been for years, for all other matters of taxation. If the practice were to follow exactly the same way, I can see no reason why the matter could not be resolved and then the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and I have raised would not, and could not, arise.
Lord Morton of Shuna: There is a great difficulty in that. There may be great financial choices to be made. A single person who lives in an area with a high community charge may well decide that it is better to have that as his main residence than his country cottage. However, the position would be entirely reversed if it were a household with three or four people. Therefore, I suggest that it must be a question of fact to be resolved by the registration officer or by the courts in the event of a dispute.
Lord Trafford: With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, this applies now in respect of capital gains tax and one's decision of residence. In the case of my noble friend Lord Renton, whose domestic affairs are being aired around the Committee, it is probably the case, although I do not know his actual residence, that for capital gains tax purposes he would elect to say that he lives in London rather than in Huntingdon, but the other way round if he were trying to carry out the procedures which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has just pointed out in regard to community charge. If one made that election for both purposes one could not have different elections. The election would have to be the same.
Lord Glenarthur: Everyone will be subject to the charge and the charge will be very different from capital gains tax or anything like that. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, put his finger on the point. There could be a large financial advantage in any claim. We think it is best to let the community charge registration officer decide, subject to appeal, but the individual concerned will be able to make representations to him.
There is another point. We have taken a power to make rules as to which registration is first if they took place simultaneously. That is spelt out in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 81A. There is money at stake here. There are those who will claim that they spend most of their time in one place when in fact they might well spend it in another. That is why it is important to have a judge, to to speak. That is what the community charge registration officer will do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 80:
1288
Page 83, line 6, after ("year") insert ("to coincide with the receipt by the chargeable person, where apropriate, of payments to him of income support").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81 as they hang together, so to speak. The purpose of the amendments is to ask the Government to take into account the special needs, in certain circumstances, of those people who by any yardstick are wretchedly poor. It is not, however, a case of seeking to avoid payment. Indeed, the Minister has already indicated that all those who should be legitimately charged will be charged; and those who can seek exemption will be able to do so.
The amendments relate to individuals who are faced with having to meet a charge. We are talking about circumstances where individuals need to rely for their income on income support of one type or another. The income of such individuals is not only small but it also needs to be tightly budgeted. If we are talking in terms of a community charge which is comparable to the present payment of rates—even though we are talking in terms of those who do not pay rates but who will now have to pay down to the 20 per cent., after having received the 80 per cent. abatement—we are still talking about people for whom finding 10 instalments or even less or having to find £4 or £5 at a time will be an onerous task.
We are also talking about people whose income comes regularly but at short intervals. Such people often receive their income at fortnightly intervals. Indeed, that is how allowances are paid. Therefore the purpose of the amendments is to take account of people in that category.
The first amendment applies to paragraph (2) of Schedule 2, which provides that:
"Regulations under this Schedule may include provision—
(a) that the chargeable person is to make payments on account of the chargeable amount, including payments during the course of the financial year".
The amendment seeks to insert thereafter the words:
"to coincide with the receipt by the chargeable person, where appropriate, of payments to him of income support".
Therefore, whether or not we have the words right, the meaning is that the actual payment by the individual—who is not seeking to evade payment—shall be made in an appropriate way so that out of that person's income he or she will be able to pay the charge directly. The Minister will perhaps say that surely this will mean additional bureaucracy and administration. Of course the answer is yes, it will. However, we are talking about people who need income support. Such people are at the lowest level of income and resources.
That is the case in respect of Amendment No. 80. Briefly, we want the Government to understand that even if it means further fine-tuning and further tailor-making in respect of such individuals who, I repeat have wretchedly small incomes, we should like their agreement to the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 81. This relates to sub-paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 2. At line 7 it says:
"that payments on account must be made in accordance with an agreement between the chargeable person and the authority or in accordance with a prescribed scheme for payment by instalments".
However, we require the insertion thereafter of the words:
"but any prescribed scheme shall not contain provision for a minimum payment in any one instalment".
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where the amount of the community charge to be paid is especially small— for example, where people receive the maximum rebate, or during the period of transition from rates to the community charge— there will be circumstances where individuals are entitled to fewer than 10 instalments. The provision is merely to avoid the amount due each month being uneconomic to collect. Such rules will apply only where bills are below a set amount a year and the size of the maximum instalment in such cases will be limited.
I think that the Minister can understand what we are asking of him. We are not asking for a special provision but we are asking the Government to take note that there are individuals whose resources are, I say, a thousand times—if not a million times—worse than those of any Member of this Committee. Such individuals are law-abiding and will wish to meet the sums which they are obliged to pay, but in their special circumstances they need special provisions to be made. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with great care to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Both amendments seem to give the impression—to me at any rate—that the noble Lord has an unnecessary fear of allowing local authorities to have discretion in their arrangements for collecting the community charge. Under sub-paragraph (2)(b) the Government will make regulations giving every charge payer a right to pay in no fewer than 10 monthly instalments. However, the crucial point is that that will be subject to any agreement that may be reached between the authority and the individual charge payer, just as is the case with the present rates system. The agreement may be to pay in only two instalments, in a single lump sum, or weekly or fortnightly.
Charging authorities themselves are beyond any doubt best placed to decide what agreement should be reached in each case. In any agreement reached—let us say, for example, it is for weekly payments—there will be no question of the Government setting a minimum level of instalments. Of course if the charge payer wishes to pay 50 pence per week and the charging authority agrees to that proposal, then no one will object. It must be clear from what I have just said that the amendments are unnecesary. Charging authorities will be able to accept payments on a fortnightly basis to coincide with income support payments and they will be able to accept small instalments—indeed, as small as they wish—as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would wish them to do.
However, I must part company with the noble Lord on the issue of compulsion which lies behind these amendments. The amendments would create a statutory scheme in which all, or almost all, income support recipients would pay fortnightly on a different basis from everyone else. It would compel charging authorities to accept very small payments as low as a few pence at a time. I am not sure that that is a sensible approach to the problem. We intend to set up a prescribed scheme of 10 instalments, as I have said, subject to a limit on the minimum size of instalment which the authority would be obliged to
1290
accept—for example, £5. Of course this will act only as a framework and a guideline for instalments. As I have stressed, charging authorities and charge payers will retain a discretion to enter into whatever agreement best suits both parties.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister would certainly find a friend in me in commending local authorities and their sense of fair play, justice and equity. I shall say nothing which opposes that view. However, the noble Lord is saying he believes that every local authority in whose area there are individuals of the type I have described will, by virtue of the regulations which enable them to do so, make such arrangements. The noble Lord is well aware that by virtue of measures undertaken by the Government, each council— despite the fact that there will be claims upon its time and its hierarchy of responsibilities— will be driven every day of its life to consider just how it can avoid the expense and how it can legitimately pass on some of its responsibilities to others.
I fear that the scheme will cost money, because the treasurer and the charging officer will be involved. There will be a need for administration officers. However low the cost, there will be authorities which, though sympathetic, will be able to say, "We do not have to do it. We hear what you say, wretched income support people. We know that we have the power to ease your burden, but in pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number"—the ratepayer—"we will try to keep down the cost".
The Minister has as much faith as I have in the good sense of local authorities, but I fear that he is not prepared to take into account the circumstances under which they have to operate. In those circumstances, I intend to press the matter to a Division and to ask for the Committee's view.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 131.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Flowers, L.

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Galpern, L.

Basnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Blease, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hayter, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hooson, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hylton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

David, B.

Jay, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Diamond, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kennel, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis, L,

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McNair, L.

1291

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Milford, L.

Stedman, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Oram, L.

Thurlow, L.

Parry, L.

Tordoff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Vernon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Raglan, L.

Walston, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winstanley, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Serota, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Ingrow, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Balfour, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bauer, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Killearn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kimball, L.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

McFadzean, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brain, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Caccia, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Camden, M.

Milverton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Norrie, L.

Clinton, L.

Northesk, E.

Coleraine, L.

Onslow, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Prior, L.

Denham, L.

Pym, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Radnor, E.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Southborough, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torphichen, L.

Harvington, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

1292

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Windlesham, L.

Vinson, L.

Wise, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Weir, V.

Wynford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Young of Graffham, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.40 p.m.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 83, line 53, at end insert—
("(3) The regulations may include provision that where—

(a) a person is entered in the registers of two or more authorities as subject on the same day or days in a chargeable financial year to personal community charges of the authorities,

(b) he has sole liability to pay an amount to each authority in respect of its charge as it has effect for the year, and

(c) one or more of the entries is subject to an appeal or arbitration,

while any such appeal or arbitration is outstanding no amount shall be payable by virtue of any of the entries other than the entry which was made first.
(4) The regulations may include rules for ascertaining whether an entry is subject to an appeal or arbitration, whether an appeal or arbitration is outstanding, and which of a number of entries was made first; and the regulations may treat an appeal or arbitration as outstanding unless it is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails for non-prosecution.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 79C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 84, line 8, at end insert—
("4) Regulations under this schedule may include provision that any payment or part payment due to an authority under any provision included under paragraphs 2 or 3 above may be remitted by a Magistrate's Court on the grounds of poverty.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The primary purpose of the amendment is to seek some clarification. We are asking that the magistrate and the magistrates' court should have the power, when they consider evidence in respect of non-payment, to remit payment on grounds of poverty. Perhaps I may remind the Minister, although I know that, as always, he will be well briefed, that his honourable friend said in another place on 18th February (at col. 840 of Hansard) that he would bring forward on Report an amendment which was to enshrine the principle which I have just enunciated. He added that the option should remain that the debt could be remitted by the courts on grounds of poverty. Will the Minister confirm that what his honourable friend in another place said would happen is contained in the amendment which was moved on Report stage to Schedule 4 on the community charge enforcement? It contained a provision in paragraph 6(3)(c) on page 94 of the Bill before us for regulations which will allow the remission of payment where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed.
I should be glad if the Minister would confirm the words of his honourable friend in another place that the paragraph would enable a debt to be remitted by the courts on the ground of poverty, if the case were made and if the court so decided. Are those provisions contained in paragraph 6(3)(c) or some other paragraph?
Will the Minister assure those outside the Chamber that the words of his honourable friend have been given effect and therefore this amendment is not needed? Otherwise, if the position is that the amendment is needed to give effect to the words of his honourable friend, this amendment might well be helpful to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, could say whether there is a definition of poverty which would enable this amendment to be interpreted by the magistrates.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord certainly has a point; I have not sought to define poverty. He may very well argue that different magistrates' courts will, according to the varying levels of circumstances, interpret "poverty" as meaning one thing in one area and another elsewhere. Therefore, the Minister may very well tell us that the words in the schedule provide for that taking place and that my amendment is not necessary. All I am asking the Minister to do is to assure us that when his honourable friend said that the debt—that is the nonpayment, the refusal to pay or the plea that someone is unable to pay because they are in poverty—is such that it would be possible to plead in that manner, that could be acted upon by a court remitting the charge on the grounds of poverty. Perhaps the Minister could assure us that the intention of his honourable friend is given effect in the Bill, either in paragraph 6(3)(c) or in some other way. If that is done, I shall be perfectly satisfied.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has mentioned one of the difficulties in moving any amendment as to the precision of the terms and their interpretation. But in this instance I agree that poverty is relative. At the moment it is my ideas that are suffering from poverty!
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord has tabled an amendment to give magistrates the power to remit payment of the community charge on the grounds of poverty. He has proposed this in an amendment to Schedule 2 to the Bill. Enforcement of payment is dealt with in Schedule 4, which sets out the role of the magistrates' courts. Paragraph 7(3)(c) of Schedule 4 already allows magistrates to remit payment in certain circumstances. I hope that in the light of this the noble Lord will take it as confirmation from me that the commitment which was given in another place has been carried out in that sub-paragraph. I hope that that is the reassurance which he seeks.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful to the Minister and I confess I have confused the Committee by referring to paragraph 6(3)(c). The Minister was kind enough not to draw that to the attention of the Committee, as I am now doing. When I read again paragraph 7(3)(c) and the provision allowing remission of payment where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed, the Minister has confirmed that that covers the circumstances both of what his honourable friend said in another place and the intent of this
1294
amendment. I am most grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 85, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 82B and 82C at the same time. These are minor technical amendments which I trust the Committee will accept. Amendment No. 82A deletes the recovery provisions relating to overpayment or underpayment of the community charge in single lump sums. They are re-created in Schedule 4 with the other recovery procedures. Amendment No. 82B is a renumbering amendment consequential on that deletion. Amendment No. 82C is simply a renumbering amendment to correct a typing error. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have no objection to these amendments.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I may ask whether we are dealing with attachment of earnings. That is the paragraph which the noble Lord has just mentioned on page 85, line 20. I wondered whether I was on the right page.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, the amendment which we are talking to is to Schedule 2, page 85, line 17. For Amendment No. 82B it is line 26 and for Amendment No. 82C it is line 30.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I wanted to speak on the attachment of earnings. As a magistrate one has to recognise that some fines and maintenance are very often covered by an attachment of earnings order. But in order to fix an attachment of earnings order through the courts one has to know the income of the person concerned and the wages of the people who will have the attachment order. That will have to be verified by a document from the employer.
The attachment of earnings orders through the courts have to leave an amount of money for the wage-earner to live on. Therefore there is a limit to the amount of money which can be obtained from the person who might very often be a low wage-earner. There is a limit. When the rules regarding an attachment of earnings order are put down in this manner one wonders whether the same regulations will apply to this as already apply in the magistrates' courts where there has to be protection of earnings. Otherwise one reduces the person to poverty.
The other point is that anybody who has an attachment of earnings order which goes through the court has to agree to it voluntarily. The employer also has to be willing to take the money out of the wages. There are people who do not want their employer to know that they have problems and therefore they will not have an attachment of earnings order. Very often there are employers who perhaps employ only 10 or 15 persons and they do not want to be bothered with going to the trouble of doing this each week and making sure that the courts receive the money. I am concerned about the attachment of earnings order and I hope that it will follow the same pattern as the one to which magistrates have to adhere at the moment.
Lord Hylton: I wish to follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, said about the attachment of earnings. She explained very clearly that there are some problems associated with this procedure, desirable as it undoubtedly is. I am sure that all Members of the Committee would agree that attachment of earnings is infinitely preferable to commitment to prison, which is dealt with in a later schedule, Schedule 4.
In connection with commitment to prison and the alternative for the magistrate of remitting payment, in Schedule 4, paragraph 7(3)(c)—which has already been mentioned in connection with Amendment No. 82—do the words:
"where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed",
limit the discretion which would otherwise be available to the magistrate?
Lord Glenarthur: I should be grateful if in a moment the noble Lord would repeat the point that he wished me to look at and the actual place in the Bill. We have slightly jumped ahead of ourselves. We are now debating Schedule 4 to the Bill. The amendments put down are to Schedule 2. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, will agree that we can discuss the important point about the attachment of earnings that she made when we come on to the amendments which relate to that point.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am quite willing to do that. I hesitated when I started speaking because that point came under a particular paragraph, but I am quite willing to agree to that procedure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 82B and 82C:
Page 85, line 26, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)").
Page 85, line 30, leave out (", 3, 5 or 7") and insert ("or 3").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 82B and 82C en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 86, line 48, after ("resident") insert ("provided by the educational establishment").
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee long, but before I speak to Amendment No. 83A I wish very briefly to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, even though he is not in his seat at the moment, for writing to me after my speech on Second Reading. I had spoken about the adverse effects of the poll tax upon students and the administrative complexity of what was being required of institutions of higher education under this Bill. The noble Earl sought to explain and to reassure—and in some measure he succeeded—for which I thank him. I was particularly pleased to learn from him that the full 80 per cent. rebate would apply to all full-time students, including postgraduates and those who are sponsored or come from overseas.
On one point, however, the noble Earl was silent, and that is the subject of my amendment. Schedule 2 requires an institution of higher education to reveal to each registration officer as appropriate the names and addresses of all its full-time students who live
1296
within the area of his charging authority. That is brought about by paragraph 9 of the schedule. That paragraph was added to the schedule by the Government on report in another place.
In the universities we are willing to certify by means of a simple document that each of our students is indeed a student. I speak for my university and for the others. That enables him to establish his bona fides with the registration officer. We are willing, like any other landlord, to provide names and addresses of students living in student residences which are administered by us.
What we find difficult is being expected to provide the addresses of students who do not live on our premises. In many cases we may not know their addresses. We certainly have no means of monitoring them, nor is there any reason for us to do so. A student is an adult person and he can live where he likes, changing his abode as and when he likes without any reference to us.
I notice that paragraph 9(1)(a) of Schedule 2 limits the information that can be demanded of the institution to that which is in its possession or under its control. That could perhaps be construed in practice to refer only to information about students living in accommodation provided by the institution. If that is the case, I shall withdraw my amendment while wondering why the schedule is not more explicit about it.
If, on the other hand, paragraph 9 is a device to force universities and colleges to require students to declare their term-time addresses, wherever they may live, in college accommodation or otherwise, then that puts us in a most invidious position, quite different, as I understand it, from that of any other institution. Would we be expected also to verify that addresses given us by students are correct and up to date? Are there to be penalties for errors in our administration? Are we in effect expected to compile and maintain the student portion of all the registers of the authorities in whose territories our students happen to live? I hope not. My amendment is intended to clarify the matter and, if need be, to rectify it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It may be helpful if in responding to this amendment I deal first with paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 as a whole. This is couched in the terms of a regulation-making power and the Government have made clear that before deciding to make such regulations they will discuss with the universities and colleges whether it is possible to reach agreement for information on students' names and addresses to be provided voluntarily.
I understand that the Department of the Environment officials have invited representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other interested bodies to a meeting at which that will be one of the topics under discussion. If the Secretary of State decides in due course that regulations should be made, I must emphasise that he will not expect the colleges concerned to obtain for this purpose any information other than that which he has already.
The crucial words in paragraph 9 are that the information must be:
"in the possession or control of the certification officer".

1297
I entirely accept that the information that colleges have will usually be far more up to date and complete about students living in halls of residence than it will be about students living in private accommodation. If it is not doing so for its own purposes, I must emphasise again that there is no intention of requiring colleges to keep track of students' addresses during the academic year. To answer specifically the point of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, about whether colleges will be required to verify changes of address thereafter, that is certainly not the case, and nor would there by any penalty for not doing so.
This does not mean, however, that the power should be restricted in the way the amendment suggests so that it applies only to accommodation provided by colleges. Colleges undoubtedly have information about other students' addresses in many cases, especially at the beginning of the academic year. That may be reasonably comprehensive. I do not see any great problem in colleges passing on that information for what it is worth. If on investigation the registration officer finds that the student has already moved on, it will be his job to trace him, although of course he may contact the college to see whether it has obtained a new address.
We have recognised full-time students as a special group by providing that they should pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge and that they should pay only at their term-time addresses for the duration of the course. We have therefore eased the financial burden so that on average they will be paying only 85p a week, and we have made it easier for them to register.
It is only fair, in view of the special treatment, that we should have contingency powers which are aimed at minimising problems for registration officers and avoiding the possible abuse of the student concession. I hope that with those assurances about the intentions behind this paragraph the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, and it must be entirely in his hands, I hope that he will sup with a very long spoon from the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. The very reasonable case put by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, that the universities cannot be expected to do anything other than provide information which is to hand to them, which is the information about residence controlled by the educational establishment, has not been answered. It is not good enough for the noble Lord to say that the information at the beginning of the academic year shall be supplied for what it is worth.
That is not an expression of intent by the Government. It does not make clear what the regulations will say. It certainly does not give the assurance which I should wish to secure if I were the noble Lord—that the universities are not put under an intolerable burden by seeking to find out things which are not otherwise their business.
7 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just said and also to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, to which my name is added. I can only
1298
think that the people who drafted this schedule have not the faintest idea of how students behave. If the drafter had had any connection with London University and the way in which the students hop about like fleas in the first few weeks of coming to London, he or she might understand that what money you are expected to get from these students will be simply swallowed up in the administrative costs of chasing after them. It is completely mad. It is yet another example of the total lack of reality in the minds of the people who have drafted this Bill. These students move at a rate of knots.
Lord Beloff: May I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the other noble Lords who have spoken? It seems to me quite extraordinary that universities or colleges should carry on their functions not knowing where their students can be reached. After all, they have to inform their students, one hopes, about many things connected with their studies. They are responsible for paying to them grants or other means of support.
I should have thought that one of the first duties of the head of an institution is to be able to say, "I know where my students live", whether they live on the premises or not. It seems to me that if the University of London has this floating population, although it may be difficult for the community charge it will be much more difficult for the university teachers who are trying to educate the students.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has led a very sheltered life. His students may have been under the same roof as himself but students in London University—certainly the School of Economics students—I assure him are all over the show. In dealing with the matters to which the noble Lord has referred, we give them what they need to have inside the college. They collect their grants inside the college; they receive notices sent to them inside the college. I may have slightly exaggerated their speed of movement, and the metaphor I used they might find unflattering. But the idea that the colleges know where everybody lives is totally unreal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise for rising to my feet again, but the significance of what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said about the beginning of the academic year has only just occurred to me. It seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right, not only about the understanding by the drafters of this schedule of the way in which students live, but also, I cannot believe that they read the newspapers. At the beginning of every adademic year for many years now there has been a severe shortage of student accommodation. Horrific stories have appeared in the press about students sleeping on floors in classrooms and corridors. These reports may, or may not, be exaggerated. The fact remains that, particularly at the beginning of the academic year, there is a great deal of movement among students as regards where they live which cannot be controlled or even monitored by the educational establishment authorities. It is a particularly difficult time of year to expect them to embark on this exercise. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, the only way in which contact is maintained—and it is a perfectly adequate and satisfactory way—is when they turn up for classes and when they appear to collect their money, if money is due to them.
Lord Flowers: Of course I must support the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in what she says. I must confess I am amazed at the lack of contact which noble Lords seem to have with student life these days: perhaps it is a long time ago that they were in contact. I may also be somewhat tainted by my experience with London where, as the noble Baroness says, students tend to move around rather a lot, unlike some of the country villages where some of our universities reside.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that students come to us for their cheques: we do not send cheques to them, at any rate in London. So there is no need to know their addresses. Of course, in the majority of cases we know them, but that is not quite the point. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that the Government were in conversation with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and so they are. We hope that some of the difficulties we foresee—the relevance of the Data Protection Act, the obligations of the universities, the administration involved and things of that sort—will be clarified by these discussions.
I accept the Minister's intentions and in the hope that the discusisons he referred to with the CVCP are fruitful and produce solutions to the problems I am bothered about, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 83B:
Page 87, line 20, after first ("the") insert ("prescribed").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 83B, perhaps I might also address Amendment No. 83C. These two amendments have been designed to meet a concern raised in another place. Under paragraph 11 of Schedule 2, when a person ceases to be subject to the community charge the registration officer will send him a copy of his register entry, showing that the register has been amended as from the date of his ceasing to be subject to the charge. In the case of a person who ceases to be subject to the charge by virtue of his death, the notification, as the Bill stands, would be addressed to the dead person.
During the Committee stage in another place it was argued that it would be distressing for the relative of the dead person—perhaps his widow—to receive a letter addressed to the dead person. We accept that distress may be caused, and that is why we have tabled these amendments. As your Lordships will appreciate, it will be the dead person's relatives who will receive a copy of the register entry so that they can check whether it is correct and whether there is any dispute about over-payment or under-payment. But in order to avoid distress we accept that the copy of the register entry should not be actually addressed to the dead person.
These amendments will give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the person to whom the register entry should be sent. We shall use that power to provide that where someone has died the copy should not be addressed to the deceased but instead to the deceased's personal representative. This may seem a minor change but I believe it is a desirable one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 83C:
Page 87, line 28, at end insert—
"(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above may prescribe the person who has become or ceased to be subject to the charge concerned or any other person.").
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment with the previous one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 88, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) The Regulations may include provision that a person shown in a charging authority's register may have access to any supporting files or documentary evidence regarding themselves held by the Registration Officer for the purposes of determining that person's liability to a community charge of the authority.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may move this amendment in place of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as my name is also attached to it. The grouping of amendments list issued today claims that Amendment No. 84 has been already discussed. That is not the case. Yesterday we discussed Amendments Nos. 85 and 86, with which Amendment No. 84 is grouped today, Amendment No. 86 at considerable length. However, doubtless in the confusion of jumping between the 60s and 80s and with the countless letters of the alphabet appended to the various numerals, we seem accidentally to have missed out Amendment No. 84 altogether.
The point about this amendent is that it is very much less ambitious and controversial than Amendment No. 86, to which the Government objected. Indeed one might hope that Amendment No. 84 would be supported by the Committee, irrespective of party affiliation. Essentially, the amendment mirrors the access provisions of the Data Protection Act, which was after all introduced by this Government and which received almost unanimous support from your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: This is where I have to confess that I am placed in a rather awkward position. As I understood it, this amendment was debated yesterday, indeed I understood that it had been accepted. I find myself in difficulty because I did not deal with the amendment concerned. I dare say I should be as familiar with this part of the Bill as I have become with other parts of the Bill. At the same time, I hope that the noble Lord accepts that since my noble friend Lord Caithness is not here my attempts to answer the point may be rather amateurish.
Amendment No. 84 would give access to certain files. The Data Protection Act, as I understand it and from my memory of the Act which passed through your Lordships' House several years ago, already gives access to such files. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is otiose.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself. I was prepared not to move the amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has a perfect right to raise the matter. I believe that honour would be satisfied if the Minister were to read and draw to the attention of his honourable and his right honourable friends the points which the noble Lord has made. Perhaps I may say that I entirely agree with those points, not least because my name is on the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will write to us regarding the matter before the Bill reaches the next stage.
Lord Hylton: If my recollection of the Data Protection Act is correct, it only refers to information which is stored within a computer's memory system on tapes, discs and so on. It does not refer to files and to paper records. Therefore, the amendment goes a bit further. I hope that the Government will look at the amendment in that light.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may do as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has invited me to do, bearing in mind at the same time the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He is right to say that the Data Protection Act on the whole deals with computer material rather than manuscript material, which might mean amendment of the Data Protection Act. However, perhaps I may follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and study what has been said in order to pass it on to my noble friend and to my right honourable friend in another place. We can then correspond on the issue.
Lord Monson: I appreciate the Minister's difficulties. I do not wish to make life more difficult. However, I assure the Minister that I have been through Hansard twice and I have not seen any reference to Amendment No. 84. I do not think that it was discussed, although Amendment No. 86 was discussed at length and Amendment No. 85 was discussed briefly. If the noble Lord will undertake, as he has said, to look at the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Community charges: penalties]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 91, line 39, at end insert—
("(2A) The regulations may include provision that, where the imposition of a penalty is subject to an appeal or arbitration, no amount shall be payable in respect of the penalty while the appeal or arbitration is outstanding.
(2B) The regulations may include rules for ascertaining whether an imposition is subject to an appeal or arbitration, and whether an appeal or arbitration is outstanding; and the regulations may treat an appeal or arbitration as outstanding unless it is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails for non-prosecution.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 86A in speaking to Amendment No. 79C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Community charges: enforcement]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 86B:
Page 92, line 15, at end insert—
("(cc) any sum which has become payable to an authority under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 5(2)(a) or (6) of that Schedule and has not been paid;").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 86B, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 86C, 86E, 93A, 93B, 122B and 128A. The amendments are
1302
essentially technical amendments aimed at clarifying the recovery procedures in Schedules 4, 9 and 12. However, it may be helpful if I explain briefly the purpose of each of the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 86B and 86C are consequential on two provisions in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2. Amendment No. 86B provides that, where a person fails to pay an additional amount which is due, the authority may recover that amount in the same way as other community charge arrears are recovered; that is, a liability order and then distress and so on. Amendment No. 86C provides conversely that, where the authority fails to make a repayment which is due to a person, that person may recover the amount in the same way as other unpaid repayments; that is, through the county court.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 requires a person who is subject to a liability order to provide the charging authority with information about his employment and earnings. That is to help the authority to decide what recovery steps to take. Amendment No. 86E would require the person concerned to provide information about any income, whether or not he is in employment. That seems only sensible, since there are many people whose income is not derived from employment.
Under the Insolvency Act 1986 a company may be wound up if it is unable to pay its debts. Local authorities currently use winding up orders as a measure to help them recover unpaid rates from companies. It is mainly used as a threat. However, I understand that it is often an effective one. Amendments Nos. 93A, 122B and 128A simply make it clear for avoidance of doubt that community charges are non-domestic rates and residual domestic rates should be regarded as debts for the purpose of winding up orders under the insolvency Act. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I agree with the main purpose of the amendments. I am slightly astonished that the question of winding up did not occur to the Government until this stage of the proceedings. However, I agree that it must come in.
Amendment No. 86E takes out the provision concerning earnings and inserts:
"the debtor's employment (if any) or income (whether or not from employment)".
In a sense, we were discussing Amendment No. 86E when we discussed earlier amendments. It is curious that no attempt is to be made to find out what the capital of such a person may be. Earlier today we discussed people who might have won the pools or who might have money in the bank. In the paragraph about information, nothing of that sort is mentioned. One may have a situation in which a person has a very large bank account and, for reasons of his or her own, does not put the money into an interest-bearing account and therefore has no income from it. However, that person may have very large sums of money available. It is strange that that information is irrelevant. I understand that there are people who either make money or allege that they make money out of betting, for example. If such people put their money in a bank when they have it, no information about it is to be made available and it is not considered relevant. That restriction seems odd.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Morton, has a good point. I do not believe, as was said earlier this afternoon, that many people keep sitting in their ordinary current account huge sums of money which do not earn any interest. I believe that that is rare. However, there are many people who have holiday homes which may be extremely valuable, whether they are in this country, in Spain, in the South of France or wherever. It is odd that people who have holiday homes which are worth £100,000 or more do not have those taken into account.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps that goes even more widely than the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has suggested. It may be the case that an individual has property in some form in the house in which he lives. That is where the question of distress will come in. That is one of the gradations of response to someone who may not be prepared to pay the community charge. As I understand it, we are interested in the matter of income from capital and not property, cash or anything that forms part of overall capital but does not provide income.
It would be rather strange (would it not?) to suggest that someone would have capital, as was pointed out in an answer to an amendment with which my noble friend Lord Caithness dealt, but no income from that capital, if that capital was in the form of cash. That is the first point. If you have a capital sum as opposed to property, you do not usually put it into a non-interest bearing account. People may on occasions put it into a non-interest bearing account, but if they possibly can they usually put it into an interest bearing account and gain income from it. As my noble friend said, there may be people who put money under the bed. I hope that there are not many, but there are some. But if you are talking about capital, in general terms there will be income from that capital and that should be taken into account.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Surely the Minister understands that there have been in this century quite a lot of people who were determined never to have an income but to have considerable capital appreciation. It was one of the methods by which you avoided paying income tax. The court is apparently not to be told anything about a person's financial position in general, but only about income. I confess to complete puzzlement as to why this restriction comes in.
Baroness Seear: What about the people who have a holiday home? That is of considerable value, but there is no income.
Lord Glenarthur: Then surely we get to the next point but one of the Bill. We first have the matter of information which has to be supplied, then we have attachment of earnings and then we have distress. Someone may hold property or something like that. He may, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggests, be a gambler. He is a lucky man if he is able to make a living out of it. But if he does and he has property and is not declaring—which he may not have to do—the earnings from his gambling, he will nevertheless be liable ultimately for distress in the terms of paragraph 6.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In my understanding, gambling is not an income or earnings. It is a windfall, so to speak. Therefore you do not have to give any information about it under paragraph 4. If you have a house on which you are due to pay community charge and it is relatively empty, it does not mean to say that you do not have the money to pay.
I really think that the Minister should take this away and think about it. Why are we going to totally exclude people's capital position? Although we all, on both sides of the Committee, deprecate the fact that people keep money under the bed in a biscuit tin or whatever, they do that for various reasons, misguided or otherwise, and there are cases where people have a lot of money and a lot of assets but no income.
Lord Glenarthur: This may be the point at which we must have a disagreement. As I understand it, income from capital is the important feature here. I am not familiar enough with the laws on gambling, which the noble Lord raises, and on tax law—the noble Lord must listen and allow me to develop my argument a little before the looks in horror as if he wants to respond—and I am in no position to tell him whether or not any individual would be liable for tax on what he gets from gambling or anything else. The point is that we are only dealing with income obtained from capital and, as I have said, most people will have income from that capital. Nevertheless it seems to me that the best thing I can do is to study the noble Lord's remarks. I certainly cannot give a commitment that I shall be able to bring back an amendment, but I should like to study his remarks. Perhaps he will allow me to do that.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. Surely it is a very simple point. The magistrates' court, which is what paragraph 4 is dealing with, wants to know whether the person can pay. If the person cannot pay they will, I presume, restrict the order. If the person can pay, it does not matter to the magistrates whether it is being paid out of a bank account which bears interest, out of capital, out of income, or whether it comes from under the bed. It is the question of ability to pay which is of interest to the magistrates and nothing else. I do not see why the Government are so restrictive in their approach. The Minister says that he will take it away and think about it, and I am sure that he will.
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, I did not say that I would take it away.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord will think about it.
Lord Glenarthur: We will certainly think about it. I will look at it and see what the noble Lord said in detail and whether there is a point there. I do not believe there is, because, as I have said, as the matter goes through its procedure we ultimately get to distress, which deals with the points that the noble Lord made. Paragraph 4 is about the local authority and not about the magistrates' court, and the court has already granted the necessary order. I shall read what the noble Lord said. I hope he will nevertheless agree that the amendment should be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 86C:
Page 92, line 18, leave out ("or 3") and insert (", 3 or 5(2)(b) or (6)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 86D:
Page 92, line 27, at end insert—
("(3) Regulations under this schedule may provide that any such sum shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction which shall be the County Court or the Magistrates' Court at the discretion of the charging authority.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to clarify the courts and the methods of recovery. It provides that regulations may provide that any such sum shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction, either in the county court or in the magistrates' court, at the discretion of the charging authority. The intention of this amendment is to provide the most practicable and effective identification measures in the proceedings to recover the debt.
The recovery of payment of the community charges is covered by Clauses 18 and 21 and Schedules 2, 3 and 4, and regulations are to be made to cover distress and sale of goods and chattels, or attachment of earnings, or both of these methods. Payment is to be recovered in the same way as a rent or as a simple contract debt. But the difficulties that have arisen in other cases suggest that it is necessary that there should be more provision than is made here.
The Minister will be well aware of the recent case against Manchester city justices ex parte Davis, where the insufficiency of the justices' inquiry resulted in the liability in damages to the wronged ratepayer. It is necessary that the jurisdiction of the court should be brought fully into play, so that the court should be able to exercise discretion to remit the debt or a part of it where an issue of possible injustice may arise. The Bill appears to restrict enforcement of the community charge to distress, to attachment of earnings or to imprisonment. These are the three choices.
In the case of Regina v. Birmingham Magistrates, which was reported last month, the judgment found that the magistrates had erred in committing a ratepayer to prison for non-payment of his rates. Though he had no available income to meet his debt, he had sufficient capital tied up in the property which could be sold. This, in a sense, covers the same point as we were dealing with in the previous discussion. Lord Justice Woolf stated that where there was the remedy of bankruptcy proceedings to enforce the sale of property to meet the debt for the rates, it was not open to the court to commit the man to prison without inquiring whether or not the rating authority was prepared to explore the possibility of civil proceedings. The provision in the General Rate Act appears to be very similar to the provision in this Bill.
The Government have already stated that they intend to leave local authorities with discretion as to when precisely enforcement should take place and which method should be used, but as the schedules are framed they do not appear to have given themselves the power to do that by restricting the regulations. This amendment is put forward for the purpose of widening that power. In the hope that it will meet with approval, I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, not to press this amendment. There are two straightforward reasons. In the first place I doubt whether in practice it would be of much use to charging authorities. Secondly, if it were to prove of any use, it would undermine the detailed enforcement procedures in the rest of Schedule 4.
It may be helpful if I explain what would happen if a charging authority did have discretion to pursue arrears through the county court. It would have to claim before the court that the person concerned owed it the money and had not paid. If the court agreed, it would order that person to pay the arrears. If he still refused to pay, the court could order the bailiff to seize that person's goods or even attach his earnings. Although it sounds comparable to the recovery system already envisaged, I am advised that in practice civil debts are notoriously difficult to recover quickly through the county courts. That contrasts with the recovery of rates through the magistrates' courts, which, over the years, has proved very effective. I am therefore very doubtful whether in practice the authorities would find the county court option attractive.
However, my principal reason for resisting this amendment is that recovery through the county court would be inappropriate. The detailed recovery procedures set out in Schedule 4 are designed not only to ensure that authorities are able effectively to recover the arrears but also to provide safeguards for people who find themselves in arrears with the community charge. For example, Schedule 4 enables to be specified in detail how attachments of earnings should operate. It also sets out the very limited circumstances in which a person can be imprisoned and the circumstances in which a magistrates' court can remit payment.
We also intend to provide for appeals to the courts by anyone who feels aggrieved by distress or attachment of earnings. None of that guidance exists for the county courts dealing with community charge arrears. There is therefore no guarantee that the outcome would be satisfactory, nor that it would be consistent between courts.
Rate recovery has operated successfully for a number of years through magistrates' courts. The enforcement provisions in Schedule 4 reflect many of the existing procedures, although there have also been a number of improvements. Therefore it is unnecessary to involve the county courts. Moreover, in my view, it would be entirely unsatisfactory for all parties to require those courts to operate in a vacuum, as this amendment envisages. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit not to press it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister will be aware that the magistrates' court deals with all aspects of rating but at present has no power to attach earnings for rates arrears. It can only deal with distress or imprisonment. A new procedure is therefore being shackled to the magistrates' court. The difficulty in the county court is the shortage of county court bailiffs. That situation results in delays but it is a problem which it is open to the Government to solve, although no doubt it comes within the remit of another department. A shortage of staff in a town

1307
with a fair sized unemployment problem seems necessarily not insurmountable.
I shall read what the Minister has said but it does not seem that he has in any way dealt with the matter. What is not covered is how the magistrates' courts will deal with what for them is the new procedure of attachment of earnings. How will they deal with the kind of situation that will inevitably arise when someone has not paid his community charge and they wish to attach his earnings but discover that the earnings are already attached in order to pay maintenance or in respect of some other contractual debt, or both? I am not aware of any regulation which states in which order the various attachments are to come. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: I should like to suggest that this is a suitable time to adjourn your Lordships' Committee and that we do not return to it until 8.35 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Access to Medical Reports Bill
7.36 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Tordoff).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Right of access]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of this Act").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I propose to move Amendment No. 1 and at the same time to speak to all the other amendments standing in my name. I shall move the amendments in sequence when the time comes.
There is a very large number of amendments but they are largely redrafting amendments, although there have been one or two changes consequent upon that redrafting. At Second Reading the Minister was good enough to promise that parliamentary counsel would take a careful look at the Bill before it reached the Committee. That has been done and the amendments that I have tabled are the result of that scrutiny. As will be seen on examination they are mostly technical amendments which are designed to improve the drafting and structure of the Bill. They do not make any substantial change to its provisions. I shall indicate those places where there are changes to the provisions. In my view, they are all improvements to the Bill.
The Committee will note that the amendments to Clause I all fall into that category. In fact the first two
1308
amendments are perhaps symptomatic of what happens when a Bill comes into the hands of a professional parliamentary draftsman. In other words, by leaving out of line 5 the words:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act"
and inserting in line 6:
", in accordance with the provisions of this Act,"
some magical mystery is performed which makes the Bill more acceptable. Nevertheless, it is not for me to quibble about these matters and I am indeed grateful for the work that has been carried out on these amendments.
Some changes have been made to the wording of the Bill,, and there is one substantial change; namely, that the bar on retrospective access is removed from this clause (by Amendment No. 4) and is moved to Clause 9, where it has been felt to be more appropriate. The changes to Clause 2 involve minor improvements to definitions. The term "the applicant" has been introduced by Amendment No. 5 to refer to the person seeking a medical report—that is the employer or the insurance company. The definition of "employment purposes" has been widened (by Amendment No. 7) to bring in a self-employed person acting under a contract of service, which, as the Committee will remember, was something that we were hoping to be able to achieve when we discussed this point at Second Reading. I am grateful that a way has been found to extend that definition of "employment purposes".
The definition of "care" has been modified to make clear that the Bill applies only to reports produced by a doctor who is or has been responsible for treating the individual. A report produced by an independent doctor acting purely for an insurance company or for an employer would not be subject to the Bill. At Second Reading I explained that the Bill was not intended to cover such independent reports. This amendment is designed to remove any possible doubt on that point.
I am proposing that the existing Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill are removed and replaced by new clauses under Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16, which we believe improve its structure. I should like to refer to a letter which I understand many noble Lords have received today from the Association of British Insurers, which is a little worried about Amendment No. 13 with reference to subsection (1) (a). It is worried about the use of the word "proposes" in the second line of the paragraph. The amendment provides that the applicant:
"has notified the individual that he proposes to make the application".
The Association of British Insurers does not believe that the word "proposes" is appropriate in this context. It would much prefer that the paragraph is amended to provide that,
"he might seek to make the application".
I have taken advice on this matter. In fact a considerable amount of discussion has been going on most of the day. However, we have come to the conclusion that the word "proposes" is the appropriate word here. It defines the point at which the operation of the other parts of the Bill commences. I can understand that to state "might seek to make application" may meet what I was going to call some of the bureaucratic needs of the

1309
association, although that is perhaps unfair; to say that it might meet some of their internal documentation might be fairer. However, I believe that to clarify the position in the Bill it is right that the word "proposes" should be included. When that proposal is made the rest of the Bill is triggered under Amendment No. 13, the new clause.
Members of the Committee will see from this that before applying for a medical report an employer or an insurance company would still have to obtain the consent of the individual and would have to have informed the individual of his or her rights to see the report, to correct inaccuracies and, after seeing what the doctor proposed to say, to withhold consent as a final, rather drastic step. As I said at Second Reading, that might well prevent people from getting insurance or obtaining a job for which they were applying. Nevertheless, this is a provision which we believe should be in the Bill because that final pulling of the plug should be in the hands of the person about whom the report is being written.
The individual would be able to indicate to the insurance company or employer that he or she wished to see the report before the doctor supplied it. In this case, as before, the doctor would have to give the individual up to 21 days to take steps to arrange to see the report or to obtain a copy for which a charge could be made. Again, if the individual asked the doctor to amend anything that was incorrect or misleading, the doctor would have the option either of making the change or, if no change seems justified, of attaching the statement prepared by the individual to the medical report. As I said again at Second Reading, the individual would not have the power to force the doctor to change or remove anything that he believed ought to be in the report. If there is disagreement, the Bill's solution is to ensure that the individual's point of view is conveyed to the insurance company or the employer.
The right of access would continue for at least six months after the report had been sent, and doctors would be required to keep copies of their reports on file for this period.
The amendments to Clause 6 include the omission of the national security exemption which the Government previously felt would be necessary. There was considerable contention in another place when that exclusion was put into the Bill. Mr. Robin Corbett, I believe it was, in another place was very worried about the insertion of that exemption. The Government have now had another look at it and have decided that it is not necessary in this Bill. I am most grateful to them for that consideration. It is so easy for departments to say, "We would rather have it in the Bill", when it is not entirely necessary. I am glad that on this occasion the Government have seen fit to allow us to take it out because it is not necessary.
The exemptions that will remain allow information to be withheld if it relates to a third party or if disclosure would cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the individual. These are the exemptions which apply if someone seeks access to his or her computerised medical records under the Data Protection Act. Amendment No. 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will be seeking to make an addition to that point. I shall comment on his amendment when the time comes. It
1310
will not be my intention to oppose that amendment if he seeks to press it.
Under Clause 6 information about the intentions of the doctor towards the patient can also he withheld. The Government have asked for this exemption in order to keep in line with the Data Protection Act. That is another mystery which is slightly beyond me but it does not seem to do the Bill any harm. If the Government feel that the provision should be compatible with the Data Protection Act, so much the better. One notes that a couple of weeks ago the Data Protection Registrar published a consultation document reviewing the working of the Act. It points out that this exemption was designed to prevent employees learning that they had been earmarked for redundancy by their employer. I have my doubts whether that exemption should apply to all kinds of records, including medical records, but doubtless this can be examined in the review. If any change in the Data Protection Act ultimately results, one hopes that the corresponding change in legislation such as this will follow when the Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it does.
The existing Clause 7 of the Bill would no longer be needed if the new clauses are included. They repeat the provisions of the original clause. That goes out. Clause 8 allows an appeal to the court if the individual believes that he or she is not being treated in accordance with the Act's requirements. The amendment here involves a slight re-phrasing.
The final new clause makes it clear that notifications under the Bill must be in writing and can be made by post. That is quite a useful step forward. It was perhaps an omission on our part not to provide that they should be made in writing. However, the provision that they can be made by post is obviously an improvement. The final amendment is the provision preventing retrospection. That has been moved from Clause 1.
I hope that Members of the Committee will think that these amendments improve the Bill's drafting and structure, as well as correcting one or two oversights. They are the work of extremely careful examination of the Bill by parliamentary counsel, to whom one is particularly grateful; and also to the officials involved. They have made considerable efforts on our behalf to get this Bill to its finished state. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have listened with great care to the explanation of the noble Lord in support of the redrafting of Clauses 3 to 8 of the Bill. He knows better than anyone what this Bill seeks to achieve. If he is satisfied that the amendments which are now before the Committee give better effect to the underlying provisions of the Bill or to its structure, we are content to accept his judgment and his guidance. We do not oppose any of the amendments. It may therefore be appropriate for me to make a few observations on two or three of the amendments, if that is in order.
I note that Amendment No. 6 relates to the meaning of the word "care". It is used only in Clause 6(2)(b) where reference is made to,
"a health professional who has been involved in the care of an individual".

1311
We then have this definition clause which, as originally drawn, appeared to include examination, investigation and diagnosis. It is not immediately apparent that the word includes treatment. I am wondering whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the word as now defined includes treatment. Perhaps that is something upon which one can comment when we reach Amendment No. 6.
I have one or two comments on Amendment No. 14. First, what is the meaning of the phrase "individual access" to a medical report? That phrase is used twice in Amendment No. 14, subsection (2) and then it is used in Amendment No. 16, subsection (2). What is interesting is that when the phrase is used in the context of Amendment No. 14 it is not defined but when it is used in the context of Amendment No. 16 it is defined. It is defined in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 16. Should not the definition which is to be found in Amendment No. 16 also apply to Amendment No. 14? If that is the intention and if it is to have the same meaning—we are concerned with the meaning of definitions—the definition should perhaps be brought forward to the interpretation clause, Clause 2.
Still on Amendment No. 14, on reading subsection (2)(a) it would appear that as soon as the individual has had access to the report, the medical practitioner can send it forthwith to the applicant. But one has to read Amendment No. 15 before we find that the individual has also to give his consent to the report being supplied. That is a small matter, but we suggest that it would have been helpful to the medical practitioner if there had been a reference in Amendment No. 14 to the need for the consent required by Amendment No. 15 to be available; otherwise it might be overlooked.
My final comment concerns the use and the meaning in Amendment No. 14, subsection (2)(b) of the phrase:
"the individual having taken steps to arrange to have access to [the medical report]".
That is an important phrase because if the individual has not taken the steps within 21 days then the medical practitioner can release the report to the applicant without the individual's consent. So what does the phrase really mean? Perhaps I can best pose A question to illustrate the possible difficulty. If the individual writes to the medical practitioner on day 20 that he requires access to the report but his letter is not received until day 21 or day 22, has he taken steps within the meaning of the clause to arrange to have access to the report within 21 days? That is my question.
It could probably be argued that a request which obviously one party can put in train is not an arrangement which probably, or possibly inevitably, requires the agreement of two or more of the parties. There is a reference in subsection (3) which supports my interpretation that there must be an arrangement. Therefore for the request to be sent even on day 20 or day 22 would not amount to an arrangement. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would confirm that there is this vital difference between applying for access to the report and making arrangements for access to it. If there is that distinction, the individual should not be led to believe that he can merely rely on a letter requesting a copy of the report. He must go
1312
beyond and thus ensure that there is an arrangement. Those are just a few comments that we should like to offer on the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I should like to pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for their success in steering the Bill so far. We are especially grateful to the noble Lord for his ready willingness in allowing parliamentary counsel the opportunity to cast his eye over the Bill. I recognise the additional burdens that that has caused to the noble Lord and his advisers since we last considered the Bill in this Chamber.
The Government have an interest in seeing that any legislation that reaches the statute book is satisfactory. The amendments do not serve to change the substance of the objectives of the Bill. They are purely technical and are designed to remove any ambiguity in parts of the Bill which noble Lords considered previously. The amendments also serve to improve the structure of the Bill.
The Government are satisfied that the Bill with the amendments put before the Committee is acceptable and we therefore do not propose to oppose it. We commend the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to the Committee.
Lord Brain: I have two fairly small points and I wish to follow up points made from the Bench in front of me. In his introductory speech the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said in relation to Amendment No. 13 that a person "shall receive a copy" when given the opportunity of access. Amendment No. 13 does not in any way refer to receiving a copy and I believe that this again returns to the point of defining what access means and that it may mean receiving a copy rather than having to go to the surgery to see what is written.
I also wonder in Amendment No. 13 whether the new definition of,
"A person shall not apply to a medical practitioner",
could not be rather tightly drawn under the new definitions of Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 which refer to somebody who will be doing the employing or carrying out the insurance contract. Often it is an individual doctor who writes to another medical practitioner seeking a medical report. I have a suspicion that the new drafting of the clause might make it difficult for a doctor, and he himself might have to notify the applicant that he proposes to write to the medical practitioner. I query that.
I also wonder about one other small matter. In Amendment No. 14, subsection (3) in the last line of paragraph (a) I wonder whether mentioning subsection (2)(a) is not a duplication, because "subsection (2) above" refers one back to subsection (1). Might it not be more economical to insert "subsection (1)" there? Those are my points.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall take his last point first, before I forget it. He may be right that there is a slight leapfrogging process here, but the drafting has been carried out by some better brains than mine. I hope that what I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, answers some of the noble Lord's other questions,

1313
but if not perhaps he would like to raise the matter again.
The question of care occurs not only in the definition of "health professionals", as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested. It is fundamental to the definition of medical report. It is there to distinguish—I can see now the difficulty that the Government sometimes have on these occasions—a report by an independent doctor from that of a doctor who has been treating the individual.
I believe that the inclusion of Amendment No. 6 goes some way to answering the question about care. It adds the words,
"for the purposes of, or in connection with, any form of medical treatment".
I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me prior notice of the points he wished to raise. In relation to Amendment No. 14 he said that there should be a reference there as in other amendments. If the noble Lord looks at subsection (4) of Amendment No. 14 he will see that it states:
"References in this section and section … below to giving an individual access to a medical report are references to making the report or a copy of it available for his inspection; or supplying him with a copy of it".
The matter is defined there as it is in Amendment No. 15.
8 p.m.
Lord Brain: Will the noble Lord give way? He may solve the problem if in Amendment No. 13, which states:
"(Access to reports before they are supplied) (1) to (3)"
he instead inserted "(1) to (4)". The point would then be included.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to consider that matter if I may and perhaps come back to the noble Lord later. I do not think that at this stage of the game I can guarantee to make any changes of that kind. As regards the second comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in respect of Amendment No. 14, the answer is that one can have different layouts for Bills. This Bill seeks to have a logical, chronological progression through the various phases. In other words, Amendment No. 13 deals with the consent to applications; Amendment No. 14 deals with the access before the supply of that information; and Amendment No. 15 deals with the consent to supply and also with the mechanics of the consent to supply. It would be difficult to place the first part of Amendment No. 15 in a different part where it is disconnected from the mechanics of consent. Indeed, it is signalled in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 14.
Turning to the case of the chap who writes to his doctor on the 20th but the letter may not arrive until the 22nd, the noble Lord will see that subsection (3) (b) of Amendment No. 14 states that the medical practitioner must receive a notification. Therefore the point that strikes home is that the medical practitioner must be in receipt of the notification by the individual before he is bound by the following part of the paragraph—in other words, to hold back for a further 21 days.
It is difficult to write into the Bill the vagaries of the Post Office. However, if the letter arrives on the 22nd I am afraid it is out of time. There must be a cut-off point somewhere in the process and it would be
1314
unfortunate if it was posted on the 20th and arrived by first-class post on the 22nd. However, there is a great deal of flexibility in the system. For instance, if individuals were going on holiday they could take up the early provisions of notifying the doctor before the application was sent by the insurance company or their employer.
Although one cannot have perfection in such matters I believe that the Bill caters for as many possible varieties of timing as is possible in any Bill. I hope that that assists the noble Lord. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, to his department and to the draftsmen in his office for doing what they have for the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 1, line 6, after ("access") insert (", in accordance with the provisions of this Act,").
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("himself or herself prepared") and insert ("the individual which is to be, or has been, supplied").
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 9.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
(" "the applicant" means the person referred to in section (Consent to applications for medical reports for employment or insurance purposes) (1) below:")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 12:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("for the purposes of, or in connection with, any form of medical treatment").
Page 1, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—
(" "employment purposes", in the case of any individual, means the purposes in relation to the individual of any person by whom he is or has been, or is seeking to be, employed (whether under a contract of service or otherwise);").
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("Article 2 of").
Page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 21 and insert—
(" "insurance purposes", in the case of any individual, means the purposes in relation to the individual of any person carrying on an insurance business with whom the individual has entered into, or is seeking to enter into, a contract of insurance,").
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("has the meaning given") and insert ("and "contract of insurance" have the same meaning as").
Page 1, line 25, after first ("report"), insert (", in the case of an individual,").
Page 1, line 26, leave out ("an") and insert ("the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Consent to applications for medical reports for employment or insurance purposes.
.—(1) A person shall not apply to a medical practitioner for a medical report relating to any individual to be supplied to him for employment or insurance purposes unless—

(a) that person ("the applicant") has notified the individual that he proposes to make the application; and

(b) the individual has notified the applicant that he consents to the making of the application.

(2) Any notification given under subsection (1)(a) above must inform the individual of his right to withhold his consent to the making of the application, and of the following rights under this Act, namely—

(a) the rights arising under sections (Access to reports before they are supplied) (1) to (3) and (Retention of reports) (2) below with respect to access to the report before or after it is supplied,

(b) the right to withhold consent under subsection (1) of section (Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors) below, and

(c) the right to request the amendment of the report under subsection (2) of that section,

as well as of the effect of section 6 below.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Access to reports before they are supplied.
.—(1) An individual who gives his consent under section (Consent to applications for medical reports for employment or insurance purposes) above to the making of an application shall be entitled, when giving his consent, to state that he wishes to have access to the report to be supplied in response to the application before it is so supplied; and, if he does so, the applicant shall—

(a) notify the medical practitioner of that fact at the time when the application is made, and

(b) at the same time notify the individual of the making of the application;

and each such notification shall contain a statement of the effect of subsection (2) below.
(2) Where a medical practitioner is notified by the applicant under subsection (1) above that the individual in question wishes to have access to the report before it is supplied, the practitioner shall not supply the report unless—

(a) he has given the individual access to it, or

(b) the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the making of the application has elapsed without the individual having taken steps to arrange to have access to it.

(3) Where a medical practitioner—

(a) receives an application for a medical report to be supplied for employment or insurance purposes without being notified by the applicant as mentioned in subsection (2) above, but

(b) before supplying the report receives a notification from the individual that he wishes to have access to the report before it is supplied,

the practitioner shall not supply the report unless—

(i) he has given the individual access to it, or

(ii) the period of 21 days beginning with the date of that notification has elapsed without the individual having taken steps (either when giving the notification or otherwise) to arrange to have access to it.

(4) References in this section and section (Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors) below to giving an individual access to a medical report are references to—

(a) making the report or a copy of it available for his inspection; or

(b) supplying him with a copy of it;

and where a copy is supplied at the request, or otherwise with the consent, of the individual the practitioner may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of supplying it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors.
.—(1) Where an individual has been given access to a report under section (Access to reports before they are supplied) above the report shall not be supplied in response to the application in question unless the individual has notified the medical practitioner that he consents to its being so supplied.
(2) The individual shall be entitled, before giving his consent under subsection (1) above, to request the medical practitioner to amend any part of the report which the individual considers to be incorrect or misleading; and, if the individual does so, the practitioner—
1316

(a) if he is to any extent prepared to accede to the individual's request, shall amend the report accordingly;

(b) if he is to any extent not prepared to accede to it but the individual requests him to attach to the report a statement of the individual's views in respect of any part of the report which he is declining to amend, shall attach such a statement to the report.

(3) Any request made by an individual under subsection (2) above shall be made in writing.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Retention of reports.
.—(1) A copy of any medical report which a medical practitioner has supplied for employment or insurance purposes shall be' retained by him for at least six months from the date on which it was supplied.
(2) A medical practitioner shall, if so requested by an individual, give the individual access to any medical report relating to him which the practitioner has supplied for employment or insurance purposes in the previous six months.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) above to giving an individual access to a medical report is a reference to—

(a) making a copy of the report available for his inspection; or

(b) supplying him with a copy of it;

and where a copy is supplied at the request, or otherwise with the consent, of the individual the practitioner may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of supplying it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consent and notification of rights]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: I beg to move that this clause shall not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 negatived.
Clause 4 [Access before supply of report]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: From the looks I am receiving from the Clerk I am not sure that I am doing this correctly. Is it all right? I beg to move that this clause do not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 negatived.
Clause 5 [Giving of access]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: I beg to move that this clause shall not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 negatived.
Clause 6 [Exemptions]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("make available to an individual") and insert ("give an individual access, in accordance with the provisions of section (Access to reports before they are supplied) (4) or (Retention of reports) (3) above, to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 34, after ("individual") insert ("or others").
The noble Lord said: I referred to this proposed amendment on Second Reading on 18th May. My

1317
remarks appear in the Official Report at cols. 375 and 376. Members of the Committee may remember that I said I would seek to block any loopholes which might arise whereby people could be endangered as a result of situations I described.
As further emphasis to that, I should like to quote from a letter written by the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, which backs up what I was saying. It states:
"Psychiatrists receive a great deal of important confidential information from third parties, particularly from relatives and friends. Our reports to other doctors, particularly general practitioners, often contain this information and the identity of the source of the information. We know that excerpts from our reports, or indeed the complete reports, may be quoted or appended to the reports prepared by the general practitioner for insurance or employment purposes and thus the identity of third parties may be revealed".
The issue is addressed in Clause 6(2) of the Bill, which states quite appropriately that the identity of the health professional supplying the information to the practitioner should be revealed to the person concerned. The Royal College is worried that the identity of the person providing the information to the health professional will also be revealed unless it is specifically stated that that identification should be protected. That was the point I made in explaining my Amendment No. 18 on Second Reading.
At that time the Minister said that he would look at the points that I made when the matter was considered in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that he has no objection to my amendment and I hope that my noble friend equally will not object. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I am bound to say that the circumstances which require information to be withheld on the grounds that serious harm may be caused not to the individual but to someone else must be extremely rare, and often difficult to justify. Such circumstances might conceivably arise when dealing with seriously mentally ill people. This Bill is about giving greater access to reports about them, and that is consistent with our philosophy on medical records generally. On the basis that such a provision is only likely to be used under the most exceptional circumstances, we do not seek to oppose this amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for explaining to the Committee the purport of his amendment. I can only go back to what I said on Second Reading; namely, that I believe that the Bill already covers these circumstances and I believe that his argument would have more force if we were talking about access to medical records. I think that in this rather narrow field of medical reports it is unlikely that this situation will ever occur. However, far be it from me to leave a situation where anybody is at risk as a result of this Bill, and as it is argued that it does not damage the Bill in any way we are happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 21:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("make available to an individual") and insert ("give an individual access, in accordance with those provisions, to")
Page 3, line 45, leave out subsections (3) and (4)
1318
Page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Where it appears to a medical practitioner that subsection (1) or (2) above is applicable to any part (but not the whole) of a medical report—

(a) he shall notify the individual of that fact; and

(b) references in the preceding sections of this Act to the individual being given access to the report shall be construed as references to his being given access to the remainder of it;

and other references to the report in sections (Access to reports before they are supplied) (4), (Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors) (2) and (Retention of reports) (3) above shall similarly be construed as references to the remainder of the report.
(6) Where it appears to a medical practitioner that subsection (1) or (2) above is applicable to the whole of a medical report—

(a) he shall notify the individual of that fact; but

(b) he shall not supply the report unless he is notified by the individual that the individual consents to its being supplied;

and accordingly, if he is so notified by the individual, the restrictions imposed by section (Access to reports before they are supplied) (2) and (3) above on the supply of the report shall not have effect in relation to it.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Retention of reports]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: I beg to move that Clause 7 shall not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 negatived.
Clause 8 [Application to the court]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) If a court is satisfied on the application of an individual that any person, in connection with a medical report relating to that individual, has failed or is likely to fail to comply with any requirement of this Act, the court may order that person to comply with that requirement.".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Notifications under this Act.
Any new notification required or authorised to be given under this Act—

(a) shall be given in writing; and

(b) may be given by post.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Act applies to a medical report prepared before the coming into force of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Malicious Communications Bill
8.18 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved the amendment:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("level 3") and insert ("level 4").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to increase the maximum penalty for this offence from level 3, £400, to level 4, £1,000. In the scale of gravity it is a more serious offence than nuisance calls, for which level 3, £400, is the maximum penalty under the Telecommunications Act. However, it does not lie within the most serious category of summary offence as to warrant level 5, which has a maximum fine of £2,000, the normal maximum fine available to magistrates, because this obtains where the offence involves serious risk to health or safety of the public, damage to property or substantial financial gain.
Offences under the Post Office Act, to which reference was made on Second Reading, fall within this most serious category and, for example, cover the sending of explosive substances. Such offences are also triable on indictment and on conviction the maximum penalty is a fine and 12 months' imprisonment.
The fact that there is a degree of overlap, to which I referred at Second Reading, as regards the sending of indecent or obscene material between this type of offence and the offence under the Post Office Act cannot afford any true comparison as between the quadruplicate set of circumstances in which this offence can be committed and all sets of circumstances in which an offence may be committed under the Post Office Act. Indeed, a main intendment of the Post Office Act was the protection of post office workers from risk of injury from noxious substances. Therefore, on analysis—I hope it is a convincing analysis—there is no inconsistency. There is no true comparison of like with like and, as I said at Second Reading, the offence will fill a gap in the criminal law.
I mention these matters and this analysis at some length in deference to the most valuable contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Second Reading, which I accepted would require further consideration at a later stage of the Bill. Indeed, although on this analysis I cannot accept the concept of inconsistency of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I accept without reservation that, as the noble Lord said, we must have a proper deterrent. The criticism of the Bill on that score by the noble Lord is wholly well-founded; hence this amendment, which has the support of the Government. I hope that it will also have the support of the Committee.
For those self-same reasons the Law Commission's draft Bill, where the maximum penalty is level 5 and
1320
six months' imprisonment, reflecting the recommend-dations of paragraphs 445 and 452, is not acceptable. In any event—with respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will agree—imprisonment is rarely a sanction of the last resort and is not appropriate for this type of offence. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and most appreciative of the gracious manner in which he moved the amendment and of his personal courtesy to me.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): I need do no more than assure the Committee that the Government support my noble friend's amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until
8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.35 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 4.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 86E:
Page 93, line 15, leave out ("and earnings") and insert ("if any) or income (whether or not from employment)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 86B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 93, line 30, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is prompted by a Statement made in another place on 20th April by the Minister of State for Local Government. He said, at col. 239, that there would be a maximum beyond which attachment would not operate as a proportion of benefit or income support.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that in Schedule 4, paragraph 5, which deals with attachment of earnings, there is no specific reference to the maximum beyond which attachment would not operate. The purpose for which we have put down this amendment is to find out whether the Government have come to a conclusion about the maximum figure. If they have not reached a decision, we urge them to do so, but if they are not willing to be so urged, we shall suggest a figure to them.
We are specifying a maximum of whichever is greater, £5 or 2 per cent. of an individual's earnings. What we are suggesting is that the Government, if they disagree with the amounts that we have specified, should, in accordance with the Statement of

1321
the Minister in another place, say what the amount should be.
It is of some importance that there should be a figure, because this is a matter of considerable worry to employers. They have to be involved in the attachment of earnings for non-payment of the community charge and they will be particularly concerned if they fear that the attachment of earnings will decrease significantly the earning power of their employees. In turn this will put pressure on the employers.
In this country we are not familiar with attachment of earnings as a way of collecting local taxes. It is a new departure for us and in general it is an undesirable departure. However, it must neither cause hardship to the individual so that there will be further arrears or further difficulties arising, nor make life difficult or embarrassing for an employer who has to impose such an attachment of earnings. I hope very much that the Government find it possible to enable us to withdraw Amendments Nos. 87 and 89 by saying what is their intention and how they propose to give effect to the Statement in another place of the Minister for Local Government. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope it is clear from paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 that the Government recognise the need for close control over the operation of the rules for attachment of earnings in community charge cases. We shall exercise that control in the regulations envisaged in paragraph 5(2). One of the regulations will deal with the maximum amount of earnings that can be deducted for any level of income. Our regulations will be very much more sophisticated than the £5 or 2 per cent. maximum approach of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which incidentally takes little account of ability to pay. We have not yet settled the figures that will be proposed in our regulations. If the noble Lord would like an indication of the amounts we have in mind I would refer him to Schedule 2 to the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. I have those schedules with me but they are fairly lengthy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Needless to say, I do not.
Lord Glenarthur: I can almost immediately give the noble Lord those schedules. Among other things they will apply to deductions for attachment of earnings in the case of non-payment of community charges in Scotland. We envisage that no deductions should be permitted for earnings up to a threshold level. That is the right approach. There are amounts of earnings so small that only deductions less than those implied by the noble Lord's amendment should be allowed. Conversely, where people have large disposable incomes, they should be expected to pay off much more quickly the debt they have incurred. Two per cent. of net earnings is in those cases far too low. For earnings over £300 a week, for example, the Debtors (Scotland) Act envisages deductions of £83 a week in respect of the first £300, plus 50 per cent. of the remainder. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not have the schedules with him, but on the basis that that is the amount we have in mind I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Having tried to follow the Debtors (Scotland) Act when it was passing through this Chamber, I am slightly amazed that suddenly, by a back door, it is to be added as an afterthought to the Local Government Finance Bill for England. I appreciate that it is not being added, but how is anybody to know that the standard one applies in Scotland to any debt will suddenly be applied to England? There is not an Act or anything else to tell us. It is a laudable approach to take the Scottish approach and apply it to England—on the whole I would be in favour of it—but surely it would be better just to say so openly instead of doing it through the back door.
Lord Glenarthur: The answer to that is that we do not necessarily propose to use precisely the same figures. What I hoped to indicate was the kind of figures that we would be talking about. It is perhaps a ball-park figure but it will follow broadly those lines. That is the nearest parallel that I can give the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am far from convinced that the analogy is exact. An Act such as the Debtors (Scotland) Act which applies to all debts and not simply to this particular form of default is not necessarily applicable to the non-payment of the community charge. It may well be that the criteria which apply are not appropriate. I am conscious of two points in this respect. The first is the difficulty for the individual concerned whose earnings are being attached. To that extent I appreciate the flexibility of the provisions which the noble Lord has set out and which come from the Debtors (Scotland) Act. However, I am also conscious of the problems for employers. As somebody who meets a payroll himself, I am conscious that any deductions are not necessarily conducive to good industrial relations and to good management of human resources.
Without having read the schedules in detail I am not satisfied that the Government have come to the right conclusion. However, I recognise that with inflation proceeding as it does, the figure of £5 is not suitable to be put into legislation. I shall study the schedules and consider the alternatives while insisting on the need for an effective control of the proportion of earnings. In the circumstances, I think it is best if I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 93, line 32, at end insert ("; and
(e) no attachment order may be placed on income from any social security entitlement.").
The noble Lord said: As we know, Schedule 4 to the Bill provides that an authority may recover arrears of community charge by means of an attachment of earnings order. I understand that such an order would apply to social security benefits as to other forms of income, although social security is not normally thought of as earnings but as a replacement for or a supplement to earnings. During the Report stage in another place the Minister for Local Government said:
"Attachment of earnings will be available for defaulters in employment, and it is right that there should be parallel arrangements for income support recipients".

1323
He went on to say:
"It would be quite wrong if people whose benefit had been increased to help them pay the community charge were able to avoid payment without being subject to the same sanctions as those in employment".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/88; col. 837.]
It is true that income support has an element in it in respect of the 20 per cent. poll tax. However, I should like to make two comments about that. First, we do not believe that the income support figures were uprated sufficiently to take fully into account the rise in the cost of living between the announcement of the original illustrative figures and the adoption of the final figures. Personal allowances were raised by between 4.5 per cent. and 5 per cent. on the November 1985 rates, yet inflation between May 1985 and September 1987 rose by 6.5 per cent. for RPI less the element of housing, or 7 per cent. for RPI including housing costs. We do not believe that the figures were sufficiently uprated.
The second point is that the increase added on top of that to take account of the 20 per cent. poll tax which those on benefit would have to pay is a national average figure. Those who are in arrears where the poll tax is above average will find their subsistence benefit—it is a subsistence benefit—substantially eroded. On 1987–88 figures the national average poll tax would have been £224. Twenty per cent. of that is £45. That is the sum which would have been added to income support. However, in Camden, for example, the poll tax would have been £782, of which 20 per cent. is not £45 but £156, or £111 more than provided for. Surely it is carrying a principle too far to say that someone on benefit must pay £111 out of a subsistence benefit to encourage him to bring pressure to bear on his local authority in order to compel it to reduce its spending.
In the case of Hackney the average figure to be paid is £93, in the case of Lewisham it is £90 and in the case of Tower Hamlets it is £83. We must remember that such figures make no allowance for failure to uprate the basic benefit sufficiently. The amendment would prevent an attachment of earnings applying to social security benefits. Therefore I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider the Government's attitude on the matter and feel able to withdraw his opposition to the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: I rise to express my support for the amendment on behalf of my noble friends. It seems to me to be absolutely unacceptable that there should be this 20 per cent. figure across the board. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already mentioned that in Camden, according to official figures, there should be an individual price of £782. According to government figures the national average is £224. I cannot understand why the Government say that the 80 per cent. reduction should be in accordance with the national average, because people cannot help where they live. They probably live in a certain place because their job is there and because there is work in the area. Looking through all the figures, which I have studied most carefully, I find that the national average is £224. I take the example of Camden not for any reason other than that I happen to live there and I know the area well. I pay rates in Camden and my charge will be £782. I should perhaps mention that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is also a Camden ratepayer.
1324
In Birmingham, which is also a Labour-controlled council, I understand that the rate will be £186. Therefore if I was a wicked old lady living in Birmingham I would receive a pay-back, because my rates would be less than the average. However, if I am the same silly old lady living in Camden, I would then have to pay infinitely more. I feel that the concept contained in the Bill in regard to the average rate, which is worked out on a social security basis, is totally wrong. If there is to be a rebate scheme, why is it not mentioned in the Bill? In my view we are hearing far too much from Ministers about regulations; however, we are not hearing enough about amendments to the Bill. For example, will the rebate scheme be temporary?
It has been said that in some boroughs only one person in four pays rates. Of course that assumption is nonsense because it is based on the figure which the ratepayer who receives the piece of paper pays. It does not take account of the fact that his wife and family are part of the household and they all contribute in one way or another. Therefore it is totally bogus to take on board the fact that the family involved in the household costs are not contributing.
I have tried to assess some of the figures which affect the amendment. In the other place on 16th December (at col. 1124 of Hansard) an honourable Member pointed out that in the Orkney Islands it is not a question of 20 per cent. that would be taken from social security payers but 41 per cent., because of taking the basis of the average throughout the whole country. If a person happens to live somewhere which is not considered to be average, they will suffer accordingly. I concede that the figure created in the other place in respect of the Orkney Islands of 41 per cent. included water rates. However, I do not think that that figure should be dismissed because we shall all have to pay water rates.
Therefore, I must ask the Minister when he talks about the help which is given to people on social security, how they are getting up to 80 per cent. assistance and thereby only having to pay 20 per cent.—and further, when the Minister in the other place said that there would be extra help for people on low incomes who were receiving income support to help them through this trouble—how much assistance such people will receive. When I read carefully through the debates which took place in another place I could not find how much such people would be helped. Could they perhaps be helped up to 100 per cent.? Is it not a ridiculous waste of the circulation of money that we are supposed to be giving to people who are too poor to pay the poll tax—I insist on calling it that—when we then take it back from them? Surely this is a wasteful circulation of money.
I know that the Government think that by being so mean and nasty to people on social security it will help them come to certain conclusions about accountability. However, that is not the real world.
What happens when you have a single mother living on social security who now has to pay the poll tax? She is told that she should pay more attention to the local council elections. She may not have been living for long in that area. In a volatile situation in central London, the area which I know best, it is totally unfair and stupid to say to someone, "You should have voted at the last election to clear those

1325
people out and then you would be all right". She might have been under 18 at the time of the last local elections. She might have been living elsewhere.
We need mobility of labour in central London. People are constantly coming in who are much welcomed, for example, to drive trains and buses. They might have been nowhere near Camden at the time of the last local elections but they are being clobbered according to the present situation. I am sorry to keep mentioning Camden, but it is my area.
On the other hand, no one seems to mention accountability in regard to the rich who find themselves living in such areas. Therefore I think it is wrong. I wish I could say that in a non-party political way because I know that there are many Members in other parts of this place who feel that we are doing something totally unjust. We are saying to people on social security, "It does not matter how poor you are or how many children you have, you must pay this amount". It might sound easy to say that, but who is going to do it? Who will visit an unmarried mother with three children living in a top back-room or in grotty bed and breakfast accommodation—which seems to be the ideal of the Conservative Party for most homeless families in this country—and do this? Such people must pay their 20 per cent. not of what their borough is claiming from them but according to the whole average. Such people may also be having to pay back loans from the social fund. We are talking about the poorest people in this country.
The amendment tries to ensure that we do not take that action against those people. We are taking on board a situation in which, through no fault of their own, people have not always chosen to live where they do. It is bogus nonsense to say that people must vote where they are to make it better for themselves, when they were not there to vote the last time and may not be there to vote the next time.
It is cruel for the Government to say that such people should undergo a deduction from what no one thinks is a generous social security payment. I hope that the Government will at last agree that such people should not suffer from the Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may just make a comment and not ask a question. I am fearful that if the amendment is not accepted an enormous number of children will have to be taken into care. It costs roughly £3,000 a year when a child goes into care. A different department of the local authority will pay out £3,000 a year because a woman has not paid her supplementary benefit attachment of earnings order. We are fearful that that will happen. It will mean the break-up of family life and will lead to children not having a home. That in turn will have tremendous repercussions right the way through children's lives, and it will not be cost-effective for society as a whole.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had not intended to intervene, because my noble friend Lady Jeger has put my party's position strongly and effectively. I am reminded by what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has just said of an experience that the borough of Haringey had some 20 years ago when my wife was chairman of the children's committee. The council then took the view that no children should
1326
come into care as a result of homelessness; and that the activities of the housing department, the social services department, the children's department, as it then was, and the planning department should be exerted to ensure that that never happened.
I am appalled to think that 20 years later we are moving backwards and that children will come into care as a result of homelessness caused in many cases by the failure of our social security system to provide a minimum standard of earnings and accommodation to secure a decent life. It is on that basis only that I intervene to beg the Government to take the amendment seriously and to find some way to implement it.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord described the purpose of the amendment. I will start by repeating the basis of the quotation that he gave when he began his remarks. We believe that there should be equality of treatment, wherever possible, between those who are in employment and those who are receiving benefit. Attachment of earnings will be available for defaulters who are employed, and there is therefore a strong argument that similar arrangements should apply to those people receiving income support who do not pay their community charge.
If that approach appears harsh, I should explain—it has been mentioned many times—that people receiving income support will be automatically entitled to a reduction, or rebate—whatever one likes to call it—of 80 per cent. I should say to the noble Baroness that the rebates that we have introduced are dealt with later in the Bill in Schedule 13, so we are little premature. However, I accept that the matter has a bearing on the amendment. Regulations will in due course be made under Schedule 13 to introduce the details of the rebate system. I say that to set the matter in context.
Those people who have the rebate of 80 per cent. will have to find only 20 per cent. of the charge. An amount will be included in their income support to reflect the fact that they have to pay that amount. The noble Baroness and others have quoted the example of Camden. Camden is a borough which, as has been said, produced an illustrative figure of £782 for the community charge; 20 per cent. of that will be just over £156 a year, which is £3 a week. I do not want to embark on a discussion about the merits or otherwise of particular local authorities, but that seems to me to be a good example of a high-spending authority which must bear some of the responsibility for the community charge being as high as it may be, in the context of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. There are others where the charge will be such lower. We are talking about an average charge of 86p a week.
Baroness Jeger: When the Minister talks about high spending in boroughs such as Camden, does he not recognise the enormous expenditure of that and neighbouring boroughs caused by homelessness? With three railway stations, we attract a number of people, and there are enormous responsibilities which have to be paid for. It is not a question of high spending for nonsense, it is high spending in trying to meet the terrifying needs facing some of the central city authorities.
Lord Glenarthur: That may be the case. I am not an expert on where Camden spends its money. I am sure that the noble Baroness is quite right that a lot of what is spent is valuable, I doubt whether it is all necessary. But I do not think we ought to be getting into the semantics of arguing about a particular local authority area. It may not be semantics, but it is politics. The noble Lord said it himself, and it is politics as regards that borough. The fact is that there is a system under which the additional amount will form part of people's benefits. It will be included in their income support to reflect that they will have to pay that amount.
Let me return to the theme of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested that the amount of uprating in income support for rates was insufficient. The Government believe that an appropriate amount was included. Moreover the amount to be included in respect of the community charge has not yet been decided, so I am not quite sure how the noble Lord can suggest that an amount which has not yet been set is inadequate. The amount of uprating for the community charge will be decided this autumn and included in income support, starting in 1989–90, when the community charge will first come into effect in Scotland.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has indicated, that the 20 per cent. uprating will be the national average figure. It is because the community charge will vary from authority to authority that accountability—and I return to a word which I know is not always music to the ears of Members opposite—will be preserved for those on low incomes. They too will have an interest in the cost as well as the benefits of extra local spending, whether it be in Camden or anywhere else.
The figure of £782 for Camden, with which a certain amount of play has been made, is simply a forecast based on current spending. We have made clear that there will be transitional arrangements over four years. In year I, with dual running of rates and the change for Camden, the charge will be only £100. The transitional period will give Camden time to get spending to acceptable levels. That is, it would amount to £178 if they were in line with their needs assessment.
If there were no provision for direct deductions from benefit to pay off arrears, people receiving income support would be at a disadvantage in comparison with people in work. The only sanctions available would be distress or, ultimately, commitment to prison. It is surely better for arrears to be paid off through deduction from benefit, which is what I am suggesting, than for either of those remedies to be applied.
The Government therefore intend, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, forecast, that direct deductions from income support should be available. The present provisions in the Bill will not enable this to be done, since they relate only to the attachment of earnings. This, incidentally, renders the amendment which the noble Lord has proposed inappropriate on technical grounds, since it seeks to prevent a power being used for something for which it could not be used in any event. The Government, however, intend in due course to bring before your Lordships an amendment to enable deductions in respect of arrears to be made from income support and paid directly to
1328
the local authority. As with the attachment to earnings and distress, the remedy will be available only where the magistrates' court has made a liability finding, and the amendment will include a power to prescribe a maximum for the amount of benefit which may be reduced.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her knowledge and expertise on the subject, raised the matter of children in care. I realise and understand the spirit in which she made that point, but I hope that my noble friend will recognise that at present there are single parent families who face difficulties with rates. I hope that my noble friend will accept also that more than 80 per cent. of single parent families will be better off under the community charge than they are under rates. So I do not see that the risk of more children being brought into care, with all the disadvantages that that entails in my noble friend's eyes, need be a concern for her. There are advantages—substantial ones at that—and I hope that my noble friend will not lose sight of them. The theme of rebates takes us again on to Schedule 13 and no doubt when we deal with it we shall be able to consider the matter more fully.
Baroness Jeger: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, when we reach Schedule 13, why the provisions for rebate cannot be put into the Bill itself. I feel that we are getting too much legislation in this House where the powers are delegated to regulations and statutory instruments and all sorts of things. We do not get enough of the important provisions in the Bill itself. I assure the Minister that I have read Schedule 13. I read too much. I should like to know whether, when this rebate comes in, it will be temporary. What will happen if these provisions are not incorporated in the Bill itself?
Lord Banks: I must confess that I am very disappointed with the answer the Minister has given on this point. I can see that there is no understanding at all on the Government's side of the Committee, at least on the Front Bench on the Government's side, of the case which we are endeavouring to put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked me what I meant when I said that in our view the income support was not uprated sufficiently. It is income support I am talking about. Our view is that income support was not sufficiently increased between the first time the figures were spoken of and the date when the current figures were established. I say that because that is the basis of any income out of which these people will be called on to meet their arrears.
I made the point that the figure of 20 per cent. which was put on to that figure—which was added to that figure of income support in order to account for the 20 per cent. which the people on benefit would have to find—was a national average. Therefore there were many cases—we quoted some of the most extreme cases to illustrate the worst effects of this—where the individuals would find that they were called upon to pay a great deal more than the amount allowed for in the amount added to income support because the amount of the poll tax in the area where they lived was so much higher.
We think it wrong to fine people on income support because their council is spending at a high

1329
rate. There may be all kinds of arguments for that and there may be all kinds of people in the community who should be immediately concerned with that, but those people who are struggling on benefits at a subsistence level should not be the people who are forced into the front of this battle about how much the council should or should not be spending. They have precious little time to think about anything except what they are spending on themselves. Therefore I feel that I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
9.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 69.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Banks. L. [Teller]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milverton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mountevans, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gregson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor, V.

Killearn, L.

Balfour, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lytton, E.

Borthwick, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Pender, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Pym, L.

Coleraine, L.

Renton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rochdale, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cranbrook, E.

Sandford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Southborough, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinfen, L.

Gainford, L.

Teviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Trafford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Vinson, L.

Harvington, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Henley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Hooper, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 94, line 33, at end insert —
("and the said regulations shall include provision for interpleader proceedings for the determination of ownership of such goods.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment adds a provision that the regulations shall include provision for interpleader proceedings for the determination of ownership of goods. Under the present system of rates, where an occupier does not pay the rates it is normal that he has property in the premises. Where a person is in a house and is liable for the poll tax, he may have no property in the house. That would apply in particular to young people who are staying in their parents' home or some other person's house. There is a grave danger in those situations that a bailiff may say that some property belongs to the person from whom he is trying to recover a charge where it in fact belongs to someone who is staying in the house. There must be a procedure by which challenges as to who owns what may be dealt with.
My brief from the Law Society informs me that the magistrates' courts will be dealing with those situations and that they are not well equipped to do so. Be that as it may, it seems that there should be some procedure for dealing with the matter of who owns what before it can be attached and sold. No doubt the drafting of the amendment is wrong—it always is—but the principle may be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: In the view of the Government, it is entirely right that there should be proper procedures for resolving disputes of that nature. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord that the amendment is unnecessary because further provision will be made elsewhere in the Bill. Paragraph 6(3)(c) makes provision for cases where there is an irregularity in the execution of a distress. Such a irregularity might occur where the wrong person's goods are seized. The provision will enable the aggrieved person to take proceedings in the county court and to recover compensation.
However, we do not feel that that provision alone is sufficient to cover all eventualities. We therefore intend to bring forward an amendment at Report stage to provide for an appeal to the magistrates' court for any person aggrieved by a distress. Where there is a dispute over the ownership of goods seized during distress, the magistrates' court will be able to resolve it and if necessary order the return of the goods or, if they have already been sold, to require the authority to pay compensation.
In our view, that is the most appropriate procedure where the court issuing the original liability order resolves any disputes arising from the recovery action taken under the order. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that the provisions already in the Bill, together with the appeal procedure which I have outlined, will provide adequate recourse in the event of a dispute arising over the execution of a distress. I hope that he will agree that his amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should have thought that paragraph 6(3)(c) will not be of much help in a normal situation. If the magistrates' court is trying to act, it will not help to say that a person can go to the county court. That simply adds confusion. However, as the Government appear to accept that there should be some procedure—whether or not it is called an appeal does not matter—by which the magistrates' court which granted and operates the procedure also deals with a person who comes along and says, "You took this saying that it was Johnny's and it is mine", that seems to me to be correct. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage and we shall see whether the Government meet the difficulty at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 94, line 48, at end insert—
("(d) any person making a distress anywhere in England and Wales must hold a certificate as prescribed.").
The noble Baroness said: This is quite a modest amendment and yet an important one. It has been suggested to me by the Rating and Valuation Association whose members in local authorities will be the ones responsible for the collection of the community charge. Under this Bill the provisions for levying for distress are broadly the same as those in the present domestic rating system. A magistrates court makes a liability order against the debtor and the authority concerned then proceeds to levy the amount owed by distress and sale of the debtor's goods.
But unlike the procedure under the distress for rentals legislation of 1983 there is no requirement for the bailiffs to hold a prescribed certificate, and consequently there have been cases, which Members of the Committee will have seen highlighted in television series like "That's Life" and "Out of Court", where uncertified bailiffs have been used and the distress procedure, which at all times is a rather harrowing experience, has not been as well handled as it might have been.
In 1986 the Law Commission reported on distress for rent and recommended that all the bailiffs operating on distress should be certificated. I understand that the practice under the distress for rentals legislation of 1983 is for the county court to issue certificates to bailiffs either for general distress purposes or for a particular distraint. That is, I believe, a form of protection that we should now bring into the local government revenue collection in order to keep the cowboys and unauthorised people out. I hope that this will find satisfaction with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I recognise the good intention which lies behind the noble Baroness's amendment but I hope I can persuade her that it is unnecessary—indeed inappropriate. Rent is of course charged by a variety of landlords, the vast majority of whom are responsible and who as creditors could be expected to be careful in whom they employ as bailiffs. Nonetheless there is rightly concern over a few unscrupulous landlords who might hire disreputable bailiffs to execute distress warrants. It is only proper therefore that some
1332
additional provision should be made to help prevent that happening.
I do not think the same can be said for distress for community charge or rates. Only charging authorities are able to levy community charges and rates, and only they will be employing bailiffs on the few occasions when distress may prove necessary. Local authorities are elected bodies which are responsible to the people living in the area and I am sure that they can be trusted to employ only bailiffs who have a good track record. Indeed if one looks back over the number of grievances against the execution of distress under the present system, local authorities themselves have an excellent track record in this respect.
I accept, nevertheless, that through no fault of the creditor it is conceivable that there may be some irregularity in the execution of a distress warrant and that in those circumstances the person aggrieved should have proper recourse. This, however, is already provided for in paragraph 6(3)(c) of Schedule 4 to the Bill, which enables a person aggrieved by the way in which a distress is carried out to recover full compensation through the county court. This has proved adequate protection in the past and I do not believe there is serious concern that it should not continue to do so under the new system.
So I hope the noble Baroness will agree with me that the local authorities can be trusted where necessary to choose responsible and reputable bailiffs, and that where there is any irregularity in executing the distress there is already adequate provision in the Bill as it stands.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I accept that for the most part we would not have any problems with the local authorities. I think there is still a possible danger that there might be the odd cowboy getting in. But I should like to read what he has said, consult my advisers again and, if necessary, come back to it. But for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Before calling Amendment No. 91, I have to point out that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 92 or 93.
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 95, line 1, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to question the insertion in the Bill of the power to commit to prison people who fail to pay the community charge. I use the word "question" deliberately because it seems to me that this is a matter that requires some examination by this Chamber.
In the Bill as it was originally introduced into another place there was no provision for commitment to prison. There was simply a short paragraph of perhaps four lines providing for distress and for attachment of earnings. There was nothing more. That was the case when the Bill received a Second Reading in the other place and it was the position, I believe, when it went into Committee there. It was at the Report stage that the Government brought forward this enormous Schedule 4, which

1333
consists of eight pages and includes one whole page dealing with commitment to prison.
So far there has been very little discussion in this Chamber about the matter, although in the course of the previous stages of the Bill some rather pertinent remarks were made by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, (whom I am very happy to see in her place) and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whom I am sorry not to see in his.
The final reason why this Committee should give more than a moment of consideration to this matter is that in the Scottish Bill there is not any provision for imprisonment for the corresponding liability for community charge. There is nothing in the Scottish Bill and we ought to think about this matter for a few moments.
Even at this late stage my submission is that in these days imprisonment for any form of civil debt is simply totally unacceptable. I shall develop the argument in two phases: first generally and then in relation to the Bill. However, I shall not make a long speech—certainly not on the general point because the Committee is familiar with the situation as regards imprisonment for debt. There is no doubt that this country has a very poor, indeed a lamentable, record on this matter. We hung on to imprisonment for debt for decades after every other Western European country and Canada—I have not been able to find any exception—had abolished it. We retained it perhaps for some kind of nostalgic love of the Marshalsea and sponging houses and in remembrance of Dickens and his story of Little Dorrit and so on, in the way in which the British hang on to obsolete and disreputable institutions. It was not until the Payne Committee in 1969 that the legislature faced up to the situation. That committee made a unanimous recommendation that imprisonment for debt should be abolished. As regards maintenance, it recommended it only by a majority. However, as regards all other civil debts, without exception it recommended that imprisonment for debt should be abolished.
The Government took action in 1970 and passed the Administration of Justice Act in that year, in which—in Section 11 I believe—imprisonment for civil debts was abolished; but contrary to the recommendation of the Payne Committee and without consulting anybody they retained the possibility of imprisonment for non-payment of income tax, rates and certain statutory contributions. Of that decision it was said by Sir Jack Jacob, one of our leading authorities on civil procedures, that to have taken that course:
"was a serious error of judgment".
He said that it was hardly credible that in this day and age the English legal system should still be embroiled with this problem.
We kept imprisonment for non-payment of taxes and rates and that has been applied as regards rates. It is difficult to obtain any exact figures. The only one that I have been able to obtain—and perhaps the noble Lord can do better—shows that in 1986 about 370 people were received into government penal establishments. I suppose that that leaves open the possibility, and the probability, that there are quite a few more in police cells. The number is therefore not
1334
insignificant. It is a significant figure at a time when every day appeals are being made by judges and Ministers not to send people to prison for anything except crimes of violence. I need not give the overcrowding figures: 49,000 in places for 42,000, and many more in police cells. The case is a very strong one in general terms.
We now come to this Bill. In Schedule 4 we have a vast panoply of remedies for recovery of community charges. We have the classic distress in paragraph 6 when they come and take away the television set or the video. Admittedly that will not do for every case because there will be instances where it will not be possible to say to whom the object belongs; or the person liable cannot be fixed with ownership of a distrainable object. We then have attachment of earnings in paragraph 5. In another place the Minister said that attachment of earnings will make it much more difficult to refuse to pay the community charge. It is therefore a very effective remedy and is provided for in great detail in paragraph 5 and the rest of the schedule.
That is not the end of it. We have the possibility of a charging order being made on property. That is paragraph 8. That is quite an effective remedy. One has a charge on the property and one realises the charge in the same way that one realises a mortgage. In order to show that the Bill has not forgotten anything, one cannot turn oneself into a company because the Government have a later amendment which states that in the case of a company one can apply for a winding-up order.
We heard a little more about another remedy this evening. That concerns attachment of benefits. We do not know exactly what form it will take but the Minister in another place said that the Government were going to bring forward a provision about attachment of benefits. I understand from what the Minister said a few moments ago that it will be part of the Bill.
We therefore have this remarkable progress. It is a "softly, softly" approach. We start with distress and attachment, and we now move forward to this immense eight-page schedule with distress, attachment, charging orders, winding-up orders, and with attachment of benefit to come. One has to ask this question. Do we need commitment to prison? One knows what the Government will say. They will say that it is necessary to have this as an ultimate sanction. They will say, "Do not be too frightened about it because magistrates will not be sending great numbers of people to prison. They will only use it as a weapon of last resort. They will only use it in bad cases. One has to have a case of wilful refusal or culpable neglect". That is what the schedule states; it takes over from the old Rent Act. They will say that it is a necessary weapon to have as an ultimate reports.
There are a number of answers to that. In the first place, if it is wrong to imprison people for not paying a civil debt, it must be wrong to threaten people with imprisonment for a civil debt. That is a simple moral point that I should have thought would strike anybody. Secondly, it is wrong to say that this is just a weapon of reserve. As I have pointed out, it has been used, although not to a considerable extent. The numbers were 370-plus in 1986. One will have three times as many people liable for the community

1335
charge. That raises the figure to about 1,200, assuming that one extrapolates in the same way. That does not make allowance for rebelliousness, refusal or recalcitrance to pay what I believe as an ignorant person to be a not very popular tax.
One has to show culpable neglect but that is a very variable concept. Magistrates throughout the country, as we know from the rent administration, applied quite different standards. For goodness sake, who among us in this Chamber has not been guilty of culpable neglect at some time in not paying bills? We have all been guilty of culpable neglect but we are not sent to prison. One does not imprison a man because of his negligence, even if he is culpably negligent, in not paying his debt. I do not think one can get much comfort from that.
Then one might consider the cost and trouble of administering the imprisonment procedure. The cost of holding someone in prison I believe to be about £250 a week at present. The average annual amount of the community charge will be about £230. So that is not a terribly economic proposition.
Finally—and this surely is a striking point—there is the absence of this provision in Scotland. One has to ask, if it is not needed in Scotland, do we really need it in England and Wales? Are the English and Welsh more easily frightened into paying up than the Scots? Are the prisons in this country more empty places than they are in Scotland? The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, lamented yesterday that when there is any disparity between two parts of the kingdom it is always to the disadvantage of Scotland. He must be very satisfied that the boot is now on the other foot and the disparity the other way round.
Surely, in all common sense, both parts of the kingdom ought to be in line. There is no question of introducing imprisonment for debt in Scotland. There would be a revolution if we tried it on; so the only honourable and sensible course is to bring England into line with Scotland and get rid of it here. This is not an occasion for general law reform; I am not suggesting that for a moment. Law reform was undertaken in 1970 when imprisonment for debt in principle was abolished. But there were some unfortunate excrescences by way of exception, including imprisonment for non-payment of rates. It is up to us to deal with that.
I implore the Government, in the interests of English justice and of the decency of the Bill, which the Government have a chance to establish by abandoning the provision, to drop imprisonment for non-payment of community charge. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps I am wrong, but I understood that the Scottish Bill would be brought into line with the English Bill where the English Bill had been amended. I believe I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that Schedule 4 was brought into the Bill by amendment in another place. Therefore, would I not be correct in thinking that these provisions for imprisonment would apply to Scotland? If I am right in thinking that, I implore the Government to consider this again. The whole Bill is already so unpopular in Scotland that to bring in imprisonment would be a great mistake. Imprisonment is about the most
1336
inefficient method of debt collecting that I can think of.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It is a very great pleasure to support the amendment so superbly moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. There is only one criticism I would make of his admirable speech. That was when he referred to English justice. I believe he meant to embrace Welsh justice as well.
Lords Wilberforce: That is very much an emphatic assertion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: As the Welsh were here first—I keep reminding noble Lords—it is very important not to forget them on these occasions.
The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is to leave out paragraph 7 of the schedule which is starkly headed "Commitment to prison". It does not disguise the matter. That is the heart of the issue. It is proposed at a time when the prison situation is critically bad. Prisons are overcrowded. And here is a measure to add a considerable number—we know not how many—to the existing list of prisoners.
My noble friend has referred to the fact that there are over 50,000 men and women in prisons in England and Wales. We have more prisoners in our prisons per head of the population than any country in Europe. We tend to be referred to as "that criminal country, England and Wales". For some reason Scotland escapes the net of that legitimate conclusion drawn from this monstrous situation. To add to that this proposal, which is against all the decent tide of opinion, is quite outrageous.
The difficulty is that it is counterproductive in every sense. As my noble friend has said, it costs £250 per week to keep a prisoner behind bars. By the time the sentence proposed under the schedule has been served by the offender that amount would far outweigh the loss to the public purse of writing off the debt altogether. It is a nonsense both economically and socially.
The tragedy is that it would fall upon the poorest section of our community. It is very often the young who are badly hit. It is the young people with no stable income who are liable to be hit very hard by the community charge. The Bill and this proposal are against the whole trend of penal policy away from custodial sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"Nothing makes it more likely that a man will go to prison than the fact that he has been there before."
That is a most profound and wise statement.
The noble Lord has not yet spoken in reply and perhaps there may be hope of some redemption before the debate is over. I know that he is a kindly man personally and if some of his wisdom could be reflected more frequently in government policy we might get along better.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: However, to coin a famous phrase, we shall wait and see what the outcome will be.

1337
There is little doubt that if the sanction is applied it will run the risk of criminalising—that is a horrid word, but it is a horrid condition—a particularly vulnerable part of our population; that is, young people with no stable income. It will be directed against those least able to sustain the additional pressures that the community charge will impose. It
1338
is against the whole trend of policy with regard to the abolition of imprisonment for civil debts and so forth. Therefore I hope that, in the light of what has already been said, we shall hear from the Government a commitment to take away altogether the whole miserable provision or at least to make major amendments to it.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has set out clearly why he believes that imprisonment on civil debts under any circumstances is, as I understood him to say, unacceptable. I must say that the noble and learned Lord will be aware that I am particularly conscious, as a result of my earlier days at the Home Office, of the problems of overcrowding in prisons. I am well aware of many of the facts which he brought before us this evening, and he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in doing so.
I shall answer some of the points relating to Scotland in a moment. I hope that I shall be able to persuade Members of the Committee that, while I understand the course of the argument against them being included, the provisions, though little used, are an important part of the recovery mechanism and to remove them would undermine the whole enforcement process.
I believe that it is important to appreciate that the current position as regards a person being sent to prison for not paying his rates is that the court has to be satisfied that there is wilful refusal, which is again encompassed in this Bill, or culpable neglect to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred; in effect, that the person had the money and could have paid but did not or would not do so.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Elwyn-Jones, have said that it is wrong under any circumstances to imprison anybody for this failure. However, what they have not said is how the community charge should be paid if somebody wilfully refuses to pay and has the assets in some form or other available to him. As I said, existing arrangements for rates have carried over to the community charge.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, implied that it would be quite easy to show culpable neglect. Referring to an important point brought out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I believe it would be very difficult, even for younger people, to neglect paying the charge despite a bill, a statutory reminder, an appearance before the magistrates' court for an order, an attachment of earnings or distress and finally a further appearance before the magistrates for an order for commitment. That is a fairly sorry experience for anyone to have to go through if they are wilfully refusing to pay the community charge. A person who simply forgot to pay his community charge—and I dare say there will be those who forget—would not go through all those proceedings and end up in prison by mistake. I find it very difficult to believe that that could happen.
The key difference is that the new powers to attach earnings and make direct deductions from benefit will mean that it is much more difficult to refuse to pay the community charge than it is to pay rates. To begin committal proceedings against someone the charging authority will be required to satisfy the court that distress was attempted against that person and that there were insufficient goods on which to levy the amount. I should add that where a court does not issue a warrant for committal because it is not
1340
satisfied that there was wilful refusal or culpable neglect, it can remit the amount owing on the grounds of inability to pay which was discussed in relation to an earlier amendment. I hope that I was then able to reassure Members of the Committee that provisions relating to committal are aimed at those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so and not at those who for whatever reason are unable to pay.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred to the fact that imprisonment was not included in the Bill on introduction in another place. That is quite true although the Government had already made clear their intention to provide such a power. After the Bill had been introduced, concern was expressed at the absence of a power of imprisonment by, among others, local authority practitioners. In Committee in another place an amendment on this point which was sponsored by the Rating and Valuation Association was proposed and the Government acknowledged that it was the intention to add such a power. A government amendment was brought forward on Report in another place. Therefore, I think that I can fairly emphasise the wish of the local authority practitioners to have a power of this sort and their undoubted concern were it to be deleted.
The power of committal is not widely used. Indeed, fewer than 400 people were committed for non-payment of rates in 1986. I am confident that considerably fewer will be imprisoned after 1990 because instalments, direct payment methods and obligatory reminders will reduce the need to pursue arrears through the courts and also because attachment of earnings and direct deductions from benefit will make it much more difficult to refuse to pay. Nevertheless, we recognise the importance of ensuring that the charging authorities have an effective sanction to back up the enforcement provision. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that committal, however distasteful it may be, has proved an effective final sanction over the years under the present system. The small number of people actually imprisoned—
10 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I intervene merely to ask the noble Lord, and he will bring his great knowledge and experience to bear in answering me, whether there are not excellent alternatives to imprisonment in our penal system by way of community service orders and so on. It does not mean that offenders will go scot-free. Our penal system has admirable alternatives to prison which can be called in aid. Prison is the last and most odious remedy.
Lord Glenarthur: I understand that point of view, but the fact is that taking, for example, the 400 people who were committed for non-payment of rates in 1986, I understand—and I know this from my personal experience in the Home Office in dealing with prisons—that those people spent only short periods, usually a matter of days, before they agreed

1341
to pay the outstanding debts. We are referring to people who have the money and procedures have been carried out to establish that they are wilfully refusing to pay.
The fact is that during the existence of rates those who have been committed to prison have, on the whole, spent only a short period of time in prison for non-payment; but I accept that there may be some occasions when people have spent longer in prison. Of course there are other forms of sanction but experience shows that prison is the most effective, however distasteful it may be, for those minority of cases.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My understanding and recollection of the Scottish discussion on this subject was that we were going through a procedure—and I am waiting to hear what changes are to be made in the Scottish procedure—whereby recovery was basically through civil remedy. Therefore, in Scotland one can easily recover by civil remedy money from someone who has it but who refuses to pay. One can do that in Scotland by arrestment and other methods. Imprisonment is therefore unnecessary. Surely that is the answer.
If we are dealing with people who have the money but who refuse to pay, as I understand it from the Minister, is not the answer to achieve in England the same method of obtaining the money as in Scotland rather than putting people in prison?
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, I can deal with the position in Scotland in a moment, as I was coming to that, and answer that point together with the point put by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
I conclude this part of my answer, before turning to Scotland, by saying that without the power that this Bill provides local authorities will face a far harder task in collecting the community charge and rate income from those few people who persistently refuse to meet their financial obligations. I am sure that those who actually operate the system recognise the value of committal as a last resort. I stress that it is a last resort.
Turning to Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, asked why we cannot have a similar approach in this Bill to that which exists in Scotland. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked whether the Scottish Bill will be brought into line with the English Bill—I think that was the way round that she suggested. As the Committee will be aware, though there are many similarities between England and Wales and Scotland there are also a great many differences. In particular, there are different legal systems, traditions and systems of local government. It is inevitable that when the same policies are applied separately and tailored to different needs and circumstances differences occur in detail.
There are two specific reasons why committal to prison is felt necessary as a last resort in England and Wales and unnecessary in Scotland. The tradition in Scotland has not been to commit people to prison for
1342
non-payment of civil debt, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, suggested. This was largely abolished under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1880. One of the few exceptions was rates. Committal for non-payment of rates has not been used in Scotland for a number of years and it was finally abolished, as the noble Lord will recollect, under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. This contrasts with England and Wales, where, though the provision is not frequently used, as I said, about 400 people a year are committed for non-payment of rates.
However, it is not tradition alone which separates England and Wales from Scotland on this subject. The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 provides a wide range of debt recovery powers, including the ability to attach money held in bank accounts and more effective distress procedures. I believe this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was suggesting.
This Act followed a report by the Scottish Law Commission in 1985 on diligence and debtor protection. Therefore Scotland has the benefit of very recent revised legislation on debt recovery procedures. It was felt that the commitment, which in practice had not been used for some time, could be dispensed with. Therefore, we have decided that in view of the narrower recovery procedures generally available in England and Wales, and because committal is still used and clearly valued as a deterrent by local authorities in England and Wales, it would be appropriate to retain it as a final sanction in the limited circumstances provided for in Schedule 4.
I accept the thrust of the noble and learned Lord's amendment as it relates to the prison population and the general undesirability of putting more people in prison than is absolutely necessary. I fully take that point. However, where I differ from both the noble and learned Lord—
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has told us what is the Scottish system, but he has not explained why it cannot be adapted for use in England. That is what the Committee wishes to know. If the system works in Scotland why should it not be applied to England? The Minister has told us the history of Scotland, but he has not told us why they do things so much better there.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Baroness raises a point which is entirely valid. In due course, as part of a general review of debt recovery arrangements in England and Wales—for that is what it would need to be—if it was felt appropriate to match the powers available in the Debtors (Scotland) Act then the presumption would be that those wider recovery powers would mean that imprisonment was no longer needed in England and Wales.
As I said a moment ago, the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 was preceded by a Scottish Law Commission report published in 1985. As I remember from sitting at least on the edges of the Bill as it went through this Chamber, it was in itself a fairly complex report. It went much wider than this Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord is giving the impression that the Act of 1987 was a completely new piece of legislation. All it was doing was bringing up to date the Scottish procedures for the recovery of money. The basic procedures have existed for centuries.
Lord Glenarthur: I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord is making.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The point I am making is that it is not new legislation that was suddenly introduced in 1987 as a result of a report in 1985. There have been facilities in Scotland for as long as there have been banks to recover money held by third parties owed to the creditor. The whole procedure has existed for some time though England has decided not to go that way. However, England could occasionally look north and see that there are benefits there.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps it will. That is the purpose lying behind my reply to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The fact is that the procedures probably have existed in Scotland for years, but not in England, and that is why we find ourselves in the present position. If the situation were reviewed in due course, account would need to be taken of civil debt collection much more widely than the ambit of this Bill now before the Committee.
I come back to the point that I made. The operators feel that imprisonment is an ultimate sanction. We are talking about England and not about Scotland. While understanding the desirability of not putting people into prison if one can possibly avoid it, I believe fervently that a sanction of this kind is necessary. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may say how deeply disappointing and regressive I found the Government's reply. The Minister mentioned people who wilfully refuse to pay what they should pay. Surely the answer is to pursue their money and their goods and not to imprison their persons. Secondly, could we not have in England day or weekend attendance instead of 24-hour imprisonment for perhaps quite long periods? There again I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
The Government's reply was even more disappointing, although there were some emollient remarks about total prison numbers from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who has had personal experience in the Home Office of the prison department. I do not know whether I ought to draw to his attention the article in this morning's Independent which listed those prisons most at risk and pointed to those which have 110 per cent. overcrowding. If that was not enough, we have just experienced a major prison riot in Cumbria where 26 prisoners escaped and there was serious damage to the structure of the prison. That is what we have to take account of.
Perhaps I may come back to a previous amendment, Amendment No. 82. I tried, too early in the day I admit, to raise a technical point regarding
1344
paragraph 7(3)(c). I was trying to ask whether provision allowing remission of payment where no warrant is issued or term of imprisonment fixed limits the discretion of the magistrates. I hope it does not, but that is a minor consideration. What many of us on all sides of the Committee would like is to delete the whole page and to get rid of even the threat of imprisonment.
Lord Parry: I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered that this part of the Bill might lead to grave embarrassment for the Government or future governments. It is not unknown within our system for people so to object to the payment of certain charges that they face the difficulties even of imprisonment in order to drive home their aims. If the Bill is passed in this form a great many politically motivated people might deliberately choose to refuse to pay in order to achieve political embarrassment of the government of the day simply by clogging the prison system.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Lord, Lord Parry, is quite correct, because the Scottish National Party is threatening to do exactly that in Scotland. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, correctly, there is no intention on the part of the Government to amend the Scottish Act and to introduce Schedule 4(7) into it.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, in answer to the noble Lady's point, there is no intention to amend. The amendment would be the other way round, if we had a general review of debt recovery arrangements in England and Wales. It is by virtue of that process that we would get to a stage ultimately similar to that which exists in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about paragraph 7(3)(c). The answer is that that sub-paragraph enables remittance on grounds of poverty. It does not in any way limit the magistrates' discretion, which I think is the assurance for which the noble Lord was looking.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, suggested that perhaps the Government are digging a political pit for themselves in so far as the possibility might be said to exist of politically-motivated people acting in that way and wishing to clog up the prison system. I cannot believe that it would be in their interests so to do. The difficully which arises with this amendment is that it removes the possibility of dealing with someone who, for political or other reasons, might go to extraordinary lengths to tie up his property and finances in such a way that he never has to pay the community charge.
Should people behave in that way, not only do they put upon themselves the burden of the whole trappings—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has outlined—of having to go through the enforcement procedure detailed in Schedule 4, but such people must realise that they are imposing upon others the possibility of having their community charge uprated to take account of the fact that they are not there. That consideration also applies to other sections of the Bill. Therefore it is

1345
grossly unfair. We are merely trying to ensure that in the final analysis, if there is no other way of obtaining the money from a person, he can be committed to prison.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He has told us that hardly any people will go to prison. If the numbers are as he says, the amount by which other people's charges will be increased will be a fraction of 1 per cent., at the very most. He has also told us that the work was carried out in great detail for recovery of debt for the Scots. Therefore, given that the spadework has been done for the Scots, how long would it take—if the Government wanted to do it—to bring forward a similar Bill which would apply to England?
Lord Glenarthur: The answer is that it is a matter which requires much consideration in just the same way as it did for Scotland. The Scottish Law Commission published its report in 1985. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has answered the noble Baroness' question by saying that some of it was there. However, if it had all been there, the Law Commission would not have had to report on the situation in the first place.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Would it not be possible for the noble Lord to undertake on behalf of the Government, between now and Report stage, to consider the possibility of setting up an inquiry—which I understand is necessary—for the law to be changed in England and Wales to match approximately that which already exists in Scotland? If the Committee were to receive such an assurance I think some of us would be eased in our consciences about the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend has asked me whether I can agree to consider the matter between now and Report stage. While I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, I must say to him that it would be impossible for me to give such an assurance.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I am not seeking an assurance of deliberate action but an assurance that the matter will be inquired into with reasonable dispatch over the next year or two. I do not ask that any decision should be taken within the next few weeks.
Lord Glenarthur: I am afraid that I cannot give even that assurance. I said that in due course, as part of a general review of debt recovery arrangements—which would take longer than I can possibly say at the moment—it might be felt appropriate to match the powers available in the Debtors (Scotland) Act. I can go no further than that.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about alternatives. As regards juvenile justice, in the last Criminal Justice Bill we asked that no one should be committed to custodial care until every other line available had been tried. I realise that there has to be an ultimate sanction. I understand my
1346
noble friend's point in that connection. However, I think that every effort ought to be made—as was made for juveniles in the Criminal Justice Bill—to ensure that the courts try everything else available.
I also take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. People do not like attending attendance centres; it is almost an ultimate sanction for some people. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he thinks that we ought to consider widely just what the alternatives are. Prison is the ultimate sanction only in the most extreme cases.
Lord Glenarthur: I take my noble friend's point. But experience shows that commitment to prison is the ultimate deterrent—the deterrent that will bring about the results that we wish to see.
Lord Tordoff: Except in Scotland, the Minister is saying, presumably?
Lord Glenarthur: Except in Scotland, for the simple reason that the provision does not exist up there, as I described just now.
Lord Ross of Newport: Surely—
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Ross, wishes to intervene?
Lord Ross of Newport: Surely by next year the Government will face the situation where people in Scotland will not pay their taxes and rates. Is the Minister saying that they will not be committed to gaol whereas people in England and Wales will be? I represented a constituency that has three prisons. It is daft to say that people who do not pay their poll tax should be committed to prison. That does not make any sense. For God's sake, take the money from their wages or whatever income they have.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Ross, quotes from his former constituency. The situation in Scotland exists now for rates. There is a difference between the two. There are many other examples of differences in the way that this matter operates in Scotland. If we are to take the Bill forward in the way proposed, there will be one or two differences. The reason for the difference in this case was set out clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. He described how historically some things had not been tackled in Scotland. They did not require a great deal of work by the Scottish Law Commission whereas other aspects of debt recovery did. They are incorporated in the 1987 Act, which followed the 1880 Act as I understand it.
We need an ultimate deterrent. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said precisely that. There is an ultimate need.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend Lady Faithfull understood the force of the argument that an ultimate deterrent was necessary. She may have shaken her head, but she will read what she said in Hansard tomorrow.
Baroness Faithfull: I admitted that there had to be an ultimate deterrent, but I said that everything else should be tried first. And that requirement is not written into the Bill. We decided in this place on an earlier Bill that the courts should look at everything else before they looked at prison. If that requirement were to be written into the Bill many of us would be much happier.
Lord Glenarthur: I accept that, but the suggestions that my noble friend makes are not ultimate enough, if I may put it that way. That is why we need this clement of the Bill. I appreciate that it is distasteful to many Members of the Committee; nevertheless, it is a necessity.
Lord Wilberforce: I do not intend to make another speech. I should like to make just two short points. Needless to say, one relates to Scotland. It is right to say that there are historical differences in many respects between Scotland and England, but the point here is that we are dealing with the same tax. We are dealing with a poll tax, a community tax. It must be intolerable to have different sanctions in one part of the kingdom—in England and Wales: imprisonment in one part and not in the other. I fail to see how that difference can be defended.
The other point relates to recovery. The noble Lord says that we must have this provision as a means of recovery. As has been pointed out by several speakers, the way to recover the community charge is to get at a man's assets, as happens in Scotland. All the noble Lord could say was that if there were a general review of debt recovery in England and Wales it might be possible to introduce a provision similar to the attachment of bank accounts in Scotland.
We do not need a general review of debt recovery in England and Wales. We had that in 1970. We have abolished imprisonment for civil debt in England and Wales. We are faced with this case and the parallel case of income tax, which comes under the same principle. All that is necessary is to provide a sanction by which we can get at a man's assets. If he has the means to pay, he must have distrainable goods, earnings or a bank account.
If what is lacking is the ability to get at his bank account, then the amendment puts into the Bill something which provides for his bank account to be got at. It is quite simple: all we have to do is make a mechanism similar to that which obtains in Scotland. The Government can have their way, though I feel that they will probably regret it if they do and if they insist on this. But, as a matter of conscience, I could not abandon the amendment and, as a matter of English law, I could not be a party to the admission into this Bill of a continuation of imprisonment for this sort of liability. I am afraid I must press the amendment.
10.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Carr of Hadley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Coleraine, L.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mountevans, L.

Faithfull, B.

Parry, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Killearn, L.

Wilberforce, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lytton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Astor, V.

Henley, L.

Balfour, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Sandford, L.

Clinton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Swansea, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Swinton, E.

Denham, L.

Teviot, L.

Dundee, E.

Trafford, L.

Effingham, E.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrers, E.

Ullswater, V.

Gisborough, L.

Wynford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.33 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 95, line 26, after ("concerned") insert ("to the constables of the police area in which the warrant is issued").
The noble Lord said: The necessity for Amendment No. 92 arises from the conflict between this Bill and the wording of the General Rate Act 1967. I am speaking, if I may, to Amendment No. 93 also. Amendment No. 92 refers to the direction of a warrant of commitment. Amendment No. 93 refers to the execution of a warrant of commitment.
In both of these cases the General Rate Act 1967 provides for a warrant of commitment to be directed to the rating authority, to the constables of the police area in which the warrant is issued and to such other persons, if any, as the magistrates' court issuing the warrant may think fit. In the case of execution, the 1967 Act states that a warrant may be executed

1349
anywhere in England and Wales by any person to whom it is directed or by any constable acting within his police area.
It may be said that "any person" includes a constable, but I can assure the Committee and the Government that there is a considerable fear on the part of local authorities that police forces, unless they are not only empowered to do so but encouraged to do so by statute, will be unwilling to continue to execute the warrants issued by magistrates' courts. Indeed I understand, although I have no direct evidence of this, that Home Office circulars encourage the police in this direction.
It seems to me that when we come to the direction and execution of warrants the police must share the responsibility for the enforcement of the law in their area with the local authorities and that it would be wrong to give them any excuse to exercise any unwillingness to enforce the law. Therefore I put it to the Committee that the 1967 General Rate Act provision of saying "any person including a constable" is the right way to deal with these two related problems and that these two amendments are worthy of the attention and approval of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I recognise what the noble Lord is trying to achieve by these amendments but I hope I can reassure him that they are unnecessary. The General Rate Act 1967 at present enables a warrant of commitment issued by a magistrates' court to be directed to a rating authority, to the police constables of the area concerned or to any other such persons as the court thinks fit. When it came to considering the enforcement provisions for the community charge, which are based largely on those in the General Rate Act, we were advised by the Home Office that it was unnecessary to mention police constables specifically.
The provision in paragraph 7(1)(h) of Schedule 4, as currently drafted, allows the warrant to be directed to any persons the court thinks fit; and I have been assured that this enables the warrant to be directed, if necessary, to a police constable. So I hope, with that assurance which seems to meet the noble Lord's concern, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That answer does not explain why the Home Office should have changed its mind since 1967. At that time, as I have reminded the Committee and as the Minister has confirmed, it was considered necessary not only to say that the warrant may be directed to any other person as the magistrates' court issuing the warrant may think fit—similar words apply in regard to the execution of the warrant—but to specify that it may be issued to constables. The issue here is whether there may be a quite unnecessary and undesirable conflict between the police force and the local authority of the area. It seems illogical and inconsequential of the Home Office to be giving the advice now that what was proper at that time, and does not appear to have caused any difficulties, should be unnecessary now.
1350
There must have been a good reason for putting the constables into the 1967 Act. We have had no explanation as to why there should have been a change of mind.
I do not feel happy that we have done everything that we can to ensure harmonious relations between the police and the local authorities; but if that is the position the Government have come to as between the departments, I do not suppose at this time of night that we are going to make any major difference to it. I should like to think about whether there is any alternative form of words I could find which would help to persuade the Government of the justice of this case, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 96, line 5, at end insert—
("Winding up
7A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may provide that where a magistrates' court has made a liability order against a person (the debtor) and the debtor is a company, the amount due shall be deemed to be a debt for the purposes of section 122(1)(f) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (winding up of companies by the court).
(2) The amount due is an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with No. 86B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 93B:
Page 96, line 39, after ("commitment") insert (", winding up").
The noble Lord said. I have spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 93C:
Page 98, line 7, at end insert—
("PART IV
A DISCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS
14A. This Part of this Schedule applies as regards the recovery of any sum falling within paragraph 1(1)(cc) above.
14B. Regulations under the Schedule may make, as regards the recovery of such a sum, provision equivalent to that included under Part II of this Schedule subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not recall that the amendment has been spoken to. I do not wish to delay the Committee. However, it would be helpful, since the amendment is not inconsequential, to have an explanation.
Lord Glenarthur: Unless I have my papers in a muddle, the amendment was included in the grouping with Amendments Nos. 86B, 86C, 86E, 93A to 93C, 122B and 128A. I believe that I referred to it. However, if the noble Lord wishes me to, I shall go back to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not the grouping which I have and which I agreed to. However, I do not wish to delay the Committee and I suggest that the matter can be easily remedied at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Appeals]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved amendment No. 93D:
Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
("(3A) Where a penalty is imposed on a person under Schedule 3 below, and he alleges that there is no power in the case concerned to impose a penalty of the amount imposed, he may appeal under subsections (1) and (2)(f) above against the imposition.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 192B, 192C, 192D and 192 E. I hope that the Committee will welcome the amendments, which clarify the position on appeals against civil penalties imposed by the community charges registration officer or the charging authority.
The intention is that penalties imposed in accordance with Schedule 3 should be a fixed amount—£50 for the first offence and £200 for a subsequent offence. The Committee will, I am sure, agree that there is clear advantage in that. At present the drafting of paragraphs 7 and 9 of Schedule 14 might be taken to mean that a Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal, in dealing with an appeal against a civil penalty, has power to reduce that penalty, say, from £50 to £30. That is not what we intend. The four amendments to Schedule 14 therefore take out the words "or reduce" to make that clear.
However, we need to make provision for a situation whereby a person accepts that a penalty should be imposed but contends that it should have been £50 and not £200 because he believes that the breach of duty was a first rather than a second offence. The amendment to Clause 22 will give the person the right to appeal on the basis that the registration officer or charging authority has imposed a penalty which he or it is not empowered to impose. If on appeal the Valuation and Community Charges Tribunal were to agree with the appellant, it would then quash the incorrect penalty of £200 and the authority or officer could then impose the correct penalty of £50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 27 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 28 [Interpretation]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 93E:
Page 16, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) References to anything shown in a register on a day are references to what is shown for the day (including what is shown by virtue of a retrospective entry).").
The noble Lord said: This is simply a clarifying amendment which puts beyond doubt the effect of an entry in a community charge register. As the Committee knows, it is the entry of a person in a register on a day as subject to a community charge which triggers his liability to pay an amount in respect of the charge. However, it is not quite as straightforward as it might seem to determine whether a person is registeed "on a day", because of the possibility of retrospective entries.
I think an example may help to illustrate the point. A person might be subject to the personal community charge on 1st April by virtue of having his sole or main residence in an area but he might avoid the notice of the registration officer until, say, 1st June, two months later. The registration officer would then register him as subject to the charge, not beginning on 1st June, but beginning on 1st April.
The question then arises: was the person registered as subject to the charge on 1st April? This amendment makes it clear that he was by providing that what is shown in a register on a day means what is shown for the day in question, including what is shown by virtue of a retrospective entry. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible and desirable clarifying amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 17, line 10, leave out (", caravan or houseboat") and insert ("or caravan").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to on the first day in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Amount for personal community charges]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 17, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 95, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 96. The occasion for this amendment arises from the statement of the Minister for Local Government at Committee stage in another place on 25th February, at col. 987 of the Official Report, when he said:
"It is not our intention to prevent authorities from making realistic estimates of shortfalls and losses and from using these for the purposes of setting their community charges".
This does not find its reflection in the provisions of Clause 29. We are proposing here that it should be so reflected.
This is not simply a matter of form. We are not looking only for the fulfilment of a commitment for its own sake. The ability of a local authority to raise the revenue from the community charge necessary to meet expenditure is extremely important for two special reasons. The first is that expenditure which is not recognised as being legitimate expenditure for the purpose of the community charge is quite capable, as we shall see from later discussions on this Bill, of

1353
being capped. I have no doubt that the Committee will take some time on that matter. Therefore, despite the statement of the Minister for Local Government, a local authority may find itself with expenses for which it will not be allowed to raise money and it may get into difficulties under that provision.
The second consideration which must be taken into account is that, even if the community charge level is not capped, there will be penalties imposed on the local authority because it has not been adequately taken into account in the setting of revenue grant. Again, we have not yet come to the detailed discussion of the revenue grant, and I have no doubt that the Committee will want to spend some time on that matter as well. However, in either case the local authority will be at a substantial disadvantage if it has expenditure for which it has no authority to raise money under the community charge procedure.
There is no difficulty about the Government providing for it. After all, the Government have already said that they will reimburse local authorities for any of the losses incurred as a result of the exemptions which arc set out in the Bill. Since there is no question of reimbursement from central government, there should therefore be no difficulty in the Government recognising the quite substantial levels of loss that might be possible—as indeed was recognised by the Minister for Local Government—as a result of evasion or other shortfalls in the collection of the community charge.
Over the past hour or so we have been discussing the whole issue of penalties on the basis that it is universally agreed that there will be difficulty in collection—difficulties about evasion and about the expenditure involved in collection. We have come to a conclusion different from the one which I should have wished to reach. Nevertheless the issue is alive. It has been discussed in the Committee and it deserves serious consideration as a proper item on which the local authority will have to raise revenue and for which it will have to provide in its accounts. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Possibly for reasons slightly different from those given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I warmly support this pair of amendments. If the Government have the strength of their convictions, they will accept them without hesitation. On the other hand, if they resist them, we shall know that the Government are seriously worried that they may have grossly underestimated the heavy costs of the collection of the poll tax, which they have already conceded will be vastly more expensive to collect than are domestic rates.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Should this amendment be adopted it would surely be an extraordinary innovation in local government. At the moment one of the major items of consideration when striking a rate is the amount to be allowed for in respect of what will not be collected because of evasion. It is the responsibility of local government to make an assessment of that.
As I understand it, one of the concerns of the Scottish local authorities at the moment lies in trying
1354
to estimate the amount that they will fail to collect in the first year of the community charge. They reckon that they will fail to collect more in the first year than in the second year and that collection will improve as the years go by and people become accustomed to the system. Surely, however, local authorities will have to allow for that situation and people will have to realise that if some people do not pay others will pay more.
It is quite different from the additional cost of running the system, the correct proportion of which will be paid by central government grant and by means of the business rate. I should have thought that the amendment proposed an innovation that simply will not work.
Lord Glenarthur: So far, we have been discussing Part I of the Bill, which establishes the system of community charges. We have now come to examine those provisions which set up the systems that the authorities will use each year to obtain the revenues that they need to finance their expenditure. Before turning to the detail of the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I say a few words about the collection fund which is very much central to these systems that we are establishing.
We shall be considering the collection fund in detail when we come to Part VII of the Bill. The essential point for the moment is that all the community charges collected by a charging authority from its area, and in England revenue support grant and contributions from the national non-domestic rate pool, will he paid into its collection fund. Out of that fund the charging authority will pay revenues both to itself and to the other local authorities providing services in the area. These payments will be in response to what we might see as demands which authorities have made on that collection fund.
All authorities providing services in a charging authority's area, including the charging authority itself, are to be required for each financial year to make before 11th March of the preceding financial year their demands on the collection fund of that area. In the terminology of the Bill the demand of the charging authority itself is the "sum it calculates" under Clause 99 and the demands of the other authorities are their precepts. Once these demands have been made, the charging authority administering the collection fund is to set on or before 1st April of the financial year such amounts for its personal community charges that the yield it expects from those charges will be sufficient for the collection fund to meet the demands made on it.
That is very much the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. If I have understood the argument of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, correctly, he is seeking to ensure that the duty on a charging authority to set sufficient community charges for its collection fund to be able to meet the demands made on it is so framed that the charging authority must take account of losses and shortfalls in relation to community charges arising from non-registration, evasion and difficulties of enforcing payment.
Clause 29 sets out the duty to set sufficient community charges. Clause 29(3) means that a charging authority must indeed take losses and

1355
shortfalls into account when setting the amounts of its personal community charges. There is no question of authorities not being able to take into account realistic estimates of shortfalls and losses when setting their community charges. Indeed the provisions of Clause 29 will require charging authorities to do just this; namely, to set their community charges at such a level that on the basis of the best and most realistic estimates they can make they expect the resulting yield will be sufficient for their collection funds to meet the demands being made on them. That is the first point.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about the alleged difficulties of collection of community charge and about the costs involved. On the question of evasion there are two reasons why this will not be a serious problem. First, adults will be under a duty to notify the local authority if they believe that they are subject to a community charge. They will also be under a duty to notify the authority of a change of address and to respond to requests for information from local authorities. The great majority of people will do just this. I do not accept that a large number of adults are dishonest or seek to go to some of the extraordinary lengths which have been canvassed in some areas to evade their responsibilities.
Secondly, local authorities will have every incentive to secure comprehensive community charge registers. Authorities will be dependent on people paying their community charges for a significant part of their revenue, just as they are dependent on the payment of rates at the moment. I have every confidence that local authorities will take their responsibilities seriously. There are already signs that many authorities are now buckling down and setting up their arrangements for collecting community charges.
I would also remind the Committee that local authorities will have many sources they can use to check and supplement their registration returns. They will be able to canvass residents. Initially they will probably canvass everyone, and thereafter on a rolling basis. But this will be for local authorities to decide. Authorities will be able to crosscheck information against various records.
Finally, there are the sanctions that we are providing in the Bill that will provide a back-up for the authorities concerned. Those are the penalties in Schedule 3. As regards costs of collection in 1990 and subsequent years, we have always maintained that the costs per charge payer will be broadly the same as the costs per ratepayer and the costs of collecting the community charge will be taken account of in revenue grant settlements from 1990–91 onwards.
The amendment that the noble Lord has proposed will add nothing to what is already in the Bill. Indeed I fear that it would unnecessarily complicate the provisions.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think it is very tactful for the Minister to remind us in his reply of two matters on which some of us felt very strongly when we debated them yesterday. The first matter concerns the sources of information which the
1356
registration officer will have in order to complete the register. Many of us felt very strongly—indeed, to the extent of dividing the Committee—that far too much power was being given to the registration officer and that there was far too much invasion of civil liberties involved in the process of compiling and maintaining the register. So that particular argument does not go down terribly well with this side of the Committee and, I suspect, with some other noble Lords as well.
It was also not particularly tactful to remind us of the various sanctions that can be applied to enforce the completion of the register. We have had debates on this matter. The Government have their view and we have ours. I do not think the Minister can expect us to be convinced by those arguments. What is worrying about the Government's response to the amendments is that they appear still to be determined to play down the difficulties that there will be in collecting the community charge. They seem to think that the matter can be kept under control, that it will not cause great difficulty and that therefore it is something which does not need to be referred to particularly in the Bill.
I accept as a matter of form, as I must, that Clause 29(3) provides that the authority must secure that the total amount yielded is sufficient to provide for the items mentioned below, that it could be said that the cost of the losses and shortfalls is included in that, and that, strictly speaking, my amendment could therefore be said to be superfluous. On that basis alone, I shall ask leave of the Committee to withdraw it. However, this discussion has been useful in drawing attention to the continuing lack of realism on the part of the Government about the difficulties of collection, about the possibilities of shortfall, about the problems of non-registration and evasion and about the difficulty of enforcing payment.
I do not apologise for that. I believe that it has been worth while, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Setting of different amounts]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 17, line 44, leave out ("premises situated in").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee perhaps I can speak also to Amendment No. 96C. These are technical drafting amendments relating to how we describe those community charges which can be said to be in respect of a certain part of a charging authority's area. These amendments represent no change of policy. They are merely for clarification. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 96C:
Page 18, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) A community charge relates to a part of an area if it is—

(a) a personal community charge arising in respect of a residence contained in the part.

1357

(b) a standard community charge arising in respect of a building, self-contained part of a building or caravan contained in the part.

(c) a collective community charge arising in respect of a dwelling constituting or contained in a building which is contained in the part.

(6) Rules contained in regulations under sections 10(6), 12(6) and 14(7) above shall apply for the purpose of construing subsection (5) above.").
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Should we not take Amendment No. 96B first?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): No. They have been marshalled the other way round in my list, which is the fourth Marshalled List.
Lord Glenarthur: In order to clarify the situation I should like to point out that I have already spoken to Amendment No. 96C in relation to an earlier amendment. I think that we can take it as read, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 96B:
Page 18, line 32, at end insert—
("(7) As regards any charging authority the Secretary of State may make directions that, for the purposes of subsection (2) above, the extent (if any) to which an item is to be provided for by other means shall be determined by the authority in accordance with the directions.
(8) Directions under subsection (7) above—

(a) must be made in writing;

(b) may contain rules in accordance with which, or specify factors by reference to which, a determination is to be made:

(c) may specify (as the extent concerned) an amount in relation to a particular item;

(d) may relate to one item or to a number of items;

(e) may contain different provision as to different items;

(f) may be amended or revoked by other directions under subsection (7) above.

(9) The power to give directions under subsection (7) above may be exercised differently for different authorities.
(10) No directions under subsection (7) above shall have effect in relation to a determination unless they are served on the authority concerned before it makes the determination.").
The noble Lord said: When considering the previous amendments I described how Clause 30 provided that in certain circumstances a charging authority must set different amounts for its community charges for different parts of its area. For example, where a precept relates to part of its area, the authority will set its community charge so that the charge payers of that part provide the revenues necessary to meet that precept after allowing for the other sources of revenue support grant, or whatever, which are available for meeting the precept.
Amendment No. 96B will enable my right honourable friend to make directions about how a charging authority is to attribute other sources of revenue it receives to meeting items such as the precepts I have mentioned which are to be met from part of its area. I hope the Committee will accept that the amendment will enable us to provide that where a charging authority sets different community
1358
charges for different parts of its area the revenues received by its collection fund, other than community charges, can be treated in a sensible way. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am less happy about this amendment for the same reason that I was worried about an earlier amendment. It gives the Government powers to determine what the other means will be without ever setting out their idea of the other means and the circumstances in which they will determine how they will be provided for. I can readily understand that in a district which is parished, for example, there will be a different precept for a different parish and that that will cause a variation in the community charge. However, that has already been accepted under Clause 30(2), and as I understand the matter it is not part of the other means provision.
What do the Government mean by this? What is the content rather than the form of the amendments? What are the Government asking us to empower the Secretary of State to do? It is far from clear from the amendment as drafted.
Lord Glenarthur: The matter is of particular significance for those district councils on the outskirts of London which receive for part of their area a precept from the receiver for the Metropolitan Police district, the other parts of their area being policed by the appropriate county council. In such circumstances the Metropolitan Police precept which the district receives will fall on that part of the council's area which is policed by the Metropolitan Police. The council will also receive revenue support grant and contributions from the national non-domestic rates pool.
We envisage that when setting its community charge for part of its area covered by the Metropolitan Police precept the amount of revenue support grant which the district council attributes to that part will reflect the spending needs of the Metropolitan Police area. In other words, the revenue support grant which the district will receive because of the needs of the Metropolitan Police will be targeted on that part of its area which is required to contribute to the Metropolitan Police. It is our intention to make directions under the power we are now seeking in this amendment to ensure that grant is treated in this way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What the Minister says makes good sense but why does the amendment not say that? Why are we being asked to give the Secretary of State the authority to make regulations about something whose meaning the Minister, except under questioning, rather than voluntarily when the amendment was moved, was not able to explain? This is a most unsatisfactory way to draft a Bill and to treat the Committee. However, as I agree that the provision is, under cross-examination, shown to be acceptable, I do not think we shall oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Deputy to set substituted amounts]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) a metropolitan county passenger transport authority,").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 129, 131, 135, 171, 173 and 196, which are all related. I am not speaking to Amendment No. 174A, as that relates to a different issue. My noble friend is aware of that and I have dealt with the matter through the usual channels.
The amendment seeks to reinstate into the Bill the powers of a metropolitan county passenger transport authority to finance its expenditure by precept. PTAs have this power at present and when this Bill was first introduced in another place it did not propose any change. However, on Report the Government amended the Bill to its present form under which the PTAs are merely levying authorities.
In order to appreciate the significance of that, we must understand the difference between a precept and a levy. The precepting system means that the PTA decides its expenditure level and, after taking into account government grant, raises the money from individual ratepayers. Therefore, the PTA has a direct relationship with its ratepayers. Instead of issuing its own rate demands and administering its own collection system, it authorises the constituent district council to collect the money on its behalf. However, it is the PTA's money, directly reflecting the PTA's decisions. That is sensible and logical. It is sensible because it saves money compared with collecting the rate itself. It is logical as the PTA, with its county-wide role, is, as many have said on several occasions in this Chamber, the right body to make decisions on public transport policy.
Nothing in the remainder of the Bill prevents the precept system from continuing. Indeed, it will continue in the other joint authorities—the police and fire authorities. However, the Government's proposal is to make the PTAs levying authorities. Under this system the PTA merely sends the bill to the district councils in its area which will cover its expenditure. The district council and not the community charge payers will pay. Thus, direct financial links with those for whom the service is being provided will be severed.
When they proposed the change in the other place the argument put forward by the Government was that this would make PTAs and their members more accountable. Members of the Committee will know of my interest in public transport and, in pursuing this matter, I have been to PTA meetings and have met PTA members and officers. I have seen the way in which the PTAs consult widely on their policies and expenditures. They produce excellent policy documents which are commented on by district councils, chambers of commerce, bus operators and interested members of the public. They are accountable to ratepayers and to industry and commerce with whom thy consult in accordance with the Rating Act. Ratepayers receive detailed information on their activities, policies and expenditures with their rate demands.
Individual PTA members are accountable now to their district councils as they are appointed by the districts. They can be removed from the PTA if the district requires. They have no tenure of office, which they had before 1974. As elected members they are of course accountable to their electorates. Thus as a body and as individuals the PTAs are already accountable. The Bill as drafted does nothing to increase their accountability. Instead, by removing their rights to precept and to have access to their own income the Bill will cause an essential degree of accountability to be lost both to individual charge payers and through the statutory consultation procedures. People paying for the service will, as of right, get less information about it and about the policies pursued to provide it.
As if that were not enough, there are many other disadvantages to the proposals. First, they will introduce further uncertainty to the PTAs' budgets. A levy cannot be as secure a source of income as a precept. At present, following deregulation, they face uncertainty over their incomes. PTAs will of course continue to consult districts and others when deciding what levy to set, but once the levy has been set the district councils will be able to challenge the amount of the levy. Will they be able to withhold payment? If so, can up to 10 districts agree a levy in a reasonable time? These are new uncertainties under government proposals and I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's response.
In public transport terms the proposals are frankly a downgrading of status. There will no longer be a direct grant from central government. The districts will get an allowance for public transport in their grants but this can be spent on anything. Many of the positive provisions that this House helped to build into the 1985 Transport Act, especially on concessionary fares and special transport facilities for the disabled, could well be at risk as a result. Incidentally, I have received a brief on the disabled from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is concerned on this point.
There will be increased risk of districts seceding from the PTAs, thus putting the whole range of county-wide services at risk. At present, districts can apply to secede on public transport grounds. Under the terms of the Bill they will also be able to apply, it appears, on financial grounds. The result will be many strategic initiatives. The benefit of the county as a whole will be at risk from the ever-present threat of secession. We have seen a number of these initiatives developed by PTAs since local government re-organisation. The furthest advance is the Manchester light rapid transit scheme, which is now to be a joint public and private sector development. The PTA system has shown that it can grasp such opportunities, not least because the PTAs have their own financial resources.
Many bus operators are concerned about these proposals and the implications for them. If districts do secede, the overall pattern of secured services and concessionary travel for a large number of people whose travel needs are not artificially constrained by district boundaries may disappear. In any event, the administration involved in attendant services and concessionary fares will be increased enormously.

1361
Large operators may be able to cope, at a price, but small operators will be placed at a serious disadvantage in coping with the extra bureaucracy. Competition, which the Government have been careful to foster, could well be stifled.
British Rail is also concerned because it would be impossible to organise railway services on a district by district basis. Rail services in the conurbations and even some services into neighbouring shire counties will be at risk if districts secede. Most significant of all, I know that most, if not all, district councils are opposed to the Government's proposals. This amendment seeks to remove all the uncertainty by simply preserving the current arrangements, a solution favoured by almost all bodies who were so hastily consulted by the Government earlier this year. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: As my name is attached to all seven of these amendments, it might be useful if I said a few words at this stage before, I hope, other Members speak in support of the amendments. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that on 22nd January the Department of Transport issued a consultation paper entitled Proposed Changes in the Financing of Passenger Transport Authorities. In a Written Answer on 30th March Mr. David Mitchell, the Minister responsible for public transport, admitted that most of the respondents to the consultation paper disliked the proposals but that he was nevertheless going to introduce amendments to this Bill at the Report stage in the other place. That seems to query first of all the object of the consultation if the Minister agreed that most of the people consulted disliked the proposals. The matter was raised in this House in our recent debate on transport and also at Second Reading of this Bill but no explanation has been given as to why this particular amendment had to await the Report stage in the other place following its Second Reading and Committee stage there.
In a wide-ranging speech covering most of the important points, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has emphasised the question of accountability. The Government have to explain the fact that the representatives on the PTA are not self-appointed. They are all elected members of their district councils, elected by them to attend PTA meetings. Therefore, they are accountable as elected members of district councils to those councils. I cannot see how the argument of accountability can be justified.
As regards the value of the PTAs, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, the Secretary of State responsible for this Bill, said on 7th November 1984, when he was Secretary of State for Transport:
"That is why we shall provide the joint passenger authorities with members appointed by the constituent districts. That reverts to the previous arrangements which worked perfectly satisfactorily".
We now have this proposal coming forward from the Secretary of State who, in November 1984, made that particular statement concerning the working of the PTAs.
In the Standing Committee of the other place considering the Transport Bill, on 12th February 1985, Mr. Giles Shaw, Minister of State at the Home Office, said at column 1337:
1362
"We are faced with an authority being set up to provide a service which inevitably is wider than any individual district council. That of course is the logic and the rationale behind joint hoards for police, fire and transport so that there can be co-ordination of policy and an agreement to run what is in essence a public service.".
If one bears in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said, I ask the Minister, "Why change all that by this proposal in the present Bill?"
All these references—and I could quote others—ignore the whole tenor of the consultation paper. Ministers may endeavour to justify the consultation paper but throughout it there is encouragement for district councils to secede from their PTAs. I should like to quote paragraph 4:
"Individual district councils may consider that they could better achieve their policy objectives if they were to pay for and administer public transport support in their area directly".
There is a reminder in the consultation paper of Section 42 of Transport Act 1985 which provides for district councils to secede. I cannot believe that the Department of Transport issued a consultation paper of that kind without the Ministers concerned approving this encouragement to secede from the PTAs.
What would happen if there was a secession from the PTAs is almost too dreadful to consider. Admittedly this covers only the important conurbations of the old metropolitan counties and would also have some effect in Strathclyde. It would ignore the considerable number of bus services which cross at least one district boundary. At the Second Reading of the Bill we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that in Greater Manchester as many as 65 per cent. of the services cross district boundaries. What a hopeless mess it would be if there had to be separate arrangements with each district council for bus subsidy, bearing in mind what has been said about the cross-district transport services.
Picture the mess there would be if each district council had to arrange its own transport concessionary fares scheme. The individual districts would also have to agree procedures to meet changes in commercial services, bearing in mind that only 42 days' notice is required of any changes in commercial services. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the position of British Rail. It is terribly concerned about the possibility of the break up of the present PTA system of representatives from district councils. British Rail says that it would be absolutely impracticable for it to have to negotiate separate arrangements with each district council. There is also the question of the level of service to be provided and the fares to be charged. To have to do this with every district council instead of, as at the moment, through the PTA would be nonsense.
I have also received a communication from the Community Transport Association, to which the noble Lord referred. It is worried about the possible secession and points out that the six existing passenger transport authorities and the Strathclyde region spend some £6 million on special needs transport services. With the change in the Bill we could find each district council trying to weigh up transport needs alongside social needs, whereas at the moment the question of transport needs is considered on a countywide basis with the PTAs.

1363
We have asked why the joint passenger authorities have been singled out for this change from precepting to levying. The explanation was given by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, when replying to a transport debate. He said:
"The purpose of the change is to increase accountability. It is not so necessary for the fire and police services which are subject to police supervision".
In another place the Minister concerned added that another difference is that the Home Office pays 50 per cent. of the grants.
The change to levying would remove the right of appeal against any spending restriction imposed by central government. Undoubtedly we shall find that there will be such restrictions on expenditure. The other important point is that transport expenditure would not be itemised in the community charge, whereas if it were a precept charge the precept for transport for the PTA services would be itemised separately. Those who received the community charge notice would know that so much had been paid towards the precept of the PTA. By the levying system, which would not be mentioned at all, it would come under the general district council's costs.
I hope that Members of the Committee will appreciate what has been said on the issue. It may only affect these parts of the country but it is a most important question. I hope therefore that not only will all seven amendments receive the Committee's support but also that the Government will realise the common sense of changing the position they have introduced into the Bill.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: It gives me no great pleasure to say from these Benches that I think the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Teviot is right. I should like to explain the reasons behind my agreement. When we published the White Paper Streamlining the Cities, which was the precursor to the Local Government Act that many Members of this Chamber took a close interest in during the various stages of its passage through this place, we always recognised, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, that when the metropolitan county councils were abolished there were three services which had to continue to be operated on an area-wide basis. Transport was one of those services. Therefore joint boards were to be set up and the members of them were to be supplied by the districts to ensure that such services were looked at on an area basis.
We had considerable discussions, within the Government at that time, as to whether the joint boards should be precepting or charging bodies. I notice that the word "levying" is now used, but at that time we used the word "charging". The arguments centred on many factors, one of which was the issue of accountability and the transparency of the amount which would be precepted by the joint board and which would pass straight through to be paid by the ratepayer—now known as the community charge payer. In the end we decided that precepting was a better way of achieving this than charging, because it provided the benefit of transparency and accountability. Further, it left the
1364
joint board—in this case the passenger transport authority—with the clear responsibility for its own expenditure and with the collective responsibility, so to speak, of the districts for administering the services area-wide.
The policy found expression in the White Paper which streamlined the cities in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1:
"The joint boards will be directly responsible for their own expenditure decisions, will have a power of pre cept, and will therefore stand in a clear fiduciary relationship to the ratepayers of the area".
That was why the solution was chosen, applying to the police and fire services as well as to transport.
I take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Undeŕhill. I understand why the Government do not propose to change the position as regards the police and fire services. This is because there is a much greater degree of central government involvement in the expenditure and in the establishment and maintenance of standards in those services. However, their argument, as I understand it—I have had the advantage of discussing the matter with two Ministers in the Department of Transport—is that actual experience in the case of transport has shown that accountability is not as strong as had been envisaged when we passed the Local Government Act.
It is said that district councillors tend to distance themselves from the activities of the PTAs and therefore they do not feel themselves accountable to their electors for the actions of the PTAs. We are entitled to ask for some evidence of that. My noble friend Lord Teviot has described the measures that are currently being taken by PTAs to ensure that their district councils are involved in the decisions that they make; that there is co-ordination between services—
Lord Teviot: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, who has come to a valid point. It is one that he mentioned to me and that I have researched. In the past hour only I have been in touch with four out of the six PTEs. It is a fairly late hour to get in touch with people at their homes. I think that I have received reasonable information. I should like to mention West Yorkshire, which does better than the others. It has a good, positive relationship with district councils, which co-operate with PTAs over the development of public transport systems and the most efficient use of resources. That PTE has regular committees on education, social services, highways, planning and taxis. It meets quarterly.
Greater Manchester and its 10 councils have regular discussions on policy plans, budgets, three-year plans and light rapid transport. Tyne and Wear consults districts on shared services and has a full-time district liaison officer. South Yorkshire PTA members are on four district transport advisory committees with separate sub-committees. I am afraid that I have been unable to contact the West Midlands or Merseyside, but I believe that there is a difference in those areas.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He absolves me from any further responsibility to seek to justify putting a question to

1365
my noble friend the Minister as to what evidence there is that district councils tend to distance themselves from the activities of PTAs.
If there were some evidence of that, surely there is a perfectly valid explanation for it. We are still in the transitional period. The Committee will recollect that when the Local Government Bill was introduced, and as it was enacted, it contained a requirement that the precepts of the joint boards should have central government approval for the first three years: 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89. We are still in the middle of that period.
I could well understand that district councillors might say, "Well, so long as that ceiling is imposed by central government there is not much point in our engaging in substantial discussions with the PTA as to the level of its precept. Of course, when the three years are up, and the government ceiling is removed, we may well be in a different state, but we cannot tell".
I have to ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government's proposal, which the amendment moved by my noble friend seeks to reverse, is not premature. How can one argue that the system is not working well when, after all, we are only in the second year of a transitional period? I seriously question whether the Government are wise to seek to reverse a decision taken comparatively recently by Parliament, as I must make clear to the Committee, after a great deal of careful thought and analysis as a result of which we came to the conclusion that precepting was the right answer.
Following one of the other points made by my noble friend, what are likely to be the consequences of switching to a levy system in place of a precept? My noble friend on the Front Bench may have a point when he says that it will bring home to the district councillor, when he seeks the support of his electors, that he or his council has to include in the community charge the appropriate share of the charge which is being made, the levy which is being made by the PTA, and that this will enhance accountability. I readily concede that point.
However, I then have to go on to ask, accountability for what? Will it not be, in those circumstances, the accountability that that elector and that district councillor will feel for the very specific services which may apply in that district's area? It seems to me that it will be very difficult to argue that it will be an accountability for the services that cover the area as a whole, the whole of the PTA area. That is not what that elector or that district councillor will be concerned about. Therefore, I argue that, yes, there may at first sight be an enhanced accountability from the councillor to the elector. But it is not the accountability which Parliament sought to establish when it retained area-wide passenger transport authorities.
Therefore one looks for another reason. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned secession. Here again I find my noble friend's argument puzzling and confusing. When one came to read it, the consultation paper of January seemed to suggest that one of the advantages of a levy was that it would
1366
bring home to the individual district council that there might well be advantages in secession. In a passage a little lower down from the one read to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, paragraph 5 states this:
"The changeover to direct billing will put districts into a better position to make an assessment of whether secession would better meet their interests. Districts may in particular regard secession as desirable because decisions on bus services needed for its population would be made by a body more closely in touch with the needs of its residents."
I am bound to say that I agree with those who read into those words a fairly clear government encouragement to secede. But, when that was put to the Minister of State, Mr David Mitchell, in the debate in another place, he had this to say on 20th April:
"I have no reason to believe that the measure will lead to secession by districts. I do not anticipate such a development, and I can give any honourable Members who are genuinely worried on that score an assurance that if any authority asks for secession, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will look very carefully at the proposals, and set conditions that will have to be met. On that ground, honourable Members can be considered reassured that secession will not result." [Offcial Report, Commons, 20/4/88; col. 922.]
If it is going to result in a flawed accountability, because it will not be an accountability for the whole of the PTA area, and if it is not intended to lead to secession, then one is bound to ask, what is the purpose of making this change?
I can say to my noble friend, who would concede it, that if there were evidence after a reasonable period of proper operation of the system—that is to say, after the end of the transitional period—that it was not working, that there was a gulf between the districts and the PTA and that therefore one had once again to reopen the question, then I should certainly be prepared to look at that with a very open mind. I would not consider myself in any way wedded to the proposal in the White Paper and in the Bill which we passed at the time.
But surely that is premature. I wonder whether my noble friend might consider a possible alternative way of approaching this. Clearly he would not want to come back to the House in two or three years' time with primary legislation to reopen this whole question. In retrospect, the right answer is perhaps that I might have tabled an amendment in this sense, but we have further stages of the Bill when it may be possible to do so. But one could take a power to convert the precept into a charge, a power to be approved by both Houses on affirmative resolution. Both Houses would need then to be satisfied that the system had so far broken down that it had to be changed. But one cannot say that now. We are in the transitional period with the ceiling put on to the precept by the Government. Five out of the six passenger transport authorities actually spend up to their ceiling. So I would very earnestly beg my noble friend to look at this again. I think that the Government have jumped the gun for reasons which are not wholly clear to me. I believe this is premature and I think that it would be better if they took it back and thought again.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: One of the joys of speaking fourth in a little debate like this is that most points have been made before. So one puts away one's first page, or almost. But I would agree with those Members of the Committee who have said that direct billing in lieu of precept is harmful to public transport in the metropolitan areas at this time rather than being a progressive move. As has been said, it will have a negative effect on the provision of service in general apart from the concessionary schemes. It will prevent forward planning, without which no sensible public transport organisation—indeed, no private enterprise—can operate. If a private enterprise or a public one does not know whence its funds are coming, it cannot plan ahead.
It has also been mentioned that British Rail is rightly concerned about the effects which could arise if the Bill went through in its present state. British Rail is obliged by directive to provide a network and a density of service which is broadly comparable to that prevailing over the past decade. To do so it depends on three sources of income: the fare box income, the PSO grant and the Section 20 payment—the latter being from the PTAs.
But, as has been argued already, the PTAs run across district lines, as does British Rail. When British Rail provides its service and looks for its funding, it has to take account not only of its economic objectives but also of the very simple fact that people live in one district but work in another. They live in one district but they travel to another for the purposes of friendship or kinship; for the purposes of treatment; for the purposes of health or for the purposes of leisure.
Under the billing procedure it seems to me highly unlikely that there will be any investment in infrastructure in what one might call the middle district if one had three districts A, B and C. The benefit might be to a considerable extent operationally economic for British Rail and to a considerable extent appealing to district A and district C—let us say, in Manchester, Stockport and Bolton. British Rail has just opened the Windsor link, which I believe lies in the Salford district. There is no great benefit to the Salford district from the Windsor link, but on the other hand it is of the utmost benefit to other people in the conurbation.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, argued that direct billing could lead to secession and so, I think, did almost everybody else who has spoken so far. I wonder if one cannot take this a little further and say that secession is almost something that the Government encourage, because if major districts secede from unitary authorities those unitary authorities become weaker. They lose their ability to fulfil the county-wide function that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in his very earliest remarks.
The reason why I wonder whether secession is not a matter of government policy is because in April I was watching "Newsnight". On it the Secretary of State for Education was being tackled by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff on his education Bill. In effect the Secretary of State said, "Yes, of
1368
course, if one gets three or four of the major districts to secede from a local education authority that is the end of the unitary authority." So perhaps I may ask the Minister to look across the lines a little and tell me whether the unitary authority is under threat from the Government. Shall we find that the police and the fire services will shortly be under threat in spite of any logic that says that they are best run on a county-wide or broader basis?
Finally, one comes to accountability, which seems to have been defined as directly elected. I have only one point to make about this. As far as I am aware the Pope is not directly elected. I am not certain if the Leader of the Opposition was directly elected; I know the Prime Minister was not directly elected. Could we perhaps have a new definition of "accountability"?
Lord Beloff: I have only two brief reasons for supporting the amendment. The first is that many of us were asked to support the Government in passing the legislation now in force on the basis of what an excellent thing PTAs would be and how they would enable the more rational planning of transport to go on. I do not like having to turn a somersault, unless the evidence can be produced that we made a terrible mistake and that in fact transport is in disarray. No such evidence has been produced.
My second reason is that, looking ahead, it is clear that the present pattern of urban transport all over the world is going to be revised. We are going to have another era of other forms of transport: light railways, tramways in a new form, or whatever it may be. We have seen this in other countries. And it is coming here, for instance, in the North-East. It seems to me that the last thing one wants to do is reduce the area over which a transport authority operates. Clearly, if you had secession and the operation was broken up even to a limited extent, there would be no capital forthcoming for such ventures. These will, I believe, solve many of our traffic and transport problems; it seems absurd to cut away the foundations of the future.
Lord Tordoff: I intervene briefly, as someone who added his name to the amendment. There really is very little more to say. It seems to me that the debate revolves around the decision as to whether we have a sensible transport system— the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, put his finger right on the button—capable of development, integrated and envisaged in the Bill, which many of us criticised. We would have approached the problem in different ways. Nevertheless the Transport Bill and the Local Government Bill took us down this road.
We have heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who has now made two remarkable speeches on the Bill. One was made on Second Reading, the other on this amendment. It seems to me that the Government really must listen to what is being said: the contra-distinction between an efficient transport system and what I believe is a spurious attempt to increase accountability.
What does accountability mean in these circumstances? At the end of the day, people have one vote in one election. They are going to cast that vote not on the basis simply of whether the passenger

1369
transport system is adequate in their district but over a whole range of issues relating to local government. To suggest that there will be greater control of passenger transport authorities because transport is brought into the hands of the districts and taken away from the overall body seems to me a spurious argument. To set that against the dangers of further disintegration of our transport system, with the dangers of the lack of investment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, seems to me to be foolish in the extreme. I hope that the Government will take great notice of what has been said in this debate.
The Earl of Halsbury: The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked me to come and listen to this debate and form an opinion as to what I had listened to. I am not an expert on the technicalities involved in local government administration, but I should like to remind the Government that I have supported this Bill from the start because of the extremely lucid and persuasive Second Reading speech of the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Once more he seeks to persuade the Chamber not to go ahead with the Bill but to think again. I can only add my persuasion to his. I like to think of these Committee stages, for the most part, as a fencing match with buttoned foils. The object is not to draw blood. That can be done at Report stage. If the Government can be persuaded to think again and if Members of the Committee whose names appear on the amendment can withdraw it and reserve their position until the next stage, it may be possible to reopen talks and consultations and produce an agreed text for the Bill. Having listened to the debate, I urge the Government to think again.
Lord Flarmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may echo the point made by the noble Earl. I have no personal knowledge of the subject. Like others, I was asked to come and listen to the debate. Although we have not heard the answer of my noble friend the case made for the amendment is very strong. In the very authoritative speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, he did not ask for the amendment to be made permanent. He suggested that time could be given to see how things turn out. If the worst happens, we can revert to the provision presently in the Bill. I understood my noble friend to say that he would like to have the opportunity to put the intention into an amendment to be examined at Report stage.
Unless my noble friend has a very strong brief on the matter, in the light of the strength of the arguments made in support of the amendment, I think it would be sensible to leave the matter open in order to see whether the suggestion can be implemented.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Teviot and other Members of the Committees in support of the amendment. I was grateful to my noble friend for enunciating so clearly some of the concerns which are felt about our measure. I hope in a moment to deal in some detail with the points that he has raised, and I very much hope that what I have to say
1370
will reassure him. Equally I hope that others who say that they will support the amendment will decide on reflection that they should not do so
Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I now set out briefly the background to our decision to make the PTAs bill their constitutent districts for their expenditure. In doing this I have in mind the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, at the Second Reading of this Bill on 9th May when he suggested that the Government had failed to be sufficiently forthright in setting out the reasons for the change.
In setting up the PTAs as joint boards under the Local Government Act 1985, the Government considered that accountability would be ensured if the PTAs were made up of representatives of the constituent district councils. Thus when voting for district councillors the electors would be aware of the policies the councillors would mandate their representatives to support on the PTA.
Experience has shown, however, that the link between the districts and the PTA's expenditure is not as close as we had hoped in 1985. Districts have instead distanced themselves from PTA expenditure when it has suited them, despite the fact that it is their representatives who have approved the PTA's budget. That applies not only to districts who find themselves in a minority on a PTA but also those who support the majority view.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked for examples of that distancing. I shall point to one very recent example. At a meeting shortly before the change to direct billing was introduced to the Bill, representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities stated that they would prefer the continuation of precept control over the PTAs—and I remind the Committee that this will no longer apply to the PTA's upon the change to direct billing—to greater involvement of the districts in the PTAs. The reason is that it made life easier for them. That is evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the late introduction of the change to direct billing—
12 midnight
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was asking for something rather different. I was asking for examples of where individual districts in a particular area were in some way absolving themselves from responsibility for what went on in the PTA in their area. That is what I understand to mean by distancing themselves from the decisions. My noble friend will obviously be coming onto the question of the transitional period in a moment, but can we have examples of where this has happened on the ground?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think I have just given an example of how the PTAs would rather find themselves not having to—
Lord Mountevans: I am sorry to interrupt, but did the noble Lord not just quote the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, whereas the question is being asked about the PTAs and the districts? Although they are all in one chain, I do not think one can say that if one puts the umbrella up the left foot necessarily agrees.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I could continue. But I think there is definite evidence that the districts have distanced themselves, or attempted to distance themselves, from decisions made on their behalf by the PTA and I think the example I have just given is a good one—
Lord Underhill: May I interrupt?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think I should go on at the moment. We have had a long debate and I have quite a lot of questions to attempt to answer. I shall try to deal with any other points that are raised. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the late introduction of the charge to direct billing. Ideally we would have wished to produce all our proposals upon the first publication of the Bill, but this was a change which required time for reflection. We also delayed a decision on the change to give more time for comment after originally offering what we realised was a very brief period. Therefore, I trust that the debates in both this House and in another place have now allowed the questions to be fully aired.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that most consultees disliked the proposals, but most did so believing that mass secession would result. I do not believe that this will happen. Moreover, respondents' hostility reflected the desire of the districts to remain distanced from their PTA's spending.
My noble friend Lord Teviot and other Members of the Committee focused on accountability and I should like to say a little about this as it is at the heart of the matter. I think we agree that accountability is of paramount importance, but of course we differ on the means of achieving it. My noble friend has said that the PTAs have a direct relationship with the ratepayers and that,
"the link with those for whom the service is provided will he broken",
by our proposal; that our proposal will diminish accountability,
"by removing PTAs' access to their own income";
and that PTA members are accountable both to their districts and to their own electorates.
The point is that the PTAs' relationship with the electorate appears direct, in the sense that they precept directly, but it is not a fully accountable relationship. The PTAs do not answer directly to the electorate for their decisions. So the link is not a direct one. This has, as I have said, enabled districts to distance themselves from PTA spending decisions.
I agree that the PTA members are representatives of their districts, but they do not stand before the electorate for election on that basis. They are not directly accountable for PTA decisions. Where there is a direct link is precisely in the fully accountable relationship between the districts and their electors, and that is where responsibility for spending should properly lie. It is not true that our proposals will remove PTAs' access to their own income; their access to funds is undisturbed by our proposal.
My noble friend also pointed to the extent to which PTAs currently consult on their policies and expenditures. This is an admirable adjunct to accountability, and is something which I fully expect to continue under our proposal both at district and at PTA level.
1372
Members of the Committee, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the Home Office joint boards and asked why these changes do not apply to the Police or Fire and Civil Defence Joint Boards. These are in a very different position from the PTAs: the police authorities have magistrates as well as district councillors and receive 51 per cent. of their funding direct from the Home Office, which also exercises control over staffing levels; and both the police and fire authorities have inspectorates overseeing national standards. PTAs, by contrast, should simply be implementing the collective policies of their constituent district councils.
The Committee was concerned that our measure would, introduce uncertainty into PTAs' budgets because a levy "cannot be a secure source of income". My noble friend was also concerned that PTAs would no longer get direct grant from central government. I can reassure him on both those points. When the districts receive a bill for their share of PTA expenditure they will be obliged to pay it. The PTA can therefore plan securely and there will be no real uncertainty. On grant, I should point out that revenue support grant is to be paid into collection funds, not in support of particular authorities.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to correct him. Is it not true that this will only apply on a much more limited timescale? What he has just said about districts not being able to refuse to pay the bill is true on a one-year basis, but it is certainly not true over a longer period.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is no different from the present situation. The PTAs have to set their budgets on an annual basis and the budget has to be agreed as it is now. That will not change in the future.
Lord Tordoff: With respect to the Minister, the PTAs are able to operate on a much longer timescale than that. Their precepting powers enable them in fact to look forward for two or three years. The new system will certainly not enable them to do that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: They will still have to have their budgets accepted by their members as they do at present, so that will continue. I think it may be helpful if I say a few words on the mechanics of the change.
The change means that PTA expenditure will form part of each district's expenditure and will be recorded as such on the community charge demands. There will be no separate PTA precept. There will, however, continue to be a statutory requirement of the PTAs to produce plans and we will continue to collect figures on spending, so comparison with other areas and awareness of the size of budgets will hardly be lost through the change even if districts do not seek to draw attention to the scale of PTA expenditure. The districts' representatives on the PTA will need to reach agreement just as at present on the PTA budget. Such agreement may prove a little harder to reach when the districts are taking a closer interest in PTA spending, but this is a necessary concomitant of greater accountability.

1373
I turn now to the question of secession, which has been raised by many Members of the Committee. Of course there will be minority districts on the PTAs that find themselves paying directly for PTA policies which they do not support. If they cannot win their argument at the PTA then the ultimate step is for them to seek to secede. The option of secession is thus essential to proper accountability. Where a PTA is spending excessively we should clearly have some sympathy for it. I can assure the Committee, however, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not grant secession unless he is satisfied that proper provision has been made for conurbation-wide services and responsibilities and that the change will be cost-effective; and that would include of course the British Rail services to which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on this matter of secession. Does he not understand that in the metropolitan county areas the hard core of the population is served by the biggest authority? For instance, West Yorkshire has a population of 1·7 million people, 750,000 of whom live in the city of Leeds. The West Midlands has a population of about 2.7 million, of whom 1·2 million live in the city of Birmingham. In Greater Manchester nearly half a million of its 2·5 million population live in the centre of Manchester. Those are the spokes and the heartbeat of the transport authorities. If they opt for secession, what is left for the small authorities outside those areas? Quite sincerely I predict that there will be a terrible disintegration of the whole of the service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that secession is an option that is available under the present system and it has been since the 1985 Act. In any case, I have said that my right honourable friend will have to satisfy himself that proper provision has been made if he intends to allow secession to take place. I should be surprised if districts were not aware of what represented the best value for money for their electors.
Finally, I come to a concern which I know is felt on all sides of the Committee. It was raised in particular by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. The 1985 Act set up a system of joint hoards, including the PTAs on the basis that there remained a need for the co-ordination of transport on a county—wide basis. Our measure is believed—wrongly, I think—to undermine the structure that the 1985 Act set up. The Government acknowledge now, just as they did in 1985, the need for conurbation—wide co-ordination of passenger transport. We do not seek to disturb the structure which we established then. What we seek is to improve the accountability of that structure. Surely this an objective to which my noble friends at least ought readily to subscribe.
It may be thought that the 1985 structure was likely to be undermined not by our measure but by the secession of districts. I remind noble Lords, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that that possibility has existed since the 1985 Act. Section 42 of that Act specifically provides for the
1374
possibility of secession. We are not changing that in any way. If greater accountability causes a district to consider secession on the grounds of better value for money for its charge payers that too is surely a move which we should welcome. The Secretary of State will be able to take a wide view in considering whether he will agree to the district seceding.
This is a change which will clearly bring welcome accountability to the metropolitan PTAs. No more will districts be able to shirk their responsibilities for PTA expenditure levels. Some noble Lords may regret that public transport in the metropolitan areas will be subjected to the scrutiny of district councils, but this comes from making PTAs accountable. I would sooner see this than PTAs pursuing policies supported by but a few. Are noble Lords supporting this change really in favour of accountability, I wonder?
My noble friend Lord Jenkin has reminded us that this year has been the last year of automatic precept control. This appears to me to be the very time to introduce accountability rather than waiting to see whether the charge payers of the metropolitan areas are suddenly faced with excessive bills. If I interpreted his suggestion correctly, my noble friend has, however, suggested that he may introduce an amendment at Report stage to defer these proposals by introducing a power to introduce billing. Obviously we shall have to look at that amendment on its merits. We would of course give it very careful consideration.
That is an undertaking that I can give. I cannot, I am afraid, despite the arguments that I have heard this evening, accept the amendment as it stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Teviot. However, I hope that, with that very lengthy explanation, my noble friend and other Members of the Committee will perhaps feel able to withdraw the amendment. I have given the offer to consider an amendment from my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend sits down, I am obviously grateful for his undertaking that he will consider very carefully an amendment which will convert this into a power rather than into immediate change. Before he concludes, can he address himself to the argument which I sought to put before the Committee? It is that perhaps one of the reasons why district councils have not addressed themselves with great force to the size of the precepts is that those precepts have been government controlled? That is the essence of the transition. In fact when he seeks to use the end of the transition period as a reason for wanting to change the system of accountability, he is standing the argument on its head. The fact is that we have not had a period when there has been accountability, because it has been centrally controlled. Let us wait to see whether when there is not central control the same complaints can possibly be addressed, perhaps with some more evidence produced.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I look forward to my noble friend's amendment at Report stage, but it seemed to us that this was a good time to introduce this change

1375
with the removal of precept control. I do not believe that all authorities have reached their maximum precept, so it may not be that relevant a question.
Lord Underhill: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has said. Much as I believe that the PTAs and passenger transport executives are doing excellent work, I should be prepared to support an amendment which said that if in two or three years' time we found they were not doing the task for which they were appointed, we should change the system. Therefore why cannot the Minister say the same? Let us go back to precepting with an enabling regulation to change to levying, if we find that the PTAs and PTEs are not functioning properly within a certain time. I should be prepared to support that, and I have not consulted my colleagues. Will the Minister do the same?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I said that if my noble friend proposed that kind of amendment at Report stage the Government would clearly have to consider it very carefully. That, I am afraid, is as far as I can go at the moment, but it is an undertaking which I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept in good faith.
Lord Teviot: This has been a most interesting debate. I really did not believe that this subject would command such interest with so many noble Lords here and that the debate would continue for 65 minutes. I shall not take much longer, but there are still one or two points I should like to mention.
My noble friend made a very valiant effort and has given us one or two crumbs, a few currants or even a little cream at the end for us to consider. But one cannot lose sight of one or two of the issues that he did rather less well on earlier. He spoke about districts. He was challenged to name one or two districts that were distancing themselves and were dissatisfied. I asked my noble friend to give an example, but I do not think there is one. He still has an opportunity to tell me what districts they are, but my information has been totally different.
The Committee has been very fortunate to listen to the great wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, whose wisdom we have followed throughout. I shall await my noble friend's amendment with interest.
On accountability, I do not think that my noble friend the Minister was all that convincing. After all, the Local Government Act provides joint boards, people are appointed and the system is thought to be perfectly democratic and efficient. The people appointed are accountable and can be removed.
My noble friend hoped that I would be satisfied that the amounts of money involved would go into transport and not into other things. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also mentioned this. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says he is prepared to wait to see my noble friend's amendment and how the Government respond to it. I believe we must do that. However, earlier I thought I would divide the Committee because I felt the subject should be considered as a whole. Otherwise, through Report stage and Third
1376
Reading and when the Bill becomes law one reaches a dog's breakfast situation. One would like to see the status quo maintained.
I shall see what the Committee decides on this amendment. At the moment I shall not withdraw it, but I shall see what happens.
Lord Underhill: Perhaps I have not made myself clearly understood. I said that I hoped that the Minister would agree that the position of precepting should be returned. I would readily consider the matter being looked at again in two or three years' time if we found that the system was not functioning as it ought. However, in the meantime we must have a return of the precepting procedure.
Lord Teviot: I think that in that case I must test the opinion of the Committee.
12.20 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 37.

DIVISION NO 5

CONTENTS

Beloff, L.

NcNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Fortescue, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Hacking, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Hylton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Killearn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Seear, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Balfour, E.

Henley, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Margadale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Southborough, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trafford, L.

Dundee, E.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrers, E.

Ullswater, V.

Gisborough, L.

Wynford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.27 a.m.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Power to anticipate precept]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 20, line 4, leave out ("and the Common Council") and insert (", the Common Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97B, 97C and 97D. The effect of these amendments is very simple. They add to those charging authorities which are empowered to anticipate certain precepts to be issued to them the Council of the Isles of Scilly. Clause 34 empowers a district council and the Common Council when setting their community charges to anticipate precepts yet to be issued by parish councils and similar bodies. The purpose of the clause is to provide a safety valve for parishes which fail to set their precepts before the statutory deadline of 11th March of the preceding financial year.
The Isles of Scilly, which is a charging authority under the Bill in the same way as a district council, likewise may have within its area parish councils. Accordingly it is only right that the same arrangements should apply for the anticipation of precepts in the Isles of Scilly as will apply generally throughout England and Wales. These amendments secure this, and at the same time improve the drafting of the existing Clause 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 97B to 97D:
Page 20, line 6, leave out ("relevant precepting authorities are") and insert ("a relevant precepting authority is").
Page 20, line 10, leave out from ("Council.") to third ("the") in line II and insert ("a relevant precepting authority is the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple or").
Page 20, line 12, at end insert—
("(c) in relation to the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a relevant precepting authority is any parish council or chairman of a parish meeting with power to issue a precept to the Council.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Standard community charge multipliers]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 21, line 21, leave out ("it") and insert ("the authority").
The noble Lord said: I am glad to be able to say that this amendment is a great deal less complicated and contentious than Amendment No. 97. I stress at once that it is not a paving amendment for a subsequent amendment. It stands on its own. I say that because the fact that it is bracketed with others may have misled the Committee.
I trust that the amendment will be recognised as entirely constructive and non-political. We are constantly being reminded—rightly so—that the wording of Acts of Parliament should be clear, unambiguous, and easily comprehensible not only to lawyers but to members of the public. As the Bill stands subsection (2) is both imprecise and ambiguous. To what does the word "it" in line 21 refer? Presumably it is to the word "authority" in line 19 rather than the word "multiplier" in line 20. But that is not immediately obvious, nor indeed is it certain.
The subject of each of the other nine subsections in Clause 36 is a noun rather than a pronoun. I suggest that it would be both logical and helpful if subsection (2)—the odd subsection out—were to be modestly amended in the way suggested to bring it in line with all the other nine subsections, thereby clarifying the clause for lawyers and laymen alike. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: May I speak to Amendment No. 98A as it is listed in the same group of amendments, or do I wait until the Minister has replied?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out that his amendment was discrete in its own way and perhaps I can respond first to it.
I noted the noble Lord's remarks. There is an awful lot in what he says. The amendment puts the subsection beyond doubt and I am therefore happy to accept it.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): In calling Amendment No. 98A I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 99.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 21, line 25, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I hope that I may speak also to Amendment No. 100A. Amendment No. 98A deals with the contentious issue of second homes and it is a golden opportunity for the Committee to take some action because the amendment aims to give a higher profile to local decision-making on standard community charge matters by removing the Secretary of State's power to make regulations specifying which multiplier should be used for each specified class of property.
The fear is that such classes will be unable to cope with the wide variety of second home types and that some second home owners will make windfall gains. Will the classes distinguish between houses used as second homes which are small and ones which are large? Do the Government intend that a tiny cottage will be charged in the same class as a much bigger house?
Local authorities can actually see the houses and can make objective assessments as to which multiplier should be used, perhaps according to the size of the property and the services used. The Secretary of State cannot. Members of Parliament in another place know when they go canvassing—particularly in a constituency of the kind I represented—where there are vast numbers of second homes. The people live in them only half the year.
The Government have said that regulations need to be laid down because local authorities would otherwise push for the highest charges. I do not believe that. Only a government determined to cast every local authority as a Liverpool or a Lambeth

1379
could believe such a proposition. I have said, and will say again as a person who totally believes in local government in this country, that out of the 450 local authorities 435 to 440 have behaved impeccably. It is about time that that was recognised by the Government Front Bench. Local authorities are elected by local people and they are best placed to protect local interests.
Authorities will not set high multipliers for chalets and huts because they realise that their presence does not affect the housing market for local people but rather can benefit the local economy. They will not set the multiplier for large houses too low because they believe that such houses may accommodate many people who use many services.
Perhaps I may now deal with Amendment No. 100A, which seeks to raise the multipliers to a maximum of 4. This increase is a logical extension of the arguments for the earlier amendment which I have spoken to. The amendment actually fits in with the logic of the Government even though they do not want to accept it. The Government pretend that the standard poll tax is a service charge. In the case of second homes the charge is presumably for property-based services, for example, refuse collection as opposed to education or social charges. It is in fact a property tax.
Surely service charges should relate to the amount of the service received. For example, in a restaurant we may pay a service charge calculated as a percentage of the bill and related to the service received. Why not so with the standard community charge? Large holiday homes perhaps housing many people, will require more services. Raising the multipliers will give more scope to build in a fairer service charge and stop second home owners from making windfall gains.
As I have said, we maintain—and it is absolutely daft to deny it—that the standard community charge is a property tax and not a service charge. Increased multipliers would facilitate a more flexible property tax. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: This may be an opportune moment for me to speak to my Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, which are consequential upon Amendment No. 98. It is not an ideal time of the morning to enter into complicated discussions upon the standard community charge, but that is the way it goes.
These are basically probing amendments, at any rate at this stage of the Bill. I suspect that to most of us the standard community charge is shrouded in some mystery. Doubtless because of the constraints of time, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, hardly touched upon it in his Second Reading speech. The Explanatory Memorandum prefacing the Bill is sketchy in the extreme and the Notes on Clauses are, frankly, of very little use. However, the office of the noble Earl did very kindly send me a short but helpful memorandum and there was some clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on May 24th, when we discussed Clause 3 in Committee, though I was not in the Chamber at that particular time.
It seems to me that greater flexibility should be provided than under Clause 36 as it stands. Perhaps
1380
in retrospect my amendment could and should have provided for extra permitted multiples of 1¼ and 1¾ respectively, but that is something that can be rectified at a later stage if the principle is accepted. For example, is it fair that empty homes and second homes should be subject to a multiple as high as 2? Certainly, 1½ and 1¾ but why 2? Though second homes and vacant homes awaiting sale may well need the services of the fire brigade and the police just as often as constantly occupied primary homes, they need refuse collection and services of that kind a good deal less and the education services not at all.
There is also the question of houses for sale. With gazumping and the problems associated with obtaining mortgages—not at the moment because the building societies are full of cash, but at other times—and the notorious chain, sales often cannot be completed inside three months. Within that time-span the Government propose to protect the owner, although it is not actually written into the Bill, so far as I can see. Therefore, might not a multiple of one-quarter rather than one-half or more be appropriate for someone whose house is still unsold after, say, four months?
Finally, I should like to hear from the Minister why the Government believe that councils left to their own devices will ever voluntarily impose a multiplier of less than 2, given the perennial need to maximise revenue whatever the political orientation of the council concerned.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened to the arguments put forward by both the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Newport and Lord Monson. Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 98A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. That would have the effect of removing the power of the Secretary of State to set a maximum multiplier in certain circumstances. I cannot accept that he should be denied that right. It is a power which is both useful and desirable. For example, we have made it clear that the power will be used to set a multiplier of zero for property which is empty for up to three months.
Without subsection (4) of Clause 36 the Secretary of State would be unable to provide this important benefit for people who become subject to the standard charge when moving house. I am sure the Committee will agree that that would be a quite undesirable result. Indeed I am a little surprised that this amendment should have been moved at all given the clear support shown when we last discussed this issue generally in Committee for a limit on the multiplier in certain circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.
I turn finally to Amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 100A, which would extend the range of multipliers that may be set. Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would open up the possibility of having multipliers of one quarter and three-quarters, while extending the range to two and a half, three, three and a half or four. I do not believe these extensions are necessary or justified. I am particularly opposed to Amendment No. 100A because there are no circumstances in which the Government believe a multiplier of more than two can be justified.

1381
Two units of community charge is the correct upper limit, because it corresponds in the average authority to the average rate bill at present, a theme to which we have returned on more than one occasion. I must, however, remind the Committee that the standard community charge is not a variable property tax on the lines of domestic rates; and we cannot allow it to be turned into a variable property tax by adding greatly to the range of multipliers. Nor can I see much merit in allowing multipliers of one quarter or three-quarters. We do not intend to specify a large number of different classes of property, so there is really no need for a range of multipliers graded as finely as the amendment proposes. It is certainly not our intention, for example, to specify a range of classes for houses of different size or value as that would be a retrograde step towards a kind of rating system.
The standard charge is not in any sense a tax on the value of property; it is a charge for local services levied on people who have two or more homes. As we have pointed out on innumerable occasions, the use which a person makes of local services bears little or no relation to the size or value of his first or second or third home. That is why we envisage the standard community charge being set at a fixed level for most second homes within an area. It is only in special cases, such as empty property, where we propose to specify a separate class. There is no need, therefore, for a finely graded series of multipliers to be available to the charging authority.
Perhaps I could just say in passing that I find it rather odd that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, should seek to extend the range of mulitpliers for the standard charge. It appears to me that what he is trying to do is to convert the standard charge into a form of variable property tax. He shakes his head but that is the effect of what he proposes. That seems odd if what he proposes is to replace a variable property tax—domestic rates—with some form of local income tax.
With those explanations, I hope that both noble Lords will see fit to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Hylton: Listening to the Government's reply one would not gather that there is a problem anywhere about second, third or possibly even fourth homes. I should have thought that, with his close connection with the Isle of Wight, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, is extremely well qualified to assess the extent of the problem. If the Minister cares to consult his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales he will discover that there is a considerable problem of second homes in the Principality.
I was also surprised by the Government's doctrinaire opposition to any kind of property tax, and all the more surprised when one takes into consideration the unified business rate applying to commercial properties. The problem of second and third homes affects the local economy and bears very harshly on the hopes for adequate and decent housing of local people and the descendants of local people, as we have tried to explain on numerous housing Bills before now. I therefore urge the Government to think again about this Bill.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: The Government are missing a golden opportunity to take a step in the right direction and require people who have acquired second homes in many parts of the country—in Cornwall, in Wales, in the Isle of Wight, in Devon, and in the Lake District—to contribute. Under the provisions of the Bill such people will in fact pay far less. At present such homes are rated so these people are at least contributing towards the rateable income of the local authority. I imagine that even two-times multipliers will mean quite a big cut for people with second homes.
At present, as I am practising in the business, I can tell the Committee that the housing situation is diabolical. The whole market has taken off with enormous prices and gazumping going on all over the country. A whole generation of people aged between 20 and 30 years of age are being priced right out of the property market. Do the Government not understand that there is a great deal of ill-feeling in villages in my part of the world—and in many other parts of the country—against those who are buying second and even third homes? Such ill-feeling takes off when people see themselves priced right out of the market. The Housing Bill will not do anything to improve the situation because that will only put up rents. If you happen to be lucky enough to be in a council house, or perhaps a housing association home, you may actually be able to buy that home at a considerable discount. However, if you are not, you are in real trouble.
I think that in the years to come, much ill-feeling will be taken out on those people who have second homes and who only live in them for perhaps two, or possibly three, weeks a year. The time is as short as that in some cases. Anyone who has canvassed in my part of the world will know that we have complete villages that are virtually empty during the winter months.
I thought that this was a sensible proposition which the Government could take on board and leave to the local authority to deal with. Where it is known that someone is flouting it and hardly using the house, they could put the multiplier up a bit. However, I gather that we shall not be doing that.
We used to put propositions forward in the other place. Indeed, my late friend David Penhaligon used to make great speeches about this saying, "For God's sake, bring second homes under some sort of planning control." Well, that was not accepted because of the freedom of the individual aspect. Here we have the chance to do something, but the Government have turned it down. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. However, it is a great shame.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may use the opportunity to put two questions to the Minister. Can he say what the Government's attitude is towards empty homes which are on the market but which remain unsold after three months? Is there not a case for imposing some limitation on the multiple that can be imposed upon houses which are still unsold between three and six months?

1383
Further, I revert to a question I asked when speaking to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. Can the Government envisage any circumstances in which authorities left to their own devices will voluntarily impose a multiple lower than the maximum permitted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether the Government will respond to those questions but before the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, concludes, I must stress that the reason we have been uncharacteristically silent on the issue is that we do not think the amendments affect second homes as some Members of the Committee seem to think they do. We think that the category of properties subject to the standard community charge is much wider than second homes in the sense of country cottages of the rich. The case of the constituent of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in his constitutency of Islywn is a good example. Here was someone who was suffering because she was in hospital and not able to sell her only home; yet of course it would be subject to the standard community charge.
I should like to ask the Minister—if he is going to reply to these questions—whether I am right in thinking that there are far more homes like those of people who are in hospital, those of people in long-term care and those of people whose jobs take them away from their homes than the classical second home falling under the scope of the community charge. As I see it, the requirement for penalties on genuine second homes, desirable as they may be in some parts of the country—I do not deny the experience and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Ross—is quite a small part of the problem which needs to be tackled by the standard community charge.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. First, on the matter of property left empty after three months, the local authority can set whatever multiplier it wishes. It could set zero if it wanted, or something more than zero.
Lord Monson: I appreciate that point, but is it not rather unfair if the property owner, who has tried to sell the property but has not succeeded, is suddenly faced with a large bill? The Government are protecting the person whose property is unsold after three months. Should they not give some, albeit lesser, protection to the owner whose property is unsold for up to six months?
Lord Glenarthur: I can understand the noble Lord's point of view up to a point; but that property will still exist. Let us suppose that it were to catch fire in the middle of the night. That fire would still have to be extinguished by the local fire brigade. That would be making use of local authority services. It is a valid point. It may not be an especially great one. It goes to show that under certain circumstances there may be a need for the local authority to set a multiplier which is higher than zero.
1384
On the other point, authorities may well impose a multiplier of less than two for the simple reason that here we are talking about local authority discretion. Discretion is a feature of the Bill in more than one place. There will be occasions when it is right that an authority should have that option available to it. It is a matter better dealt with locally than centrally.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, perhaps I may say that I think it is a point that was dealt with when we discussed an amendment to do with people in hospital and a separate class of property, so again of local discretion. There are probably far more genuine second homes than those the noble Lord, lord McIntosh, mentioned. I take the point that he was making, but as I understand it, there will be a large number of people who fit the case he made in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I may not have explained myself very well at this time of night, but I hope that he gets my drift.
Lord Ross of Newport: We are promised that the Secretary of State will by regulation set out the multipliers for specified classes of property. I just think, heaven help us all! The regulation that will come from central government is unbelievable. Cannot we occasionally trust local authorities to do what is right? I am saddened by the Government's whole attitude to local authorities these days. There is little point in people standing for councils any more because they have no discretion over anything.
I was serious when I said that there was an opportunity to write this matter into the Bill and at least provide a way to dissuade some people from paying exhorbitant sums to buy cottages in villages which should be occupied by local inhabitants. However, we are not going to, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101A not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 22, line 2, leave out (", caravans and houseboats") and insert ("and caravans").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert—
("(11) The multiplier relating to properties owned by members of the diplomatic service required to serve overseas shall be 1.").
The noble Lord said: I am trying to help those in the diplomatic service. Those serving overseas will have their homes in this country treated as though they were second homes and as a result almost certainly have to pay a standard community charge, which is twice the local community charge. The diplomats' trade union argues that this is unfair. Their homes are not second homes. Yet single diplomats overseas who receive no local services will have to pay twice as much poll tax as if they were resident locally and using all local services.
Mr. Michael Growcott, in a letter which other Members may have received, says:

1385
"Most of our members would consider it not unreasonable to pay a single community charge on their vacant homes, but they would consider it unfair to have to pay more than that as a result of following up an instruction to take up a Diplomatic Service posting overseas. Those officers who normally live alone may find themselves having to pay twice as much when they are serving abroad as when they are at home".
That is a very fair point. I hope that when the Minister replies he will at least say that he is prepared to give some consideration to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I too have been in correspondence with the trade union side at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I fully support the amendment. I hope that the trade union side of the Department of the Environment has been putting suitable pressure on Ministers to support their colleagues.
Lord Monson: I fear I take a dissenting view. Is not one of the problems with the amendment that in many cases the adult children of the diplomats concerned live in their properties in the United Kingdom? It would be quite unfair if they were to be able to live, at a very low effective rate of poll tax, in what could be quite a large and valuable property.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since it is our amendment and we should reply, I understand that in such a case it will he subject to the personal community charge anyway, because somebody is living there.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, that we have given this proposal very careful consideration. It is only following that consideration that we have concluded that the amendment cannot be justified. The first point I would ask Members of the Committee to consider is that a standard community charge equal to two units of personal charge will be broadly equivalent to the average rate bill at present. People who go abroad continue to pay rates on the home they leave behind, as it is not at all unfair that they should pay the standard charge; nor will they, on average, he any worse off with the standard charge than with the rates.
The second point I would make is that a standard charge multiplier of I could not possibly be justified for diplomats unless a similar concession were granted to anyone who becomes subject to the standard charge as a result of being mainly resident abroad. Thirdly, the standard community charge will not necessarily be set at two units of charge. Local authorities as we discussed in relation to an earlier amendment, will have discretion to set a lower multiplier if they wish.
The last point I must make is that it is important to appreciate that members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who are serving abroad will not necessarily be subject to the standard community charge at all. The charge will only arise if their home in this country ceases to be their main residence and if it is not used, in their absence, as the sole or main residence of any other individual. That is perhaps the
1386
individual whom the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested, in which case it will fall to the personal community charge. If the property is left empty and unfurnished, no standard charge will arise for three months and thereafter the charging authority will have the discretion to continue to levy no charge on empty property. So, going back to the point that I made earlier, we have looked at this very carefully. I have to say that the amendment would be full of difficulties and that it is not acceptable.
Lord Ross of Newport: Before the noble Lord sits down, I appreciate the comments he has made. Can we take it that under Clause 36 we shall get regulations at some time specifying classes of property which may be liable to the standard charge of rating between 0 and 2? Is this one area where the diplomatic service might look for some assistance?
1 a.m.
Lord Glenarthur: If the noble Lord looks at Clause 36(3) he will see that a specified class is:
"such class as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
That is then further explained in Clause 36(4), which states:
"If the Secretary of State so requires by regulations, a multiplier"
and so on. So the short answer is, yes, there will no doubt be some regulations made by my right honourable friend.
Lord Monson: What is the position if the diplomat in question owns two homes in this country, as many quite possibly do—a main residence and a country cottage?
Lord Glenarthur: Will the noble Lord please repeat that?
Lord Monson: What is the position if the diplomat in question owns two homes in the United Kingdom—a main residence and a country house or cottage? Would he pay the standard community charge in each case?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes; that is right. There are a number of diplomats who have properties in the country and have to have a flat in London as well, certainly perhaps the more senior ones; so that would apply.
Lord Ross of Newport: I think we have aired the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Local rating lists]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 22, line 9. leave out ("local") and insert (national").
The noble Lord said: I had intended to use this amendment as the basis for a general statement of our position about non-domestic rating in the Bill, but I

1387
think that at this time of the morning it would be entirely inappropriate to do that. This amendment is simply a mild protest against a piece of Orwellian newspeak which dominates Part III of the Bill. This clause and subsequent clauses continually refer to local rating, to local rating lists and to local non-domestic rating lists. The truth of the matter is that this is a national non-domestic rating system. It is one which is uniform throughout the country. It is applied on a uniform basis and it is applied entirely according to the decisions and judgment of the Secretary of State.
Local authorities have no say whatsoever in the matter, either in the formulation of the rating valuation—indeed, they never have had nor should they have—or in the setting of appropriate non-domestic rates in their own locality. In those circumstances the word "local" is totally inappropriate and I suggest that it would be much better if the Bill were honest and used the word "national" throughout where "local" now appears. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: As a strong supporter of local government I speak fervently in favour of this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that he would wish to give an exposition of his party's views on the NNDR. Of course we should have liked to hear that. I was ready to respond and indeed had shortened what I was going to say to the noble Lord. But I shall keep it for a more appropriate moment.
Reading the noble Lord's amendment in the narrow way that he has now put it to the Committee, it raises a point of pure terminology about the description of the rating lists which are to be maintained for the property in each local authority's area. The noble Lord prefers to call them national because they will be used for collecting the national non-domestic rate. We prefer to call them local because there will be one list for each local authority area, and to distinguish them from the centralist property occupied by statutory undertakers with national networks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: George Orwell must be turning in his grave. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 102C:
Page 22, line 28, at end insert—
("(9) in relation to any relevant hereditament each entry in the List and all subsequent entries shall be notified to the ratepayer.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 102C I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 108E, 108F, 108H, 108J and 108K, 123F and 127A. These are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. Amendments Nos. 108G and 127A are in fact in the name of the Minister and I have no special comment to make on those. The grouping has served to combine what I can only
1388
describe as rather a motley collection of technical amendments. They are loosely related but in fact they fall principally into three main categories. The purpose of each amendment is really to remedy a defect in the Bill, as I see it, and is not intended to alter the general import of the Bill as a whole. More importantly, they should be taken as being probing amendments and not regarded as anything more than that, because I am seeking clarification of the Government's intentions.
I turn first to the related Amendments Nos. 102C and 108E. Both seek to ensure that the information concerning alteration in the list is automatically relayed to the ratepayer. In Amendment No. 102C the intention is to bring this Bill into line with what I understand to be the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendment would simply provide that the ratepayer is notified of his entry in the list and of any alteration to it. The importance of this is as much to enable the ratepayer to check the entry in the list as for any other matter. With computer technology, a simple print-out should be possible at quite minimal cost.
Because the description of the property as well as the level of assessment may be of great relevance to the ratepayer, particularly if he occupies a composite hereditament, I commend this particular amendment to the Committee. Also, in landlord and tenant law, the level of rateable value may materially affect the level of compensation due to a tenant, and to know what the rateable value is at any given time may therefore be of particular importance. Under the General Rate Act of 1967, an occupier is entitled to receive a notification of any proposed change in the valuation list entry affecting the property he occupies, and I consider that this is a very important safeguard.
If I may go on to Amendment No. 108E, this is a fallback provision to No. 102C. It seeks to impose in Clause 47 a duty on the Secretary of State or the authority to advise the ratepayer of any changes in his entry in the list occurring between the date of deposit of a new list and the time when it actually comes into force. I think the purpose may well be self-evident. In my view, it would be inequitable not to have such a procedure, as it could seriously mislead a ratepayer into thinking that an entry was correct upon inspection, only to find at a later date that a different entry was in fact used once the list came into force. Obviously this could have serious accounting implications. Clearly, No. 108E only stands if No. 102C does not receive any response.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 108F, 108J, 108K and 123F. Amendments Nos. 108F and 123F seek to insert the words "material change" as a qualification to the word "circumstances". The clear intention of the Government is to reduce the currently unfettered right of ratepayers to make proposals to alter their assessments. That general approach is in line with what I understand to be the current Scottish practice. I make no complaint about that, but I think the Bill goes a great deal further. In future there will be only non-domestic rate-payers in any event, and it follows that, administratively, the number of appeals should be far less of a problem.
The particular point here is that, as I understand it, the Government are proposing to limit the right of appeal to a six-months' period after the list comes into force. That being the case, obviously appeals after that date will be allowed only in a certain limited set of circumstances such as a change of occupation or other material change.
I do not think there is any particular objection to the time limit, because this is closely allied with the Scottish legislation. On the other hand, if there is going to be that limitation, it is only right and equitable that there should be a fairly generous definition of what constitutes a material change of circumstances.
The words "material change of circumstances" are defined in Amendment No. 123F and in short the definition seeks to preserve something of the grounds of appeal which are in common use today under the terms of the General Rate Act 1967. On the basis of what I have just said, I make no apology for the fact that the definition is drawn rather widely. I also accept that, as drafted, it goes well beyond the sheer physical changes that in the view of the Government should alone remain as grounds for an appeal between rating evaluations. However, I believe it gets very close to the position in Scotland.
There are more things than simple physical factors which affect property and its valuation and which may affect rents after a very short period. The economic prosperity of an area can be enhanced or diminished by matters quite unrelated to physical change alone. Matters such as town centre schemes, road improvement proposals and even grants for planning consent can materially affect businesses. In particular, such provisions as car-parking facilities can dramatically alter the profitability and the rental value of shops over quite a short period of time.
If it is the intention of the Government to treat as immutable the levels of values from each revaluation, then great inequity will arise in the period of five years between revaluations. I postulate that one ratepayer might by sheer good fortune be able to make an appeal that will take into account several different things—perhaps including pure valuation factors rolled in on the back of other changes—while a ratepayer next-door could not do so through having been debarred by the operation of the Bill. That is not conducive to a proper pattern for the maintenance and operation of the Bill.
I am glad to note that the Minister has tabled Amendment No. 184B. It is not in the present grouping. However, it is relevant. In particular, the concept of physical enjoyment in relation to a property is one which is wholly new to me and I look forward to clarification. Amendment No. 108K is merely cross-reference to the definition in Amendment No. 123F. I refer to it only for the sake of completeness as regards to Schedule 6.
In dealing with Amendment No. 108J, I shall outline with extreme brevity some of the provisions of the General Rate Act 1967. As matters stand, all properties are valued in the year before a revaluation takes place. That pattern of values becomes known as the tone of the list. When a subsequent appeal is
1390
made, the valuation basis is normally that tone but with the physical factors and the extent of the property being those as of the appeal date. The operation of Sections 19 and 20 of the General Rate Act provides that where there is an actual fall in values that lower value shall apply.
My amendment seeks to reinstate that fallback position. If it is absent, the result could be that an absolute fall in values affecting the property in, say, the second year after a revaluation could not be corrected for three years. Potentially the period is longer than that in the initial period where we have a current revaluation that will have to last until 1995. Three years is a long time to have to subsidise other ratepayers and wait for justice to be done.
I am sure that the Government will say that few properties will be affected. In that case, why not include the amendment as a safety net? Perhaps at this point I may refer to some comments made by the RICS. What it said was that the amendment had the backing of the Rating and Valuation Association and in particular was put forward in the other place. The institution's concern is that the Government are proposing to take away from a ratepayer the right to be taxed on the lower amount where the actual value of his property has fallen below the assessed value. It went on to say that very few properties are likely to be affected. It said, moreover, that the instances where the rental value of the property in 1990 had fallen below its 1988 level are likely to be concentrated in declining industries—and it quotes shipbuilding— industries which experience cyclical booms and which may decline by 1990, such as theatres, and peripheral locations where small businesses will be invariably the worst affected. I do not think it can be the Government's intention to penalise that category of occupier.
The point was covered in debates on a similar amendment in another place in Standing Committee Eon 3rd March 1988 and is reported at cols. 1150 to 1154 of Hansard. I shall briefly paraphrase what the Minister for Local Government said at col. 1154. He indicated that such matters as the construction of a new superstore in direct competition would very likely provide grounds for an appeal by other retailers. He did not actually use the word "retailers".
However, while pointing to the anomaly which he believed the proposed amendment would create, I do not believe he actually addressed himself to the fact that falls in value can and do occur, nor to the obvious inequity that would arise in those circumstances. I would therefore particularly like to hear the Minister's assurance that the circumstances I have mentioned will in fact give rise to a right of appeal.
Amendment No. 108H is very straightforward in that it is a counterpart to the liability for ratepayers to pay interest on underpayments of rates. It makes the Secretary of State responsible for including a provision that interest shall be paid to ratepayers who have overpaid. This is in line with my understanding of the general principles enshrined in the law on taxation and I think should be followed for that reason.
On the wider aspects of this Bill, I have to say that I particularly wish to see that the Bill operates smoothly and efficiently. I think that as it stands it produces some very considerable inequity. I feel particularly strongly that this safety net of the fall in actual values should be retained. I shall obviously look forward to the reply of the Minister on that basis. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I shall speak very briefly as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has dealt fairly fully with these amendments. It is rather a shame that we are dealing with this matter at 1.15 a.m. because these are rather important amendments and I am sure the Minister himself will agree that they come from a very responsible institution of which he, I and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are members.
I agree with the attempt to bring us into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland on some points. I also think that the point made in Amendment No. 108E, which deals with the deposit of the valuation list as at December 1989 and the fact that if the valuation officer makes a change within those three months up to April 1990 he does not have to notify the ratepayer, must be put right. The ratepayer is surely entitled to notification if the valuation officer decides to make a change in the list in that three-month period.
There is also the question of interest on overpayments. We get from the Inland Revenue some interest on money these days if we have overpaid tax. Why can it not apply to the ratepayers? Then there is the material change of circumstances in ownership. If there is an amendment to the valuation list and the occupation changes, the incoming occupier can, as I understand it, pick that up and put in a notice to amend the valuation, whereas if you happen to be the owner of a tenanted property you are denied that. If the property changes hands after the owner or occupier has put in a notification within the six-month period to change the rating assessment, then the new owner—not the occupier—may not be allowed to amend the valuation list or to put in a proposal to amend it. That also seemed to me to be inequitable. I have dealt with the amendments very briefly and the time is late, but I hope very much that the Minister will feel that they are worthy ones.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not move my Amendment No. 102B because of the time of night. The purport of that amendment was to make it possible to have revaluations more frequently than every five years. In other words, I was pursuing the goal of greater flexibility in this matter of non-domestic rating. I am by no means qualified to understand the detailed arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, or the noble Lord, Lord Ross. In so far as they appear to be tending to the same objective, I think that I should give them general support.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has indeed been very patient. It is not often that someone who moves amendments in Committee for the first time has to wait until almost ten past one
1392
o'clock to do so. The Committee should commend the noble Earl for his patience. Therefore I think it is right that I should deal at some length with the points he has raised. In fact, tonight he has spoken to separate amendments, which are grouped together because they all relate to the alteration of the rating lists.
Amendments Nos. 102C and 108E, which apply respectively to local and central rating lists, would require the ratepayer to be notified of his entry in the list and of any subsequent amendments to that entry. "I his is essentially the present position and indeed the position that the Government intend to maintain. Under it, the ratepayer is informed of his property's valuation when he receives his rate demand. He is also informed of any alteration to his entry in the list after it has been deposited. In addition, the list is on display to the public at the town hall. The Government intend to continue the present position and to provide for it by regulation. Amendments Nos. 102C and 108E are therefore unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 108F, 108K and 123F and the Government's amendments, Amendments Nos. 108G and 127A, all relate to rights to make a proposal for alteration of an entry in the list. Amendments Nos. 108F, 108K and 123F are all concerned to ensure that there is a right of appeal where there is a material change in the circumstances affecting a property. The Government's Amendment No. 108G is necessary to eliminate uncertainty over the Secretary of State's power under regulations governing alterations of local and central rating lists to impose a time-limit on the right to make an appeal. Government Amendment No. 127A does exactly the same in respect of residual rating lists.
The circumstances in which proposals for alteration of the list can be made will be governed by regulations made under Clause 47(2). The Government's proposals were set out last summer in the consultation paper, often known as the yellow paper. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, knows, we considered the responses to that consultation paper very carefully and have modified some of our proposals in the light of the views expressed, particularly those of the RICS. A main proposal in the paper was that the right to propose an alteration in the rateable value entered in the new valuation list at a general revaluation should be exercised within six months of the new list coming into force. That was intended to reduce the number of misconceived appeals. Such appeals, even if they occasionally secure a small reduction in rateable value, place a disproportionate burden on valuation officers and the local valuation courts.
At this point I have to declare an interest because I remember myself submitting one or two of those appeals when I was in practice, and I know what a long period of the valuation officer's time they consumed. However, it has been put to us strongly by the professional bodies and professional organisations that some occupiers simply do not bother to appeal and a new occupier can find that his rateable value is substantially out of line. Therefore we have modified our earlier proposals and also intend to provide for a right of appeal by a new occupier on any grounds, provided that an appeal has

1393
not already been made against the valuation in question. Any value, however, must relate to a particular set of circumstances.
There will also be a right of appeal therefore throughout the life of the list where there has been a material change of circumstances. This is what the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seeks to achieve. "Material change" will be defined to include not only physical changes in the building or the locality but also decided court cases with a bearing on the method by which the rateable value was arrived at.
Lord Ross of Newport: Does material change of circumstances include change of ownership?
The Earl of Caithness: I thought I had just covered that point about the right of appeal.
Finally, there will be a right of appeal against any decision by the valuation officer to alter an entry on the list when, for example, the property is extended or improved. I should add that we intend to consult very closely with the rating profession on the framing of these regulations. I hope that what I have said has explained why the Amendments Nos. 108F, 108K and 123E, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are unnecessary, because we are committed to providing through regulations the right of appeal that they seek.
Amendments Nos. 108G and 127A, which are in my name, are necessary to eliminate a slight uncertainty in the Bill as it stands as regards the Secretary of State's power to provide for a time limit. I shall therefore in due course be commending them to the Committee.
The purpose of Amendment 108H, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is to provide for payment of interest where a valuation is reduced as a result of an appeal and a repayment is made to the ratepayer. We entirely agree with the policy underlying the amendment of the noble Earl. He is quite right to argue that people who appeal successfully against their rating valuation, and have thus effectively paid too much in rates, should be reimbused for the use of their money by the payment of interest. I have to say that I cannot accept his amendment as it stands because of technical drafting considerations, but I undertake that we shall bring forward our own amendment at Report stage to achieve exactly the same result.
Amendment No. 108J relates to the tone of the list rule evaluation. Paragraph 2(4) of the schedule seeks to overcome an anomaly in the present system. It requires all valuations, whether for new properties or as a result of proposals or appeals, to be based either on the general level of rents prevailing on the day that the rating list came into force, or on a specified preceding day. The purpose of this sub-paragraph is to promote a common and fair basis for all valuations. The tone of the list rule is designed to ensure that ratepayers whose properties are valued between general revaluations—for example, because they are new—are protected from the effects of general inflation and other economic factors which
1394
give rise to increased rents between general revaluations. It means that when a property is valued between general revaluations, the valuation officer takes account of the physical circumstances of the property as they are at the time, but relates this back to the general level of rents at the time of the last general revaluation.
Amendment 108H seeks to reintroduce a provision presently contained in the General Rate Act. It would allow a value lower than one of the tone of the list to be entered on the rating list if the rental value of the property at the time of the valuation is lower in cash terms than the level when the list was compiled. What this means is that it is only when the reduction in the rent is more than enough to offset increases resulting from general inflation that this provision would take effect. It is anomalous. It means that an appeal on the grounds of falling actual rental values in an area has progressively less chance of success in each subsequent year after a general revaluation. In the immediate aftermath of a revaluation, however, and with the lower rates of inflation that this Government have achieved, the provision could lead to great instability. It could swamp the appeal system when the load on the valuation officer and the valuation and community charge tribunals will be at its greatest.
This change was the subject of widespread consultation. I have to say to the Committee that opinion was divided even among those august bodies representing the rating professions. Many of them recognise that it is worth trading off this small opportunity for appeals between revaluations for an assurance that we shall indeed get back to quinquennial revaluations, and that the resulting appeals can be processed in a reasonable time. Surely justice delayed is justice denied. The ratepayers must be shielded from the effects of any sharp downturn in their industries, but the proper protection lies in holding frequent revaluations rather than the haphazard protection they receive at present.
I have explained why the government amendments are necessary and why we can meet many of the points of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Perhaps I may take up one point of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, about the period between the deposition of the rating list on 31st December 1989 and the list coming into force on 1st April 1990. I should like to take up the point that he made and to consider whether one should require the valuation officer to notify the ratepayer of any change made during that three-month period. It is right that I should read in the Official Report, what the noble Lord said.
Lord Ross of Newport: I made a point in an intervention which I believe is very important. It concerns whether material change of circumstances includes change of ownership. Rates are generally paid by the occupier. It is true, and has been stated tonight, that when there is a change of occupation there will be a chance for the occupier to appeal against that assessment whether the previous occupier has or has not appealed. But if there is a change of ownership, it is in the interests of the owner

1395
of that property that there should be an appeal against the rating assessment. Does that come under material change of circumstances? I believe that that is a relevant question.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to consider that point.
The Earl of Lytton: I am sorry, I am not sure that I understood the point that I am supposed to speak to. Will the Minister repeat what he said, please?
The Earl of Caithness: My last point concerned an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I said that I should like between now and another stage to look at the point that he raised.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the Minister for his very full reply, especially at this hour of night. I do not wish to delay the Committee for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I felt that the amendments I put forward were very much in the form of a safety net. I am sorry that the Minister has not felt it possible to take on all of them. I shall be looking very closely at the proposals he brings forward and discussing in further detail with others the Official Report of the proceedings today.
I do not feel that the anomaly that the noble Earl refers to in Amendment No. 108J is quite as bad as he makes out and certainly not so bad as to offset the inequity that results. Also I do not feel that it will swamp the appeal systems. My feeling is that the type of safety net provisions that I have proposed would be adequate and necessary for protecting the commercial ratepayer. Without them commercial ratepayers must regard themselves as being somewhat at risk in this situation, bearing in mind that we do not at the moment know the result of the revaluation which is going on and therefore we cannot know for sometime to come what impact it will have or how it will operate.
On the basis of the comments made by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Tor Bay Harbour (Oxen Cove and Coastal Footpath, Brixham) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before two o'clock.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND: CRIME PREVENTION
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: CRIME PREVENTION
  LISTED BUILDINGS: PRESERVATION OF SETTING
  LISTED BUILDINGS: PRESERVATION OF SETTING
  VAT AND THE RPI
  VAT AND THE RPI
  DTI RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS
  DTI RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS
  CIVIL JUSTICE: REVIEW BODY'S REPORT
  CIVIL JUSTICE: REVIEW BODY'S REPORT
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: POTENTIAL EFFECT
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: POTENTIAL EFFECT