Sitting of 16 June 1988

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

    SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed

    SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

      ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (BARROW) [Lords] (By Order)
      Order for Third Reading read.
      To be read the Third time on Thursday 23 June at Seven o'clock.

      LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
      Debate further adjourned till Thursday 23 June.
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to finish this first, please. I propose to put together the Questions on Bills Nos. 1 to 5.
      Miss Widdecombe rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

      TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
        YORK CITY COUNCIL. BILL [Lords] (By Order)
          CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL ( By Order)
            FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

              NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] ( By Order)
              Orders for Second Reading read.
              To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 June.

        ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
        Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question 11 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
        Debate further adjourned till Thursday 23 June at Seven o'clock.

        PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        Order for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 June.

        NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
        Order for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time on Wednesday 22 June at Seven o'clock.
        Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
        Mr. Redmond: Given that the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was due to be debated on 15 June and that, so far as this House is concerned, Wednesday has not existed, and will never exist, why has the business for that day been brought back on to the Order Paper?
        Mr. Speaker: It has been brought back because the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Wednesday 22 June for that debate.
        Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
        Miss Widdecombe: On the Southern Water Authority Bill, which you called first, I twice shouted "Object," but it appears that you did not hear me.
        Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not. The hon. Lady must make her objections very clearly. I did not hear the hon. Lady's objection, and I was listening carefully. My recollection is that the hon. Lady said "Object" after I had moved on to the next Bill.
        Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of my hon. Friends heard my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) say "Object". I fully understand that you did not hear, but, as it is within the recollection of many Conservative Members that my hon. Friend did say "Object," would it not be possible for you to reconsider the matter?
        Mr. Speaker: As a matter of chivalry, I will accept the objection, but I say to the hon. Lady and to the whole House that it is helpful to the Chair for objections to be made clearly. I shall put the Question again.

        SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
        Order for Third Reading read.
        To be read the Third time upon Thursday 23 June.
        Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) rose, I objected to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill as well, and I ask you to take that objection into account, too.
        Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that cannot be taken into account, because that is a case of a day named by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

    Oral Answers to Questions
      NATIONAL FINANCE

        Income and Wealth Distribution
        Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on income and wealth distribution in the light of the Church of Scotland study entitled "Just Sharing", a copy of which has been sent to him.
        The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): The Government's policy is to create the conditions in which everybody can increase their incomes and acquire wealth.
        Mr. Clarke: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not replying to this question himself because he knows that the facts revealed in "Just Sharing" show that there is a growing and worsening problem of poverty? Does the Minister accept that recent information has made it clear that the consequences for 300,000 children losing their school meals are quite dire? Will the Minister encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set aside his complacency and respond to the pleas of the Churches and many others to give priority to the restoration of the £800 million that he raided from the social security budget, with dire consequences for the under-privileged?
        Mr. Major: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he is well aware, compensation for the loss of free school meals was included in family credit at the time of the reforms.
        Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scots already enjoy a disproportionate amount of the wealth of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that, for example, health expenditure in Scotland is 25 per cent. per head higher than in England? Is he also aware that the Scots enjoy the second highest average earnings in the United Kingdom, apart from London and the south-east? Will he report those facts to the Church of Scotland when making his balanced response to its report?
        Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes his points entirely clearly and accurately. I am sure that the Church of Scotland will note his comments. It is the case that in its share of public expenditure and in its economic performance at the moment, Scotland is doing extremely well.
        Mr. Worthington: Is it not disgraceful, given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's objectives of wanting all to share in the wealth of the country, that if someone with a wife and two children aged eight and 11 had an increase in income from £60 to £150 a week he would be able to retain only £12?
        Mr. Major: As a result of my right hon. Friend's tax changes in this and previous Budgets it is undoubtedly the fact that at all levels of income there is a higher level of net disposable income than before my right hon. Friend became Chancellor of the Exchequer.
        Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question shows that the Opposition parties are utterly obsessed with the distribution of wealth, that they have no concern for the creation of wealth, and that all their policies are designed to destroy the creation of wealth?
        Mr. Major: If one looks at the record it is clear that that has certainly been the practical effect of policies that the Opposition have put into practice when in government. The distribution of wealth is legitimately a matter for debate. It is regrettable that "Just Sharing" simply refers to the distribution of wealth, not to the creation of it.
        Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the Government's complacent and so far wholly shameful response to the pleas of the Churches on poverty and social justice, will the
        554
        Minister tell the Churches how he justifies a state charity social fund which transfers the responsibility or relieving poverty from Ministers to charities and voluntary organisations, while at the same time someone in the top 1 per cent. with an income above £50,000 a year has gained on average a total of £110,000 in tax cuts since 1979? Does he agree that the real motto of this Government is not, as they would like us to believe, "God helps those who help themselves", but, as Ministers know very well, "God helps those whom he has already helped" even at the expense of fairness to the rest of the community?
        Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is misleading in a number of his remarks. Before we can share any wealth, it must be created. It is precisely because of our success in creating wealth in this country that this year we are spending about £481½ billion on social security benefits. With regard to the distribution of wealth, it is a matter of fact that the top 1 per cent. have a noticeably smaller share of the total wealth in this country today than a few years ago.
        Mr. Burns: With regard to the study by the Church of Scotland, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Church should address itself to religious matters instead of interfering in the economy? Does he also accept that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is better trained and far more successful in handling that kind of thing than is the Church?
        Mr. Major: I certainly echo the points that my hon. Friend has made about the success of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a matter of record that "Just Sharing" concentrates substantially on distribution, although, of course, I must state that it is also concerned with ethical and moral questions.

        Top Incomes
        Mr. Nellist: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the gross pre-tax incomes of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers have risen from 1978–79 to 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.
        The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Gross incomes of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers rose by about 43 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1987–88.
        Mr. Nellist: Given that the real rise in pre-tax incomes among the rest of the population was less than half that, does that not show that when the Chancellor claims that cutting the rate for the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers produces more tax, that is merely a by-product of the rich getting richer over the past nine years compared with the rest of the population? For example, a person with an income of £50,000 per year has gained tax cuts of £500 per week since 1979, whereas a couple on half average earnings of £120 a week will be paying £4 per week more after tax and national insurance are taken into account. Is that not poverty in the midst of conspicuous abundance?
        Mr. Lamont: The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is wrong. Although the share of pre-tax gross incomes among the top 5 per cent. has increased two percentage points, their contribution to the Inland Revenue tax take has increased by four percentage points, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He seems to believe that

        555
        there is something surprising about the fact that when one gives people incentives, their salaries increase. That is exactly what we expect and it is not in any way surprising. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that 5 million taxpayers on less than half average earnings have enjoyed a 22 per cent. reduction in their tax burden as a result of the Budget.
        Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is not my right hon. Friend's response and the figures that he used of particular interest, because they put the final nail in the coffin of the suggestion that sky-high taxation raises extra revenue for the Exchequer?
        Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The tax take from the top 5 per cent. has increased by one third in real percentage terms. That is the overall increase in the whole take of the Inland Revenue, and that result is of benefit to the whole country.
        Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is being unusually brazen with the House this afternoon. He says that the wealthiest 5 per cent. of people in our society have benefited to the extent of 43 per cent. in real terms over the period that this Government have been in office. I do not blame him for neglecting to explain —but I invite him to do so now —why the Government felt it necessary to give that most privileged of groups an additional £3 billion in tax cuts on top of what they have already received in this year's Budget.
        Mr. Lamont: The object of tax cuts is to improve the performance of the economy. The overwhelming evidence is that they have achieved precisely that.
        Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was not very much point in earning an extra £1 when one needed to earn an extra £50 to keep that pound? In those circumstances it would have been far better to go to a Socialist country, such as New Zealand, with a top tax rate of about one third, as applied under the previous Labour Administration.
        Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right; and he might have added that post-tax real income at all multiples of earnings in this country has increased dramatically under this Government, whereas for some people, especially the lower paid, it declined under the previous Labour Government. The Opposition may believe that there is some point in Socialism that makes people poorer, but most find that concept rather puzzling.

        Exchange Rate
        Mr. Martlew: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the rise in the deutschmark-pound sterling exchange rate since the beginning of 1988 and its effects on British industry.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The deutschmark—sterling exchange rate rose from 2·96 at the start of 1988 to a peak of 3·19 on 16 May, and has since fallen to 3·13. Over the period as a whole it has risen by a little over 5 per cent.
        Mr. Martlew: Will the Chancellor return to the policy, which he held before March this year, of keeping within the DM2.80 to DM3 bracket? Does he not realise that the high value of the pound is destroying British industry's
        556
        ability to export, and British tourism by reducing the number of people visiting this country? Does he recall that when a similar policy of high exchange and high interest rates was followed between 1980 and 1981 it destroyed 20 per cent. of British industry? Will the Chancellor operate an exchange rate policy in which he believes, instead of one based on the prejudice of the Prime Minister?
        Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal out of a small change in the exchange rate. Over the whole of the period since 1981 our share of world trade in manufactured goods has held steady, after decades of decline. Therefore, our exporters are doing well and will continue to do well. What they want to see is a reasonable degree of stability in the exchange rate. What they do not want to see—certainly what the economy does not want —is a steady depreciation of sterling, which is the only exchange rate policy of the Opposition.
        Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that sterling has depreciated against the deutschmark by about 20 per cent. over the past three years and by about 60 per cent. since 1980? Is it not also true that the two countries with the most steadily increasing currencies since the war—Germany and Japan—have also been the most successful industrially?
        Mr. Lawson: It is true that the more successful a country's economy is, the greater is the likelihood that its exchange rate will appreciate over a period of time.
        Mr. Beith: How is the Chancellor getting on with his task of advising the Prime Minister on when the time will be right for Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS? Does he update her on whether the time is right on a weekly or monthly basis? Will he tell her that industry wants the stability, particularly in relation to the deutschmark, that the EMS would provide?
        Mr. Lawson: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point, which he has made on many occasions. The Government's policy on that issue remains the policy that they have stated on many occasions.
        Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that industry and commerce are basically in favour of stable exchange rates and that, while his skilful use of interest rate changes during the past three months has achieved a fair measure of stability, that must remain a second-best alternative to full membership of the EMS?
        Mr. Lawson: Clearly, there is a strong case to be made for membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, and the Government agree that Britain should join. The question is when? The Government have not yet reached the conclusion that the right time has arrived.
        On the substantive point, my hon. Friend is right in saying that swings in the exchange rate are not helpful to industry to the economy or to the battle against inflation. Nor, I am glad to say, have we seen wild swings in the exchange rate, certainly not the sterling exchange rate, over recent years.
        Mr. John Smith: Why did the Chancellor not answer that part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that asked for his opinion on the effect of the exchange rate on British industry? Is not the exchange rate at its present level deeply harmful to the competitive prospects of British industry, as the leaders of

        557
        industry constantly point out? Does the Chancellor recall that he once had a policy of shadowing the deutschmark at DM3 to the pound before the Prime Minister wrecked his policy? Has he seen the revision in the current account balance of payments figures, which shows that they were under-estimated for the first quarter by £900 million, showing a deficit of £2·8 billion, which, annualised, would be £11·2 billion as against a Budget prediction of £4 billion? What will he do about Britain's balance of payments crisis?
        Mr. Lawson: There is no balance of payments crisis. The current account of the balance of payments inevitably fluctuates over time, and the only need for a balance is over a long period, not in any particular year. Over the previous eight years we have had a cumulative current account surplus of over £21 billion. This year I forecast a deficit of £4 billion. I have seen the revision, and there may be further revisions, as there frequently are. It is now likely that the deficit for this year will be larger—I cannot say how much larger—than I forecast at the time of the Budget, but there is no hint of a crisis, and that is fully understood by the markets and by those who are economically literate.

        Labour Statistics
        Mr. Wolfson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the fall in long-term unemployment in the year to January 1988.
        Mr. Major: Long-term unemployment fell by 234,000 in the year to January 1988, and by a further 71,000 between January and April. The fall over the last year is the largest on record, and it has happened in all regions.
        Mr. Wolfson: I welcome that positive news, but will my right hon. Friend enlarge on it and tell us a little more about the reflection of those figures in the regions of most persistent and difficult long-term unemployment?
        Mr. Major: One of the attractive features of the fall in unemployment over the past 22 months has been the dramatic fall in the north-west, the north, Yorkshire and Humberside. That is particularly true of long-term unemployment, which has fallen by 21·9 per cent. in the north-west, 19·1 per cent. in the north, 22·6 per cent. in Wales and 15·6 per cent. in Scotland.
        Mr. Winnick: How much longer will we have to wait before unemployment is on the same scale as in May 1979?
        Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may be drawing a distinction between the number of people who were registered as unemployed and the number who were in jobs that genuinely did not exist when the Labour Government were in office.
        Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an obvious answer to all those who want to know how unemployment has fallen? They should visit the former unemployment black spot of Corby, where unemployment has been dropping sensationally and will continue to do so.
        Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is noticeable that although throughout the last election the Opposition claimed that unemployment was about to rise, since then it has fallen by half a million.

        Department Manpower
        Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials of his Department are responsible for monitoring (a) the social security budget, and (b) other Department of Health and Social Security services.
        Mr. Major: There are eight officials currently employed in the Treasury who deal with the social security budget, and 16 officials who deal with other Department of Health and Social Security expenditure.
        Ms. Armstrong: Have those officials informed the Chancellor that Britain spends less per head of population than any other European Community country? Are they also advising him how much he will be able to put into the National Health Service? May we have an assurance that he will fight to ensure that we receive adequate and proper funding for the National Health Service in the next round?
        Mr. Major: Health Service expenditure for 1988–89 is now £22½ billion, and there will be 9 per cent. more cash in the Health Service this year than last year. That is a dramatic increase.
        Mr McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with one of the officials dealing with the health budget in an endeavour to confirm that if the Government have it in mind to bring forward additional resources for health care, one of the least efficient ways of doing so would be to introduce tax relief against private health insurance, as proposed in certain quarters? We should remember that 5 million people and their employers already hold health care policies without such an inducement.
        Mr. Major: Health resources will be discussed in the public expenditure round in the autumn.
        In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have no intention of commenting on such a speculation.
        Mr. Wigley: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether those officials have looked into the policy of health authorities that close down small hospitals on the basis that health care will be available in the private sector —albeit funded to a large extent by social security—and, when challenged, say that they have no obligation to take into account public expenditure on that social security? Will he look into the matter urgently?
        Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's substantive point is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services than for me. The primary responsibility of the officials of my Department is to discuss with, and advise, me on the level of resources that should go into the health budget.

        Job Creation
        Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in the economy since 1983.
        Mr. Lawson: Since 1983 nearly 1¾ million new jobs have been created, more than in the whole of the rest of the European Community put together.
        Mr. McLoughlin: I welcome that very encouraging news. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the

        559
        ingredients that the economy requires to create so many new jobs? Is it not a fact that more jobs have been created in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe put together? A job is a job, regardless of how the Opposition may denigrate them, whether part-time or full-time. Those jobs are providing employment for the people of this country.
        Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right to be encouraged by the dynamism that the economy has shown in a number of respects, not least through the creation of new jobs, many of which have been created by the birth, in increasing numbers, of new companies. The view used to he that the only way that the economy could expand was by increasing the Budget deficit, but we have demonstrated that there can be unparalleled growth by reducing and eliminating altogether the Budget deficit. That has been the reason for the success of the enterprise culture, for tax reductions and reform, trade union law reform and all the other reforms on the so-called supply side of the economy that have enabled the economy to perform more freely and to work better.
        Mr. Ashley: As it is the Government's policy to force down wages as low as possible, can the Chancellor tell us how many of these jobs attract lower wages than were previously paid, on average?
        Mr. Lawson: If it were the Government's policy to force down wages as low as possible, which it is not, we are being notably unsuccessful.
        Mr. Sumberg: As the north-west of England has shown one of the biggest increases in new jobs and the biggest falls in long-term unemployment, does it not prove that the old north-south divide under Labour is now a north-west success under the Conservatives? [Interruption.]
        Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Despite the ignorant jeers of the Opposition, one of the most encouraging factors about the changes in unemployment and employment over the past few years is the way in which unemployment has been falling and jobs have been growing in every region of the country.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Chancellor's statement about the large number of new jobs. Did he notice that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not mention Northern Ireland when he referred to the regions where there is long-term unemployment? May we be assured that we shall enjoy some of these benefits referred to, especially in the light of Northern Ireland's low-wage economy, which does not attract new jobs?
        Mr. Lawson: Over the past year there has been a drop of about 5 per cent. in the number of long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I fully understand the very considerable difficulties in the Province, partly as a result of the peculiar and unsatisfactory conditions that prevail there and partly because there is still an excessive dependence on older industries. We are seeing a change in the industrial structure of Northern Ireland, which is very important for the future of new jobs there.

        Wage Settlements
        Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of wage rate settlements for the last 12 months for which figures are available and what were the figures for the preceding 12 months; and what is the underlying trend.
        Mr. Norman Lamont: CBI data show that settlements in manufacturing industry in the 12 months to the first quarter of this year averaged 5½ per cent., the same as in the comparable period last year. The corresponding figures for services are 6½ and 6 per cent.
        Mr. Cran: Will my right lion. Friend say what advice he has given or that he is prepared to give now to companies and to work forces to make sure that wage negotiations do not lead to a deterioration in unit labour costs, which is a far more important concept than wage levels? Does he agree that managers are part of the work force and that we shall be looking to them for considerable powers of leadership to make sure that the snouts do not dig too deeply into the pig trough?
        Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Conservative Members to pass around newspaper cuttings with a clear view to conducting a stunt in a few minutes' time?
        Mr. Speaker: Order. A hypothetical stunt, I think.
        Mr. Lamont: In response to my hon. Friend's question, my advice to firms is to remind them that the Government intend to pursue a firm anti-inflation policy. Obviously, it is possible for excessive wage or salary increases to result in people being priced out of jobs. It is the responsibility of management to ensure that companies can afford the deals that are done, and that they apply to all people within the company.
        Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, despite the figures for wage settlements that he has just mentioned, many workers still have to live on unacceptably low wages? Why do the Government not do something to ensure that those people get a fair share of the prosperity that the Government claim exists at present? Why do they not lend their support to the calls for a national minimum wage? Is it not time that we had one?
        Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that a national minimum wage would mean fewer jobs available for the low paid and would be counter-productive. I would take much more seriously the hon. Gentleman's concern about the lower paid if the record of the Labour party in terms of the lower paid had been better, but many of the lower paid have done far better under this Government and have had substantial increases in their take-home pay.
        Mr. John Townend: To what extent has the increase in public sector pay been covered by increases in productivity? As a higher proportion of private sector pay is covered by productivity gains, particularly in manufacturing industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that this year inflationary pressures will come more from the public sector than from the private sector?
        Mr. Lamont: The Government have it very much in mind that pay settlements in the public sector must reflect what is affordable. My hon. Friend may know that in

        561
        1986–87, the last year for which figures are available, earnings in the public sector rose by less than in the private sector. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the dramatic increase in productivity, because that meant that the private sector could afford more generous wage settlements. We have been very lucky with the dramatic increase in productivity in manufacturing industry.

        International Monetary Fund
        Mr. Jim Lester: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on progress towards setting up the international monetary fund enhanced structural adjustment facility.
        Mr. Lawson: The enhanced structural adjustment facility of the IMF, designed to assist economic adjustment in the poorest countries, has now been set up and the first loans should be made shortly. The United Kingdom will contribute one sixth of the total funding of the interest subsidy on enhanced structural adjustment facility lending, which is the largest contribution of any country.
        Mr. Lester: I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's significant contribution to the development of policy, but can he say any more at this stage about his hopes of decisions from the Group of Seven meeting in Toronto?
        Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. Following the initiative, which I launched over a year ago in Washington on behalf of the United Kingdom to help the very poorest of the most heavily indebted countries to adjust their economies by giving some concession on their loans provided that economic policies were sound, there has in recent months and indeed, weeks, been an increasing degree of support for one variant or another of this approach. I am now hopeful that at the economic summit in Toronto, which I shall be attending early next week, we shall be able to reach an agreement on positive action.
        Mr. Skinner: Will that amount of help to the poorest under-developed countries amount to £1,000 million? I use that figure because the Chancellor knows that when he assisted the banks to write off their debts against those countries that were slightly better off, that amounted to £1,000 million in tax relief. If the top four clearing banks in Britain plus Standard Chartered can get £1,000 million in tax relief, why can the Chancellor not write off £1,000 million against the debt of the poorest countries in the world?
        Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman continues to get the wrong end of the stick. If a bank incurs bad or doubtful debts as a result of lending to anyone, whether a sovereign country or an industrial company, its profits are reduced and therefore the taxes it must pay are reduced. If, on the other hand, those debts are paid back, the profits increase and the taxes are then paid. It is as simple as that.

        Economic Output
        Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of economic output over the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.
        Dr. Twinn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of economic output over the latest 12 month period for which figures are available.
        Mr. Lawson: About 4½ per cent.
        Mr. Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that good news. Will he take this opportunity to thank the British people for contributing to low inflation and low unit costs? Will he also warn them that high wage awards will undermine what has already been achieved? What will economic growth for the coming year be?
        Mr. Lawson: As for the last point, the forecast I made at the time of the Budget was that economic growth in 1988 would be 3 per cent. At present it looks as if it may be slightly more than that, but I have no new forecast to announce.
        It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend said—or implied —that although we have put the right economic policies in place and have stuck to them consistently year in, year out over nine years, despite everything the Opposition have said, the real credit for the dramatic success of the British economy—the economic miracle was what the Financial Times called it only this morning—goes to British business and industry and to the British people for their response to the economic policies and framework that we have put in place.
        Dr. Twinn: Further to the congratulations that my right hon. Friend has extended to British industry and the British people, does he accept that these figures are another sign of the excellent management of the economy which he and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have maintained?
        Mr. Lawson: I am happy, with all due modesty, to accept the tribute paid to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
        Mr. Nellist: If, as Conservative Members who have spoken on this subject have alleged, and the Chancellor has reinforced, low wage settlements in industry are a main contributor to economic growth, why did Treasury Ministers and virtually all Tory Members who are present here today vote last summer for hon. Members to get a 20 per cent. pay rise? Would not an example have been a good idea?
        Mr. Lawson: I do not think that that had a great effect on the economy as a whole, but I should set the record straight. The advice that the Government originally gave to the House was for a considerably more modest increase in Members' salaries. It was the view of the House that the increase should be greater.
        Mr. Cousins: The Chancellor has predicted economic growth at 3 per cent. New credit growth was 9 per cent. in the first three months—an annual increase of 35 per cent. So we shall have 35 per cent. growth in credit and 3 per cent. growth in output. Is that just right, too much, or not enough?
        Mr. Lawson: Fortunately, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe in a planned economy so I do not have to answer that question. But I take from it an implicit endorsement of the recent increase in interest rates.

        Exchange Rate
        Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his policy towards the sterling exchange rate.
        The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The exchange rate is a major factor in the determination of overall monetary conditions in the economy, which are set out to maintain downward pressure on inflation. Increases in domestic costs will not be accommodated by exchange rate depreciation.
        Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that British Aerospace, Jaguar, Pilkington—the profits of which have been announced today and are down £26 million because of the exchange rate deficit—and the CBI are not always wrong? Not allowing the pound to go too high is not accommodating inflation but accommodating manufacturing industry, which is the country's life blood, on which wealth depends.
        Mr. Lilley: The improvement that all those companies, and British industry as a whole have shown in recent years has been the result of improved management, improved labour relations, gaining control of inflation and a better competitive position. It would not have been achieved or helped by competitive depreciation of the pound. Ultimately, it would have been undermined.
        Mr. Chris Smith: Given that for most of last year an exchange rate of DM3 to the pound was considered unsustainable, given that the level is now DM3·13 and has been over DM3·10 for weeks, given that for the first four months of this year the balance of payments deficit was the worst ever, and given that the Chancellor has today revised his assessment of the balance of payments deficit for the rest of the year, what steps will the Government take to moderate and stabilise the exchange rate and help our exporters?
        Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's statement contains so many untruths and wrong facts that I should not be able to rebut them in the time available. As to the balance of payments, the policies necessary to curb inflation and maintain stability in exchange rates are precisely those that in the long term ensure equilibrium in the balance of payments.

      PRIME MINISTER

        Engagements
        Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
        The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
        Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Lady spare a little time to hear about Sonia Reading, who is a young heart patient in my constituency.—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up time.
        Mr. Archer: She has dissuaded her parents from raising funds for a private operation because that would he unfair to the 100 other children who are currently awaiting operations at the Birmingham children's hospital. Will the Prime Minister contrast that with her own approach—"I spend my money to go on the day I choose, at the time I choose and to the doctor I choose."? Which of those two approaches does she think is more inspired by St. Francis, who willingly embraced poverty for himself but was always mindful of the rights of others?
        The Prime Minister: I wonder which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks is better—to help to create more wealth so that there is more to spend on those in need and far more heart operations than there used to be? He knows as well as I do that when an operation is an emergency case, that operation will take priority. I understand that this was not an emergency case. I very recently visited Papworth hospital, which is absolutely superb in the heart operations that it does and is a great credit to the Health Service, as is this Government's record.
        Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Wales are keenly looking forward to her visit tomorrow? She will find them in cheerful and buoyant mood following the package of measures announced by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for the regeneration of the Welsh valleys.
        The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales' statement was a n excellent one. It was very welcome to Wales and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's handling of the economy has done excellent things for Wales, which has a very good standard of living.
        Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
        The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
        Mr. Morgan: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether her espousal of Victorian and, more lately, aldermanic, morality extends. to the issuing of threats to Opposition parties who do not kow-tow to the Government line, to the effect that they may lose their money for research purposes to combat the politicisation of the Civil Service? Does her assertion of moral leadership over the West adapt President Kennedy's 1961 slogan to "Ich bin ein blackmailer"?
        The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations. With regard to what is called the Short money, the arrangements were announced to the House on 24 May 1988 and the Government will honour their commitments. With regard to President Kennedy, that is not a matter for which I am responsible in any way.
        Mr. Marlow: Since the majority of active IRA terrorists are known to the authorities and since, given the special nature of terrorism, the courts find it difficult to deliver them to justice, is it not time that we considered taking the players, as they are macabrely known, temporarily out of circulation? Deprivation of the liberty of the unconvicted is regrettable, but is it not a lesser evil than the slaughter of the innocents and the mourning, grief and bereavement that come after it?
        The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. Friend feels very strongly, as do all Members of the House, about the terrible atrocity in Lisburn, in Northern Ireland, yesterday, all the more since it was a charitable occasion in which families were taking part. It could have been even worse than it was. We would like to express sympathy, particularly with the bereaved families, and admiration for the armed services for the marvellous work they do, and also for the fact that they do go and help in these events in the community. My hon. Friend is asking really whether we would consider internment once again. This matter is kept under review, but I would be very, very reluctant to do so. It would be a very serious step to take. As he knows, we are constantly trying to improve all our defences against terrorism by trying to secure better co-operation from south of the border.
        Mr. Kinnock: May I first agree with every single word that the Prime Minister used in that last reply?
        Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the Secretary of State for the Environment that people who believe that they should stop all development in their own areas are selfish? If she does take that view, what does she recommend as the cure for the "not in my back yard" attitude—the NIMBY syndrome—to which that same Secretary of State for the Environment now appears to have fallen victim? Does she think that the treatment should include putting him out to grass permanently?
        The Prime Minister: With all the great issues in the world, the right hon. Gentleman never fails to surprise me with the smallness of some of his questions. [Interruption.] Of course one cannot stop development. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. Development has continued and will continue. There are 1·5 million more dwelling houses now than there used to he. Yes, we do try to protect the green belt. Yes, we do try to protect some of the land in the countryside. But development, in both town and country, there has to be, for the future of this country, and the thing is to see that it is the right development and, where it is in difficult areas, that it is in keeping with the development and the architecture of the area.
        Mr. Kinnock: That was a strange answer from the Prime Minister. I thought that ministerial rectitude was still in fashion. Or is it the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment, like so many other members of the Government, keeps one set of values for display and another for use?
        The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does his work excellently and in a very distinguished way. Neither in intellect nor in performance can the right hon. Gentleman hold a candle to him.
        Mr. Kinnock: I hear what the Prime Minister says. Does she not think that, as a general matter of conduct, people in glass houses should not throw stones and that Ministers in Gloucestershire rectories should practise what they preach, or stop preaching, or stop practising?
        The Prime Minister: Yes, I do believe that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes his own advice.
        Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and with the citizens of Belfast, to whom I paid a visit at the weekend, that the IRA draws comfort and
        566
        encouragement for its dastardly acts, such as that perpetrated yesterday, from the fact that the citizens of Ulster may not vote red or blue but only green or orange, and that by fielding candidates from the main political parties we would signal to the IRA that that part of the United Kingdom is not up for grabs?
        The Prime Minister: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not think that that would be a solution to the very deep-seated problem. We have to do every single thing we can to defend all the people of Northern Ireland and to defeat the terrorism of the IRA, which shoots and bombs to kill.
        Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
        The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
        Mr. Lewis: When will the right hon. Lady address her moral crusade to the pornographic telephone services? Is she aware that I have given evidence only this week to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of a young girl working for one of the private telephone companies having to listen to a pervert masturbating on the telephone? Is this the sort of thing that the Prime Minister wants to ignore in the telephone service, or is the problem that it is too near to the flagship of a previous Parliament?
        The Prime Minister: Of course not. There are already laws which are designed to stop that very thing. As a number of hon. Members said immediately, why not put the telephone down very quickly?
        Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend will know that today's unemployment figures show a dramatic drop once again, with the west midlands economy top of the league in creating new jobs. is this not further evidence that her economic policies are creating wealth, prosperity and a caring community, with over £9 billion a year raised by people for charitable works?
        The Prime Minister: Yes. The unemployment figures today show another large, welcome drop, with the fall in unemployment in the north, the north-west and the west midlands being the greatest. They also give the welcome news that the increase in jobs in the calendar year 1987 was the greatest for a generation. We have a substantial increase in jobs, falling unemployment, a very good training scheme and an excellent economy.
        Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
        The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
        Mr. Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware of the findings of last week's Glasgow Herald opinion poll, which showed that the political effect in Scotland of her visit to the Scottish cup final and her epistle to the Caledonians was to increase Scottish National party support to its highest level for 10 years? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate her extensive knowledge of Scottish affairs by reminding the House of the names of the Moderator of the General Assembly, which she addressed, and the captain of Celtic, to whom she presented the cup?
        The Prime Minister: I had a very good day in Scotland. Whatever the hon. Gentleman tries to say, Scotland's economy and people are benefiting enormously from the way in which the Government are handling them.
        Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.
        The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
        Mr. Butterfill: In a week when the Budget tax cuts will first be seen in pay packets throughout the nation, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to cut taxation still further? Will she contrast that with the Opposition's action in voting against the tax cuts recently, and their determination to reverse them?
        The Prime Minister: It was an excellent Budget, the results of which will be felt in pay packets at the end of this week and this month. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at the time, he has set a new target of a basic rate of 20p in the pound, when it is prudent to do that. It might be both prudent and wise to remind hon. Members that the Opposition voted against the cut in the basic rate from 27p to 25p and to remind people that, had the Labour regime's 33p in the pound basic rate still been in force, a man on average earnings would now be paying an extra £13 in tax every week. That is what Labour would have done—taken more out of the pockets of working people.

        Football Supporters (Behaviour)
        3.30 pm
        Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the behaviour of certain so-called English football supporters attending the European football championships in the Federal Republic of Germany.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): With all Members of the House and the British people, I deplore the disgraceful scenes of violence in which so-called supporters of English football have been involved in West Germany this week. Over 200 hooligans from this country have been detained since Saturday.
        I regret bitterly that so many German police have been needed and that the lives of people in Stuttgart, Cologne and Dusseldorf have been disrupted in this way by people from this country. The only positive aspect of this week's events has been the success of the measures taken to control the fans within the grounds at England's two matches in Stuttgart and Dusseldorf. My Department has co-operated with the football authorities and the police in both countries to bring about improvements in ground control. An estimated 5,000 England supporters are still in Germany, with tickets for Saturday's game against the Soviet Union and with travel arrangements linked to that game.
        Clearly, more needs to be done to control football hooliganism, as the steps taken so far have been shown to be inadequate. A number of further measures have been proposed which the Government will look at and will discuss, where appropriate, with the football authorities. They include, as regards attendance at football matches abroad, considering whether courts might be given powers in the longer term to impose restrictions on overseas travel following conviction for an offence. At home matches, we shall consider and discuss with the football authorities the conditions for admission to football grounds, including national or club membership schemes. We shall also be considering the circumstances in which magistrates can control or restrict the sale of alcohol in the vicinity of sports grounds. We will be seeking a meeting with the football authorities within the next two weeks to discuss these matters and the future participation of national teams in international competitions.
        Mr. Howell: I thank the Minister for his statement. We accept that the malaise affecting our country is extremely deep-seated. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is no good making football a scapegoat all the time? This is a law and order matter, and we hope to join the Government in doing what we can.
        Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Spain last week discussing hooliganism on beaches in that country'? Thank goodness the Government have not yet got around to blaming that on football. It, too, is evidence of this deep-seated malaise.
        If the Government are to give the courts more power to stop known troublemakers from travelling abroad and besmirching this country's name, we shall support that. Will consideration be given to making it unlawful to desecrate the national flag'? No other country would stand
        570
        for people misusing the national flag in the way in which the Union Jack is misused by some of these people, many with National Front connections. The racism attached to the taunting of coloured footballers is also a matter of considerable concern to us all.
        We hope to discuss the importance of understanding the social purpose of sport, and I ask the Minister to appreciate that when local authorities are starved of money, when youngsters who ought to be attracted into sports centres are priced out of them, and when physical education is downgraded in the education curriculum, we are undermining the whole future of sport, as well as sport in our community.
        I assure the Minister that Opposition Members want to do all they can to support the Government in a constructive approach. Finally, will he confirm that only last week the Football Association was congratulated by his Department on accepting and carrying out all the advice offered? That is an added reason why we should see this evil not as the fault of football, but rather as a social disease to which all of us must apply our minds.
        Mr. Moynihan: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, the football authorities, both the Football Association and the league, were congratulated on the work done with the police authorities and my Department to tackle problems inside the grounds in the build-up to the European championships. There is one exception to that. The Government very much regret that the FA decided to take tickets for the championships. I hope that it will decide against taking tickets for any future game in which the England team plays.
        I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support on the law and order matters that he brought to the attention of the House. However, it is naive in the extreme to believe that the acts of violence in Stuttgart on Sunday and in Dusseldorf over the past 48 hours have been unrelated to the presence of the English football team in the European championships. Where England plays football overseas, criminally minded so-called supporters are besmirching our international reputation.
        Mr. Cranley Onslow: I assure my hon. Friend that Conservative Members' support for the action that he proposes is every bit as strong as that of Opposition Members. We are sick and tired of so-called English fans dragging the Union flag through the gutters of continental Europe. If the football authorities cannot stop that, my hon. Friend will have our full support in every action that he takes to do so.
        Mr. Moynihan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that support. Suffice it to say that, while one would hope that in an ideal world the football authorities would take a very tough stance—not least in the domestic game—there has, regrettably, been much heel dragging in implementing the agreement that we reached with the football authorities in February last year. The time has now come, and, as I said, in the next two weeks all the measures that I have announced today will be considered in detail. We shall have specific discussions with the football authorities, and if necessary we shall come back to the House for its support in instituting a national membership scheme with legal backing.
        Mr. Tom Pendry: Now that the Minster is aware of something that many of us have been

        571
        telling him for some time—that the hooligan thugs who besmirched this country's name in Stuttgart and Dusseldorf are not football fans but hard-nosed criminals, as the Minister himself said—does he not recognise that it is Government action, not the action of the football authorities, that is paramount? Does he also recognise that such criminal acts take place throughout Europe, as was shown last week when many Dutch and German hooligan thugs were arrested? Will he take the initiative and call together the European Sports Ministers and the European Home Ministers to find a common approach to a common law and order problem? Will he reiterate that he will take with him the football authorities in any future action if those authorities have to implement his measures?
        Mr. Moynihan: It is indeed the case that the problems of football hooliganism that we are experiencing in this country are also being experienced internationally—not least in Germany, Holland and Italy. The scenes that I witnessed last night, in which more than 200 Germans were arrested, reflected that fact. It is regrettable that the problems that we are seeing with hooligan behaviour in and around football grounds cannot be divorced from the fact that the English team is playing. It remains a fact that the games are providing a target for thugs. Therefore, we must take action on two fronts: we must continue to contain the problem within the grounds and do further work, and we must pursue a range of judicial measures, which I have announced today, and which we shall discuss in a European context in the coming months.
        Mr. Richard Tracey: I agree with my hon. Friend that the nation is deeply shamed by the behaviour of hooligans abroad, and I hope that we can accept the word of the football authorities that these people are truly nothing to do with the real sport of football. If that is the case, they should be isolated from the game of football. The Football League has been recommended by its advisers to put in place as soon as possible a membership scheme that will isolate people who are not true football supporters. May we have a guarantee from my hon. Friend the Minister and from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that they will press the football authorities to put in place as soon as possible a membership scheme?
        Mr. Moynihan: The partial membership schemes that have been in place before and since the February 1987 agreement have not achieved the desired results expressed today by my hon. Friend. For that reason, it is essential that, as a matter of urgency, we assess whether a comprehensive national membership scheme can be put in place as soon as possible. That would be high on the agenda with the football authorities. Only then can we identify each and every person who goes to football matches, and thereby, we hope, remove membership cards from people who have caused problems. We need deterrents against hooliganism, and existing membership schemes are, regrettably, ineffective.
        Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have the same sense of disgust and despair as the Minister about the events in Germany over the past week. Does he accept that it is not football that is the cause of hooliganism, but football that has become a vehicle for it? Will he ensure that whatever steps the Government take they will not prejudice the rights of the millions of law-abiding citizens who watch football every week throughout the United
        572
        Kingdom, who should be entitled to do so and who should certainly be entitled to follow their national teams abroad if they choose?
        Mr. Moynihan: The vast majority of individuals who enjoy football in this country and abroad attend matches without any intention of causing damage or behaving like the louts that we have seen in downtown areas of West Germany during the past five days. It is a fact of life that, to deter those louts, both inside and outside the grounds, we must put in place a comprehensive package of measures that is tougher than the voluntary one so far agreed. It is the Government's intention, both domestically and internationally, to pursue that target, because it is not satisfactory simply to divorce football from the hooligan element that we have seen follow it around the continent and during the domestic season.
        Sir Bernard Braine: While assuring my hon. Friend of our full support for any effective measures he takes to deal with football hooliganism. may I ask whether he agrees that there is a need for action not merely on two but on three fronts? Hooliganism is not restricted to football. if my hon. Friend reads the newspapers every weekend, he will realise that towns up and down the country are being desecrated by mobs of young hooligans fuelled with alcohol, that police officers are being injured and that the police service is worried about the problem. Does he agree that there is a dire need to take effective action, not to loosen the licensing laws, but to tighten them?
        Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my right hon. Friend's comments. For those very reasons, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is addressing himself to a number of issues in his area of responsibility, particularly those relating to the licensing laws and the availability of drink. He mentioned these issues today at a press conference and they were emphasised in my opening statement. We a re concerned, first and foremost, in this private notice question with the availability of drink, which has done so much damage around football grounds. It is interesting to note that the smallest number of incidents occurred last night, which was the only night when the town centre was kept dry for the football match.
        Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the Minister aware that the inquiry into events at Stamford Bridge on 28 May after the Middlesbrough-Chelsea game is now under review by the Football Association? Will he confirm the receipt of a series of letters from my constituents to the management of Chelsea football club, alleging that there was no segregation at the ground, that alcohol was freely available and that the police had little regard for the safety of Middlesbrough supporters? Will he pass that file to the Football Association so that it can take that into account and refute or confirm the allegations?
        Mr. Moynihan: A number of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have been brought to the attention of the Football Association. I regret that t he urgent report requested from the football authorities following that ugly incident at the end of the season is still not forthcoming and that the latest assessment by the football authorities has been adjourned and deferred once again. When there is a major incident such as that, that sort of heel dragging is unacceptable. and the football

        573
        authorities need to ensure that they have a firm grip on such incidents and that they take appropriate action, which they have not done to date.
        Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong police evidence that the National Front has infiltrated English football supporters clubs and is corrupting and enticing quite a few decent supporters to undermine society? That is smearing our businesses and holidaymakers abroad. We have a Prime Minister who has made us proud to be British. Let us keep it that way. I have been ashamed to be British during the past three days, and incidents of the kind that we are discussing must be stopped.
        Mr. Moynihan: I hear loud and clear my hon. Friend's strength of feeling and I recognise, as does everybody associated with the football world, that extreme political wings have been associated with much of the organised vandalism and incidents connected with football. It is abhorrent that racial abuse has been associated with that; I share the view of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the appalling incidents of racial abuse that have been associated with that extreme political wing. We must do everything that we can to ensure that they do not happen again.
        Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Minister accept that the main burden of his remarks relate to the behaviour of English supporters? Without in any way wanting to display a holier-than-thou attitude, I hope that he will take these comments from one who has been a football supporter for more than 50 years and has attended gatherings that were better behaved than those on the Terrace of the House of Commons at present, at Hampden park, with over 100,000 people, at Ibrox park, with over 100,000 people and at Wembley stadium, with over 100,000 people. At that time there was a great deal of social cohesion. What is wrong within society is not a problem for football. We should be fighting for the preservation of football as a spectator sport, and we should therefore all unite in condemning bad behaviour and in supporting the action of clubs and the football associations in trying to stamp that out.
        Mr. Moynihan: It is important to recognise that many football clubs have taken determined action in recent years to try to stamp out the hooliganism that has been associated with the national game. It is also important to recognise that every club that drags its feet on the issue is also dragging down the national game and those who have worked so hard for it. I regret that too many have dragged their feet. Closed circuit television should have been in every ground months, if not a year, ago. I confirm that the main problem overseas has involved alleged English supporters.
        Mr. David Evans: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his strong views on this matter and on his resolve to put it right. Düsseldorf was a disaster for the country, but we should remember the England v. Scotland game, and the riots at Middlesborough v. Chelsea, when people were appalled by what they saw. Is my hon. Friend aware of the one club that has produced a 100 per cent. membership scheme? Is he aware that three seasons ago
        574
        there were 115 arrests and seven stabbings? Over the past two seasons and 80 league games there has not been one arrest or stabbing at the ground. In tennis terms, is that not 6–0, 6–0, 6–0 for the introduction of a national identity scheme, which overnight would show the Football Association and the Football league that they have abdicated responsibility for the safety of the game? No matter how reluctant the Government may be, they must accept the responsibility to preserve the national game and look after the people who live near football clubs.
        Mr. Moynihan: I praise Luton Town football club for its tough and determined action on this issue and for implementing a scheme that has had undoubted success for the town and the club. It is regrettable that the Football Association and the league have not warmly welcomed the initiative taken at Luton. If they do not fast realise that the lesson learned at Luton Town, which if extended nationwide would lead to a nationwide membership scheme, is the right way forward, then the Government will have to show them the way forward.
        Mr. Joseph Ashton: Has the Minister seen a report this week by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which was outlined in The Times, which states that this is a law and order problem and that football is the victim? To say that the clubs are not doing enough to protect themselves is like saying that women do not do enough to protect themselves against rape. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last weekend, miles from a football match, 200 drunken youths ran riot in St. Ives in Cambridgeshire, five policemen were beaten up in rural Andover, and two more were beaten up in Newbury? We have the Notting Hill carnival and new year's eve celebrations. Is he aware that 272 Britons are in gaol in Spain and that this is a law and order problem, not among deprived dole queue kids, but of the "Loadsamoney" mentality created by the Government? The Minister praises Luton Town football club, but why will he not stop the passports? That is the membership card. That would stop the fans travelling to Germany.
        Mr. Moynihan: If the hon. Gentleman feels that this is in no way a football problem, he should take cognisance of those who attended the Scarborough v. Wolverhampton Wanderers game on 15 August last year, those who went to the QPR v. Chelsea game, those who saw the Arsenal v. Millwall game on 9 January or those who witnessed the appalling incidents inside the gates at Chelsea at the end of the season. Football clubs must take tough and determined action. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must take action inside the grounds, which is primarily a matter for the football authorities, and outside the grounds.
        It is impracticable under current circumstances to take away passports to achieve the hon. Gentleman's goal, but it may not be impractical when the computerised system is introduced within the next two years. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his announcement earlier today, which I have repeated. As foolproof a national membership scheme as possible would also help considerably to identify potential troublemakers and ban them from grounds.
        Mr. John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now no technical or practical reason why there should not be created on a self-financing

        575
        basis in this country a proper membership system for those who attend football matches? The main reason for creating such a system is to protect the overwhelming majority of decent people who wish to go to matches in peace. As to supporters going overseas, until British football shows some real initiative in resolving the problem, should it not be made clear that its clubs are not welcome elsewhere in Europe?
        Mr. Moynihan: On my hon. Friend's latter question, I was glad to note today that the FA and the league have decided to withdraw their application for English clubs to be readmitted to European competition. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and only wish that the football authorities would do the job. They are the people who are meant to run, and ought to run, football, and it should not be left to the House and the Government to intervene. I regret that it looks as though we will have to do so.

        Lisburn (Murder of Soldiers)
        3.55 pm
        The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of six soldiers in Lisburn yesterday evening.
        For the past six years the Lisburn borough council, in conjunction with the YMCA, has organised a series of charitable running events consisting of a half marathon together with shorter fun runs. This year some 4,500 people took part, more than half of them teenagers and young children.
        Shortly after the end of the run, a bomb destroyed a Ford Transit van in which six soldiers were travelling. Four were killed instantly, one died on his way to hospital, and the sixth died in hospital last night. Eleven civilians, including an 80-year-old man and a two-year-old child, were injured, but all have now been released from hospital. The soldiers killed were a sergeant, two lance-corporals and a signaller from the Royal Signals; a corporal from the Green Howards; and a lance-corporal in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. Next of kin have been informed. All six had come from Ebrington barracks in Londonderry, and were giving of their own time to help in an event which over the years has raised very many thousands of pounds for deserving charities.
        I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those brutally murdered last night
        My understanding is that the soldiers concerned travelled in the Transit van from Londonderry to Lisburn, and parked it unattended in the leisure centre car park, the start and finish point of the runs. Five of the soldiers took part in the marathon, which started at 6.30 pm. One took part in the fun run. While it is not clear when they finished running, it is believed that the van left the car park at 8.50 pm, and the explosion occurred at 8.59 pm. The evidence indicates that the explosive device had been attached to the underside of the van and consisted of some 3 kg of commercial explosive.
        I must tell the House that, while the murders of the soldiers are horrific enough, there could well have been fatalities and casualties on a vastly greater scale if the bomb had gone off in the car park itself, where thousands of people were milling around, including a considerable number of families with young children.
        What that indicates is that the IRA has no depths to which it will not sink in its determination to kill, no occasion, whether it be a remembrance service or a charitable event, which it will not attack, nor the slightest concern as to how many people of all ages—men, women and children—it may murder and maim in its vile activities.
        What we face in Northern Ireland at present is the ruthless efforts of the IRA to intensify its vicious and bloody campaign. The Chief Constable gave clear warning of that, and the evidence of the arms shipments from Libya was further confirmation of the lengths to which the terrorists will go.
        If civilised society is to survive, whether in Northern Ireland alone or in the whole island of Ireland, there can be no place for terrorism. We have no choice but to do all

        577
        in our power to thwart and ultimately to defeat the terrorist—and in thwarting the terrorist we need the maximum vigilance and alertness.
        The end of terrorism has to be our aim, and while there is no short cut, we must employ all the resources that a democracy can bring to bear, the commitment of Government and Parliament, the skill and courage of the security forces, the whole-hearted support and assistance of the whole community in ensuring that the men of violence are brought to justice and, in addition, the fullest co-operation and support from the Government and people of the Irish Republic.
        All those we need; and the events of last night not only in what did happen, awful as they certainly were, but also in what so easily might have happened as well, are the clearest message why we must not fail.
        Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is again with sadness that I come to the Dispatch Box following a statement by the Secretary of State. Too often in the past 20 years have successive Secretaries of State and their Opposition counterparts had to respond to brutal acts of callous inhumanity. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on behalf of Opposition Members, the sympathies and condolences of us all, and indeed of all right-thinking people in the country, go to the families of the bereaved and injured.
        The tragedy of the situation in Northern Ireland is the waste of yet more lives, this time of men who had just voluntarily given up their free time to help the local community in its charitable endeavours.
        The Secretary of State has given us details of the facts of the fatal events of yesterday evening. If any solace can be found in the midst of such a terrible tragedy it must be that the devastation and loss of life was not on the scale of the Enniskillen remembrance day bomb.
        But we were told that Enniskillen was a mistake. Last night was no mistake. The lives of men, women and children were coldly and deliberately put at risk. But for the grace of God it would have been another Enniskillen writ large.
        The lack of warning, as well as the very act of placing the bomb, showed the men of violence for what they are —indifferent to life and devoid of any feelings of humanity. It was a deliberate act of sectarian provocation, taking place as it did in a staunchly Unionist town, which is also the garrison headquarters of the Army. Taking place, as it did, shortly before the onset of the marching season, it can only have been designed to heighten sectarian tension. We must hope that it does not lead to a spate of further tit-for-tat reprisals, for that is not the way.
        A number of serious questions have to be asked about security. The Secretary of State has told us that the six young men killed were off-duty soldiers in civilian clothing in an unmarked van, beneath which was placed a bomb, the van having been parked in a public place. Until investigations are completed, we shall not know the exact type of device used. However, we are entitled to ask how any device could be placed when, in the aftermath of the killings at Andersonstown, we were told that all security personnel had been issued with warnings to be on the alert, quite apart from the normal security arrangements for personal safety.
        578
        When was the van last searched, if trained soldiers felt that it was unnecessary to look beneath it? Why was the van not parked in a more secure place, if it was owned by the military? Were any instructions given to that effect, bearing in mind that, as we now know and as the security forces probably then knew, the IRA can identify plain-clothes soldiers in unmarked vans, on this occasion trailing them all the way from Derry? What sort of surveillance is used when soldiers are taking part in civilian activities of this kind, difficult though it must be? If, as we have been told, commercial explosives were used, do we know yet whence they came?
        Finally, I want to deal with the calls for action that have been made in the wake of the bombing. Some have already called for the return of internment or selective detention as a way to rid the streets of potential bombers and gunners. But, as the Prime Minister seemed to say earlier, that is precisely the response that the IRA would like. The Opposition reject those calls directly and immediately.
        The recent history of internment in Northern Ireland shows that it is ineffective. It provides men of violence with propaganda and it is a fertile area for recruitment. Its return could only serve further to heighten tension, to increase social instability and to push the likelihood of any political solution that much further away.
        As the Secretary of State said, there are no easy short cuts, just a long hard haul. The way forward in Northern Ireland is to support the security forces in upholding the rule of law, by strengthening the democratic constitutional structures, thus weakening the case of the gunmen, and to show that the ballot box alone is the way to achieve lasting peace on the island of Ireland.
        The firm adherence of the Secretary of State to the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be supported. It should not be forgotten that the perpetrators of this outrage are as committed to the destruction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement as they were to the destruction of that of Sunningdale. The paramilitaries cannot be allowed to dictate to the House and to our country, or to Northern Ireland or to the Republic, the political agenda.
        The Opposition reaffirm their support for that agreement. We reject the knee-jerk calls for the introduction of repressive measures. The defeat of men of violence can be brought about only by the support for the security forces and adherence to the rule of law, with equality before it for all. It is by those means that the forces of democracy, despite the temptation to despair and such heartbreaking setbacks as last night, will eventually prevail.
        Mr. King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I particularly appreciate his clear and unequivocal call for full support for the security forces in the tasks that they have to undertake. At a time like this, above all, we are conscious of the tremendous contribution they make, the tremendous strains that are undoubtedly placed upon them and the need for them at all times to demonstrate the greatest alertness and vigilance that is necessary if we are to thwart the evil acts of terrorism.
        On the particularly detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked about the type of explosive, further information is likely to become available on that shortly, and I cannot comment further today. However, he will have noted my comment that, on the evidence available to me, that bomb could have gone off in the car park with the consequences that I described.

        579
        The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to young men who had given of their free time to make a contribution to the community in which they were serving. I am conscious that some of those same young men were people whom people in the Nationalist community were proud to praise when they turned out in the floods at Strabane to help them through their difficulties at that time when the Army did valiant work. There is no question but that the Army does much for the community in Northern Ireland, for which everybody in Northern Ireland should be grateful. But at the same time we must be concerned about procedures and their security and what is possible for them. The Army takes those matters seriously, and I know that it will be reviewing the situation.
        The hon. Gentleman heard, as did the House, the clear response that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on the introduction of selective detention, which it is important to recognise. I would only add that we have specifically retained that power within the legislation, were it thought desirable to take that course. But, as my right hon. Friend made clear, there are many considerations, many deeply difficult implications, that have to be considered in that respect. We keep the matter under review. We have no further comment to make at this stage.
        Mr. James Molyneaux: Now that the mother of Parliaments has got round to moving from the subject of the stabbing of six footballers to that of the murder of six soldiers, no doubt the general public will wonder whether we have got our priorities right.
        May I associate my constituents in the borough of Lisburn with the expressions of sympathy for the relatives of the dead soldiers? May I also ask, however, whether the Secretary of State understands that that sympathy will be tinged with considerable bitterness? My constituents remember the signing three years ago of an Anglo-Irish Agreement which promised peace, stability and reconciliation. Out of respect for those who have been murdered, and for those of us who are yet to be murdered, will the Secretary of State give instructions that that wholly false claim and promise should never be repeated?
        Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may understand on reflection why, although I recognise that the outrage occurred in his constituency, I am somewhat disappointed in his contribution.
        In view of the right hon. Gentleman's endless repetition of his concern about the phrase, let me say that he will have noted from my statement that in talking about "peace, stability and reconciliation" in the Province, I referred to arms shipments which we have good reason to believe came from Libya. He will know that those shipments started to come well before the signing of the Hillsborough agreement, and that this is a sign of the growing threat that the security forces are facing very bravely. I should have hoped that he would include in his remarks a tribute to all those who serve in his constituency, many of whom come from every other constituency in the land and some of whom lost their lives in the incident last night. They have gone there to support people of good will and integrity in Northern Ireland, which they are proud to do.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: It ill becomes the Secretary of State to criticise what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has said. The Unionist people have not only given their sympathy; they have
        580
        given their support to all the security forces. Those whom the Secretary of State thought he would bring with him in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the members of the SDLP, will not call for people to join the Army today; they will not call for people to join the UDR today; they will not call for people to join the police today.
        The Secretary of State must face up to the fact—as must the House, although I know that it is not a popular thing to say on this occasion—that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not brought peace; it has not brought stability; it has not brought reconciliation. [Interruption.] We live there. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) does not. He does not follow the coffins; he does not meet the widows and the orphans. He should shut his mouth until he meets the orphans, the widows, the people who sorrow.
        The hon. Gentleman, sitting on his backside in his Gangway seat, has never followed a coffin in Northern Ireland. He has never put his hand on the curly head of a little girl or boy who will have no father, no mother and no succour from a father or mother. The hon. Gentleman had better recognise that it is an evil thing that we are fighting in Northern Ireland.
        If the House thinks that we have to take these constant killings, let me say that we sympathise so sincerely with those who have been bereaved because we have walked that way ourselves. We have been down in the valley, and we have shed the same tears as they will be shedding. We know what this is about.
        It seemed to be easy to identify the unmarked van. Will the Secretary of State start an immediate investigation into the civilian personnel who work in the Londonderry barracks? Someone there put his finger on that van, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State to find out who it was.
        Furthermore, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the vehicle ought not to have been parked in a public car park? Will he give instructions in future that such unmarked vehicles should never again be parked in a public place but must be parked under Army surveillance? When he has obtained the details, will he also take into consideration the type of bomb that was used, and warn Army personnel that that type of bomb could be used again and could bring about more murders in the Army?
        The people in Northern Ireland today are incensed that members of the SDLP are continuing their talks with the godfathers of the men who planted the bomb. That is resented by the right-thinking people of Ulster.
        Mr. King: I hope that the House agrees that we owe it to the memory of those who lost their lives last night to do all that we can not to spread dissension, division and bitterness in the House, but to pledge ourselves to work together with all the constitutional parties to start building some harmony and co-operation, and not always seek to exploit the resentments and difficulties.
        In answer to the last point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have made absolutely clear my utter abhorrence of all who espouse violence or who fail to denounce it. I wish to see the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland sitting down, without inhibition and without any preconditions, to establish whether they can play their part in starting to build a rather better and more constructive future.
        The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about the van and the issues arising in connection with the journey, the parking and the lack of attendance. I spoke to the GOC in Lisburn this morning about that. It is a matter of

        581
        concern to the Army, which is at present reviewing its arrangements. The points that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be very much in the minds of Army personnel.
        Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while I look forward to the arrest of the perpetrators of yesterday's crime, I do not think that it will stop the violence in the Province? Nor would internment. As we have just heard in the expressions of strong feelings, the problem of Northern Ireland is not just a security matter; it lies far deeper than that.
        May I ask two questions? The first is about explosives. The Secretary of State has said that he will have more information later today about the nature of the explosives used. Are we satisfied that in co-operation with the South— not through the Anglo-Irish Agreement; there has been co-operation over the years—we know the source of the Semtex and the route that it takes through the Province? Are the security forces in the South aware of the problems that arise because of the movement of this high explosive?
        My second question is about soldiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the lack of security for off-duty soldiers. There is a feeling that there are too many non-operational soldiers in Northern Ireland, and that the guarding of those soldiers poses a problem not only for the Army but for the police.
        Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman's first point is enormously important. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the lion. Member for Antrim, North both referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I entirely understand the political attitudes about it, but some can read into those comments the idea that we should not work as closely as we can in co-operation with the South.
        I am glad to hear confirmation from the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that he recognises, as any sensible person must—and as I said in my statement—that one of the four preconditions for success must be the full commitment and co-operation of the Government and people of the Republic of Ireland. In the long run—and perhaps not all that long a run either —terrorism could be as big a threat to the Republic as it now is to Northern Ireland.
        It is believed that a commercial explosive was used—not Semtex, which might be defined as a military explosive. As I said in my statement, 3 kg of commercial explosive was used. Because of the additional resources that have been made available through the assistance of the Libyan Government, there is no doubt that within the island of Ireland very significant resources of weapons, ammunition and explosives are available. That is why we must have the close co-operation and commitment of the Irish Government, the security forces and the people, together with our own efforts in every possible respect, so that those weapons of evil, destruction, tragedy and death are recovered at the earliest possible opportunity.
        Sir John Biggs-Davison: We welcome what has been said about this atrocity by Mr. Haughey, but do we not now have the right to expect words to be matched by deeds and a success to be made of the extradition arrangements? Although the last internment
        582
        was excessive and incompetent, will my right hon. Friend and the Government at least not rule out highly selective detention before they have discussed it with the Government of the Irish Republic, with a view to simultaneous action on both sides of the border?
        Mr. King: It is very important that we should have effective extradition arrangements. I have made clear my views about that. We are continually striving to improve the effectiveness of security co-operation. I know that the House would not wish to ignore the fact that we appreciate the significant arms, weapons and explosives recoveries that have been made in the South by the Garda. We are grateful for their successes as well as for the very significant successes of the security forces. It would be quite wrong not to appreciate that at this very moment the IRA is trying to intensify a vicious campaign and that there have been a number of successful efforts by the security forces that have frustrated or thwarted the IRA. I am having to report, sadly, to the House today an occasion when the IRA was not thwarted, but it would be wrong not to pay tribute to some very real achievements in recent months by the security forces.
        We do not rule out the possibility of selective detention. I said in my statement that I have kept that power available in case it is thought appropriate to use it. At the same time, I made it clear to the House that there could be very real problems. My hon. Friend referred to very selective detention. On a previous occasion he referred to selective detention as the recruting sergeant of the IRA. We have to consider responsibly those kinds of consideration and decide whether they would help or damage the fight against terrorism; but we keep these matters under review.
        Mr. Seamus Mallon: In expressing my condemnation and absolute abhorrence of this act, and in expressing also my sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed, may I say without equivocation that I believe that there should be no hiding place for those who carried out this act and that anybody who has any information about it should make it available to the police so that those who perpetrated this act can be caught and brought to justice?
        I ask the Secretary of State to end, please, the speculation about selective internment. Internment can never be selective. That is one of the lessons that we have learnt. It is not possible to have selective internment. Will he bear in mind that we had selective internment in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s and that the problem is still with us? Since the day and hour that the Northern Irish state was formed, the empirical evidence has been that, if we want to give a fillip and an impetus to terrorism, the way to go about it is to introduce internment in any shape or form.
        Mr. King: I think that some would argue with the hon. Gentleman's historical analysis. They might argue that on certain occasions selective internment was used effectively. I recall that it was used effectively not merely in Northern Ireland but also in the Republic of Ireland. However, I am conscious of the other aspect of the problem that the hon. Gentleman raised and to which I referred earlier, but I have nothing further to add on that point.
        I welcome the hon. Gentleman's absolutely unequivocal statement. I hope that it will be heard and listened to in the quarters where his words carry weight. It is tragic to

        583
        consider the deaths that have occurred in Northern Ireland, not just because of the number but because of the number of young lives across both communities from every sort of background. They are tragic because they are so pointless. It is tragic that lives have been lost, to the achievement of no end, by the security forces bravely defending communities and by terrorists who have achieved nothing. For all those reasons, we must bring about an end to violence in the island of Ireland.
        Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend share the edification that many of us feel that at least this tragedy has been condemned by Members in almost all parts of the House? We hope that the message will go out that there has been universal condemnation by this House of what happened. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is perhaps the time to mount a propaganda or a dissemination of knowledge campaign on an international basis about the viciousness of the IRA so as to dry up the supplies of treasure and money that are coming from misguided people in other parts of the world?
        Mr. King: Yes, Sir. I believe that that is an important part of the total approach that we must seek to adopt to defeat terrorism. I have already said that there is no single, quick answer to the problem, and the House understands that perfectly well. We are determined to tackle every possible aspect that we can, whether it be more accurate information or the relaunch of the confidential telephone. That is one small contribution to the fight against terrorism, but it is already making a significant contribution by enlisting the support of the community in the fight against terrorism. The new arrangements for the security forces, the changes in the legislation that we are introducing, and the impact on racketeering by trying to tackle the sources of funds for terrorism are among the issues that we are tackling right across the board in our determination steadily to tighten the net around the terrorists.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Secretary of State note that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to be associated with the tribute that he has paid to the men who lost their lives and with the sympathy that he has expressed for their families? Now that the IRA has turned its attention from the cenotaph to a sporting event for what must have been the first time, is it not evident that there is no innocent man, woman or child in Northern Ireland who is not potentially on its hit list and that this fact ought to be recognised around the world?
        Does the Secretary of State think that the natural conclusion to draw from what has happened is that one cannot dismantle any of the mechanisms upon which could be built closer co-operation? The failure of co-operation so far, such as the chaos around the extradition arrangements, must have been music in the ears of these murderers. Does he not think that we ought to strengthen rather than weaken security co-operation?
        Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is not necessarily a fact that men, women and children of all ages are now on the IRA's hit list. They are probably not on its hit list, but the IRA is so terribly callous that it could not care less if men, women and children happened to be on the hit list when it was in the process of committing other atrocities.
        584
        The hon. Gentleman also said that argument and division in this House are music to the ears of the terrorists. IRA terrorists want to exploit any resentments that can be built up between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It wants the agreement smashed and confusion to reign. Our job is to build up constructive co-operation and to stand together steadfastly against the terrorist.
        Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that those who elected me to the House unreservedly condemn the vicious and brutal murder yesterday evening of six soldiers in Lisburn? I offer my sympathy and that of my constituents to those families who are enduring great sorrow.
        Does the Secretary of State also accept that we, as a United Kingdom, owe a tremendous debt to all members of the security forces who stand between us and the vicious attacks of the IRA, and that those members of the security forces deserve our unreserved support in their fight against terrorism? Is it not to be deplored that when the security forces are effective against terrorists, there seems to be a hue and cry from certain quarters, even in the House, and demands for inquiries into why the security forces have been so effective?
        Will the Secretary of State address his mind to the fact that the members of the Unionist family give their support to the security forces, but is it not time that we heard from the SDLP a condemnation of this act? Will the Secretary of State ask the SDLP, and allow it to answer in the House, whether it unreservedly supports the security forces in their fight against terrorism?
        Is the Secretary of State suggesting to the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the price of co-operation with the South of Ireland in the fight against terrorists? Is the Secretary of State really saying that, if the Anglo-Irish Agreement had not been brought into existence, the Government of southern Ireland would not take any offensive against the IRA? That would be a condemnation of any country. The Prime Minister of that country was a former gun runner. The facts speak for themselves. I ask the Secretary of State to accept that the people of Ulster appreciate the great value of the security forces. We should give our support to any effective, aggressive measures against terrorists.
        Mr. King: I had better say to the hon. Member that I hear what he says. I should have hoped that, instead of seeking to emphasise yet again his dislike, for whatever justifiable or unjustifiable reasons of the SDLP or of the Irish Government, he could have noted that on occasions I have criticised the SDLP for not being as forthright as I would wish in its public statements of support for the security forces, but the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has made it absolutely clear today, forthrightly and without equivocation, in what he said. I welcome that and hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will welcome it. I hope that he will seek to encourage that co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, which is absolutely vital in the fight against terrorism.
        Mr. Harold McCusker: Does the Secretary of State understand that, while he welcomes the statement of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), people in Northern Ireland will see that statement in the context of the ongoing talks that the hon. Gentleman has with Sinn Fein, which, in the Secretary of

        585
        State's own words, is indistinguishable from the people who planted the bomb under the van last night? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is not really much point in hon. Members engaging in a competition to find stronger words of condemnation or criticism of the terrorists? That is probably what they want us to do. Why does he not do all in his power to thwart terrorists? Why does he not announce today the removal of the automatic right to 50 per cent remission for people convicted of terrorist offences? That would send a stronger message to the terrorists this afternoon than all the words that we have uttered together.
        Mr. King: I have made clear my views about Sinn Fein, and I do not resile from anything that I have said. The hon. Gentleman has quoted some of my remarks. I certainly believe that the talks that are taking place at present, in so far as they are now inhibiting the chance of talks between the constitutional parties, are a major disadvantage, about which I have the greatest concern.
        I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no point in bandying across the Chamber words of ever greater condemnation. I hope that he will realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I are engaged in the most comprehensive approach to the matters that he raised. I shall not talk about them in detail. We keep under review every aspect of ways in which we might intensify and make more effective the fight against terrorism.
        Nothing is barred from that review. We have considered some of the matters which have been raised. We do not consider them appropriate at present, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we are examining every single aspect. A further step forward which may be helpful to the security forces in the matter of evidence will come before the House this evening in the Criminal Justice Bill, and I hope the House will support it.
        Sir Philip Goodhart: After this latest bombing tragedy, many of us are bound to recall that recently a suspected bomber was not extradited to Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, at ministerial meetings under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, British Ministers can and do question the competence of sections of the Irish judiciary and sections of the Irish Ministry of Justice?
        Mr. King: My hon. Friend, in his usual gentle way, is leading me into extremely difficult country. We certainly have made clear our full concerns about extradition. The judiciary in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland are independent and obviously must take responsibility for their decisions. However, I am most anxious, in so far as it lies within my power—and I know the absolute commitment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—to seek to ensure that we have effective extradition between our two countries.
        Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I recognise the need for the ritual condemnation of violence in Northern Ireland and the tired message of the Secretary of State, who keeps coming back to the House mouthing the same old platitudes, but is it not time for a completely new political initiative? Is not one of the problems the fact that the Government are hemmed in by statements and
        586
        undertakings given by the Prime Minister on successive occasions to Ulster Unionists in this Chamber? That is why we are now stuck in this logjam.
        Mr. King: As the only hon. Member in this House to get up and start talking about tired old messages and the same old platitudes, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) takes the biscuit.
        Mr. Tony Marlow: When my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of introducing selective detention, will he take account of the fact that those who, perhaps by coincidence, are the most republican in their sympathies, are the strongest in their opposition? At the very least, there is the possibility that, had there been an effective policy of selective detention, those who perpetrated yesterday's outrage would not have been at large.
        Mr. King: One of the questions is whether, had there been such a policy, there would have been more or fewer people available to commit such outrages. I heard my hon. Friend put his question about the choice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He asked whether, if a choice was to be made, and if it meant saving lives, that was not a choice in which a few scruples had to be buried. But is that the choice, or is the choice that that decision could lead to even more lives being lost? The history of this matter has been rehearsed, and I have already disagreed with my hon. Friend, but those are the honest considerations that have to be faced.
        I say absolutely clearly, because part of what my hon. Friend said is correct, that there is clearer intelligence. There is a better understanding of some of the people who are involved in terrorism, but there is great difficulty in bringing forward the evidence which will enable convictions to be achieved. There are considerations that have to be borne in mind. I hope that it will be clear to my hon. Friend that I take clearly and seriously the points that he has made.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) about American money? Is it not true that in downtown Boston and elsewhere, and encouraged by one of the candidates in the American election campaign—at least by his attitude to Northern Ireland—more and more American money is likely to be collected?
        May I gently ask whether, if there had still been national service in this country, any of us really think that the British Army would still be in Northern Ireland? How do well-intentioned, high-minded, good-willed Englishmen such as the Secretary of State think that the Army will ever solve the historic problems of Ireland?
        Mr. King: I do not think that I shall go into the last part of that question. I am not sure that I agree with it, and I would need to think about it.
        Although elements in the United States are still fighting the old battles and seeking to stir up all the old hatred and bitterness, many other elements there are now trying to divert the understandable loyalty and affection for Ireland into much more responsible channels. This evening in Northern Ireland I shall be meeting representatives of the American Ireland Fund, incorporating the Ireland Fund of Canada, and some hon. Members will meet them next week. In such groups responsible American leaders are

        587
        encouraging the channeling of the understandable and thoroughly praiseworthy affection for Ireland that is felt by so many people in America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia into these funds and into responsible hands, not into the hands of terrorists.
        Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even those who believe that the Government's present Northern Ireland policy is mistaken admire his personal bearing in Lisburn this morning and the way in which he has carried out his melancholy duty here this afternoon?
        Mr. King: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks from a position of absolute principle and integrity.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State recollect his response to the leader of the Ulster Unionists? Does he acknowledge that the people of the kingdom on Armistice day have taken note that the leader of the Ulster Unionists is the only leader of a parliamentary party here wearing medals of service in Her Majesty's forces? Will he bear in mind that the sacrifices in the Ulster battle are borne primarily by the people in Northern Ireland? I acknowledge wholeheartedly the sacrifice of those who have come from Scotland, England and Wales to serve there, some of whom are my cousins. However, I deprecate the occasional implication that Ulster Unionists are criticising the security forces.
        I ask the Secretary of State to give us some guidance on whether an appeal to the whole community is realistic, given that at least 10 per cent. of that community backs Sinn Fein and the IRA.
        Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us how the Government are hitting the resources of terrorism? I am not thinking specifically of aid from America, but of how terrorists milk public money and engage in robbery and other such activities.
        Thirdly, is not one of the real obstacles to the implementation of the law that allows selective detention the fact that the Republic of Ireland Government are not in a position to co-operate with the British Government in the internment of Irish subjects?
        Mr. King: I am not sure why not. Historically, there have been occasions when the Irish Government have pursued that policy, but I have nothing further to add to that. It is a matter for them.
        In the cut and thrust of exchange across the Chamber, and in my disappointment at the contribution of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), I in no way sought to disparage his patriotism or service. I am aware that some of us have served in the armed forces in one way or another, and I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. I did not want to make disparaging comments about him.
        I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the approach of the security forces, from wherever they come to fight terrorism in Northern Ireland and, as sometimes happens, in Great Britain. His words were well chosen in that respect.
        The hon. Gentleman was right to say that funding comes not only from America, and that probably less derives from there than from the rackets and other
        588
        activities. We are taking a number of steps to make those practices considerably less successful than they have been in recent years.
        Mr. James Kilfedder: I express my heartfelt sympathy to the relatives of the six soldiers who were murdered last night, and I repeat my tribute and that of my constituents to the soldiers in the Regular Army, to the UDR and to the police who serve in Northern Ireland. On behalf of all those people I ask the House to pay tribute to them and to recognise the courage of the people of Northern Ireland who, for 20 years now, have faced atrocity after atrocity with great courage and a restraint that would not have been manifested in this country if the same mutilations and murders had taken place in England, Wales or Scotland. Is it not high time that people inside and outside this House stopped criticising the people of Ulster for not doing more, when the defeat of the IRA lies wholly in the hands of the Government? The people of Ulster have shown restraint and now expect the Government to play their part.
        Mr. King: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We who live among them—hon. Members who represent them and all who serve in the Government in Northern Ireland—cannot but be conscious of the courage of people in the security forces, the UDR and the police.
        I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The greatest fallacy is to say that only the Government can sort out the problem. I said in my statement that everyone has a responsibility to make a contribution—the Government, elected representatives in this House, the security forces, the Churches and the people of both communities. Many people have a contribution to make in the fight against terrorism. Not only everyone in Northern Ireland, but a friendly Government and people in the Republic, are needed in the fight against terrorism. All those components must play their part.
        Mr. Eddie McGrady: I endorse the condemnation by my hon. Friends of the horrible event at Lisburn last night. I, too, express my sympathy to the relatives of those who were killed and of those who suffered injury. I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and on this occasion, as I have done in the past, I ask anyone with information that will lead to the arrest or bringing to justice of the perpetrators to come forward.
        Talk of internment—even though it is not acted upon —feeds the propaganda exercise of the IRA. All internment is selective, so there is no such thing as selective internment. By its very nature, it means that people are picked, not on evidence or on law, but on selection of information.
        I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will endorse what I am about to say. My party and I do not need and will not take lessons from any party in Northern Ireland about the absence of support for terrorism. No member of my party has ever donned a balaclava or uniform, has ever manned a barricade or carried a coffin of a leader of the Ulster Volunteer Force, or has ever created third forces or led men armed with truncheons and wearing balaclavas—as have leaders of both Unionist parties in this House in the not-too-far-off past, which actions have contributed in a major way to the creation of violence in our society in Northern Ireland.
        Mr. King: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say and note his comments about selective detention. I am grateful for his clear commitment, which he has given before, to ensuring that those who are guilty of terrorism are brought to justice. I am also grateful for his denunciation of terrorism.
        Several Hon. Members rose——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept that this is a United Kingdom matter, and I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising.
        Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on drawing discussion towards the future, especially towards the wider principles. Is he aware that the way in which he spoke of American interest in Northern Ireland was not very reassuring to those who fear that concessions to the American Government have been a major cause of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the proposals for employment in Northern Ireland? Is it not possible for him, in a spirit of good will, to tell the American Government that it is not necessary to their worldwide interest to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland? In the end, the concessions that have been seen to be made to what many would, sadly, describe as interference can only be to their disadvantage in trying to persuade public opinion in this country?
        Mr. King: If my hon. Friend is referring to the American Ireland Fund, he is reading an incredible amount into what I said. It is supportive of and interested in worthwhile causes, and I am very grateful to it. I would in no way seek to dissuade people from taking the undoubted human, family and ancestral interests which so many Americans have in Ireland. However, that interest must be channelled into responsible and worthwhile support.
        Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall never be bombed out of Northern Ireland; that each act of violence makes us all the more determined to find peaceful solutions to the problems of the Province; that each atrocity that is perpetrated by the IRA, which scars Northern Ireland, makes us more resolved to support the people of the Province, promote their prosperity and starve the IRA of support; and that the vast majority of hon. Members hold the unquenchable belief that the forces of truth will ultimately always overcome the forces of darkness?
        Mr. King: I wish that I could have put that as well as my hon. Friend. I wish that anybody who has entertained the idea of violence, or those who still support it in Northern Ireland, could have listened to those words. They are precisely what I believe and precisely what I find so tragic about the campaign of violence and terrorism. It is totally counter-productive to any aim that it may seek to ascribe and causes enormous misery and suffering in the process.
        Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he and the Prime Minister, pursuing with great courage the correctly balanced policy in Northern Ireland, do not need the assistance of hysterical contributions, such as we heard earlier from the Benches behind me and elsewhere? Whether synthetic or genuine, such contributions will not contribute to the attainment of peace in Northern Ireland.
        590
        Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, far from being a sham or hindrance to the attaining of peace, is a vital linchpin? Will he confirm that it is the Government's intention to reinforce that agreement as it develops with increasing ministerial meetings, and will he look favourably on the idea of a joint parliamentary commission?
        Mr. King: We are having a review of the workings of the conference very shortly. I am struck by the amount of comment that is emerging. Even if people do not like the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there has been recognition that its elements and components make extremely good sense. I think that that recognition is being more widely expressed. Northern Ireland is never short of sound and fury. There are many issues about which people feel deeply and passionately. I never despise emotion, because some of the sufferings of the people of Northern Ireland are beyond description and their endurance is beyond praise. At the same time, if we are to make progress, we must learn to control that emotion and try to work in a constructive and positive way. As my hon. Friend said, I try to look to the future, not dwell on the past.
        Mr. William Cash: Did my right hon. Friend notice the regrettable contrast between the statement made by the mayor of Lisburn and that made by the hon. Member representing Lisburn? The mayor of Lisburn had a constructive and moderate approach to the subject, whereas the hon. Gentleman tended to suggest that this incident was the fault of the people of Northern Ireland. Has my right hon. Friend noted from newspaper reports today that it appears that southern Ireland is making insufficient attempts to track down and survey Patrick McVeigh? Does he regard that with considerable concern and does he accept that the authorities in southern Ireland should take steps to ensure that they know where he is and track him down as soon as possible?
        Mr. King: I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's latter point, because I have not seen the reports. I concur with the conclusion that my hon. Friend drew and hope that every effort is being made in that respect. I shall not comment on the first question asked by my hon. Friend. I have not seen what Councillor Bleakes—the mayor of Lisburn—may have said. I am trying to build a co-operative and positive approach. We owe it to the people who lost their lives last night and to others who have lost theirs over the months and years to build on the positive and constructive work that has been done, and that is what I am determined to do.
        Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As the Secretary of State is aware, at the weekend, with his complete co-operation and much help, I visited Northern Ireland. It gave me an opportunity to speak to a number of people in Northern Ireland, who asked me to bring this message to him and to the House. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that does not elect mainstream political parties to Parliament. They feel confined to voting for sectarian red or green parties and they do not feel that they can choose——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the right hon. Lady, but I think that she has asked this question before. Today, we are discussing a specific incident.
        Mrs. Gorman: Will the Secretary of State comment on whether that feeling of isolation contributes to the attitude of the IRA in perpetrating atrocities and whether Ulster people can be nudged into the Republic?
        Mr. King: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her ingenuity in asking the Prime Minister and me a virtually identical question in the space of an hour. The safest thing for me to do is to give the same answer as my right hon. Friend.

        Business of the House
        4.57 pm
        The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
        MONDAY 20 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords].
        Motion relating to the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment No 2) Regulations.
        TUESDAY 21 JuNE—Remaining stages of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill.
        Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
        WEDNESDAY 22 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Chaos in the Government's Housing and Planning Policies".
        Motion to take note of EC document on European Community telecommunications policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
        The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
        THURSDAY 23 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Deprivation and Disadvantage in Wales".
        Motions on the Building Societies (Commercial Assets and Services) and (Limits on Commercial Assets) Orders.
        The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
        FRIDAY 24 JuNE—There will be a debate on policing in London on a motion for the Adjourment of the House.
        MONDAY 27 JUNE—Timetable motion on the Housing Bill.
        Motion on the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order.
        Motion on the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure.
        [Debate on Wednesday 22 June 1988
        Relevant European Community document:

        4634/88

        Telecommunications services and equipment

        Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-xx (1987–88) para 2]
        Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
        I repeat my question of last week: when are we likely to have the oft-promised debate on foreign affairs? Also, further to the question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman last week, can he tell us when we can expect to consider the Procedure Committee's proposals on short speeches?
        Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last Thursday both my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I asked for more time to consider and debate the Housing Bill? Why did he and his colleagues insist on trying to rush it through this week? Apparently it is not so urgent, because it is not now included in the business for next week.
        The right hon. Gentleman asserted at the end of the debate on the Housing Bill yesterday that the official Opposition had done a deal to help the Government get the Bill through, and had gone back on that deal. Will he,

        593
        on reflection, confirm that such allegations are unfounded? Does he not, on reflection, consider that if the Government want to make such allegations in future, it would be better if the several people making the allegations made the same ones about the same time for a finish and about the same people, rather than different ones about different people and a different finish time, if only on the grounds that it would carry a little more conviction?
        Is it not time that the Leader of the House recognised that the Government's business is in a mess and that there is no one to blame for it but himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends who introduced this ridiculous Housing Bill in the first place?
        Before we debate the motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties on Tuesday of next week, will the Leader of the House clarify exactly what he was threatening yesterday about money for Opposition parties to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and, both before and after that, through leaks to the press? If he now complains that he was not making threats about the funding of Opposition parties, why did he raise the subject at all, particularly as he had previously promised the Leader of the Opposition that he would help to get that motion through?
        Is it not shameful that a Government with a majority of 140 over the Labour party should behave in this shoddy and unprincipled way, which is more characteristic of a banana republic? Or has Al Capone taken over from Pontius Pilate as the role model for the Prime Minister?
        Finally, will the Leader of the House, before next week, still the rumours that the Government intend going even further with their threats and that, if we field a candidate in the Kensington by-election, they will vote against the Short money?
        Mr. Wakeham: I shall treat that last question with the contempt that it deserves.
        The hon. Gentleman asked about a foreign affairs debate. I had indicated that I was hoping to arrange a debate in the near future, and I confirm that that is the position.
        With regard to the Procedure Committee report on short speeches, I very much regret that I have not been able to bring the necessary motion before the House. Most hon. Members will recognise that we have had some difficulties, which has meant that it has not been easy to find time for that debate.
        With regard to the Housing Bill, I made a carefully considered statement in the House yesterday. I stand by every word that I said and I have nothing more to say until we debate the timetable motion. I shall be very happy to debate the issue with the hon. Gentleman at that time.
        I told the hon. Gentleman last week that I had hoped to say something about the Short money in my next business statement. As I have announced, the debate will take place on Tuesday 21 June.
        On the question of allegations in the press about a conversation with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I do not accept for one moment the interpretation that has been placed on what is clearly a one-sided and grossly misleading account. My position is clear. I stand by the proposals that I set out in a written answer on 24 May. I made no threats with regard
        594
        to financial aid to Opposition parties. I said that in categorical terms to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook at the time and I trust that on reflection his recollection of the conversation will bear that out.
        What I said to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is not frightened to hear the truth, he had better keep quiet. What I said at that meeting was that the task of getting the motion through the House could be made more difficult by the events of yesterday, and I had previously discussed my concern over this matter with the Leader of the Opposition. If hon. Members look back at the proceedings on the Short money debates, they will see that there have been difficulties in the past.
        Sir David Price: May we turn from human frailty to animal disease? Will my right hon. Friend give time this coming week to debate the BSE order—the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order—which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 14 June, a copy of which is not yet available in the Vote Office and which comes into effect, so I am told, on 21 June? This has major effects on diseased animals going into the food chain and should, I believe, be dealt with as a matter of urgency this coming week.
        Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly look into the question whether the order should be in the Vote Office and will see what I can sort out about that. I am sorry not to be able to oblige my hon. Friend, as I should very much like to do, by arranging a debate on the subject next week.
        Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is growing certainty of a link between radiation and leukaemia, as shown by the official report on nuclear test veterans and the findings of the Government inquiry concerning the Dounreay nuclear power station? The Government have now announced that they do not intend to set up a compensation fund for the people who have been damaged. May we debate next week that disgraceful decision by the Government?
        Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern with which the right hon. Gentleman has raised these matters several times in the House. I have said previously that there must be time for consideration of the recent report. The Government have accepted the report and are now considering how best to implement its recommendations. The report identifies a number of possible explanations for the increased incidence of leukaemia near Dounreay, but does not point to any one in particular, so further investigation is required before any meaningful debate can take place.
        Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the order on financial assistance to Opposition parties is amendable and debatable? Does he agree that the taxpayer would demand that the House should provide financial assistance to Opposition parties in direct proportion to the extent to which those parties abuse the time of the House, abuse, therefore, the taxpayer, and abuse their general privileges? Does he further agree——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is a debate, the hon. Gentleman may be able to make the point. It is legitimate to ask whether the motion is amendable.
        Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any amendment—if he says that that is possible—would reflect the probity of the Opposition Chief Whip in the amount of money that the Labour party gets?
        Mr. Wakeham: I hope to table the motion for debate later today. My understanding is that it will be amendable, but whether any amendments are acceptable and are called will be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. It is a Government motion and I shall be voting for it.
        Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the Leader of the House aware that when I met Sir Peter Imbert, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, this morning I had to report that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition had been the victim of the crime of attempted blackmail yesterday and that the principal suspects were the Prime Minister, the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House himself? Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that all three suspects will co-operate with the police in their inquiries?
        Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that the commissioner did not arrest the hon. Gentleman for giving misleading information to the police.
        Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noted early-day motion 1228 in the names of three Militant readers and 15 other rising members of the Labour party, which calls for
        "the judicial rehabilitation of Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek and Pyatakov, … Leon Trotsky, Leon Sedov"?
        [That this House, in the light of the special conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in one week's time, and of the judicial rehabilitation of Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek and Pyatakov, demands that the Russian Government goes further and gives complete rehabilitation to Leon Trotsky, Leon Sedov the chief defendants in the Moscow frame-up trials, and all those innocent people murdered by the Stalin regime.]
        Does my right hon. Friend consider it relevant to arrange a debate on a matter so important to the future of the British people?
        Mr. Wakeham: I regret that I shall not be able to find time for a debate on that subject in the near future. The Government understand the views expressed in the motion. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear, we welcome Mr. Gorbachev's policies of reform, which include a more honest appraisal of Soviet history and Stalin's place in it.
        Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on city technology colleges, particularly as the Secretary of State is in Teesside today announcing such a college for Teesside, where £4·5 million of Government money is to be spent on one CTC compared with £3·6 million for capital improvements for the 238 schools in the rest of Cleveland?
        Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important subject. I should like to find time for a debate, but I cannot promise it in the near future.
        Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a ring constructed here?
        Mr. Speaker: This is a ring.
        Mr. Teddy Taylor: The European Court of Justice is to announce on Tuesday, 21 June its decision on whether the Government should be obliged to levy VAT on electricity, gas, water and sewerage for industry and commerce and for all new industrial and commercial buildings. Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be a Government statement, in view of the importance of this issue to the constitution and to the Budget deficit?
        Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern. I must wait until I have seen the judgment. I shall then see my right hon. Friend and find out whether he thinks a statement would be appropriate.
        Mr. Ernie Ross: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Chairman of the Committee of Selection will be in a position to add the names of Conservative Members to the names already on the Order Paper for the Scottish Select Committee? If he cannot tell us when his hon. Friend will be in a position to do that, can he arrange for a debate on the failure to have a Scottish Select Committee? Would he be prepared to give money to those Opposition Members who are willing to form a Select Committee in the absence of one appointed by the House?
        Mr. Wakeham: I cannot be forthcoming on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, regrettably the proposal that I put to the Opposition parties for the establishment of the Select Committee did not prove acceptable to them. I hope to see the Chairman of the Committee of Selection shortly to discuss this. It would be helpful to have the discussion before deciding how best to proceed. I can confirm that there will be an opportunity for a debate on the setting up of the Committee.
        Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet): My right hon. Friend will recall that, on the occasion of the last perturbation in the smooth running of the usual channels, 1 invited him to extend the timetabling procedure to major Bills. He said then that he would prefer to soldier on with the present system. As the present system seems to have foundered because Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot deliver a deal, even if they want to do so, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate that he has listed for Monday week on timetabling can be extended to cover other business of the House should the need arise?
        Mr. Wakeham: The usual channels existed long before my hon. Friend and I came into the House, and I suspect that they will exist long after we have gone into history. They go through difficult stages from time to time. The best that all men of good will can do is try to sort them out.
        Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is not the first time that threats and blackmail have been used about the Short money, as happened yesterday when he and others were using such threats? Is he aware that on the night the Firearms Bill went through, which the Government had guillotined and on which some of us played a part in forcing 100-odd Tory Members to stay so that the Government would get the Bill, in front of witnesses one of his mates told our people in the Whips Office that if they did not call off their rebellion——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is supposed to be about the business for next week.
        Mr. Skinner: We want to debate the whole issue of blackmail.
        Is the Leader of the House aware that the Whips were threatened to keep out of the Chamber because we were forcing the Government to do their job properly? It is high time the Government stopped the blackmail. They have blackmailed the nation and they must stop doing it here.
        Mr. Wakeham: As yesterday's example of the evil to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a completely wrong analysis of the position, with absolutely untrue allegations being made, I believe that the other one is just as likely to be wrong, and I shall not pursue the matter further with the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Bastille day the Secretary of State for Transport will be publishing a report presented to him by British Rail about the need for improved rail links to the Channel tunnel? Is he further aware that this has wide implications for public transport policy in and around London and far beyond to the regions? In view of the increasing interest in the subject, will he please arrange a debate on the report as soon as it is available?
        Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important subject and will be an important part of the success of the Channel tunnel. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide how best to proceed.
        Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on the state of relations between the business managers of both parties? May I tell the Leader of the House that before he moved the Adjournment motion yesterday I was approached by a Tory Whip and was discreetly threatened, as a Labour Whip on the Housing Bill, that if we did not finish, all the things that we subsequently heard about Short money and the guillotining of future legislation would probably happen? I was also told that assurances had been given in writing. The Leader of the House has been gravely misled by the Chief Whip of his party. If there is evidence in writing, he should put up or shut up.
        Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman bobs in and out of his Whips Office so fast that I cannot be sure whether he is a Whip at the moment. I do not recognise him as an accurate analyst of the situation.
        Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): May we have a debate soon on Church relations, so that light may be thrown on the way in which the Archbishop of Canterbury, so much the leader of the Church militant when criticising Government measures, appears to be the head of the Church supine when visiting Moscow this week, having refused to meet the courageous Russian Orthodox clergy, who have been persecuted and imprisoned for their beliefs, on the grounds that it might irritate his generous hosts and a complacent hierarchy in the Soviet Union?
        Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend will have noted, I have announced a motion on the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure for debate on Monday 27 June. The Measure regularises relations at a local level between the Church of England and churches of other
        598
        denominations. I should have thought that my hon. Friend, with his customary skill, would be able to make his points in that debate.
        Mr. Michael Welsh: I notice that six hours have been set down for private business next week. I accept that there are many other matters to discuss as well as private business, but is it possible to reduce the time allowed for private business to three hours and have a debate on the Third world during the other three hours? It is a long time since we debated that issue. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot allow that time, will he assure us that we will have a debate on the Third world before the recess starts in August?
        Mr. Wakeham: That is a good suggestion, and I wish that I could fit it in. Unfortunately, the time for private business is not in my hands, but is entirely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has nominated that business for next week.
        Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bristol city council is the only local authority that intends to petition against an urban development corporation? This will cost the hard-pressed ratepayers some £140,000, delay the start by up to nine months, deny 5,000 man-years of work to an area of high unemployment, stop 3,000 houses being built and reduce the leisure facilities available in that hard-pressed area. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this Labour authority, which does little for Bristol and little for the area that I represent?
        Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has raised very important issues. I should like to find time for a debate but, unfortunately, I cannot next week. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might like to try his luck with an Adjournment debate.
        Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the shambles of the television presentation on Tuesday morning of the types of lighting and cameras that may be introduced, would it not be a wise idea for more hon. Members to see the "plans"—if one can use such a term —for this extraordinary innovation, instead of having them shown just to a few members of the Committee and those of us who thought that we should keep an eye on the proceedings?
        Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most hon. Members have no idea that there are four lighting options? One, a long green lamp, makes the House look like a fish tank. Another option is to close off daylight permanently from the House, so there would be bricked up windows with lights behind them. The third and fourth options are lights so intense that many of us who looked across the chamber from the Back Bench saw only an orange blur —[Interruption.]There were some less attractive colours as well. There was extreme reluctance to show how far the cameras would hang down. Those of us who volunteered to stand and demonstrate with the mock-ups were not allowed to do so.
        I am serious about this matter. It will be an outrage if these things are put up without most hon. Members knowing the implications. It is essential that this matter be debated. Finally, Mr. Speaker——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had a long run.
        Mr. Faulds: It is a very important matter.
        Mr. Speaker: One short sentence, then.
        Mr. Faulds: One short sentence. As an example of how the Chamber will be treated by the television cameras, did the Leader of the House last night see "Newsnight", in which 29 hours of serious debate, with some excellent contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters would be best raised in a debate. That is more than one short sentence. I have been very generous.
        Mr. FauIds: You will be the sufferer, Sir.
        Mr. Wakeham: At the demonstration in the morning, I took it that the hon. Gentleman said that his difficulties with his sight and other physical problems were a result of advancing years. I do not accept for one moment that the demonstration was a shambles, but I recognise that the hon. Member contributed to efforts in that direction throughout most of the proceedings. I do not think that he succeeded.
        I thought that the demonstration, which had been advertised in the all-party Whip and announced in the House in response to a question to me by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), was, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's efforts, a reasonable success in giving the Select Committee some view of the alternatives. The Select Committee will discharge the obligation put upon it by the House of Commons and will produce a report, which it will be for the House of Commons to consider.
        Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not mind being an Orange blob on this side of the Chamber.
        Last week I raised a serious matter about a debate on security in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will agree that a statement is not adequate to deal with this important matter. There is grave alarm in the Province that representatives have not had an opportunity to put their views to the House. There is more alarm when we see that a man who is charged with the killing of one of the corporals has been given parole, whereas ordinary civilian prisoners cannot get parole on humanitarian grounds. Surely the Leader of the House should seek, at least before the summer recess, to have a debate in the House on this important matter.
        Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about me personally and I recognise the strong feelings on the need for a debate. I thought that you were generous, Mr. Speaker, in the time that you allowed for the statement. I appreciate that that is not a substitute for a debate. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall bear the hon. Member's strong representations in mind.
        Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Leader of the House seriously consider having a debate on football hooliganism? We keep getting reports which contain the information that the matter has been discussed at No. 10. They are always discussed at No. 10. What does the Prime Minister know about football? The problem gets worse and worse. We need a debate so that people can express their views, and we might then get somewhere. If we were
        600
        to involve people such as Brian Clough, who is a disciplinarian on and off the field, we might get somewhere.
        Mr. Wakeham: I do not for one minute accept the hon. Gentleman's comment about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is taking these matters extremely seriously and spending much time trying to deal with these difficult problems. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the subject. I cannot promise him an immediate debate, but I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.
        Mr. James Hill: My right hen. Friend will probably have noted that on Monday evening there is to be an Adjournment debate on council estates and security patrols. This was the beginning of the argument that many of these football hooligans learn their basic laws in gangs on council estates. We must examine this matter still further. The Home Office gave me a fairly good reply, and I should have thought that a national policy on security——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask for a debate, not debate the subject now.
        Mr. Hill: I ask my right hon. Friend to look into the proposition that we have a debate on national policy for security, not only on council estates, but on private estates too.
        Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern in this matter, and I know that it is shared by a number of our hon. Friends, but I cannot promise him an early debate on the subject.
        Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the Channel tunnel proposal as it affects through trains from Europe to the north? As there have been problems with British Rail and Customs and Excise, is it not time that we cleared the matter up, because it is very important to the regeneration and economic well being of the north?
        Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important matter. I have undertaken to refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and that is the next stage.
        Mr. Chris Mullin: Is the Leader of the House aware that British Shipbuilders is being prevented from bidding for a new order from Cuba—on which the jobs of thousands of my constituents depend —by the Department of Trade and Industry, which has to give its approval to the intervention fund allowance? The deadline expires shortly, after which time the work will go to one of our rivals. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry to make a statement and tell us exactly why he is preventing British Shipbuilders from going ahead with the bid?
        Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend, and if he feels that it is appropriate to make a statement or write to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will do so.
        Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister recently assured us that unemployment in the Dearne valley area of south

        601
        Yorkshire was falling, when it is not? She also assured us that we were receiving special priority in the urban development programme, when in reality we are getting less than areas with half the unemployment and a third of the population. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Prime Minister suggested that we were being greatly helped by derelict land grants, when the changes in the arrangements for such grants mean that the outlook is very grim indeed? May we therefore have a debate on the plight of necessitous areas in England, such us ours? I hope that the Prime Minister will condescend to join in a debate on that matter, even though she does not speak on anything else.
        Mr. Wakeham: I do not for a moment accept the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have noted the substantially improved unemployment figures announced today, which should be welcomed by both sides of the House.
        Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate at some time on the abuse of spending public funds on television advertising campaigns run by various Government Departments? Such campaigns are increasingly widely commented upon across the political spectrum as being nothing more than Conservative party advertising in disguise. In particular, will he address himself to reports that the Government are to spend £1 million on television advertising in an attempt to promote the poll tax? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is pure political propaganda rather than a proper use of public funds? Does he agree also that, in the interests of the democratic process, that practice must stop, and will he allow the House to debate it so that we may discuss the concept and the underlying principle?
        Mr. Wakeham: There are clear rules about the purposes for which public money can be spent by the Government, and those purposes have to be in support of the laws of the land, not in support of policies before the House. Those rules are scrupulously obeyed by this Government, as I believe they were by previous Governments. I wish that I could say the same about some local authorities.
        Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the promise to publish a White Paper on the Official Secrets Act this month is to be honoured? If it is, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that its publication would provide a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to do what she likes doing least, making a major speech in the House? Does he also agree that it would provide the right hon. Lady with an opportunity to announce an inquiry into the activities of the security services and to discuss the urgent need for democratic accountability in the security services? She would disappoint the authors of the 10 books that are being written about the security services, but please the taxpayer, if she announced that she has no plans to ban those books.
        Mr. Wakeham: I shall not answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Both the Home Secretary and
        602
        I have made certain statements at the Dispatch Box about the publication of a White Paper and about a debate, and I stand by those statements.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: When considering the proposed guillotine motion on the Housing Bill on Monday week, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that 58 groups of amendments have already been selected, including 73 Government amendments and new clauses? Whatever view the right hon. Gentleman takes of events so far, it is important that parts IV and V of the Bill and the new clauses are given adequate time for debate.
        Will he ensure that the Government motion on the air pollution order which we should have debated last night, is reinstated at an early opportunity?
        Finally, has the Leader of the House seen early-day motions 1098 and 1201?
        [That this House welcomes the recent Law Lords decision in the case of Hayward v. Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd, affirming the principle of equal pay for work of equal value; believes that such victories are important to the creation of a more just and equal society for all people; and further calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act to eliminate sexual discrimination in the workplace.]
        [That this House notes with concern the conclusions of the Policy Studies Institute report revealing the barriers to the advancement of women doctors within the medical profession; decries the use of patronage through the old boy network to discriminate against women; agrees that the waste of such talent can only be harmful to the profession and to medical services as a whole; and calls on the Government to act immediately with the profession to stop this discrimination and ensure equal opportunity in the interests of the medical profession and its patients.]
        The early-day motions deal with equal opportunities for women and the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission this week showing that the pay of women in Britain is now 26 per cent. behind that of their male colleagues—the highest in 10 years. The figure in Scotland is 28 per cent. May we have an early debate on the poor state of equal opportunities for women in this country?
        Mr. Wakeham: I shall announce in due course how we propose to deal with the orders lost last night. I shall table the timetable motion for the Housing Bill as early as I can next week—certainly by the middle of the week. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until then to find out its terms, but I shall bear in mind his remarks. He must bear in mind the amount of time that we have already spent on the Bill, but I take his point.
        The hon. Gentleman asked about equal pay for work of equal value, which is dealt with in early-day motion 1098. The Government monitor closely the work of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts to see whether they are working fairly and effectively. We shall continue to do so in the light of the important decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred and other test cases still before the courts.
        Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the need to supply Government money to electrify British Rail's east midlands line? That is particularly important given the development of the Channel tunnel and the electrification of the east coast route, which will lead to competition with the east

        603
        midlands area, which could lead to closures in the area and to the economic decline of my constituency and many others.
        Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, InterCity services do not receive grants, so there is no question of any investment grant. British Rail must decide its own investment priorities. The Government should not ask it to undertake investments against its commercial judgment.
        Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on Smith houses, those defective homes built in the 1950s, which councils such as Leicester city council are having to buy back from people who bought them in that defective condition? Leicester city council applied, not for a grant, but to borrow £1·7 million. The Government have provided nothing. They have refused to allow the council any such borrowing, and it is believed to be the only council——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman can deploy that case if there is a debate. Now, he should ask whether there is to be a debate.
        Mr. Janner: May I ask when we are to have a debate on this matter, which is worrying many people in many parts of the country?
        Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may note that we have Environment questions on Wednesday. He might question the Secretary of State then if he gets the chance.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would it be a good idea to have a debate next week on trusting one another in the House? That would enable us to discuss early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273, 286, 622, 627, 1142 and 1156.
        [That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shaky enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning. It is certainly true that if Leon Britian had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
        [That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew
        604
        the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
        [That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's' Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Britian himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved. … He ( Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her ( Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her': and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
        [That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he ( Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
        [That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Haver's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
        [That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbegin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS 'Conqueror'; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for

        605
        Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.]
        [That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of candour about what they have done.]
        [That this House notes that the Guardian of Friday 20th May carried an article entitled `Thatcher's boy in a cleft stick', which stated that according to Foreign Office sources 'Mr Charles Powell wants Washington or Paris nothing less, but he's not going to get either of them', and that Mr. Powell had been offered and turned down the post of Ambassador in Stockholm, and that the article added `Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland Affair. He escaped appearing before a Select Committee, but not their sharpest criticism for his orchestrating role in the leaking of a letter from the then Solicitor General, which ultimately resulted in the then Secretary of State for Defence's resignation'; expresses its concern that knowledge of wrong-doing by the Prime Minister is alleged to put Mr. Powell in a position to obtain an Embassy more senior than his status warrants; asserts that this is not in keeping with the high moral ground claimed by the Prime Minister; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to make a statement.]
        [That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to set up an inquiry into the SAS operation in Gibraltar, to address itself to the questions as to whether the Joint Intelligence Staff, through its current intelligence groups, was responsible for preparing assessments of the situation in Spain and Gibraltar prior to the shooting, if so, as to how
        606
        many assessments were made and on what days, as to whether the Joint Intelligence Committee, in any form, considered these or other assessments or reports on the matter, if so, as to when it did so and whether it was as a full committee, a sub-committee or by the chairman alone, as to to whom advice was offered by the Joint Intelligence Committee, as to whether the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services was involved in considering or formulating assessments or advice, and, if so, on what occasions, as to on what occasions advice or assessments were offered to the Prime Minister by the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services, the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI5 or Sir Colin Figures, as to who, or which committee, proposed the use of the SAS, as to whether the SAS was ordered to operate in Gibraltar under pre-existing rules of engagements, or as to whether specific Rules of Engagement were drawn up, as to on what occasions, in the 72 hours prior to the shooting, the Prime Minister was appraised of the sequence of events in Gibraltar, and on what occasions, over the same period, she issued instructions or agreed actions in relation to the events, and as to what consultation she undertook with the Overseas Policy and Defence Committee in the Cabinet.]
        On the radio this morning—and he has said this in the House—the Leader of the House eloquently declared that it was necessary to have undertakings and understanding for the usual channels to work and that that depended on trust. Is it not perhaps equally true that the work of the House depends on our ability to trust the word of the most senior Ministers? That brings us back to where the rot started——
        Mr. Speaker: Order. It does, indeed, bring us back to business questions.
        Mr. Wakeham: It seems that I am a trusting person and the hon. Gentleman is not.

        Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
        As amended ( in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  New Clause 71

    ACCESS
    `(1) A person aggrieved may appeal to the Court of Appeal, if that court grants leave, against—

    (a) an order under section 4 or 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made in relation to a trial on indictment;

    (b) any order restricting the access of the public to the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or to any proceedings ancillary to such a trial; and

    (c) any order restricting the publication of any report of the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or any such ancillary proceedings,
    and the decision of the Court of Appeal shall be final.

    (2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under this section shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this section shall be construed as references to that division.
    (3) On an application for leave to appeal under this section a judge shall have power to give such directions as appear to him to be appropriate and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, power—

    (a) to order the production in court of any transcript or note of proceedings or other document;

    (b) to give directions as to persons who are to be parties to the appeal or who may be parties to it if they wish and as to service of documents on any person; and the Court of Appeal shall have the same powers as the single judge.

    ( ) Subject to Rules of Court made by virtue of subsection (6) below, any party to an appeal under this section may give evidence before the Court of Appeal orally or in writing.
    (5) On the hearing of an appeal under this section the Court of Appeal shall have power—

    (a) to stay any proceedings in any other court until after the appeal is disposed of;

    (b) to confirm, reverse or vary the order complained of; and

    (c) to make such order as to costs as it thinks fit.

    (6) Without prejudice to the generality of section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, Rules of Court may make in relation to trials satisfying specified conditions special provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in relation to hearings in camera and appeals from orders for such hearings and may in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, provide that subsection (4) above shall not have effect.
    (7) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

    (a) subsection (2) shall be omitted; and

    (b) the reference in subsection (6) to section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 shall be construed as a reference to sections 52 and 55 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.39 pm
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    r. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 9, 10, 274, 243 and 11.
    The Solicitor-General: This new clause and these amendments deal with the need identified in Committee here and in another place to provide a review of an appeals mechanism in relation to orders by the court which either restrict or prevent reports of Crown court proceedings under section 4 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or orders which restrict public access to the courts. As the House knows, there have been complaints that these powers have on occasions been misused and that currently no remedy exists, contrary, among other things, to our obligations under the European convention on human rights.
    In Committee, the proposal provided merely for an opportunity for judicial review by means of an application for an order of certiorari in relation to orders under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, not for orders for hearings in camera. We promised to look again at this matter and to seek to provide a comprehensive and effective appeals mechanism which would meet our obligations under the European convention to provide a remedy on both these classes of orders. Several points of difficulty arise in relation to this matter, which explains why we have not come forward earlier with these proposals, but I am satisfied that the close attention that we have now given to the matter means that we have the right answer.
    The major differences between the form of remedy now proposed and the one already in the Bill lie in its scope and form. The new clause will allow challenges to any order which restricts reporting of Crown court proceedings as well as any order which restricts access to those proceedings. Therefore, any aggrieved person—notably the press—can challenge the Contempt of Court Act orders, orders under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which prohibit the identification of children involved in trials concerning decency or morality, and orders for hearings in camera. The remedy will be available only against an order, not against a general statutory prohibition or a procedure which is not activated by a specific order of the court. In particular—this is obviously right —he procedure will not be available to challenge the anonymity of rape victims under section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976.
    The other major change is that, instead of providing for a judicial review, the new clause will establish a statutory right to appeal to the Court of Appeal criminal division in place of judicial review. That is wholly appropriate. First, the problems that we are meeting have arisen in the Crown court in the course of criminal trials and it is appropriate that appeals should be heard by judges who are familiar with the context in which the grounds for appeal arise. Secondly, the use of an appeal rather than a judicial review removes the possibility of future arguments on points of jurisdictional theory. There may be arguments now about how far a court of law can make an error of law within jurisdiction without being subject to judicial review. Such difficulties do not arise on an appeal.
    The House will see from subsection (1) of the new clause that the appeal will be subject to a requirement of leave. That is standard in the criminal division and may work to an appellant's advantage. Leave must be sought from the Court of Appeal rather than from the Crown court judge. The Court of Appeal's decision will be final. That is to ensure that any possible disruption to the Crown court is minimised. The Court of Appeal criminal division can deal with these appeals promptly. The same cannot be said of appeals to the House of Lords, and we have looked

    609
    into that extremely carefully. In fairness to the accused and generally to the advantage of the administration of justice, we cannot risk delaying a criminal trial for long periods pending a second appeal.
    Subsections (2) and (3) deal with the allocation of this business to the criminal division and provide that a criminal judge will decide questions of leave, as is usually the case, with the application for leave being renewable before a full Court of Appeal, should leave be refused.
    Subsections (4), (5) and (6) give the criminal division new powers, which are important. These appeals will be structured like civil applications, as they are concerned with the assertion of rights rather than the punishment of offences. For this reason the criminal division must have a small civil code, giving it appropriate power to deal with these appeals. The single judge must have power to order that documents, particularly any transcripts of an application for a hearing in camera, should be produced to the media so that they can pursue their remedy. Further —this is an important point—he must have power to guide or determine who should be a party to the appeal and how they should be served with process.
    To illustrate the importance of that, the single judge may consider it impossible for an appeal to be determined unless a witness who has benefited from the order complained of this before the court. If that witness has given or is to give evidence in camera, the press may not even know his name, let alone his address for service. Directions from the single judge, given at the leave stage, can solve these procedural problems. Subsection (4) allows for these directions to be given.
    The full Court of Appeal will also need new powers as the criminal division will be asked to deal with business other than appeals against conviction or sentence. Subsection (6) gives it powers to confirm, reverse or vary decisions, or to make orders as to costs. Subsection (6) also empowers the Court of Appeal to stay other proceedings —in effect, the Crown court trial—pending an appeal. That step should be avoided wherever possible in the interests of justice. However, there may well be cases where it would be manifestly unjust to allow the Crown court trial to continue before the appeal is resolved. Therefore, it is proper to allow judges of the Court of Appeal power to do what is best in each individual case.
    Subsection (5) gives the appellants the right to adduce evidence before the Court of Appeal. That is important, as the likely appellants, who are the press, will not have had any prior opportunity to put their case.
    That summarises the parts of the new clause which will shape the general nature of this procedure. Rules of court will spell out specific steps. Basically, the press will launch an appeal within a short time limit of about seven days and seek leave from a single judge. The judge may grant leave immediately on seeing the papers or the press may seek an appointment to ask for the production of transcripts or, for example, directions for substituted service. If leave is granted, the appeal will be argued before a full court in the usual way. Appointments will be given as promptly as possible, and it is intended that rules of court will give appellants an express right to apply for the procedure to be expedited.
    The House will see that subsection (7) makes provision for a special procedure. I should perhaps say an
    610
    "exceptional" procedure, because the vast majority and possibly all the appeals brought under this new provision will follow the procedure just outlined. However, a small sub-class of cases heard in camera will involve information of high sensitivity. For example, matters of national security may arise or information may be brought out which will identify and hence put at risk a member of the security forces. The Government must protect information such as this, and any prosecutor whose evidence includes such information must be able to establish conclusively before leading any evidence that his case will be heard in camera. Orders for hearings in camera will be open to challenge in such cases, but the form of appeal will be private.
    The prosecution will give public notice of an intention to apply for the hearing to be held in camera. That will be given before the start of the trial so that the time gap between public notice and the trial corresponds to the time limit for appeal. That will allow the press to consider whether it wishes to challenge the order, if it is made. The prosecution will apply for the hearing to be in camera at the very start of the criminal trial and will seek an adjournment until the next day. The press will thus have the rest of that first day in which to file and serve notice of appeal. If the press appeals, the whole process will be conducted by the Court of Appeal in private. Under that procedure an appellant will not have to specify ground for appeal, which is, of course, an advantage to the appellant, but he will not be entitled to any information to assist in the conduct of his appeal, for reasons which are self-evident, nor will he appear before the court.
    The Court of Appeal, both at the leave stage and when considering the substantive appeal, will review the papers that were before the Crown court judge and any available transcripts and will inform the appellant of its decision. In that way, highly sensitive information will be protected, the press will have a remedy and we will avoid putting the prosecutor in an impossible position, as he will not have to lead any evidence until he has established that there will be no appeal or knows its result.
    As I have said, no one should think that this exceptional procedure will form a large part of the appeal procedure. It is designed primarily to protect information concerning national security. It may be that the press will recognise the existence of national security issues and decline to appeal in those cases, in which case the special procedure will never be used. In any case, it will be rare for the prosecution to resort to that system.
    Almost all appeals brought under this clause will concern ordinary criminal trials, the sort of trials in which it has been suggested that the court's powers have been misused in the past, and so will be determined after a full hearing in the usual way. It is, however, necessary and responsible to make provision for those new exceptional cases where our national security may be at risk.
    The remainder of the new clause makes some necessary adaptations to the clause and consequential amendments to facilitate its application to Northern Ireland, together with consequential amendments to the long title.
    Mr. Peter Archer: We begin this debate on a less controversial note than in some of the exchanges that have occurred in the House over the past few days.
    Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): Speak for yourself.
    Mr. Archer: I am sincere about that, even if I do not carry all my hon. Friends with me.
    We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for having responded to our representations, for the thought that he and the Lord Chancellor have obviously given to the problem and for the clear way in which he has expounded the proposals. I appreciate the difficulties when notes are passed to him, but perhaps I could have his full attention. I am sure that he will appreciate that a great deal of what he said is new to us and that we will need a little time to consider some of these matters because they are difficult matters and, as he said, they seek to strike a balance. In some circumstances, I might have been content to leave the matter there, but as today the House is not under the same time constraints as on some other occasions, he will forgive me if I press him a little and perhaps add a few of my own reflections.
    I recollect that when I, the Solicitor-General and my right hon. and learned Friend for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) served on the Standing Committee on the Contempt of Court Act 1981, one matter, on which I am sure we were all agreed, was that normally the course of justice should be open. Unless there are good reasons to the contrary, the public have a right to know what is going on. That is healthy for the courts, for the judicial service, for the legal profession and certainly for those who have occasion to litigate there.
    That is a principle which Opposition Members have invoked from time to time and will no doubt continue to do so, but it has emerged, particularly over the past few years, that some matters may be mentioned in court which cannot be made public because it would not be in the public interest to disclose them. Certainly, it would be oppressive to some individuals if there were no power to inhibit them, so I accept that judges must have that power.
    We are indebted to the Guild of British Newspaper Editors and to the National Council for Civil Liberties for a recent survey in which they inquired of 200 newspaper editors in England and Wales about secrecy orders of various kinds that were made in their local courts. The questionnaire related to about 70 Crown courts. They discovered, for example, that in 15 courts editors had experienced use of the common law power, which we discussed in Committee and which had been rather overlooked by the Government in the early stages of the Bill.
    The survey's conclusions were quite interesting. Its first conclusion commented on the extent to which Crown courts depart from the open justice principle. Its second conclusion referred to the wide use made of postponement orders. I agree with the comment muttered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that a postponement order can mean death for a newspaper story. It is no use reporting on Wednesday something that happened on Monday morning. There was a particular problem about that and about the use of section 39 orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
    The survey came to what I thought was a surprising conclusion: that, given the number of restriction orders, it is inevitable that some appear to be inappropriate and even unlawful. I am sure that the survey was trying to be fair, but I do not accept that it is inevitable that judges will sometimes make such orders without considering whether they are lawful.
    612
    The survey also concluded that the absence of an official record of restriction orders makes it difficult to keep the orders under review. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us what consideration has been given to some form of official record of restriction orders so that we know how many have been made, where they have been made and the general pattern of when and how they have been made.
    The survey further concluded that there is a noticeable lack of consistency between regions in the use of restriction orders. Judges are human and justice is not administered by computer, so it is inevitable that there will not be total consistency, but there should be some attempt to achieve consistency in that matter.
    The Solicitor-General mentioned that such matters will now be heard by the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, where we hope to obtain some guidance on those matters. But it may not be too much to ask also for occasional judicial conferences about the use of such orders of the kind which now exist to introduce consistency into sentencing. The survey concluded finally that there is a lack of uniformity in the manner by which courts make known the existence of restriction orders.
    We should devote attention to all those matters, as they are not all met by the new clause. Mr. Keith Parker, the current president of the Guild of Newspaper Editors and editor of the Wolverhampton Express and Star, which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of State and I hold close to our hearts, made a number of cogent comments. He said that it simply was not good enough for the Government to maintain that Crown court judges never made unlawful orders. Clearly, the Government no longer maintain that, and, to that extent, we have all relaxed.
    I want to add this point as a measure of balance, and I can do this in the case of Mr. Parker simply because he and I know each other so well. It is not only judges who occasionally get these things wrong. Sometimes newspapers are not beyond criticism in the way in which they report current legal proceedings. I remember a distinguished predecessor of Mr. Parker in both the offices that Mr. Parker now holds. Mr. Clem Jones, whom we all held in great affection, in trying to establish the responsibility shown by local newspapers in reporting legal proceedings, once induced his wife, Dr. Marjorie Jones, to conduct a survey on how that had been done. If I remember correctly, that survey assisted her to gain her doctorate. She was kind enough to send me a copy of her book. Her report was a devastating indictment of the way in which many local newspapers reported legal proceedings.
    6 pm
    The survey showed that the prospect of proceedings being reported has very little to do with factors such as the public interest in their being known or the public thirst for serious information about what happened in those proceedings. Rather, they are reported because people were interested in the identity of people involved, whether they related to royalty, whether they were physically attractive, information about their ages and matters of that kind. I am sure that Mr. Parker will forgive me if I emphasise what the Solicitor-General properly said —that there is a genuine balance to be maintained.
    As I have said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon and I served together in Committee on the Contempt of Court Act 1981. At that time we had not considered carefully some of the problems because

    613
    none of us believed that they existed. If I recall correctly, it emerged while the Committee was sitting that such problems did exist. There was a notorious blackmail case in which an attempt by the judge to restrict publication of the names of the complainants was disregarded, with devastating consequences for the complainants. That was a serious matter, in which the press behaved irresponsibly. Unhappily, that case emerged rather too late to be considered by the Phillimore committee which led to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The case arose just in time for sections 4 and 11 to be added to the 1981 Act, but not early enough for us to reflect on the implications as carefully as we would have done had we had a little more time.
    We hoped that the problem would be dealt with, as the Solicitor-General said, by the procedure of judicial review. However, the House will recall that in the Ponting trial it was proposed that there should be a daily television programme keeping the public abreast of the course of the trial, which would take the somewhat dramatic form of a representation of the trial with actors, whom I am certain would have been paid-up members of Equity, taking the parts of the various characters in the trial.
    An order was made by the judge under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting the showing of that programme until after the trial had finished. It is not for me to embark on a discussion of whether that was a proper order to make, but I am bound to say that I was not surprised that the order was made. An attempt was made to have the matter reviewed by judicial review. Whatever the merits of the order, it was clearly right that someone should be able to review the decision of a judge of first instance.
    It was pointed out that section 29 (3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 prohibits a review of
    "matters relating to trial on indictment".
    The Court of Appeal held that the matter related to trial on indictment, and it would have been surprising if it had reached any other decision.
    An earlier case involved an order being made under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting the naming of certain witnesses in which Lord Justice Stephen Brown, before his happy translation to further office, holding again that there was no power of judicial review, expressed sincere regret that that was the case.
    Those problems confronted the Government when this Criminal Justice Bill was introduced. They responded by introducing clause 151. I suspect, as the Solicitor-General has half hinted, that they introduced that partly to keep us straight with the European convention on human rights, because they did not want to accumulate too many difficulties in Europe, but I have no doubt that they introduced it also because they genuinely believed that something of this kind should be done. I would not dispute that. Having embraced the principle, there were shortcomings, which have already been honestly and openly elaborated by the Solicitor-General.
    Another problem was that the proposal did not relate to orders made under the common law power, but only to orders made under sections 4 and 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. That is now rectified. But the new clause itself raises questions. I understand why what I would perhaps regard as an omission from the new clause was made. There is no appeal to the House of Lords. As I
    614
    understand it, that is because the House of Lords cannot necessarily guarantee a quick appeal. I cannot believe that such an appeal would arise in many cases. Perhaps we would not be inundated with applications for leave to appeal to another place, with all the resultant problems. However, I understand the reasoning behind this.
    I thought to some extent that the Solicitor-General gave part of the answer. He said that where there was a proposal for an application to be made to hear something in camera, it was hoped that that would be decided by the prosecution early, and well before the date for the trial to begin. One would hope that the same thing might be said about applications for the orders that we are discussing.
    One would hope that the prosecution would consider whether it was going to apply for an order. Normally an application would come from the prosecution. If an application is to come from the defence, it is not unreasonable to hope that defence lawyers would direct their minds to that question well before the trial opens. If that happens, an application could be dealt with on directions, and whatever appeals were required could take place and the whole matter could be settled before the trial opened. I am not sure whether I understood what the Solicitor-General said would happen if for some reason that could not be done, or someone had not considered an application. One consequence of this proposal is that the Crown prosecution service would need the manpower and resources to carry out this function.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that until the Crown prosecution service achieves the right degree of professional standards, by employing legally qualified people in Crown courts, there is no hope that people who do not have the degree of knowledge required in these matters will ever get round to doing what he has suggested?
    Mr. Archer: I must not embark on too long a disquisition on the Crown prosecution service. But I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. Some day we may have the opportunity of a somewhat more extended debate on the CPS.
    I hope that the Solicitor-General will elaborate on one point which he made, as I did not completely grasp what he said. I am sure that that is my fault, not his. I am not sure whether he said that it would not follow automatically that, because one of the orders was made, there would be an adjournment of the main proceedings until the appeal had been resolved. That is a little surprising.
    I confess that when I first read new clause 71 I had not grasped the need to write something like that into it. But if there is a question whether an order has been lawfully and properly made, to proceed with the trial before that question has been resolved would destroy the whole point of raising it. There is no point in the media reporting proceedings five or six days after they have taken place. I understood the Solicitor-General to say that there will be discretion as to whether or not to proceed. I hope that it will usually be exercised in favour of open proceedings; otherwise, reporting opportunities could be totally destroyed.
    I understand all the disadvantages of adjourning criminal proceedings. Any hon. Member who has been involved in them will know of the problems that arise when a date has been fixed and reserved by counsel, solicitors

    615
    and experts, and for which witnesses have been subpoenaed—and others may have postponed holidays —and someone then applies for an adjournment. But it could be equally serious if the trial proceeded before matters were resolved; and I hope that appeals will be resolved early by the Court of Appeal. A problem could arise in relation to the House of Lords, and I understand the Solicitor-General's difficulties in that respect, all though I am not sure they would be as great in practice as he foresees.
    The Government have responded to our representations and have obviously given them considerable thought. It would he churlish of me if I were to do other than to thank the Solicitor-General for his comments and actions. Over a period we shall see how this provision works, and, having done so, it may be that we will reassess them later.
    Mr. Greville Janner: I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and will add only two points. First, I am concerned about the time element. I understood the Solicitor-General to say that seven days would be allowed in which to lodge an appeal. What will happen to the trial meanwhile, after the appeal is lodged and before it is heard? Will there be a break in the trial, and will the jury be left to go home? Will the accused be left with misery hanging over his or her head in the knowledge that, as an accused person, he or she is presumed to be innocent?
    One of the greatest of trials in all trials is waiting for a verdict and for the end of the suspense. I cannot understand why a seven-day period should be allowed. The appeal should be heard within 24 hours at the very most, if not immediately. There should preferably be no suspension of the trial and immediate access to the Court of Appeal—if necessary before that court's normal proceedings begin or immediately afterwards, or a special court should be convened for the purpose. The delay allowed cannot work in practice.
    Secondly, I have for many years been concerned with the agonies of innocent people who are tried and eventually found to be innocent but who meanwhile suffer hell on earth and find, especially if they are otherwise respectable people, that their lives have collapsed into ruins around them. I have dealt in particular with hundreds of cases involving alleged shoplifters, some 50 per cent. of whom, having been charged with that offence and pleaded not guilty, have been acquitted.
    For many of them, the greatest misery lies in the reporting of the proceedings. It is essential that our courts should be open to the press, but it is essential also that the press should exercise their reporting rights with discretion and occasionally with compassion. There is no way in which discretion and compassion can be imposed upon the media, nor am I seeking to find such an impossible route. Nevertheless, I impress upon the House, and through it the press, the need to act with kindness, care and sensitivity and not, as happens, alas, on many occasions, deliberately keep open or reopen wounds in cases where people have slipped from the path we would have chosen for them.
    New clause I is necessary for the freedom of the press, but it contains inherent difficulties. I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure the House that the question of the time limit will be dealt with in another place, where
    616
    it may be reconsidered, or in this House, if necessary by taking action to ensure that the workings of the clause are efficient and fair.
    Mr. Bermingham: I regret missing the first few minutes of the Solicitor-General's remarks. The two points I wish to raise stem from the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), with whom I take issue.
    Mr. Janner: As usual.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Bermingham: If there is to be a delay before the appeal can be heard, the trial must obviously be stayed for practical purposes. If an order has been refused, the damage can be done in the period before the hearing of the appeal against that refusal, and it is that damage that we seek to limit. The Solicitor-General well knows that a considerable number of cases occur annually—although that number may vary from year to year—where publicity can have the most damning effect on the parties involved. Such publicity may even relate to trials which have yet to begin and to related matters of that kind. Therefore, it is clear that the trial itself needs to be stayed until such time as the appeal against either the refusal or the granting of an order has been heard.
    An appeal could be heard in less than seven days, but practical experience from both sides of the fence suggests that to proceed within 24 hours is likely to be impracticable, bearing in mind that it is usually solicitors who will have to draw up most of the paperwork. Solicitors are often misunderstood by the Bar with regard to the amount of work that is necessary in such cases. Solicitors must be given proper time in which to draft the grounds of an appeal and complete all the necessary paperwork.
    A court of appeal will take both oral and written evidence. I shall return to the words "in writing" later, because they concern me. Evidence will have to be gathered by both parties to the appeal, but much as the will is often there to proceed expeditiously, sheer practical common sense tells me that one day is not enough time in which to marshal the arguments and witnesses required, though perhaps it could be done in four or five working days. It may be that the party who seeks to appeal against an order made on a Friday will have a racing advantage in having the Saturday and Sunday to get on with matters, because the proceedings will naturally be stayed over the weekend.
    I ask the Solicitor-General carefully to reconsider those aspects and the practicalities involved. If he is minded to alter the time limit, I hope he will bear in mind that those who have to prepare the paperwork need to be given reasonable time in which to do so. They need also an opportunity to locate and procure their witnesses.
    I turn to the question of the witnesses themselves. In a contested matter, written evidence is extremely difficult 10 cross-examine, and it may often lead the court into a misunderstanding about the nature of certain matters. I am very much against appeals being heard by way of affidavits. If the written evidence of affidavit is withdrawn, the other side is given the opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. How on earth is one to know what questions to pose to a witness whose evidence is only in writing?

    617
    Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be kind enough carefully to reconsider his thoughts on "in writing"—at least, they were in the draftsman's mind—for one would hate to see develop a practice whereby the arguments made by one side or the other in such appeals degenerated into a circus-like operation of standard written letters. That is something that we have seen in the past. One tends to have the same sort of evidence time after time and, if there is no right to challenge, that can create a dangerous precedent.
    I end, as I began, with a plea that any time given should be reasonable so that those who prepare the work have time in which to do it efficiently and expeditiously.
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his welcome for the new clause and the amendments. He rightly mentioned the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, and we are grateful to it for its constructive criticism and ideas. It has had to live with the problem as it has developed over the years and it is common ground that it has developed rather more than we anticipated when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I served on the Committee which considered the Contempt of Court Act 1981. May I also mention the constructive attitude of Mr. Tim Crook, who has been closely involved in the matter?
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether the terms of the order were recorded and whether any central record was kept of the number of occasions on which orders of this nature were made. The terms of the orders are recorded but, as I said in Committee, there is not a central record, and until we become more computerised it will be understood that it would not only be costly but administratively burdensome, if not prohibitive, to try to keep a central record.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman urged that, through judicial conferences or other methods, steps should be taken to encourage consistency in the way that the powers under the Act and the common law powers should be used. That is a matter for the judge, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that it will be open to the Court of Appeal under its new powers to give guidance through guideline cases, if it thinks it appropriate, as it does in other criminal matters. It will also be open to the Judicial Studies Board, through the conferences at Roehampton and elsewhere, to give guidance and to encourage consistency. That is a matter for the judges——
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: As a non-lawyer, I am somewhat hesitant to intervene, but, as I understand it, if there are restriction orders on reporting cases in the magistrates court, the appeal there goes to the divisional court. Here we are dealing with the Crown court and the appeal goes to the Court of Appeal. How does the Solicitor-General intend to ensure consistency there? A case could start in the magistrates court and one decision could be made there, and a later, different decision could be made when the case reached the Crown court.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the answer is that the president of the divisional court is the Lord Chief Justice and he has a close control over the Court of Appeal, criminal division. We are dealing with High Court judges who frequently move from one division to the other and they will all come together in their interests through the
    618
    Judicial Studies Board. Therefore, the opportunities for consistency at a high level present no difficulties. I hope that that is of comfort.
    We fully understand the importance to the press of the ability to report contemporaneously, but equally, when one comes to deal with the matter of principle, a balance needs to be struck. That balance was rightly referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) who pointed out the hardship that is caused to a defendant in a criminal case by delay. There is also the public interest in the administration of criminal justice which does not brook delay without an overwhelming reason. Consequently, it would be wrong to think that there should be an adjournment in every case.
    Although the ability to report contemporaneously is understood, the fundamental right that we wish to protect is the ability to report at all when an order has been given in a case where the Court of Appeal subsequently decides that it should not have been given and where currently many would argue that an order was misplaced. Consequently, it must be a matter for the courts, in weighing the circumstances of the individual cases, to decide whether there should be an adjournment.
    Before I forget, I want to make a point in relation to my opening speech. When we were drawing up the new clause we made a drafting amendment which caused us to drop a technical point that was mentioned in a previous subsection (3). For the benefit of those who may read my speech in Hansard,it should be known that I referred to some subsections incorrectly. I draw attention to that to avoid confusion.
    Mr. Archer: Before the Solicitor-General leaves the problem of the dilemma of whether to adjourn, does he agree that that dilemma could frequently be avoided with adequate foresight on the part of those who want to make the application? Will he emphasise that?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, I agree with that.
    I thought that I detected the thrust of spurs into hobby horses when the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to the Crown prosecution service. The service has had its problems, and still does, but they are being overcome in a way that I think is widely recognised in the courts. It will well understand the importance of seeking to make applications early, and will have that very much in mind.
    We discussed the matter of time limits. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, East must leave shortly. I can see the good sense in seeking to appeal within 24 hours, but the hon. Member for St. Helens, South rightly pointed out the practical difficulties of making it a requirement. There is no problem from the point of view of the legislation, because the time limit will be dealt with by rules of court, so there is an opportunity to listen to and consider the points made in the debate. However, seven days is more realistic than 24 hours as a matter of rule, although 24 hours would be desirable as a matter of practice wherever it is possible.
    Mr. Bermingham: Will the Solicitor-General undertake to bear in mind the point that I made about the dangers of written evidence?
    The Solicitor-General: If I understood the hon. Gentleman's point aright, he was anxious about written evidence being forced upon people or used generally. The

    619
    opportunity to introduce written evidence must be an advantage. The requirement to do so is limited. The only case where there is no option but to make a written submission is in the special category of case, perhaps one involving high security, where obviously the appellant cannot be apprised of the reason or the purpose of holding it in camera would be overborne. But that is not so much a matter of evidence as of submission. However, I shall certainly draw his point to the attention of those involved. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 72

    TORTURE
    '(1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.
    (2) A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if—

    (a) in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence—

    (i) of a public official; or

    (ii) of a person acting in an official capacity; and

    (b) the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it.

    (3) It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.
    (4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.
    (5) For the purposes of this section "lawful authority, justification or excuse" means—

    (a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom where it was inflicted;

    (b) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside the United Kingdom-—

    (i) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law;

    (ii) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and

    (iii) in any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the place where it was inflicted.

    (6) A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.'. —[Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.30 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will he convenient to take Government new clauses 73 to 76 and Government amendments Nos. 12 to 19.
    Mr. Patten: The new clauses and amendments, which I believe are welcome to the Opposition, create a new offence of torture. They provide that a public official or someone acting in an official capacity—or acting with the consent or acquiescence of an official or such person—commits an offence of torture if he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering in the performance or purported performance of his official duties. "Pain or suffering" for the purposes of the new clauses and amendments includes both physical and mental pain or suffering.
    The offence is committed whether the pain or suffering is inflicted in or outside the United Kingdom. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Proceedings can be taken with the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. That of course is not necessary in Scotland, where procurators fiscal undertake prosecutions on behalf of the Lord Advocate. Alternatively, the person can be extradited to be tried or, if already convicted, punished abroad.
    The new clauses and amendments will enable the Government to ratify the United Nations convention on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1984. The Government have been looking for some time for an opportunity to implement the convention. We did not originally intend to do it in this Bill, but the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)—on whose head compliments have been raining this afternoon—spotted an opportunity in it, and suggested a series of amendments giving effect to the convention. He spoke to them in Committee, and they were welcomed then. We were delighted to find that we could move forward on a sound and firm basis of all-party support. The new clauses and amendments give effect to the commitment that I gave the Committee to consider the matter further, and to table proposals on Report.
    I must make it clear to Opposition Members that neither the convention nor the new clauses and amendments will operate retrospectively. They will apply only to offences committed two months after Royal Assent. The purpose of our accession to the convention is not to instigate a sort of retrospective witch-hunt against those alleged to have committed torture in the past, and the new clauses and amendments would not make such a witch-hunt possible.
    I remind the House that, as many are aware, 1988 is the 40th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, and it is fitting that we should try to mark that anniversary by ratifying the UN convention on torture. If the House accepts the new clause and the Bill completes its progress as we expect it to, we should be able to ratify the convention before the end of 1988.
    Mr. Archer: The Minister and I will find ourselves in disfavour with our respective Whips Offices if we exchange too many compliments this evening, but we are grateful to him for responding so generously to the suggestions that we made in Committee and fulfilling the promise that he made to us then. In fact, I rather suspect that in Committee he was fulfilling a promise that he had already made to the press. It was, I am sure, no part of his intention that the reports which appeared in the press about the Government's intentions made no reference to the fact that that was in response to an invitation from the

    621
    Opposition. But perhaps our reward will be in the hereafter. I must not be ungenerous or ungracious, because the Minister has been the reverse of that.
    Mr. John Patten: If indeed such a thing has happened, I hope that I have made it right tonight through the compliments that I have paid the right hon. and learned Gentleman in bumpers before a crowded Press Gallery.
    Mr. Archer: I at once acknowledge the handsome way in which the Minister has behaved, and his great kindness to me personally.
    This, as the House will know, is something of which I have dreamt for many years. In the early 1970s, when I was chairman of the British section of Amnesty International, Amnesty was appalled by the number of cases that we encountered of the most horrifying torture. It was performed not in a state of excitement by someone carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment, not by some minor official ignoring instructions, but as an instrument of Government policy, and it was taking place in an alarming number of countries.
    Of course, it was not usually called torture; the more squeamish countries gave it a different name. In Northern Ireland it was referred to as "interrogation procedures". The House will recall the Parker report and the minority report of Lord Gardiner, which was so compelling that it produced an immediate change in Government policy. There are, however, degrees in these matters. The context in which the events in Northern Ireland took place has unhappily been recalled by the events of yesterday and our discussions today. Certainly those "interrogation procedures" were not of the same order as some of the practices that came to light in certain countries.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that since the Bennett report, and the implementation of the reforms that Bennett suggested, the interrogation procedures conducted in Northern Ireland today are a model to most of the police forces in the world and can in no way be likened to torture?
    Mr. Archer: This is the last occasion on which I would wish to appear ungracious or fail to acknowledge the magnificent work which the RUC normally carries out, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me too far. There is still cause for anxiety in some cases, and if he and I cannot agree on that, this may not be the time to resolve our disagreements. In general, I agree with what he has said.
    Amnesty International decided that an essential part of achieving its purpose was to conduct a campaign for an express declaration by the international community that torture was in no circumstances an acceptable instrument of policy, however desirable or undesirable that policy might be. Amnesty set out to persuade the member states of the United Nations to draft and adopt an international convention which would make a clear declaration and which, even if it did not always have effective teeth, would at least try to ensure that torture was more difficult to conceal. That led to the United Nations convention on torture.
    As the Minister has told us, the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the convention. I accept that that is partly
    622
    because the United Kingdom does not ratify conventions lightly. It does not do so until our domestic law is in a position for us to comply, and it does not assume that the House will automatically pass that law. There is always that element of delay, whichever party is in government. That has the unfortunate effect that, unless there is a sense of urgency in all the Government Departments involved, the United Kingdom appears to be dragging its feet.
    I do not believe that ratification will make much difference to the practice in this country, for some of the reasons that the Minister has given. I hope that we shall never again see practices here which are relevant to the convention, but it may help at least to reinforce the solidarity of the international community.
    I do not wish to appear nit-picking this afternoon. The one matter on which I am a little hesitant about the Government's draftsmanship is the reference to
    "lawful authority, justification or excuse"
    for conduct that would otherwise amount to torture. There is lawful justification or authority if somebody is acting in accordance with the law of this country or the law of the country where it is taking place. By definition, we are talking about intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on another person. I cannot think offhand of any part of the law of the United Kingdom that would make such conduct lawful. If there were, I would be the first to move that we repeal it. I am not sure why that has been included. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say a little about it.
    But I think that the new clause will greatly reinforce the unanimity of the international community. I hope that the fact that the United Kingdom is taking this step will lead to a great deal of pleasure and relief from anxiety both in this country and in all countries where torture is still a live issue and where the victims, at least, will welcome the support of the caring world.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister as well as the new clause. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who has waged a campaign on this issue for many years. He must be greatly gratified that he has won his point and that the Government have introduced the new clause. I support it, but I hope that it will not be interpreted outside the House as having been placed on the statute book because it is needed in this country. It is not.
    There has been no evidence of torture in Britain. It is true that from time to time police officers and members of the security forces may, through an excess of enthusiasm, have committed actions that can be complained about. However, an excess of enthusiasm can be checked and is checked by the proper application of the disciplinary code and of the criminal law. All police officers are responsible for their deeds to the criminal law and to their disciplinary code.
    There is no evidence of any policy having been conducted by any Government at any time that would have permitted torture in this country. It ought to be made clear that the House will assent to the inclusion of my hon. Friend's new clause in the Bill because we accept that there should be consistency of practice internationally and that many other countries have introduced measures of this kind. I support the new clause because it enables the United Kingdom to stand with other nations. I do not in any way support it because I believe that Britain has a problem that needs to be dealt with by legislation.

    623
    There are hon. Members, perhaps a majority, including the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, who feel that there is a case for a Bill of Rights.
    Mr. Archer rose——
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps I do the right hon. and learned Gentleman an injustice?
    Mr. Archer: Simply for the record, may I say that I am not included among that number.
    6.45 pm
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am delighted to hear it, because I am one of those who stand with the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, in believing that a nation that needs to write a Bill of Rights into its statute law is in peril of losing its civil rights. To that extent, I slightly regret the fact that we need to state that we are opposed to torture. Had I not risen to my feet, the new clause might have suggested that we were dealing with a problem that exists in Britain. It does not exist in Britain. I welcome the new clause and support it because it allows us to take our place among the international community of nations which condemn torture whenever they can.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: On behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome the new clause. It is a tidied-up version of the new clause that was tabled in Committee by the Opposition, and we are pleased to see it on the Amendment Paper in its correct form. Therefore, it is acceptable to the Opposition.
    I associate myself with the congratulations that have been offered to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He has done a great deal of work over many years, on behalf of Amnesty International, and has ensured that the problem was constantly placed before the House. If hon. Members did not do such work, measures of this kind would not reach the statute book. My right hon. and learned Friend has made a positive contribution to our statute law.
    My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the Minister were slightly generous. The Minister was simply responding to suggestions that were made in Committee by the Opposition, particularly by my right hon. and learned Friend. As he pointed out, we read, as usual, the Minister's press release before we received his official response. Nevertheless, we have made progress.
    I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend discussed this matter without giving lurid details about various types of torture in many parts of the world. Had it been many other hon. Members, we might have had a debate that concentrated on colourful and horrific details. We should be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for showing that hard work and hard persuasion in a very good cause can lead us forward. We should pay tribute to him and recognise the work that he has done.
    The Government are making only a small degree of progress, but it is right that the Opposition should say where they stand. The new clause reinforces our solidarity with other countries and the general intention. It is a step forward and we are grateful to the Minister for introducing it, as he promised in Committee to do.
    .6.45 pm
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: At first sight, it would surprise most people to hear that we need any such addition as this new clause to our legislative armoury. The truth is that we do not. The British criminal law already punishes torture and therefore prevents torture. Because we live in a democratic society in which, under all Governments, there is the rule of law and an honourable police force, it is almost impossible in our recent history to discover any case of torture. However, it is not superfluous to introduce this measure, particularly on the 40th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. This country, and particularly this Government, are in the forefront of international activity to try to create greater respect worldwide for human rights.
    Whenever the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs goes abroad—I speak from experience as a member of the Committee—it always asks for a brief from Amnesty International and it always raises human rights issues in any country that it visits. The unfortunate fact is that half the nations of the world practise some form or some degree of torture. It does not seem to matter whether they are signatories of the international convention on human rights. They still practise torture but they pretend that they do not. It is for a country such as Britain, which is democratic, has a free press and a high respect for the rules of international law and human decency, to press these matters as widely as it can.
    We are indebted to Amnesty International for the influence that it exerts. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was one of the founders in 1961 of the British branch of Amnesty International. It has a membership of about 44,000; worldwide it has a membership of 1,750,000. During the past two years, Amnesty International has doubled its membership in Britain. It has called consistently for the kind of measure that the Govenment are introducing into this Bill.
    Therefore, it is also a tribute to Amnesty International and the wonderful work that it does that this Government, who of all Governments might have thought that it was superfluous for us to be expected to introduce such a measure into our law, have taken the lead of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and introduced it into our law. It is a signal to the rest of the world that we in Britain mean business in human rights and that we will go on trying to ensure that torture, wherever it exists throughout the world, in any country over which we have any influence, is eliminated. Because it is a good thing, and because there is nothing bad that one can say about the step that the Government are taking, I, and I expect all hon. Members, enthusiastically welcome the new clause.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I intend to emulate the brevity of the speeches that we have heard in the debate. I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the contribution of Amnesty International, recognising the assiduity with which it briefs hon. Members and the care with which it ensures that these matters are kept high in our consideration.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think I am being churlish if I challenge him on his assertion that there is such a thing as the British criminal law. Of course there is the English criminal law, of which he is an

    625
    eloquent exponent, and there is the Scottish criminal law, derived from an entirely different source, which shares certain characteristics with the Anglo-Saxon system, but which is by no means precisely the same. It now appears that some of the things that we have taken for granted are being adopted as a matter of novelty into the English system.
    My principal purpose in intervening is to associate myself with the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about subsection (4). Like him, I am exercised by the idea that there can be a defence to the crime of torture. Like him, I am concerned at the notion that there might be circumstances in which the infliction of torture could be regarded as being carried out with lawful authority, in circumstances which could be described as a justification or in circumstances for which there could be an excuse.
    My concern is, first, at the notion that there needs to be a defence at all, and, secondly, at the particular elements of that defence, which appear to be available as alternatives—if I read the contents of subsection (5) correctly. The Minister should deal with those matters when he responds to the debate, because, for some of us at least, there are still some apprehensions as to precisely why the defence is necessary and in what circumstances the Minister conceives that the defence might legitimately be prayed in aid.
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am sorry that I cannot join in the general rush to welcome the new clause. One is bound to ask certain questions about it. For example, why, never before in the whole of our legal history, has it been necessary to make torture a crime in the law of this country? There is a very good reason why we have not yet had to do that. Normally, in this country, the acts or omissions which constitute what others would call torture are criminal, and people who conduct themselves in such a way as to come within that category are proceeded against, and have been since time immemorial. So why on earth are we now saying that we must have a separate offence of torture?
    When the Minister has finished his conversation with his PPS and can pay attention to what I am saying, I should like to ask him what part of our law at the moment does not cover the evidence, facts and misconduct which new clause 72 is intended to cover.
    Mr. Lawrence: That is not the point.
    Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. and learned Friend says that that is not the point, but so much bad law is enacted out of a genuine attachment to abstract principles of justice, humanity and human rights that very often the point of view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend covers more than it should cover. My objection is that we should not legislate so broadly. We should consider much more carefully, not only the principle of the crime as defined, but all the ramifications included in the new clause.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend explain whether it would be possible for us to ratify the United Nations convention on torture and other degrading and inhuman acts without the new clause?
    Mr. Stanbrook: That is the substance of the question that I addressed to my hon. Friend the Minister. What is
    626
    there in the convention that we could not ratify, even without incorporating the terms of the convention, or something similar to it, into our domestic law? Most of the offences covered by the new clause would constitute crimes under our existing law. That is why some United Nations and other multinational conventions that Britain has ratified have not required specific legislation in this country to enable us to do so.
    Mr. David Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered the vast number of instances where no physical harm is caused but where something cruel or degrading, or where an omission to do something, has put someone in fear? I know that he is a lawyer. Can he think of any offence that could be commited under the existing law under those circumstances? I do not think that there is any such offence. Has he considered whether mental cruelty or torture is covered by the new clause? That is not a positive offence. It is not an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which I know he has in mind. It is covered by the new clause, and it would be torture.
    Mr. Stanbrook: With great respect to my hon. Friend and to our mutual profession, he is suffering from the idea that imprecise language will help us attain our objective. The very words "mental cruelty" are capable of many definitions and could apply to many different examples of behaviour. Not every individual case of mental cruelty that we meet in the divorce courts would constitute a crime, still less a crime capable of being punished by a life sentence of imprisonment, or capable of extradition, on proof of mental cruelty such as is established in divorce courts, for example. Should we go to that extent?
    Mr. Ashby: No.
    Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend says no, and I entirely agree with him. That is just why we must be careful. In new clause 72 the definition of torture applies
    "whether the pain and suffering is physical or mental".
    That must cover a multitude of actions by individuals. Although we know precisely what we are talking about in individual cases, many of us would agree that this is nowhere near what we would consider to be serious torture such as we have now decided to embody in this formidable legislation at the behest of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and some of his hon. Friends. We are being led astray.
    7 pm
    Another example of the undesirability of tackling this problem in this way is new clause 74, which provides that we shall extradite someone to any country that has ratified this convention, whatever that country's laws and whatever its justification, based on the facts of the case. Some countries regard an offence against humanity as serious. We all agree that such offences sound serious and would justify the most serious punishment, but the notion is so ill-defined that it would be quite wrong for us to extradite a British citizen to face trial in any of the countries that operate a law such as this, which is so ill-defined and vague that it is almost a catch-all provision for any conduct of which the country disapproves.
    We all agree that torture is, or should be, criminal, but when it comes to defining or changing our law to embrace that principle in the way that is proposed here, we create great problems for ourselves.
    Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend's argument is that everything in the new clause is already covered by the criminal law, of which he is an eminent practitioner, while I am a layman. However, would torture of the sensory deprivation sort be covered by our present law?
    Mr. Stanbrook: I correct my hon. Friend. I did not say what he has alleged. I asked whether the new clause covered anything new. That is precisely what I asked the Minister, who is the one who can answer the question.
    We rush too quickly into adopting great declarations of principle. Ours is the country that least needs to force upon itself provisions about human rights such as this. For centuries this country of ours has led the world in the protection of human rights. The funny thing is that we are so anxious to live up to our standards—we cannot be blamed for this—that we adopt these grand declarations even when they are not necessary.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said that, although the new clause did not apply to us, we should make it apply, for reasons of solidarity and the desirability of aligning ourselves with other states, to emphasise to them the importance of outlawing this offence. But the countries that need some sort of protection of human rights and against torture are the very ones that are the first to ratify declarations such as these, which is the nub of the problem. We shall achieve nothing, except to exhort other countries, by ratifying conventions of this kind. We can well do without instituting them in our domestic law ——
    Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that I said that one powerful argument for what we are doing —we are grateful to the Government for this—is that it will enable us to add our voice to what I hope will soon be international unanimity on this subject. I should not want it to be thought that the Opposition concede that there never has been any act in this country that would have been prosecuted under these provisions—or that there never could be. I make no such concession.
    Mr. Stanbrook: I am glad to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but it does not remove the basic objection to the new clause. This is one of those declarations of principle that are adopted "pour encourager les autres," and we do not need it. I accept that international solidarity in matters of this sort is desirable, but we must not mislead ourselves into thinking that by adopting this we show that our citizens need it, or that the mere ratification of this international convention by any other country will change its policies or give greater protection to its citizens. The countries that most need protection of human rights are those that have signed, or are rushing to sign, the convention. Other countries such as ours, that like to live up to standards such as these, have already done just that in the past.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Conservative Members are rather complacent to suggest that the ratification of this measure is only a matter of form to fit in with United Nations provisions, rather than something that we require to protect human rights in this country. New clause 72(3) provides:
    "It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental".
    That means that when the courts come to act on this provision, a great deal of evidence that is relevant to mental and physical torture will start to be taken into
    628
    account. It is quite possible then that the evidence that is produced and the general climate of opinion among social experts and others will begin to affect the nature of the judgments that the courts make.
    That is a defensive position and it ties in well with the experiences that have led the United Nations to draw up this convention. It was not just plucked out of thin air or from the worst experiences of the worst tyrannies. It deals with a problem that exists across the world, even within democratic societies—the more so as society becomes more complex and the methods used to torture people become more complex and specialised. So defences begin to be needed.
    I recognise that this is still perceived as the ratification of the 1984 United Nations convention. That was adopted in December 1984, and although I welcome its inclusion in the new clause—that is the result of the views that the Labour party expressed in Committee, to which the Government have responded—the Minister should explain the delay involved. Why was not special legislation introduced at an earlier stage?
    It has been said that lawful torture is still permitted. Article 1 of the convention states that it does not include
    "pain or suffering arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".
    New clause 72(4) merely elaborates that provision. However, without laws being passed to encourage torture, we should fear actions or practices that might lead to mental cruelty. I am not a solid and committed advocate of a Bill of Rights, but if we had legislation such as the convention for when pressures and difficulties arise we would have another measure to check our actions.
    I should like the Minister to say why there is no retrospective element in the new clause. There were provisions in the Housing Bill, which we discussed at length, relating to consultation with housing action trusts, which could be regarded as being retrospective in character, although there is some dispute about its nature.
    Mr. Ashby: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the new clause should be retrospective. Is he suggesting that somebody should be locked up for life for an offence that did not exist at the time when he committed it? That goes against every idea of civil rights.
    Mr. Barnes: The convention was adopted in 1984. Many hon. Members claimed that it is unnecessary in this country because everything in the garden is lovely. A law that allows us to delve into the past and deal with unjust and unreasonable matters may be worthy of consideration. I am not putting that forward as an amendment or suggesting definite change, but I should like the Minister to give his reaction to that suggestion.
    Article 10 of the convention states:
    "Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment."
    Many other articles refer to similar provisions. We are introducing a measure that the courts are expected to take into account, but at the same time we must ensure that the conditions that lead to those court cases being brought are not operating in society. Do the Government intend to introduce back-up provisions?

    629
    New clause 73 requires the consent of the Attorney-General the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland before the instigation of cases. Does that fit in with the convention, which allows for procedures whereby people can more freely use the courts to challenge the use of mental and physical torture against them?
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I welcome the new clause. That makes it an all-party welcome—at least from all the parties that were represented in Committee.
    We had an interesting debate in Committee on ratifying the convention and changing the law to enable us to do so. It is right to welcome the Government's initiative and to thank the Minister for carrying out the undertaking that he gave in Committee.
    I place on record my thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the tremendous work that he did to ensure that the new clause came before the House. I associate with those remarks the tremendous work done by Amnesty International.
    I hope that there would be a unanimous welcome for the new clause. In fairness, I can say that it has received wide-ranging support from hon. Members. We have often criticised other countries that have used torture to obtain confessions, admissions and information. I believe that it was right to condemn such acts. It has been said that we do not need this provision, but we should not be complacent. There may have been occasions when it could have been used.
    We shall be in a stronger position as a result of its being part of our criminal law, and I commend that view to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). We shall be in a stronger position to condemn acts of torture wherever they happen. If it is enshrined in our law and we ratify the convention, we shall have greater moral authority to condemn torture in other countries.
    Congratulations are due to all those who have worked hard on this subject, and I am sure that that will be a source of tremendous pleasure to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley West.
    There has been a small sub-theme to the debate, to which I do not ask the Minister to respond. We have heard that there may be no such thing as British law, but that there may be English and Scottish law. Where does that leave Wales?
    Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for his indulgence. He clearly did not expect me to speak at this stage of the debate.
    I should like to associate myself with the remarks made about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who has worked so hard for many years with Amnesty International, and who has been instrumental in the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill. It is quite a remarkable and rare achievement that hon. Members, in a single capacity, can change the law to its benefit with the consent and consensus of the whole House. My right hon. and learned Friend has joined the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who brought about changes in the abortion law in 1967, and certain other hon. Members who have managed to change the law.
    630
    I think that it is right for me to put this on the record, because he and I shared Opposition Front-Bench responsibility on Northern Ireland for three years, and his libertarian instincts and devotion to the principles of Amnesty are salutary not only for all of us but for the international movement against torture in any of its forms. I thought that I should render homage—fi may use a French phrase translated into English—n behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West.
    I am also glad to be in the House with such honourable company as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), because he and I have both spent some time on Northern Ireland affairs and on matters relating to the police. He has very strong libertarian instincts and has expressed them throughout many years in the House of Commons. One phrase in his speech that I noted and picked up was that torture does not exist in this country. That must be something for us to reflect upon in the troubled world in which we live. We see torture all around us. The IRA terrorist who was recently sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment amputated the thumbs of his kidnapped victims. That was not very far from our own shores.
    I remember the early 1960s, when the Algerian war was going on with the French settlers, and torture was used against some of the fedayeen caught by the French paratroopers. That was a distasteful experience and showed the great difficulties of bringing a colonial empire to an end.
    Europe, too, has known torture. We do not need to go further back than the last war to find refined torture used upon people in concentration camps. Whatever the outcome of the appeal of Mr. Demjanjuk in Israel, we have seen that torture is not far from our civilisation and is something that we have to cope with. When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds says that torture does not exist in this country, we should be thankful.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in his remarks about this country, would include Northern Ireland, because some of the appalling things that the IRA do there must qualify as torture.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. She would know, if she had spent, as I have, three years as a Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland, that the first thing that one learns is that when we talk of "our country" and "this country," we are referring to the United Kingdom, which, of course, includes Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.
    The IRA has a record of death that is second to none, and all hon. Members have used the opportunities available to them to condemn that kind of degrading and inhuman treatment. Therefore, I certainly include Northern Ireland in my remarks in relation to torture.
    The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has left the Chamber, mentioned that we do not need the concept in the clause because there are already provisions in British criminal law to deal with those who inflict torture or degrading punishment upon our citizens. As he also said, this is the 40th year of the universal declaration of human rights.
    Nevertheless, the fact that the Government have decided to adopt the terms of the convention into our law has a great deal of significance not only for us but for the

    631
    rest of Europe and the world. We still like to think of ourselves as leaders in certain areas, such as the humanitarian and liberal spheres. The fact that we are taking this issue of the convention seriously and placing it on our statute book is a sign to the rest of the world that we in this country, and certainly in the House of Commons, condemn torture in all forms and manifestations.
    We are, nevertheless, as I said, in a world where torture still exists and there have been allegations of torture within certain member states of the Council of Europe. It is a great democratic principle that we should not only recognise that torture exists in other countries, but use our moral authority to bring pressure to bear upon those countries to aspire to the very high standards of our country.
    I often think of the individual victim of torture—who may be in some solitary cell in a country in the near east. Who wonders what will happen to him, who is listening to his tiny voice, feels for him and is prepared to do something for him? The fact that the House is prepared to enact this clause is a message to those in authority, those who have power over others, those who inflict torture, that, as far as this country is concerned, they cannot and will not get away with it; that we shall use all the pressure that we can bring to bear to ensure that human rights are upheld in other countries.
    There is also the European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, under the Privileges and Immunities Order 1988. This applies to all 21 member countries of the Council of Europe and requires seven ratifications. It has so far been ratified by Turkey in February 1988 and Ireland and Malta in March 1988. That committee has created the most sophisticated surveillance system for the prevention of torture. It is a committee of independent experts on human rights, and, when the convention has been ratified by all countries, it will be empowered to visit at any time any place of civil or military detention. The committee will also he able to make recommendations to the competent authorities. Therefore, by ratifying both the European convention and the United Nations convention, Her Majesty's Government are tonight showing their commitment to outlawing torture.
    It is not for me to delay the House unduly by referring to the history of the European convention on human rights, which began with the Council of Europe in 1953 and entered into force in that year. It secured from member states commitments to promote human rights and recognise that individuals had rights under international law. Subsequently, it was realised that there ought to be preventive, non-judicial machinery related to the European convention.
    Article 3 of the convention states:
    "no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
    The committee was constituted as a result of that article, for the purpose of rooting out torture and bringing pressure to bear. We have therefore come into line with the United Nations convention and the European convention.
    It is important that the treatment of torture in law keeps pace with technological advances, which can mean severe psychological suffering without any physical signs.
    Turkey was the first country to ratify the convention. It is essential that the United Kingdom should play an active
    632
    role in relation to the convention to ensure that, in practice, the committee lives up to the original intentions of the Council of Europe.
    I understand that the Organisation of American States is interested in a convention similar to the European convention, or would be interested in adopting the United Nations convention. Opposition Members are often critical of events in Central America, and certainly Latin America, where there have been many gruelling examples of torture, over which we have had no real influence and have no real control. If the House, by accepting the new clause and getting it on to the statute book, can assist Latin American countries to deal with torture in their own countries, that will be an important and significant step forward.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. John Patten: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who has spoken so lucidly. I understand and appreciate his depth of knowledge and the care and consideration that he has given to the issues, particularly with his experience as a Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland for three years.
    I am glad that there has been a general though not complete welcome for the measure from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who spoke so generously from the Opposition Front Bench, from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), and particularly from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). Thanks to the hon. Gentleman and to the assiduous tutorials that I was given in Welsh pronunciation by the Welshman in Warrington, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), I am now able to say Ynys Môn with complete self-confidence.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) used the word "torture" when referring to Northern Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights specifically held that we were not guilty of torture. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) referred clearly to this. It was held that there had been ill-treatment. My hon. Friend made it clear that the new codes of practice have not led to any complaint being upheld.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) were concerned about the words used in the drafting. The convention refers to
    "pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".
    The words used in the clause are the words which we think best fit the translation of the convention. I gave assurances to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that we would try to import into British law the convention exactly as it stands. That is what we are trying to do by the use of those words.
    Perhaps I may give two brief examples, for the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and for the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, of where we need a "lawful authority" exemption. First, it could be argued by some, and would be argued by many, that imprisonment causes mental suffering. Undoubtedly it does cause mental suffering, but that would not mean torture in the sense intended by the convention. As a second example, a police officer might cause pain in

    633
    effecting the arrest of a dangerous or violent criminal, but that policeman or policewoman would be acting lawfully and would not be exposed to the accusation of torture. It is because we are to deal with every possibility that we have used those words to bring into effect the convention.
    Two important points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). He was rightly concerned about extradition law and new clause 74. The countries which I might refer to in shorthand as villains, to which we would not particularly wish to return our nationals, would often be countries with which we do not have treaties. I can reassure my hon. Friend that all the protections under part I, which we debated in Committee, will be available to a fugitive. After all those protections, there is always the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to return a fugitive.
    My hon. Friend also asked why we needed this whole apparatus. He wanted to know why we had to change the law. It is certainly true, as my hon. Friend said, that physical pain or suffering is generally covered by offences of assault in the English and Welsh law and also in the Scottish law. One reason why we need the legislation is the introduction of mental suffering. We also needed to have extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is not available for most offences. I remember well the remarks of my hon. Friend in Committee. He does not care much for the concept, but I can reassure him, if it is reassurance, that it is at least precedented in previous Acts, such as the Nuclear Materials (Offences) Act 1983.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised important points about education and information. I agree that these are matters of first importance should the Bill pass into law. There is no need for any further legislation on the issue. There is sufficient provision—for example, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in the codes of practice following that Act and in the prison rules—to deal with those issues. There is also the excellent training that is given to police officers and to prison staff.
    I welcome the debate that we have had. Most of all, I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West guided us in this direction in the first instance.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 73

    REQUIREMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONSENT FOR PROSECUTIONS
    `Proceedings for an offence under section [Torture] above shall not be begun—

    (a) in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General; or

    (b) in Northern Ireland, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.'.&[Mr. John Patten.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 74

    EXTRADITION UNDER I870 ACT
    '(1) Torture shall be deemed to be included in the list of extradition crimes contained in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870.
    (2) For the purposes of the Extradition Act 1870 any act or omission, wherever committed, which constitutes torture and a corresponding offence against the law of any State in the case of which the Extradition Act 1870 has been applied by an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the jurisdiction of that State.'.[Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to
    the Bill.

  New Clause 75

    EXTRADITION UNDER PART I
    `(1) Where—

    (a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Torture Convention; and

    (b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of this Act,

    Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Torture Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of this Act, but only in respect of the following offences—

    (i) torture;

    (ii) attempted torture;

    (iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, abiding or abetting torture; and

    (iv) being accessory before or after the fact to torture.

    (2) The provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

    (a) section 1(1) to (8);

    (b) sections 3 to 10 and

    (c) sections 12 to 18.

    (3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court dealing with a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.
    (4) For the purposes of the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in Council under the section as between the United Kingdom and any other State any act or omission, wherever it takes place, which constitutes—

    (a) an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

    (b) an offence against the law of that State,

    shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.
    (5) In this section "the Torture Convention" means the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1984.'. —[Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 76

    APPLICATION TO CHANNEL ISLANDS, ISLE OF MAN AND COLONIES
    `(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for extending sections [Torture] and Requirement of Attorney General's consent for prosecution above, with such modifications and exceptions as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony.
    (2) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section [Extradition under 1870 Act] above.
    (3) Sections 19 and [Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies] above shall extend to section [Extradition under Part 1] above.'.[Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 77
    APPLICATION OF GENERAL EXTRADITION

      ARRANGEMENTS TO COLONIES
      `(1) Upon the making of an Order in Council under section 2 above, the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) below shall, unless the Order otherwise provides, extend to every colony, as regards the extradition arrangements to which the Order refers, but subject—

      (a) to the modifications set out in subsections (3) to (6) below;

      (b) to any further modifications as to procedure prescribed by the law of the colony; and

      (c) to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order.

      (2) the provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

      (a) section 1(1) to (8);

      (b) sections 3 to 10;

      (c) sections 12 to 18; and

      (d) this section.

      (3) A reference to the colony shall be substituted for any reference to the United Kingdom or Great Britain.
      (4) An extradition request may be made to the governor and the governor may exercise the powers of the Secretary of State.
      (5) A reference to a consular representative recognised by the governor shall be substituted for the reference in section 4(1) above to a diplomatic representative recognised by the Secretary of State.
      (6) Any reference to a magistrate, judge or court shall be construed as a reference to such judicial authority as the law of the colony may provide.
      (7) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that in any colony specified in the Order—

      (a) the Extradition Act 1870 shall have effect with the amendments made by this Act; and

      (b) the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 shall have effect with the amendments and repeals so made.'. —[Mr. John Patten.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Patten:I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 78 and Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
      Mr. Patten: New clause 77 ensures that the substantive law contained in the Bill can have effect with appropriate modifications in a dependent territory or dependent territories generally. It thereby ensures that new extradition arrangements made by the United Kingdom can apply to a dependent territory or dependent territories. The new clause has been introduced at this stage because, after consideration, it was thought that the earlier version, clause 20, could be improved and made clearer. A number of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington caused us to check carefully that we had got the drafting exactly right.
      New clause 78 allows the ad hoc extradition procedures which are being introduced into United Kingdom law by clause 11 to be made available in the colonies by Order in Council. Its terms follow exactly the provisions of clause 11 but with some modifications so that the wording is
      636
      appropriate for the colonies. The modifications reflect those already made in new clause 77 in respect of the application of general extradition arrangements to the colonies. For example, references to the United Kingdom or Great Britain will become references to the colony or colonies, and so on.
      The two related amendments are entirely consequential on the new clauses.
      Mr. Worthington: It seems strange that at this late stage in this elderly Bill we should still be having these changes. We wonder what pressure has come from the colonies It would be useful if the Minister could remind us what the colonies are. I hope that this will be dealt with because during the hours that I have sat on this Bench I have found it extremely difficult to remember where the colonies are and to which territories the new clause may apply.
      Colonies have two characteristics. They are underdeveloped in one or more respects, which includes a deficient legal system. Frequently, colonies are disputed territories, with other states laying claim to them. I am making a probing point to find out how the Minister's new proposals will operate. Two areas which might count as colonies or dependent territories are the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. They are not seen as having full independent status. What would be the arrangements—the Minister gave cursory attention to this point—if states laying claim to those territories requested the return of their nationals? I am sure that the Minister has the answer to hand.
      In Committee, the Minister referred to the wisdom that he had received from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and said that note had been taken of it. I remember the hon. Member for Orpington having a profound objection to the word "colony", yet it is enshrined in the Bill.
      Mr. Stanbrook indicated dissent.
      Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman reveals that he does not have an objection to the word "colony". In Committee, the hon. Gentleman said—I realise that I must paraphrase and not quote directly—that the word "colony" was unfashionable and that people living in one did not like to be described as living in a colony. He said that they did not mind the description "British dependent territories" or "dependent territories". After receiving the hon. Gentleman's wisdom., the Minister undertook to ascertain whether there could be unification of the terms used in the Bill and, in particular, whether it was possible to get rid of the term "colony", if that were acceptable under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967.
      Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the inhabitants of those few remaining possessions might object to the use of "colony" —or "Crown colony", to give the correct description. Surely that does not apply in the Crown colony of Gibraltar, where the people demand the right to remain a Crown colony. The Crown colony of Montserrat will not take independence, although it has been offered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because it prefers to be a Crown colony. The Falkland Islands issue is well understood.
      Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for that intervention because it enables me to make it clear that I did not object to the term "colony" but that the hon. Member for

      637
      Orpington thought the word should be stamped out. I accept the advice of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) about the feelings of the citizenry of Gibraltar.
      I should like the Minister to explain what are the colonies and what pressure has come from them to extend the legislation, especially with regard to those areas of the globe that are disputed territories, where there may be hostility between a colony and its neighbouring states. What is the implication of a request from a neighbouring state for extradition?
      That leads me to the other imperfections in the Bill. The Opposition agree that the major imperfection is the abandonment of the prima facie rule. A fundamental principle of our system of justice—whether the English and Welsh or the Scottish system—is that a formal case should be made which is seen to have some substance, and that it should be brought before a court and deliberated upon in a judicial rather than political way before a decision is taken to extradite.
      7.45 pm
      If the Bill is passed, it is necessary only that a technically correct submission be put before the appropriate authorities. A case does not have to be made that a substantial act of illegality was committed so as to justify extradition. The Opposition are still uneasy about the prima facie rule being dropped, especially for colonies. I remain to be convinced by the Minister, but it is likely that the system of justice in a colony may not be as advanced as in this country. Our views are shared by eminent bodies such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, Justice and the Criminal Bar Association. In Committee, we frequently asked the Minister to give a much more substantial illustration of the extent to which Britain was a "problem" in sometimes being regarded as a haven for criminals. The Government have failed to do that, so we must take the opportunity presented by the new clause to ask for elaboration.
      We are profoundly uneasy, especially after the vote a few weeks ago, about the idea that it is possible for an individual to be extradited to a country that still practises capital punishment. That issue has not been put right in the new clause. I should like to register our unease about extradition from this country and from the colonies to countries that still practise capital punishment.
      Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has confused me somewhat, and I do not know whether he has confused my hon. Friends. May we have from my hon. Friend the Minister confirmation that the Government have made up their mind about dependent territories and that there is to be standardisation of terminology, in that all dependent territories are now colonies, and that that applies to the wording of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 as well as to the revised arrangements for the amended Extradition Act 1870?
      I apologise for being somewhat mischievous in this debate and in Standing Committee in referring to other species of dependent territories which might include protectorates and condominiums, which we do not have but could acquire. I am sure that it would be helpful to the state and to me if my hon. Friend were to tell us that all
      638
      the territories coming under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom are to be known henceforth as colonies, whether self-governing or not, and that the term "dependent territory" will not be used.
      Mr. Bermingham: I understand that in due course the Minister will give us a list of the colonies dealt with in new clauses 77 and 78. I shall wait with fascination to hear what, if anything, we have left. I see that the civil servants are all writing away. The Minister has his classroom pals at work. Be that as it may, new clauses 77 and 78 extend the mischief that clause 8 and others seek to achieve.
      There was considerable debate in Committee about the manner of extradition and the abandonment by the United Kingdom of the tried and tested formula of a prima facie case. In the old days, one had to produce a prima facie case to an English court before someone could be extradited. That caused a little embarrassment to Spain and other countries that could never meet our tests. The test is very simple: there is a case to answer.
      In the new European love affair that we have had over the past few years, the Government have obviously listened to new members of the Community as well as to existing members. They have obviously decided that the time has come to make it easier for countries that have a different system of jurisdiction to secure the extradition of people from the United Kingdom. Even if one uses the other system, which is inquisitorial rather than adversarial, it is still quite simple to build up and maintain a prima facie case that will secure extradition. We do not need to change the rules.
      As if that were not bad enough, new clause 78 extends what I consider to be one of the most dangerous parts of the Bill—the simplified procedure in clause 10 of the Bill as originally drafted. Clause 11 provides for special extradition arrangements. Clause 11 says:
      "Where special extradition arrangements have been made in respect of a person, extradition procedures shall be available in the case of that person, as between the United Kingdom and the foreign state with whom the arrangements have been made, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the arrangements."
      Effectively, that means that special arrangements can apply in respect of John Smith or John Doe or some other politician whom a country does not like. The country might rather like him back. He may have been naughty. He may have been in opposition, for example. A private little arrangement can be entered into with that country in respect of that one person. That stinks.
      The fact that in the Bill we are putting our names to such behaviour makes me want to ask some fundamental questions about what the Minister has been doing for the long months since we began considering the Bill. The Minister has taken on board some of the points made in Committee both by Conservative Members and by the Opposition. I do not mean to be unkind: to be fair, when he thinks about a point he sometimes sees that there is worth and merit in it, and many of the proposals made in Committee have gone into the Bill.
      It was different when it came to extradition. The Government have a theory—and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) lives by the theory—that extradition law needs to be changed because it is out of date. To be fair to the hon. Member for Orpington, he was saying that long before the Bill ever reached the House. Although, as he knows, I fundamentally disagree with

      639
      him, at one stage even I was convinced that the prime facie rule must go. In Committee I confessed the error of my ways. Between March 1987, when we first discussed the matter in Committee, and February 1988, when we discussed it again, I took time to think the matter through. My open admission that I had got it wrong is there in Hansard.
      The test is simple. If somebody comes for trial in this country, the Crown must show a case before the defence is called upon to answer. In the vast number of cases it is not very hard to meet that test. What is the difference between a foreign national in this country and an ordinary citizen of this country appearing before a British court? The same test ought to apply. That is the fundamental argument.
      I had hoped that, like me, the Minister would have thought again and perhaps had the courage, like me, to realise that he was wrong and that the Criminal Bar Association and the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, who has considerable experience in these matters, and many other eminent bodies, are right in saying that the test in any English court must be the same. The Bill and the new clauses, which extend its provisions to the long-forgotten colonies, wherever they may be, change the ground rules.
      Let us consider the simple example of two successive cases before an English court. The first is an application for extradition to Spain, whether by special procedure or ordinary method, to be heard at 10·30 am before the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate in London. Let us suppose that that case finishes at 12 midday. The case to be heard in the afternoon is a section 6(1) committal for trial at the same court. In those two cases the tests of the standard of proof required on the part of the prosecution will be different. For the first time in this country we shall be applying different fundamental tests in the same court and perhaps even on the same day. That is bad for British justice. It is an appalling precedent and I hope that the House will reject the new clauses.
      Mr. Lawrence: As a proud member of the executive of the British branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—at any rate until next Wednesday—I must protest most strongly at the implication by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) that we forget our colonies, our dependencies, or any part of the Commonwealth. We do no such thing in the House. There is very strong competition to join the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which proves that we do not forget our colonies, our dependencies or the Commonwealth.
      Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman name the colonies?
      Mr. Lawrence: I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is about to reply.
      Will my hon. Friend tell this simple soul what we are changing in the law by the new clauses? I was under the impression that section 14(1)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, applied the criminal offences jurisdiction to our dependencies. If I heard him correctly, my hon. Friend said that that was the purpose of the new clauses. I should be most grateful if he would set me right.
      Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) ought to be ashamed of himself for not being able to tell the House what colonies
      640
      we have. It is a monstrous admission, and I shall now put him right: Anguilla, Bahamas, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Virgin Islands. For the sake of completion I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that technically the South Sandwich Islands and South Georgia are now separate from the Falkland Islands. They used to be the Falkland Islands and dependencies.
      8 pm
      The Opposition Front Bench asked why it was necessary at this stage to introduce the new clause and these amendments. It is my fault. The main difficulty with clause 20, which I spotted only recently, is that the effect of section 17 of the Extradition Act 1870 was that an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act, unless it provided otherwise, applied automatically to every British possession—that is the substantive provisions of the 1870 Act with modifications and the terms of the relevant treaty as incorporated in the Order in Council. Clause 20 would enable us to extend the substantive provisions of the Bill to a colony, but it makes no corresponding provision for the incorporation of the relevant treaty into the law of the colony. Therefore, the new clause is necessary.
      The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) rightly asked about the use of the word "colony". The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) related his remarks to colonies, and I can tell him that the unfortunate person whom he saw in Bow street at 10·30 am is protected by the full rigour of all the protections built into clause 75, and ultimately by the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that if, ultimately, it all boils down to ministerial discretion, this becomes a lottery because it depends in many ways on how much pressure is brought to bear on whether that person is or is not a political refugee? Surely there should be certainty, rather than uncertainty, in the law.
      Mr. Patten: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has fully forgotten all the other provisions introduced into the Bill by clause 75. I am sure the House will want to know that "colony" is used rather than "dependent territory" because it is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 as:
      "Any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the British Islands except—

      (a) countries having fully responsible status within the Commonwealth;

      (b) territories for whose external relations a country other than the United Kingdom is responsible;

      (c) associated states",

      and there are no more associated states. All that will be beautifully crystal clear to the House when the second edition of that important and valuable volume "Stanbrook on Extradition" is published, and we are looking forward to it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 70.

      Division No. 361]

      [8.03 pm

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Allason, Rupert

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Amess, David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Amos, Alan

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Ashby, David

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Atkinson, David

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Beggs, Roy

      Lightbown, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Lilley, Peter

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Lord, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      McCrindle, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Brazier, Julian

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Mans, Keith

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Maples, John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Butterfill, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Mills, lain

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Cash, William

      Moate, Roger

      Chapman, Sydney

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Chope, Christopher

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Neubert, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Couchman, James

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Cran, James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

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

      Paice, James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Devlin, Tim

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Portillo, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Durant, Tony

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Evennett, David

      Redwood, John

      Farr, Sir John

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Favell, Tony

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Forman, Nigel

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Shersby, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Sims, Roger

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Freeman, Roger

      Speller, Tony

      Gale, Roger

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Gill, Christopher

      Squire, Robin

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Stern, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Harris, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Howard, Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

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

      Tracey, Richard

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Howells, Geraint

      Walden, George

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hunter, Andrew

      Watts, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Jack, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Jackson, Robert

      Whitney, Ray

      642

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wilshire, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. David Maclean.

      Woodcock, Mike

      Yeo, Tim

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      McCartney, Ian

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Barron, Kevin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Battle, John

      McWilliam, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Madden, Max

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Buchan, Norman

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Buckley, George J.

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Mullin, Chris

      Cousins, Jim

      Nellist, Dave

      Dewar, Donald

      Pendry, Tom

      Dixon, Don

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Prescott, John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Fisher, Mark

      Randall, Stuart

      Flynn, Paul

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Foster, Derek

      Reid, Dr John

      Fraser, John

      Short, Clare

      Fyfe, Maria

      Skinner, Dennis

      Galloway, George

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Soley, Clive

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gordon, Mildred

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wall, Pat

      Hardy, Peter

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Henderson, Doug

      Worthington, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Janner, Greville

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

      Leighton, Ron

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 78

      SPECIAL EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS—COLONIES
      `(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this section shall extend to any colony specified in the Order in the case of foreign states with whom there are no general extradition arrangements, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order.
      (2) Where arrangements have been made in respect of a person under which extradition procedures under this Part of this Act will be available as between a colony to which this section applies and a foreign state, such extraction procedures shall be available in the case of that person. as between the colony and the state with whom the arrangements have been made, subject—

      (a) to the modifications of the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) of section (Application of general extradition arrangements to colonies) above set out in subsections (3) to (6) of that section;

      (b) to any further modifications as to procedure prescribed by the law of the colony; and

      (c) to the limitationss, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the arrangements.

      3) The provisions of this Act mentioned in section (Application of general extradition arrangements to colonies) (2)(a) to (c) above shall extend to the colony so far as is necessary for the purposes of the arrangements.
      4) If the governor or the Secretary of State issues a certificate —

      643

      (a) that such arrangements have been made; and

      (b) that extradition procedures are available in the case of the person named in the certificate as between the colony and the foreign state to the extent specified in the certificate,

      it shall be conclusive evidence of all matters stated in it.'. — [Mr. John Patten.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 79

      ENFORCEMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND ORDER IN SCOTLAND
      '(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that for the purposes of any part of the law of Northern Ireland which appears to Her Majesty to correspond to this Part of this Act sections 89 to 92 above shall have effect as they have effect for the purposes of this Part subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order.
      (2) An Order in Council under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and transitional provisions as Her Majesty considers expedient.
      (3) An Order in Council under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Patten: Hon. Members, particularly those who served on the Committee, will be aware of the provisions in part VI of the Bill which enable courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime and which have been widely welcomed. We want to ensure that confiscation orders are enforceable throughout the United Kingdom, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they were made. We propose to bring forward legislation in due course to enable confiscation orders to be made and to be enforced in Northern Ireland. Clause 93 already contains a power to enable Northern Ireland orders to be enforceable in England and Wales, but we shall need an equivalent power to enable them to be enforced in Scotland, too.
      That is the simple purpose of new clause 79 and of Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55, which I commend to the House.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I thank the Minister for his helpful introduction which has answered one or two of the questions that I might otherwise have asked. However, I intervene briefly, in a fairly tentative spirit and with a touch of embarrassment because, as the Minister will recognise, I have not been involved, in even the most peripheral way, with this Bill. I regret that in a sense, because, as the House knows, we in Scotland are a little sensitive about our tangential appearances in Bills that are largely the concern of Ministries whose writ does not run north of the border. The Bill contains matters of real substance and importance which are difficult to scrutinise and do not come up in this new clause and will therefore have to remain unscrutinised.
      For example, I wish to refer—I shall do so only in passing so as not to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker— to clause 122 which deals with the detention of
      644
      young offenders in Scotland and is a major and important reform. The Minister may not be aware of the background to that, but it is a case of Ministers eating humble pie because the first Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in 1978, but failed at the general election, contained some Labour amendments very much along the lines of this clause. They were derided at the time and, when the Tories came in, they went for a different system in the Criminal Justice Bill which then reached the statute book.
      If I could, I should like to spend some time speaking about such matters, but that pleasure is denied to me and the Minister on this occasion. I cannot vouch personally for the Minister's reputation, as I have never had to deal with him in an official capacity, but his reputation suggests that there might be a wide measure of agreement and that the tone might be constructive. I hope that it does not depress him to hear that I have heard good things said about him. I am not smearing him; I am simply welcoming him to the human race so far as penal matters are concerned, and I am delighted to do so.
      New clause 79 is a rather odd clause in the sense that it refers to Northern Ireland and to the enforcement of a Northern Ireland order in Scotland. The provision applies to Scotland, but is introduced by the Home Secretary who has responsibility only for what happens in England and Wales. A little while ago I took the precaution of phoning the Scottish Office to ask for an explanation of the new clause. My call created a little confusion, although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is noted for his courtesy, came across personally with a note for me which set out in skeleton fashion the Scottish Office's understanding of the significance of the new clause. The Scottish Office is relying on the simplistic explanation that the new clause is necessary and includes enforcement provisions. The explanation does not go very much beyond that.
      We are dealing with a matter with which I am totally unfamiliar. As I understand the Minister, we are considering a possible future order which may be laid extending to Northern Ireland similar powers to the provisions in the Bill for England and Wales. It is important to stress that we are talking about the enforcement of English orders. As the Minister will know from his general background and no doubt wide-ranging interest in the subject, we do not have similar orders in Scotland.
      The history of this matter is interesting. The Scots looked long and hard at confiscation powers and decided that they did not want to go down that road, at least in the immediate future. We had a very odd piece of legislation which introduced heavy and punitive fines for drug trafficking in Scotland. I remember spending many happy hours in Committee trying to persuade Scottish Office Ministers to explain the criteria that the courts would apply when deciding what was appropriate in quantifying the fines.
      Those measures were introduced a few years ago in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 on the basis that we did not want confiscation orders in Scotland. However, fashion and populism are powerful drugs. That is an unfortunate simile when we are talking about drug trafficking. Shortly after the introduction of that Act, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 was passed which departed from fines for drug trafficking which were meant to cream off illegal profits. It introduced

      645
      straight confiscation. Again, that was specifically limited to drug trafficking. The Scottish Office was careful to say that it did not, at least at that stage, intend to follow its English counterpart by introducing confiscation with regard to serious crime generally which has happened for England and Wales in this Bill. That does not apply in Scotland.
      If the Minister is going to introduce a Northern Ireland order which the new clause will allow to be enforced in Scotland, there will be broader powers for confiscating the profits from serious crime in England and Wales. The same provision will apply in Northern Ireland, but those powers will not apply in Scotland, although there will be a specific exception for those who profit from the abhorrent trade of drug trafficking. That is a rather strange patchwork.
      I assume that the order for Northern Ireland is imminent, although it may be naive of me to say that. I suppose that the fact that this proposal has not been included in the Bill at this late stage is a fail-safe device in case it is thought appropriate in future. I presume that the order is more than a gleam in the Minister's eye. I presume that there is at least a draft on his desk and that it will be produced in the not too distant future. No doubt the Minister will be able to say a word or two about its timing and framework.
      This is apparently a single order and not a clutch of orders. My experience in Scotland is that orders come in clutches, droves and plagues under this Government. It is quite encouraging that there is only one order on this occasion.
      No doubt this may be a reflection of my naivety—perhaps that is being a little unfair on myself, rather a reflection on my inexperience of Northern Ireland affairs—but, as a refugee from the legal profession, may I say that there appears to be a rather odd exhibit here. We are told that Her Majesty—I believe that that is something of a constitutional convention—must judge what appears to correspond to this part of the Act with regard to the English confiscation powers. Presumably that will apply in terms of the aim of any Northern Ireland order.
      We are talking about an order that we have not seen which effectively allows the Executive to decide what corresponds in different provisions. I am not very clear about how loosely we are introducing this matter into Scottish law. I am not very clear about Orders in Council, but I will not ask the Minister to go into that. I am used to statutory instruments, regulations and variants of that kind. I understand that there are special considerations in Northern Ireland, and I accept that that must be so, given the present difficult circumstances.
      I took the trouble to look out the most obvious and recent parallel to this provision. It is to be found in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which applies English orders for drug trafficking in Scotland and allows them to be enforced in Scotland. The Minister will remember that the pertinent section of that Act is section 20. I presume that the general provisions in sections 20 to 23 are very similar to the provision in new clause 79 in terms of the Northern Ireland provision. I presume that new clause 79 is an exact parallel and the powers are the same.
      646
      I raised that point out of curiosity. I notice that section 20(4) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 deals with the enforcement of English orders in Scotland and states:
      "Nothing in this section enables any provision of an order which empowers a receiver to do anything in Scotland under section 11(3)(a) of this Act to have effect in the law of Scotland."
      It took me a minute or two to understand that. I went back to section 1l(3)(a), as anyone would in the circumstances. That dealt with the realisation of property and it referred me to section 9 in the Act. As so often happens, it became something of a paper chase. Section 9 deals with the
      "Charging orders in respect of land, securities etc."
      I do not expect the Minister to say anything about the "etc." However, as he seemed to assent to my proposition that the machinery for enforcement in section 20 of the 1986 Act is an exact parallel to the enforcement provisions for Scotland of English confiscation orders in this Bill, and as we are making similar arrangements for Northern Ireland in this new clause, if we have a Northern Ireland order in future, I wonder whether the Minister will say a word or two about the powers in section 11(3)(a). I should have thought that those powers would be available to the receiver under this Bill in the English provisions, but they were excluded in the 1986 Act. I hope he will tell us whether there are similar provisions in the clutch of clauses that we are considering at the moment.
      We could spend some time on this matter if we were in Committee. I recognise that we are not in Committee and it would probably be wrong to detain the House for too long on these matters. However, we need some general assurances about the likely fate of the order. We need to know when it will appear, whether it will be exact in point or whether we will stretch the matter of correspondence. We need to know more about its similarity and comparability with existing provisions in the Bill for England. We also need to know to what extent this will be a standard provision.
      8.30 pm
      I am genuinely sorry that we have not been given an opportunity to examine the merits of those provisions, because I sometimes find to my chagrin that what happens in the Home Office foreshadows what happens in Scotland. Funnily enough, we are sensitive about being used as guinea pigs in respect of such matters as the poll tax, although I certainly cannot go into that.
      Very often the opposite applies. We went for confiscation in drug trafficking largely on the ground that cross-border harmony is important, at the time when the Scottish Office specifically indicated that it would not be going down that road. At present, the Scottish Office is again stoutly maintaining that it has no immediate plans to introduce confiscation orders in the wider range of serious crime. However, the Scottish Law Commission is examining that matter and we await a report of its investigations.
      I suspect that, whatever it may come up with, we are probably committed to going down that road simply because the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office have already decided to do so. The Minister will recognise that we have more than a passing interest in the way in which this aspect is handled and its operation. We shall certainly watch for early signs of activity in the courts. I may be over-cynical, but some of the machinery appears complicated and clumsy, as are some of the concepts relating to confiscation. Also, some of the morality

      647
      involved in terms of third parties raises some difficult issues, which we have debated in another context and will continue to discuss at greater length on a future occasion. Perhaps the Minister owes the House a few more words about this minor but interesting new clause which he has produced for our inspection.
      Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) need not fear that some of the issues that he raised were not closely examined in the Standing Committee, because we had the benefit of his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who lucidly pressed home many of them. I can flatter the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, because he is not in the Chamber, but I hope that it will not do him any damage with his general management committee. He was consistently impressive in probing the Government in Committee, and I hope that he will soon be on the Labour Front Bench. I understand that it is rather the thing now to have hon. Members from Scotland on the Labour Front Bench, and I am sure that it will not be long before the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie is there. For example, the point made by the hon. Member for Garscaden about young offenders was typical of those impressively made by his hon. Friend in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden asked many pertinent questions. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 contains powers of confiscation corresponding to those enacted for England and Wales in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider what powers of confiscation should be available to Scottish Courts for offences other than drug trafficking, and the commission is currently considering that matter.
      The Northern Ireland order—if and when it passes through the House—will allow court orders to be made. We hope to lay that order before the House in the next Session. I hope that the hon. Member for Garscadden will be pleased to hear that an Order in Council made under new clause 79 will be subject to affirmative resolution. That assurance will provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to make his further comments. Without that provision there would be a real risk—which the hon. Gentleman, as a Scotsman, would not welcome—that the proceeds of crimes committed in Northern Ireland could cross what is, after all, a narrow strip of water in some places and find a haven in Scotland. That is not a situation that we could countenance with anything like equanimity.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 80

      BODY SAMPLES—NORTHERN IRELAND
      'Schedule [Body Samples—Northern Ireland] shall have effect with respect to the taking of samples from persons in Northern Ireland in connection with the investigation of offences to which it applies.'—[Mr. Stanley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 82 —Non-intimate samples (Great Britain)—
      'The same powers shall be available to police forces in England and Wales with regard to the taking of non-intimate samples as are given to the police in Northern Ireland in section (Body Samples—Northern Ireland).'.
      Government amendments Nos. 68, 69, 196 and 70.
      Mr. Stanley: The effect of the new clause and the related schedule and amendments will be to bring on to the statute book essentially the same provisions on the taking of body samples from those suspected of serious offences as have already been passed into law in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the so-called PACE.
      I start by anticipating two questions which right hon. and hon. Members will wish to raise. The first is why it is necessary to introduce these provisions through the Criminal Justice Bill rather than through the normal Northern Ireland order-making procedure; the second is why, given that we have decided to use the Criminal Justice Bill, the amendments could not have been introduced at an earlier stage in the Bill's proceedings.
      It was originally our intention to introduce the PACE provisions on body samples in the Northern Ireland draft order, in which we shall be replicating for Northern Ireland most of the PACE provisions. However, given the extensive scope and complexity of this draft order, which we shall be publishing for consultation later this year, it will not come into effect, subject to parliamentary approval, until 1989. The Criminal Justice Bill provides the possibility of bringing the statute law on the taking of body samples in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales significantly earlier than would otherwise be the case. I hope the House will agree that there should be no avoidable delays in assisting the RUC to deal with serious and violent crime.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my right hon. Friend wants no avoidable delay in assisting the RUC. However, I and others suggested several years ago during the Committee stage of what is now the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, that such powers should be given to the RUC. Does my hon. Friend not think that there has been a good deal of avoidable delay between then and now?
      Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend knows that the relevant overall legislation covered by the PACE provisions in Northern Ireland is somewhat different from that in England. We have seen the considerable process of examining the applicability of that situation in the Northern Ireland context. We shall shortly be presenting a substantial and complex order. I am not familiar with the detailed gestation over the period since the PACE legislation was passed, but I feel sure that my Department has done its utmost to press forward as quickly as possible. However, I am certain that we have this opportunity to give the RUC statutory powers that are extremely important and germane to their law enforcement responsibilities.
      The present lack of statutory provisions for the taking of body samples is proving a material handicap in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. At present the RUC can act only under the common law, and this uncertainty has tended to handicap the police in the conduct of their investigations, as well as leaving suspects uncertain as to

      649
      their rights. Furthermore, major advances in DNA profiling have become available to forensic scientists in recent years, making the ability to take body samples of even greater forensic value to the police than hitherto when dealing with violent crime, both terrorist and non-terrorist. For those reasons we have decided to take the opportunity presented by the Criminal Justice Bill to give the RUC the PACE powers to take samples and clarify the rights of those affected.
      The reason why the amendments were not introduced earlier in the proceedings on the Bill is that our PACE order has been taking longer to finalise than was expected and it is only relatively recently that it has become apparent that there is likely to be a material time advantage in bringing the body sample provisions onto the statute book through the Criminal Justice Bill rather than through our PACE order. In addition, because of the consideration that we have been giving to the boundary between intimate and non-intimate body samples, to which I shall return, it was not possible, I am afraid, to introduce these amendments until the commencement of the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill.
      Let me deal now with the detailed provisions of the amendments, the substantive element of which is essentially set out in the new schedule. With one modification, to which I shall come, the new schedule essentially reproduces for Northern Ireland the equivalent provisions on the taking of body samples in England and Wales as are found in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
      The powers to take body samples relate only to those who are suspected of being involved in serious offences. The serious offences listed in the new schedule are the same as those in the PACE Act and include murder, rape, kidnapping, sexual offences against children and various firearms and explosive offences. In addition, the powers to take body samples under this schedule will also apply to a person arrested under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, which allows the police to arrest a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
      The new schedule makes the same distinction as in the England and Wales legislation between intimate and non-intimate samples. Again, as in England and Wales, it provides that a non-intimate sample may be taken without the suspect's consent, but that an intimate sample may be taken only with the suspect's consent. With one difference, the definition of what constitutes intimate samples on the one hand, and non-intimate samples on the other, exactly follows the England and Wales legislation. The one difference is that we have included in the definition of non-intimate samples a swab taken from the suspect's mouth. A sample of saliva has also been added, because the taking of a mouth sample unavoidably results in the taking of saliva, for which a statutory basis needs, of course, to be provided.
      We are making that one difference for DNA profiling reasons. As the House knows, DNA profiling has made great strides in recent years and this progress seems certain to continue. DNA profiling is already proving of increasing forensic value to the police in providing the possibility of enabling those suspected of violent crime to be positively identified by the matching of the suspect's
      650
      DNA profile with the profile of DNA material found on the victim's body or clothes or at the scene of the crime. DNA profiling, it should be stressed, is proving of value in eliminating suspects as well as in confirming a suspect's involvement.
      The reason why a mouth swab is being added to the list of non-intimate samples in the new schedule is this. Under the England and Wales legislation, the samples that can be guaranteed to provide sufficient DNA material for profiling purposes, blood in particular, are classified as intimate, and can therefore be taken only with the suspect's consent. In England and Wales, we understand that that consent is normally forthcoming; hence the fact that this change is being made in relation to Northern Ireland only. However, in Northern Ireland, both among terrorist organisations, and increasingly among other serious non-terrorist criminals, there is an altogether more determined and more systematic attempt to conceal and to destroy material that may be of forensic value to the police.
      Relatively recently, as research on DNA profiling has progressed, it has been discovered that a mouth swab, which can be taken by rubbing the area between the lip and the gum, and without any need for the mouth, other than the lips, to be opened, will usually provide a reliable means of obtaining sufficient DNA material for profiling purposes without a need for contact with a part of the body that would generally be considered to be intimate.
      8.45 pm
      Last year in Northern Ireland 100 people were murdered and nearly 200 were made the victims of the barbaric practice of punishment shootings, with victims being shot through knees, ankles and elbows. We also had our share of other violent crimes such as rape and other forms of violence against the person. In the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, highlighted once again by the horrific murder of six soldiers yesterday, it seems to us to be entirely reasonable and necessary, in the interests of protecting the law-abiding public, to give the police powers to take a mouth swab, if necessary, without the suspect's consent.
      We shall at the same time be ensuring through the new schedule that the statutory rights of individuals from whom samples are requested are clarified, and I should like to spell these out.
      First, no sample can be taken—intimate or non-intimate—except with the authorisation of an RUC officer of the rank of superintendent or above.
      Secondly, that authorisation can be given only if the superintendent has reasonable grounds, first for suspecting the involvement of the suspect in one of the serious offences listed in the schedule, and, secondly, for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement. These authorisations by the superintendent will of course all be justiciable before the courts. Thirdly, as I have said, an intimate sample may be taken only with the suspect's consent, and then, other than a sample of urine, only by a registered medical practitioner. Fourthly, we shall be publishing and making available to the House that part of our code of practice under the PACE legislation which relates to the taking of body samples before the new provisions come into effect.
      The specific safeguards in relation to the taking of body samples will, of course, be additional to the standard safeguards already available to all arrested persons under

      651
      the existing judges' rules. For terrorists, the safeguards include statutory rights of access to legal advice and to having a family member or friend informed of the arrest. Indeed, it is the RUC's standard practice to give terrorist suspects a written notice setting out their rights.
      I hope the House will agree that it is right that the legislation in Northern Ireland on the taking of body samples should be brought into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope the House will also agree that the potential forensic importance of the very limited addition to the ability to take non-intimate samples that we are proposing for the RUC is fully justified in relation to the unique difficulties put in the way of the police in Northern Ireland in obtaining forensic evidence, and also in relation to the compelling obligation that we have to protect the public from violent criminals in what is, sadly, still much the most violent part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Just before the recess I received a letter from the Secretary of State courteously informing me of the Government's intention to table this new clause on Report, and I am grateful for that.
      The purpose behind the new clause, and the schedule involved, is one with which the House will agree. I do not think that people generally will object to the changes regarding saliva and mouth swabs which have been made specifically to meet the situation in Northern Ireland. It does not strike me as an infringement of human dignity.
      It is also particularly important in the campaign against men of violence, or indeed women of violence—whether or not they are involved in terrorism—that this weapon should be added to the forensic arsenal. We cannot rule out any legitimate scientific advance in our fight against serious crime. That is equally true in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. If they may help in finding men guilty of such outrages as we discussed earlier today, no one in his right mind should deny these methods to the police force.
      DNA profiling, as the Minister has pointed out, is an important and significant scientific development. In many ways it can be a new defence for those caught up in circumstances in which they might be found guilty but scientific evidence can result in their acquittal. This is one of the instances in which the advance of science works equally well in dealing with the wrongly accused and the person who seeks a false alibi to escape conviction. It is therefore to be welcomed.
      At the same time, I wonder to what extent the new developments in DNA profiling will make it continually necessary to seek intimate samples. I understand that nearly all DNA characteristics can be found in non-intimate samples. If so, much of what we are discussing today will, I hope, become obsolete. I also hope that it will mean more effective policing and police discovery of serious crimes. I hope that the Minister can advise the House whether he feels that DNA profiling will no longer necessitate the taking of some intimate body samples, granted that safeguards exist in the taking of such samples.
      While I support the purpose and spirit of the Minister's proposals, I fear that I cannot support his method. I felt that his reasons for introducing the proposals on Report were rather thin. It is not as though this was new material; it has been on the statute book for four or five years, and we on the mainland are well acquainted with it. I
      652
      understand the pressures from the RUC and the security forces in Northern Ireland to end the doubt and to be given such powers, but that desire existed when the Bill was first introduced. This is the second occasion on which it has been before the House. The proposal could have been included in the second Bill, if not in the first.
      When the old PACE order for Northern Ireland was being drafted, it must have been clear to the Minister that the RUC would want to accelerate the introduction of parts of that legislation into the arsenal of forensic weaponry. It seems that only four, five or six weeks ago the Government thought, "We are not going to be able to do this now. Let us shove it into the Report stage," but it could have been done earlier. Many of the points that I shall make later are essentially Committee points and could have been dealt with in Committee. Those interested for reasons of civil liberty or legal procedure—or perhaps with a straightforward interest in the fight against crime —could have had the opportunity to put their ideas to the Committee. As it is, we are in the position that we were in when dealing earlier this week with the Housing Bill. We are facing the same attitude from the Government, and the same material difficulties.
      We are not being given proper time to go through all the small print of this important item. It is a case of take it or leave it. Either we pass the new clause as it is, or we seek to vote against it. We have no opportunity to try to amend it constructively. Normally, in a matter affecting criminal justice, there is common ground on both sides of the House. Hon. Members should have the opportunity to contribute their thinking so that Ministers, even those at the Northern Ireland Office, can have second thoughts and come back on Report. This is scarcely the way to advance understanding and discussion of such important matters.
      We should not consider Northern Ireland in such a context. We return to the question: why was it necessary to introduce the proposal in this way? Again, the Minister's arguments were very thin. It is not new legislation; it has been there for a long time. We could, if necessary, have taken the new clause and amendment No. 196 out of the proposed PACE legislation and order for Northern Ireland, produced it as a separate Order in Council and sent it round to the bodies that might want to discuss it. That might not have been the best way of dealing with the matter, but it would have given interested bodies such as the Police Federation and the Bar Association an opportunity to make their observations. We could also have discussed the matter when debating the last major Bill dealing with Northern Ireland, or in the European Parliamentary Assembly in the light of United Kingdom experience.
      This casual attitude contains all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland legislation and the way in which these matters are dealt with on the Floor of the House. It is not a question of take it or leave it. People mind about that way of dealing with such questions.
      The former semi-detached Leader of the House—now the detached right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—put it eloquently when we were dealing with the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. It was the same principle with regard to Northern Ireland. New material was introduced on Report. It was important material which in that context most hon. Members would not have regarded as particularly controversial. It is important because of what we seek to achieve in the fight against the men of

      653
      violence in Northern Ireland, but again we were asked either to accept it or to reject it. That was not the right way to deal with it.
      The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, speaking in the debate on the allocation of time for the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, said:
      "Thirdly, the Bill now contains provisions for Northern Ireland that were introduced at a late stage. I would not anticipate the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) but the House knows, from its intimate concern with Northern Ireland affairs over the years, that the idea of transforming British legislation into United Kingdom legislation by making a common provision for the Province is a matter of considerable constitutional significance, which I suspect would divide the House in several directions. I shall not dwell on that this evening, except to say that one cannot introduce legislation of this character, with its implications for precedent, on some sort of side wind introduced on Report. That is not a proper use of parliamentary procedure."
      9 pm
      It is a matter of considerable constitutional significance. I shall not dwell on the matter at length, but the danger is there. A precedent was being set in that Bill. Various matters relating to Northern Ireland were being introduced on a side wind on Report. That is not the proper way to deal with matters that concern and are important to the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North referred in that debate to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).
      Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East did not wax so eloquent as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, who had cause to blaze a trail for us. Nevertheless, what he lacked in paragraphs he made up for by his succinct and direct remarks during the limited time that was available to him. He referred kindly to the speech of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North when he said:
      "We have listened to a most interesting and entertaining speech from the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He referred to the fact that the Bill was extended to Northern Ireland at the last moment, a matter which annoys Northern Ireland Members intensely. That should not become a precedent. If the Government were to pursue this course in future, time and again legislation for Northern Ireland would be introduced and we would not even know it was coming. Only a fortnight ago today, the amendment extending the Bill to Northern Ireland was tabled and it was just by chance that I happened to notice it the next morning." — [Official Report, 25 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 392–93.]
      Not all of us have the courtesy of letters from the Secretary of State informing us of changes or other proposals, but what the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East seemed to fear was the creation of a precedent. That precedent seems to have been created, from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to this Bill. We have to make sure that it goes no further. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to give to Northern Ireland Members and to other hon. Members an undertaking that such a procedure will be avoided in future.
      The deficiencies of this kind of procedure are shown by part of the Minister's speech. He said that when this provision is introduced the relevant part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act regulations dealing with it will be published at the same time. If the Minister could produce the schedule for us, he could also produce the regulations
      654
      governing the code of practice. We are arguing, debating and discussing something without knowing precisely what terms, procedures and practices are to be followed by officers of the rank of superintendent and above.
      We do not know what the rights of those who are challenged will be, or how those rights are to be protected. That is all in limbo. The House will have no opportunity to discuss matters that are of the utmost importance when powers such as these are given to the police. We ought to be able to discuss the manner in which the Government are seeking to proceed with these matters at the same time as we are giving powers to the Government and to the police.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech very closely. Would it not be passing strange if the guidance sent to the Royal Ulster Constabulary were materially to differ from that which is already available and used by the police in England and Wales? If that is the case, and if the guidance is going to be identical, as I trust it will be, what is the reason for not providing it now?
      Mr. McNamara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting so eloquently what was going to be my next point —that the code is published in Great Britain. He made the point very well. It is a serious point which needs to be answered. We have to know if there will be any differences at all.
      Having made a general point that should be made on Report, regrettably I must make what many would regard as a Committee stage point, but unfortunately this is the only stage at which we can discuss it. First, I wish to raise a question about the definition of an intimate sample. We are told that it means
      "a sample of blood, semen, or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair, or a swab taken from any of a person's bodily orifices except his mouth".
      I, and I think most hon. Members, would accept the reasons for "except his mouth."
      We would like to know how far the point that I made earlier, which arose from my immediate response to what the Minister said about DNA profiling, will apply to all those samples of an intimate nature. Will we reach a point where, for purposes of identification—there are other purposes; for example, a sample of urine to test for drunken driving—it will be sufficient to have a non-intimate sample? On a more flippant note, but still a serious point, what would be the attitude of a district judge in Port Laoise to a DNA profile for identity purposes? Perhaps that is trespassing on foreign jurisdiction.
      An intimate sample can be taken only by appropriate consent. That provision gives protection to a person who is accused. According to the schedule,
      "'appropriate consent' means—

      (a) in relation to a person who has attained the age of 17 years, the consent of that person;

      (b) in relation to a person who has not attained that age but has attained the age of 14 years; the consent of that person and his parent or guardian; and

      (c) in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 14 years, the consent of his parent or guardian".

      Under the heading, "Intimate Samples", the schedule states:
      "(9) Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—

      (a) the court, in determining—

      (i) whether to commit that person for trial; or

      (ii) whether there is a case to answer; and

      655

      (b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,

      may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person in relation to which the refusal is material."
      That seems good.
      What is "without good cause"? As I understand it, that has not been defined. Would the nature of a person's religion constitute good cause? What sort of inference would be drawn from a person's refusing to give an intimate sample of his semen because he might regard that as the sin of Onan—a mortal sin? Would it be regarded as good cause if a Christian Scientist refused to give a sample because that represented an attack on the body? I am not asking these questions flippantly. We need definitions because people's dignity is affected as much by religious attitudes to such matters as by a dislike of physical assault. The increasing use of DNA can become of the utmost importance in establishing identity.
      Section 62(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides:
      "If an intimate sample is taken from a person detained at a police station, the matters required to be recorded by subsection (7) above shall be recorded in his custody record."
      There appears to be no similar requirement for Northern Ireland, which has a different provision of which I heartily approve. Are there any real differences of substance between the procedures in Northern Ireland and those in the United Kingdom? Would the procedures within the RUC cover the matter contained in section 62(8) about custody records? I do not know; the House is entitled to know.
      I welcome the provision:
      "An intimate sample, other than a sample of urine, may only be taken from a person by a registered medical practitioner."
      That is useful and proper.
      The English legislation covering these matters refers to "serious arrestable offences". The schedule gives a list of precise offences; to a degree, they are already covered in the English legislation. Is anything in the Northern Ireland legislation not contained in the English, Scottish or Welsh legislation—or vice versa? In other words, are serious arrestable offences synonymous with the list in the schedule to the new clause?
      The answer to my final question may be an historical one. One of the serious arrestable offences in the United Kingdom is
      "incest with a girl under the age of 13".
      In Northern Ireland, the age is 14. Similarly, section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 governing the United Kingdom lays down that
      "intercourse with a girl under the age of 13"
      is such an offence. Again, in Northern Ireland, the corresponding age is 14. I take it that those are historical accidents arising from old jurisdiction.
      The new clause is too important to have been introduced in this way and tacked on as a mere appendage to a piece of English legislation. There are mechanisms for introducing similar Northern Ireland legislation, for all the failings in the way in which the House treats these mattes. A debate under such mechanisms might raise different matters for discussion. We should have had an opportunity to discuss this in far more detail in Committee.
      656
      It would be helpful if the House were told whom the Government consulted. Did they merely consult the RUC? I can understand why the RUC wants this power. Why did the Government not issue a full consultative document? Why, instead of giving weak and thin excuses, did they not tell the House earlier of their proposals so that we could have dealt with the Bill in a more workmanlike manner?
      9.15 pm
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: The effect of new clause 82 is to ensure that there is symmetry between the powers available to the police in Northern Ireland and those available to the police in England and Wales for the taking of non-intimate samples.
      Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I believe that no hon. Member could object to the application to Northern Ireland of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers and responsibilities for the taking of intimate and non-intimate samples to achieve successful prosecutions against the evil men who perpetrate terror or traffic in drugs.
      I am very much with my hon. Friend the Minister on the principal argument about which the Government are seeking to persuade the House. My criticism is not so much that the Government are asking the House to apply those powers to Northern Ireland as that when they were asked—among others by myself—when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was proceeding through the House for an inordinate length of time, the Government were not willing to do that and said that Northern Ireland was different. Apparently, at least in this respect, events in Northern Ireland over the past four or five years have not made Northern Ireland different. We shall apply the main body of the Police and. Criminal Evidence Act requirements to the Bill, which is entirely correct.
      Where I must depart from my hon. Friend is that the Bill is not simply applying the same rules that apply in England and Wales but goes a step further. He is saying, "Let us apply the Police and Criminal Evidence Act rules to intimate and non-intimate samples exactly as they are and have been in England and Wales for the past five years, but let us add one more—the ability to take the swab between the lip and gum to assist police in Northern Ireland with what is rather fancifully called DNA profiling, but which ordinary people would more easily recognise as genetic fingerprinting."
      The Minister is entirely right to say that the RUC needs to be able to take swabs. They will be of material help in dealing with terrorist and drug offences. What I cannot understand is why it is right to provide powers to the RUC but deny them to the Metropolitan police and the other police forces on this side of the water which deal with the same offences.
      If the House agrees to the Government's proposals—I hope that it will—a wanted terrorist or suspected drug trafficker could be stopped at Belfast airport and a swab taken between his lip and gum, which could establish that he is the wanted person or, just as important, eliminate him from the investigation. But once that same man gets across to Heathrow airport the Metropolitan police will not be able to take a swab between the lip and the gum.
      As I said earlier, I am very much in favour of symmetry between the powers available and the responsibilities of the police in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. It makes for consistency and greater public accountability.

      657
      It makes it easier for the public to understand what is going on if the powers of the police are the same. Parliament ought to have some very good reasons if it allows the powers and responsibilities of the Queen's police on either side of St. George's channel to be materially different.
      I have had to ask myself what can be the reason why the police service in England and Wales, and as far as I know in Scotland, is to be denied powers to deal with drug trafficking and terrorism which the RUC and the Government have concluded are imperative in Northern Ireland—so imperative that they must be imported into a Bill so that it applies to Northern Ireland not merely those matters that we have fully debated in Committee but new powers that we have not debated at all.
      I have to say in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that I do not believe that the Government are committing any grave error in importing the PACE powers into this Bill. Those powers were thoroughly discussed in the longest Committee stage that the House has ever known—indeed, they were discussed twice, because there were two Committee stages —and no sections were discussed more thoroughly than those dealing with intimate sampling.
      But one power was not discussed at all, and that is the one that is being brought in tonight for Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland alone, so that there is no opportunity to consult the people on that and no opportunity to consider whether it is relevant. I think that it is, but others may think that it is not. I believe with the hon. Gentleman that, at least on that narrow point, the Government have treated the House quite improperly.
      I am very sorry that it falls again to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office to be presenting this matter. He is one of my favourite Ministers. He has been an excellent addition to the team in Northern Ireland and has done many things there that will make him highly regarded by the police service in Northern Ireland. He is, indeed, the first Northern Ireland Minister who has brought forward these powers, which we have wanted in the RUC for many years, and I thank him for that. I regret very much that, once again, as in the case of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, he has to explain the inexplicable.
      There is no ground for these powers being provided, in the case of the swab, in Northern Ireland and denied to the Metropolitan police dealing with terrorism and drugs in precisely the same fashion. His argument is that things in Northern Ireland are very much more horrendous than those in England and Wales. That is true in respect of terrorism, but not in respect of drug trafficking. Genetic fingerprinting—DNA profiling—is just as relevant to drug trafficking as to terrorism. Therefore, the case does not stand up on that count.
      I must not trespass into private correspondence that has been exchanged, but I was told that the Home Office's reason for not including these powers for the Metropolitan police and the other police forces over here was that they did not ask for them. I immediately asked the police why they had not asked for them, and that was not their account of events at all. When I enquired of the Metropolitan Commissioner whether his men needed this power to take a swab to deal with a terrorist or drugs trafficker, four separate groups within the Metropolitan
      658
      police—special operations, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Crime), the forensic branch and one other dealing with specialist criminal cases—said unanimously that they needed these powers. But the Home Office said that they did not need them.
      I do not believe that that is right. I believe that the Government should not discriminate between the powers and responsibilities of the police in Northern Ireland and the powers and responsibilities of the police in England and Wales. The police in England and Wales need DNA profiling and power to take the swab. I cannot understand why those powers are to be provided to the RUC but denied to the police on this side of the water.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) had occasion and good reason to complain bitterly recently about the extension of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to Northern Ireland. The Government were wrong to extend that Bill to Northern Ireland on Report without giving proper notice or reasonable opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to consult their constituents. Large parts of this Bill can be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. Obviously the Government did not adequately think through the implications, for they have yet again at a late stage brought in new clause 80 to extend this important power the Northern Ireland. However, we appreciate that the Government, through the Minister of State, wrote to the leader of the Ulster Unionist group to inform us that the intention was to table the new clause which would make it apply to Northern Ireland.
      I welcome the new clause in that it would bring to the statute book in Northern Ireland essentially the same provisions for the taking of body samples of those suspected of serious crimes as have already been passed into law for England and Wales in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I note the proposal to depart from the provisions for England and Wales in only one relatively minor respect. The Minister has outlined the reasons for this so-called minor departure which will give one additional power to the RUC to assist it in genetic fingerprinting, the term more easily understood by most people.
      Our basic complaint about the Bill remains the same: that the procedure for governing Northern Irelad is still unsatisfactory. In some ways the Bill is a prime example of the unsatisfactory system of legislating for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the sections listed in clause 160 could not be applied directly to Northern Ireland along with other legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. Clause 164 lists the parts of the Bill which apply directly to Northern Ireland. Thus, our demand to have the same law-making process is strengthened.
      I welcome steps being taken to bring the statute law in Northern Ireland on the taking of body samples into line with that in England and Wales. I trust that the new powers will increase the effectiveness of the police in their investigations into serious crimes. May I record my personal sympathy and that of my constituents to the relatives of the young soldiers who were brutally murdered last night. I hope that the new powers will assist the RUC in bringing to justice at an early date those who have hitherto escaped prosecution.
      I do not intend to oppose the new clause but wish to register the desire of Ulster Unionists that legislation for

      659
      Northern Ireland should not be treated as an afterthought but included at every opportunity as part of United Kingdom legislation.
      Mr. Worthington: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who asked why police on the mainland were not allowed to use the same techniques as are to be made available in Northern Ireland. Is the Home Office unwilling to allow the police in England, Wales and Scotland to use this technique because of their stance on immigration? People from the Indian sub-continent in particular who have sought admission to this country must prove their relationship with relatives here. This technique, which would establish the relationship and prove that they could come to this country, has been denied them. Is it possible that a consequence of extending this power to the Metropolitan police is to make it more difficult for the Home Office——
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause extends powers to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir, but the issue was raised of the extension of those powers to England, Wales and Scotland. The House has been asked why it should not be possible to have these powers in this country, and I was putting forward a possible reason.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister's explanation of why the provisions in new clause 80 should be applied to Northern Ireland and were not in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been described as thin. It was unsatisfactory. The explanation seemed to be that the Government had not done their homework. We can accept that people do not do their homework at various stages, so there is a need for action later. We hope that by the time action is taken the homework has been completed.
      We are not given confidence by the fact that the measure has been slipped in at this late stage. It is of such significance that it is to be included in the title, through amendment No. 70. It appears to be an afterthought. Some of us who stayed during the night of the debate on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill objected strongly to Northern Ireland's treatment. I should have thought that Northern Ireland, with its vast problems and difficulties —of which we are very conscious today—should be dealt with by the House with more care than any other part of the United Kingdom and should be up front in terms of provisions.
      We have just passed new clause 72, on torture. Subsection (3) states:
      "It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission."
      I do not think that there is a definition of intimate searches in the 1984 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) gave one definition. On 1 March 1984, when Standing Committee E was dealing with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, the definition in clause 58 was the taking of
      "a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine, saliva or pubic hair, or a swab taken from the genital or rectal area of a person's body."
      If we are discussing such provision for Northern Ireland and the control of torture, we need to link the two.
      660
      People in senior positions who are required to act under the new clause may nevertheless be subject, in highly tense situations, to taking action that may not be entirely justified. That does not necessarily lead us to reject the new clause but it means that the matter requires a great deal of thought and investigation. It cannot be that by adding provisions relating to Northern Ireland we are simply covering something that happens to have been missed, because the effect of other provisions in the Bill on Northern Ireland also needs the most serious thought. We should at least protest strongly about the cavalier way in which Northern Ireland has been dealt with.
      Mr. William Cash: I am very interested in new clause 80. It does not seem to me that there is any reasonable justification for distinguishing what goes on in the United Kingdom as a whole from what goes on in Northern Ireland, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain why he has confined the new clause to non-intimate samples. Perhaps I have missed something, but amendment No. 196, the new schedule, deals with two different types of sample, one of which is intimate and the other of which is not. On the basis of my right hon. Friend's compelling logic, I do not see why he has distinguished between the two.
      It is important to ensure that we manage to apprehend people, bring them to trial and find them guilty, by using modern methods and techniques of surveillance and forensic science. We should therefore have the best possible means available to ensure that that happens. I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be a different regime in Northern Ireland from that in England for rape, murder and the other offences set out in the schedule. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain.
      Mr. Stanley: I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the substance of the new clause and the addition of the mouth swab to the range of non-intimate samples. He asked whether advances in DNA profiling would make the taking of intimate samples unnecessary in the future. I am advised that this may eventually prove to be the case. It is difficult to predict the likely course of research but it is certainly not so at the moment and, it is unlikely that in the near future we shall be able to rest solely on non-intimate samples.
      The hon. Gentleman will be aware that from another point of view it is desirable to retain the statutory power to take intimate samples, as such samples can be taken only with the consent of the suspect. They are taken on an entirely voluntary basis. Some individuals may prefer voluntarily to agree to give a blood sample than to be told that their only option is to give a non-intimate sample, which can be taken compulsorily. A balance must be struck, and the House may feel that it would always be desirable to retain the option of taking an intimate sample, with the caveat of the consent of the suspect being required.
      The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North, for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked why this group of amendments was being introduced into the Bill. I sought to explain that in my opening remarks. We rightly and justifiably have been reluctant to avoid breaking up the PACE leglisation for Northern Ireland if possible. All those who have been involved in the England and Wales PACE legislation will

      661
      appreciate that it was introduced as an integrated balancing package. We have with reluctance decided to separate a segment of that legislation—that relating to body samples—for the reasons I explained.
      It became apparent that with the complexity of the PACE order and the course that the Bill has taken there would be a material time advantage in getting these powers in the hands of the RUC. I hope the House will understand that with our real responsibilities for law and order and security in Northern Ireland it did not seem right to let pass the opportunity of putting these essential powers on to the statute book and into the hands of the RUC possibly a year earlier than would otherwise be the case.
      Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: The Minister has not yet addressed the basic underlying principle involved. He is saying that because of Government inefficiency the principle of democracy and consultation has been ignored. That is the point that my hon. Friends have made and I want him to deal with it.
      Mr. Stanley: That is not entirely fair, because we are not introducing legislation that is completely new. We are simply replicating legislation that has gone through a detailed and extensive process of examination in the United Kingdom Parliament. I take the hon. Lady's point that we have not been able to go through a specific consultation process in the Northern Ireland context. That is a fair point. On the other hand, this is virtually a duplication of legislation that has been the subject of extensive debate and consultation over many years, and a balance must be struck. We must ask ourselves how long it is right to deny the RUC, with its crucial law enforcement responsibilities, the powers that are available to police forces elsewhere in England and Wales.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked whether I would give an undertaking that the Government would never again proceed by adding amendments on Report to Bills such as this to apply provisions to Northern Ireland. He will not be surprised to learn that I cannot give that blanket undertaking. We have taken this course with some reluctance, as with the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge—he has already done so in his remarks and in his response to today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that we face an exceptionally serious security situation in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, it is incumbent on us to put to the House proposals that we believe are necessary to reinforce our ability and that of the RUC to deal with that serious security situation.
      Mr. McNamara: I hope that I shall not be up and down like a yo-yo. If the Minister cannot give me that undertaking, can he say that when the new clause goes to the other place, Members there will be able to see the code of practice? Can he also answer the point that I raised earlier? Will "good reason" cover religious objection?
      Mr. Stanley: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's latter point in a moment. I shall do my best to put the code of practice into a form that we can give to Members of the other House. That will depend upon the time scale of the Bill, but we shall do our best to bring that forward. It will be based on the code of practice for England and Wales
      662
      and will need some modifications to deal with the variations in Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rest his case on that.
      9.45 pm
      The hon. Gentleman's detailed point about how the courts might construe the phrase "without good cause", referred to in paragraph 7(9) of the schedule, will ultimately be a matter for the courts and they will have to interpret the legislation. I am advised that good cause could be interpreted to include religious objections or medical difficulties, but it will be for the courts to determine that. The phrase being used here is exactly the same as that used in the England and Wales legislation.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to semen being taken as an intimate sample. In practice, the only way in which a specific intimate sample is likely to be taken for DNA profiling purposes would be through a blood sample.
      The hon. Gentleman also referred to custody records. Very detailed custody records are retained under existing procedures by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and I understand that the practical procedures that have already been adopted amount to the same as those in England and Wales.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked whether for the purpose of these amendments the definition of a serious arrestable offence is the same in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales. The definitions and types of offences deemed to be covered by the amendments are exactly the same as in England and Wales, with the one exception to which I referred—the inclusion of those arrested under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 which, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, is relevant to, and necessary in, Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked for an explanation of the differences in ages in respect of sexual offences against children. I confirm that his supposition is correct and that the slight differences in ages in the schedule compared with those in England and Wales legislation relate to historical differences between Northern Ireland and England and Wales legislation.
      I turn now to new clause 82. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) for his kind comments, coupled with some notes of criticism, which I took very much in the spirit that he put them forward. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to the same point and asked why the provisions, particularly the extension of non-intimate samples to include mouth swabs, were not being followed in England and Wales by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The need for a slightly wider definition of non-intimate samples in Northern Ireland arises because of the more determined and systematic attempts made by criminals in Northern Ireland, compared with those by criminals on the mainland, to withhold and conceal evidence of forensic value to the police.
      Unwillingness to give consent for the taking of intimate samples is not something that has hitherto been put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by the police as causing particular problems in England and Wales. My hon. Friend will understand that if the police can obtain intimate samples, usually a blood sample, that will yield all the necessary material for DNA profiling to take place. I

      663
      understand that a recent study by the Home Office of 5,500 custody records did not include any instances of requests for intimate samples being refused.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary therefore did not think that he would be justified in bringing forward a proposal now for England and Wales to make mouth swabs non-intimate samples, but he is not opposed in principle to the idea of doing that. He intends to consult chief officers on whether the present classification of mouth swabs in England and Wales as intimate samples is causing difficulty. He will certainly consider the possibility of making a similar change in England and Wales at some future date.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: With respect, my right hon. Friend is not saying very much if he is saying that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not opposed to this in principle. The Cabinet collectively put forward the proposal to bring in DNA sampling in Northern Ireland. The principle must be accepted collectively by the entire Cabinet and all the Secretaries of State. Therefore, of course my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepts the principle. However, I have a simple point. A man in Northern Ireland whom the police may wish to check by DNA profiling for drug trafficking or terrorist offences may be checked at Belfast airport, but if he eludes them and arrives at Heathrow, he cannot be checked there. Where is the logic in that?
      Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has made a perfectly reasonable point about people moving from one part of the jurisdiction to another. I am sure that that point will be made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he consults the chief officers. At present my right hon. Friend does not believe that it is necessary, given the apparent ease with which intimate samples are obtained in England and Wales, which is certainly not the case in Northern Ireland, to make the small extension to mouth swabs which we feel is necessary in Northern Ireland in the definition of non-intimate samples.
      I hope that I have already explained some of the distinctions between intimate and non-intimate samples to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The basic reason for separating them is that the procedures are different. The essential difference is that a non-intimate sample can be taken without the consent of the suspect, while an intimate sample requires the suspect's consent before it can be taken. I hope that I have responded to all the points that were raised.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW BODY
      '1. The Secretary of State shall establish an Independent Review Body to advise him on the annulment, cancellation or revocation of a conviction applicable to cases currently considered by himself and by the Court of Appeal.
      2 The Independent Review Body shall consist of a legally qualified Chairman and up to 12 additional persons appointed by the Secretary of State.
      3. Membership will include a proportion of criminal lawyers but legal experience will not be regarded as the sole qualification.
      4. Casework would be distributed to a panel of up to three persons but in all cases the conclusions would be endorsed by the Review Body as a whole.
      664
      5. The Review Body would be extra-judicial but would have the widest discretion as to the procedures to be adopted in any individual case.
      6. The Independent Review Body would be supplied with the relevant facts and papers relating to a case by the Home Office and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State after either

      (a) an informal inquiry or

      (b) a full hearing with legal representation on both sides with the ability to recommend the award of legal aid in respect of representation by Counsel.'.—[Sir John Farr.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir John Farr: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (a) to the new clause, to leave out
      'currently considered by himself and by the Court of Appeal'
      and insert
      `in respect of which representations have been made to him.
      (1A) The independent review body shall determine which cases, falling within subsection 1, it shall consider after consulting the Secretary of State.'.
      Sir John Farr: New clause 2 puts into effect the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs which has never been debated. The Select Committee reported in 1982 and recommended, among other things, that an independent review body of the type described in new clause 2 should be established by the House as soon as possible.
      That Select Committee was an all-party committee and after exhaustive discussions there were no dissenting names to the recommendation. As the House has never debated its recommendation, now is a useful opportunity to do so. New clause 2 embodies exactly the recommendation made by that Select Committee in 1982.
      Some of the hon. Members who made that decision six years ago are no longer hon. Members. The Chairman of that Committee is now in another place. However, four hon. Members are still in this place and I have notified them that I will mention them today. They are my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster, North (M r. Wheeler), for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), for Reigate (M r. Gardiner)—who was a member of the Select Committee for only part of the time—and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). They shared in the unanimous recommendation, and I am sure that they may see what they can do to get the new clause on the statute book later.
      Those of us who read the report will recall that the excellent Select Committee on miscarriages of justice made two other recommendations, both of which were implemented by the Government of the day. In its deliberations the Select Committee called for the establishment of a Crown prosecution service, and we now have that. It called also for a remedy to be taken in relation to ineffective sentencing; in other words, the right of appeal against a sentence considered to be too lenient. Both recommendations have been adopted. Strangely enough, hon. Members on both sides of the House think that the most important of its recommendations was for the establishment of an independent review body, but that has not been acted upon by the Government.
      At the hub of the report's recommendations is the establishment of the review body. One might ask why that recommendation was made—it was a unanimous conclusion in 1982. The Select Committee heard a number of witnesses, including representatives of the Criminal Bar

      665
      Association, which submitted a memorandum proposing a tribunal even more elaborate than the one proposed in my new clause. The Criminal Bar Association, with its expert knowledge, proposed a tribunal with a secretariat and what one might call a full legal aid system covering all its actions.
      Sir David Napley was invited to give the Law Society's views, and he supported a form of independent panel. In his letter to the clerk of July 1982, Sir David said that on a number of occasions people had expressed to him their sense of disquiet about particular cases and had pointed out that as appellate courts, either on appeal or on reference under section 17, had refused to interfere with the verdict, they felt themselves unable to intervene. Sir David went on to comment that he had no doubt that a significant number of the injustices that occur are attributable to the studied policy of the Court of Criminal Appeal and that during his professional life he found that it was its practice to avoid holding retrials.
      Sir David Napley was not the only person strongly in favour of some form of independent tribunal. Nearly all the information I am giving the House comes from the recommendations of the Select Committee which considered this matter. Among the witnesses that the Select Committee heard in 1982 were representatives of Amnesty International and views were given on behalf of Lord Devlin, who, in his book, criticised the role of the Court of Appeal.
      Some of the decisions that have been made by the Court of Appeal in recent years, certainly since the Select Committee sat in 1982, have caused a great deal of anxiety.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]may be proceded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Alan Howarth.]
      Bill, as amended, again considered.
      Sir John Farr: A number of the decisions that have been taken by the Court of Appeal since 1982 have caused a good deal of anxiety. It has been said that the Court of Appeal has increasingly taken upon itself the role of deciding cases once and for all, which has given rise to serious criticism.
      The Select Committee, in its findings, pointed out that the Home Secretary has the power to set up independent tribunals without further legislation. Indeed, in the Confait case and the Timothy Evans case, that was done. However, since 1982 the power seems to have fallen into disuse.
      Lord Devlin, in his book and in a lecture to All Souls college, criticised the present system. He said of the Luton murder case a few years ago, that Cooper and McMahon were sent back to the Court of Appeal four times and each time the appeal was rejected by that court.
      In his book, Lord Devlin specifically argues that the Court of Appeal is no longer providing the guarantee in Britain of the right to trial by jury in cases that involve fresh evidence. Instead, as Lord Devlin said, half the evidence can be heard before one forum—the jury—and the other half, the fresh evidence that may come to light subsequently, can be heard by an entirely different forum —the Court of Appeal—many years later. Lord Devlin
      666
      went on to say that in his view that violates the principle of right to trial by jury in which it is axiomatic that one forum should hear all the evidence and assess it.
      In addition, the Court of Appeal's approach in, for instance, the Birmingham and Guildford cases and the four cases of Cooper and McMahon, appear to demand a different standard of proof from that dictated by the constitution. Instead of the prosecution having to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in the above three cases and others, it seems that the defence has had to prove the innocence of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.
      Ms. Clare Short: Surely the Cooper and McMahon case is a clear example of the malfunctioning of our ability to review miscarriages of justice. That case was referred to the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions and was constantly refused. In the end, the Home Office decided that they should be released. The matter was deeply embarrassing because everybody knew that those men were not guilty. Surely our experience of that case shows that the present system for reviewing miscarriages of justice does not work, and if it is not changed our criminal justice system will be brought into disrepute.
      Sir John Farr: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. No doubt she will be able to make her contribution later.
      Another criticism that was considered by the Select Committee related to the view that was held by many people, as expressed in the Tucker and Donovan reports some years ago, that that approach by the Court of Appeal nullifies the right to a retrial provided in the Criminal Appeals Act 1968.
      The Tucker and Donovan reports, dealing with youth trials in criminal cases and with the Court of Criminal Appeal, specify that new evidence should be put before a jury for retrial. The present approach of the Court of Appeal denies that, in that unless the Court of Appeal is satisfied of the innocence of the accused it will not quash the conviction and order a retrial. The Court of Appeal tends to demand instead that appellants as a first prerequisite convince three judges of their innocence.
      For a number of years there has been informed criticism of the Court of Appeal. Critics have included Lord Scarman and Lord Devlin. The organisation Justice for many years expressed serious disquiet at our inability to undo clear miscarriages of justice. It could be said that if we establish an independent tribunal, a proposal that new clause 2 has extracted from the Select Committee recommendations, we shall go a considerable way towards correcting miscarriages of justice.
      Sir Gerard Vaughan: It has always seemed quite wrong to me that the Home Secretary, when rejecting appeals, gives no reasons for his rejection. If the new clause were adopted and the tribunal set up, would the reasons for consideration and rejection be made public?
      Sir John Farr: That was touched on at some length during the Select Committee hearings. All the Committee's members expressed the feeling that much of the proceedings in the present system wore an unnecessary cloak of secrecy and should be much more open, giving appellants a better chance to understand why their case had failed. That is all dealt with in the Select Committee report.

      667
      In cases such as that of the Birmingham six—there has been considerable doubt about the wisdom of the Court of Appeal's decision recently—the Home Secretary has the power to initiate a review, as was done by the then Home Secretary in the Timothy Evans and Confait cases. In addition, the Home Secretary could act as my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw did. He released Cooper and McMahon after three unsuccessful references by three different Home Secretaries to the Court of Appeal. That approach, however, is not altogether satisfactory because it still leaves convicted murderers who have no right to compensation or to have their names cleared. Some of us feel that much the best thing to do is to establish the additional tribunal of inquiry as the Select Committee recommended.
      Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that what he is recommending is an additional tier within our judicial system—and, what is more, a court that would not necessarily be composed of judges or people of long judicial experience, yet would have the power to overrule all our courts, without the slightest real qualification to overrule what has served the country for at least 100 years and served it well?
      Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose expertise in legal matters we all recognise. I ask him to look at the Select Committee's recommendations in paragraph 32, on page viii. After several days of consideration, and having examined many expert witnesses, the Select Committee said:
      "We conclude by summing up the general effect of our recommendations. We would wish to see a revised procedure for the handling of alleged miscarriages of justice which would operate as follows. Petitions from convicted persons would continue to be directed to the Home Office and would be examined in the first instance by officials. If it appeared to them that new evidence, defined in the way we suggest, had emerged since the trial, the case would be referred to an independent review body whose Chairman would allocate it to one or more of its members for consideration, or submit it to a formal hearing if necessary. The review body would then advise the Home Secretary either not to intervene or to invoke the Royal Prerogative in order to remit the sentence or to set aside the conviction."
      That unanimous recommendation has never been discussed in the House. If new clause 2 were to be adopted, the establishment of this body would achieve a fairer system for dealing with legal affairs than is the case at the moment.
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: I rise to offer the Opposition's support for the new clause and to add that, if the measure is too radical for the Government, our amendment would be a fallback. We do not regard that as desirable; we should prefer the new clause to be passed into law as it stands. Nevertheless, we offer the amendment as a possible escape route if the Government regard the new clause, modest though it is, as too extreme to adopt. It is a hypothesis that the Government regard the new clause as too extreme. No reasonable person could so describe it. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, one of whose Members was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight).
      The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) has proposed a modest and, in our view, necessary change to the law. Let me explain why I regard it as a modest change.
      668
      I do not believe that it would add another tier to the judicial system. In a sense, that additional tier is there. The Home Secretary could recommend a review.
      Ms. Short: The additional tier is not really the Home Secretary, but a section of the Home Office. A number of officials review cases and make recommendations to the Home Secretary. The additional tier is inundated with files. It consists of efficient, or inefficient, civil servants who are never called upon to answer for their recommendations. The Select Committee has recommended a much more efficient and open system for conducting reviews.
      Mr. Hattersley: The theoretical tier is Home Office civil servants who prepare papers and make recommendations to the Home Secretary, on the basis of which he has to form a judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), with her special and, dare I say, inside knowledge of these events, is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that the tribunal replaces what is not essentially the established Civil Service making recommendations on these matters. I regard civil servants as wholly inappropriate for that task, not because I am suggesting that they are corrupt or partial, but because they are unqualified, and by their nature they are likely to perform the task badly.
      As I understand it, the new clause is in no way an attack on the Home Secretary's judgment or integrity. It is simply an assertion that he is incapable of carrying such a burden, and it is intolerable to ask him to carry it. Therefore, something rather more appropriate should be put in its place.
      10.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Harborough was right to say that it was not possible to move the new clause tonight without thinking about some of the occasions when a judicial review would seem or might have seemed appropriate. All hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and certainly all hon. Members who vote in the Division, will think of the Guildford bombing, the Birmingham bombing and Maguire, and will consider that on other occasions the operation of such a review system at the very least would have reduced genuine, understandable and legitimate public disquiet. The review might even have changed verdicts, certainly when it was examining verdicts which in my view were over-reliant on evidence obtained through confession of the convicted parties. Even if it were not to have that result, it would have the advantage of reducing the very genuine concern that is felt about many cases in which a miscarriage of justice is either suspected or alleged.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Is the intention behind the new clause that evidence which would not normally be admissible in the criminal courts should be considered by the tribunal?
      Mr. Hattersley: Of course. One concern is that when matters go to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal considers the case on what I will call, without wanting to be dismissive or offensive, legal technicalities. The Court of Appeal is inclined to say, or perhaps is required to say, not, "Is this man innocent or guilty?" but, "Have the regularities of the law been observed?" We are aiming for a tier—if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) cares to put it that way—or an institution, if one wants to describe it in other terms, which will not necessarily come

      669
      to an adjudication, but will consider whether the new merits of the case require a further fundamental examination, not whether previous legal technicalities have been observed.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind rose——
      Mr. Devlinrose——
      Mr. Hattersley: I can see that the hon. Gentlemen are burgeoning, but, before either of them blossom, let me make another point.
      The description that I have given of our reservations about the Court of Appeal's commitment to the technicalities is not necessarily a criticism of that tier of the law. That is its function; that is what it is supposed to do. We are not saying that it should be doing something different; we are saying that, by its nature, it is prevented from doing something different, and therefore something else has to be put in its place. We are all conscious that very senior and distinguished judges from time to time have said that the stability of the legal system—the reputation of the courts—sometimes requires avoiding admitting a mistake, even when one has occurred, rather than admitting the mistake and seeing that new justice is done. The idea of an independent body prevents that inbred feeling that the continuation of a proper reputation requires that mistakes should be overlooked rather than exposed.
      Mr. Hind: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman envisages that the Court of Appeal will still hear the case. How does he see the relationship between the independent review body and the Court of Appeal and how the Court of Appeal would consider the recommendations and examinations of the review body? What weight would it place on those deliberations?
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think of the final verdict being taken by the Court of Appeal. Were I a prudent Member, I should say that he should address his question to the hon. Member for Harborough,
      670
      but I am rash enough to give my own answer. I see the body fulfilling a function which is or is not fulfilled by the Home Secretary and his civil servants. It is the trigger mechanism that starts off the inquiry. The judicial review that follows may be formed in a number of ways. It is essentially the process by which it is determined that a new investigation should be mounted. After that, some judicial body will examine it.
      I emphasise that the Opposition want the new clause to be accepted, but we understand that for that to happen the tribunal might be involved in the examination of 2,000 or more cases a year. In the name of justice, that is a burden worth carrying by the Home Office; but if the Minister says that for some practical reason—such as that which requires the Home Office to cut down the number of civil servants dealing with immigration, but does not require the Treasury to reduce the number of civil servants dealing with minor fraud—it is not possible to deal with 2,000 cases a year, there is an amendment that prevents the Government from saying that such a practicality invalidates the entire principle. We should prefer the whole new clause to be passed, but there is a fallback position if the Government are doubtful about it.
      Sir Gerard Vaughan: The Select Committee said that there would be about 2,500 cases, but pointed out that 90 per cent. of them were routine motoring offences, and cases of that sort. Only a small number of cases would go to the new body
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not want the hon. Gentleman—still less the Minister—to believe for a moment that I am arguing that the new clause is unworkable. I am merely trying to prevent the Minister from saying that he will not accept it because it is unworkable. If that is his excuse, I hope that we have blocked it by providing a less satisfactory alternative that stops him saying that he likes the idea in principle but cannot afford it in practice. I hope that he likes it in principle and in practice and will accept the new clause in its entirety. That is what we shall support.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I am not one of those who think that a recommendation by a Select Committee must necessarily have great authority in the House—least of all a recommendation by a Select Committee that can clearly be shown not to have gone into the facts and evidence in any great depth. I am a member of a Select Committee, and I must confess from personal experience that, composed as they are of busy hon. Members who have many other things to do, Select Committees often do not go into subjects as closely as those subjects require. The Chairman generally does the work.
      I do not believe that any half dozen Members who are given a problem with which to deal and on which to report are necessarily endowed with any special authority, even of a representative kind. So my view of the apparently unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee—issued slightly before the time when I joined it—is that it will not necessarily give us any great guidance.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's theory of government—that half a dozen hon. Members do not have any particular authority. I take it that he believes that 650 do. What is the number at which authority begins to be assumed by a collection of Members of Parliament?
      Mr. Stanbrook: That is an interesting question to come from the deputy Leader of the Opposition, who should know better. Half a dozen hon. Members could easily be chosen from among the most completely unrepresentative Members of the House. They could be put on a Committee to keep them quiet, or because they will take a particular course of action. There are all sorts of reasons why hon. Members get themselves on Select Committees. That was especially true in the days before the great reform that was achieved when the Government came to power.
      Ms. Short: For what reason does the hon. Gentleman think that one hon. Member appointed as a Minister—we all have views of the way in which ministerial appointments are made and the sort of people who hold those positions—would have more authority, independence and time to review miscarriages of justice in serious detail than six members of a Select Committee?
      Mr. Stanbrook: I do not think that the way in which we select Ministers is better, more representative, more clever, more sensible or more logical. Much depends on individual preferences and the colour of their eyes or shoes. However, the collective will of the House must be expressed. It is expressed when votes are taken in the Chamber and every one of the 650 Members of Parliament has an opportunity to say what he or she thinks. Shame on those who vote according to what the Whips tell them and not according to their own consciences.
      The proof that the Home Affairs Select Committee went wildly wrong in its recommendations is contained in the first part of the new clause, which factually is quite wrong. It says:
      "The Secretary of State shall establish an Independent Review Body to advise him on the annulment, cancellation or revocation of a conviction applicable to cases currently being considered by himself and by the Court of Appeal."
      The Home Secretary does not have that power. His only power is to refer cases back to the judicial system. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Wrong."
      Ms. Short: Free pardon?
      Mr. Stanbrook: That is an entirely different dimension. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is suggesting that the Home Secretary has power to annul, cancel or revoke a conviction. He has not; he has power only to refer to the judicial system cases that he is satisfied deserve re-examination. All the blather in which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) indulged gave a misleading impression.
      The proposal is that the Home Secretary should have the right to consider a problem, have his civil servants consider it and say that the jury, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords were wrong and that for that reason the case must be reconsidered. That is quite wrong. The proposal is quite outrageous. It suggests that the system of justice that has been established in this country for at least 1,000 years is wrong and inappropriate. For hundreds of years we have followed a system by which a conviction may be reviewed by legally qualified courts in the presence of a jury to establish the truth or falsity of the evidence.
      If there is any perceived error in the verdict of the jury, which is advised and directed by the judge, we have a system of appeal. At that stage the Court of Appeal looks at the record of the whole case—and there is even provision for extra evidence—and if, in the minds of those learned gentlemen who are experienced in these matters, all of whom have probably been trial judges, there has been a miscarriage, they allow the appeal or give appropriate directions about a retrial. If it is still contended that there is a point of law, there is a right to take the matter to the House of Lords, our ultimate court of appeal.
      10.30 pm
      It is proposed in the new clause that all that should be set aside and that a so-called independent—which presumably means independent of the judicial system—review body should have powers above those of the existing judicial system and be able to set aside verdicts which have been arrived at by our present time-honoured system.
      Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend has it wrong. The Home Secretary has powers to grant a free pardon, a conditional pardon or the remission of all or part of the penalty imposed by the court. We claim in the new clause that, if he had a tribunal to advise him in the exercise of those powers, he would use them more efficiently.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I am obliged for that elucidation of the case. Of course, my hon. Friend is talking about the power to recommend the exercise of the Queen's prerogative by the Home Secretary, who is an officer of the state and who is bound by rules which have evolved over the years.
      The new clause proposes a different, separate tier within, or superior to, the judicial system, one composed not of judges with wide and long experience of the operation of the criminal law but of people who would bring to it fresh minds, apparently people who would be untrammelled by the rules of evidence. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that it was a virtue of the proposed system that they should not be lawyers or be trammelled by legal rules. Under the proposed system they would not have to bother with rules of evidence.
      Ms. Short: We are interested in justice and are concerned for people who have been wrongly convicted. We are worried by the fact that our system cannot deliver

      673
      justice to people who are wrongly convicted. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), a lawyer and member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, would not wish to mislead the House by suggesting that we are proposing powers that do not already exist.
      The Home Secretary has powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal, to refer them back to, or not to, a jury, to release people, to set up a tribunal and to release people with or without a free pardon. He exercises those powers all the time, so the hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. Although he rightly claims that our system has worked well for thousands of years, that system has evolved, has changed and has been improved over the years. We are now looking for an improvement because it is not working well.
      Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Lady is right to say that this is about justice. Over the centuries this nation has evolved a system which gets as close to justice in any individual case as it is humanly possible to get. She is saying that some people allege that certain cases were wrongly decided —that the jury made a wrong decision and that experienced judges, on looking at the whole case, thought the jury were right. Nevertheless, she says that, because there was a wrongful conviction, this system must be set wholly aside so that there may be created a new power for many people who may be laymen, so far as one knows, observing rules of their own, denying all the roots and experience of history.
      Mr. Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered that the reason for the prerogative is the straitjacket which is imposed by the judicial system? It is there in order that justice may be achieved despite the judicial system. It is really the prerogative that we are talking about. It exists but is merely a different way of achieving it.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I am not inviting my hon. Friend to interrupt me again, but is he suggesting that because the judicial system sometimes gets it wrong there must be imported into it somebody answerable not to the judicial system, not subject to the rules of evidence, but some abstract concept of justice of their own, not subject to any rule of any principles whatsoever?
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Stanbrook: I am endeavouring to make my speech and then I will sit down.
      Somebody untrammelled by all the historical devices which we have evolved to produce justice in courts will be able to upset decisions made within the existing judicial system. I am surprised that my hon. Friend, being a member of the Bar, should suggest that our legal system is not capable and should be amended and modified to meet fresh demands which are made upon it. Historically it always has been. The whole concept of equity was evolved because we were sticking too closely to legalistic notions and we had to have a new system allied to the old but within the judicial system, staffed by lawyers, who could see the equity in any problem. We have had comparatively recently in contemporary terms a judge, Lord Denning, who himself evolved the law to meet the needs of modern society and modern problems.
      Mr. Archer: I seriously want to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that there ought not to be a prerogative power, or is his complaint simply that the new clause as drafted goes beyond the prerogative power? If it is the former, apparently he wishes to take away the power which already exists.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I am not saying that there should not be a prerogative power, but I am saying that it should only be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty, subject to recommendation, by an officer of the Crown, which is the present system. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend, in trying to deal with a perceived problem, wants to import into our judicial system something which has none of the restraints or the framework which have been built in to protect other citizens against the abuse of power.
      If we provide outside our judicial system a body which can upset the decisions of all the courts below, we shall demolish the whole system and its importance. There will be no restriction on the number of people who may apply to the independent review body, once they get the chance. No one could ever be convicted in future without saying afterwards that he had the right to go to a bunch of largely laymen to set aside his conviction.
      The review body will be totally overworked. It will not work for the right reason anyway. The principle remains that if we are to have a system of justice it has to be formed on the basis of experience and qualifications, and it has to be within the established rules and the rules of evidence which apply. Certainly let us modify it, but do not let us destroy it completely.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I thought at one stage that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was going down a dangerous road. He started by saying that the House of Commons could be wrong —we could face that—and that Select Committees and Ministers could be wrong, and I thought that at any minute he would say that Prime Ministers could be wrong. The hon. Gentleman is right. I want to take the argument further and say that juries and the Court of Appeal can be wrong. We must investigate that aspect. To say that is to mean no disrespect. We are talking about relatively few cases. Home Office staff dealing with motoring and similar offences submit their recommendations to the Home Secretary. In my day, they did that through a junior Minister.
      Mr. John Patten: Could advisory committees be wrong? If so, then what?
      Mr. Rees: I am afraid that most things may well be wrong, but we are trying to make improvements. We do not have it absolutely right.
      The Court of Appeal was set up in 1907 because it was felt that the decisions of some courts were not correct. That was 81 years ago, not a thousand years ago. Even so, the judiciary felt that all was lost because the Court of Appeal was set up. It is possible to reconsider. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has made recommendations and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled an amendment to the new clause, which I do not pretend is correctly drafted.
      I support the proposal because I have operated the system and it needs improvement. We should take note when people of the eminence of Lord Devlin suggest that the procedures of the Court of Appeal, without a jury,

      675
      need to be examined. It may well be that the Home Secretary should set up an interdepartmental committee anyway to look at the workings of the Court of Appeal. That is a thought.
      I support the new clause because of a case in which I was deeply involved and which worried me, and because I am concerned about the Guildford bombing case, like another former Home Secretary, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and two former Law Lords. I cannot rest on the argument, "I am deeply concerned; therefore, if I were Home Secretary, I would do something about it in a particular way, with the benefit of other advice." I simply say that I am very concerned.
      When I visited one of the women—Carol Richardson—in Styal prison, I was even more deeply concerned that there had been an error of judgment. I have not become involved in the Birmingham case—although I have read the book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—because I do not know too much about it and I do not believe that it is my duty to jump in and say that I support that case as much as I support the other case.
      I support the rule of law. I ended detention in Northern Ireland because I thought that the system was wrong. One should not lock up people, as I did, by a sort of ukase. It is much better to go before a court. I understand the problem of there being no jury. I believe that there cannot be a jury system in Northern Ireland. I support the rule of law and the courts, but that does not stop me believing that courts can be wrong. It does not weaken the judiciary to argue in that way. I believe that Ministers can be wrong. I have never been a judge, but I have been a Minister. The Court of Appeal needs change, and we suggest one way in which the system can be improved.
      10.45 pm
      The Home Secretary takes advice from a very good source—C4, if it is still called that—in the criminal department. Good and sound people come forward with a large number of minor cases and the occasional important case. We suggest that, while maintaining that system, and keeping the Home Secretary's powers, we should provide 12 additional persons to look into cases and advise the Home Secretary.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) talked about the number of cases. I can remember a case in which we did not take the advice that came forward. The details do not matter but it was a case of murder in Peterborough. The evidence put forward was that something had been wrong with the station clock. Shirley Summerskill, who was the junior Minister, disagreed with the officials. I read the papers. As my predisposition is to support junior Ministers whenever possible—they do not have the best of lives—I agreed with her, and the man got off. That was one instance in which we disagreed with the officials. The officials collect the information and make recommendations according to the case law that builds up; we recommend that additional advice should also be available.
      Let us consider what the Home Secretary can do. One case that has worried me, because it was obviously very wrong, is the case of Cooper and MacMahon. In June 1980 I wrote to the then Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, asking him to help me by reminding me what courses of action were open to the Home Secretary. I also reminded him of what happened when I was Home
      676
      Secretary, but that is another matter—[Interruption.] He may not have had access to the precise papers but he had access to the same papers; and there is a subtle difference between the two.
      The then Home Secretary, in his letter to me, said:
      "On the first point … there are three things. A Home Secretary can refer a case to the Court of Appeal under section 17. The main purpose of this is to consider new evidence."
      I did not find that provision in the Act, but that is what he said, and it is certainly what I have been advised. The letter continued:
      "Second, a Home Secretary can exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy so as to grant a Free Pardon or remit the sentence."
      Ms. Short: The question of new evidence and the fact that the amendment would not require it are very important. In some cases everyone is convinced that there has been a dreadful miscarriage of justice and they hunt around for new evidence to bring the case legitimately within the system. We must open up the system to enable cases in which large numbers of people are convinced that there has been a miscarriage of justice to be re-examined without the need to find new evidence to get the case reopened.
      Mr. Rees: I referred to that a moment ago. That is the usage that has built up, and it is one aspect that ought to be considered, even if it is not mentioned in the procedure in the new clause.
      Lord Whitelaw continued:
      "Finally, if the person is serving a life sentence, as is the case here" —
      Cooper and MacMahon—
      "the Home Secretary may be able to release him."
      What follows is important:
      "There are statutory limitations on this power to release lifers: the Home Secretary can order a release only if he is recommended to do so by the Parole Board and after consulting the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is available, the trial judge."
      My successor reminded me of those three aspects of the Home Secretary's powers.
      We are not setting up a new tier: it will still be the Home Secretary taking advice. In the Guildford bombers case, on which the Home Secretary held a police inquiry, he went outside the system to have the matter examined. In a way, our amendment would institutionalise such a procedure.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and he speaks with great authority and knowledge, but at the end of the day, it is a recommendation to the Home Secretary, is it not? The Home Secretary still has to decide. The buck stops with him. Let us suppose that he disagrees with the conclusions of that august body. Inevitably, it would be leaked, and he would have to explain to the House why the press were reporting that the review body had arrived at one conclusion and he had decided to overrule it. Would that really assist the Home Secretary in his quasi-appellate role?
      Mr. Rees: I remember things like that happening almost every day of the week. The Home Secretary is almost a whipping boy for many of the things that happen. But the Home Secretary must make the decision, and it is not discussed in Cabinet. I would like more evidence to come forward. That might make it easier to reach a decision.

      677
      I kept all the papers relating to that case in a file because I was worried about the case of David Cooper and Michael McMahon, in which I played a part. I also kept the written answer given by the former Home Secretary. The case related to the murder of a sub-postmaster in Luton. The second paragraph states:
      "Since then the case has come before the Court of Appeal on no fewer than five occasions, four of them as a result of a reference by the Home Secretary of the day. The outcome is that the court has quashed the conviction of Mr. Murphy after hearing fresh alibi evidence on his behalf, but has not disturbed the convictions of Mr. Cooper and Mr. McMahon."
      I played a part in that.
      The former Home Secretary went on to say that he did not question the decisions of his predecessors, who
      "acted with scrupulous regard to the constitutional conventions"
      and all the rest of it. He then said:
      "I have accordingly decided to recommend Her Majesty to remit the remainder of their sentences."—[Official Report, 18 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 719–20.]
      The real reason for that was that the case had gone on and on. Nothing had changed, and no more evidence had been provided. Time was the factor. They had been inside for so long that the royal prerogative was being used. It was not done earlier. I did not make the correct decision, but my successor did. He did it not on fresh evidence but because so much time had passed. He thought that they had been locked up for too long.
      Ms. Short: Especially as they were not guilty.
      Mr. Rees: The point is that I realised that we needed a change in the law. The Home Secretary at the time provided me with a paper entitled, "Action taken with regard to the cases while Mr. Merlyn Rees was Home Secretary." I have three or four pages on that, so I must have spent a long time on the case. But I was wrong. My predecessor used the royal prerogative not because of new evidence but because those men had been locked up for so long.
      Ms. Short: The case was referred to the Court of Appeal four times. My right hon. Friend was not wrong. Nor were the other people who referred the matter to the Court of Appeal, each of whom was convinced that those men were wrongly convicted. The system was wrong and was incapable of releasing them. In the end, the only way to do justice to them was for the Home Secretary to pardon them. My right hon. Friend was not wrong. Our legal system was incapable of providing justice. That is why we are trying to change it tonight.
      Mr. Rees: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's help, but I believe that I was wrong and that I should have found a way of dealing with the case earlier. That is why I support the new clause. The Government could take it away and refine it, but its main aim is to provide more evidence.
      The third reason, and my final point, is that I am concerned about the Guildford bombers. I am the last person to want to let people out of gaol who have been involved in bombing and killing. We all know what happened yesterday. It is certainly not in that context that I want to deal with this point, but the more I look at it —I am involved with eminent people—the more I see that
      678
      something is wrong. The Home Secretary has commissioned an inquiry by the Somerset and Avon police. I trust that I am in order in mentioning this as it is part of the procedures that we are trying to improve. I presume that the deputy chief constable will soon be reporting to the Home Secretary. What does that mean? What will happen then? I shall not say tonight what I think should happen, because the Home Secretary will soon have the report.
      There should be a change. Our procedures do not work properly. There should be an interdepartmental committee to consider the 1907 and 1968 legislation about the workings of the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, I want to aid the Home Secretary, in the way that has been suggested, to consider the material and to aid the work of C4 in the Home Office. This issue concerns only a small number of cases. The steps that I took in the case of the murder of the sub-postmaster in Luton were taken in good faith, but I was proved to be wrong because the men were released. They should have been released earlier. The time factor should not be allowed to be an important element in the decision.
      Mr. John Patten: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Guildford and Woolwich bombings, I can tell him that we have the report from the Avon and Somerset police. It is before the Home Secretary at present, and my right hon. Friend hopes to take a decision whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
      Ms. Short: When?
      Mr. Patten: As soon as possible.
      Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention.
      The suggestion in the new clause should be considered to improve the procedures. I have discussed this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I believe that the functioning of the Court of Appeal since its introduction in 1907 needs to be reconsidered.
      In response to the hon. Member for Orpington, I should say that that would in no way weaken the rule of law. If the rule of law has been weakened, it was weakened in 1907 when the Court of Appeal was set up. Appeal is necessary within our system because serious mistakes are made, and it is the duty of this House to correct them.
      Mr. Hind: I oppose the new clause, but I do not disagree with the basic idea behind it. We are considering a situation in which the Court of Appeal reviews the proceedings at the trial court and looks for material irregularities. It does not look to decide whether a man is guilty or innocent. It looks to see whether the proceedings were carried out properly, and if there was a material irregularity that could have affected the jury's mind it will act to deal with the matter, either by quashing the conviction or by ordering a retrial. That is what lies at the root of the new clause, not the problem of dealing with the small number of cases currently being considered by C4.
      Mr. Lawrence: How does my hon. Friend explain away the concept of the lurking doubt, which has little to do with material irregularity, and everything to do with whether justice is being done?
      Mr. Hind: My hon. and learned Friend's question supports what I am saying, which is that the court looks purely and simply for material irregularities. One of my

      679
      colleagues who, like me, has appeared in the Court of Appeal said that it was like being mugged. He said, "Two of the judges hold you down and the other one goes through your pockets." That just about sums it up in many respects.
      11 pm
      I oppose the new clause because I do not think that it is sufficiently fundamental. It raises a number of major constitutional considerations. There is a definite split between the Executive and the judicial functions. The judiciary is there to give the man in the street protection against the Executive. It is the one place where the Executive is held to account. That is important in our deliberations. We must be very careful about crossing Executive functions with judicial functions. That is where the proposal goes wrong.
      The investigation that is proposed should be carried out at an earlier stage than is suggested in the new clause. It should be carried out immediately after the trial, when many of the trails are hot, to try to find new evidence and matters that are likely to persuade a court that the conviction was wrong and should be revoked. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will agree with me on this, as I have dealt with similar matters before. The problem is that the case is often considered years later, when the evidence has disappeared, and it is difficult to follow things through. C4 considers the cases on instinct, feel and experience, not on the evidence. That is very important.
      The independent review body proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for the highest of motives, must consider the problems from the court's point of view.
      Ms. Short: What about the wrongly convicted?
      Mr. Hind: I accept the hon. Lady's point. The problems must be considered from the point of view of the defendant and the victim. However, we must still consider admissible evidence. Are we to reach the position where we begin to consider anecdotal evidence, inadmissible evidence and matters that would not have been considered by the court?
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hind: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish, I shall give way to him.
      We must consider those factors. An independent body should not recommend to the Home Secretary that a man should go free, or receive a free pardon, or be given a remission, on evidence that would not have stood up in court to begin with and would not have been admissible, and which, if the case were referred back to the Court of Appeal, would still not be admissible. It is important to consider those facts,
      Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
      Mr. Hind: Many hon. Members want to speak, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will catch the eye of the Chair later. I shall give way once I have finished this point.
      Having looked at the question of admissible evidence, we must also consider who will decide whether the defendant or appellant is to be set free. I do not believe that the Home Secretary should be placed in that position. The matter should be decided in an appellate court. I
      680
      listened to the interpretation of the new clause by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough will confirm that under his proposal, following the review by the independent body, the case will have to be referred to a court for consideration. There will still be a judicial function to be carried out. The proper place for deciding whether a case should be dealt with by way of a free pardon, or whatever, is in a court, before proper judges, with all the evidence being considered.
      Mr. Carlile: I return to the hon. Gentleman's previous point. He seems to be obsessed with the admissibility of evidence. The strict rules of admissibility in both criminal and civil law have been devised so that juries are kept within very tight rules and do not hear evidence that might mislead them. Why should we be so hidebound by strict rules of admissibility in courts in which there are no juries? Why should the Court of Appeal not consider hearsay evidence, and even secondhand hearsay evidence? That court surely has the ability to sift what is relevant from what is irrelevant, rather than sift what falls within the rules from what falls outwith the rules.
      Mr. Hind: I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because, following his view, every summary trial held in a magistrates court would cause the rules to be changed. Magistrates would then be permitted to listen to hearsay, and secondhand hearsay evidence, because they would have the same function and be in a position to perform the mental gymnastics of ignoring secondhand hearsay evidence and drawing out what is relevant. My strong feeling is that evidence before an appellate court should be that which is admissible before a jury and a trial judge.
      The third point of importance is the review body's status. One of my hon. Friends made a point about the views of the independent body. Assuming that the whole matter must be referred to an appellate court, as it is now on many occasions, where will the independent body fit in? What will be its status, and how is the court to view its recommendations? Will the court see them? All those factors must be considered, as must the question of how the independent body reaches its conclusions in advising the Home Secretary.
      According to the new clause, the people involved will not be qualified lawyers, and they will not consider matters from the point of view of a trial in a lower court in the way that Court of Appeal judges do. Most important of all, who will undertake the investigation? C4 has the police —professional investigators—to assist in its examinations. There is no comparable provision in the new clause.
      Mr. Stanbrook: Subsection (6) of the proposed new clause provides for the review body to hold its own trial, and it will be entitled to
      "make a recommendation to the Secretary of State after either

      (a) an informal inquiry or

      (b) a full hearing with legal representation on both sides."

      The review body may hold its own trial before making any recommendation. How can that trial be in private
      Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that there may be an informal inquiry without the discipline of the court, and without considering the rules of evidence.

      681
      Therefore, a view may be formed that might not be acceptable to the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, or a judicial body.
      I concede—as do many of my hon. Friends with whom this proposed clause does not find favour—that this problem needs to be examined more closely. The new clause is only a sticking-plaster mechanism, covering only part of the problem, and does not tackle the fundamentals, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South.
      The real problem occurs earlier on, and that is when the investigation should he carried out. It should not be undertaken by an independent body that is not a legal tribunal—a body that will establish a third tier. The Home Secretary's function is to consider whether there is evidence for a court to reconsider a finding, and it is only in exceptional cases that he intervenes and recommends a free pardon, for example. We must not overstep the powers of the appellate judicial system that we have established. It must be allowed to function. If there is a need for review, let us examine that system and improve it. We should not introduce a sticking-plaster method to deal with the problem.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on moving the new clause. It is a pleasure to be associated with him, he being a consistent champion of justice.
      The clause should be of interest to all those who are concerned with the reputation of the British judicial system, whether they are Left-wing, Right-wing, Unionist or Nationalist, for it is about justice. I take heart from the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House and of all shades of opinion have felt able to support the clause. They have done so because they are aware of the grave shadow that is falling over the reputation of the British judicial system as a result of a number of celebrated alleged miscarriages of justice.
      One of the beauties of the new clause is that it is modelled almost precisely on the recommendation of a Select Committee that examined the problem in a good deal of detail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, its proposals have been endorsed by a number of individuals who could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as wild-eyed revolutionaries.
      The Select Committee's recommendation arose over a number of years from the difficulty of persuading the Home Office and senior judges to own up to mistakes in a certain number of extremely serious cases, some of which are well known. It is not a problem that originated recently. It has long historical origins, the best known one being the case of Timothy Evans, who was convicted and hanged in 1950. The person who had committed the offence was caught in 1953. It was realised at once that the real offender had been caught, but it took 13 years and a public campaign and two judicial reviews of the sort that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) says cannot be set up, before Timothy Evans was posthumously pardoned. We do not want to have to go through that time and time again.
      The case of Cooper and McMahon has been referred to the Court of Appeal on five occasions, which is a record. On four occasions the references were initiated by Home
      682
      Secretaries, and on one occasion the normal right of appeal was exercised. It took a decade before a Home Secretary decided that the prison gates should be opened and that the men should each be issued with a railway ticket and sent home. He could not think of any way of persuading the Court of Appeal to admit a mistake. I might add that the men received no apology for the decade that they had spent in gaol.
      The problem has been exacerbated in recent years by what are destined to become causes celebres, cases which are already bringing the British judical system into disrepute throughout the world. There are the six innocent people who were convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings and the 11 innocent people who were convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.
      Everyone who has studied the problem has concluded that some form of independent review tribunal is needed to act as a longstop and to cut the knot. In 1968, the well-respected organisation Justice prepared a report on difficulties in persuading the courts to own up to mistakes. It was prompted perhaps by the difficulties in obtaining a pardon for Timothy Evans. It recommended 20 years ago that an independent review body be set up. In 1976, the distinguished judge Lord Devlin, in a report on evidence of indentification in criminal cases, concluded:
      "An independent review tribunal with rules of evidence and procedure different from those of ordinary courts"
      is what is necessary.
      11.15 pm
      In 1982, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded in paragraph 11 of its report:
      "All our witnesses, apart from the Home Office, felt that some opportunity for independent review would both add to the quality of the advice given to the Home Office and at the same time help to persuade petitioners and the public that each case had been given full and fair consideration."
      Those are the words of a Select Committee on which there was a Conservative majority. That view was put to it by the Criminal Bar Association and, as has already been mentioned, by the distinguished solicitor Sir David Napley. Sir David went further. He said that he was
      "unable from his experience to recall a single case where the Home Office has, as a result of its own investigation, felt able to recommend a pardon."
      I can speak from my own experience, in the case of the Birmingham pub bombings, of the Home Office department responsible for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. The officials there are assiduous, courteous and well-meaning, but see their role as exclusively that of poking holes in evidence presented by persistent journalists, Members of Parliament or other public figures. There are few signs that they lift the telephone very often to do any independent investigation, and still fewer signs that they get out and do some digging.
      The Select Committee report referred to a number of other problems, one being the lengthy, unexplained delays that took place while the Home Secretary was considering at the outset whether to refer to the Court of Appeal. It also made the point—extremely relevant in the light of recent experience—that the burden of truth, once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal, was not the burden of truth that we are used to: the defendants had to prove their innocence, which is far more difficult than the reverse procedure.
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Mullin: Certainly.
      Ms. Short: He is not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is interesting that we are not supposed to call someone on the Opposition Benches an hon. Friend. We have reviewed the case of the Birmingham pub bombings together more than once, and I, as deputy leader of the West Midlands county council, was in the Birmingham pubs where the carnage had taken place within the hour. Despite that, I too signed the petition that the sentences should be reviewed.
      The Court of Appeal sat for longer than at any time in its history, and still said that the verdict was sound. How long is justice or injustice to be? How long do people have to sit to say that a verdict is sound? Having supported the review of that case, I believe that the Court of Appeal was right in saying that the verdict was sound.
      Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with him, because I am concerned primarily with whether the convicted people did it or not. I shall come in a moment to what I regard as deficiencies in the way in which the Court of Appeal dealt with the case. Unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)—who, having made his point, is no longer even listening to my response—I sat through the appeal hearing in the Old Bailey.
      We have not yet heard any reference to the Home Office's 1983 reply to the Select Committee report. In paragraph 3, the Home Office says that it will review
      "both the terms and the frequency of interim replies to petitions in order to prevent long and completely unexplained delays."
      That is what it said in seeking to brush aside the Select Committee's report in April 1983.
      I refer to the Birmingham case. Doubts about it were first raised in public in October 1985. It took 18 months before we were able to persuade the Home Secretary to refer it to the Court of Appeal. During that time we were given the run-around. It was difficult to obtain information about the delay. The Home Office has not cleaned up its act, as it said it would in April 1983. It was 10 months after that before the case reached the Court of Appeal. More than two years elapsed between the first serious doubts being raised and the case being given another hearing.
      The Guildford case has already been referred to this evening. I believe that the Home Secretary reopened that case in August 1987. We are still awaiting the result. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked earlier how the review is going. I can offer my right hon. Friend slightly more information than the Minister was able to offer him. It is not going very well. The Avon and Somerset police have made a rather negative report, the details of which we shall never know. I understand that at the moment the Home Secretary is wrestling with what to do about such distinguished figures as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South who have expressed strong views about the case. The problem is that there never was much evidence against those people, so it is extremely difficult to find new evidence as the basis for reopening the case.
      Paragraph 10 of the Home Office reply. in April 1983 said:
      "The Home Secretary will in future be willing to use his power of reference more readily".
      684
      That is a laugh, for a start.
      "the Lord Chief Justice, who has been consulted, sees room for the court to be more ready to exercise its own powers to receive evidence or … to order a retrial."
      Let me consider that in the light of what happened subsequently. The Home Secretary is, understandably, extremely reluctant to refer the Guildford and Woolwich case to the Court of Appeal because of the kicking that the Birmingham case got before that one. Five years ago the Lord Chief Justice is said to have expressed his readiness to take a more generous view of cases referred to him. If he ever gave such a commitment, all I can say is that he has reneged on it.
      The first thing that the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues did when the Birmingham case arrived before them was to refuse to order a retrial, and the appeal was dismissed with contempt. Lord Lane went further than that. This will be of interest to the Home Secretary if he is thinking of referring any further cases to the Court of Appeal. Lord Lane said:
      "As has happened before in references by the Home Secretary to this court … the longer this hearing has, gone on, the more convinced this court has become that the verdict of the jury was correct."
      In other words, "Don't bother sending us any more cases. You're wasting your time." That is the dilemma with which the Home Secretary has to wrestle when considering whether to refer back the Guildford and Woolwich case. or perhaps the Carl Bridgewater case—another one that is in his in-tray at the moment—to the Court of Appeal.
      As for an independent review tribunal, in April 1983 the Home Office said, "Leave it to the court. It is a matter of constitutional principle." We shall no doubt hear more about that when the Minister replies to the debate.
      That was the position six years ago. The position today is a great deal worse. It does not allow for the complacency of the Home Office's response in April 1983 to the Select Committee's report. The need for some way to break the knot and get round these great injustices has never been greater. The Birmingham and the Guildford and Woolwich cases have already been referred to, and I serve notice that there is another case in the pipeline.
      Judith Ward was convicted in February 1974 of the M62 coach bombing. I do not, as I do in the other two cases, put my hand on my heart and say that she did not do it, because I have not studied that case in the detail that I have studied other cases, but a number of people whose judgment I respect have looked in detail into that case. They say that the persons who carried out the M62 coach bombing are alive and well and walking the streets of the Republic and that Judith Ward had nothing whatever to do with it.
      By way of a clue as to the possible future of that case, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the principal Crown witness in the case against Judith Ward was our old friend the forensic scientist Dr. Frank Skuse, who has since had to retire at the grand old age of 51 for what the Home Office coyly describes as "limited effectiveness"——
      Mr. John Patten: Limited efficiency.
      Mr. Mullin: It varies according to which brief one reads.
      The Carl Bridgewater case is still awaiting tie Home Secretary's decision. It is not political, in the sense that it involves the wicked murder of a newspaper boy. There are

      685
      considerable grounds for disquiet, but nobody seriously believes that if that case were referred to the Court of Appeal they would get anything but a kick in the teeth.
      The hon. Member for Selly Oak, who did not stay long enough to hear my reply to his question, asked about the Court of Appeal hearing of the Birmingham case. It was one of the great cases. It lasted more than 25 days; it was certainly the longest Court of Appeal hearing. It has been conceded that it had before it the greatest amount of evidence that has ever been put before an appeal hearing. A large number of issues of fact had to be determined. Issues of fact are supposed to be dealt with by juries.
      Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mullin: I shall give way, but I want to get on.
      Mr. Devlin: I am most anxious for the hon. Gentleman to get on. Conservative Members are most interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the various cases. I am following him very closely to hear what he is saying about the cases outstanding. Will he direct my attention specifically to how the new clause will help the situation? That is what I am most interested to hear.
      Mr. Mullin: The independent review tribunal would have not merely to consider the evidence put to the court and form a judgment about the new facts that had been put to the court, but to consider evidence that is inadmissible before the Court of Appeal. That point has been made before; the hon. Gentleman was here and he heard it. I shall come in a moment to that point in relation to the Birmingham case.
      The Birmingham people were convicted on the basis of confessions which were signed by four of them in police custody and which they allege were beaten out of them with considerable violence. Three former policemen said before the Court of Appeal that that was so. One of the policemen involved in obtaining those confessions—not one of the three who were before the court—has since been to gaol for beating up suspects with a view to extracting confessions. Incidentally, another has just received the Queen's medal. He will have to send it back, as has happened with Lester Piggott's MBE.
      A cleaner from the cells at Morecambe, where the men were held during the first day of their interrogation, said that he found blood in the cells shortly after they were vacated. Two prison officers said that, when they saw the men undressed, they had sustained injuries on their bodies
      "consistent with a systematic beating below the neck while in police custody".
      Two solicitors, who were the first civilians to see the men after they emerged from police custody when the confessions had been obtained, said that four of their clients attempted to draw attention to their injuries.
      All that was before the Court of Appeal which found different reasons for denouncing every single witness—one was a liar, one was mistaken—and dismissed them contemptuously.
      The forensic evidence which was before the court was the other major plank in the case against those six unfortunate men. At the original trial, the forensic evidence was the key. It was also the key to the confessions because it convinced the police that they had the right men and caused them to set about obtaining the confessions in the way that they did. At the original trial Dr. Skuse was
      686
      elevated to sainthood by the presiding judge, Lord Bridge. That could not happen at the appeal because it had emerged—and it took something to find out exactly the circumstances—that Dr. Skuse had been dismissed by the Home Office for "limited effectiveness". He was a disastrous witness. He had made no notes, he had the wrong formulas, he repeatedly contradicted himself and was contradicted by his superiors. Yet the judge, who did not adopt a generous attitude to other witnesses, set his evidence aside.
      11.30 pm
      They brought out a woman forensic scientist whose evidence at the original trial was thought so insignificant as not to be worthy of her being allowed to give evidence at all. They elevated her, too, to the status of sainthood that had been accorded to Dr. Skuse previously.
      There was also circumstantial evidence that the men had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had known a number of wrong people. At the original trial Lord Bridge said that the circumstantial evidence did not matter, to the extent that if that was all the evidence there was against the men, they could not be convicted. It was secondary to the two main planks of the confessions and the forensic evidence.
      At the Appeal Court hearing, with the spectacular gymnastics for which Appeal Court judges are famed, the circumstantial evidence suddenly became the dominant issue, and the judges spent some two and a half hours of the judgment on it.
      For me, sitting as I did for the best part of 25 days watching clever lawyers arguing about sophisticated chemical formulae, the whole thing was irrelevant because I had traced the people who had committed the crime. All four are alive and well and walking the streets of the Republic.
      Some time I should be happy to debate the problem of the men's identity. The identity of three of the four men is known to the authorities. I do not suggest that the Minister knows it but I have good reason for saying that the west midlands police have known it since 1975. Once four of the wrong men have confessed, it is very embarrassing to come up with any more.
      Mr. Archer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the disturbing aspects of the subject is that, for every innocent person who is in prison, there is a guilty person walking the streets?
      Mr. Mullin: Those who are interested in deterrence will be interested to know that one of the four men who carried out the Birmingham pub bombings went on to commit another murder. There is much to be said for catching the right people when dealing with terrorism.
      The evidence that I, as an impoverished freelance journalist, tracked down at that time was inadmissible, and the Court of Appeal could not refer to it. The lawyers all had on their tables copies of the book in which I set out the details, and I commend it to anyone who is interested. The book was the big unspoken issue. Instead of taking it into account, however, we sat arguing about the minutiae of forensic evidence—and all the time I was walking round, happy to be put to the test.
      As yet, I have not been pressed too hard about this. I said that the people who did the crime got away, that I had met all four of them, and that two of them had given me a detailed account of what happened. If it is possible for an

      687
      impoverished freelance journalist to do that, it must have been within the wit of the west midlands police to do likewise.
      Many people know that the wrong people are being held. In the gaols where these men are being held, it is taken as read by governors and other prisoners that they are the wrong ones. I visited two of them two years ago when I embarked on the case. I ran into an assistant governor coming out of the prison. He said, "Between you and me, we have got the wrong people. It is awful; everyone here believes that."
      John Walker, in Long Lartin prison, who was described at the trial as a brigadier in the IRA and the brains behind the wicked murders of 21 people, receives open visits, the same as all the other prisoners. A genuine IRA man serving a 14-year term for a terrorist offence in which no one was killed or injured— the man I visited in this category was within two months of release—gets the full IRA treatment: a separate cubicle with two prison officers seated outside. Yet in the same gaol, on the same day, a man who is supposed to have committed 21 murders is allowed open visits—as are all of the Birmingham six.
      Open visits are authorised not by the governor of the prison but by the Home Office. It knows that those people are not members of the IRA, but no one can think of a way of persuading the judges to own up. Those unfortunate men have languished in prison for 14 years.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has said, and, I believe, published a claim, that he has information that could lead to the identification of, the hon. Gentleman says, the right people. Why has he withheld that information? Does he not know that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 the withholding of such information is an offence? Should he not divulge to the police everything that he knows?
      Mr. Mullin: I not only claimed and published it but said it five minutes ago; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening. The hon. Gentleman's friends in the police force have not been all that keen to know.
      When I first established contact with the people who did it, I was asked, "What will you do if the west midlands police ask you who they are?" I attempted to put the matter before the Home Office. I sent the last two chapters of my book to the Home Secretary two months before they were published. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)—I am sure that he will recall this and back me up arranged a meeting for me—at that time I was not a Member of Parliament—with a Home Office Minister. A couple of days before we were due to go along, the hon. Member for Harborough received a telephone call and was told. "Do not bring Mr. Mullin with you; come alone." The Home Office was not keen to discover the truth.
      My hon. Friends arranged an Adjournment debate in the darkest hours on the subject—by which time my allegations had been published and I had appeared on television—and I sat in the box in the corner of the Chamber. After the debate, the Minister said to me, I think that you had better come and see me." I went to see the Minister and I was interviewed by two civil servants. They asked whether I would be prepared to be interviewed by an assistant chief constable of the west midlands police. That assistant chief constable was ordered to see me; he did not rush down and say, "Goodness, somebody knows about the Birmingham pub bombings." I was deeply
      688
      impressed by the state of his knowledge, which clearly came from the archives of the west midlands police headquarters at Lloyd house.
      There are police officers who know what happened in this case. Things are starting to turn up in plain brown envelopes. Sooner or later they may become embarrassing, because documents from the headquarters of the west midlands police have already turned up. I promise that when the time comes that will prove a mite embarrassing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered the question. I am happy to have a debate about it.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has information that would lead to the apprehension of the people whom he believes to be the perpetrators of the Birmingham bombing? Is he withholding that information? Does he know that it is a criminal offence to do so? Will he answer the question whether he is withholding information from the police?
      Mr. Mullin: I am not withholding it; I have been announcing it to the world for the past 18 months. I have made myself available to Home Office civil servants and Mr. Meffen, who is assistant chief constable of the west midlands police. Anybody would want to test, first, whether I have made it all up and, secondly, whether I have been had.
      Sir Eldon Griffiths: Give the names.
      Mr. Mullin: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the reference number of a document in the special branch archives that contains the name of the person who put the bomb in the pub. In due course, his curiosity will be satisfied.
      Perhaps I should explain that I am motivated by the fact that six innocent people have spent 13 years in prison for something they did not do. I did not set out—it was not my job—to find the people who put the bombs in the pubs in Birmingham, wicked though that action was. That is a job for the west midlands police, who have never shown the slightest interest, even though all four of the people who did it passed through the custody of the west midlands police after the bombings.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) asks whether I have information that might lead to their apprehension. Of course not—because they all got away—but they all passed through through the hands of the west midlands police after the pub bombings. They were not apprehended because nobody was looking for them, since four people had already confessed.
      Ms. Short: Is it not significant that, when we are discussing the enormously important issue of people being wrongfully locked up for many years and about our criminal justice system malfunctioning, all we get from those who oppose us on these matters is a sort of game? Instead of listening to my hon. Friend's explanation. they try to divert the argument. We are talking about the credibility of our criminal justice system, and they are playing games. That brings this House and our criminal justice system into even further disrepute compared with the failure adequately to deal with these matters
      Mr. Mullin: Yes, but I take comfort from the fact that many hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches—some of whom have put their names to the new clause —do care. I appreciate also that there are some who under

      689
      no circumstances are upset even by the possibility of innocent people going to the gallows. I am heartened, however, in that many hon. Members who do not share my views on many issues do care, and I am addressing my remarks to them tonight. I cannot help the others. They face a dilemma with which they will have to wrestle.
      I come to the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, which in a way is a more scandalous case because, in my view, the authorities have known from the beginning—probably from three days afterwards, but certainly from six months after the arrest of four innocent people—that they had the wrong people. There has never been any serious evidence against those people. There are the confessions of one man, Paul Hill. Those confessions had to be rewritten six or seven times in police custody to accord with each set of facts as they became available. Those half dozen or seven confessions formed the basis of the conviction, not merely of the four people who were done for the Guildford and Woolwich murders, but also of the conviction of the seven other people—Mrs. Maguire and her family, a totally innocent family—who were convicted in connection with making those bombs.
      They also, incidentally, formed the basis of the arrest of 31 people, many of whom had to be released because no serious evidence could be found against them and because they were able to produce cast-iron alibis. It was pot luck. They just hung on to the seven who could not come up with cast-iron alibis. As I say, this is more outrageous because the authorities knew from the beginning of this case, whereas in the Birmingham case it only gradually dawned on them that something was seriously wrong.
      I will mention a conversation I had with Gerard Conlan. He did not offer this to me as something I should bring to the House and shout about. It was an anecdote he told about something that happened to him after he had been in custody for three days and after he had signed his confession and was signing everything they put in front of him. He said, "The police said to me, 'Now Gerry, we are going to take you for a drive round Guildford so you can show us where you went to plant the bombs.' He told me he was desperate to co-operate with them, that he would do anything after spending three days and nights with the officers. As I say, he was signing anything they put in front of him.
      The problem was that he had never before set foot in Guildford in his life. They put him in the back of a police car and started driving through Guildford. He was taking them down one-way streets and cul-de-sacs and they were getting more and more mad, until in the end they said, "We have had enough of this," and they took him back to the police station, slung him in the cells and closed the door.
      After perhaps 20 minutes a face—presumably that of a police officer—appeared at the little flap in the cell door and a voice said, "That confession you've given us: a load of fairy tales, isn't it?" "Yes," he replied. "You didn't do it, did you?" asked the voice. "No," he replied. "We know that," said the voice, "but we need bodies. We're going to do you."
      That was day three. I do not make much of that because it is an anecdote and Gerard Conlan has never sought to make much of it. But six months later they certainly found out who had done it because by accident they caught the
      690
      people who had—the Balcombe street IRA unit, three of four members of which were responsible, along with two other members who got away but who, I believe, were subsequently apprehended in connection with other matters. It is evident from their actions that the authorities knew from the moment they caught those people that they had got the wrong people. The problem was that they had just put away the wrong people. The members of the Balcombe street IRA unit were able to describe in such detail how they had done it that it was not possible to go on pretending any longer that they had not.
      11.45 pm
      What did the authorities do? They paced up and down and round in circles; they decided to charge the Balcombe street people with everything but the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings. When the Balcombe street people came up in court they all got up and said that as members of the Provisional IRA they would not normally recognise a British court, but because innocent people had been convicted of offences for which they were guilty they proposed to plead not guilty to all the offences.
      An enormous amount of fraud and perjury had to be committed. At one stage a forensic scientist in the witness box had a chart. The chart showed how all the different bombs were connected with each other; they all had the same Ever-Ready batteries and used the same Smith's alarm system, the same timing devices and all the rest of it. It was put to the Crown forensic scientist, "You appear to have missed out the Guildford bomb. Would you not say that it was made the same way?" He said, "Yes." "You appear to have missed out the Woolwich bomb. Would you not say that that was made the same way?" He said, "Yes." He was asked why he had missed those out of his chart. He said, "Because I was told to by that police officer over there." The police officer was called, and he said, "I was told to tell the forensic scientist to miss them out by that inspector over there." The inspector was called, and he said, "I was told to miss them out by the Director of Public Prosecutions." It goes all the way to the top. They knew they had got the wrong people. That is only one example.
      Apart from the fact that there was never any serious evidence against them so that it is difficult to come up with new evidence, a big problem in the case of the Guildford and Woolwich people was that the judge was Lord Donaldson, now Master of the Rolls, one of the most senior judges; the prosecutor was Sir Michael Havers, subsequently Lord Chancellor; and one of the chief policemen involved was Commander Imbert, recently knighted, and now Metropolitan Commissioner. That is the set of reputations involved. Conservative Members have told me this. I am not making it up out of Left-wing paranoia. I hear all the time that it is very difficult, given the reputations involved, to persuade those in authority to face up to a problem of this magnitude.
      One big problem with the Appeal Court is that many judges, though not all of them of course, are preoccupied with the credibility of the judicial system rather than with justice. I should like to give one small illustration. Lord Denning, a very distinguished judge, can always be counted upon to say out loud what others say only in their drawing rooms and in the comfort of their clubs.
      When the Birmingham case came before Lord Denning in 1980, as it did briefly when the men were suing the west

      691
      midlands police in an attempt to get an admission of how the injuries—which no one denies—had been inflicted upon them, Lord Denning said:
      "If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats,"—
      he understood what it was all about—
      "that the confessions were involuntary and were improperly admitted in evidence and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would either have to recommend they be pardoned or he would have to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."
      He said that the appeal must be dismissed, and dismiss it he did.
      However. Lord Denning has been of value to us in this case. It is relevant to the new clause we are discussing because it is a summary of the problem. On the programme "Did you see?" on BBC2 in February of this year he was asked point blank, was it better that one or two innocent people should remain in gaol rather than undermine the credibility of the legal system'? He said, "Certainly." He went on to elaborate that point of view, that the credibility of the system was the priority, that of course it was regrettable but occasionally innocent people would have to suffer.
      On the night of the Birmingham judgment, 28 January this year, I had the privilege of sharing a car with Lord Denning between two television studios. It was a journey of about 20 minutes. At each end Lord Denning expressed his absolute confidence in the outcome of the appeal. In the car it was a teeny bit different. He said, "I don't know why they have invited me tonight. I don't know anything about this case." After he had said it two or three times, I gingerly said, "Well, I know the people who did it. They are all alive and well in Ireland." Lord Denning went quiet for a moment and then said, "Oh, that is very anxious." I said, "I thought that that was fairly anxious, too." He said, "I suppose that you know more about this case than anybody else." I said that that was possible. He said, "More than the Appeal Court judges?" I said, "That is possible." He said. "If I were you, I would write a book about it." The book was in its fourth editon at that time and had been one reason why the case had been referred to the Court of Appeal. When the arrived at the BBC studios, Lord Denning's confidence had returned, the red light came on and he even managed a little indignation the second time round.
      It is a tragedy that the scale of the mistake is so great that we lack the courage to own up. It is not my intention to rub anyone's face in the case; I just want these six innocent people released. Many people understand that something had gone seriously wrong. Conservative Members understand that—I know, because sometimes they come up privately to shake my hand. A few days after the judgment a Conservative Member said to me, "Chris, you have had an excellent run. Now drop it. You are starting to question the system." He quoted in Latin the phrase—I do not have the appropriate education, but it was obviously something that a judge said in an aberrant moment in years gone by: "Let justice be done even though the heavens shall fall." The hon. Gentleman said, "I do not believe in that. I believe in keeping the heavens in their place. Lay off, Chris. You have had a good run."
      Other Conservative Members have said, "Look, Chris, you do not wish to be known as the MP for the Birmingham bombers." I want to be known as someone
      692
      who cares about justice and allows that care about justice to override practical considerations. I know that that view is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—[Interruption.] For every one who shouts, "Rubbish," there are others who care. Some have come to me. The hon. Member for Harborough has never hesitated, and not because of anything that I have done. He came to his conclusion independently of me and has pursued it remorselessly ever since. I congratulate him and am pleased to stand with him.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take what I am about to ask him in a constructive spirit. I have been rather shocked to hear him telling us in the past few minutes of a private and confidential conversation in a taxi with an extremely elderly gentleman, a former Master of the Rolls. We have heard only one side of the conversation. I should like to hear the other side. Having broken that confidence—I have a great deal of sympathy for the new clause—will the hon. Gentleman break another confidence and help people like me, who have doubts about this issue, by telling us who are the Birmingham bombers?
      Mr. Mullin: I am happy to address that question in the appropriate forum——
      Mr. Carlile: Now.
      Mr. Mullin: I have been cross-examined on that issue by an assistant chief constable and a senior civil servant. The hon. and learned Gentleman may feel disturbed at the breaking of a confidence, but Lord Denning did not say, "You cannot talk about it."
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman is not giving names because he wants to make money out of it.
      Mr. Mullin: The Minister has the nerve to say that I am making money out of it. it has caused me a great deal of inconvenience. That remark disappoints me, coming as it does from the Minister, who is one of the people who will have to deal with the case. Hon. Members should look at the Minister's demeanour and ask themselves whether he is an appropriate person to deal with the matter with the impartiality that his office requires. One expects such abuse from wild men from the backwoods; one does not expect it from a Minister.
      Hon. Members: Tell us who they are.
      Dr. John Reid: I do not share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in these matters. Does he agree that had the Minister shown half as much energy and, indeed, venom, in pursuing the truth of the matter, as he showed to my hon. Friend just now, we might have got to the bottom of it some considerable time ago?
      I shall not prejudge my hon. Friend's reasons for not naming names; it may be for the sake of his own safety or for other reasons. But suppose that the information that he has given us tonight is correct. Suppose that the west midlands police have knowledge of three of the four people, that four of them passed through their hands at the time of the original investigation and that at least one of them is named in a confidential special branch file in their

      693
      possession. The only way for those hon. Members who are shouting for names to test the matter is to demand that the Home Secretary investigate the allegations. If the Government do not investigate the allegations and we ultimately find that my hon. Friend has spoken the truth, this will have been one of the greatest derelictions of duty on the part of any Home Secretary or Minister.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that, I remind him that the debate is going wide of the new clause, which relates to an independent review body. I invite the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks to the new clause.
      Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that advice. I was intending to finish by addressing myself specifically to the new clause. I am sure that you, Sir, and the whole House will appreciate the relevance of the two cases into which I have gone in some detail. They are the greatest contemporary alleged miscarriages of justice and therefore are the obvious first candidates for review by an independent review tribunal. They provided much of the impetus for new clause 2.
      The Minister will reply shortly. I am not trying to be contentious, but I appeal to him not to give us a rehash of the Home Office reply to the Select Committee in 1983. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then; much has gone wrong and in the light of what has happened, many of the points made then do not stand up to analysis, as I have tried to show. I hope that the Minister will at least attempt to learn some of the lessons. This great tragedy affects not merely the six men and their families, and the 11 innocent people and their families; it casts a shadow over the entire judicial system.
      One of the great strengths of the new clause is that it creates a forum for dealing with inadmissible evidence. If the Minister concludes that the new clause is not the appropriate way to do that, I hope that some other way can be found. [Interruption.] The Minister's ventriloquist does not find that a problem, but serious people do. The other problem is that the burden of proof—this was the tenor of the Court of Appeal hearing—is on the defendants to prove that they did not do it, which is far more difficult than proving that they did.
      12 midnight
      It has come to something when Amnesty International starts to take an interest in cases in EC4 rather than in some of the world's better-known tyrannies. Referring to the Birmingham six appeal, it said:
      "In Amnesty International's opinion the Court of Appeal consistently refused to give the prisoners the benefit of the doubt on any important point in its judgment. It is striking overall that the court did not specifically deal with the cumulative effect of the testimony supporting the prisoners' allegations. It is also striking that, even though, according to the Court, the prisoners' convictions rested on their statements of admission, the testimony of every fresh witness was dismissed as either being dishonest or mistaken or irrelevant.
      Amnesty International also believes that the extent to which the new evidence about the forensic tests casts doubt on their findings is significant in that, if it had been available at the time of the trial, this evidence would have influenced the manner in which allegations of ill-treatment were assessed by judge and jury. In this regard, the evidence at the appeal hearing concerning the scientific tests, while not proving
      694
      conclusively that the evidence in the original trial must be rejected totally, adds significantly to the doubt as to its fallibility. This element was not present in the original trial.
      The judgment of the Court of Appeal seems to rest on an assessment that the six failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, or to a standard close to that, that they were ill-treated. Under English law it is for the prosecution to prove that confessions allegedly obtained by physical ill-treatment were not so obtained. Amnesty International believes that this has not been proved."
      That is the opinion of a very distinguished body to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute when it is dealing with cases of human rights in faraway countries. It is a bit more embarrassing when it comes so close to home. I regret to say that Amnesty International sent that conclusion to the Home Secretary and received in return a letter similar to one that it sometimes receives from East German leaders when they criticise court cases there. He said, "The case has been tried according to our procedure. There is nothing that we can do, so get lost."
      Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prosecution cannot always prove that there was no ill treatment? If it is alleged, it is difficult to prove that it did not occur. If the new clause was accepted, would it not be open to anyone to claim that he had been ill treated and to ask for the entire prosecution case to be set aside?
      Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not familiar with the case. No one disputes that those men were injured. They were covered in injuries, as photographs taken at the time prove. The dispute is about whether those injuries were inflicted when they were in police custody—when the confessions were obtained—or when they were in the care of prison warders. The men say that they were beaten up by both sets of people. The police say that they must have been beaten up by the prison warders. The prison warders concede that they beat them up, too, but say that the men were injured when they arrived. That is the nub of the problem.
      There are precedents for setting up a review tribunal along the lines suggested in new clause 2. The two judicial inquiries set up into the Timothy Evans case and the Confait case support that argument. If the Minister rejects what is proposed in new clause 2, I hope that he will at least give some alternatives. He is an intelligent and humane man, and I hope that he will not say that everything in the garden is perfect. That is the view of some of his hon. Friends. He must know that not everything in the garden is perfect and that there are some terrible problems.
      Everyone who has studied those cases knows that something is wrong and that British justice is being discredited all round the world. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can no longer set foot in the United States without a Congressman mentioning the cases of the Birmingham six or the Guildford four. In the Soviet Union, prompted no doubt by our keen interest in human rights there, the appeal cases have received a great deal of publicity. The Soviet Foreign Minister is now mentioning those and related cases when British Ministers start lecturing him on human rights in the Soviet Union. European Members of Parliament challenged the Prime Minister on the cases when she was addressing them. It is getting out of hand now, and it is spreading.

      695
      In Ireland, it is believed, rightly or wrongly, that an Irishman charged with a terrorist offence cannot hope for a fair trial in the United Kingdom. If one asks for the evidence for that, people point to the Birmingham, Guilford and Woolwich cases. Those cases may have been a factor and will certainly affect public opinion on the issue of extradition and the failure of an Irish court the other day to extradite Mr. McVeigh. We would be in a better position to occupy the moral high ground if we could point to the fact that we have a legal system through which we can confidently extradite people in the knowledge that they will have a fair trial.
      Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be an appropriate time to test the commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to human rights by encouraging our own Government to seek to extradite those whom he declares there is evidence to believe were guilty of the Birmingham bombing?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will resist the temptation to go out of order. He must keep to the new clause.
      Mr. Mullin: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall resist the temptation.
      Doubts have been raised in this country by such distinguished persons, not all dangerous extremists, as Cardinal Hume, Lord Devlin, Lord Scarman, Lord Jenkins, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South—a former Home Secretary—the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and for Harborough and many other distinguished hon. Members who do not share my views on other matters. Those people have studied these cases and know that something is wrong and that something serious needs to be done about them.
      The Home Secretary takes a personal interest in those cases. As an intelligent and humane man, he knows that something is wrong. No one can blame him for his reluctance to refer the case to the Court of Appeal in the light of what happened in the Birmingham case. That is why an alternative method of breaking the knot must be found. I hope that, when the Home Secretary comes to pronounce on the Guildford case shortly, he will not take refuge behind the judges, as I regret he has done in the Birmingham case, and say, "The judges have considered the case and, regrettably, there is nothing that can be done. The correct procedures have been followed." That is the response of the bureaucrat and of the "more than my job's worth" man. I believe that the Home Secretary is a bigger man than that. This new clause gives the opportunity to rise above such a bureaucratic approach, to cut the knot, and to do what he knows to be right in these cases.
      Mr. John Patten: It might be for the convenience of the House if I give the Government's view at this stage, having listened with considerable interest to the explanation of the new clause by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) in his powerful speech, the support given by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr.Mullin) and the powerful speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in his earlier intervention.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said, the new clause seeks to give statutory force to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its sixth report in 1982. We have heard a good
      696
      deal about that report tonight. My hon. Friend is also aware that the Government at the time did not accept the Committee's recommendation. The reasons for our disagreement, which were set out fully in our reply to the Committee, to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred, still hold good. The new clause continues to exemplify the difficulties that the Government saw in 1982, and those reasons are on the record.
      For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say at the outset that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prepared to listen to detailed suggestions about evidence concerning individual miscarriages of justice from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South or the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. They strongly believe in different ways that those cases are the result of miscarriages of justice. I respect their strength of feeling on this matter.
      However, I do not think that this is the right forum, whatever else we debate here tonight, for us to go into the rights and wrongs of individual cases. I do not believe that that was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough in moving the new clause. This is not: he right arena in which to attempt to do that, and I do not believe that at 12.9 am we are in the right frame of mind. Nor do we sit in the right Chamber in which to debate extremely important issues that affect the welfare of people some of whom have been in prison for a considerable time.
      I would prefer, with the agreement of the House, to address my remarks to the amendments to legislation which would change the whole system for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. That is an extremely important general issue and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough indicating assent to that. The matter raises important issues of principle which I believe are best addressed as issues of principle, which is the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said moved him to present the new clause.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I understand that the Minister does not want to go into details of cases raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). However, is the Minister aware that Paddy Armstrong, one of the Guildford four, has suffered a nervous breakdown and that a prison move request has been made by his family? Is he also aware that Paul Hill, another of the four, has had 44 prison moves; that Gerard Conlan is, I understand, still in solitary confinement in a very remote prison which his family cannot visit; and that Carol Richardson is under heavy sedation and not allowed visitors?
      Will the Minister undertake to look into the welfare of the four prisoners concerned while he examines the report from the Somerset and Avon constabulary? Will he also undertake to look into the reasons why a nun from my constituency, Sister Sarah from St. Joseph's convent in Highgate, has been refused permission to visit any of the four when she simply wants to make entirely humanitarian and beneficial visits? The attitude of the prison authorities and of the Home Office is causing enormous distress to the families concerned. This has nothing to do with the review of the judicial process which the Home Secretary is presumably undertaking now and about which we expect to hear a statement from him in the near future.
      Mr. Patten: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for prison matters

      697
      is here today. He has heard all that the hon. Gentleman has said. My hon. Friend and the prison directorate are always concerned about the welfare, both mental and physical, of prisoners in the care of the state. My hon. Friend will consider, without commitment, the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
      I will return to the theme that I had begun earlier about the need to look very closely at the questions of principle. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made that point earlier, and I will deal with one or two of the detailed points that he raised shortly.
      My starting point is that we are dealing with an extremely sensitive matter of constitutional principle as well as sensitive personal matters for those in gaol, who others allege may have been wrongfully imprisoned. We must consider both in our discussions tonight.
      Miscarriages of justice should, as far as possible, be corrected by the courts. That is common ground across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South indicates from a sedentary position that he agrees with me. I am glad about that, because we have courts of law, juries and magistrates courts to settle as fully as possible questions of guilt or innocence of criminal charges, although there are residual cases that interest the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and myself.
      I want to develop that point. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been consistent in his view that, wherever possible, miscarriages of justice should be corrected by the courts and that he would always, with the support of the Lord Chief Justice, be willing to use his power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal more readily. He did so in the case of the Birmingham pub bombers. At present, he has before him papers that should allow him to reach a similar decision in respect of the Guildford and Woolwich cases.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Mullin: Having done that in respect of the Birmingham case—and it took two years—the Home Secretary got a kick in the teeth. The Lord Chief Justice had a little message for the Home Secretary, which I quoted earlier. He commented that, as with so many cases referred by the Home Secretary, the more the appeal continued, the more it was found not worth the listening.
      Mr. Patten: I do not intend any discourtesy, but I rather wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I said that I did not intend to discuss, and I will not discuss, the details of individual cases, because to do so would be wrong in this context.
      My hon. Friend's new clause deliberately sweeps aside the principle to which I have referred. It is clear from its text that the proposed review body would not simply be a source of advice to my right hon. Friend on exceptional cases, where reference to the Court of Appeal was not an option, but would in many cases supplant the Court of Appeal entirely. That is a tricky line of thought. It is one thing to retain genuine residual Executive discretion where judicial intervention is not an option, but it is quite another to establish what would turn out to be a competing source of judicial authority, which is what the new clause would achieve.
      The proposed review body would supplant the Court of Appeal when the normal judicial process is exhausted, and
      698
      its decisions would have quasi-judicial authority. Yet, according to subsection (5), the new body, appointed by the Secretary of State of the day,
      "would have the widest discretion as to the procedures to be adopted in any individual case."
      Presumably, that would include rules of evidence. Would it be right, and acceptable to Parliament, to leave such matters to the discretion of the review body alone?
      What also worries me about that suggestion is that the person with the power of appointment will be the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, who will have unfettered freedom to appoint whomsoever he wishes. They could be biased in all sorts of ways against, or in favour of, more or less reference, or of a greater or smaller number of those gaoled allegedly unfairly or unwisely being released. Nothing said by hon. Members so far has dealt with that point.
      Mr. Ashby: When the Home Secretary is considering exercising his prerogative at present, does he keep strictly to the rules of evidence, or does he go wider? Does he not already choose those from the Department who advise him? Is there anything in the new clause that is different from what happens already—excepting that it would admit the public?
      Mr. Patten: Of course my right hon. Friend has his advisers. That touches on the point about C4, raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and other hon. Members, relating to the nature of the advice given to the Home Secretary. Incidentally, as my contribution to open government, I can reveal to the House tonight that C4 has recently been renumbered C3.
      Every body, whether the Home Office in the person of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State exercising his discretion or the new body that would be set up by the new clause, will have its advisers. Every body is dependent, to a degree, on the legal advice that comes to it on matters of fact.
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, in an important speech—unlike anyone else who has spoken in the debate, he has been Home Secretary—was extremely honest with the House about his views and feelings on the cases with which he was involved. He did not, however, address himself to the possibility that the proposed review body could also be wrong, which causes me to ask where the process stops. It is clear that the process must stop somewhere and that someone must take the decision. What will happen if the Home Secretary of the day disagrees with the advisory body? That is exactly the same as the Court of Appeal disagreeing with the fresh evidence that is put before it. At some stage, someone must take the decision. Despite all the passionately held beliefs of those, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that there are innocent men and women languishing in prison, those people will continue to do so unless and until someone takes the decision to release them. Nothing can persuade the hon. Gentleman that injustice has not been done, but perhaps it will never be possible for him to persuade others that injustice has been done.
      Mr. Archer: I have tried to follow carefully the Minister's criticisms of the specific proposals in the new clause. I understand them without necessarily agreeing with them. Does he agree that many Ministers have advisory bodies that advise them in the exercise of their functions? If the proposals were merely for a body to

      699
      advise the Home Secretary in the exercise of his prerogative powers, would that meet with some sympathy on his part?
      Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has his advisers in C3. He can refer matters to police forces. That course was taken in the case of the alleged miscarriage of justice involving the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombers. My right hon. Friend has powers to consult lawyers if he so wishes.
      There is another practical consideration that I wish to put before the House. We have no reason to think that an independent body of any sort will be able in the end to reach better decisions than those that are arrived at by the courts, which are truly independent bodies. Ultimately, it is a matter of judgment on extremely complex issues. These are judgments that in the end we rightly entrust to the courts.
      I can reassure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes seriously any question of alleged miscarriage of justice. It is important that such cases should be gone into thoroughly—just as thoroughly as they were gone into by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South when he was Home Secretary. That is because of the effect that they have on the view that there is injustice, which damages the entire system—we do not wish to see the legal system damaged by allegations of injustice—and, above all else, because of the effect on those who are gaoled and who it is alleged are in prison because of miscarriages of justice.
      We do not believe that the proposal that is set out in the new clause is right in principle or in practice. Accordingly, I cannot advise the House to support it.
      Mr. Archer: It is unfortunate—I do not lay the blame entirely at the door of the Government's business managers—that we find ourselves discussing a most important subject so late in the evening.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is interesting that Members who have little in common politically, and who would not agree on a wide range of issues, can come together in a common quest for truth and justice, and occasionally will surprise those outside our number who think that everything that we do is devoted to party politics. That is something of which the House should be proud.
      It is an essential part of any system of criminal law to arrive at conclusions on facts. There is no infallible method of doing that. There is no institutional or procedural device for ensuring that courts never make mistakes of fact. Sometimes we are confronted with cases in which it is either clearly admitted or pretty well certain that mistakes of fact have been made, and that is some comfort, although of course it does not restore the years of freedom that have been taken away from the individuals concerned. What it does is to raise anxiety about the number of cases in which such mistakes never come to light, and people are in prison protesting their innocence and simply being dismissed.
      I do not think that we need be defensive about that. Of the thousands of cases that come before the courts each year, it would be surprising if there were not a small proportion in which the courts got their facts wrong. When we learn of a collection of alleged or real
      700
      miscarriages of justice—as in Mr. Bob Woffinden's book on the subject—I do not think that we should regard that as a disgrace to our system. I am inclined to think—although none of us knows—that our system probably makes fewer mistakes than many others in the world. It is no disgrace: it simply means that we are not omniscient. It would be a disgrace if, when there was cause for concern, there was no attempt to rectify the matter. It is not admitting a mistake which brings the system into disrepute; it is denying it when there seems to be real reason for anxiety.
      In my view, there are three things that we should be doing, and we have been doing them both in Committee and on Report. First, we should be reviewing our procedures to see how we can minimise the mistakes. In Committee we debated whether and when people should be convicted on the basis of uncorroborated confessions. I cannot take that any further tonight, and I do not wish to do so. I had hoped that we would find an opportunity to discuss the desperate underfunding of the forensic service. Forensic scientists can now achieve near-miracles if they are properly funded, both in bringing home guilt and in ensuring that the innocent are not found guilty. One day, when it is within the rules of order, I hope that we can have a discussion on that.
      The second thing that I think we should be doing—this is rather different—is considering whether we have the right balance between convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. There is no way of ensuring that the innocent are never convicted, unless no one is ever convicted. It is sometimes said that it is better for a thousand guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted, but that does not dispose of the problem. What about 5,000 or 10,000? A balance must be struck. Any system of criminal justice is a package, and what we must establish is whether we have got the package about right. Merely increasing the conviction rate does not mean increasing the proper conviction rate.
      Thirdly—this is what we are discussing tonight—we require a machinery for examining cases afterwards if there is anxiety about whether a conviction ought to stand. Let me say at once that we must ensure that cases are not reopened lightly. I wholly agree with the Minister that generally it is in everyone's interests that a decision, once reached, should stand—that there should be an element of finality and everyone should know where he is. But that principle cannot be rigidly applied so as to override justice when there is good reason to believe that someone who did not commit an offence is incarcerated in prison, and conversely that someone who did is walking the streets free.
      12.30 am
      I readily concede that we also need to ensure that these matters should not depend purely on the head of political steam that can be raised for them. We sometimes have to raise a head of political steam because there is no other way of doing anything about it, but the steam that can be raised is not necessarily proportionate to the merits of the case.
      It was said earlier in the debate that what has gone wrong in this country can be attributed to two factors, neither of which in itself is discreditable. The first is that the criminal process is adversarial. The court's function is not to ferret out the truth, but to adjudicate between two contestants. One consequence of that is that appeals have

      701
      been regarded not as taking another look at where the truth lies but as examining the procedure to see whether the game has been played in accordance with the rules and whether everybody has been given a fair chance. That is necessarily based on the assumption that on the day of the trial the accused was at his best, that full justice was done to the presentation of his case and that his legal advisers were operating at 100 per cent. efficiency. If the procedure has been observed, the tendency is to say to somebody who has lost, "You lost a fair game. Hard luck. Now just take it sportingly." That is a little rough on somebody who is serving a life sentence.
      Secondly, a jury is regarded as a venerable and valuable institution, and most Opposition Members would agree with that view. In certain other contexts, we would be arguing exactly that case. There has therefore been a reluctance to reverse a jury's verdict. I should be reluctant to say or to do anything that would cast doubt on the value of a jury, but it has led to the approach that if a jury, properly directed as to the law, and where each side has had an opportunity to put its case, has reached a verdict, that verdict is virtually sacrosanct.
      The fact is that from time to time there have been cases where the system has come under pressure because everybody has recognised that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Reference has been made in this debate to the case of Adolph Beck in the early years of this century, who was twice the victim of misidentification. That led to the creation in 1907 of the Court of Criminal Appeal. There was also the Timothy Evans case. From time to time, very distinguished people have sought to do something about it. In 1961, Justice set up a committee to look into the matter. One of the members of that committee was Lord Gardiner. A few years later Lord Gardiner was in a position to do something about it. He was responsible for the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The purpose of that Act was to try to ensure that the Court of Appeal was not circumscribed in the way that has been described.
      Clause 1(2) of the 1968 Act says that an appeal may be pursued

      "(a) on any ground which involves a question of law alone; and

      (b) with the leave of the Court of Appeal, on any ground which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, or on any other ground which appears to the Court of Appeal to be a sufficient ground of appeal;".

      The Act also says that the Court of Appeal can set aside a conviction
      "on the ground that under all the circumstances of the case it is unsafe or unsatisfactory".
      Unfortunately, that did not turn out as Lord Gardiner had hoped that it would. He had hoped that the Act would lead the courts to ask, not whether they had followed the correct procedure, but whether they had arrived at a proper and safe result.
      The reason was simple. There are advantages in having a legal system that has grown pragmatically over the centuries and a process that has developed its own standards and traditions, but it means that judicial and legal thinking carries the weight of six centuries of legal culture. When Parliament makes a specific provision on a matter of detail, the courts faithfully observe it. When Parliament seeks to change an approach, that is much more difficult to achieve, not because the judges
      702
      consciously decline to respect the sovereignty of Parliament, but because, just as one cannot make people good or honest by Act of Parliament, so one cannot change people's mental habits by passing a statute.
      The courts have not operated in the way that was envisaged when the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 was passed. We are left with some very worrying cases. Whatever our views on the procedures, we cannot fail to be worried by some of the cases that have been mentioned tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and others. We are left with the nasty feeling that the community, in quite properly protecting itself, has committed a serious injustice against those individuals.
      When we mention the word "community", we are on dangerous ground. We use the word "community", to describe togetherness and mutual support, but to the individual the community can be a vast, impersonal and uncomprehending entity. If it makes a mistake, the consequences for the individual can be quite crushing.
      I believe that we should be grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough, who raised the issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, whose contributions over the years have made it possible. I hope that the House will support this initiative. If, subsequently, the Minister says, "We should like to redraft this," most Opposition Members will not complain. But accepting the principle would bring real hope to the families who feel utterly frustrated because they think that the truth about their cases will never emerge.
      Mr. Lawrence: Lest any of my hon. Friends have a heart attack, I shall be very brief.
      May I say a good word for the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)—because he had a good word and the frustration must have been considerable—and for the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? It is very difficult for Conservative Members to share that good feeling, because the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is thoroughly obsessed by what he sincerely believes to be a miscarriage of justice for nearly every terrorist who has ever been convicted in this country. Although that is very interesting, I do not think that it has advanced his case.
      Mr. Mullin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Lawrence: I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time.
      It has not advanced the case for the new clause, because it asks for an independent review body. The speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has been thoroughly counter-productive. What we all fear most is that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would keep the independent review body going.
      A case will start with a jury trial, it will then go to the Court of Appeal, and then to the Home Secretary, who will have to refer matters to the independent review body. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South with his voluminous documents, will prove that the matter will require the deepest, the most concerned, the longest and the most thorough consideration. We will never get an end to our criminal trials and no one will ever be convicted. All those who are convicted want to appeal. They will appeal to the Court of Appeal, to the Home Secretary, to the independent review body, to the European Court of Human Rights, and no justice will be done in the land.

      703
      There are people in our country who believe that the best way to cure terrorism and the extremes of crime from which our society is suffering is for those who are guilty to be convicted. I do not think that the independent review body is the answer to possible miscarriage of justice. We need an investigative body within the Court of Appeal. We need to strengthen the Court of Appeal, but this proposal would weaken it and that is why I am opposed to it. This new clause amounts to an attack on the basis of the Court of Appeal. People who are tried and cry "miscarriage of justice" are not always the victims of a miscarriage of justice. This proposal will put a new tier into the appeals procedure in the criminal system and lead to a massive amount of delay, bureaucracy, expense and, in the end, injustice.
      It is not the proposal that I find strange: it is the fact that some of my hon. Friends—the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—think that to undermine the status of the Court of Appeal, to have more bureacracy and a new tier of appeal that will be fuelled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, would be good for justice.
      It is said that there is public disquiet over the system, but that disquiet is largely the result of media activity. As someone who occasionally sees these problems from the inside, I may say that sometimes the media are justified, but more often than not they are wrong. One outcome of this proposal would be that the media would exercise an ever-increasing influence on referrals and, perhaps, on decisions. Of course the media have an important part to play in our democratic system, but we are slipping into the danger that they are laying claim to take over the decisions in our legal system. The process of justice would not be served by that. It is because I am fearful about the way in which that activity could develop that I am against the proposal.
      Our system is not perfect, and we need to improve it, but we will not improve it in this way. We will improve it by equipping the Court of Appeal with an independent power of investigation and a staff of investigators. That would strengthen respect for the court and reduce the chances of a miscarriage of justice. The proposal upon which we are asked to vote now will only weaken the system. Because I am against such a weakening I shall not support it, and I hope that all hon. Members will do likewise.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 43.

      Division No. 362]

      [12.42 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Amess, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Amos, Alan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Bright, Graham

      Ashby, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Atkins, Robert

      Burt, Alistair

      Atkinson, David

      Butterfill, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Beggs, Roy

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      704

      Chapman, Sydney

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Chope, Christopher

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mills, Iain

      Cran, James

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

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

      Needham, Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Neubert, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Dunn, Bob

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Durant, Tony

      Paice, James

      Evennett, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Farr, Sir John

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Favell, Tony

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Portillo, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Forth, Eric

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Ryder, Richard

      Freeman, Roger

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Gale, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Sims, Roger

      Gill, Christopher

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Squire, Robin

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

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

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Jackson, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Janman, Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Knapman, Roger

      Walden, George

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Lightbown, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Lilley, Peter

      Watts, John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Wheeler, John

      Lord, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Maclean, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mans, Keith

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      NOES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      McNamara, Kevin

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Beckett, Margaret

      Mullin, Chris

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Nellist, Dave

      Boateng, Paul

      Pike, Peter L.

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Randall, Stuart

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Reid, Dr John

      Dixon, Don

      Richardson, Jo

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Short, Clare

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fraser, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gordon, Mildred

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Vaz, Keith

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Wall, Pat

      Haynes, Frank

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Worthington, Tony

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Mr. Alun Michael and Mrs. Llin Golding.

      McGrady, Eddie

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided:Ayes 45, Noes 121.

      Division No. 363]

      [12.54 am

      AYES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Ashby, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Michael, Alun

      Beckett, Margaret

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Boateng, Paul

      Nellist, Dave

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Randall, Stuart

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Dixon, Don

      Reid, Dr John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Richardson, Jo

      Farr, Sir John

      Short, Clare

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fraser, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Vaz, Keith

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wall, Pat

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Haynes, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      McGrady, Eddie

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Amess, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Amos, Alan

      Gill, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, James

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Atkinson, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Beggs, Roy

      Hind, Kenneth

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Bowis, John

      Jackson, Robert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Janman, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Knapman, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Butterfill, John

      Lightbown, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lord, Michael

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Chapman, Sydney

      Maclean, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Mans, Keith

      Cran, James

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Mills, Iain

      Devlin, Tim

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dunn, Bob

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Durant, Tony

      Needham, Richard

      Evennett, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Paice, James

      Forman, Nigel

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Forth, Eric

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Freeman, Roger

      Portillo, Michael

      706

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Tracey, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wheeler, John

      Squire, Robin

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Summerson, Hugo

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to object strongly to the motion. Opposition Members see no reason whatever why we should adjourn consideration of the Bill at this hour —which is comparatively early for the House of Commons. We are gratified by the interest shown by Conservative Members, although it is strange that they are here on a whipped basis whereas Opposition Members are here out of interest. It is significant that throughout our debates today the Opposition Benches have been far fuller than the Conservative Benches.
      It seems that the Government are suffering from a strange panic at this state of affairs. They moved a closure on the last group of amendments when hon. Members on both sides of the House still wished to speak. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that only 121 Conservative Members voted in the last Division; I suppose that the Government fear that the figure will fall below the magical 100 needed for a Division if we continue the business.
      The issues that we have been discussing today are extremely important, and we have heard important contributions from both sides of the House. To enlighten those Conservative Members who have not been here during all our proceedings, perhaps we should remind them of exactly what we have been discussing.
      Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for gross intimidation of Government Back-Bench Members to take place to prevent them from exercising their freedom to return home at this time of night because of the Government's determination to keep more than 100 Members here? It is a gross infringement of the rights of Members of this House—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I know nothing about any intimidation. The only thing that is delaying us is these speeches.
      Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps we should return to the difficult task of enlightening Conservative Members about what we have been discussing today. It seems that they are afraid to leave and that some arm-twisting is going on. The problems in the Government Whips Office seem to be increasing all the time.
      The House has discussed reporting restrictions on Crown court proceedings and torture—the latter is pertinent to Conservative Members at this late hour. In

      707
      Committee the Minister gave assurances on both issues, and we pay tribute to him for returning to the House this evening and fulfilling those assurances. We also discussed extradition, so that the Government could make yet another correction to a Bill that has been through the House of Commons once already—before the general election—through every stage in the House of Lords and through a Committee of the House. Yet at this late stage the Government are having to correct some of its basic provisions.
      The House also had to discuss two completely new issues. Government new clause 79 dealt with the enforcement of Northern Ireland orders in Scotland. The Government were not ready to introduce it even at the Committee stage of the Bill. My hon. Friends and the Minister spent a grand total of 20 minutes on that new clause, which is hardly a filibuster by anyone's standards.
      Government new clause 80 dealt with body samples in Northern Ireland. Again, the Government did not tell us before Report that they intended to introduce that issue into the Bill. Depite the fact that it was a controversial and completely new measure, the House spent only one hour and two minutes discussing it. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the House has not been tardy, but has made progress.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with adjourning the debate now is that it may give the Minister another weekend in which to think up more amendments? When the Bill was in Committee, after every weekend adjournment new ideas were brought before us.
      Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Every time we had an adjournment, even during the week, we always had new amendments from the Government. The problem was that most of them——
      Mr. Lawrence: Were bright new ideas.
      1.15 am
      Mrs. Taylor: They were not bright new ideas. Most of the amendments were to correct Government mistakes in legislation that has been before both Houses of Parliament twice during the past couple of years. We still have to discuss 191 separate Government amendments to correct provisions in the Bill.
      The debate that we should have been having this evening includes some important issues that Opposition Members believe deserve proper discussion. That is why we are willing to stay in the House tonight and discuss those matters at greater length. They include not only new clauses tabled by Opposition Members, but new clauses and amendments tabled by Conservative Members. They include, for example, the question of children giving evidence through video recordings, a subject that I should have thought would be of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is covered by the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) as well as by Opposition Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I do not know where Conservative Members are, but I know where Opposition Members are. They are in the Chamber and ready to discuss the issue as soon as the Government give way and allow us to make progress tonight.
      The measures also include a new clause on corporal punishment tabled by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos). He may believe that it is too late, but we are
      708
      certainly willing to discuss the matter. The measures also include new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), in which there is a great deal of public interest of which we are all aware. Perhaps the explanation for our early adjournment is that the Government are afraid of being seen to state their case so clearly on new clause 16.
      Mr. Sydney Chapman: Many hon. Members are particularly interested in new clause 16. The hon. Lady appears to be complaining that the new clause should have been reached, yet was not reached. Surely one reason why it was not reached was that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) went on far too long.
      Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I am not complaining that new clause 16 has not been discussed. It could still be discussed this evening, and I do not understand why the Government have moved tins motion to prevent discussion on new clause 16. We would rather stay here and discuss many of the other important measures tabled for debate this evening. We should like to discuss the sale of knives to juveniles, an important issue in society at present, with the increase in violence. We would have been happy to discuss the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), although we disagree with it.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: When may we discuss new clause 16? What is the hon. Lady's estimate of the time?
      Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the Government will reconsider their position. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that Ministers are now willing to withdraw the motion, we will be able to talk about that matter tonight. Why do we not make progress? I shall not say how long Conservative Members will talk on these issues. Many Conservative Members who have spoken tonight have taken just as much time as Opposition Members, with one exception, which was due to a very good case and some provocation from Conservative Members.
      There are other important issues that we could continue to debate this evening and that the Government are trying to squeeze into a very crowded parliamentary timetable next week, including income-related fines, anonymity in rape cases and breath tests and the amount of alcohol that people are allowed in their blood when they are driving. We should have debated the important issue of the suspension of passports—the subject of a proposal tabled by a Conservative Member.
      All those issues are important and they could still be debated this morning. I do not understand why the Government are panicking now. There is no suggestion at this stage that the Government business for tomorrow will be lost. There are many hours to go before we reach tomorrow's business. If the Minister proposes to press the motion, I hope that he will tell us when we will have adequate time to discuss all those issues.
      The Government have already told us that they expect the remaining stages of the Bill to be completed on Monday. Is the Minister saying that all the new clauses that I have mentioned, the Opposition amendments and the 191 Government amendments will all be debated and voted upon on Monday? That will not allow the House sufficient time to deal seriously with these issues. We

      709
      strongly object to the motion, and we demand extra time for the Bill if the Government insist on taking it off the agenda this morning.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that the Minister is offended. I do not know what you do with Ministers when they get offended, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you will have to make some reparation because once they have the sulks, you have to look after them. The Minister is one of the up-and-coming, rising stars of the Tory party. At least, they said so several years ago. I am not sure, after tonight's performance, that The Daily Telegraph and the other so-called quality press will be saying that.
      I have listened to this legal filibuster tonight. At least I thought it was going to be a legal filibuster before you took over the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have been around this place for a while—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Conservative Members should sing it. They are all in chorus.
      I wondered what would happen when the legal wallahs got together tonight. I came into the Chamber at about 8 pm. I noticed that the debate did not start until 5.39 pm. I said to one of my mates then, "When these lawyers get started, this will last a long time." One hon. Member, who is not a lawyer, has dropped off. I can understand the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) being tired, because he was up all night on the Housing Bill and he wanted to go to Ascot. I think that he went to Ascot today and he probably backed the Gold Cup winner, which then got disqualified. I have probably hit the nail on the head there. I think that there should be a stewards' inquiry into why the hon. Member for Crawley is dropping off while I am speaking.
      When I came into the Chamber, I thought, "All these lawyers are talking like a snobs' filibuster." There were Privy Councillors and hon. Members could not get in to speak, not even if they cried out. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was called. I thought, "Well, that makes a break because he is not a lawyer."
      Immediately my hon. Friend began to speak, the Conservatives heckled him. Those people have been in the law courts all day. They pick up £30,000 a year on top of their parliamentary salaries. A layman then comes along and talks like a lawyer. Anybody dropping into the Chamber might have thought, "Hello, there's another one." My hon. Friend might have been trying hard—I do not know—but immediately he began, the so-called genteel hon. and learned Members started to heckle him.
      On top of that, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle)—the so-called salad lawyer, who belongs to the party that dare not speak its name —did not get called, and, to make reparation, he intervened. He reckons that he is one of the so-called liberals and is humanitarian down to his toenails. Nevertheless, he attacked my hon. Friend's speech on some great libertarian issue, only because the hon. and learned Gentleman was mad at not getting the first chance to talk about it.
      I was looking forward to a long night. I noticed the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) enter the
      710
      Chamber with a stack of law books. When Members arrive with law books, one knows that they will put an hour or two under their belts.
      I examined the amendments to learn which subjects were to be debated. I saw that they included video recordings, water fluoridation, exemption from jury service and the sale of knives. On and on they went. I thought that I would be able to sit back, for they were nothing to do with me. I thought also that the debate would be above board, and that there would be no arguments about filibustering when the lawyers got started.
      The time is nearly half past one in the morning. It is still early. Debate on this Bill did not begin until 5.39 pm, but the Tories have already thrown in the towel.
      Mr. Don Dixon: They have the weekend off.
      Mr. Skinner: It is a cushy number, when one thinks about it. We have been on night shift once this week, and I tried to organise three more. I thought we would have another one tonight, but the Government have thrown in the towel. The Labour Front Bench was threatened by the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House yesterday with having the Short money taken away for allegedly losing control. Now that the Government have lost control of their business, I believe that all their Whips should lose their money. [Interruption.] I heard one or two remarks then from the Conservative Benches suggesting that I have some support for that idea.
      You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know Standing Orders inside out. Let us have a snap vote under Standing Order No. 30—count hon. Members in the Chamber before they change their minds and before the Whips have twisted their arms. The Government have lost control.
      Neither is the situation fair to the Chair. Word went around earlier that it was going to be a lawyers' night, and that the debate would last into the early hours of the morning. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have made various arrangements, but now they will all fall by default. I am not a lawyer, but I think that the Bill will be guillotined.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Government would not dare do that.
      Mr. Skinner: There is now a guillotine on the Housing Bill. The Government have so much business that they do not know which way to turn. Notwithstanding all the important hon. and learned Members who want to contribute, I believe that a guillotine motion will be introduced for this Bill next week. I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that the House will not be allowed to discuss the topics that she mentioned earlier. They will all have to go by the board when the Government introduce another guillotine to cut this Bill's throat.
      We ought to carry on. Those hon. Members who prepared for another all-night sitting should join my hon. Friends in the Division Lobbies to ensure that we may have another vote.
      There is another reason why we should not stop this debate. The Strangers' Gallery is full. All those people are interested in the Bill and in the amendments. The Government should reverse their decision and allow the House to carry on through the night. We can go straight through the weekend if we like. What is wrong with that?

      711
      Royal Ascot finishes tomorrow, so we do not have that to worry about. We do not have to bother about watching England on the box. As near as damn it, the English football team has been knocked out of the European championship. We might as well continue discussing the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury wants to continue, and we have a reserve team outside that will arrive later in the morning. What are we to do? Are we to send a signal to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—he has missed three or four Divisions this evening—who is hot-footing it back to the House to take part in the proceedings tomorrow?
      For all the reasons that I have advanced, I think that we should continue.
      1.30 am
      Mr. Bermingham: There are two short, sharp reasons, which perhaps the Minister will take on board over the weekend, for not adjourning the debate tonight. A number of new clauses are in jeopardy. Those new clauses contain ideas that cross party boundaries. I draw the Minister's attention to new clause 16, which stands in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), myself and others.
      If the Minister can be bothered to listen, I suggest that he should take two lessons away with him to consider over the weekend. First, it is clear that new clause 16 has all-party support. If he looks around, he will see that it has the support of many ordinary, decent people. There are many who are strongly in favour of it. Secondly, those who practise in the courts know of the problems and the embarrassments that are sometimes associated with jury service. Rumour has it that the Minister is not in favour of new clause 16, but he might like to spend the weekend asking those who practise in the courts what they feel about the reluctant juror.
      At the beginning of the century, anyone who was reluctant to fight in the armed services was castigated and attacked. Time has taught us that some of the bravest men in the world were those who conscientiously objected to fighting, but were prepared to give their lives willingly on the battlefield as stretcher bearers. That sort of attitude and change of attitude—[Interruption.] I regret, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have reached the stage in the evening when we witness what might almost be described as loutish behaviour on the Government Benches. If Conservative Members have comments to make, perhaps they will rise from their semi-sedentary or lying positions —I mean lying in the sense of being flat out—and be kind enough to intervene.
      I am prepared always to give way and to listen to any intelligent remarks that Conservative Members may care to make. I regret that on occasions snide, snarled and rude remarks are made by Conservative Members. Such comments do them no credit. We have watched and identified, and those who watch us generally have done so as well. If the hon. Gentleman in the middle of the back row of Benches above the Gangway, who is lying on his side, wants to call me rude names. have the courage to stand up and do it, boyo.
      Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a complete and absolute gratuitous insult, and it was entirely untrue. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has not
      712
      yet made any real comment on the motion. He is indulging in time wasting, bad behaviour and unparliamentary behaviour.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall stop the hon. Gentleman before he goes too far. I do not know whether the House understood to whom the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was referring, but I did not. It might help if the House were to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his speech.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard what was said and I ignored it. As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rely upon your protection in this place. I know of the fairness that is shown by the Chair.
      I return to the question of the adjournment of the debate. Perhaps the Minister will take time to consider new clause 83, which seeks to reduce the permitted level of alchohol in the bloodstream in drink-driving cases. It is clear from what is now being said by the experts—and the same feeling can be found in many parts of the land—that the time has come for the question of drinking and driving to be considered seriously again.
      I deprecate the motion to adjourn the debate. I have —perhaps naughtily—used the opportunity to mention to the Minister two matters that are of considerable concern to me, and indeed to hon. Members of all parties. I hope that over the weekend the Minister will take on board those few simple thoughts and spare a little time to reflect that outside this place a considerable number of people are desperately concerned about those two issues. Perhaps on Monday wisdom will reign and the two new clauses will pass into law.
      Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to raise a question through you, as I am a little disturbed about new clause 16. I received a letter this morning—which means that it must have been posted yesterday—which clearly indicates that new clause 16 will be guillotined out. We are so near to that new clause that it seems significant that we should be closing the debate at this stage. Can we hear from the Minister that new clause 16 will be debated?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously I cannot be responsible for, or answer to, anything that may be contained in a letter to any hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman has asked the Minister. Perhaps it would have been sensible to allow the Minister to comment.
      Mr. John Patten: I find myself in some difficulty. I do not have the letter to which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has referred, so I cannot comment on it.
      Mr. McKay: I shall let the Minister have a copy.
      Mr. Patten: That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), will I think agree that the Committee stage was very instructive throughout, and was conducted in a very good-humoured way. The Government responded to Opposition Members as

      713
      constructively as they could on a number of occasions, and at no time was there any rancour in the many hours of debate.
      I believe—or, rather, suspect—that when the hon. Member for Dewsbury addressed her cornflakes and coffee, or whatever she had for breakfast, she did not believe that by 1.37 am the next day we would have made so little progress on the Bill. I think that she suspected that by 1.37 am she would be safely tucked up in bed signing constituency correspondence or reading an agreeable book, but certainly not still here, our having made relatively little progress on the Bill.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I do not wish to go further into my habits at breakfast or anything else of that kind, but if we were all so sure that we would make such quick progress, why did the Minister report to the Opposition Whip that he had brought his flannelette pyjamas this morning?
      Mr. Patten: I do not want to fall into the same trap as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in reporting private conversations, but I am bound to say that I think that I had better. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme quipped to me behind the Chair, "Have you brought your nightie?" I simply answered that I had not, but that I was otherwise fully prepared to discuss these matters. I see that the hon. Lady does not dissent from the joke that she directed at me: she has not denied that those were her words.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Why did she think that my hon. Friend wanted a nightie?
      Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend raises a question that he had better ask the hon. Lady, perhaps behind the Chair. He may get a better answer than I did.
      I do not believe that the hon. Member for Dewsbury thought this morning that we should not make the kind of progress that was characteristic of the whole of the Committee stage. We have had some important debates, some of which have been rather long. I believe that important issues are best discussed when hon. Members have had a chance to reflect on the considerable contrast between the proceedings today and those in Committee, when there was all-party agreement. It would be much better to address next Monday to such important issues as video-recorded evidence, exemption from jury service and the carrying of knives.
      Mr. Archer: Before the Minister sits downs——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the Minister concluded his speech?
      Mr. Patten: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat down.
      Mr. Worthington: The Minister was quite right to refer to a constructive Committee stage. All those who served on the Committee came to the Chamber hoping that that constructive attitude would continue, and my impression is that that is what has occurred. However, one of the problems is that the Minister thinks that he can get a seat on the Cabinet by introducing a new clause every day. He works according to some obscure productivity bonus. There are 27 new clauses. They were not examined by the Committee.
      714
      This Bill started its progress through Parliament shortly after the second world war. When I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) the other day, he told me that he remembered serving in a Committee on the Bill when he had hair. If we are to do justice to the Government's legislation, what are we to do when 27 new clauses and 200 new amendments are thrown at us? The Minister admitted tonight that he had made a mistake; he had remembered the colonies, and they were suddenly brought into the Bill. After considering these matters for nearly 40 years, the colonies were remembered, but no hon. Member could spontaneously remember where or what the colonies were.
      Immensely important issues have still to be considered. We have been making steady progress. I deny that there has been any filibustering. The Opposition are enthusiastic about continuing the consideration of important issues. Given the interest that has been expressed in the subject, one feels a particular sense of guilt about being unable to consider tonight the matter of conscientious objection to jury service. It would be disgraceful if the House did not consider that issue, having given the impression that it would be considered today after interest had been expressed in the subject. Public interest has also been expressed in another important issue—video evidence. It would be a great pity if consideration of that issue had to wait until next week.
      I agree with my hon. Friends that we ought to continue the proceedings and deal with those issues. We are at our best now. The Minister said that he was at his best in the morning, but the Opposition are fighting fit and ready to continue. This hand-picked team has been asked rigorously to consider the Bill. When we run out of steam round about next Thursday, our second team will come in.
      Mr. Waddington rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Archer (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise that if the Government Whips choose to close the debate by a procedural motion on a matter of such importance, that is a matter of courtesy, rather than a matter for the Chair, and we have to bear it with fortitude. I raise a point of order for the good name of the House.
      People in the Strangers Gallery may think that the attitude of the House during the past few minutes has been somewhat frivolous. Those who are Members of the House know that this happens from time to time and that it does not diminish the attention that we give to the importance of the business.
      People in the Gallery are technically strangers, but they have been sitting there all day because they have a very real interest in new clause 16.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that in our proceedings we take no account of those who are outside the Chamber. It is contrary to our usual practice to make any reference to them. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the character of our proceedings during the past few minutes, nothing has occurred that is out of order, and there is certainly nothing for me to deal with.
      The House having divided: Ayes 114, Noes 24.

      Division No. 364]

      [1.44 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Amess, David

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Amos, Alan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lilley, Peter

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Lord, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Atkinson, David

      Maclean, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Boswell, Tim

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bottomley, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bowis, John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Mills, Iain

      Bright, Graham

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Needham, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Neubert, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Carrington, Matthew

      Paice, James

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Portillo, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Cran, James

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Ryder, Richard

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Devlin, Tim

      Sims, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Farr, Sir John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Steen, Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Stern, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Forth, Eric

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Summerson, Hugo

      Freeman, Roger

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Gale, Roger

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Tracey, Richard

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Walden, George

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Watts, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Wheeler, John

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

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Wood, Timothy

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Jackson, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Janman, Tim

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      NOES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Beggs, Roy

      Mullin, Chris

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Nellist, Dave

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Short, Clare

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Don

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Vaz, Keith

      Haynes, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned:—
      The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 21.

      Division No. 365]

      [2.00 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Amess, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Amos, Alan

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Lilley, Peter

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Ashby, David

      Lord, Michael

      Atkinson, David

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Batiste, Spencer

      Maclean, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Mans, Keith

      Boswell, Tim

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bowis, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Bright, Graham

      Mills, Iain

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Burt, Alistair

      Needham, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Paice, James

      Chapman, Sydney

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Chope, Christopher

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Portillo, Michael

      Cran, James

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

      Ryder, Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Devlin, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Dunn, Bob

      Sims, Roger

      Durant, Tony

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Farr, Sir John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Steen, Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Stern, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Forth, Eric

      Summerson, Hugo

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Freeman, Roger

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Gale, Roger

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Tracey, Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Walden, George

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Watts, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Wheeler, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Widdecombe, Ann

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

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Wood, Timothy

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jackson, Robert

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Janman, Tim

      NOES

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Haynes, Frank

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Beggs, Roy

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Mullin, Chris

      Dixon, Don

      Nellist, Dave

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gordon, Mildred

      Skinner, Dennis

      717

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Alun Michael.

      Worthington, Tony

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

      Commercial Vehicles
      2.12 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move:
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6511/88 on the weight limit for two axle rigid vehicles and the un-numbered explanatory memorandum dated 24th May 1988, submitted by the Department of Transport, describing a draft Directive amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles; and endorses the Government's objective of securing Community arrangements which would make it possible to keep axle spacings and axle weights within current United Kingdom limits in order to safeguard bridges in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have lost a bit of steam now. I wanted to raise a fair point of order. Before he leaves the Chamber, that thing there—[interruption.] Oh, he has not left; he has sat down. I am talking about the Chief Whip. I was the only one who was standing to contribute. Because it was me, he went up to the Chair and suggested that you should accept the closure. He put pressure on you——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member must not jump to conclusions about what advice the Chair may or may not have received. Does he wish to pursue his point of order?
      Mr. Haynes: I do. I wanted the opportunity to make a few remarks about what Conservative Members had said, but that thing there came up to you and suggested a closure—[Interruption.] Oh, shut up. I think that that lot has been to Ascot and had too much to drink, by the sound of them. I have the Floor, not that lot. It is time that you kept control of these public schoolboy louts, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My point of order is that I was stopped from making a short contribution from the Tribune Bench next to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I do not reckon to sit there; I reckon to sit here, near where I am. You saw me, Sir. I would have been called but for the fact that the Chief Whip went up to you and stopped me. I have always given co-operation to the Chair and always will, but that thing there will get no co-operation from me.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair deprecates that style of addressing or referring to another hon. Member. It is very regrettable and most discourteous.
      The acceptance or otherwise of the motion, That the Question be now put, is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. Responsibility was mine, and mine alone, and it remains mine. I accepted the motion and put it to the House. Mr. Peter Bottomley.
      Mr. Haynes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not finished yet. It is all right for Conservative Members; they can do just as they like and get away with it. I want the opportunity to express my views. The Government Chief Whip usually sits in his place on the Front Bench, but he was not sitting there when I rose. He came to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What am I to believe other than that I have been denied the right to speak?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that the acceptance of a motion that is put to the House is within the discretion of

      719
      the Chair. I exercised my discretion and the responsibility is mine. By implication, the hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically criticising me. I very much hope that he will not persist with that line. Mr. Peter Bottomley.
      Mr. Haynes: Further to the point of order——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made his view clear to the House. I can well understand his anger, but he must not persist. We should get on with the business. Mr. Peter Bottomley.
      Mr. Haynes: But——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time. He is a highly respected Member of the House and he is behaving very uncharacteristically.
      Mr. Haynes: Further to the——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in provoking the Chair.
      Mr. Bottomley: The draft directives concern the weights of two, three and four-axled vehicles used in international transport. These are due to be discussed in the European Council meeting on 20 and 21 June. The discussions do not concern the United Kingdom derogation for 38-tonne articulated vehicles—by far the most important vehicles used in international transport to and from the United Kingdom. They do not affect national standards applicable to United Kingdom operation. In total, the directives apply to some 0·3 per cent.—one in 1,000—of goods vehicles on our roads.
      Some time ago, proposals were put forward by the Commission. In December 1984, the Council agreed a draft directive on lorry weights and dimensions, which was debated on 18 December 1984. The directive was published as 85/3/EEC. It set gross vehicle weight limits for five and six-axled vehicle combinations—articulated lorries and drawbar combinations. In June 1986 the Council agreed the maximum drive axle weight for such vehicles, which we debated on 1 July. The Council's decision was incorporated in directive 86/360/EEC.
      Both the directives that I have mentioned—85/3 and 86/360—contain derogations that allow the United Kingdom to maintain lower limits for certain weights than are permitted in the directives. This was intended to give us time to strengthen some of our bridges for the increased weights. Our limit for articulated lorries is 38 tonnes.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister's remark that the derogations give time for the United Kingdom to strengthen bridges a statement of Government policy? Is that the only reason why we have not increased total weight to 40 tonnes and why we have not increased from 10·5 to 11·5 tonnes the maximum weight on the drive axle?
      Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that to get the derogation we had to argue reasonable cause. As he knows, the reasonable cause is the condition of our roads and bridges. We recently announced a bridge strengthening and survey programme, which will last for 15 years or more. That should help to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman rightly asked, and my words and the words that the Government have used before will be well known in Europe. I hope that that shows that there is no change in the situation. We spelt out the matter plainly.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why does the Minister say that the derogation was of a limited period —perhaps 15 years—given that when the issue was debated in Parliament on 18 December 1984, the then Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, said that it was of indefinite duration. How can the Government say that it is of indefinite duration at one moment, to get the proposal through, and then say suddenly that things have changed and that it is not indefinite at all?
      Mr. Bottomley: It was to be open-ended. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend said "indefinite" or "open-ended", but we can take it—[Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to speak for a moment, and I shall try to answer him. I take the two words to mean the same——
      Mr. Taylor: That is stupid.
      Mr. Bottomley: I do not wish in any way to change the words used by my right hon. Friend in that debate, nor the sense of them. I was about to explain that the only thing that has changed is that we have announced the bridge survey programme, which is not likely to be completed in the near future.
      Our limit for articulated lorries is 38 tonnes, and our drive axle weight limit is 10·5 tonnes. The Commission has proposed no change to those arrangements. It is important that the logic of the derogation prevails for all the other vehicles now subject to discussion.
      It has always been the intention to harmonise the weights and dimensions of all heavy vehicles used throughout the Community. Five and six-axled vehicle combinations are the main type of vehicle used in international transport. However, the Council has now considered two, three and four-axled vehicles, which were the subject of earlier proposals in 1971 and 1979–81.
      For two-axled lorries the weight proposed is 18 tonnes; that compares with a United Kingdom limit of 17 tonnes. The weight proposed for three-axled lorries is 25 tonnes, compared with 24·4 tonnes in the United Kingdom, and that for four-axled lorries is 32 tonnes, compared with 30·5 tonnes in the United Kingdom. The weight proposed for all four-axled combinations is 36 tonnes, while here it is 32·5 tonnes. The drive axle weight for all those vehicles is proposed to be 11·5 tonnes, whereas in the United Kingdom it is 10·5 tonnes.
      Directive 86/360 already sets a limit of 11·5 tonnes for the drive axle of five-axled combinations but contains a derogation allowing us to maintain our existing limit of 10·5 tonnes for this axle. The draft directives present the opportunity for member states to question the United Kingdom's need for a similar derogation for two, three and four-axled vehicles. It is important that the derogation is maintained for all those vehicles. If any attempt is made to remove our right to a derogation at the forthcoming Council meeting, we shall resist it with the utmost vigour.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is the fundamental point. Am I right in thinking that the decision will be made by a simple majority at the Council of Ministers? If so, how will the Secretary of State resist our European partners' proposal to remove the derogation?
      Mr. Bottomley: With the derogation of 10·5 tonnes on five and six-axled combination articulated vehicles, it is self-evidently ludicrous—whether in English, French,

      721
      German, Greek or any other language—to go for more than 10·5 tonnes in respect of any other vehicle. If the limiting factor is the maximum weight per axle, it would be crazy to ask for a higher weight for some vehicles and not for others. That is why the 10·5 tonne axle limit is important, and the House should give its full backing to the Government's desire to preserve it. It is a matter of common sense, but it will also help my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday if he has the full backing of the House.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will my hon. Friend accept the gratitude of my constituents for his courageous stand, and will he continue to show such strength and fortitude in the years ahead?
      Mr. Bottomley: We certainly will. We did it for the 38-tonne vehicle, and we shall do it for these.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Government have already given in on 38-tonne vehicles.
      Mr. Bottomley: I said exactly the opposite. The more the hon. Gentleman says that, the more he is likely to mislead the people who will be in negotiation with us. If the hon. Gentleman had his heart and mind in the right place, he would say that the Government are getting it right. There is no prospect of losing that derogation for a very long time. Sometimes I wonder whether Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends are acting for those on the other side of the Channel who want to have heavier weights or heavier drive axles on our roads. I offer those remarks in parenthesis, as I wish their remarks had been made behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, not in front of it.
      With a 10·5 tonne drive axle, it would not be practical for a two-axled lorry to weigh more than our present limit of 17 tonnes, and 6·5 tonnes is the practical limit for the front steering axle. The proposed 25 tonnes for the three-axled lorry is only half a tonne more than our present limit and presents no problems for bridges or roads.
      However, the four-axled lorry is slightly more difficult because there is a potential problem with bridges. Our current four-axled vehicle is already the critical determinant of bridge loading. It would be technically feasible to permit the proposed increased weight of 32 tonnes provided that there was sufficient distance between the front and rear axles. The formula in the draft directive of 5 tonnes per metre is acceptable to us and we would deem it essential for it to remain unchanged. There would be some increase in road wear with the four-axled vehicles, but very few rigid vehicles are used in international transport to and from the United Kingdom, so there would be almost no practical effect. Some member states favour a formula for weight against wheelbase which, if agreed, could cause significant bridge overload and so is totally unacceptable to the United Kingdom. We shall resist that in favour of the Commission's proposal.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Emphasis is laid, both in the explanatory memorandum and in the Minister's speech, on the suggestion that the measure will be restricted to international traffic. Where in the draft directive does it state that the measure is restricted to international traffic? How will the directive restrict itself solely to international
      722
      traffic, and how will the Government or the Community prevent people from taking advantage of the changes from a domestic point of view?
      Mr. Bottomley: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in detail later. In many other areas, the directive covers international trade and not the national regimes. The draft directive covers international traffic, but does not cover national regulations for national traffic. The same applies to drivers' hours. In practical terms, we are talking about one vehicle in a thousand. We are talking not about the popular five and six-axle units, but about units that make up 0·3 per cent. of our heavy goods vehicles. The majority of vehicles used in international transport have five or six axles and are unaffected by the proposals. I was talking about four-axle vehicles and said that we would resist the idea of adopting a weight against wheelbase formula in favour of the Commission's proposal.
      Let me now turn to the question of the four-axle combinations which are articulated lorries or drawbar trailer combinations. The weight limit proposed by the Commission is 36 tonnes, whereas our present limit in this country is 32·5 tonnes. Some member states would wish even higher weights for axle articulated vehicles. Although the directive applies only to vehicles used in international traffic, which answers the hon. Gentleman's point, and would not force us to increase our domestic limits, we will argue most strongly against European colleagues for any increase in weight from 32·5 tonnes.
      An increase in weight to the Commission's proposals may not cause undue bridge damage, provided we gained drive axle weight derogations, but it would cause extra road wear and tear and make the use of four-axle articulated and drawbar units more popular for international freight. We know the feelings that have been expressed in this House on previous occasions when the issue of weight increases for these vehicle types has been raised. The majority of vehicles used in international transport have five or six axles and are unaffected by the present proposals.
      The existing directives—85/3 and 86/360—apply only to goods vehicles. The new proposed directives would apply also to passenger vehicles—buses and coaches. The maximum weight of a two-axled coach could therefore be 18 tonnes with 11·5 tonnes on its rear axle. In this country, we already allow a total weight of 17 tonnes on these vehicles, with a 10·5 tonne rear axle. With a derogation on drive axle weight, we could maintain the 10·5 tonne limit on the rear axle and effectively keep the total weight unchanged at 17 tonnes. When our bridges have been strengthened and we no longer need the derogation, the extra tonne of total weight will allow more passenger luggage to be carried, a move that would be welcomed by the operators and their clients.
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: Can the Minister tell us when the bridges are likely to be strengthened? What time scale are we talking about?
      Mr. Bottomley: I do not see how it could be less than 15 years, and it could be significantly more than that.
      The main benefit that we are seeking is to have a common market in road haulage. Our operators should be able to make journeys in the EC without a permit. Although these are separate issues, they are related and we must enter the Council of Ministers meeting on 20–21 June prepared and able to fight our corner. If we are not given

      723
      leave to do so by the House, then all we can do is to enter a scrutiny reserve and risk being outvoted. It is majority voting in the Council now, on key weight issues, and unless we are careful lorry weights could be pushed up still further. In the next few years we stand to reap substantial benefits in negotiations on road haulage and market access. This amending directive on lorry weights must not stand in the way of Britain's position on these issues, and that is why we should agree to it.
      We still remain committed to the undertaking given in 1982 that there should be no increase in the maximum weight of the heaviest lorries until our bridges are suitably prepared and Parliament agrees. I again assure the House that I am making no such proposals now. We are achieving the beginning of a movement towards liberalisation of road haulage throughout the Community, and those elements of harmonisation to which we can agree will be of value to our exporting manufacturers. I hope that the House will approve the motion.
      2.30 am
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: I found very unusual the Minister's charge that I am doing the work of his friends in Brussels. I have not had such a charge laid at my door before.
      By facing both ways over the issue of maximum lorry weights, the Minister has caused confusion. The House should be aware that the task of strengthening bridges has been neglected over the past nine years by the Government and there is now a considerable backlog of repair, and that is causing concern about the condition of our bridges. I assure lion. Members that it will be some time before the Government can make any changes. However, it was important that the Minister added the rider "when Parliament allows" when he addressed the matter the second time. He did not say that the first time around. It was important that he made that correction.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I use the parliamentary condition as often as we can. If I left it out the first time, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to suggest to our European partners that a Labour Government, if we had one, would get the bridges mended so rapidly that the derogation would fall and Parliament might have to face the issues sooner.
      Mr. Lloyd: On that basis, I draw comfort from the fact that the derogation is indefinite. A Labour Government would have no truck with increasing the weight to 38 tonnes.
      As there are very important issues in the draft directive that must be addressed, I shall consider those rather than the maximum axle weight, which is slightly off the track tonight. The Public Accounts Committee, in its report earlier this year on heavy goods vehicles, provided a considerable amount of statistics which had not been placed on the record before. For example, it showed that the cost of the maintenance of our road system because of the damage caused by heavy goods vehicles is about £600 million a year. The Committee was critical of the Department of Transport and called, among other things, for better information about all the adverse effects of heavy goods vehicles on our roads.
      724
      The Committee explained something that hon. Members may not have realised. It said that there are classes of heavy goods vehicles. I know the Minister will say that steps are being taken to amend that, but the track costs of some of those vehicles exceed by a considerable amount the amount raised in taxation. There is a clear subsidy from the public to road hauliers.
      The most important issue that the House should consider is overloading. According to the Public Accounts Committee, overloading already costs the nation about £50 million a year. That money could go a considerable way towards the cost of strengthening bridges. It would not allow an increase to 40 tonnes, but it would provide an adequate bridge network. It would do away with those signs that we see in so many parts of the country saying that the bridge is unfit to take loads above a certain weight.
      The House should realise that overloading is endemic in the road haulage industry. Department of Transport surveys show that between 7 and 22 per cent. of vehicles tested were found to be overloaded. The Public Accounts Committee felt that those figures were an underestimate. It felt that more than 22 per cent. of vehicles were overloaded, and it went on to say that overloading among foreign lorries was worse than among domestic lorries. However, only about 3 per cent. of foreign lorries are checked during their time in this country. The probability of being caught is very low.
      A five or six-axle, 38-tonne lorry overloaded by a factor of up to 10 per cent. can provide a significant increase in its operator's annual profits, and the risk of detection—particularly with a foreign lorry—is so small as to be insignificant. The temptation to overload is very strong, and the Public Accounts Committee's conclusion was that the practice was one that the House should take closely to its heart.
      The Minister spoke of increasing the weight limits of four-axle lorries with drawbars or articulated lorries from 32·5 tonnes to 36 tonnes. A 10 per cent. increase in that higher limit would take the weight to 39·6 tonnes—virtually the same as the 40-tonne limit that the road haulage industry and the EC are trying to impose. Also significant is the lack of weighbridges, which the Government will not provide at the ports even in the light of the debate on ferry safety. With that inability to weigh lorries entering the country, the problem falls on to the shoulders of the police. The Association of Chief Police Officers recommended that there should be no prosecution unless a lorry is laden to a factor of 10 per cent. above its permitted weight, so the directive is already moving towards the 40-tonne lorry on British roads.
      Over many years the problem has been that both the domestic and international haulage industry have pressed for higher axle weights at every possible opportunity. Over the years the industry has adopted salami tactics, whereby the weight limits have been systematically increased, little by little.
      The Commission's 1979 proposals have been upgraded and are now in this draft directive. For example, in 1979 the Commission proposed a 17-tonne limit for a two-axle rigid vehicle or tractor unit, but it is now 18 tonnes. The Commission's proposal for a 24-tonne limit on three-axle units—lower than that of the United Kingdom—has now been upgraded to exceed the United Kingdom limit, at 25 tonnes. In 1979, the Commission proposed a limit of 30 tonnes for a four-axle rigid vehicle, but it is now 32 tonnes. The Minister has already made the point that in 1979 the

      725
      Commission proposed a limit of 35 tonnes for an articulated or drawbar trailer combination, but it has now been increased to 36 tonnes.
      The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already quoted the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when the right hon. Lady was at the Department of Transport. On 25 November 1982 she said:
      "I shall now deal with weights, as many right hon. and hon. Members have dealt with them. There is no increase for the four-axle lorries, which would have increased road damage."
      The Minister should take on board the fact that his predecessor was clear that raising the limit would increase road damage. The right hon. Lady continued:
      "In addition to the fact that there is no increase in the four-axle lorry weight, there is no increase in the drawbar trailer combinations. They are unusual on our roads, but they might have become more popular if the weight limit had been raised."
      I refer again to the weight salami. The Minister has given assurances about international limits, but what will happen if the Community produces a draft directive next year suggesting that domestic limits throughout the EC should be increased? Is the Minister able to give a guarantee as to derogation, or will the majority voting system mean that Britain must accept what the Community says is good for us? As 1992 approaches, and as pressure increases for standardisation of both domestic and international trade, can the Minister guarantee that we will not be confronted with having to adopt the international limit on our roads? On a previous occasion the Freight Transport Association stated in Freight, its house magazine, that the 1984 directive, which came into effect on 1 July 1986, applied directly to international traffic. It added that it had quickly become the domestic minimum. That worries the FTA and many other organisations, especially in the light of the draft directive.
      The Minister said that the present 32·5 tonne four-axle articulated vehicle or drawbar trailer combinations are relatively infrequent on British roads, and that is true. I think he said that three out of every thousand heavy goods vehicles on British roads came within those categories, but they represent 16·5 per cent. of heavy vehicle traffic on international routes. I believe that that figure has been quoted in Community documents.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: That was the finding of the Select Committee.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that that figure was quoted by the Select Committee.
      The capital cost of operating a lorry increases with the number of axles that are available. A four-axle lorry can be operated up to 36 tonnes, and the advantage of moving up to five or six axles for an extra 2 tonnes is not particularly great. However, 16·5 per cent. of heavy vehicle traffic on international routes comes within that category, and I suggest that we shall see a rapid increase in the number of these lorries on our roads, whether they are international traffic or, if my worst fears are realised, domestic traffic. What the Minister describes as a relatively minor problem may become a increasingly serious one as time passes.
      The weight on the drive axle of a lorry is of great importance, but so is the average weight per axle. On 25
      726
      November 1982, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), said:
      "I shall come to the issue of enforcement in a moment. It is the average axle loading that counts. On a 38 tonne five-axle lorry, it is 7·6 tonnes, compared with the 8·125 tonnes on the present 32·5 tonne four-axle lorry. It is 6·5 per cent. less and those are the internationally agreed figures.—[Official Report, 25 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 1093–94.]
      We are moving now to an average axle weight of 9 tonnes, which is a significant increase on the 1982 position. We are having forced upon us something that the Minister's predecessor said was unacceptable. Some six years on, the Minister tells us that the increase is a mere bagatelle and of no significance.
      With the increased traffic on our roads, and with the threat of more and heavier lorries appearing on them, there is all the more reason to apply the logic that the right hon. Member for Wallasey set before us in 1982. It will be unacceptable in any circumstances to see the proposed four-axle articulated or drawbar trailer combinations on our roads that are laden to 36 tonnes, or up to the 39·6 tonnes that would keep them within the ACPO limit. Even worse will be the lorries that are significantly overloaded to 40 tonnes or more. The Minister must deal with that point if he is to carry with him even those of his hon. Friends who are sympathetic to his views.
      The Minister asked—I go along with him on this—that the House should support the Government on derogation relating to the drive axle. It would be the height of irresponsibility in any circumstances to move from 10·5 to 11·5 tonnes, and it would be unacceptable for the Secretary of State to propose anything other than leaving the present system intact. If the Minister wants an assurance that the Opposition will support the Government on that one issue, he can have it.
      Our position is simple. There is no case for any of the increases proposed by the Commission. They are an unwarranted interference in the United Kingdom's traffic conditions, and they will be of no advantage to Britain. The Minister talks about the potential for cabotage and the advantages that he expects to accrue to the British haulage industry, and I know from previous exchanges that that is the view that the Government wish to put forward. The Minister will be aware, however, that many people take a rather more pessimistic view of the future of road haulage, for all kinds of reasons, but among others the degree of subsidy accruing to foreign operators. Domestic operators will face very unequal competition once cabotage comes into force.
      It is of no advantage to this country for us to fall meekly into line with Community proposals. That applies not only to the drive axle but—this is important—to the maximum weights permissible on the different axled lorries that will come on to the roads.
      For some time now an important debate has been taking place on the environmental consequences of heavy vehicles on our roads. I note that the Freight Transport Association, in its submission to selected Members of Parliament, expressed the view that implementation of the Community's proposals would have no adverse effects on the environment, and would have only a marginal effect on roads and bridges. The Minister knows that that is not the case. The proposals could have quite a serious impact, particularly on bridges. He has already explained the necessity to guarantee that the present axle weights are maintained in order to protect our bridges, many of which

      727
      would be very vulnerable if the proposals were adopted. Because of the paucity of information, which was mentioned by the Public Accounts Committee, it would be an extremely foolish Minister—or an extremely foolish Eurocrat—who would predict that our bridges would he able to take the increased weights of overloaded 36-tonne vehicles.
      The Freight Transport Association has an interest to uphold—the interest of those who would benefit from the increased haulage capacities—but for it to say that there would be no adverse effects on the environment is nonsensical. Everyone recognises—even the Community, although it draws a different analysis from mine—the environmental impact of an increase in maximum weights. That is inevitable. It is also inevitable that the damage to roads and bridges will be increased, and the effect is not likely to be marginal, unless the Minister can tell us what new steps he intends to take to guarantee, not only that lorries will be checked, but that there will he powers to ensure that overloaded vehicles become a thing of the past.
      The Minister knows that he is not in a position to do that. We do not have the weighbridges, the Department of Transport staff or the necessary will power from the present Government. They have often been asked in the past few years to institute checks, and more recently they have been asked to do that in connection with the overloading of ferries. It is only with reluctance that steps are being taken now, and we are told that it is impossible to check foreign lorries on that basis. Checking foreign lorries as they arrived in Britain would be a way of preventing their being overloaded when they reached other destinations. The mechanisms exist, if the Government are prepared to put them into practice, but without weighbridges, Department of Transport inspectors and the political will, nothing will change.
      It is important for the House to take on board one simple fact. The draft directive has almost no relevance to safety or to traffic conditions on the roads of Great Britain. The Eurocrats' proposals may make sense in other countries, but that is for them to decide. There is an overwhelming case that Britain's needs are special, and the Minister's case was that our needs are special. We need derogation.
      It would also be better if the Commission were to say that the directive has nothing to do with Britain and that it would be preposterous for the Commission to interfere with weight limits on British roads, where the conditions that apply elsewhere do not apply. The draft directive ought to be buried. That would make sense in terms of the Minister's position and that which I have outlined to the House.
      2.50 am
      Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Minister has a tremendous track record in seeking to promote safety on our roads. The hour is late, but it would be quite wrong if I did not take this opportunity again to place on record the concern of my constituents over conditions on the roads in Kent and ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the weights and sizes of lorries on our roads do not increase.
      My hon. Friend will know that I am particularly grateful to his hon. Friend the Minister of State for the improvements that are being effected, particularly on the Thanet way. It will make a tremendous difference to my
      728
      constituents. I hope that I shall not offend my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), in whose constituency the port of Ramsgate is located, when I say that we are looking forward to the announcement of a relief road for Ramsgate harbour.
      The condition of the roads in the gateway county of Kent is unsatisfactory. Lorries use roads that were not constructed for the sizes of vehicles that they are now compelled to carry. The villages of north Thanet suffer daily from the pounding of juggernauts that often use minor roads as rat runs instead of the major roads. The damage done by heavy lorries to the roads of Kent is costly and considerable. The ports of Dover, Folkestone and Ramsgate benefit considerably from the traffic that is generated by the freight haulage industry. We do not suggest that it is unwelcome, but there is a limit to what our roads can take. We have to balance the cost benefit of the freight that the ferries carry against the negative cost of the damage done to our roads and to buildings in our villages.
      I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about safety—a subject that has not been mentioned tonight. He knows that in the past two weeks there have been no fewer than three major accidents involving lorries on the roads of Kent. In my constituency, sadly, only a couple of weeks ago three people were killed when a foreign lorry driver veered off the road. I have to be careful about what I say because the case is sub judice, but there is reason to believe that the driver may have been asleep. The road in question was unsuitable for that size of vehicle, with the result that three people are now dead.
      Anybody who has driven down the A20, particularly along the Canterbury bypass towards the ports of Dover and Ramsgate, knows only too well of the horror, particularly in wet weather, of being overtaken—very often on the inside—by a foreign juggernaut. The people of Kent have had enough. We do not wish to deter business. We are concerned that, even when the tunnel is built, drivers who would normally rest on the ferries will not do so. Therefore, far from an improvement, we may find that some of our roads will become still more dangerous.
      I do not wish to take up any more of the House's time. I have made my point. In conclusion, on behalf of my constituents—and, I fondly believe, on behalf of all the people in the county of Kent—I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, with every ounce of strength at his disposal, to resist any further increase in the sizes and weights of the lorries on our roads.
      2.55 am
      Mr. Frank Haynes: First, I agree with some of the things that the Minister has said this morning, but at the same time I disagree with him. If he is going to fight on behalf of the people of this country about the heavy vehicles on our roads, I will support him. In fact, I will go with him. Never mind supporting him over here, I will go with him and carry his briefcase for him.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that after all the performance that we have had tonight and after all his references to the people on the Tory Front Bench, he would go with a Tory on a fact-finding tour of the Common Market?
      Mr. Haynes: I have to let the House into a little secret. A few months ago I went to New York, and the Minister's wife was with the group. She is an hon. Member and she told me some nice things about him. She said she thought what a good Minister he was and what a good job he was doing. I listened to her and took it all in. If she is to be believed, and after some of his remarks tonight, I am prepared to support him in the things that he is fighting for across the water.
      Mr. Skinner: Rather than his wife?
      Mr. Haynes: I do not want to fight his wife. I want to fight for the people in my constituency.
      Before my hon. Friend interrupted me, I was going to say that I have had regular representations from the Nottinghamshire county council about its roads. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I have had representations from the Derbyshire county council, because many of the vehicles that come through Derbyshire come into Nottinghamshire. I have had representations from the chairman of the highways committee of Nottinghamshire county council, Councillor Keith Williams—a wonderful worker on behalf of the people in Nottinghamshire in regard to roads and transport.
      I am concerned about the state of the roads in Nottinghamshire, and, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, in Derbyshire, too.
      Mr. Skinner: It is very important that the House should understand that my hon. Friend is talking about a coalmining area. One of the problems that we face in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and similar areas in the coalfields is not only the very heavy vehicles, which have been increased in weight as a result of our being in the Common Market, but subsidence. Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that special attention should be paid to those areas afflicted by subsidence, because the many beautiful bridges in that area will suffer even more than those in Kent which have been mentioned already?
      Mr. Haynes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about mining subsidence. I am not wandering into mining subsidence; I am just making a point. It is a major issue, and it goes with the problems that are being created by massive vehicles moving along our roads when they come off the motorway.
      I have noticed the sort of vehicles that British Coal now buys. They are not always British Leyland; they are foreign vehicles from across the water—from Europe. The amount of damage that those massive vehicles are causing is amazing. I should have thought that the Minister would keep a close eye on them. They are doing a lot of damage in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned overloading. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to this serious matter. My hon. Friend made it clear that the Government are not doing enough about the problem. I have had representations about work not being done to ease the problem in my county. However, I have a suggestion about how to overcome it. The Minister must first persuade the Treasury to provide the money.
      There are intersections on the M1. I travel up and down that motorway every week.
      Mr. Skinner: I have been with my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend is correct: he has travelled with me on many occasions. He would agree that I am a safe driver. The heavy lorries, with their maniac drivers, are frightening. They travel very fast, often dragging trailers behind them——
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Rowntree's lorries?
      Mr. Haynes: I got into trouble when I brought up Rowntree a few weeks ago.
      These damn lorries travel like hell up the motorway. Some of them are overloaded, because they are not being weighed to see whether they are. They travel so fast that they frighten drivers like me to death. They sway when they switch lanes. I disagree with the Minister about buses and coaches. He is agreeing to extra weight for them. When the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was in the Department of Transport, she said that she would take action against speeding bus drivers because of the huge numbers of accidents that had occurred. But the problem continues. If we add weight to fast-travelling buses, we can imagine the results. There will be messy accidents. Even though the Minister is tired—he is yawning—I hope that he is listening, because this is a serious problem.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of speeding coaches has halved since I have been the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
      Mr. Haynes: I do not believe the Minister. I travel on the M1 every week-150 miles up and 150 miles down. Those heavy vehicles are passing me when I am doing 70 mph. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will confirm that I stick to the speed limit, because he has travelled with me many times. Heavy lorries, buses and coaches are still a danger on our roads. It is about time that the Minister woke up and did something about it. The Minister said that the figure had halved, but I do not think that he travels on the M1 enough to know.
      Mr. Skinner: Since the Minister started his job there have been cones up and down the motorways. My guess is that, as a result, the traffic has been slowed down so much that it is possible that there has been a reduction.
      Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend must remember—if he does not, I shall remind him—that police accident reports state that vehicles have ploughed through the cones and hit vehicles coming in the other direction. The Minister says that the problem has halved, but I still do not believe him. Accidents are still taking place. He should do a bit more travelling on the M1. I cannot speak for the other motorways because only the M1 goes through my county.
      Mr. Skinner: The Government could have fiddled those figures on the same computer as they use for the dole figures.
      Mr. Haynes: I never thought of that, but I do not think that I shall wander on to social security matters, although I am tempted.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will return to the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles.
      Mr. Haynes: I am speaking about the weights of lorries. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is trying to

      731
      direct me away from them, but I am not having it. I said that I would not wander on to social security, although it is tempting.
      The Minister is responsible for transport. I should have thought that he would have had many talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about opening more rail lines so that we can overcome this problem. All the goods carried by heavy lorries should be carried by rail. I know that Beeching did an axing job, but we are in a different ball game now because we shall have the Channel tunnel. There is a need for a proper rail service from Mansfield to Nottingham. The Minister should take some action on this, because it would take heavy loads from lorries and put them on the railways.
      Mr. Skinner: There is a serious argument for the electrification of the midland line.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us return to the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles.
      Mr. Skinner: We are talking about increasing the axle weights of heavy lorries from 32·5 tonnes in 1983 to 38 tonnes. If we spent more money on railways, we would not be talking about 38-tonne lorries. If we electrified the midland line in accordance with the early-day motion standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, we would make some progress. The Minister has responsibility for railways as well as roads.
      Mr. Haynes: That fits in with the motion that we are discussing. We are talking about taking heavy loads off the roads and putting them on the railways, where they should be. I hope the Minister is taking note of my remarks and is not sitting on the Government Front Bench taking no notice and looking gormless. [Interruption.] I seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) comment on what I am saying, but I am unable to reply because he is outside the Chamber, beyond the Bar.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the EC document that is before the House.
      Mr. Haynes: I come to the question of the bridges which must be repaired because of the strain being placed on them. They are being smashed to smithereens. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) bringing before Parliament the difficulties that occured with spaghetti junction. The Government denied there was anything wrong, but in the end they had to spend millions of pounds putting things right.
      Mr. Skinner: The fiddle.
      Mr. Haynes: Yes. A right old fiddle had been going on because it had been done in a cheap way without using the proper materials. Likewise, our bridges are being destroyed. We will not see Whitehall officials or the Minister mixing concrete and doing the repairs. The lads in the counties and the local transport departments will have to do it.
      Mr. Skinner: What about the sewers?
      Mr. Haynes: Yes; somebody will have to accept responsibility for repairing the sewers, too. What Government grant will be available for repairing the sewers and the bridges? The Government have cut
      732
      drastically the money that should be spent on repairing the roads. The roads in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are getting smashed to hell and the counties do not have enough money to carry out the proper maintenance work. The roads near my home are full of potholes. We never had such problems under Labour rule.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the subject matter of the document that is before the House. We are talking about the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles.
      Mr. Haynes: Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am referring to the commercial vehicles that are damaging our roads because they are too large and overweight. It is happening in Doncaster as well—in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so you have some responsibility in the matter. I am speaking on your behalf as well as on behalf of my constituents and those of all hon. Members. I am a little surprised, therefore, that you accuse me of drifting from the subject. I am drifting, but I am drifting through Derbyshire into Yorkshire and beyond to Jarrow —all the way up the M1.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) spoke about the problems of Kent.
      Mr. Skinner: A Tory-controlled area.
      Mr. Haynes: Yes; and Kent has not suffered the sort of financial cuts that have occurred in my area and elsewhere. There is plenty of money in Kent, yet the roads there are bad. When I was towing a caravan in Kent I had an axle broken. So it is not just in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and your county of Yorkshire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in Kent as well that the roads are affected. It is happening all over the damn place and it is high time the Minister put his foot down and did something about it. He should challenge the Treasury to give him extra money to put things right. We owe a debt to the people in the community and we should give them proper and safe roads. At the same time the Department of Transport should do something about the lorries that are too large and are carrying too much weight. It is the Minister's responsibility to do something about it.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has dealt with subsidence and with the effect on bridges and sewers of these 38-tonners with heavy axles. He has also dealt with the speed of the lorries. There is one point that he has not mentioned. Like me, my hon. Friend rides a bike. These long articulated lorries come sailing past. They are frightening, because we never know when they will finish. At one time we knew when the back end of an ordinary British lorry would pass us. Now, with the 38-tonner, we are waiting for the end of it to pass us and, with the draught, it feels as though we are in a vacuum. That is another reason why we should vote against the motion.
      Mr. Haynes: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I have watched the Minister on television and listened to him on the radio. He is always bragging about what. the Department of Transport is doing for the roads. I wish he would come and look at our roads to see what they are like because of the damage done by these damn great, overweight vehicles. Yet we are being pressurised to take more and more heavy vehicles. That is why I said at the

      733
      beginning that I am prepared to support the Minister in opposing what the people on the other side of the water in Europe want us to accept.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend understands the Common Market and knows what the game is about. The Minister, in answer to a question, said that they have got majority voting on these issues in the Common Market. With majority voting we have not got a cat in hell's chance. If they want to increase axle weight and go from 38 tonnes upwards, they will do it, because West Germany is the top dog in the Common Market. It has got about 540 billion surplus in its balance of payments. We have a massive deficit. The West Germans will call the tune.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be both brief and relevant. That was neither.
      Mr. Skinner: It will be if they finish up in Doncaster.
      Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend has made a good point. He was right to drag in Doncaster. Two of my hon. Friends are from Doncaster and they complain about the roads and the heavy lorries. It is high time that the Minister pulled the stoppers out and got something done about them. He spends too much time in front of the television cameras instead of being out on the job. It would be a good idea if I went with him to give some assistance and to keep him on the job, but he would not want me with him in front of the cameras.
      Mr. Skinner: Not unless my hon. Friend wore a top hat.
      Mr. Haynes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's wife would be pleased if I appeared on television with him. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seriously consider his statement. I did not mean what I said about carrying the Minister's briefcase. I was joking.
      I hope that he will take note of everything that has been said, especially by the Public Accounts Committee. The PAC's recommendations on roads and transport are sensible. The Minister appears not to be listening to the Committee. There are a number of Labour Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will listen seriously to the PAC's views on roads and transport generally. If the Minister did that, he would press the Treasury to make additional funds available, and I am sure that the PAC would back him. The PAC overlooks departmental spending——
      Mr. Skinner: It is in this document.
      Mr. Haynes: That is right; I have seen it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address himself to the issue before the House, the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles and the draft directive.
      Mr. Haynes: The PAC has had a go at the Minister about the roads damaged by vehicles. I support the Committee, but the hon. Gentleman takes no notice of it. If he did, he would make representations to the Treasury for additional finance to overcome the problems. I said that I support what the Minister is trying to do with respect to European legislation—telling the European Council what to do. The European Council has no right to tell us what to do.
      734
      I remember the right hon. Gentleman who sat at the end of one of the Back Benches——
      Mr. Skinner: Enoch Powell.
      Mr. Haynes: Yes. He said that the European Council would take away our rights and sovereignty, and it has done just that. There is more coming. It is high time that the Minister said, "Stop. We will decide here, in the United Kingdom. We do not need you, in Europe, to tell us what to do. We will decide for ourselves." This is the mother of Parliaments. Members of Parliament collectively will decide the kind of transport that should be on our roads.
      The Minister should work hard to improve rail services. The heavy lorries should be taken off the roads and the passengers and goods should go by rail. We should take off the road the buses that the Government have encouraged. The roads are overloaded with the damn things.
      Mr. Skinner: And check the lorries.
      Mr. Haynes: And check the lorries. I shall not take up that point. I shall sit down.
      3.22 am
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has made such a comprehensive speech that there is not a great deal left to say, but I want to put a few points on the record. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister appreciates that the opposition to the order comes not just from a few nuts who might be thinking about the interests of those across the Channel.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Just in case people read the report of the debate later, will my hon. Friend make it clear that he is talking about opposition to the draft directive rather than to the motion? I suspect that Members on both sides of the House would want to support the motion.
      Mr. Taylor: The motion makes a minor proposal about the directive. We are concerned with the directive. The basic point in the directive is on increased weight. The Association of Metropolitan Authorties, a substantial organisation representing the major conurbations in the London boroughs, issued a statement today in which it said:
      "The association believes there can be no justification for accepting the proposed increases in lorry weights now being proposed by the Commission, having regard to the information provided to Parliament in 1982 and the numerous subsequent undertakings given to Parliament by the Transport Secretaries of State and Ministers in the intervening six years. The Association believes that the provisions of the draft directive to amend directive 85 of the EEC are not appropriate."
      We are discussing, albeit at a very late hour, a matter of significance.
      We have had assurances in the past, and we are now being given further assurances, but the sad fact is that the assurances that we have had in the past have tended to fade away. Every time we give more power and authority to the EEC and allow lorries of greater weight, we find that previous assurances disappear. I remind the Minister of our debate on 18 December 1984, when we were given splendid assurances. We were told that there was no question of allowing heavier lorries on our roads. Now the proposal is that we should. The directive also said that the derogation was of indefinite duration. Now we are told

      735
      that it is not of indefinite duration, but had something to do with accommodating changes in our bridges and roads. Finally we were told:
      "The directive makes it clear that any future decision on this subject"—
      on lorry weights—
      "can only be taken by a unanimous vote; thus our position in Europe on lorry weights is actually strengthened."— [Official Report, 18 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 250.]
      The proposed directive, on the other hand, is to be decided by majority vote.
      I am also worried because the Minister said that the number of lorries of the weights that are being increased quite substantially—by several tonnes—on our roads is limited. I ask him to consider what the Government said last time round. Speaking for the Department of Transport was that delightful lady who is now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She explained her opposition to increasing the 32·5 tonne limit by saying that such a move would make the lorries more popular on our roads. She said that they were unusual on our roads but might become more popular if the weight limit had increased.
      We had assurances on all those issues. Frankly, it seems that we are wasting our time in trying to get more assurances. It is now proposed to throw aside all the assurances, to increase the weight and to go ahead from 32·5 to 36 tonnes.
      Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will give us assurance on one point. Even if we increase the weights of lorries further, which will cause much concern to the community,] hope that we can at least do something about the terrible problem of overloading. The Minister must know that checks done in Kent in 1987 showed that 12·5 per cent. of foreign vehicles stopped in random batches were overloaded. That is substantial percentage. Current fines seem to have little impact on overloading, and resources for checking are unbelievably limited. The Minister will he aware that pre-weighing facilities are not available at a number of ports. If we are obliged by majority vote—or perhaps the Government will agree with the directive—to go ahead with increased lorry size, the very least that we want to know is that when a lorry comes to this country in a boat it will be weighed to establish that it is not overloaded. We are talking not just about convenience on the roads or about the problems of cars that are pushed out because there are too many lorries; we are talking about people's lives and about safety. We are talking about the dangers involved. We are discussing very serious issues.
      I have no personal animosity against the Minister, but he must know that we get repeated assurances late at night —at 2 am or 3 am—on Common Market issues but we may as well forget it the next time they come round. We were told that we would get control of the budget if only we agreed to extra cash at the time of Fontainebleau. Now, to get round that, they have told us that it was a 10-month year last year. We have been told time and again that the CAP will be reformed if only we give a bit more money and a bit more power. We know exactly what is happening: spending is at an all-time high and reform is just a joke.
      Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in matters affecting the Common Market. Has he noted that one of the ways in which the Common Market is to try to find the necessary money—now that it has gone bankrupt for about the third time in the past five years
      736
      —to pay for the bureaucracy that spews out documents such as the one before us is with a £5,000 million loan, £900 million of which is to come from British taxpayers? As the hon. Gentleman knows, it sticks in the gullet for us to be pouring out much-needed money that should be going to the recipients of social security, the National Health Service and pensioners in Britain.
      Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the intergovernmental agreement to provide an extra £5 billion. I could give him four quotations from Ministers assuring me that intergovernmental agreements would never happen again.
      No one is listening to the debate at this late hour, and, sad to say, no one will bother. I hope that the Minister will agree that all the assurances that have been given in the past—"If only we give a bit more"—have fallen apart. He should be aware of the serious danger posed by heavy lorries on our roads and by consistent overloading. I appeal to him at least to say—this is a minor demand—that he will oppose increases in lorry size.
      In the past, the Government could have stopped such proposals simply by saying no. But now, with majority voting, the British voice does not matter much because it will be overturned. I hope that the Minister will at least make the point about the dangers of increased lorry size and that he will vote against it, even though Parliament and the Government cannot control it. Let him at least make a stand to show that something important is al stake. He must stand firm and oppose the ridiculous increase from 32·5 to 36 tonnes. especially in view of what previous Transport Ministers have repeatedly said on the issue.
      I hope that the Minister will assure me that weighing facilities will be provided at ports which do not have them at present. There is little point in our passing laws if they can be disregarded because of overloading. There is a serious danger here, and we have a duty to the travelling public to do something about it.
      3.31 am
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Although the hour is late, this matter is of great importance and must be considered carefully by the House.
      The Minister can give as many assurances to the House as he likes, but they are meaningless because they can be overruled in Europe. The document that we are discussing is another example of the EEC overruling the sovereignty of the House. Many of us saw it coming. As a Member of the European Parliament, I witness such occurrences daily. There is a tendency now to forget the solemn assurances that were given to the British people. When we held a referendum on joining the Common Market, the pro-Marketeers' argument was that there would always have to be a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. That was a con trick to get the people of these islands to vote yes. After they had voted, the position was clanged; and we do not know what other changes will take place.
      We are privileged to have on the Front Bench the Minister responsible for roads in Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to emphasise the awful condition of the roads in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) can testify. The roads to the ferry ports in Northern Ireland carry large vehicles from the Irish Republic. Most of them are overloaded, but they are not tested or weighed.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: The Minister should consider that point. At Lame harbour, in my constituency, there are occasional spot checks on Sundays to detect overloaded vehicles. But, because of the ease with which drivers communicate, they can direct their colleagues to stay clear of Lame harbour for an hour or two or to use another harbour. When the boys move on, it becomes a free road. There must be proper weighing facilities at every port in Northern Ireland.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: It is interesting to note the deterioration in the road structure in Northern Ireland as a result of those heavy vehicles. At present, the roads in Northern Ireland are disgraceful. There are not only potholes, but large crevices in the roads of Northern Ireland and they are deteriorating even more.
      It is all very well for the Minister to say that he does not like the directive, just as we do not like it, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, the Minister must make known his opposition by voting against the directive. Even if he cannot change it, he must at least put a marker against that deterioration and the forces of the Common Market overruling the wishes of the people of this country. The tragedy is that the battle on this issue is lost simply because of the voting system whereby the strongest possible representations made in good faith by the Minister can be wiped out. Those matters must concern everyone.
      The Minister responsible for such matters in Northern Ireland can confirm that the number of deaths on the roads of Northern Ireland is far greater than the number of deaths from terrorism. Those heavy vehicles are adding to the number of victims killed on our roads. The Minister is not responsible for the roads in Northern Ireland—I am sure that he thanks God that he is not—so we shall have to leave it to the hon. Irish earl at the end of the Front Bench to take responsibility for them. I am sure that the Minister is interested in the fact that vehicles from the Irish Republic help to damage our roads. Perhaps he will undertake to ensure that those vehicles will be weighed to check that they are not overloaded.
      Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it really be in order that, while the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was speaking for 10 minutes, there was a Tory asleep at his feet?
      3.38 am
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the battle is lost, but I do not believe that it is lost. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) invited me to his constituency. I went there to a battle that was supposed to be lost, and the Conservatives won the by-election.
      Mr. Haynes: The Minister is talking about a by-election in 1977. I won it back.
      Mr. Bottomley: I think that the House has noticed that, especially when the hon. Gentleman speaks quietly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) talked about the importance of getting the weight right. I draw the House's attention to the motion, especially the second part of it. The Government are asking the House to support them in obtaining arrangements that allow us to keep axle spacings and weights within the current United Kingdom limits to
      738
      safeguard bridges in this country. In my opening remarks, I spelt out how, for those two, three and four-axle rigid vehicles, if we keep the 10·5-tonne drive axle, we shall just about keep the weights that we want. That is the point upon which the House should focus tonight. That is why we are considering this matter before the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 20–21 June.
      This House does matter. A united voice from the House helps. I sometimes wish that those who have different views about the Common Market would realise that, if we use the House to back our corner of the Common Market, so that we can send in Ministers with united support rather than saying that the battle is lost, we can do as well in our negotiations in Europe as we have done during the past seven years in our trade and economy improvements which have made it possible for us to increase our spending on roads.
      The hon. Member for Ashfield raised the question of county council and highway authority spending. There was £700 million available last year which was not spent on road maintenance. If it had been spent on road maintenance, that would have helped.
      Safety was also mentioned. It is worth remembering that there have been fewer vehicles since the change announced during the previous major debate. Although each time a heavier vehicle is involved in a crash the consequences are greater, because of the reduced number of vehicles there are fewer casualties. The casualty rate dropped by 10 per cent. last year. That kind of drop is greatly to be welcomed. I pay tribute to the many members of my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, who drive coaches and lorries and congratulate them on their improved performance.
      Like the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), I believe in using the railways as often as possible, but it is not kind to say that all the people who earn their living by driving our citizens around in coaches and buses should lose their jobs. Consumers need a proper choice.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: They have no choice.
      Mr. Bottomley: They must have a choice if twice as many people use the coaches now that we have deregulated them. The use of trains is also increasing.
      Mr. Skinner: The Minister is talking about people losing jobs if the lorry and axle weights are lower. According to the Public Accounts Committee report, published in February this year, in the period since the heavy lorries were introduced the number of lorries on the road has dropped from about 600,000 to 435,000. If there are smaller lorries there must be more people in work.
      Mr. Bottomley: The hon. gentleman is trying to have it both ways, and because of the time he will probably succeed.
      The lorry-checking programme is growing. The numbers and use of weighbridges are increasing. We need to have greater help from the magistrates. If we calculate the value of overloading by about 10 per cent. throughout the year and compare that with the fines that the magistrates courts impose, they are not necessarily the greatest deterrents in the world——
      It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
      Question agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6511/88 on the weight limit for two axle rigid vehicles and the un-numbered explanatory memorandum dated 24th May 1988, submitted by the Department of Transport, describing a draft Directive amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles; and endorses the Government's objective of securing Community arrangements which would make it possible to keep axle spacings and axle weights within current United Kingdom limits in order to safeguard bridges in the United Kingdom.

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

      COMPANIES
      That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1988, dated 13th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
      Question agreed to.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must have missed something. I did not hear the motion entitled "Roadworthiness Testing" called.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It was not moved.

      Carrickfergus and Smiley Hospitals
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
      3.43 am
      Mr. Roy Beggs: It is now just over 13 hours since I came to the Chamber. It has been a long wait to be 13 hours early after having been a few seconds late before.
      I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed closure of the Carrickfergus and Smiley hospitals, in my constituency, and the implications flowing from that.
      In answer to recent questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have been informed that the highest concentration of heavy industry in Northern Ireland outside Belfast is in the constituency of Antrim, East, which I am privileged to represent in this House.
      Antrim, East has the highest total number of employees in energy and water supplies industries, extraction of minerals and ores, manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals, metal goods, engineering and vehicle industries and construction industries of any constituency outside Belfast.
      In 1987 approximately 5,500 ships handled imports and exports through the port facilities at Magheramorne, Carrickfergus, Ballylumford and Lame, involving well over 5 million tonnes of cargo. In 1987, there were 5,107 ship visits to Larne harbour, with a total of 1,459,737 passengers and 614,506 vehicles, of which 308,746 were commercial and 305,760 were cars and caravans. There is no record available of the number of vehicles or persons leaving or meeting passengers at Larne harbour.
      That information may serve to indicate the reason why there is total opposition by elected representatives and the community as a whole to the northern health board's proposal to build a new area hospital in Antrim, to provide acute services which are already available at Moyle hospital in Larne, backed by the facilities at the Smiley and Carrickfergus hospitals. If those proposals proceed, my constituents will be required to travel 24 miles from Larne, 35 miles from Carrickfergus, 40 miles via Lame from Carnlough, and 37 miles from Islandmagee to Antrim for acute hospital services that are already available and accessible. People in Great Britain do not expect to put up with such inconvenience or to be treated in that way. Is it any wonder that we are saying, "No thank you" to the proposals?
      Roman Catholic, Protestant and dissenter alike are saying yes to equality of provision of acute hospital services for the consumers served by the Northern health board. Decisions on future hospital provision and planned closures have been taken by an undemocratic quango. The majority of health board members are accountable to no one—but many are place seekers appointed by a Minister to bulldoze through the decisions of the DHSS. Consultation is meaningless if those who make and take decisions will not listen to reasonable argument and amend policy that is unacceptable except to those in the immediate catchment areas of Antrim and Ballymoney/Coleraine.
      In a report in the Ballymena Guardian on 28 April, when asked if the present campaign to try to secure a rethink of the whole strategy will make him change his mind, the Minister replied no. Asked also whether he

      741
      would change his mind if campaigners succeeded in convincing board members to vote in favour of a rethink, the Minister again replied with a firm no.
      Ulster Unionists are constantly accused of saying no, but when a Minister answers no to such questions, that is arrogant and contemptuous of the beliefs of intellectuals, members of the medical profession, experts from outside the health board, and my constituents, who reject what is being forced upon them.
      General practitioners in east Antrim almost unanimously reject the proposals for Moyle, Smiley and Carrickfergus hospitals. Is the Minister prepared to ignore those experts on community care, or will he reconsider the ability of Moyle and associated hospitals to provide adequate acute services in east Antrim? The present proposals will never be acceptable in my constituency, and I predict that no elected Northern Ireland forum will fully implement them if responsibility is transferred in the next five years to a democratically elected body there. The Minister may proceed with phase 1 at Antrim, but when the right to take decisions is restored to elected representatives in Northern Ireland there will be no phases 2 and 3.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that within the area covered by the Northern health board there is to be one acute hospital at Coleraine and a heart hospital at Antrim? Only the heart hospital is provided for. Yet in every other area there are more than two acute hospitals, and in many of those areas there is a smaller population. The vast majority of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and of mine will not be given the equality of service that is available in every other area in Northern Ireland. Does he agree with me that this is an example of deliberate discrimination against both Protestants and Roman Catholics in our constituencies? Hospitals are being closed and services are being removed, such as the heart unit at the Ballymena hospital which was made available through the donations of the people. That unit is to be taken away and the people will be robbed of something for which they paid.
      Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I concur with the arguments that he has advanced.
      I believe that the Minister is unintentionally misleading when he proclaims that a large high-technology hospital is a necessity for the area. The Antrim hospital will not provide regional specialties under phase 1. Patients will continue to receive these services in the large Belfast teaching hospitals. Professor James McCormick estimates that about 10 per cent. of all ill health requires hospitalisation and that 90 per cent. of all hospital patients can be treated successfully in smaller hospitals. It is reasonable to conclude that only 1 to 2 per cent. of all illness requires the high technology that is already provided in Belfast hospitals. It is widely accepted that patients requiring treatment beyond the capability of their local hospital would request transfer to one or other of the Belfast hospitals rather than to an area hospital at Antrim and would be so transferred.
      The proposed Antrim hospital will not provide anything which the existing hospitals, including Carrickfergus, Smiley and Lame, cannot provide. The
      742
      consultancy skills to be available at Antrim will be the skills of consultants transferred from the existing small hospitals.
      It makes no sense to twin phase 1 of the Antrim hospital with the old Masserene hospital at Antrim. It is miles away on a different site where no acute hospital services have been provided for years. In fact, I am deeply disturbed that the logical arguments put forward by Moyle action committee and the Federation of Action Committees have not been given the consideration that they deserve. The alternative plan to the existing proposals would give a fair and equitable provision of acute services to everyone involved. This is the main reason why the action committees have widespread support.
      Most districts of Northern Ireland are within 15 miles of acute services. At present, people living in the Antrim district are only 17 miles, of which 14 miles are motorway, from the main Belfast hospitals. Removing acute services from Moyle in Lame would require many of my constituents to travel twice that distance—about 37 miles, of which only a few miles are motorway—along roads that are restricted to single-lane traffic by constant vehicle movement to and from Larne harbour.
      The proposed Antrim hospital puts the whole of east Antrim outside the 15-mile norm for access to acute services. My constituents will suffer most from a gross reduction of hospital services for the most heavily industrialised constituency outside Belfast with the second largest port in Northern Ireland. Is this progress that is being proposed, or is it madness?
      We do not object to equal provision of services for the needs of people in Antrim, but it must not be at the price of reduced services in east Antrim, where the hospital needs of everyone are now met. I challenge the Minister tonight to spell out what is to be gained by providing phase 1, with 300 beds at Antrim. The existing consultants are to be transferred there. The existing equipment and facilities are adequate to meet the needs, and nothing additional by way of services available at present is to be provided.
      The scheme for the Northern health board area which the Minister inherited from his predecessors at the Department of Health and Social Services is a waste of public money. The Minister should arrange an independent appraisal. I ask him to invite the Select Committee dealing with health matters to visit Northern Ireland and carry out an appraisal of the existing provision, to invite consideration of the alternative put forward by the Federation of Action Groups and even perhaps to invite the Public Accounts Committee, with its expertise, to help by carrying out an appraisal of the expenditure proposed in the Antrim complex, rather than an inquest after irreparable damage has been done to hospital services in my area.
      Let me quote briefly from the report of the Royal Commission that examined the National Health Service in 1979:
      "Acute hospital services are generally excellent, most of them provided by peripheral teaching hospitals, often in old buildings, ungenerously staffed…It should not be assumed that because a building is old it is unsatisfactory—the UK is not so wealthy that it can afford to scrap perfectly usable hospitals merely because they are old".
      That was nearly 10 years ago. Moyle, Smiley, Carrickfergus and many other small hospitals have been upgraded, adapted and extended, and adequately serve the needs of the Northern health board. They would get glowing reports today from a Royal Commission. Some

      743
      £3·5 million has been spent on the Moyle and Waveney, £4·4 million will be spent on Whiteabbey and Mid-Ulster, and then they will be downgraded if the proposals for Antrim are fully implemented. Some £40 million will be spent on phase 1 at Antrim, unwanted by the majority of those in the area that is to he affected. Much less expenditure—about £25 million, we believe—could fully repair and modernise hospitals at Waveney, Moyle, Mid-Ulster and Whiteabbey.
      The proposal to amalgamate Ballymoney and Coleraine on a new green field site seems reasonable for that area, but the proposed downgrading of all hospitals in my constituency, including the closure of Smiley, an essential part of the Moyle complex and Carrickfergus, is unreasonable.
      Constituents ask whether the Government and Northern Ireland Office Ministers really care. I hope that the Minister will show tonight that he cares by indicating his willingness to look at representation beyond the ministerial brief offered by officials who have got it partly wrong this time. Two acute hospitals, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already pointed out—an incomplete hospital at Antrim and another at Coleraine—will not be able to provide acute services for the whole Northern board area. Can the Minister assure us that the Eastern health board will provide acute services in the Belfast hospitals for 90,000 people and that the Southern health board will provide them for 20,000 from the Northern health board at the South Tyrone hospital in Dungannon? If the Eastern and Southern boards cannot provide for those 110,000 people, the concept of two acute hospitals is undermined and the alternative hospital proposals are more realistic.
      The Moyle action group and others active in the Federation of Action Groups have still to be convinced that their proposals do not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. They have commissioned a report by a highly respected former employee of Coopers and Lybrand. Will the Minister promise to examine the report carefully—it should be with him in a very short time, if it is not already —and take a new look at the suggestions put forward by the action groups on behalf of the people of my constituency before committing himself publicly to a full-blown phase 1, 2 and 3 hospital at Antrim?
      The new career structures for junior doctors that are under consideration should provide adequate staffing for the smaller hospitals. The main teaching hospitals in Belfast must be more closely linked to the smaller hospitals providing acute services that would enable junior doctors to be allocated from a central pool in Belfast to any hospital in the Province when the need arises.
      The community hospital concept has not been taken up and developed widely in Great Britain. This out-of-date concept, rejected on the mainland, should not be forced on the people of Northern Ireland. There is an opportunity for the rationalisation and modernisation of hospital provision for acute services that would attract increased support. There is overwhelming opposition from general practitioners, nurses, trade unionists, industry, elected representatives and the public as a whole. Alternative provision provides value for money and will have widespread support.
      Will the Minister please further examine his Department's and the Northern health board's proposals? Has he considered the implications for the new Antrim hospital if patients are given the right to choose, which is
      744
      very good Conservative policy, and they decide to take the monetary value of their operation to a hospital other than Antrim? Or shall we continue to be lectured and dictated to by those who think that they know what is best for us and who are unwilling to listen to reason and to engage in constructive dialogue?
      I hope that the Minister will again accept the detailed documentation from Moyle and retain it in his Department for further consideration in relation to all those areas that will be more than 15 miles away from acute services based on an Antrim hospital now satisfactorily served by existing east Antrim hospitals. I am sure that we all aim to achieve what is best in the provision of acute hospital services for the Northern board area and at the same time have value for money, co-operation and widespread acceptance.
      For those reasons, I oppose the proposed closure of Smiley and Carrickfergus hospitals in my constituency and the planned run down of acute services in east Antrim.
      4.2 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) regrets as much as the rest of us do the 20 seconds delay that he experienced a fortnight ago in coming to the House, which has resulted in the rest of us being here for the last 14 hours. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is in his place. I know that he has a close interest in the subject that we are discussing.
      The hon. Member for Antrim, East rightly pointed out that I inherited the Antrim hospital proposals. They were far down the track when I arrived on the scene. I considered them carefully and, for reasons that I shall give the House, I decided that it was right to proceed with them. When I answered the questions of the hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Antrim, North, no and no, it was because the time had passed. The ship had left port, the rocket had left the launching pad, and, millions of pounds had been spent on the design project for this fine new hospital. It is now in the process of going to tender and it will be built. The question is, why is it to be built, and why is it to be built there?
      As to why it is to be built, I accept that small, acute hospitals have had a remarkable history in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Northern board area. In the last century hospitals were built within one day's walking distance from where anybody lived in the Northern board area. They were run by dedicated surgeons who were capable of dealing with every aspect of surgical technology and surgical practice as it existed in those times.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is no longer true. On a recent television programme one of the councillors at Cushendall, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, said that he sat in his front room and looked out of the window and that if he ever had a coronary he could go up the road to the hospital. Unfortunately, if he went up the road to the hospital, when he got there he would find that no one was manning it and that the equipment there probably would not save his life. That is no reflection on the people. The technology just does not exist.
      In the Northern board area we have to concentrate acute facilities in places of excellence that are properly manned and have the very best equipment and to which we

      745
      can attract the best staff. We must ensure that there are community hospitals to which people can go for geriatric care, for community care, to be attached to health centres or to have minor operations. All those facilities must be available so that people can go into acute care for a short time and then go back to their community hospitals.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Let us consider the example of Ballymena. At their own expense the people of Ballymena opened up a very valuable heart department. As the Minister knows, the people of Ballymena can walk to the hospital if they have heart trouble. The record of the Ballymena heart ward is outstanding. That will be taken to Antrim, away from Ballymena. Is it fair that the people who have paid for and helped to run the specialist heart ward at the Ballymena hospital should be robbed of it? The people of Antrim did not pay for it.
      Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have been to that coronary ward. There is nothing finer in terms of the dedication of the staff, the care and the equipment, but the hon. Gentleman must be the first to admit that the building is old and in an unsatisfactory condition. I believe that when those who work there see the facilities that will be produced in Antrim, they will welcome that opportunity. The hon. Gentleman asked how people would get there. The answer is that it is crucial that we have an ambulance service with all the right equipment to make sure that they get to Antrim as quickly as they possibly can.
      The hon. Member for Antrim, East referred to the roads in Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with the points that he raised, but we are building a dual carriageway to make sure that they will be able to get to hospital that much quicker.
      I believe that we need a new acute hospital in the central and southern sectors of the Northern board. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), who is not here this morning, believes that it should be at Antrim, as do the friends of Antrim hospital and the Antrim council. The hon. Member for Antrim, North would prefer it to be at Ballymena and the hon. Member for Antrim, East would prefer it to be at Lame. Wherever we put it, it will not get universal approval. If one considers the long-term need for a major acute facility—and the Northern board has considered the matter very carefully—it has the delegated responsibility for such matters. It does not consist of my puppets, and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Antrim, East will realise that. I know that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has been to the board and discussed the matters with the officers and the chairman and has had a very full briefing.
      746
      While I understand why, from a constituency point of view, the hon. Member for Antrim, North would prefer it to be in Ballymena and the hon. Member for Antrim, East would prefer it to be in Lame, I believe that the Northern Board has reached the right decision. I do not believe that we can continue with very small acute hospitals because we cannot staff them. There are already problems in the Southern board area, where large acute hospitals cannot adequately staff emergency units. In Downpatrick there are major problems with attracting and keeping staff because they want to work in major acute centres of excellence that will help them get on in their careers.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I know that the Minister does not want to mislead the House. No one knows the geography of Antrim better than the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and the Minister himself. He well knows that Ballymena is the middle. He said that Antrim was central, but it is not. It is the southern extremity. So why not put the hospital there? There was no opposition from Lame when the decision was made that the Waveney hospital was to be the central hospital. It was to have an acute service to provide the necessary balance. Now all the acute services are being taken away and concentrated in the northern periphery.
      Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We have debated it at length, mainly in the columns of the newspapers, and not, unfortunately, until this evening in the House. In view of the geography of the Northern board area and the potential of phases 2 and 3 that are to follow, the greenfield Antrim site is the most sensible place. We can get people from Lame and Ballymena there and look after them in the finest possible way.
      The main points of the debate are Smiley and Carrickfergus, about which I have not yet made a decision. I have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East and I shall be in a position to come out with a decision early next week. I am confident that I have the information that I require to make that decision. I see no need for a public inquiry. I have taken into account the opposition to these closures. The hospitals may well be able to be closed and transfers take place to the Moyle. That will not affect the quality of service that the people there will get.
      It is right to ensure that there are proper-sized units for obstetrics. We can go forward with Antrim and the rationalisation of acute care in the Northern board area. That will provide the constituents of the hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Antrim, North with a better and more professional service than they are receiving now.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Four o'clock on Friday morning.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Accidents (Notification)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the agreements he has with each country in the European Community and the Nordic countries for the notification of nuclear accidents in(a) their countries and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom is a signatory to the IAEA convention on early notification and is a party to the European Community arrangements for the exchange of information in the event of a nuclear accident.

  Bilateral agreements with Norway and Denmark were concluded last year and there is a similar agreement with France dating from 1983.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether the conditions permitting the export of plutonium from Sellafield to Japan have been met in full; and what total quantity of plutonium is expected to be involved in the contract;

  (2) whether the agreement to export plutonium to Japan from Sellafield will be reviewed in the event of Japan's fast breeder reactor programme being cut back.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 14 June 1988.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Home Office represents my Department's interests at NATO civil emergency planning boards and conducts liaison arrangements through the senior civil emergency planning committee. My Department is directly represented on the NATO petroleum planning committee and its working group, which meets regularly. The Department participates in relevant NATO exercises.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.
  180
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department, in conjunction with the energy industries, is required to prepare and has plans, including those for home defence, to meet any civil emergency arising in the production, supply and distribution of energy fuels in the United Kingdom as covered by the Energy Act 1976. The total number of departmental staff, including part-time staff, engaged on this work is 30. The annual budgets for the years listed were £240,000; £295,000 and £317,500 respectively.

  Oil and Pipelines Agency
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to review the role of the Oil and Pipelines Agency: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA) is responsible for collecting royalty in kind, for maintaining the arrangements for state participation in oil production in the United Kingdom continental shelf and for managing the Government pipeline and storage system (GPSS). Following review, the Government have decided to cease taking royalty in kind Notice is being given to the companies concerned that the final chargeable period for royalty in kind will run from 1 July to 31 December 1988, and that from 1 January 1989 all royalty will be taken in cash. With the ending of the trading activities of OPA, it will be my intention to phase out the participation arrangements with the oil companies. We shall be discussing with OPA and the industry the best means of achieving this. Discussions are taking place with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, with a view to the GPSS being transferred to his Department.

  Nuclear Technology
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 300–1, which countries have been the destination of transfers of nuclear technology, reprocessing and waste management which have been subject to Government approval.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 24 May 1988]To date, one such transfer, to Japan, has been approved.

PRIME MINISTER

  Port of Leith
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to the port of Leith.

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

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what procedures are required to be followed by civil servants when they are approached with requests to give interviews or pose for photographs for use in press articles; how those procedures were followed in relation to the photograph of Mr. Charles Powell which appeared in the Illustrated London News of April 1988; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Such requests would be judged on their merits. No interview was sought or given in the case referred to in the question.

  Financial Management Initiative
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's financial management initiative throughout Departments since its introduction.

  The Prime Minister
  In the Treasury minute (Cm. 236) in response to the 13th report from the Committee of Public Accounts, the Government noted that it shared the Controller and Auditor General's broad conclusions that real progress was being made in the development of suitable systems and that there were no serious shortcomings in the Departments examined by the National Audit Office in 1986. We shall shortly be making available a report on the progress being made with budgeting in Departments which covers the key system elements of the financial management initiative. As I announced on 18 February 1988, at column 1149, we have accepted the main recommendations in the efficiency unit's report "Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps". The implementation of these recommendations will further reinforce the principles of the FMI and demonstrate clearly the Government's commitment to maintaining the momentum of our overal programme to improve value for money.

  Dr. Sergio Ramirez
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister why she is unable to receive Dr. Sergio Ramirez, Vice-President of Nicaragua, on his forthcoming visit to Europe; when was the last time she received an invitation to meet the Vice-President; what was her response; when she last met the Vice-President of Nicaragua; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Nicaraguan ambassador informed us that Dr. Ramirez, whom I last met in February 1985, wished to visit the United Kingdom on 11 and 12 July during a tour of European capitals. I did not intend to receive him on this occasion, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs agreed to do so. I now understand, however, that Dr. Ramirez has decided not to include the United Kingdom in his tour.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those Ministers, other than the Secretary of State for Employment, who answer parliamentary questions about the establishment and activities of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive and their subordinate agencies; and if, for each Minister, she will list the precise aspects for which he is responsible.

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for all matters concerned with the staffing and establishment of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive which do not fall to myself as arising from the position of HSE staff as civil servants. He is also responsible for all the aspects of the commission's and the executive's work which concern primarily the protection of workers, and the protection of the public from the generality of hazards.

  Any Secretary of State may, having consulted the Secretary of State for Employment, direct or ask the
  182
  commission to do work on particular matters. The commission may also submit proposals for regulations or approved codes of practice to any Minister responsible for provisions which are relevant statutory provisions for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Secretaries of State with responsibilities which currently involve the commission and the executive, for whose activities they may answer in Parliament, are principally the Secretary of State for Energy, who has ministerial responsibility for nuclear safety in England and Wales; the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has a like responsibility there; the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the security of explosives; the Secretary of State for Transport, who has general responsibility for the protection of the public from hazards connected with transportation and harbours; the Secretary of State for Social Services who, in exercising certain of his responsibilities for public health, and the health and safety of NHS staff, relies on the advice of the commission; and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, particularly in relation to part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and its associated regulations.

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is extensively supported by the commission and the executive in relation to the negotiations of European directives and standards of a harmonising character, many of which have implications for safety and health, and his responsibilities for consumer safety at some points impinge on the commission's work.

  The Health and Safety Executive also exercises many functions which impinge on the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales. Questions wholly or partly directed to the executive's activities could fall to be answered by those Ministers.

  Medical and Dental Officers (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Whitney
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces.

  The Prime Minister
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has submitted to me a supplementary report on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces which recommends increases of between 4 and 7·6 per cent. with effect from 1 April 1988. These awards are derived from those to civilian doctors and dentists which I announced in the House on 21 April 1988, and the Government have decided to accept them in full. The report has been published as Cm. 396 and copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will identify(a) liaison arrangements between the Cabinet Office and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office is not represented on any NATO civil emergency planning board or committee, but it is kept informed of the work of these bodies, is consulted as appropriate by the relevant United
  183
  Kingdom representative and is involved in the formation of the United Kingdom's policy on issues that arise within them.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in the Cabinet Office, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for such work in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for the co-ordination of the Government's civil emergency and home defence planning. Nine staff are primarily engaged on this work. The annual budget for such work in the last three financial years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1985–86

  0·27

  1986–87

  0·35

  1987–88

  0·35

  Office Costs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the percentage increase or decrease in the cost of running her office at 10 Downing street and Chequers since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1979 there have been several developments which have affected how the costs of running my office are assessed, including:

  Introduction of charging for aircraft by the Ministry of Defence in 1981–82;

  Abolition of the CPRS in 1983, and the absorption of some of its staff within the No. 10 Policy Unit;

  Introduction of charging for buildings and services by the PSA in 1983–84;

  Introduction of charging for service personnel at Chequers by the MOD in 1984–85;

  Changes in the allocation of charges for the Government Car Service in 1984–85; and

  Inclusion of costs of office services from 1986–87.

  When the effects of these developments are excluded (as far as it is possible to do so) and the result expressed in constant price terms, the cost of running 10 Downing street and Chequers has decreased by 1·61 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1987–88.

  Engagements
  Mrs. Virgina Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what date he expects to achieve the target figures for provision of part-time nursery education, set out in the 1972 White Paper "A Framework for Expansion", of 50 per cent. of three-year-olds and 90 per cent. of four-year-olds.

  Mr. Dunn
  Taking account of all forms of provision, we are not far short of the levels of participation the White Paper recommended: virtually all rising-fives, three quarters of other four-year-olds and one third of three-year-olds are in school, and over half the three-to-four-year-old population attend playgroups.

  Mathematics
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from industry about the mathematical ability of school leavers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received no direct representations from industry about the mathematical ability of school leavers. However, there is evidence that standards of mathematical achievement in England and Wales, particularly standards achieved by less able pupils, are lower than they should be. Our proposals for a national curriculum, with clearly prescribed attainment targets and programmes of study for mathematics, backed up by national assessment and testing, will help to raise standards.

  Truancy
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to require education authorities to make periodic returns to his Department of the percentage of truancy by 14 and 15-year-old children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on 26 November, at column 275.

  Open University
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met officials of the Open University to discuss funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is advised on all matters relating to the Open University, including funding, by an independent visiting committee. This year the committee has met the university on two occasions, most recently on 7 June.

  Exporters (Training)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 259, what plans he has to extend the provision for training to exporters for the Japanese market.

  Mr. Jackson
  As I said in my reply of 13 May, the network of language export training centres is capable of
  185
  providing training to exporters for the Japanese market. The network has been established under the local collaborative projects scheme, which is jointly funded through the Department's professional, industrial and commercial updating programme and the Training Commission. The network is currently being extended to give full nationwide coverage. The centres will also have the potential to use open learning techniques, thereby increasing the opportunities for access by business. The Department of Education and Science is in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry on how to expand the demand for the network's Japanese services as well as other possible ways of enhancing Japanese language training for exporters.

  Polytechnics and Colleges
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now authorise the release to the Association of Polytechnic Teachers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education copies of the consultative document on articles of government which he has been discussing with directors of polytechnics and principals of colleges.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government intend to circulate at an early date draft guidance on articles of government for the polytechnics and colleges for consultation with interested bodies, including these associations.

  GCSE
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what money has been allocated nationally for the provision of school library facilities with regard to the introduction and running of the general certificate of secondary education examination system; what figure has been allocated to each local education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government's spending plans for 1988–89 include an extra £10 million for secondary school libraries in recognition of the heightened pressure for improvements resulting from the introduction of the GCSE. In addition to the above, over £100 million has been allowed in the plans for GCSE-related expenditure, of which £10 million is supported by specific grant for books and equipment. It is, however, for local authorities themselves to decide individually on the priority that they wish to give to secondary school library provision from the resources available to them.

  Education Buildings
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what bids were submitted by local education authorities for the additional funding made available by his Department for the improvement of educational buildings in inner city areas; what allocations have been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  Forty authorities which cover an urban programme area submitted supplementary plans totalling £89 million. Those are currently under consideration and we expect to announce additional allocations to some authorities shortly.

  Teachers (Safeguarding Payments)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to him regarding the present annual cost of safeguarding payments to teachers(a) nationally and (b) for a typical local education authority that has recently undertaken a major redeployment exercise; whether his draft circular on local financial delegation permits continued safeguarding outside allocated school budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is not available. However, the cost of safeguarding nationally will have diminished greatly from October 1987, when the restructuring of teachers' pay led to many formerly safeguarded teachers becoming entitled to an incentive allowance in their present post. The draft circular on financial delegation states that in exceptional cases LEAs might wish to offer compensation outside the delegated budget for the additional costs to a school of taking on a teacher with a safeguarded incentive allowance. My right hon. Friend would expect this item to be limited in extent.

  Teachers (Salaries)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information is available to him as to the number and proportion of schools that have staff in post at a total salary cost greater than the pro rata amount of the local authority's salary budget for schools apportioned between schools according to pupil numbers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  Such information could be extracted from the Department's administrative records only at disproportionate cost.

  Schools (Financial Delegation)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy that any scheme of financial delegation to schools should provide sufficient funds in every case to enable the continued employment of the present teaching staff on the assumption that the number of pupils remains constant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government do not intend to impose a single model scheme of financial delegation. Subject to the passage of the Education Reform Bill, it will be for each local education authority to prepare and submit its own scheme for approval. My right hon. Friend has issued for comment a draft consultative document which envisages that the budget of each school under a scheme of financial delegation should be based primarily on pupil numbers, weighted for differences in age. It will be for the governing body to determine the staffing required to meet the current and changing educational needs and priorities of the school within its delegated budget.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the "School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1988" will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The "School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1988" was published this morning.
  187
  I have now made an order which will give effect to the provisions in this document. It provides for the implementation of the recommendations on pay rates of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. A circular has also been sent today to each local education authority. Copies of the 1988 document and the circular have been placed in the Vote Office.

  Full-time students from outside the United Kingdom in Scottish Universities

  Academic year beginning

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Undergraduates

  Aberdeen

  254

  256

  253

  175

  165

  168

  266

  438

  567

  Dundee

  212

  187

  190

  205

  187

  157

  147

  133

  143

  Edinburgh

  519

  455

  476

  434

  387

  419

  373

  509

  499

  Glasgow

  321

  413

  414

  366

  422

  521

  602

  683

  745

  Heriot-Walt

  335

  316

  305

  260

  273

  354

  375

  445

  410

  St. Andrews

  243

  266

  206

  203

  180

  236

  271

  358

  414

  Stirling

  205

  218

  207

  157

  102

  104

  105

  122

  226

  Strathclyde

  386

  386

  368

  419

  441

  508

  570

  614

  597

  Total

  2,475

  2,497

  2,419

  2,219

  2,157

  2,467

  2,709

  3,302

  3,601

  Postgraduates

  Aberdeen

  222

  188

  164

  148

  143

  146

  149

  164

  199

  Dundee

  202

  160

  165

  157

  94

  90

  110

  108

  136

  Edinburgh

  523

  426

  370

  365

  401

  369

  354

  424

  494

  Glasgow

  241

  288

  235

  228

  260

  293

  353

  540

  615

  Heriot-Watt

  120

  121

  113

  114

  148

  131

  157

  183

  229

  St. Andrews

  86

  85

  77

  80

  72

  67

  72

  89

  111

  Stirling

  68

  40

  51

  61

  81

  101

  137

  144

  202

  Strathclyde

  479

  471

  433

  422

  451

  539

  569

  632

  699

  Total

  1,941

  1,779

  1,608

  1,575

  1,650

  1,736

  1,901

  2,284

  2,685

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) undergraduate students and (b) postgraduate students were studying at each Scottish university, by parental socio-economic class, as defined by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, in each academic year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the parental socioeconomic class for students at individual universities is not available.

  Mature new entrants to individual Scottish universities

  Undergraduates (Aged 21 + )

  Academic year beginning

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Aberdeen

  86

  61

  62

  33

  50

  52

  113

  196

  174

  Dundee

  44

  31

  37

  41

  33

  18

  28

  31

  39

  Edinburgh

  110

  68

  80

  73

  78

  99

  64

  144

  123

  Glasgow

  89

  99

  70

  74

  112

  199

  141

  218

  189

  Heriot-Watt

  97

  47

  63

  64

  91

  140

  118

  147

  96

  St. Andrews

  53

  76

  44

  39

  45

  65

  66

  72

  79

  Stirling

  56

  43

  42

  34

  11

  30

  44

  50

  103

  Strathclyde

  107

  138

  114

  160

  139

  192

  231

  194

  190

  Total

  642

  563

  512

  518

  559

  797

  805

  1,052

  993

  Postgraduates (Aged 25 + )l

  Total

  536

  516

  611

  558

  586

  637

  691

  731

  818

  1 Excludes students domiciled outside the United Kingdom. Breakdown between universities is not available.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning

  Scottish Universities
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) undergraduate students and (b) postgraduate students in each of the Scottish universities came from outside the United Kingdom in each academic year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the following table.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) undergraduate mature students and (b) postgraduate mature students there have been in each Scottish university since the academic year 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is given in the table.

  boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department has no arrangements for liaison with the bodies mentioned.
  189
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, and the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department has no formal terms of reference for these activities. No staff were employed on them and there was no budget for the years in question.

  Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take into account rates of truancy when considering the expenditure requirements of inner city education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The needs of inner city authorities for spending on education are assessed as part of the assessment of grant-related expenditure for rate support grant purposes. There is an additional educational needs allowance based on socio-economic factors, but we do not believe that it would be desirable to include in the assessment a direct measure of truancy.

HOME DEPARTMENT Prisoners (Home Leave)

  Prisoners (Home Leave))
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements cover financial assistance for prisoners on home leave where the householder qualifies for income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All prisoners on home leave receive travelling expenses and subsistence for the journey. Householders who are in receipt of income support may apply for financial assistance under paragraph 6304 of the social fund manual, but the operation of these arrangements is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Violence (Town Centres)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the level of violence in town centres of England and Wales, other than large inner city areas, and what steps are being taken to counteract such violence.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has referred in a number of recent speeches, including that to the Police Federation last month, to our concern at this serious problem. We have also received the report of the survey into the extent of the problem recently carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers in consultation with the Home Office. Officials and representatives of the association are now examining together the problems faced by the police in tackling this sort of disorder and how best to overcome them.

  We have already taken a number of steps to increase police powers and capacity to tackle violent crime and disorder. We have strengthened the powers available to the police to deal with public disorder and have brought before Parliament proposals to prohibit the sale of
  190
  specified offensive weapons and to make it an offence to be in possession of a knife in a public place without good reason.

  Since 1979 we have approved 4,327 additional posts for provincial forces, and police strength in these forces has increased by 6,808. The link between misuse of alcohol and this type of disorder is clear, and that is one reason why in the Licensing Act 1988 the law against under-age drinking has been strengthened.

  Prison Officer Peter Shaw
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations regarding the transfer application of Prison Officer Peter Shaw, of Her Majesty's prison, Grendon.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Apart from the correspondence with Mr. Shaw himself about his request for transfer, one letter has been received in the Department in support of his application.

  Mr. G. Bacon
  Mr. Leighton
  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 home of Mr. George Bacon, at 7 Herbert road, Manor Park, London E.12, was raided on 30 March; and what were the results.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a warrant was sought and obtained in order to search Mr. Bacon's house for stolen electrical equipment and household items. No stolen property was found.

  Police Federation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support is given by Her Majesty's Government to the Police Federation or its officers; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A contribution of 85 per cent. is made through the common police services arrangements to the salaries of the chairman, secretary, and treasurer of the Police Federation's joint central committee, the remainder being met by the federation itself. The travelling and subsistence expenses of joint central committee members attending certain meetings are also reimbursed by the same means. A small sum is also payable for the secretarial expenses incurred by the Police Federation on behalf of the staff side of the Police Negotiating Board. The size of these contributions amounted to about £72,000 in 1987–88. These payments are made mainly in pursuance of the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies committee report on the "Structure and Role of Police Staff Associations" (1979, Cmnd. 7633).

  In addition, police authorities provide locally for office facilities, time off for part-time officers, the salaries of full-time officers, and travelling expenses for meetings and conference expenses. Fifty one per cent. of these costs are met through the police specific grant paid by the Government.

  Adult Education (London)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to develop links
  191
  between the chief education officer at the Home Office and the separate London boroughs, which have to establish their individual adult education departments on the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The draft guidance issued by the Department of Education and Science to inner London boroughs states that the arrangements for education in Prison Department establishments will be the subject of discussion between the DES, the Home Office, ILEA and the councils concerned.

  Arrangements for these discussions will be made as soon as possible.

  Prisoners (Education)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently receiving adult education services from the Inner London education authority community education department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On the most recent date for which information is readily available, the total attendances for day and evening classes in the five prison establishments within the Inner London education authority area was 771

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to promote arrangements by individual boroughs to ensure continuing adult education for prisoners when they return to the community after serving their sentence, subsequent to the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to ensure that the LEAs provide continuing adult education for prisoners when they are returned to the community after serving their sentences. Each LEA has to balance priorities in the light of an assessment of needs and of available resources.

  Discussions will be held between the Department of Education and Science, the Home Office, ILEA and those councils which will be concerned with delivery in the five London prisons and this will provide an opportunity to review provision in the community. The Home Office will encourage all London boroughs to make provision as appropriate.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, sent to him on 18 April, about an alleged miscarriage of justice.

  Mr. Hurd
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 9 June.

  Michael Ryan
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to how many(a) persons who made written statements to police officers and (b) solicitors representing persons who made written statements to police officers, concerning matters leading up to the shootings by the late Michael Ryan in Hungerford, have requested copies of their written statements to police officers from the chief constable; what were the dates of such requests; whether copies have been
  192
  given or sent to those persons or their solicitors; and when the chief constable intends to deal with those requests to which he has not as yet given an answer.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the Thames Valley police that no such requests have been received

  Prison Building
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are any plans to build a new prison on the site of New Hall hospital, Scarisbrick, near Southport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to build a prison on this site.

  Police and Military Joint Tactical Doctrine
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the recently developed police and military joint tactical doctrine.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The primary responsibility for the internal security of the United Kingdom rests with the police, whether in peacetime or in war. Under common law the armed forces are required to make their best endeavours to come to the aid of the police if requested to do so. The joint tactical doctrine reaffirms those general principles in relation to planning and operational liaison between the police and the military during times of crisis and war.

  Courts (Staff Shortages)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court hearings have been cancelled within the past year because of staff shortages.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not available centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court hearings in Yorkshire and Humberside have been cancelled within the last year because of staff shortages.

  Mr. John Patten
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the current shortage of justices clerks.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is no shortage of justices clerks. Concern has been expressed that rates of pay are not sufficient to recruit and retain court clerks, especially those qualified as barrister or solicitor. Rates of pay and conditions of service for magistrates courts staff in England and Wales, other than in inner London, are set by the joint negotiating committee (JNC) for magistrates courts staff. I understand that the JNC is collecting information on recruitment and retention of staff and the reasons for any shortages, and will consider this when discussing a pay settlement for 1988. I shall give careful consideration to the settlement proposed.
  193
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many justices clerks in the Yorkshire and Humberside region have within the last year left posts in magistrates courts to take up positions with the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that no justices clerks have left in this way. Information about court clerks is not readily available. I shall be writing to the hon. Member.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what quantitative and qualitative 194
  effects upon the casework for the forensic science service he expects to flow from his recent proposals for the staffing of that service and his intention to maintain the allocation of resources to the service at their present levels.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current proposals for the staffing of the Home Office forensic science service are intended to enhance its ability to meet the demands on it, by increasing the total number of officers reporting cases to the courts, and enabling the service to recruit and retain the staff needed for this work. The total resources available to the service will be maintained at their present level, but we will keep under review the case for increasing them.

  Life Sentences
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of recommendations of the Parole Board for release of people serving non-mandatory life sentences have been overturned by him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During 1987, the most recent year for which figures are available, my right hon. Friend was unable to accept five of 29 recommendations for release made by the Parole Board during 1987 in respect of prisoners serving non-mandatory life sentences.

  Ticket Touting
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce legislation to make ticket touting at sporting or other events a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans for such legislation.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were granted temporary admission in each of the years from 1982 to 1986, 1987 and in 1988 up to the present time; and how many such persons still remain.

  Mr. Renton
  The total numbers of persons granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 were 6,584, 7,292 and 8,527 respectively. The information available for 1985 onwards was given in reply to a question from the hon. Member on 22 April, at column 594. Information on the numbers of such persons granted temporary admission who still remain in the United Kingdom is not available.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons who arrived in Britain as visitors and who have subsequently married persons settled in Britain (i) are awaiting interview and (ii) have been interviewed and await a decision.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Charities (Street Collections)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to standardise the procedure and forms involved in applications to make cash collections in the street for approved charities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Most licensing authorities have adopted street collection regulations which follow closely the model contained in the schedule to the Charitable Collections (Transitional Provisions) Order 1974. All street collection regulations require my right hon. Friend's confirmation before coming into force. Following a recommendation of the Woodfield report on the supervision of charities, we are reviewing the law relating to public collections, including these arrangements.

  Union Flag
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ban the disfiguring with words and slogans of the Union flag.
  196
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the charges to each professional football club in London for police services in the season 1987–88; and what amount each club has paid.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information is as follows:

  Club

  Season 1987–88

  Charged

  Paid

  £

  £

  Arsenal

  161,875·96

  156,065·68

  Brentford

  34,078·68

  34,078·68

  Charlton

  49,273·65

  49,273·65

  Chelsea

  168,257·86

  147,740·45

  Crystal Palace

  37,173·59

  34,393·90

  Fulham

  26,526·79

  26,526·79

  Leyton Orient

  17,509·17

  16,958·86

  Millwall

  57,693·28

  57,693·28

  Queen's Park Rangers

  129,564·28

  129,564·28

  Tottenham Hotspur

  153,785·36

  141,372·30

  West Ham United

  176,303·08

  176,303·08

  Wimbledon

  81,354·26

  81,354·26

  TOTAL

  1,093,395·96

  1,051,325·21

  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to bring private clubs, with both female and male members, within the scope of the Act; and what action he is taking.

  Mr. John Patten
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have made representations recently about the call which the organisation "Women in Golf" has made for a change in the law. In its recent report "Equal Treatment for Men and Women" the Equal Opportunities Commission included a proposal to bring private clubs with both female and male members within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to her questions on this on 14 March.

  Police (Assaults)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about assaults on police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of the concern of the police service over the increasing frequency of assaults. My right hon. Friend has therefore asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to collect from forces in England and Wales the figures of assaults on police officers and to publish them in his annual report. This will enable the problem to be more accurately assessed.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Council of Ministers will be
  197
  considering the European Economic Community proposal for the mutual recognition of firearms certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The position remains as described by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to my hon. Friend's question of 14 January, at column 352.

  Risley Remand Centre
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Risley remand centre.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The future of Risley remand centre is linked with the longer-term strategic plans for local prison accommodation in the north-west. Liverpool and Preston prisons are planned to become local prisons in 1989. We intend that Risley will adopt the role of a local prison as soon as possible thereafter. In the meantime, building work at the establishment will proceed on two fronts. A rolling programe of refurbishment of existing living accommodation has begun and will be completed in autumn 1990. A larger programme of expansion and redevelopment at the establishment is scheduled to start by summer 1989. This will provide new inmate living accommodation with integral sanitation in the cells and better facilities for staff, inmates and visitors. The work is due to be completed in stages between 1991 and 1994.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office officials represent the United Kingdom on the NATO senior civil emergency planning committee, which undertakes the direction of policy and general co-ordination of civil emergency planning, and on the civil defence committee and working group, which comprises senior officials of NATO countries meeting on a regular basis to consider national plans for all aspects of the protection of the public in an emergency. The NATO group of experts on warning and detection reports to the civil defence committee; it is chaired by the director of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation and co-ordinates research and development of warning and detection systems, including an annual international exercise. Home Office officials also represent the United Kingdom on the NATO civil communications planning committee and working groups, which are concerned with the maintenance of civil communications in an emergency.

  Mr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Civil Defence Act 1948 provides the statutory basis for civil defence activity. The objective 198
  of civil defence planning in the Home Office is to give effect to the civil defence functions of Ministers, which are set out in the 1948 Act. These include the formulation of policy and issue of guidance to the local authorities and the police and fire services, payment of grant, the provision of training and equipment, development of communications, scientific research and the maintenance of warning and monitoring arrangements.

  The Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 enables local authorities to use civil defence resources in the response to a peacetime emergency. The Home Office issues guidance on this subject in consultation with other Government Departments.

  The information requested on Home Office expenditure and manpower is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure

  Manpower

  £ million

  1985–86

  46·30

  171

  1986–87

  48·40

  177

  1987–88

  55·30

  178

  1 Estimate.

  Abortion (Inquest)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the reasons for his conclusion that the public interest would not be served by an inquest into the case involving the abortion which took place at the City general infirmary, Carlisle, in July 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This conclusion was reached after careful consideration of all the information provided by the coroner.

  Security Services (Report)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be receiving the first report from the counsellor to the security services.

  Mr. Hurd
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on 2 November 1987, at column 512, the staff counsellor, who was appointed in November 1987, will report not less frequently than once a year to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and myself.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the reason for the delay in the publication of the feasibility study, jointly undertaken with the Foreign Office, into DNA testing involving those applying to settle in the United Kingdom; whether he is going to make arrangements to fund the introduction of any DNA testing scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Some of the practical and policy considerations revealed by the DNA pilot trial have proved difficult to resolve, but the results should be available shortly.

  Community Education (London)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to continue the work of the community education department of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The community education and careers branch of ILEA is responsible for adult education, the youth service and the careers service in inner London. Under our proposals the boroughs will become responsible for these services in their area. They will have to set out their intentions for them in their development plans. Discussions will be held with the boroughs, ILEA and others on the future arrangements for particular aspects of these services.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received from the Association of District Councils regarding Sunday trading laws.

  The Attorney-General
  The Association of District Councils wrote to my predecessor about the enforcement of the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 in the course of 1986. He received no further representations from the association and I have received none. As I mentioned in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 18 April last, at column 297, I recently asked the association for information concerning the scale of the enforcement effort being made in pursuance of the responsibility placed upon local authorities by the Act.

  Statistics on the number of judges, 5, 10, 20 and 30 years ago

  Circuit judges

  High Court judges

  Court of Appeal

  House of Lords

  As at 1 June 1988

  405

  80

  27

  9

  5 years ago

  346

  77

  18

  9

  10 years ago

  290

  72

  16

  9

  County court judges

  High Court judges

  Court of Appeal

  House of Lords

  20 years ago

  89

  61

  11

  9

  30 years ago

  69

  42

  8

  9

  Rowntree plc
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Attorney-General who requested him to make contact with the Rowntree Charitable Trust to request written confirmation that it was mindful of its charitable responsibilities in respect to the proposed takeover of Rowntree plc.

  The Attorney-General
  The request for information to the trustees of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust was made on my behalf by an official in the Treasury Solicitor's Department, after consultation with my Department, following a report in The Daily Telegraph on 2 June.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Director of Public Prosecutions proposes to take following the completion of an investigation by the City of London police into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the appeal hearing of the men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The investigation by the City of London police into contacts between Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade, who were both Crown witnesses at the appeal hearing of six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, has been completed.

  The investigation did not reveal any evidence of criminal conduct by any person and the Director of Public Prosecutions has therefore decided to take no further action in the matter.

  Judges
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many judges there were at the latest date for which statistics are available; what were the figures five, 10, 20, and 30 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of judges in post at the relevant dates is set out in the tables. It should be noted that the post of circuit judge was not brought into being until the enactment of the Courts Act 1971. The second table, therefore, which deals with number in post in 1968 and 1958, gives the number of county court judges who were in post at the relevant time.

  In addition to the county court judges in post at that time there were a small number of full-time judges in the quarter sessions. As at 1 January 1969 there were 25 such posts, but the exact numbers in post 20 and 30 years ago respectively cannot be ascertained without the expenditure of disproportionate resources.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the Overseas Development Agency refused the request from the Nicaraguan Government for the provision of beans and vegetable oil to offset the effects of the recent drought in Nicaragua.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The European Community has recently approved a request from the Nicaraguans for substantial food aid, including beans and vegetable oil.
  201
  The United Kingdom supported this request and will be contributing over 17 per cent. towards the cost of the allocation.

SCOTLAND

  Caravan Parks
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish model standards for caravan touring parks, along the lines of those already issued for residential and holiday caravan parks.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A consultation paper seeking comments on draft model standards for caravan touring parks in Scotland will be issued by the the Scottish Development Department before the end of June. Views will be sought from a variety of sources, including local authorities and organisations representing caravanning interests.

  Scottish TUC
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for

  Number1 of doctors employed by health board: 30 September 1987

  Health board

  Consultants

  General practitioners

  Other grades

  Argyll and Clyde

  112·3

  301

  218·5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  93·5

  238

  160·0

  Borders

  25·5

  70

  29·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  48·2

  109

  74·0

  Fife

  81·0

  195

  148·8

  Forth Valley

  79·0

  184

  123·3

  Grampian

  178·5

  301

  373·0

  Greater Glasgow

  541·2

  638

  1,138·4

  Highland

  69·8

  159

  114·6

  Lanarkshire

  155·5

  305

  268·7

  Lothian

  353·3

  504

  761·0

  Orkney

  1·0

  22

  4·3

  Shetland

  2·0

  17

  6·0

  Tayside

  172·4

  247

  343·2

  Western Isles

  5·5

  28

  6·1

  1 Consultants and other grades are shown as whole-time equivalents and general practitioners as number. General practitioner data are provisional.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will be contributing to the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry into the competitive position of doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Director General of Fair Trading has now referred the question of restrictions on doctors' advertising to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I understand that officials of the Scottish Home and Health Department will be invited to give evidence to the commission.

  Nurses
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each year since 1970, the number of qualified nurses employed by each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of qualified nurses, expressed as whole-time equivalents, employed by health boards at 30 September in each year from 1974, when health boards were established, to 1986 are published in 202
  Strathkelvin and Bearsden of 27 May, Official Report, column 363, how many meetings there were between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services and the Scottish Trades Union Congress; and whether a formal or informal record was kept of the meetings.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for health. For such meetings only informal notes for use within the Department are taken.

  Doctors
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each health board, the numbers of(a) consultants, (b) general practitioners and (c) other grades of doctors employed in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available for the years 1970 to 1973 as health boards were not created until 1974. For the period 1974 to 1986 the data are published in "Scottish Health Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. The information for 1987 is set out in the table.

  "Scottish Health Statistics", copies of which are held in the Library. The latest available figures for 30 September 1987, not yet published, are as follows:

  Qualified nurses by health board: 30 September 1987

  Health Board

  Whole-time equivalent

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,443·3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,916·9

  Borders

  612·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,088·0

  Fife

  2,059·7

  Forth Valley

  1,753·8

  Grampian

  3,370·1

  Greater Glasgow

  8,111·8

  Highland

  1,462·1

  Lanarkshire

  3,294·3

  Lothian

  5,052·5

  Orkney

  138·5

  Shetland

  148·5

  Tayside

  3,417·1

  Western Isles

  208·7

  TOTAL

  35,078·2

  Scottish Information Office
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the rules governing relations between officials of the Scottish Information Office and former employees of that office.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The officials concerned are bound by the rules which apply to the conduct of all civil servants; the practical effect in this area is that no assistance would be given to former civil servants which would not in principle be given to other bona fide contacts.

  Playgrounds
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the average cost of replacing the concrete or tarmac surfaces in children's playgrounds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Costs vary greatly depending on the contractor's charges and the type of surface used, ranging from relatively cheap surfaces such as sand, to expensive wetpore surfaces which can cost in excess of £100 per square metre.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people aged up to 16 years have used dental services paid in full or in part by the National Health Service for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Foryth
  The only available information is as shown:

  Patients aged 0 to 15 treated by the General Dental Services

  Year

  Number

  1985

  544,677

  1986

  551,384

  Patient aged 0 to 14 treated by the Community Dental Services

  Year

  Number

  1980

  188,723

  1981

  185,010

  1982

  185,531

  1983

  191,774

  1984

  189,438

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people between the age of 16 and 21 years have used dental facilities paid in full or in part by the National Health Service, for each year since 1975;

  (2) how many people over the age of 21 years have used dental services paid in full or in part by the National Health Service for each year since 1975;

  (3) what is the cost to the National Health Service in 1988 terms, for each year since 1975, of dental services given to people (a) aged up to 16 years, (b) between the age of 16 to 21 years and (c) over the age of 21 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish health boards have suspended or diminished cervical cancer screening tests during the current year; and if he will make a statement.
  204
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. The number of cervical smear tests undertaken continues to rise. The provisional total for 1987 is 420,361 compared with 361,626 in 1986, an increase of 16 per cent.

  Dry Sow Stalls
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of pig farmers in Scotland are estimated still to employ dry sow stalls; how this proportion compares with 10 years ago; and what action he plans to take to ensure the phasing out of such stalls.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The precise information requested is not held centrally, but present indications are that some 60 to 65 per cent. of sows are currently housed in the stalls concerned.

  The Farm Animal Welfare Council has recently completed a review of pig production systems. The council's report makes a number of recommendations which could influence future housing arrangements. Interested parties are currently being consulted and their comments will be fully considered.

  Water Supplies (Aluminium)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about alleged links between the existence of aluminium in water supplies and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease; if he will list those Scottish water authorities which add aluminium to their water supply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that research about Alzheimer's disease is being undertaken at the Medical Research Council's environmental epidemiology unit at Southampton, but that its results have not yet been published. The research will be assessed by medical advisers and appropriate action will be taken if it is needed. The Government have adopted the standard for aluminium set by the EC drinking water directive. Most water supplies comply, and where they do not water undertakers have programmes of remedial action. Aluminium compounds are widely used as an aid to coagulation in the treatment of drinking water. Most, if not all, Scottish water authorities use them at some of their treatment works.

  Fish Farms
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any plans to review the extant planning procedures relating to the siting or expansion of fish farms; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent representations he has received concerning the planning and siting of salmonid fish farms and other fish farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations arguing for or against changes in the procedures currently operated by the Crown Estate commissioners in relation to the establishment of offshore fish farms. He is currently reviewing the operation of these procedures, and the representations are being taken into account. The results of the review will be announced in due course. The Government have no plans to review the current planning procedures relating to fish farms in inland waters.

  Corntonvale Prison
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to amend the vocational guidance given to prisoners shortly before their release from Corntonvale prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A comprehensive programme of training and guidance is given to prisoners before their release from Corntonvale. The programme is regularly reviewed as to its relevance and content. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a particular aspect, perhaps he would write to me.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the educational and training programmes available to prisoners in Corntonvale prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The programme of education and training available to prisoners and young offenders at Corntonvale prison is as follows:

  Education

  Certificated Courses:

  Higher and 'O' grades in:

  —Arithmetic

  —English

  —Modern Studies

  —Food and nutrition

  Non-Certificated Courses:

  Social Skills

  Art and Craft

  Cookery

  Current Affairs

  Office Studies

  Methods:

  Direct teaching, correspondence courses and practical guidance.

  Training:

  City and Guilds and SCOTVEC (modular) courses are available in:

  Sewing and garment making

  Gardening

  Catering

  Courses are being planned in:

  Hairdressing

  Manicuring

  Beauticulture

  Health Boards (Members' Interests)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department maintains any record of the shareholdings of health board members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Chairmen and members of health boards are required to declare any interests in matters being considered by their boards in terms of the National Health Service (Health Boards: Membership, Procedure and Payment of Subscriptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1975.

  Health Authorities (Report)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the report on the Scottish health authorities review of priorities for the eighties and nineties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 16 May my right hon. and learned Friend received a copy of the SHARPEN report from the Scottish Health Service Planning Council 206
  together with advice, in the form of a foreword to the report, endorsing the priorities identified by the working party and indicating a number of reservations about the recommendations made. Copies of the planning council's advice have been placed in the Library. Close consideration will be given to the report's recommendations and to the planning council's advice. I envisage that the report will be published in due course, together with the council chairman's foreword and an indication of the Government's response.

  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the amount of grant-aid being made available under the special grants (environmental) programme in 1988–89 to voluntary bodies in Scotland working in the environmental field.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am pleased to announce that grant-aid totalling £200,000 has been offered to the following voluntary bodies in the financial year 1988–89, to assist them in carrying out environmental conservation, improvement or education Scotland:

  £

  Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland

  5,000

  Association of Community Technical Aid Centres

  10,000

  Buchan Countryside Group

  5,000

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  9,900

  Council for Scottish Archaeology

  9,000

  Environment Centre

  5,700

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  10,000

  Royal Zoological Society

  5,750

  Scottish Community Woods Campaign

  7,750

  Scottish Conservation Projects Trust

  30,000

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

  6,300

  Scottish Environmental Education Council

  15,000

  Scottish Field School of Archeology

  2,400

  Scottish Field Studies Association

  10,000

  Scottish Historic Buildings Trust

  13,700

  Scottish Rights of Way Society Limited

  5,000

  Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link

  7,500

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  30,000

  Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust

  7,000

  Woodland Trust

  5,000

  Greenland White-fronted Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what measures have been taken to prevent the killing of Greenland white-fronted geese during their return to breeding grounds or during the period of preparation for their migration;

  (2) what was the date on which licences to shoot Greenland white-fronted geese were withdrawn; what was the reason for their withdrawal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All licences to shoot Greenland white-fronted geese on Islay were withdrawn on 16 March 1988 to avoid stress to the birds during the period of preparation for return migration to their breeding grounds. The timing of the withdrawal of licences was determined on the basis of advice received from the Nature Conservancy Council. From that date the prohibition on the killing of white-fronted geese has been fully restored and there is no evidence to suggest that any further shooting has taken place.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is empowered by the Civil Defence Act 1948 to take such steps as he considers necessary for the purposes of civil defence; to make regulations about the civil defence functions of local authorities and to make grants towards expenses incurred in the discharge of those functions. Regulations made under the Act include the Civil Defence (Local Authority Functions) (Scotland) Regulations 1983, which prescribe the functions of local authorities in relation to civil defence. The Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 enables local authorities to use civil defence resources in responding to a peacetime emergency.

  Information on expenditure and manpower is as follows:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Expenditure (£ million) (including grants paid to local authorities and payments to NHS)

  5·40

  5·40

  7·30

  Civil service manpower

  48

  48

  43

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no direct liaison or collaborative work between NATO boards and committees and the Scottish Office, whose interests are covered by representatives of other Departments on a United Kingdom basis.

  School Closures
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has reached a decision on the school closure proposals referred to him by Strathclyde regional council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Last month Strathclyde region submitted to me 34 proposals for the closure, rezoning or change of site of schools which require my consent under section 22B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. I have given my consent to the following:

  Castlehead High School, Paisley—extension of delineated area.

  St. Margarets Primary School, New Cumnock—closure.

  Daer and Powtrail Primary School, Ianark Division—closure.

  Donaldson Street School, Kirkintilloch—relocation.

  Girvan Primary School, Girvan—extension of delineated area to include part of delineated area of Assel Primary School which is to close.

  208
  I have refused consent to the following:

  Paisley Grammar School—closure.

  Notre Dame High School, Glasgow—closure.

  Decisions on the other cases will be notified to the education authority as soon as possible.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects o be able to provide further details of the new discount scheme for public sector tenants wishing to buy their council houses; and when he now expects the new provisions to take effect.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: Details of the items to be contained in the determination covering the revised discount provisions are currently under consideration, but it is expected that the new scheme including the cost floor provisions, will be commenced two months after the Housing Bill receives Royal Assent.

  The framework of the new provisions will be broadly in line with that which applies at present in England and Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inner-city Initiative
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the progress of his Department's inner-city initiative.

  Mr. Atkins
  The inner city task forces are a central part of the Government's action for cities. They were set up in February 1986 as small local teams charged with experimenting with policies and projects to tackle the problems of small inner city areas with big problems. They remain very closely involved in local economic regeneration. They are meeting their objectives of securing more jobs for local people and improving their employability, encouraging and facilitating local enterprise and supporting environmental and crime prevention initiatives.

  Over 600 projects have been supported by the task forces, covering a broad spread of activity from which important lessons are being learnt and the results disseminated, for example, about

  targeted training

  developing schools-industry links

  helping small businesses start and grow through advice and better access to finance

  encouraging local purchasing initiatives.

  In all these areas, and others, we are learning, above all, how to encourage and develop the contribution of the local business world in each city to action for cities so that all residents of our cities can benefit from increased national prosperity.

  In addition to my Department's task force initiative, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster carries responsibility under the Prime Minister for co-ordinating the Government's action for cities, which involves a number of Departments. I am glad to say that there has been a most positive response from business to join us in tackling the problems of our inner cities following the breakfast presentations that my colleagues and myself have been making around the country.

  Mr. Peter Luff
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the annual amount paid by his Department to the employers of his special adviser, Mr. Peter Luff, in compensation for their loss of his services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  £21,933 per annum plus VAT.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The DTI represents the United Kingdom on the NATO industrial planning committee, which meets twice a year at plenary level and four times at working group level. This committee, together with the food and agriculture planning committee, is responsible for planning and exercising the Central Supplies Agency, a NATO civil wartime agency. The Central Supplies Agency would be responsible for ensuring the continued availability and equitable distribution of both civil and military purposes of food, agricultural and industrial supplies. The committee also exchanges information on the wartime industrial plans of member countries and studies on a selective basis their capability to produce essential industrial supplies during wartime.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Civil emergency and home defence planning in the DTI is aimed at ensuring that those industries for which the Department is responsible would be able to meet any essential demands placed upon them during an emergency. Six members of staff are currently engaged full time on the work, with assistance from other staff as necessary. Annual expenditure has been as follows:

  £000 's

  1985–86

  125

  1986–87

  130

  1987–88

  135

  Space Industry
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the space industry; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry met the United Kingdom industry space committee on 26 May. There was a wide-ranging discussion of recent developments and future prospects, including the question of the commercialisation of space activities.

  House of Fraser plc
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has yet received the report of the investigation into the circumstances in which House of Fraser plc was taken over; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  No. The investigation into House of Fraser Holdings plc continues and I am unable to say when a report will be received.

  TechAlert
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a copy of the TechAlert report by Charles Miley; and if the will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. The report was prepared as part of a review of TechAlert currently being undertaken by the Department and it contains commercially sensitive information.

  Airbus Industrie
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on what proposals there are for the restructuring of the management and finances of Airbus Industrie.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The proposals for restructuring the management and finances of Airbus Industrie are contained in the report of the four independent advisers, known as the wise men, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  At our last meeting, in Hanover on 5 May, the Aerospace Ministers of the four Airbus partners' Governments noted with satisfaction that the Airbus partners and Airbus Industrie had responded promptly in studying the wise men's recommendations and reaching agreement in principle to their proposals. We asked the industrialists to start to implement the restructuring without delay with a view to establishing the structure of the new organisation by autumn, with full implementation from the end of 1988 at the latest.

  GEC-Plessey (Merger)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the outcome of the negotiations which he asked the Director General of Fair Trading to have with GEC on the proposed merger between GEC and Plessey.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced on 25 March this year that he had agreed to a variation of the undertakings given by GEC following publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the proposed merger between GEC and Plessey in August 1986. The variation is to allow the establishment of a joint venture company to handle the telecommunications interest of both companies. This decision was in accordance with the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Internal Market Council held on 7 June.
  211
  Mr. Maude
  The Council, at which my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I represented the United Kingdom, discussed proposed directives on the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas and right of residence throughout the Community for EC nationals not already covered by the treaty of Rome; proposals for a Community patent convention; and a regulation to establish a Community trade mark system.

  The Council adopted directives on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of foodstuffs and non-food products; on member states' arrangements for the inspection of laboratories to verify compliance with good laboratory practice; on the rules governing the classification, packaging and labelling requirements for dangerous preparations; and establishing a mandatory range of quantities in which spirit drinks and sparkling wines must be sold.

  The Council also agreed on a directive relating to the publication of annual accounting documents of branches of banks whose head office is outside that member state; a proposal to develop a Communitywide market for information services; and a resolution on small and medium-sized enterprises and deregulation.

  Post Office (Counter Services)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what proposals he has for alterations in the Post Office's arrangements for contracts for counter services; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received since 1 January concerning contracts for Post Office counter services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have received many representations about changes to some sub-postmasters' contracts with the Post Office, particularly the introduction of community offices. However, this is primarily a matter for the Post Office and I have no proposals to intervene to change these arrangements.

  Rowntree plc
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations were received by the Office of Fair Trading about the Nestlé bid for Rowntree; and how many of these supported the reference of this bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: I understand that the Office of Fair Trading has received many representations, most of which express opposition to the proposed merger.

  Voluntary Restraint
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 7 June to the hon. Member for Darlington,Official Report, column 429, whether, in the case of the non-vehicle voluntary restraint arrangements with Japan, he is satisfied that the net cost to the economy does not outweigh the benefits to the industries concerned.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]: I am satisfied that the continuation of the inter-industry restraint arrangements to which my hon. Friend refers is justified for a limited period. 1 am keeping the need for them under close review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dc Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to recover the outstanding moneys owing to Her Majesty's Government arising out of their investment in De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.

  Mr. Viggers
  Claims have been lodged by the Department of Economic Development with the liquidators of the Northern Ireland company, De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. and the trustee in bankruptcy of the American parent company, De Lorean Motor Company, both of whom have instituted legal actions for the benefit of creditors, including actions against the De Lorean auditors, Arthur Andersen and Co.

  Legal proceedings claiming substantial damages have also been taken out in the United States by the Department of Economic Development alleging a number of offences, including negligence and breach of contract against Arthur Andersen and Co.

  The joint receivers appointed by the Government in 1982 are also involved in legal proceedings for the recovery of funds. These actions are in London against Lotus Cars Limited, the estate of the late Mr. A. C. B. Chapman, Mr. F. R. Bushell and Mr. J. Z. De Lorean for the recovery of funds believed to have been misappropriated and in Switzerland to recover funds known to be held in Swiss bank accounts. In the United States the joint receivers have lodged claims with the trustee in bankruptcy of the American parent company.

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

  Mr. Viggers
  Livewire is a United Kingdom-wide scheme which helps 16 to 25-year-olds develop their ideas for self-employment. The scheme's principal sponsor is Shell UK and in Northern Ireland the main local sponsor is the Belfast Telegraph; the scheme is administered locally by the action resource centre. This year 266 young people entered the competition in Northern Ireland, representing 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom total.

  Northern Ireland participants have traditionally performed well in the United Kingdom competition; this year's grand final takes place on 28 June 1988.

  I believe that Livewire is an excellent scheme which is highly valued in Northern Ireland and I congratulate the organisers. By helping young people obtain skilled advice and support the scheme encourages their interest in self-employment and provides an important focus for the development of tomorrow's entrepreneurs and small businesses.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that housing benefit in respect of any household be deducted proportionally from all occupants in the household in receipt of benefit, and that the tenant named on the rent book could be held responsible for a proportioned amount of rent and rates charged by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive,

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for northern Ireland whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  Neither the Northern Ireland Office nor the Northern Ireland Departments have any direct involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, but their interests are fully represented on the appropriate NATO bodies by relevant central Government Departments.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments have a remit to prepare and review contingency plans to deal with those peacetime civil emergencies which fall within their main areas of responsibility. Civil Defence planning in Northern Ireland is carried out under the authority of the Civil Defence Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 and is in line with current arrangements throughout the United Kingdom.

  The number of staff involved was 12 for 1985–86 and 1986–87 and is currently 11.

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Totals

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1. Capital grants to district councils1

  6,303,001

  4,925,815

  3,829,751

  2,359,192

  1,750,616

  19,168,375

  2. Capital grants to voluntary sports clubs

  1,150,459

  1,407,567

  759,604

  348,156

  290,650

  3,956,436

  3. Sports councils for Northern Ireland

  905,641

  980,156

  1,118,212

  1,146,199

  1,219,124

  5,369,332

  4. Sports sponsorship incentive scheme

  nil

  140,534

  76,899

  103,698

  70,328

  391,459

  Totals

  8,359,101

  7,454,072

  5,784,466

  3,957,245

  3,330,718

  28,885,602

  1 Includes grants for the provision of community facilities which cannot be given separately.

  AIDS
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to how many deaths AIDS was a contributory factor during May.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: No such deaths were attributed to Northern Ireland during May.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chile
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, columns 821–23, he has on the electoral registration arrangements, including the requirements for identity cards, at the forthcoming plebiscite in Chile.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of Chileans registering to vote in the forthcoming plebiscite is encouraging. By 10 June,
  214
  The annual budgets were:

  £

  (i) 1985–86

  1,539,000

  (ii) 1986–87

  930,000

  (iii) 1987–88

  1,706,000

  Sentencing Policy
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new arrangements he has made for the review of life and indeterminate sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  My right hon. Friend announced a review of the cases of each special category prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment or detention at the Secretary of State's pleasure in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) on 7 June, at column 464. As far as other Secretary of State pleasure cases are concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's replies to the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 26 May, at columns 499–501.

  Sport
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide figures for the last five years for the amount spent by his Department on sport; and if he will give a breakdown of such figures into convenient categories.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding reply 14 June 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  6·2 million people had registered out of a total electorate of about 8 million. Registration is continuing at about 400,000 per month. Voters require identity cards to enable them to register. At the end of May, just over 7·5 million new identity cards had been issued.

  Military Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to which countries are proposing to increase their military spending in 1988–89 by the greatest percentage (i) in real terms and (ii) in absolute terms in(a) the developed world and (b) the Third world.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards proposals that the United States of America and its Western allies should seek a
  215
  pledge by developing countries to cut military spending as part of a consensus on disarmament at the special session of the United Nations General Assembly; what account is proposed to be taken in seeking such a pledge of the projected level of arms exports by Western developed countries in the coming years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are not aware of any specific proposals for developing countries to pledge a cut in their military spending, but believe that all states should be encouraged to undertake measures of arms control consistent with their security interests. Arms control is not the exclusive preserve of the superpowers. We believe this approach is consistent with our policy of meeting the legitimate defence interests of certain countries in accordance with their right to self defence as embodied in article 51 of the United Nations charter.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 13 and 14 June.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. On 13 June I also took part in a discussion of European political co-operation issues.

  Much of our work concerned relations with Eastern Europe. In the framework of political co-operation, we issued a statement on East-West relations welcoming recent encouraging developments and urging East European countries to approach the final phase of the CSCE negotiations in Vienna in a constructive spirit.

  In the Council we agreed to the signature on 25 June of an EEC-CMEA joint declaration, which provides a framework for co-operation in appropriate fields. The Council also discussed the Community's negotiations with Hungary for a trade and co-operation agreement, and agreed on a new compromise proposal, suggested by the United Kingdom, on the timing of abolition of quantitative restrictions. I hope that this will lead to the early conclusion of the agreement.

  In the framework of political co-operation we discussed the middle east, Afghanistan, Latin America and South Africa. We issued a statement of support for Lebanon, where presidential elections due this summer will be of great importance for the future of the country, and a brief statement reiterating our concern about the fate of the Sharpeville Six. Copies of the statements will be placed in the Library of the House. On Afghanistan, we agreed that both the European Community and the member states individually should make a significant aid contribution to help the return of refugees and the reconstruction of an independent. non-aligned Afghanistan. We agreed that there was cause for concern at the loss of momentum in the Central American peace process, but reaffirmed our full support for it and for democratisation in Latin America.

  In the Council we had a useful first discussion of the forthcoming renegotiation of the EEC/ACP (Lomé) convention. The Council agreed that the next elections to the European Parliament should take place between 15 and 18 June 1989. It also considered the jurisdiction and
  216
  composition of the court of first instance, and Ministers, meeting as a conference of representatives of the member states, discussed the nomination of judges and advocates-general to the European Court of Justice. Both questions were remitted for further work. The Irish Foreign Minister and I briefed the Council on a proposal for an EC contribution to the International Fund for Ireland. This important initiative was welcomed by the other Foreign Ministers.

  Finally, the Council reached agreement on the legal texts implementing the conclusions of the Brussels European Council on the future financing of the Community. These texts will be formally adopted once the European Parliament has given its opinion.

  We are thus now close to completing the key task of translating the major political agreements reached in February into the binding legal form on which the United Kingdom has insisted throughout these lengthy and successful negotiations.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current waiting time for interviews for applicants who are (i) fiancées, (ii) spouses and (iii) dependants in(a) Bombay, (b) New Delhi, (c) Islamabad, (d) Karachi and (e) Nairobi.

  Mr. Eggar
  Waiting times for interviews are currently as follows:

  Months

  Spouses and dependants (Q2)

  Fiancées (Q3)

  Bombay

  6

  9

  New Delhi

  5

  8

  Islamabad

  12

  20

  Karachi

  6

  11

  Nairobi

  3

  3

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of time it takes for an applicant who is refused entry clearance for(a) notification of refusal following interview, (b) dispatch of ECO's statement to the Home Office, (c) dispatch of Home Office papers to immigration appeals tribunal and (d) listing of case by the immigration appeals tribunal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The time taken from interview to decision on an application for entry clearance depends entirely on what further inquiries (including the applicant being asked to produce further documentary evidence) the entry clearance office (ECO) deems necessary to satisfy himself that the applicant qualifies for admission under the immigration rules.

  The dispatch of ECO's explanatory statements direct to the appellate authority varies from post to post and can currently take from one week, in the case of smaller less busy posts, to up to six months in the case of larger posts in the Indian sub-continent processing in excess of 45,000 entry clearance applications per year.

  Statistics about the time taken to complete individual appeals are not available, but I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that the following time scale is currently likely;

  (i) from receipt in London of the ECO's explanatory statement to despatch to both parties: up to four weeks;

  217

  (ii) from receipt of papers by both parties to issue by each party of a certificate of readiness to proceed: this is in the hands of the parties and times vary from a few weeks to many months;

  (iii) from certificate of readiness to proceed to hearing date: up to two months, but longer where parties request adjournments;

  (iv) from hearing date to issue of appeal decision: about two weeks.

  Central America
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government did not support the United Nations General Assembly resolution 42/231: special plan of economic co-operation for Central America; what information he has on the response by the United Kingdom's EEC partners; what information he has as to which other countries declined to sign resolution 42/231; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  United Nations resolution 42/231 on the United Nations special plan of economic co-operation for Central America was adopted by consensus, which the United Kingdom joined, together with all our EEC partners.

  We did not co-sponsor the resolution because we wished to make an explanation of vote on it. I understand that several other countries, including a number of Commonwealth countries, also decided not to co-sponsor.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 612, if he will now state what future measures he proposes to take to improve relations with Kuwait; why the information was not contained in the previous answer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  As I explained to my hon. Friend on 8 June, our relations with Kuwait are long established and very good. They will continue to be reinforced by frequent visits in both directions by senior members of our two Governments, who exchange views on matters of mutual interest.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 31 March, what advice is now being given to British visitors intending to travel to Panama and how many have contacted the United Kingdom embassy in Panama following that reply.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our current advice is that the situation in Panama is still unsettled and prospective visitors should travel only if on urgent business. They should bring international credit cards and sufficient cash in US dollars in small denominations to cover other expenses. They should contact the British embassy on arrival. Fewer than a dozen visitors have contacted the British embassy since 31 March.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will identify (i)218
  liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (ii) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no direct liaison arrangements with NATO on civil emergency and home defence planning, on which the Home Office takes the lead in respect of the United Kingdom, consulting us as necessary. The United Kingdom representative on NATO's senior civil emergency planning committee is a Ministry of Defence official, a member of staff of the United Kingdom delegation to NATO. The United Kingdom representative at plenary meetings of the committee is a senior Home Office official.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not directly involved in civil emergency or home defence planning, which is co-ordinated by the Home Office in respect of the United Kingdom. However, we are consulted as necessary by the Home Office and by other Whitehall Departments in the process of such planning.

  Regional Languages and Cultures
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when, and by what means, Her Majesty's Government intend to give effect to the provisions of the European Community charter relating to regional languages and cultures, established by resolution of the European Parliament on 16 October 1981.

  Mr. Eggar
  European Parliament resolutions do not bind member states. The question of implementation by the Governments of EC member states does not therefore arise.

  Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when, and by what means, Her Majesty's Government intend to implement part I, articles 1 (1) and (3), of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

  Mr. Eggar
  We fully uphold our obligations under article 1 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. The measures taken in respect of our obligations under this covenant and under the international covenant on civil and political rights, which contains an identical article 1, are explained in the reports we have presented to the United Nations economic and social council and to the human rights committee respectively. Copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the reasons why the flight paths have been changed at RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Freeman
  The fine-weather take-off patterns employed at RAF Upper Heyford until 1 June this year aimed to minimise the disturbance to the surrounding population caused by aircraft noise. These patterns were unique in military aircraft operations in the United Kingdom, in that they required aircraft to bank and turn immediately after take-off. The poor weather take-offs do not involve this banking procedure. Although the F-111 has a very good safety record, a number of modifications have been made to the aircraft during its life which have reduced its thrust-to-weight ratio. The take-off patterns at Upper Heyford, like all flying operations, are kept under continual review and recent operational experience indicated the need to introduce new fine weather take-off patterns, in line with standard procedures elsewhere, to ensure that the high safety standards of the United States Air Force are maintained. In fine weather the aircraft now depart in a straight line from the airfield as they have always done in poor weather.

  Rainfall
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the rainfall levels for each meteorological reading station for 2 and 3 May 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The hon. Member's question would require the extraction from archives of daily rainfall figures recorded at about 4,400 meteorological reporting stations in the United Kingdom alone. The transcription and checking of almost 9,000 sets of figures would involve disproportionate effort and expense.

  Exercise Tristar
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what theatre of operations forces will be training during Exercise Tristar;

  (2) on what date local media organisations were informed about Exercise Tristar;

  (3) on what date advance notice of Exercise Tristar was given to hon. Members in constituencies to be affected by the exercise.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 13 June.

  It is not our normal practice to inform hon. Members about routine training exercises as small as Exercise Tristar 88 which are unlikely to cause any disruption to members of the public, nor to inform the media that such exercises are taking place.

  Tornado
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current shortfall of trained tornado air defence aircrews in the RAF.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no shortfall of trained Tornado air defence aircrews in the RAF.

  Military Helicopter (Incident)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the investigation of the incident involving a military helicopter and a civilian car in the Tyndrome-Dalmally area on 5 May.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now in a position to make a statement on the investigation of the incident involving a military helicopter and a civilian car in the Dalmally area on 5 May.

  Mr. Freeman
  RAF police investigations into this incident are very thorough and have not yet been completed, although the complainant in her statement to the RAF police has indicated that she thought the helicopter concerned was civilian rather than military.

  Air Interceptions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North of 3 May,Official Report, column 384, if interceptions of a single Soviet aircraft sorties by several different Royal Air Force aircraft are counted as one interception or as several.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  A single penetration of the United Kingdom air defence region by Soviet military aircraft may result in more than one interception by Royal Air Force aircraft. Such interceptions are recorded individually. Equally, however, where an aircraft, or a flight of RAF aircraft, intercepts two or more Soviet aircraft flying together this would be recorded as a single interception.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North of 3 May,Official Report, column 384, if any change has taken place in the average number of interceptions by the Royal Air Force of Soviet aircraft per week since 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It would not be appropriate to comment on Soviet aircraft activity over periods shorter than one year.

  TA Exercise, Newbury
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Territorial Army exercise at Crookham court school, Newbury; and what representations he has received from local residents thereon.

  Mr. Freeman
  A training exercise for Army cadets from the school was held on 12 May at Crookham court school. There have been no representations from local residents.

  Stainmore Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining his Department's plans for the use of Stainmore common by the Army.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Stainmore land is to be used by the Army for dry training by up to 150 men at any time, although training for up to 300 men may take place on a maximum of 22 days a year. Exceptionally, training up to battalion level may be conducted with the prior consent of the local planning authority. No live firing will take place in this area.

  Combat Talon II Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States of America has approached Her Majesty's Government about deployment in the United Kingdom of Special Operations Forces Combat Talon II aircraft, due to enter service in 1989.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.

  RAF Molesworth
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of proposals he has for future uses of RAF Molesworth.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 20 January, at column 764.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, following the United States contingency deployment plan for chemical weapons, the United States has approached Her Majesty's Government about the contingency deployment of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member on 24 July 1986, at column 490.

  Exercise Excalibur
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft took part in Exercise Excalibur in April.

  Mr. Freeman
  Forty two.

  Exercise Flintlock
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if facilities at Royal Air Force Woodbridge have been used in support of Exercise Flintlock in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Elements of the 21st Special Operations Squadron based at RAF Woodbridge deployed to take part in Exercise Flintlock.

  Steeple Aston (Noise)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the recent noise testing carried out by the Royal Air Force Institute of Community Health at Dr. Ratcliffe's school, Steeple Aston; and if he will publish the results in the Official Report;

  (2) if, in the light of the results of the recent noise testing carried out at Dr. Ratcliffe's school, Steeple Aston, he will issue instructions to prevent airplanes from Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford taking off directly over Steeple Aston.

  Mr. Freeman
  Unsuitable wind conditions have so far prevented the completion of the noise survey at Dr. Ratcliffe's school, Steeple Aston. I will reply when the information is available.

  Buccaneer (Anniversary)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving or former South African 222
  military personnel were present at RAF Lossiemouth on 29 and 30 April for the celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Buccaneer aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  The celebrations held at RAF Lossiemouth on 29 and 30 April commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Buccaneer aircraft were primarily social in nature and the majority of those involved were United Kingdom service men from the Royal Navy and RAF. No South African or indeed other foreign military personnel were specifically invited, and, so far as I am aware, no South African military personnel were present. The celebrations were advertised widely in the international aviation press and a message of congratulation was received from the South African Air Force, which also operates Buccaneers.

  Winston Barracks, Ianarkshire
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the proposal to establish a United States Navy contingency hospital at Winston barracks, Ianarkshire, how many United States personnel are currently stationed there; and what is the cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer of establishing and maintaining this facility.

  Mr. Stewart
  We have agreed to make available to the United States Navy a site at RAF Lanark (formerly Winston barracks) for the establishment of a wartime contingency hospital. The costs of establishing and running this facility will be met entirely by the United States, but there will be no permanent presence at the site of United States military personnel in peacetime.

  Maritime Exercise (Sutherland)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the nature and purposes of the air activities to be carried out in north-west Sutherland and Wester Ross during the maritime exercise on 17 and 18 June.

  Mr. Freeman
  The exercise will involve a small-scale amphibious landing using helicopters. Shore-based aircraft will simulate opposition to the landing, for which air defence will be provided by a mix of shore-based and carrier-borne aircraft.

  Irish Regiments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the four Irish regiments in the Regular Army have served in Northern Ireland during the past two years.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  None of the so-called "Irish-named" regiments of the Army have served in Northern Ireland during the past two years.

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to invite from foreign countries only official Government organisations to attend the British Army equipment exhibition as potential buyers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The majority of overseas visitors to the British Army equipment exhibition are from official
  223
  Government organisations. We do, however, invite some overseas senior industrialists at the request of companies participating in the exhibition. I see no reason to alter this practice.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to invite British based private arms traders to attend the British Army equipment exhibition as potential buyers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We do not invite British-based private arms traders to the British Army equipment exhibition.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet villagers of Penyllordd, Hope and Caergerle regarding the impact of low-flying military aircraft flights upon the quality of life in these and neighbouring areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I would be happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss any problems his constituents may have regarding the impact of low-level military aircraft flights near their homes.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low-flying area 7.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying area 7 covers(a) the counties of Clwyd, Dyfed, Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan, West Glamorgan, Gwent, Gwynedd and Powys and (b) the parliamentary constituencies of Ynys Môn, Conwy, Clwyd, North-West, Delyn, Caernarfon, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Clwyd, South-West, Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, Montgomery, Pembroke, Carmarthen, Brecon and Radnor, Llanelli, Gower, Swansea, East, Swansea, West, Neath, Aberavon, Cynon Valley, Rhondda, Ogmore, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Pontypridd, Vale of Glamorgan, Cardiff, Central, Cardiff, North, Cardiff, South and Penarth, Cardiff, West, Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent, Islwyn, Newport, East, Newport, West, Torfaen and Monmouth and part of the parliamentary constituencies of Alyn and Deeside, Shropshire, North, and Wrexham.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low-flying area 10.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low flying area 10 no longer exists.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geographical area, expressed(a) by county and (b) by parliamentary constituency, is covered by low-flying area 12.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low flying area 12 covers(a) the counties of Cleveland and Tyne and Wear and parts of the counties of Durham, Northumberland and North Yorkshire and (b) the parliamentary constituencies of Wansbeck, Blyth Valley, Tynemouth, South Shields, Jarrow, Sunderland, North, Sunderland, South, Newcastle upon Tyne, North, Wallsend, Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, Newcastle upon Tyne, East, Tyne Bridge,
  224
  Gateshead, East, Houghton and Washington, Blaydon, Durham, North, Easington, Hartlepool, Stockton, North, Stockton, South, Redcar, Middlesbrough, and part of the parliamentary constituencies of Hexham, Durham, North-West, City of Durham, Bishop Auckland, Darlington, Sedgefield, Richmond (Yorks.), Iangbaurgh, Berwick-upon-Tweed and Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were flown over the United Kingdom in the period 1 January to 31 May.

  Mr. Freeman
  Between 1 January and 31 March 1988 a total of 40,952 such sorties were flown over the United Kingdom. Figures for April and May 1988 are not yet available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of complaints received about low flying over the United Kingdom in the period 1 January to 31 May.

  Mr. Freeman
  Between 1 January and 30 April 1988 the Ministry of Defence received 1,267 complaints and inquiries about military low flying. Figures for May are not yet available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the Royal Air Force's expenditure on public relations, in constant prices, in each year since 1979; and what increase in resources is currently being provided for the Royal Air Force's public relations campaign on low flying.

  Mr. Freeman
  The last year for which comprehensive figures are available is 1987–88. Total spending on public relations for the Royal Air Force from 1983 was as follows:

  £ million

  1983–84

  0·2

  1984–85

  0·3

  1985–86

  0·5

  1986–87

  0·6

  1987–88

  0·7

  Details of total expenditure for the years 1979–80 to 1982–83 could not be obtained without disproportionate effort. The figures provided include annual staffing costs together with expenditure on films, exhibitions, publications, equipment and so on. No increase in resources has been allocated to PR activity on low flying.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 20 January,Official Report, column 764, if the figure for the number of complaints received about low flying includes complaints made to local Royal Air Force and United States Air Force air bases and other military installations.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes, although queries which had been answered by the local Royal Air Force station or United States Air Force air base would not necessarily have been forwarded to the Ministry of Defence for inclusion in central statistics.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on
  225
  (a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The terms of reference of work on civil emergencies and home defence planning are classified. The other information sought is not available in the form requested.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with the bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Ministry of Defence has no formal links with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees. However, MOD officials are consulted as necessary by the relevant lead Department on matters which are of interest to the MOD. The scale of MOD involvement varies and it is not possible to quantify this without disproportionate time and effort.

  Regular Forces

  UDR

  Civilians

  1974

  16,991

  7,816

  1not available

  1975

  15,732

  7,676

  not available

  1976

  15,627

  7,793

  not available

  1977

  15,427

  7,616

  not available

  1978

  15,287

  7,812

  23,364

  1979

  13,704

  7,761

  3,305

  1980

  13,389

  7,425

  3,231

  1981

  12,143

  7,431

  3,087

  1982

  11,799

  7,350

  2,947

  1983

  11,357

  7,026

  2,825

  1984

  10,260

  6,929

  2,761

  1985

  10,222

  6,468

  2,709

  1986

  10,090

  6,508

  2,693

  1987

  11,158

  6,535

  2,621

  1988

  10,887

  6,364

  2,618

  1 Civilian numbers prior to 1978 are not readily available and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  2 Civilian numbers in 1978 are at 1 April.

  Information on costs is not available in the form requested. However, the following information is available on the extra costs of military operations in Northern Ireland:

  Financial year

  Extra costs1 at outturn prices

  £ million

  1981–82

  149

  1982–83

  143

  1983–84

  141

  1984–85

  121

  1985–86

  135

  1986–87

  144

  1987–88

  168

  1 These costs are derived from an annual assessment of the resources which MOD requires to fulfil those tasks which relate directly to the campaign against terrorism in Northern Ireland.

  RAF (Flying Training)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the percentage increase in the provision for Royal Air Force flying training activity in 1987–88 over 1986–87; and what changes in provision are being implemented in 1988–89.

  Mr. Freeman
  Royal Air Force flying training activity decreased by 9 per cent. from 1986–87 to 1987–88; a further decrease of 6 per cent. for 1987–88 to 1988–89 is being implemented.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the number of troops deployed in Northern Ireland, the number of his Department's civil servants stationed there, and the total cost to public funds of each in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]: The information available on the armed forces and MOD civilian numbers in Northern Ireland on 1 January of each year since 1974 is as follows:

  Reconnaissance Force
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role and composition of the military reaction or reconnaissance force in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]: There is no such unit.

  Sub-machine Guns
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which models of the Sterling and Ingram sub-machine gun have been issued to the Army in Northern Ireland from 1973 to the current date.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]: The Sterling model L2A3 sub-machine gun and the Ingram model 10 sub-machine gun have been issued to the Army in Northern Ireland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with union representatives concerning the safe use of pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Trade unions are represented on the three specialist panels established to give assistance to the independent advisory committee on pesticides. These panels, the medical and toxicological panel, the application technology panel and the labelling and container design panel, make an important contribution to ensuring the safe use of pesticides. Since October 1986 there have been a total of eight meetings, and trade union representatives have attended four of them.

  Trade unions were consulted on the drafting of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. They were also consulted on the first draft of a statutory code of practice on use of pesticides in agriculture and will be able to comment on the revised draft which was published for use on a trial basis in February 1988.

  No pesticide product is approved for use unless Ministers, on the advice of the advisory committee on pesticides, are satisfied that it can be used safely. From time to time new information becomes available. Trade unions are consulted whenever the withdrawal of approval for a product for safety reasons is to be considered by the ACP.

  In addition to direct contacts with individual trade unions and the TUC, my Department is kept in touch with trade union views on the safe use of pesticides through tripartite bodies organised by the Health and Safety Executive. The Health and Safety Commission, which is itself a tripartite body, has to approve any advisory code of practice on safe use of pesticides drafted by the HSE.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the number of prosecutions of persons for breach of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department has conducted two, successful, prosecutions since the regulations were brought into effect in October 1986. One prosecution was in 1987, the other this year. Both were for misuse of pesticides. My Department may also prosecute offenders who misuse pesticides under other legislation. In 1987 there were two such prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. The other agricultural departments are responsible for similar prosecutions in respect of their own areas.

  Since 29 June 1987 the Health and Safety Executive has been the enforcing authority for the regulations for the premises for which they are responsible under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. These premises include farms and holdings, and pesticide manufacturers in Great Britain. Figures for prosecution should be available shortly.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to ensure that workers in the agriculture industry are fully aware of the dangers to their health from exposure to pesticides.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No pesticide product is approved for use unless Ministers, on the advice of the 228
  independent advisory committee on pesticides, are satisfied that it can be used safely. The product label is the principal way in which information on the safe use of a particular pesticide product is conveyed to the user. Any statements about operator protection or requirement for operator training have the force of law.

  No workers in the agriculture industry may use a pesticide in the course of their work unless they have been given adequate instruction and guidance in the safe use of pesticides and are competent for the duties they are called upon to perform. And in using the pesticide they are required to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health of human beings.

  In order to ensure that young people and those offering a commercial service are fully aware of all their obligations under the Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986, as from 1 January 1989 they will not be allowed to apply professional agricultural pesticides unless they hold an appropriate recognised certificate of competence.

  Sheep Dipping
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the hazards to health of farm workers involved in the process of sheep dipping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Operators exposed to sheep dips containing organophosphorus compounds may experience some adverse reaction. All approved products carry safety warnings which advise on the appropriate precautions which should be taken to minimise exposure.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance his Department has given to the agriculture industry concerning precautions in the process of dipping sheep.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Advisory leaflets are available to farmers which set out the precautions operators should take when dipping sheep. It is also a requirement that safety precautions are included on the labels of all licensed sheep dips.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) of 7 June,Official Report, column 493, if he will. list the numbers and types of equipment and materials purchased for analytical purposes and for monitoring as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The following additional major items of analytical and monitoring equipment have been purchased:

  1 Gamma Spectrometry Assembly

  1 Automatic Sample Changer for above

  2 Liquid Scintillation Counters

  25 Single Channel Analysers coupled with a 1¾ inch sodium-iodide detector

  3 Single Channel Analysers coupled with a 2 inch sodium-iodide detector

  8 Double Channel Analysers coupled with a 1¾ inch sodium-iodide detector

  In addition, a large number of containers and other minor items have been purchased.

  Plant Variety Testing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of job losses as a consequence of the implementation of the review into plant variety testing and seed certification; and where such job losses will occur.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: A report on the plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom was published on 14 April 1988. All interested parties have been invited to comment by 15 July 1988. No decisions will be taken on the implementation of the report's recommendations until after comments have been received and given full consideration. It is premature, therefore, to estimate whether any job losses will occur.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the number of visits made by those responsible for the review of plant variety testing and seed certification to locations in Scotland, the places visited, the number of individuals consulted in each location and the length of time of each interview.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: Three visits were made by the review team to Scotland, where the following meetings were held:

  Date

  Organisation

  Location

  Number of individuals

  27 May 1987

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Edinburgh

  9

  28 May 1987

  Representatives of the industry in Scotland

  Edinburgh

  15

  27 July 1987

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Edinburgh

  4

  27 July 1987

  Representatives of the Scottish Agricultural Colleges and the Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service

  Perth

  11

  28 July 1987

  Representatives of the Scottish Crop Research Institute and Caithness Potato Breeders Ltd

  Dundee

  10

  27 January 1988

  Representatives of the Scottish Office Trade Union Side

  Edinburgh

  9

  The number of individuals shown excludes members of the review team, but includes officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. Each meeting lasted approximately half a day, except for a shorter meeting with the Scottish Office trade union side.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those individuals and organisations who have made representations on the potential effects of the implementation of the recommendations of the recent review on plant variety testing and seed indentification.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]Individuals and organisations have until 15 July 1988 to comment on the report on the plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom. Up until 10 June 1988, written representations were received from the following persons and organizations:230

  The British Association of Seed Analysts.

  The Hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. David Clark) on behalf of Ms. D. M. Davidson.

  The Institution of Professional Civil Servants—Scottish Branch Section O.

  Nickerson Seed Investments Ltd.

  The Scots Timothy Seed Growers' Association.

  Mr. B. Snoad—John Powling Seeds.

  The United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association Ltd. (Scottish Council).

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department liaises with the NATO food and agricultural planning committee by attending the twice-yearly meetings of this body and its working group, and by participating in exercises which take place annually and training sessions held every other year. Representation is at United Kingdom Civil Service grade 7 level; in addition at present a MAFF grade 5 official chairs the committee. The work of the committee consists of exchanging information about civil emergency planning, within its field, in the member nations, identifying any action required by NATO and planning to carry this through. The work forms an essential part of the United Kingdom contribution to NATO and is a valuable aid to United Kingdom national civil emergency planning.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will indentify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Most of the work on these items by my Department is carried out under programme 52 of the ministerial information in MAFF (MINIM), and the relevant information can be found in the published MINIM report, a copy of which is available in the House Library.

  For this programme, the details are:

  1. To maintain contingency plans to safeguard supplies of essential foods during civil emergencies; implement plans and respond to the needs of food and agriculture during emergency.

  2. To plan, in conjunction with other Departments and interests in the UK and within the NATO Alliance, to feed the population in times of crisis, conventional war and recovery after nuclear attack in the light of planning assumptions laid down centrally by Ministers.

  3. To maintain in good condition a strategic food stockpile of a size, composition and distribution determined in accordance with central government policy.

  The number of man-years involved on civil emergencies in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 was 19, 18 and 20 respectively, and the budgets costs were £0·3 million, £0·3 million and £0·4 million.

  The number of man-years involved on defence planning in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 was 64, 61 and 63 respectively, the budget costs were £13·1 million, £13·4 million and £13·4 million. In addition, the cost of accommodating the strategic food stockpile is in the region of £10 million per year.
  231
  Other work, on civil accidents, is carried out under programme 35, where the terms of reference are
  "To review and update national and international procedures for food safety in the event of a nuclear or non-nuclear accident."

  Information on the numbers of staff and budgets for this work is not separately available.

  American Waste
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the danger of an outbreak of Colorado beetle infestation from the importation and dumping of American domestic waste in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the danger of an outbreak of swine fever from the importation and dumping of American domestic waste in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the danger of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease from the importation and dumping of American domestic waste in the United Kingdom;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the danger of rabies from the importation and dumping of American domestic waste in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials are assessing the implications of importing American domestic waste in relation to both plant and animal health. The possible introduction of the Colorado beetle is one of the plant health risks being investigated. We are aware of no recent outbreaks of either swine fever or foot and mouth disease in the United States of America, but we are considering whether there might be any risk of those diseases being introduced if the waste included waste food originating outside the United States of America. We are satisfied that there would be no risk of introducing rabies.

  Badgers (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a live vaccine for use against tuberculosis in badgers was first isolated.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There is no live vaccine suitable for use against tuberculosis in badgers. Laboratory trials using a killed strain of the bacillus mycobacterium vaccae are in progress.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of(a) female and (b) male unemployment in 1985, 1986 and 1987 in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The seasonally adjusted number of unemployed claimants, expressed as a percentage of the working population, is as follows:

  Percentage of unemployed—Wales (annual averages)

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Male

  16·5

  16·5

  15·5

  Female

  10·6

  10·9

  9·2

  Source: Department of Employment.
  232
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the percentage change in unemployment in (i) Wales and (ii) Clwyd since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]: On a consistent seasonally adjusted basis, the number of unemployed claimants in Wales in May 1979 was 73,100 and in May 1988 132,200, an increase of 80·8 per cent. Comparable figures for the same period for Clwyd are not available.

  Unadjusted unemployment claimant figures, which are affected by changes in coverage, are available for Clwyd since June 1983. These show a decrease of 24·5 per cent. over the period to May 1988. Comparable figures for Wales show a fall of 18·1 per cent. I am pleased that unemployment in Wales has now gone down every month for the last 24 months.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the numbers of part-time workers in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 13 June 1988]: The most recent estimates of the total number of part-time workers in Wales is provided by the 1984 census of employment. This indicates that in September 1984 there were 192,000 part-time workers.

  Welsh Development Agency Factories
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report, for each of the last five years, the number of Welsh Development Agency factories, together with their area in square feet sited in Wales, disaggregated by (i) county area; (ii) district council area and (iii) parliamentary constituency area; and if he will give the corresponding statistics for the percentage of the factory space that remained unoccupied.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  WDA (Driving Instructors)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on the number of approved driving instructors that the Welsh Development Agency has financially assisted in setting up in business during each of the past five years; and at what level of geographic disaggregation this information is available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency has no record of ever providing financial assistance to an approved driving instructor in Wales.

  Gipsy Site, Felindre
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he will announce his decision on the reference to him by Lliw Valley borough council under section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 on the proposal by West Glamorgan county council to seek deemed planning permission for an official gipsy site at Brynwhilach Farm, Felindre, Swansea.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to announce his decision by the end of July.

  Farm Workers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farm workers were employed in each county of Wales at the latest convenient date.

  Regular Family Workers

  Regular Hired Workers

  Total Regular Workers

  Seasonal Casual Workers

  Total Workers

  Clwyd

  768

  1,020

  1,788

  1,138

  2,926

  Dyfed

  1,931

  1,625

  3,556

  3,339

  6,895

  Gwent

  453

  464

  917

  646

  1,563

  Gwynedd

  793

  716

  1,509

  1,021

  2,530

  Mid Glamorgan

  179

  145

  324

  373

  697

  Powys

  1,072

  959

  2,031

  1,611

  3,642

  South Glamorgan

  119

  252

  371

  181

  552

  West Glamorgan

  163

  124

  287

  416

  703

  Wales

  5,478

  5,305

  10,783

  8,725

  19,508

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to main holdings only.

  2. Regular workers includes those working full-time and part-time.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is proposing to carry out a monitoring exercise in compliance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 24 May 1988. A survey to provide information on the ethnic origin of staff in the Welsh Office was recently completed as part of a phased programme of ethnic surveys across the Civil Service.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if there are any estimates of the amount of hedgerows grubbed up in Wales in the last year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if there are any guidelines issued to prevent the loss of hedgerows in the Welsh countryside;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to combat the loss of the natural fauna and flora found in hedgerows.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government are anxious to prevent the loss of hedgerows and, as such, grant-aid for their removal was completely withdrawn in 1983. At the same time higher rates of grant were introduced for the provision, replacement and improvement of hedges. The Agricultural Development Advisory Service has produced a number of leaflets giving guidance on hedgerow management and can advise on their value both for agriculture and conservation purposes. The Department also gives guidance to highway authorities on methods of managing roadside hedges which are sympathetic to the needs of the resident flora and fauna.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take to combat the accelerated erosion of soil surrounding hedgerows which have been grubbed up.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I am not aware of any particular problems in Wales of accelerated erosion of soil surrounding hedgerows which have been grubbed up. I understand this is a problem mainly associated with the arable areas of East Anglia.
  234
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The numbers of farm workers employed in each county, in June 1987 are given in the following table:

  Environmental Conservation
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take to combat the destruction of the physical character of the countryside.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government are firmly committed to the conservation of the countryside. There are a number of statutory designations which serve to protect it, including national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves. A recent initiative is the designation of environmentally sensitive areas, and on 1 January 1988 I established the second such area in Wales in the Lleyn peninsula. In addition the Countryside Commission, which is my right hon. Friend's statutory adviser on countryside conservation matters, the national parks and the Welsh Office agriculture department can make grants available towards the management of important landscape features.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received from Welsh water on the increased levels of acidification of Welsh rivers and its effects on the concentration of aluminium in domestic water supplies.

  Mr. Grist
  No information has been received of any connection between increased acidification of surface waters and the concentration of aluminium in domestic water supplies. Compliance with the requirements of directive 80/778/EEC which includes a maximum limit on the aluminium concentration, is discussed in the water quality report published annually by Welsh water authority.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the supply outlets of domestic water in Wales that(a) are currently being treated with aluminium sulphate,(b) have aluminium concentration in excess of the European Commission guidelines and (c) are subject to derogations for these and other reasons.

  Mr. Grist
  In respect of directive 80/778/EEC Welsh water authority's sources of supply which are subject to derogations or delay for aluminium are as follows:
  235

  Derogations

  Delays

  Nantmor

  Nantybwch

  Llan Penmachno

  Capel Dewi

  Cwmsymlog

  Strata Florida

  Afon Cwm-y-Llan

  Bontgoch

  Rhyd

  Georgetown (Tredegar)

  Alwen

  Cynwyd

  Meifod

  Bettws-y-Coed

  Carno

  Portis

  Ponsticill

  Llandello Graban

  Llanwrtyd Wells

  Other derogations and delays apply to sources as follows:

  1 = Colour; 6=pH unit;

  33 = Iron; 34 = Manganese

  Source

  Derogated Parameter

  Delayed Parameter

  Nantybwch

  34

  33

  Garw Levels

  33

  33

  Preseli

  33

  Strata Florida

  34

  Ystradfelltre

  34

  Lovesgrove Borehole

  34

  Nantymoel

  34

  Ffynnon Rhys

  33

  Wern Ddu

  6

  Penygoyallt

  6

  Llanfynydd

  6, 34

  33

  Georgetown

  6, 34

  33

  Alwen

  1,34

  33

  Cynwyd

  34

  33

  Bettws-y-Coed

  34

  Garreglwyd

  33, 34

  Bryn Goch

  33

  Maenllwyd

  33

  Nantmore

  34

  Rhyd-Ddu

  34

  Talwaenydd

  33

  Carno

  34

  33

  Talybont

  33

  Portis

  34

  33

  Penyfan

  33

  Upper Wenallt Springs

  33

  Cwm Cegr Springs

  33

  Llanbedr Springs

  33

  Llanwrtyd Wells

  33

  Barmouth Junction

  33

  Bolton Hill

  33

  Caerau

  34

  Llan Penmachno

  34

  Crai Reservoir

  34

  Croesor

  34

  Rhyd

  33,34

  Rhydyronnen

  33

  Tir-Cawen

  33

  Details of the number of supplies treated with aluminium sulphate and the concentration of aluminium in supply are not held centrally.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake to meet a joint conference of the Clwyd area health authority, the Alyn-Deeside district council and the county and town councils of Deeside to discuss his plans to enhance cancer treatment for north 236
  Wales patients in north Wales, as outlined in his letter to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside on 10 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Proposals for a comprehensive study of cancer treatment services for north Wales patients have already been the subject of consultation with appropriate health authorities and further discussion would unduly delay commencement of the study.

  Datamagnetics, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of funds given so far by(a) Investors in Industry, (b) the Welsh Development Agency and (c) the European Economic Community to Datamagnetics, Clwyd; and what new funds are proposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  For information on the Welsh Development Agency's input I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 9 May 1988.

  EC resources in the form of European regional development fund grants are not passed directly to individual companies. When an investment proceeds as planned, ERDF is retained centrally as partial reimbursement for United Kingdom regional aid assistance already awarded.

  As regards the financial involvement of Investors in Industry, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks the information required from the company itself.

  The receiver remains optimistic that Datamagnetics can be sold as a going concern.

  Deeside and Vale of Clwyd Mind Association
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will meet members of Deeside and Vale of Clwyd Mind Association to discuss the possible closing down of their projects under the unified training programme for the unemployed employment training;

  (2) what special measures he will take to assist Deeside and Vale of Clwyd Mind Association to continue the currently effective community programme providing work for disadvantaged groups when employment training is fully operative;

  (3) how many places Deeside and Vale of Clwyd Mind Association provide in the current year under the community programme;

  (4) if he will enable Deeside and Vale of Clwyd Mind Association to become a training manager in its own right; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Deeside and Vale of Clwyd Mind Association provided 39 places under the Training Commission's community programme scheme between 1 April and 31 May 1988. Decisions about the association's participation in employment training are for the Training Commission, and I understand that none has yet been made. I have no plans to meet members of the association.

  Welsh Language
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members and their appropriate qualifications of the committee advising him on the Welsh language.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The eight members of the working group chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister of State are:
  237

  Alun Daniel—Executive Director, Welsh Development Agency

  Prys Edwards—Chairman Wales Tourist Board

  John Elfed Jones—Chairman Welsh Water Authority

  Tom Jones—North Wales Regional Officer T&GWU

  Winston Roddick QC—Barrister

  D. Hugh Thomas—Clerk and Chief Executive, Mid Glamorgan Council Council

  Euryn Ogwen Williams—Deputy Director, S4C

  Elfed Roberts—Regional Director, Midland Bank.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department has plans for various civil emergencies, and encourages and co-ordinates contingency planning by other public bodies with executive responsibilities. Home defence planning is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and my Department participates in and contributes to planning in respect of Wales. Three members of staff are devoted full time to this work, and others participate from time to time as necessary.

  My Department's budgets, in cash terms, for the last three years were as follows:

  £ thousands

  1985–86

  103

  1986–87

  187

  1987–88

  413

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Liaison between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United Kingdom Government in areas of Welsh Office responsibility is conducted through the Home Office.

  Waste Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek powers to prohibit the importation of contaminated soil and other waste from the continent to Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Government believe that the provision of waste disposal services is a legitimate and proper element of international trade provided that adequate safeguards are in existence to ensure that there is no danger to public health or the environment.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much domestic waste, contaminated soil and 238
  other waste has been imported in 1986, 1987 and 1988 from (a) the continent, (b) Holland and (c) other sources into (i) Wales and (ii) Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has of the impact upon human, animal and plant life consequent upon the disposal of contaminated soil from Holland at a site near Gresford, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 3 December 1987. I was fully satisfied before the consignment was allowed to be imported from Holland that there would be no adverse impact upon human, animal or plant life and I was assured by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, on advice from Wrexham Maelor borough council, that the disposal site in question was appropriately licensed to receive the waste.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the substances that contaminated the soil exported from Holland to Gresford, Clwyd, via Mostyn docks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The soil contained very low levels of copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, nickel, chromium, arsenic, antimony and mercury.

  Gateway Network
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the progress of the small business gateway network in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  On Wednesday 15 June I announced in Cardiff that the high street banks in Wales had joined the gateway network. This adds the commitment of an important sector of private enterprise to our major framework of support for small businesses in the Principality and will add considerably to its success and impact.

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the objects and property accepted in satisfaction of capital transfer tax and inheritance tax during the financial year ended 31 March; if, in listing them, he will specify(a) the amount of tax satisfied in each case, (b) whether any offers of objects carried conditions as to destination, (c) the dates in each case of the recommendations received by him from the Museums and Galleries Commission for the acceptance of objects, (d) the total for the financial year of the tax thus satisfied and (e) the means by which that total has been covered in the public accounts; and whether a press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries comprising the information given in his reply.

  Mr. Luce
  The information the hon. Member requests is as follows:
  239

  Item Offered

  Amount of Tax Satisfied (£)

  Condition as to Destination

  Date of receipt of MGC's recommendations

  Two paintings by Belloto

  412,500

  None

  24 February 1987

  Archives of Lord Clark of Saltwood

  144,870

  None

  13 March 1988

  Chattels at Hagley Hall

  34,100

  To remain in situ

  Residue of offer first recommended 11 October 1985

  Picasso's "Weeping Woman"

  1,200,000

  Offer conditional on allocation to Tate Gallery

  11 May 1987

  Derby Commemorative Jug

  13,750

  None

  11 May 1987

  Raeburn Portrait

  96,250

  None

  MGC Recommendation went to Secretary of State for Scotland on 21 May 1987

  Twenty Vignettes by Turner

  233,750

  Offer conditional on allocation to Scottish National Galleries

  MGC Recommendations went to Secretary of State for Scotland on 22 July 1987

  Ten Portrait Miniatures

  200,344

  None

  11 May 1987

  Henry Moore Drawings

  153,456

  Offer conditional on allocation to the British Museum

  1 September 1987

  Constable's "Stratford Mill"

  5,500,000

  None

  4 March 1987

  Gainsborough's "Captain Wade"

  638,444

  Offer conditional on allocation to Bath City Council

  15 January 1988

  Total Tax Satisfied

  8,627,464

  The total amount of tax satisfied in 1987–88 was £8,627,464 and a call on the Reserve of £7,388,444 was made, of which £6,627,464 was spent. A press notice is being issued in conjunction with this reply.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will state the total amounts of tax satisfied consequential on the acceptance of objects and property in lieu of capital transfer tax and inheritance tax which have been covered in the public accounts by means of resort to the Reserve for contingencies in each of the three completed financial years since the written answer on 26 July 1985 made on behalf of the then Minister for the Arts,Official Report, column 777.

  Mr. Luce
  The amount of tax satisfied by means of resort to the Reserve in the last three financial years is listed in the table. Due to underspends in each financial year on the annual vote of £2 million provided for the acceptance-in-lieu of objects and property the amount actually spent from the Reserve was less than the original call. I list the actual money spent from the Reserve for the hon. Member's information.

  Year

  Amount of tax Satisfied/Call on the Reserve

  Amount actually spent from the Reserve

  £

  £

  1985–86

  520,000

  366,707

  1986–87

  1,165,000

  947,842

  1987–88

  7,338,444

  6,627,464

  Total

  9,023,444

  7,942,013

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Servants (Secondment)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will give, by region, the number of temporary 240
  appointments of civil servants made on secondment to companies in the private sector and of individuals in the private sector to Civil Service Departments, by region.

  Mr. Luce
  Information is not held centrally showing the regional distribution of secondees between Government Departments and outside organisations, and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  East End Trust
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial contribution is being made by the London Docklands Development Corporation to the East End trust; what proportion of its current income this represents; and to what purposes its funds are being devoted.

  Mr. Trippier
  London Docklands Development Corporation has approved contributions to the East End community trust totalling £186,500. These are for revenue support, a wildlife habitat study in Docklands, and to provide a legal advice service to local groups. The trust is developing its sources of funding. London Docklands Development Corporation is currently a major contributor.

  Rents
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the average level of fair rents registered in Greater London in each year from 1979 to the latest available date for(a) private unfurnished tenancies, (b) private furnished tenancies and (c) housing association tenancies, distinguishing, in each case, between the rent on first registration and that on re-registration and including figures for the percentage increase on an annual and cumulative basis and for the movement of the retail price index over the same period.
  241
  Mrs. Roe
  The figures on average rents registered by rent officers for private unfurnished, private furnished and housing association tenancies and for movements in the retail prices index up to 1987 are as follows:

  Average Fair rents registered by Rent Officers in Greater London (£ per annum)

  Unfurnished tenancies

  Furnished tenancies

  Housing Association tenancies

  First Registration

  Re-registration

  First Registration

  Re-registration

  First Registration

  Re-registration

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1979

  691

  664

  897

  1,016

  609

  543

  1980

  778

  761

  1,059

  1,169

  669

  649

  1981

  728

  861

  1,295

  1,165

  778

  755

  1982

  895

  967

  1,301

  1,297

  890

  821

  1983

  1,048

  970

  1,433

  1,537

  974

  912

  1984

  1,080

  1,123

  1,554

  1,605

  1,107

  999

  1985

  1,240

  1,128

  1,771

  1,755

  1,196

  1,069

  1986

  1,272

  1,305

  1,900

  1,873

  1,250

  1,150

  1987

  1,345

  1,315

  2,057

  2,012

  1,462

  1,266

  Notes:

  Service charges, if any, are included in fair rents.

  The percentage movement of the retail prices index on an annual and cumulative basis since 1979 is as follows:

  Retail Prices Index (UK) Annual

  Percentage increase over year since 1979

  1980

  18

  18

  1981

  12

  32

  1982

  9

  43

  1983

  5

  50

  1984

  5

  57

  1985

  6

  67

  1986

  3

  73

  1987

  4

  80

  Unfurnished tenancies Percentage increase

  Furnished tenancies Percentage increase

  Housing association tenancies Percentage increase

  in period

  annualised

  in period

  annualised

  in period

  annualised

  1979–82

  44

  13

  40

  11

  46

  13

  1982–84

  19

  9

  18

  8

  19

  9

  1984–86

  17

  8

  17

  8

  16

  8

  1985–87

  20

  9

  17

  8

  16

  8

  London Docklands (Refurbishments)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much expenditure his Department has allowed the London Docklands Development Corporation to incur on the internal refurbishment of dwellings in the urban development area.

  Mr. Trippier
  Expenditure of £90,000 has been approved exceptionally for the internal refurbishment of three dwellings owned by the London borough of Tower Hamlets. The corporation is considering what further contribution it might make for this purpose for discussion with the Department.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he proposes to take of the level of expenditure incurred by(a) central Government and (b) Ealing council in respect of the severe flooding in the Greenford and Hanwell area in 1977 and of the number of people who received payments, and of the (i) highest payment, (ii) lowest payment and (iii) the average
  242
  The mix of properties for which rents are registered varies from year to year for a number of reasons: for example, extension of decontrol in 1981; the reduction from three to two years in the minimum period for re-registration which led to re-registrations in 1983 of rents previously registered in 1980 and 1981. Therefore, comparisons of averages for consecutive years do not properly reflect rent movements. Better estimates of rent movements are derived from previous and new registered rents for tenancies where there has been no material change in terms or in the physical condition. For properties with rents fixed during 1979, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987 the estimated increases in Greater London are:

  payment made, in deciding whether to make any financial assistance available following the recent flooding in the same area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  All requests for financial assistance are considered on their merits. The treatment of Ealing's request for financial assistance in 1977 would not therefore be relevant to any request in respect of the flooding in 1988. Any representations Ealing borough council may make will, of course, be considered carefully; none has been made so far. I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave him on 23 May 1988, at column 79.

  Playgrounds
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce urgent legislation to make compulsory the replacement of concrete or tarmac surfaces of children's playgrounds and the use of safe soft materials in such playgrounds.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. The Health and Safety at Work etc, Act 1974 already applies and requires local authorities and other playground operators to take reasonable measures to ensure safety at playgrounds which are under their control. Duties under this Act are enforceable by the
  243
  Health and Safety Executive. Additionally, the Department issued guidance to local authorities on safety in children's playgrounds in 1978; part of this guidance was consolidated in British Standard 5696. A new British Standard on playground surface safety is currently being drawn up and should be completed by the end of this year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many children suffered accidents resulting in death or major injuries as the result of playing in playgrounds with concrete or tarmac surfaces for each year since 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am consulting the Health and Safety Executive, to which accidents are reported under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have playgrounds with concrete or tarmac surfaces.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally. I understand, however that a joint working group comprising the national children's play and recreation unit, the Institute of Leisure and Amenities Management and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, is conducting a comprehensive survey of local authority provision. The results of the survey should be available later this year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the average cost of replacing the concrete or tarmac surfaces in children's playgrounds.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is not possible to assess a meaningful average cost. Costs vary greatly depending on the contractors' price and the type of surface used—ranging from relatively cheap surfaces such as sand to expensive wet pore surfaces.

  England v. Scotland Football Match
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the football authorities about crowd behaviour at the recent England v Scotland match at Wembley.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not discussed the England v. Scotland match directly with the football authorities. Immediately following the match the Football Association launched an internal inquiry into the incidents which occurred both in and around the stadium. Evidence will be taken from all relevant bodies. I have asked to see a copy of the report of the inquiry as soon as it is available. I will be discussing progress on anti-hooliganism measures with the football authorities on 5 July.

  Disabled Athletes
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the Ten Events Initiative to highlight the ability of many top sportsmen and women with disabilities; and whether he intends to visit the Paralympics in Seoul.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Following the successful launch of the Ten Events Initiative with the slalom challenge during the 244
  British ski championships, I have completed the bowls event, participating in 100 ends in a day, and the first leg of the Milk Race. Sponsorship from these events will go towards helping to send a Great Britain squad to the Paralympics in Seoul. I shall be participating in several events this summer, including 100 holes of golf in a day, a Docklands decathlon and watersports events.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the. Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about safety of waste disposal sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received a number of representations about the safety of waste disposal sites. Waste disposal facilities are licensed by the waste disposal authorities to ensure that the operations do not endanger public health or the water supply.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps will be taken to ensure that the import and dumping of American domestic waste in the United Kingdom conforms with European Community policy to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and to contribute to protecting human health.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Disposal of all controlled waste is subject to licensing by waste disposal authorities and must take place in accordance with the conditions imposed by the authority on the disposal licence, which are intended to protect health, the water supply and local amenity.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations have been made by the fire research station into the consequences of fires in buildings containing asbestos materials and the subsequent distribution of asbestos particles; what conclusions were reached on the consequential risks to firemen or residents from inflamable asbestos fibres; and if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to reduce this.

  Mr. Moynihan
  At the beginning of 1986 the fire research station carried out a small-scale investigation of the effect of heat on the principal types of asbestos materials used in buildings, and undertook preliminary modelling studies of the dispersal of fibres in the fire plume. It was concluded from these studies that further work was necessary before the risks to firemen or residents from asbestos in fires could be fully assessed. This further work is continuing.

  Brook House, London
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his inspector's decision with regard to the discontinuing of office use of Brook house, Park lane, London W1, and of other such properties after 1990.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following the report of an inspector who held a local inquiry into an appeal by MEPC plc, against the decision of Westminster city council to refuse planning permission for the continued use for offices purposes of Brook house beyond 1990, my right hon.
  245
  Friend the Secretary of State issued his decision to dismiss the appeal. His reasons for the decision are fully documented in his decision letter dated 17 May 1988. The Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter.

  Decisions relating to other such properties are a matter for Westminster city council. In so far as individual cases may come before the Secretary of State, for example on appeal, they will be dealt with on their merits.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce new statutory rules of procedure governing planning applications and appeals which go to public inquiry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following consultation with the Council on Tribunals, two sets of rules, made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, have been laid before both Houses.

  They are the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988—in respect of decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales; and the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988—in respect of decisions taken by planning inspectors appointed by either of my right hon. Friends.

  The revised rules are intended to make the planning inquiry process as efficient and effective as possible, while not impairing the fairness and impartiality of inquiry proceedings, or the ability of participants to make representations which are relevant to the decision. In particular, the new rules provide for a fuller exchange of information among the various interested parties about their respective cases before an inquiry opens, and introduce a more detailed timetable for the steps to be taken before an inquiry opens. Other new features are that they regulate pre-inquiry meetings and the procedure to be followed if a decision is quashed by the courts.

  Also issued today are an explanatory circular to local authorities and two non-statutory codes of practice. The first is on preparing for major inquiries and the second governs the conduct of hearings, which are held as an alternative to inquiries in suitable cases.

  I hope that applicants or appellants, local planning authorities, and other parties to planning cases will co-operate fully in implementing the new arrangements so that the benefits, for all parties involved, of smoother procedures and quicker decisions can be fully achieved.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received the report from Price Waterhouse on the costs to local authorities associated with(a) the setting up and (b) administration of the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date he expects the majority of revaluations for the unified business rate to be completed and notified to ratepayers.

  Mr. Howard
  Drafts of the new valuation lists which will come into force on 1 April 1990 are required to be 246
  deposited for public inspection no later than 31 December 1989. We hope to have sample information on which to base decisions on the transitional arrangements for business rates by the autumn of this year.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give revised figures to exemplify the effect in 1987–88 on the overall illustrative community charge levels of applying to them the decision to grant student status to student nurses, in particular in the London boroughs of Camden, Lambeth and Southwark.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: It is not possible, at this stage, to estimate the effect on the community charge in particular areas of treating student nurses (of which there are at present about 60,000) as students for the purposes of the community charge. We intend that the cost to individual local authority areas of all exemptions from the charge, and student reliefs, will be allowed for in ensuring that each area can levy the same personal community charge if it spends in accordance with the Government's assessment of need. To do this we shall need to know the number of exempt individuals and students (including, if appropriate, student nurses) living in each area. This information is not available at present.

  Leeds Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following the laying before Parliament of the order to establish the Leeds urban development corporation in May, a detailed map of the site can now be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  Copies of the 1:10,000 map referred to in the order are available for inspection in the Library and at the offices of my Department and of Leeds city council.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations have taken place, following the laying before Parliament of the order to establish the Leeds urban development corporation in May, with Leeds city council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Prior to the order being laid I kept both the City council and local Members of Parliament informed at each stage of the process; and I invited the city council to comment on the proposed boundaries. The next step is for Parliament to debate the order.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) following the laying before Parliament of the order to establish the Leeds urban development corporation in May, whether the board will include representatives from groups and bodies within the local community in whose area the urban development corporation lies;

  (2) whether the board of the Leeds urban development corporation has now been appointed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The board cannot be appointed until Parliament has approved the order and the corporation has been established. My right hon. Friend has announced Mr. Peter Hartley as chairman-designate; other members will include people with special knowledge of the locality and people with appropriate business or professional experience. He is currently consulting Leeds city council about his intention to appoint local authority members to the board.
  247
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, following the laying before Parliament of the order to establish the Leeds urban development corporation in May, the commissioned consultative report on the urban development corporation potential can now be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report has now been published. I have placed copies in the Library and sent copies to Members with constituencies in the area.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made to date with establishing the Leeds urban development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Excellent progress has been made. I hope Parliament will approve the orders and the corporation will be established in the next few weeks.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department's work on civil emergencies and home defence planning involves the development and operation of contingency measures for dealing with emergencies in peace-time, particularly in relation to water supply and the release of radioactive substances. The Property Services Agency provides works and estate management services to enable client departments to fulfil their operational requirements in any emergency.

  The number of staff and annual budgets are as follows:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Number of staff

  8

  17

  19

  Annual budget (inc. Capital £000s expenditure)

  175

  418

  473

  These figures do not include any staff who may do work related to civil emergencies and home defence planning incidental to their normal duties.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department does not have any direct liaison arrangement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees.

  Government Departments (Planning)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those Government Departments from which his inspectors have received representations about planning matters since 12 June 1987.
  248
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Front
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence of British National Front, or other extreme Right-wing organisational involvement he has collected following recent incidents including British citizens attending the European football championships in West Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received no evidence that extreme Right-wing groups are funding or organising the incidents in West Germany, though I have seen newspaper reports about the insignia they have been wearing and their chants. I deplore all incidents or hooliganism, however those involved are dressed.

  Private Housing Schemes
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider permitting local authorities to give the same level of assistance to privately let housing schemes as the Housing Corporation is able to give to mixed-funding schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local authorities wishing to provide assistance for privately let housing schemes may do so only with the Secretary of State's consent under section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988. Hitherto, that consent has not normally been given if the aggregate public sector assistance to the scheme in question would exceed 30 per cent. As from today that limit has been raised to match the higher limits for housing association grant from the Housing Corporation to mixed-funding schemes, announced on 3 March 1988, namely, in the range 50 to 75 per cent. according to area. These higher limits should help unlock more private finance for housing that can be let at rents within the means of the prospective tenants.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to carry out a review of housing co-operatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is the Government's policy to encourage the formation of co-operatives in order to broaden opportunities for tenants to play a greater part in the management of their homes. I have visited a number of co-ops recently and have been greatly impressed by their ability to build and strengthen local communities.

  I am aware, however, that there are concerns, not least from within the co-op movement itself, that the present arrangements for supporting and promoting co-ops may not provide a suitable basis for the expansion in numbers which I am keen to secure. I am, therefore, commissioning a wide-ranging review of the arrangements to promote, develop and support co-ops, with the following terms of reference;

  a. To consider the administrative, financial and legislative framework necessary for the promotion, development and support of housing co-operatives on a local and national scale, both generally and in the context of tenants' choice;

  b. To consider the role of secondary housing co-operatives as promotional and servicing agencies; and

  249

  c. To make recommendations.

  I have set up a review team which will be led by my Department to consider these matters. We are writing to the organisations most closely involved, but I invite all interested parties to write to the review team at my Department with their views on what is needed for co-ops, or similar forms of tenant involvement in the control of rented housing, to succeed. I have asked the review team to report by the end of the year.

  Environmental Assessment Directive
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now lay before Parliament regulations implementing the European directive on environmental assessment (85/337/EEC) for projects subject to planning controls.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yesterday I laid before Parliament the draft Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. They require to be approved by resolution of each House before they can be made. I hope that both Houses will approve the drafts so that they may be made before 3 July. Copies of these draft regulations have been placed in the Library and will be available for sale at Her Majesty's Stationery Office from 20 June. Drafts of further regulations relating to projects which are not subject to planning control, and equivalent Scottish regulations, are also being laid before Parliament.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been done into the feasibility of building dry store facilities for nuclear waste at each of the locations where the waste is produced.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: Following the recommendations in March 1986 of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, the generating boards (CEGB and SSEB) each conducted a full analysis of the arrangements for storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel from their Magnox power stations. The Department of the Environment then commissioned an independent review of the two reports by a firm of consulting engineers.

  The reports and the review confirmed that reprocessing of spent Magnox fuel remains preferable to direct disposal and that the building of dry stores at the respective power stations would not be justified at this late stage in their lives. Copies of the reports are in the Library of the House.

  Asset Sales and Purchases
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate(a) the asset sales and (b) the purchases of his Department and the Commission for New Towns for 1987–88 and the planned net receipts for 1988–89, giving separate figures for sales and receipts by local authorities.

  Mrs. Roe
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: The sums raised from the sale of assets by the Commission for the New Towns in 1987–88 amounted to £210·6 million. The commission's planned receipts for 1988–89 are confidential at this stage. I am unable to answer the remaining aspects of the hon. Member's question without more precise details of the information he requires.

  Toxic Waste (Pontypool)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what special measures his Department is taking to monitor the disposal, at the ReChem international plant at Pontypool, of the toxic waste which will be imported from Switzerland in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Grist
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any wastes entering the United Kingdom from other countries are subject to the same controls as home-produced wastes. Operations at the ReChem plant, Pontypool are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, Torfaen borough council and the Welsh water authority.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list in the Official Report the dates and subjects debated by the Scottish Grand Committee in the Scottish Assembly building, Old Royal High School, in Edinburgh since 1979.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Since 1979 the Scottish Grand Committee has met on 17 occasions in the former Royal High School buildings in Edinburgh. The dates of these meetings and the subjects discussed were:

  Date

  Subject

  15 February 1982

  Matter Day debate on youth employment and training.

  24 May 1982

  Matter Day debate on law and order.

  5 July 1982

  Estimates Debate on industry and the economy.

  22 November 1982

  Second Reading of Divorce, Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill.

  7 February 1983

  Matter Day debate on education for 16 to 18 year olds.

  12 December 1983

  Matter Day debate on the National Health Service.

  30 April 1984

  Matter Day debate on the effect of European Community policy in Scotland.

  25 June 1984

  Estimates debate on industry and the economy in Scotland.

  10 December 1984

  Second Reading of Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  25 March 1985

  Public expenditure plans to 1987–88 in relation to the Scotland programme.

  8 July 1985

  Estimates debate on employment and the economy.

  20 January 1986

  Matter Day debate on higher education.

  28 April 1986

  Matter Day debate on rating reform.

  30 June 1986

  Matter Day debate on the administration of Scotland.

  19 January 1987

  Matter Day debate on Scottish Agriculture and Fisheries.

  251

  Date

  Subject

  23 March 1987

  Second Reading of Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

  21 March 1988

  Matter Day debate on Education in Scotland.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to increase the road fund tax on a 53-seat coach from £85 to £850.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Decisions on all excise duty rates are matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for 3Transport (1) how many unlicensed vehicles in the London borough of Newham have been detected in each of his Department's campaigns against motor tax evaders;

  (2) how many unlicensed road vehicles have been detected in the current campaign in London being undertaken by his Department in conjuction with the Metropolitan and City police forces;

  (3) how many prosecutions involving unlicensed vehicles arose out of his Department's campaign in London in May 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  During the 1988 London campaign 62 unlicensed vehicles were reported within the borough of Newham. Figures for individual boroughs are not available for earlier years. In London as a whole 4,055 offence reports have been received in the course of the 1988 campaign. The comparable figure for 1987 was 2,900 and the number of resulting prosecutions in 1987 was in the region of 1,000.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses have been begun in each of the last 30 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Eleven bypasses were started in 1986–87 and 14 in 1987–88.

  For earlier years, the information is not available in the form requested. Figures for the numbers of bypasses completed since 1974 are as follows. It can be assumed that in most cases construction started approximately two years before.

  Year

  Number of completed bypasses

  1974–75

  13

  1975–76

  21

  1976–77

  17

  1977–78

  9

  1978–79

  7

  1979–80

  4

  1980–81

  3

  1981–82

  8

  1982–83

  12

  1983–84

  7

  1984–85

  8

  1985–86

  11

  1986–87

  14

  1987–88

  14

  252
  No information is available for years before 1974. Other schemes, although not designated bypasses, also have a bypassing effect.

  Heathrow (Passengers' Hand Baggage)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the X-ray machines used to examine passengers' hand baggage at Heathrow and marked safe for film up to 1,000 ASA are safe for film rated at(a) 1,000 ASA; (b) 1,600 ASA; and (c) 3,500 ASA; and how many complaints have been received about the fogging of such film.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The United Kingdom aviation security programme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State administers, provides for passengers who fear that any article they are carrying might be damaged if passed through the X-ray machine at an airport to be afforded the alternative of having the article examined physically by a member of the security staff. Any arrangements made to indicate to passengers that particular X-ray machines are safe for particular kinds of film are entirely the responsibility of the airport authority concerned. So. too, are any complaints about the fogging of film which has been passed through the machines.

  Motorways
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new motorway he anticipates being opened in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to open 16 miles in 1989 and 50 miles in 1990. We expect to complete 12 miles of widening this year and 13 miles in 1989. No new motorway will open this year.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Weight Restrictions)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the maximum level of weight restrictions on heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no such proposals. The House will be debating on 16 June the European Commission's current proposals on lorry weights and dimensions.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will identify (a) liason arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Officials from my Department participate fully in the work of the following civil NATO planning boards and committees concerned with transport:

  Planning Board for Ocean Shipping

  Planning Board for European Inland Surface Transport

  Civil Aviation Planning Committee and various sub-committees and working groups of these bodies.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will identify the terms of reference of
  253
  work on (a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The work carried out by the Department on civil emergencies encompasses the preparation, co-ordination and implementation of plans for the maintenance of essential services in an emergency. Home defence planning involves the preparation of similar plans for use in a time of tension and war, and the provision of certain support to the armed services.

  The numbers of staff involved and the annual budgets in recent years have been as follows:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Staff

  62

  62

  62

  Annual Budget

  £4·5 million

  £5·3 million

  £4·9 million

  These figures do not allow for staff who may do a limited amount of work on civil emergencies incidental to their normal duties.

  Trees
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trees have been planted by his Department in England since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since 1979 we have planted 12·25 million trees and shrubs alongside our motorways and other trunk roads in England. The Secretary of State is the most prolific planter of trees for amenity purposes in the country.

  London Taxi Fares
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement about London taxi fares.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Secretary of State has made an order increasing London taxi fares by about 6·5 per cent. on average with effect from Saturday 25 June 1988. The new tariff will incorporate a minimum fare of £1 (including an unchanged hire charge of 40p) for the first 1,305 yards or 4 minutes 21 seconds. The rate will then be 20p for every 435 yards or 1 minute 27 seconds up to six miles and 20p for each 290 yards or 58 seconds thereafter.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of electrifying the London to Leicester east midlands line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The layout of the midland main line, with a high proportion of curves, junctions and stations, means that without a major reconstruction significant improvements in speed are impracticable. For these reasons the existing HSTs cannot be used to their full potential because of these limitations. Electrification might reduce journey times by a few minutes, but I understand from BR that it is clear from preliminary studies that the benefits to the passenger would be small compared to the cost, which would have to be recouped through fares. In these circumstances BR has made no recent or detailed estimates of cost.

  Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require all commercial vehicles to display the name, address and telephone number of the owners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Certain vehicles, for example those carrying food, are required to display the user's name and address. Extending the requirement to all commercial vehicles would not be justified, particularly as the user of a vehicle may not by the owner. Many vehicles are leased or hired for short periods.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of P and O to discuss ferry safety.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  On 7 March.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning traffic delays at the Blackwall tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Metropolitan police recently requested an extension of the hours of tidal flow working, which allows northbound traffic to use three of the four available lanes in the morning peak hours. This request was refused after consultation with other interested bodies. It would have shifted congestion from the south to the north of the river.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the decision of the east London river crossing public inquiry to be announced.

  Mr. Channon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on Monday 13 June at column 72.

  Speed Governors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now implement speed governors for heavy goods vehicles as well as public service coaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squira) on 7 March, at column 97.

  Motorways
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the expenditure by his Department on temporary markings on motorway roadworks for(a) temporary white lines, (b) temporary studs, (c) lane directional arrows and (d) blacking out, for the latest three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  255
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the traffic density on British motorways; and what are the comparable figures in Germany, France and Italy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest available estimates are:

  Country

  Year

  Average Daily Flow of Vehicles per 24 hours on Motorways (thousands)

  Great Britain

  1985

  36·4

  Great Britain

  1987

  40·8

  Germany

  1985

  31·3

  France

  1985

  15·7

  France

  1987

  18·2

  Comparable data are not available for Italy.

  Road Schemes (Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his Department's proposed road improvements or new road schemes costing £100,000 or more which are planned to start in Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire within the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is set out in the table. Schemes are liable to delay for a number of reasons. The lists are subject to change.

  Roads

  Improvements and schemes

  Cambridgeshire

  M1-A1 link

  Thrapston-Brampton1

  A1

  Brampton realignment junction improvement

  A1

  Glatton grade separated junction

  A1

  Continuous programme of gap closures

  A11

  Four Wentways junction improvement

  A11

  Four Wentways-Newmarket dualling

  A11

  Newmarket-Red Lodge dualling

  A11-A45

  Newmarket bypass—safety fence installation

  A45

  Barford road, St. Neots junction improvement

  A47

  Castor and Ailsworth bypass

  A47

  Eye bypass

  A47

  Guyhirn diversion

  A47

  Thorney bypass

  A47

  Westwood-Paston interchange—safety fence installation

  Northamptonshire

  M1-A1 link

  M1-Rothwell

  M1-A1 link

  Kettering southern bypass

  M1-A1 link

  Kettering-Thrapston

  M1-A1 link

  Rothwell-Kettering

  A5

  Kilsby diversion

  A6

  Black Lodge improvement

  A6

  Burton Latimer bypass

  A6

  Finedon bypass

  A6

  Rushden-Higham Ferrers bypass

  A43

  Blisworth bypass

  A43

  Green Man Inn improvement

  A43

  Hulcote turn-Tiffield turn

  A43

  Kettering northern bypass

  A43

  Moulton-Overstone improvement

  A43

  Radstone lane improvement

  A43

  Silverstone bypass

  A43

  Whitfield turn—Brackley Hatch dualling

  A43-A6116

  Roundabout

  A47

  Eastern Hornstocks bends

  1 Also runs through part of Northamptonshire.

  Nuclear Materials
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if any consignment of radioactive materials, including medical radio-isotopes, natural uranium, uranium hexafluoride, enriched uranium, plutonium and low, intermediate or high-level nuclear wastes has ever been lost in transit within the jurisdiction of United Kingdom regulatory and safety authorities in any year since 1979.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: The information is not available for the years 1979 to 1982. I understand that since then industrial or medical isotopes have been lost on six occasions. No other radioactilve materials have been lost in transit.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the annual tonnage for each year since 1979, of spent nuclear fuel licensed for(a) export and (b) import through the ports of Felixstowe, Harwich, Dover, Folkestone, Newhaven, Southampton, Immingham and Barrow, respectively.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: This Department does not collect details of the kind requested.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Profitability
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rise in non-North sea company profitability in 1987.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rise in non-North sea company profitability in 1987.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rise in non-North sea company profitability in 1987.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The net rate of return on capital employed by non-North sea industrial and commercial companies increased by 1½ percentage points in 1987 to 10½ per cent.—the highest level for about 20 years.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the effect of the recent appreciation of the value of the pound on the current account of the United Kingdom balance of payments.

  Mr. Lilley
  The outcome for the current account depends on many more factors than just the exchange rate. Much more important for competitiveness is the need to control unit costs.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the effect of the recent appreciation of the value of the pound on the current account of the United Kingdom balance of payments.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the effect
  257
  of the recent appreciation of the value of the pound on the current account of the United Kingdom balance of payments.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance of payments for 1988–89.

  Mr. Major
  At Budget time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a current account deficit of £4 billion for 1988. A new forecast will be published at the time of the Autumn Statement.

  Benefit Withdrawals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what weight he gives to the effect of benefit withdrawals when assessing marginal tax rates.

  Mr. Major
  The Government's policy is to reduce marginal rates of tax. Only about 3 per cent. of the working population face high rates of benefit withdrawal and the Budget reduced their number by 30,000.

  Sub-Saharan African Debt
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to discuss with other Finance Ministers his proposals on sub-Saharan African debt.

  Mr. Lawson
  I shall be meeting the Finance Ministers of the other six major industrial nations in Toronto at the economic summit early next week. One of the United Kingdom's main objectives for the summit will be to agree a specific set of measures to implement my initiative to help the poorest most heavily indebted countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of administering and collecting income tax expressed as a percentage of the revenue raised; and what information he has on the comparable figure in the United States of America.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Precise comparisons across all taxes are difficult. Cost incurred by United States taxpayers are higher, but the United States Government's administrative costs are lower. Research in 1986 suggested that the cost-yield ratios were broadly similar when taxpayers' costs are taken into account.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the number of people who will gain as a result of the abolition of the highest rates of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Nine hundred and thirty thousand single people and married couples will benefit as a result of the top rate of income tax being set at 40 per cent. for 1988–89.

  World Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet other Finance Ministers to discuss world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be meeting other Finance Ministers at the economic summit in Toronto on Sunday.

  Top Incomes
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average post-tax income now received by the wealthiest 2 per cent. of taxpayers.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average post-tax income now received by the wealthiest 2 per cent. of taxpayers.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The average post-tax income in 1988–89 of the top 2 per cent. of income tax payers is expected to be about £46,000.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the gain to a man earning £1 million a year who also inherits £1 million in the 1988–89 tax year as a result of the changes made in the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the gain to a man earning £1 million a year who also inherits £1 million in the 1988–89 tax year as a result of the changes introduced in the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the gain to a man earning £1 million a year who also inherits £1 million in the 1988–89 tax year, as a result of the changes proposed in the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A married man with earnings of £1 million and no other income in 1988–89 who claims no allowances or reliefs other than the married man's allowance would be liable to £193,914 less income tax as a result of the proposals in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. The inheritance tax liability on a £1 million legacy would normally be borne by the testator's residuary estate and not by the beneficiary.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average share of post-tax income now received by the wealthiest 1 per cent. of tax payers.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average share of post-tax income now received by the wealthiest 1 per cent. of taxpayers.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The top 1 per cent. of income tax payers will receive about 5 per cent. of income tax payers' total income after tax in 1988–89.

  Inflation
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The retail prices index rose by 3·9 per cent. in the year to April.

  Labour Market (North of England)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the labour market in the north of recent economic trends.

  Mr. Major
  Strong economic performance has benefited the labour market in all regions, especially the north, north-west and the west midlands, which have enjoyed the largest reductions in unemployment rates.

  Family Income
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the income tax cuts since 1979 on the living standards of a married man on half average earnings with two children.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the income tax cuts since 1979 on the living standard of a married man on half average earnings with two children.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take home pay is likely to have increased by 21½ per cent. between 1978–79 and 1988–89 for a married man, with two children on half average earnings. Income tax cuts have contributed to this, both directly and through their contribution to economic growth.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the income tax cuts since 1979 on the living standard of a married man on average earnings, with two children.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the income tax cuts since 1979 on the living standard of a married man on average earnings, with two children.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the income tax cuts since 1979 on the living standard of a married man on average earnings, with two children.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take home pay will have increased 27½ per cent. between 1978–79 and 1988–89 for a married man, with two children on average earnings. Income tax cuts have contributed considerably to this, both directly and through their contribution to economic growth.

  Departmental Manpower
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials of his Department are responsible for monitoring(a) the social security budget, and (b) other Department of Health and Social Security services.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials of his Department are responsible for monitoring(a) the social security budget, and (b) other expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Services.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong).

  VAT (Hospital Radio Broadcasting Equipment)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking 260
  zero rating for value added tax for hospital radio broadcasting equipment; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received no further representations since the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 7 June, at column 528.

  Poverty
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the impact on the extent of poverty in the United Kingdom of public expenditure decisions taken by the Government since 1979.

  Mr. Major
  A reduction in the share of national income devoted to public expenditure is an important element of the Government's medium-term financial strategy, which has created conditions for steady economic growth and increasing employment, producing benefits for all sections of the community.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the share of the income taken in tax and national insurance from a single man earning(a) £100,000 a year and (b) £10,000 a year.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the share of income taken in tax and national insurance from a single man earning(a) £100,000 a year and (b) £10,000 a year.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the share of income taken in tax and national insurance from a single man earning(a) £100,000 a year, and (b) £10,000 a year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A single man with no allowances or reliefs other than his personal allowance earning £100,000 a year in 1988–89 will pay 37·5 per cent. of his earnings in income tax and national insurance. A similar person earning £10,000 a year will pay 27·5 per cent.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms are available to him to affect alterations in the exchange rate.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement on 17 May at columns 794–98.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Burnley on Tuesday 7 June, his Department discriminates for any purposes between inquiries from different sectors of industry on the exchange rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the rise in the deutschemark-pound sterling exchange rate since the beginning of 1988 and its effects on British industry.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the rise in the deutschemark-pound sterling exchange rate since the beginning of 1988 and its effects on British industry.
  261
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the economic effects of further appreciation of the pound against the deutschemark.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

  Tax and Prices Index
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rise in the tax and prices index in the 12 months to April.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rise in the tax and prices index in the 12 months to April 1988.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rise in the tax and prices index in the 12 months to April 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  The tax and prices index rose by 1·7 per cent. in the 12 months to April.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current United Kingdom volume share of world trade in manufactures.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current United Kingdom volume share of world trade in manufactures.

  Mr. Major
  In 1987 the estimated United Kingdom volume share of total world trade in manufactures was about 7½ per cent. As chart 3·5 in the FSBR shows, this share has been broadly stable since 1981, following previous decades of decline.

  Budget (Redistributive Effects)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish at the time of his Budget Statement a full study of the redistributive effects of the taxation changes he is introducing.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish at the time of his Budget Statement a full study of the redistributive effects of the taxation changes he is introducing.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 June to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), at column 701.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the redistributive impact of his Budget changes.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the redistributive impact of his Budget changes.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the redistributive impact of his Budget changes.
  262
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a number.

  Budget Surplus
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the Budget surplus for 1988–89.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the Budget surplus for 1988–89.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the Budget surplus for 1988–89.

  Mr. Major
  The latest forecast for the PSBR in 1988–89 is for a net repayment of about £3 billion, ¾ per cent. of GDP, as published in the 1988–89 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for business investment in 1988.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  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.

  Regional Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Soames
  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. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on 7 June 1988, at column 601.

  Public Expenditure Allocations
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of public expenditure was devoted to(a) housing, (b) education and (c) health in 1979 and in 1987.

  Mr. Major
  The table shows, for the financial years 1979–80 and 1987–88, public expenditure (net of receipts) on housing, education and science and health as a percentage of the public expenditure planning total, excluding privatisation proceeds and, for 1987–88 only, the adjustment made to bring the sum of individual estimated outturns in line with the Treasury's view of the likely overall outturn.

  Percentages

  1979–80

  1987–88

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  Housing

  7·3

  2·4

  Education and Science

  14·0

  13·8

  Health1

  12·0

  13·6

  1 Excludes personal social services.

  Source: Table 5·11, The Government's Expenditure Plans, 1988–89 to 1990–91, Cm 288-I.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom economy since 1980.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom economy since 1980.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom economy since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  Since 1980, output per head in the manufacturing sector has grown at an average rate of 5·1 per cent. per year—faster than in any other major industrialised country.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in the economy since 1983.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in the economy since 1983.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).

  Pound Sterling
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current value of the 1979 pound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  In real terms the sterling index averaged 90 in 1979 and is estimated to have been 100·3 in May 1988.

  Productivity
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual growth of productivity for the whole economy since 1980.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the annual growth of productivity for the whole economy since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  Since 1980 output per head in the whole economy has grown at an average rate of 2·7 per cent. per year, about the same as Japan and faster than any other major industrialised country.

  Personal Disposable Income
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth of real personal disposable income in 1987.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth of real disposable income in 1987.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth of real personal disposable income in 1987.
  264
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real personal disposable income was some 3 per cent. higher in 1987 than in 1986.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of investment by United Kingdom manufacturing industry in 1987–88.

  Mr. Major
  Investment by manufacturing industry (including leased assets) in 1987–88 was £7,595 million at 1980 prices.

  Retail Price Inflation
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average level of retail price inflation over the past five years.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average level of retail price inflation over the past five years.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average level of retail price inflation over the past five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  Retail price inflation has averaged 4·7 per cent. over the five years to April 1988.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in adult unemployment over the past 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in adult unemployment over the past 12 months.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in adult unemployment over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Major
  Adult unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by 535,000 over the past year.

  Mr. Woodcock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the fall in long-term unemployment in the year to January 1988.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the fall in long-term unemployment in the year to January 1988.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson).

  EC (Harmonisation)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on progress within the European Community with regard to the harmonisation of value added tax and excise duties.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on progress within the European Community with regard to the harmonisation of value added tax and excise duties.
  265
  Mr. Lilley
  The Economic and Finance Council discussed the Commission's proposals at its informal meeting in May. My right hon. Friend reiterated the United Kingdom's view that tax approximation is unnecessary for the completion of the single market. Most other member states also expressed reservations.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects the harmonisation of value added tax and excise duties to be discussed at the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Council of Ministers meets from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Economic Trends (Labour Market)
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the labour market in the regions of recent economic trends.

  Mr. Major
  The recent favourable performance of the United Kingdom economy has benefited the labour market in all regions. Unemployment has fallen significantly in all regions over the past year.

  Wage Inflation
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of wage inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  Average earnings for the whole economy are currently increasing at an underlying rate of 8½ per cent. a year.

  Income and Wealth Distribution
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on income and wealth distribution in the light of the Church of Scotland study entitled "Just Sharing", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on income and wealth distribution in the light of the Church of Scotland study entitled "Just Sharing", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Bank base rates are 8½ per cent.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent reductions in United Kingdom interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Bank base rates were reduced from 9 per cent. to 8½ per cent. on 18 March, from 8½ per cent. to 8 per cent. on 11 April, and from 8 per cent. to 7½ per cent. on 18 May. Bank base rates were increased to 8 per cent. on 3 June and to 8½ per cent. on 7 June.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the governor of the Bank of England; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meets the governor from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  National Economic Development Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last attended the National Economic Development Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor last attended and chaired the National Economic Development Council on Wednesday 13 January. The Council discussed the outlook for the economy; a report by the knitting industry; and international competitiveness, research and development, and action by economic development committees.

  Business Activity
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the rate at which business activity is currently expanding in the United Kingdom; and if he has any evidence of developing bottlenecks.

  Mr. Major
  The output measure of GDP is provisionally estimated by the Central Statistical Office to have increased by 4½ per cent. in the year to the first quarter of 1988. The CBI's latest quarterly industrial trends survey shows little evidence of capacity constraints, with the vast majority of firms (86 per cent.) reporting capacity at least adequate to meet expected demand over the next 12 months.

  Government Revenue
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of total Government revenue in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The latest estimate of total general Government receipts in 1988–89 is £185 billion, as published in the 1988–89 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the fall in long-term unemployment in the year to January 1988.

  Mr. Major
  Long term unemployment fell by 234,000 in the year to January 1988, and by a further 71,000 between January and April.

  Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing, for 1988–89, the level of the single person's tax allowance, the married man's allowance, the single age allowance and the married age allowance, their percentage increase since 1978–79 and the level of each allowance had they been updated in line with the percentage increase in the single person's allowance since 1978–79.
  267
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is in the table.

  Personal Tax Allowances in 1978–79 and 1988–89

  Allowance

  1978–79

  1988–89

  Increase since 1978–79

  Real1 increase since 1978–79

  If increased in-line with single allowance

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  £

  Single person (and wife's earned income)

  985

  2,605

  164

  27

  2,605

  Married man

  1,535

  4,095

  167

  28

  4,065

  Single aged 65–79

  1,300

  3,180

  145

  17

  3,440

  Single aged 80 and over

  3,310

  155

  22

  Married aged 65–79

  2,075

  5,035

  143

  16

  5,495

  Married aged 80 and over

  5,205

  151

  20

  1 Using the RPI for financial years.

  Civil Servants (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Upper Bann of 7 June, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will indicate who employs those civil servants in Northern Ireland who work for the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Most of the civil servants who work for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland are employed by the Board of Inland Revenue and the Board of Customs and Excise. There are, however, a few officials who are members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and who are on secondment to the Inland Revenue.

  Placement Students
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the ceiling for tax exemption on earnings of placement students for periods spent on courses was first set at £5,000;

  (2) what will he the level of maximum earnings exempt from tax for placement students during periods on courses for the tax year 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In accordance with the Inland Revenue's statement of practice 4/86—a copy of which I am placing in the Library—payments by employers to employees who are released to attend a full-time further education course are not regarded as taxable if the rate of payment does not exceed the higher of £5,000 a year or the amount payable to someone in similar personal circumstances by a public research body. The 1988–89 rate of £5,000 was introduced with effect from 1983–84; it remains well above the amount which would generally be payable to a single person living away from home by a public research body.

  Departmental Staff
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 April.

  Mr. Major
  On 1 April 1988 there were 579,627 staff in post in central Government Departments. Of these 506,565 were non-industrials and 73,062 were industrials.

  The Government's declared target for this date has therefore been met. Staff in post figures will continue to be reported on a quarterly basis, although the move to running cost controls in place of manpower ceilings will
  268
  give departments more freedom to adjust between manpower and other running cost expenditure in the pursuit of best value for money.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to make any changes to the Inland Revenue guidelines for approval of business expansion scheme funds.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have decided to remove the requirement that a fund must offer participants a spread of investment in companies carrying on different trades. From now on, an approved BES fund will be able to invest in companies specialising in a particular activity. We are also reviewing the rest of the guidelines to take account of the introduction of the Financial Services Act and the experience to date of the use of approved BES funds.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much licence duty has been collected by Her Majesty's Government from gaming machines in the following financial years(a) 1985–86, (b) 1986–87 and (c) 1987–88 to date.

  Mr. Lilley
  The amounts of gaming machine licence duty collected were as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  86·0

  1986–87

  74·7

  1987–88

  194·2

  1 Provisional.

  Bingo
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much bingo duty was paid or estimated to be paid by unlicensed clubs registered to play bingo in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  The amounts of bingo duty paid by unlicensed clubs registered to play bingo are not separately recorded. Estimates of the amounts paid are as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  2·7

  1986–87

  3·0

  1987–88

  3·2

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of enforcement,
  269
  supervision and collection of bingo duty from unlicensed clubs registered to play bingo in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  The costs of collecting bingo duty are not recorded separately. They are thought to be comparable with the costs for collecting the betting and gaming duties generally, which are under 1 per cent. of the duty yield.

  EEC (Contribution)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Economic Community in the year 1987; what were the comparable totals for 1986 and 1985; and what is his estimate for 1988.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 7 June 1988, at columns 540–41. An estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget for 1988 will be contained in the annual statement on the Community budget, which will be published as soon as possible.

  Taxpaying unit by marginal rate

  Thousands

  As a percentage of all taxpaying units

  Region

  30 per cent.

  40 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  30 per cent.

  40 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  North

  1,000

  11

  6

  5

  (2)

  (3)

  97·2

  1·1

  0·6

  0·5

  0·2

  0·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,570

  24

  13

  8

  3

  5

  96·8

  1·5

  0·8

  0·5

  0·2

  0·3

  North West

  2,070

  36

  21

  10

  4

  5

  96·5

  1·7

  1·0

  0·5

  0·2

  0·2

  East Midlands

  1,310

  16

  11

  6

  (4)

  4

  96·9

  1·2

  0·8

  0·5

  0·3

  0·3

  West Midlands

  1,700

  19

  (18)

  (11)

  6

  4

  96·8

  1·1

  1·0

  0·6

  0·2

  0·3

  East Anglia

  660

  (12)

  8

  5

  (3)

  (5)

  95·3

  1·8

  1·2

  0·7

  0·4

  0·7

  South East

  6,200

  190

  119

  75

  38

  60

  92·8

  2·8

  1·8

  1·1

  0·6

  0·9

  South West

  1,490

  31

  14

  13

  5

  (7)

  95·6

  2·0

  0·9

  0·8

  0·3

  0·4

  Wales

  800

  13

  7

  3

  (3)

  2

  96·6

  1·5

  0·8

  0·4

  0·4

  0·2

  Scotland

  1,690

  36

  18

  11

  4

  6

  95·7

  2·0

  1·0

  0·6

  0·2

  0·3

  Great Britain

  18,500

  388

  235

  148

  70

  101

  95·1

  2·0

  1·2

  0·8

  0·4

  0·5

  Northern Ireland

  430

  7

  (6)

  (2)

  (1)

  (1)

  96·0

  1·6

  1·4

  0·5

  0·2

  0·2

  The estimated tax liability in 1985–86 for these tax units was:—

  Tax Liability in 1985–86

  £ million

  Region

  30 per cent.

  40 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  North

  1,540

  60

  39

  51

  33

  85

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,300

  133

  90

  86

  49

  151

  North West

  2,980

  199

  134

  103

  55

  159

  East Midlands

  1,990

  86

  79

  67

  60

  154

  West Midlands

  2,380

  106

  129

  97

  56

  174

  East Anglia

  991

  66

  59

  52

  41

  126

  South East

  9,970

  1,060

  852

  758

  567

  2,070

  South West

  2,130

  171

  95

  128

  62

  205

  Wales

  1,130

  66

  47

  33

  (49)

  63

  Scotland

  2,610

  195

  131

  113

  59

  206

  Great Britain

  28,000

  2,150

  1,660

  1,490

  1,030

  3,340

  Northern Ireland

  593

  41

  46

  25

  14

  32

  In 1988–89, the index of retail prices is expected to be about 12 per cent. higher than in 1985–86.

  The provisional estimate of the number of tax units in 1988–89 for the United Kingdom is 32·6 million, of which about 11·7 million are expected not to be liable to income tax.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing, for each region and for Great Britain, the number and percentage of taxpayers paying tax at their top marginal rate for each tax band; their total tax liability expressed in 1988 prices; and the number and percentage of non-taxpaying households; using the most recent available figures.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: The latest information available by region relates to 1985–86 and is limited to taxpaying units only. In the tables, married couples are counted as one unit, members of Her Majesty's forces and the Merchant Navy are included only in the national totals, and tax liability is measured before allowing for mortgage interest relief given at source. Estimates relating to tax rates of 40 per cent. or higher, whilst shown to the nearest thousand or £1 million, are in many cases based on small samples: where this means that the actual number or amount may be more than about one third higher or lower than shown in the table, the figures are shown in brackets. The corresponding percentages should also be treated with particular caution.

  Taxation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the percentage share of tax paid by the top 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. of taxpayers from 1970–71 to 1988–89.
  271
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]The information is given in the table.

  Percentage of total income tax liability paid by top I per cent, and top 5 per cent, of income tax payers1

  Year

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  1973–74

  15·6

  28·6

  1974–75

  13·9

  26·9

  1975–76

  11·9

  24·7

  1976–77

  11·4

  24·6

  1977–78

  11·9

  24·9

  1978–79

  11·2

  24·0

  1979–80

  10·4

  23·4

  1980–81

  10·9

  24·4

  1981–82

  11·3

  24·8

  1982–83

  11·7

  25·4

  1983–84

  11·4

  25·4

  1984–85

  11·8

  26·4

  1985–86

  13·8

  28·3

  1986–872

  14·0

  29·0

  1987–882

  15·0

  30·0

  1988–892

  13·0

  28·0

  1 Counting married couples as one and combining their incomes.

  2 Estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 Survey of Personal Incomes and are rounded to the nearest 0·5 per cent. Estimates are provisional.

  I regret that information for earlier years is not available.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information in his reply of 17 May,Official Report, column 424–30, for 1988–89, on the basis of the community charge replacing domestic rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 7 June 1988]: Information on the level of community charge equivalent to domestic rates in 1988–89 is not yet available. Information of the kind requested would be of doubtful value because patterns of spending by local authorities and by individuals are likely to change when the community charge is introduced.

  VAT
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from disability organisations concerning proposals from the Commission of the European Communities to impose 14 to 20 per cent. value added tax on talking books for blind and disabled people, wireless sets for blind people and on aids equipment for disabled people; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received from charities concerning proposals from the Commission of the European Communities to impose 14 to 20 per cent. value added tax on charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: Ministerial colleagues and I have received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of' the Exchequer if he will tabulate in the Official Report those commodities formerly, or currently, subject to zero value-added tax rating, including all those in groups 1 to 17 listed in his note to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil
  272
  Service and published by it on page 8 of its third report of Session 1987–88, (HC 248), in five separate tables to show items that: (a) were zero rated by Her Majesty's Government, but have subsequently had their zero rated status changed by virtue of actions taken, or requests made, by either the Court or the Commission of the European Economic Communities, (b) items currently the subject of infraction proceedings before the court of the European Economic Communities, (c) items currently zero rated which have been the subject of specific pledges from Ministers concerning their continued zero rated status. (d) other items of zero rating subject to current proposals from the Commission of the European Communities and (e) other zero rated items not in categories (a) to (d), showing for each item in each table (a) to (d) the rate or band of rates applied, or proposed to be applied, together with the approximate annual revenue, or range of revenue, which has accrued or is likely to accrue to Her Majesty's Government, at 1988 prices for each category, with totals for each table and grand total, and in respect of table (c) footnote references to the respective principal pledge made.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 March 1988, c. 195–96]: I regret that the first two figures in column (iii) of table (d) were mistaken. The correct figures are:

  Sewerage services other than supplies to industry: £175 million—£250 million.

  Water other than supplies to industry: £25 million—£75 million.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the (i) average and (ii) median income of(a) married couples and (b) single people. whether liable to income tax or not, for 1988–89; and if he will give the percentage of married couples and single people falling below the average for their group.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: The latest information on the distribution of income relates to 1984–85 and was published in the November 1987 edition of Economic Trends. The mean income of all married couples and single people in 1984–85 was £7,520 a year and the median income was £5,480. Some 65 per cent. of incomes were below the mean income of £7,520. Separate estimates for married couples and single people are not available.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue first became aware of the claim by the investment company Barlow Clowes, that the income from funds invested by it in Gibraltar could be paid to investors tax-free; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: The Inland Revnue's obligations of confidentiality prevent the disclosure of any information concerning a particular taxpayer's affairs.

  Exchequer Revenues
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) of 7 July 1987,Official Report, column 84, regarding Exchequer revenues to

  273
  (a) include 1988–89, (b) give the table at constant 1988–89 prices, and (c) break down customs and excise duties into (i) excise duties, (ii) customs duties, and (iii) agricultural levies.

  £ billion 1988–89 prices4

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–882

  1988–893

  Income tax

  38·6

  38·3

  41·1

  40·0

  39·8

  40·0

  40·7

  42·3

  43·4

  42·1

  Value added tax

  15·0

  17·0

  16·7

  18·1

  19·1

  22·3

  21·9

  23·5

  25·2

  26·2

  Excise duties

  15·3

  14·6

  16·4

  16·2

  17·7

  17·7

  17·9

  19·0

  18·6

  18·8

  Customs duties

  1·7

  1·3

  1·4

  1·3

  1·4

  1·6

  1·4

  1·4

  1·5

  1·6

  Agricultural levies

  0·4

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·2

  0·1

  Other Central Government taxes and royalties

  27·7

  25·1

  28·5

  28·7

  28·3

  30·4

  32·1

  28·4

  31·7

  33·4

  Other Central Government receipts1

  28·5

  30·2

  29·9

  35·1

  35·1

  36·4

  38·9

  40·9

  41·4

  42·4

  Total Central Government receipts

  127·3

  126·8

  134·2

  139·8

  141·7

  148·5

  153·1

  155·7

  162·0

  164·6

  Local authority rates

  12·7

  13·5

  15·4

  16·0

  15·4

  15·5

  15·6

  17·1

  17·7

  19·0

  Public sector borrowing

  18·4

  19·6

  12·1

  11·6

  12·2

  12·2

  6·5

  3·7

  -3·2

  -3·2

  1 Including National Insurance contributions and accruals adjustments.

  2 Outturn as estimated in the 1988 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  3 Forecast from 1988 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  4 Revalued using the GDP deflator.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change in the level of United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to the EEC he forecasts as a result of the completion of the internal market; and on what basis he has made such estimates.

  Mr. Major
  I would expect completion of the internal market significantly to boost exports to other member states of the Community, but have made no detailed estimates.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the deficit in United Kingdom trade with the EEC in manufactures in 1987; and what estimate he has made of the effects of the completion of the internal market on this figure.

  Mr. Major
  The deficit on direct trade in manufactured goods with other member states in 1987 is at present estimated to have been £10·2 billion. I expect completion of the internal market to boost both our exports to and imports from other member states, but I have made no estimates of the magnitude.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast of the increase in United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to the EEC as a result of the completion of the internal market; and if he will provide a similar forecast for the increase in exports.

  Expenditure on fixed assets in the United Kingdom by nationalised industries

  £ million

  1978–79 outturn (Cmnd. 7841)

  Percentage of capital requirements financed internally

  1989–90 plans (Cm. 288)

  Cash

  Real terms1 (base year 1988–89)

  Cash

  Real terms1 (base year 1988–89)

  British Aerospace

  26

  55

  54·3

  —

  —

  British Airports Authority

  33

  70

  100·0

  —

  —

  British Airways Board

  219

  464

  67·6

  —

  —

  British Coal

  495

  1,049

  0·0

  649

  627

  British Gas Corporation

  280

  593

  100·0

  —

  —

  British National Oil Corporation

  243

  515

  6·3

  —

  —

  British Railways Board

  349

  740

  0·0

  655

  633

  British Shipbuilders

  27

  57

  0·0

  8

  8

  British Steel Corporation

  334

  708

  0·0

  274

  265

  British Transport Docks Board

  9

  19

  100·0

  —

  —

  274
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: Following is the information.

  Mr. Major
  I expect completion of the internal market to boost trade with the other member states of the Community. No detailed estimates have been made.

  Nationalised Industries (Fixed Assets)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing the expenditure on fixed assets in the United Kingdom by nationalised industries for 1978–79 and 1989–90 plans, at constant 1988–89 prices and cash prices broken down in the form of table 4.4 of Cm. 288–1, giving the percentage of the industries capital requirements financed or expected to be financed internally.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: The table shows the expenditure on fixed assets in the United Kingdom by nationalised industries for 1978–79 (consistent with table 3.2 of Cmnd. 7841 and table 3.2 of Cmnd. 9143) and 1989–90 plans (consistent with table 4.4 of Cmnd. 288) at cash prices and in real terms (base year 1988–89). Also included are the percentages of the industries' capital requirements financed internally for 1978–79. For reasons of commercial confidentiality the Government do not publish estimates of internal resources or external finance by industry for the later years in the public expenditure plans. But the current plans imply that, taken together, the industries' capital requirements for 1989–90 can be met entirely by internal resources.
  275

  1978–79 outturn (Cmnd. 7841)

  Percentage of capital requirements financed internally

  1989–90 plans (Cm. 288)

  Cash

  Real terms1 (base year 1988–89)

  Cash

  Real terms1 (base year 1988–89)

  British Waterways Board

  2

  4

  0·0

  9

  9

  Civil Aviation Authority (a)

  34

  33

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  715

  1,515

  100·0

  1,727

  1,669

  Girobank (b)

  14

  14

  London Regional Transport (c)

  348

  336

  National Bus Company

  54

  114

  0·0

  —

  —

  National Freight Company Ltd.

  36

  76

  9·4

  —

  —

  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board

  48

  102

  30·7

  82

  79

  Post Office (d)

  1,040

  2,204

  100·0

  165

  159

  Scottish Transport Group

  17

  36

  16·7

  17

  16

  South of Scotland Electricity Board

  53

  112

  100·0

  129

  125

  Water (England and Wales) (e)

  1,255

  1,213

  TOTAL

  3,980

  8,436

  54·7

  5,365

  5,184

  1 Real terms figures are the cash outturns or plans adjusted to 1988–89 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflators.

  Notes

  (a) Civil Aviation Authority was not a Nationalised Industry in 1978–792.

  (b) The figure for Girobank was included in that for Post Office for 1978–792.

  (c) London Regional Transport was not a Nationalised Industry in 1978–79.

  (d) The figure for Post Office included those for British Telecom and Girobank in 1978–792.

  (e) Water (England and Wales) was not a Nationalised Industry in 1978–792.

  2 Figures for 1978–79 were allocated retrospectively, and the details (from Table 3.2 in Cmnd. 9143-II) are as follows:

  1978–79 outturn (Cmnd 9143)

  Cash

  Real terms1

  Per cent.2

  £ million

  £ million

  British Telecom

  993

  2,105

  100·0

  Civil Aviation Authority

  23

  49

  0·0

  Giro Bank

  5

  11

  0·0

  Post Office

  43

  91

  100·0

  Water (England and Wales)

  555

  1,176

  43·3

  1 Base year 1988–89.

  2 Percentage of capital requirements financed internally.

SOCIAL. SERVICES

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the average increase in income of the poorest 5 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom since 1979; and what has been the average increase in income of the wealthiest 5 per cent.

  Mr. Portillo
  Estimates of real household income changes, adjusted for family size and composition, are only available for individuals expressed in 10 per cent. bands. Between 1979 and 1985 the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. of individuals in Great Britain (expressed net of tax and national insurance, after the receipt of any social security benefits and before payment of any housing costs) rose by an average of 6 per cent. in real terms. The real incomes of the top 10 per cent. rose by 18 per cent.

  Macclesfield Health Authority
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will tabulate the revenue cash limit figures of the Macclesfield health authority at 31 March in each year since 1979 and the projected cash limit for 1988–89.

  Mrs. Currie
  Determination of the cash limits for individual district health authorities is the responsibility of regional health authorities. Following is the information 276
  requested, together with figures of total revenue expenditure for the Macclesfield health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982. Prior to that date the authority's predecessor health district formed part of the Cheshire area health authority and district-based figures are not available.

  Financial Year

  Final Revenue Cash Limit1 £000

  Total Revenue Expenditure2 £000

  1982–83

  26,949

  26,664

  1983–84

  29,142

  28,799

  1984–85

  30,306

  30,594

  1985–86

  31,521

  32,327

  1986–87

  33,211

  333,617

  1987–88

  37,187

  —

  1988–89

  438,355

  —

  Sources

  1 Information provided by the Mersey regional health authority.

  2 Annual financial accounts submitted to the Department by the Macclesfield health authority.

  3 Latest available figure.

  4 Provisional figure.

  Notes

  1. Capital cash limits and capital expenditure is excluded.

  2. Cash drawings against revenue cash limit represent the main source of funds for health authorities in meeting their revenue expenditure but these drawings are supplemented by local income (not included in cash limits).

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners will receive transitional protection in respect of losses in excess of £2·50 a week arising from the new housing benefit scheme; and if he will estimate the average amount of the weekly additional transitional payment.

  Mr. Portillo
  We estimate that some 350,000 people ca n benefit from the transitional payments scheme. Approximately one half of these are pensioners. The data are not reliable enough for us to estimate the average payment for a particular client group.
  277
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of housing benefit claimants who are likely still to be losers after transitional protection payments are made.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on 14 June.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which categories of claimants whose housing benefit have been reduced or withdrawn will not benefit from the transitional arrangements; if he will list those so involved; and if he will give the total numbers involved.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: Payments will not be made to anyone who does not fall into one of the following groups:

  Families with children (including lone parents).

  Pensioners (over 60).

  The long term sick and disabled (that is those to whom the disability or severe disability premium applies in the housing benefit calculation).

  People in receipt of an industrial injuries benefit, a war disablement pension, a widow's pension or a war widow's pension.

  The scheme is not designed for claimants of income support at the beginning of April as they will have been receiving maximum housing benefit. No accurate estimate exists of the numbers not covered.

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of the resource management initiative.

  Mr. Newton
  Progress on the acute resource management projects has been encouraging and a new pilot site, south Lincolnshire, was announced in April. An evaluation report on the acute projects is scheduled for later this year. It is hoped that this will point the way to a phased extension to other districts from 1989.

  The community projects are second generation sites and are making good progress in advancing their project plans and building on the work undertaken at the two first generation sites.

  Social Workers
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what moneys are being made available for the training of social workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department's contribution to funding for social work training is about £20 million in this financial year. This sum includes £7 million to grant-aid the new £10 million training support programme for local authority social services staff working with elderly people, and about £11·6 million to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. The latter figure includes £7·6 million for direct student support and up to £1 million for improvements to present training arrangements.

  AIDS
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the efficacy 278
  of the treatment of AIDS patients by means of hyperoxygenating blood with ozone as carried out by Dr. Horst Keif and others in Munich.

  Mr. Newton
  I am aware that there have been some claims that hyperoxygenating blood with ozone might be beneficial in relation to AIDS. The Department has no direct knowledge of Dr. Keifs work, but I understand that the idea involved is known to the Medical Research Council.

  Meningitis
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue a circular on the notification of meningitis.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department's chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, wrote to all doctors in England about meningitis on 3 February, emphasising that it is a statutory requirement under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 for cases of meningitis to be notified to the proper officer, usually the medical officer for environmental health. A copy of the letter is in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987, he is empowered to direct that payments of income support related to accommodation charges be made to the organisation providing the accommodation in cases where such charges have been incurred but the claimant has moved on between the date of claim and the first pay day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Direct payment may be made to another person to protect the claimant's interests. This power is used in exceptional circumstances where, for example, there is clear evidence that the claimant is failing to maintain his family.

  The independent adjudicating authorities may also consider direct payment where the claimant has failed to budget for an accommodation charge. Direct payment may be made automatically to a hostel run by a voluntary organisation which provides facilities for alcoholics or drug addicts or which is akin to a resettlement unit.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of supplementary benefit claimants who had 19-year-old children in full-time education or training courses, for whom they were receiving additional dependants' benefit, who have since lost their entitlement because income support is available only for dependent children aged under 19 years; if he will estimate how much benefit they have lost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No family receiving supplementary benefit including an addition for a 19-year-old dependant lost benefit as a result of the change to income support, because transitional protection ensures that they suffer no loss of income.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of disabled and mentally handicapped/disturbed claimants who were previously paid direct by order book who have been
  279
  notified of the change to income support which now requires them to be available for, work or claim sickness benefit; how many have (a)subsequently made claims as available for work, (b)been disqualified as not capable of, or available for work and (c) claimed modified income support as referred to in Department of Employment circular 109/279, 17 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimates requested are not available. One of the basic conditions for receiving income support is that claimants must be available for work unless specifically exempted. Anyone who is incapable of work because of disease or mental or physical disability is exempt and should also claim the appropriate incapacity benefit.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether directions have been issued to his Department's local offices to ensure that women who have moved out of the matrimonial home because of a violent partner, and have sought refuge in a women's refuge, are not denied income support because they are owners or joint owners of the home they have fled.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes; and amending legislation came into force on 30 May.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of people claiming supplementary benefit from his Department's local offices in Kensington in 1979; and what is the current number of income support claimants from those offices.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: The total number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit on 15 May 1979 from the Department's office at Kensington was 9,1071. The total number of people in receipt of income support on 31 May 1988 at the same office was 8,454, although these figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

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

  1 This figure may, however, overstate the number of people receiving supplementary benefit. The footnote to the

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  Leicester L.A.

  Married couple with two children aged four and six

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  14·50

  21·44

  18·28

  8·46

  5·86

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  92·97

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  14·50

  21·44

  17·03

  8·46

  5·46

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  94·42

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  14·50

  21·44

  15·78

  8·46

  5·06

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  95·85

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  14·50

  21·44

  14·53

  8·46

  4·66

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  95·80

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  14·50

  21·44

  13·28

  8·46

  4·26

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  95·75

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  14·50

  21·44

  11·76

  8·46

  3·69

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  93·06

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  9·68

  8·46

  2·87

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  91·03

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  6·38

  8·46

  1·57

  5·86

  2·55

  0·00

  92·83

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  3·08

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  94·36

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  95·13

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  101·53

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  107·93

  280
  reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), on 31 March 1988, at columns 660–61, refers.

  Nottingham District Medical Staff Committee Report
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will obtain for his Department's library a copy of the Nottingham district medical staff committee's report entitled "The Financial Situation and its Impact on Clinical Services."

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the report is regarded by the health authority as being confidential to it and it is For the authority to decide whether it should be made publicly available.

  Spending Power
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish tables using the assumptions in his answer of 4 February,Official Report, columns 737 to 742 using expenditure and benefit figures appropriate for families in Leicester for which he h as sufficient data, and with an additional column showing the extent of the differences that will result from the changes in benefits in April.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is set out in the tables. It should be noted that the results are essentially hypothetical. They compare the post-reform position in April 1988, not with the actual pre-reform cash situation but with a hypothetical position which they might have been in had the previous structure continued and been uprated on the assumptions in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" (October 1987).

  Secondly" the comparisons are based on average local authority housing charges in Leicester, but do not reflect the wide variety of rents and domestic rates that people actually pay.

  Finally, the comparisons do not take account of the transitional cash protection arrangements announced on 27 April.
  281

  New benefit system from April 1988

  Leicester L.A.

  Married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  14·50

  21·44

  6·68

  8·46

  0·96

  5·85

  83·71

  -9·26

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  14·50

  21·44

  5·10

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  83·60

  -10·82

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  14·50

  21·44

  3·52

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  84·44

  -11·41

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  14·50

  21·44

  2·23

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  85·13

  10·67

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  14·50

  21·44

  0·95

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  85·83

  -9·92

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  86·20

  -6·86

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  88·12

  -2·91

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  7·71

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  90·04

  -2·79

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  3·23

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  91·96

  -2·40

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  95·13

  0·00

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  101·53

  0·00

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  107·93

  0·00

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rales April 1988

  Leicester L.A.

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  32·90

  21·75

  21·44

  19·31

  8·46

  6·19

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  108·33

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  30·50

  21·75

  21·44

  17·41

  8·46

  5·58

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  111·52

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  25·50

  21·75

  21·44

  16·16

  8·46

  5·18

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  112·95

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  20·50

  21·75

  21·44

  14·91

  8·46

  4·78

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  112·90

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  15·50

  21·75

  21·44

  13·66

  8·46

  4·38

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  112·85

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  10·50

  21·75

  21·44

  12·27

  8·46

  3·89

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  110·37

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  5·50

  21·75

  21·44

  10·62

  8·46

  3·24

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  109·47

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·50

  21·75

  21·44

  8·97

  8·46

  2·59

  5·85

  5·10

  1·83

  108·57

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  21·75

  21·44

  5·84

  8·46

  1·36

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  108·28

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  21·75

  21·44

  2·54

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  110·02

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  113·88

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  115·18

  New benefit system from April 1988

  Leicester L.A.

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  51·72

  21·75

  21·44

  5·02

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  99·74

  -8·59

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  46·05

  21·75

  21·44

  3·44

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  100·59

  ·10·93

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  40·39

  21·75

  21·44

  1·86

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  101·43

  -11·52

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  35·77

  21·75

  21·44

  0·58

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  102·13

  -10·77

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  31·15

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  103·53

  -9·32

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  28·07

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  104·85

  -5·52

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  23·59

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  106·77

  -2·70

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  19·11

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  108·69

  -0·12

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  14·63

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  110·61

  +2·33

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  10·15

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  112·53

  +2·51

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  5·67

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  114·45

  +0·57

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  1·19

  21·75

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  116·37

  +1·19

  Old benefit system at hypothetical rates April 1988

  Leicester L.A.

  Single Person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  28·70

  19·40

  21·44

  17·05

  8·46

  5·47

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  96·25

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  23·70

  19·40

  21·44

  15·80

  8·46

  5·07

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  97·70

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  18·70

  19·40

  21·44

  14·55

  8·46

  4·67

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·13

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  13·70

  19·40

  21·44

  13·30

  8·46

  4·27

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  99·08

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  8·70

  19·40

  21·44

  11·79

  8·46

  3·71

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  98·61

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  3·70

  19·40

  21·44

  10·14

  8·46

  3·06

  5·85

  2·55

  1·83

  95·71

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  19·40

  21·44

  8·06

  8·46

  2·24

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  93·68

  282 283

  New benefit system from April 1988

  Leicester L.A.

  Single person with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  Difference between systems

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  40·32

  19·40

  21·44

  0·60

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  81·57

  -14·68

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  34·65

  19·40

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  83·40

  -14·30

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·99

  19·40

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  85·82

  -13·31

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  24·37

  19·40

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  87·80

  -11·28

  100·00

  6·62

  7·00

  19·75

  19·40

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  89·78

  -8·83

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  16·67

  19·40

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  91·10

  -4·61

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  12·19

  19·40

  21·44

  0·00

  8·46

  0·00

  5·85

  93·02

  -0·66

  Old tax and benefit system—assuming average local authority rent and rates for Leicester and a simple rescaling of April 1987 benefits to April 1988.

  Lone mother with 2 children aged 4 and 6.

  a. Not working-after one year on benefit

  b. Working part-lime earning £20

  c. Working part-time earning £40

  Supplementary Benefit

  45·93

  30·89

  14·35

  Earnings

  —

  20·00

  40·00

  Tax

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  Nat. insurance

  —

  0·00

  2·00

  Fares to work

  —

  2·92

  2·92

  Rent

  21·44

  21·44

  21·44

  Rates

  8·46

  8·46

  8·46

  Housing benefit

  28·32

  28·32

  28·32

  CHB

  19·40

  19·40

  19·40

  FSM

  2·55

  2·55

  2·55

  FWM

  1·83

  1·83

  1·83

  Net weekly spending power

  68·13

  70·17

  71·63

  (a) Not working after one year on benefit

  Benefit system from April 1988

  Assumptions as in "Impact of reformed structure of income related benefits" October 1987

  Average rent and rates for Leicester local authority Lone mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  £

  Income support

  45·35

  Rent

  21·44

  Rates

  8·46

  Housing benefit

  26·94

  CHB

  19·40

  FSM

  2·55

  FWM

  1·83

  Net weekly spending power

  66·17

  Difference between systems

  -1·96

  b. Working part time—earning £20

  c. Working part lime—earning £40

  Income Support

  40·35

  20·35

  Earnings

  20·00

  40·00

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  NI

  0·00

  0·00

  Fares to work

  2·92

  2·92

  Rent

  21·44

  21·44

  Rates

  8·46

  4·86

  Housing Benefit

  26·94

  26·94

  CHB

  19·40

  19·40

  FSM

  2·55

  2·55

  FWM

  1·83

  1·83

  Net weekly spending power

  78·25

  78·25

  Difference between systems

  +8·08

  +8·08

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how far(a) the fall in the numbers of persons living below supplementary benefit level and below 40 per cent. of supplementary benefit level and (b) the rise in the number of persons living on supplementary benefit is accounted for by changes in the real value of supplementary benefit scale rate between 1983 and 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  Changes in the real value of the scale rates between these dates were insufficient to allow reliable estimates to be made, but any effect would be minor.

  Sheepdips
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many complaints have been received by his Department about allergic reactions caused by the use of sheepdips containing organophosphorus pesticide in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  ; We received one complaint in 1987 involving two people. None was received in the previous four years.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to investigate the possible link between allergic reactions and the use of sheepdips containing organophosphorus pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Organophosphorus sheepdips are subject to the licensing requirements of the Medicines Act 1968. A licence is issued only after the licensing authority is satisfied as to the safety, efficacy and quality of the product concerned. Safety includes the safety of operators handling the product. In licensing veterinary medicines, the licensing authority is advised by the veterinary products committee, a statutory body of independent experts in human and animal health.

  All organophosphorus sheepdips contain warnings on the labels and accompanying literature to ensure that operators are aware of the dangers and take appropriate precautions.

  Suspect adverse reactions to organophosphorus sheepdips should be reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the Health and Safety Executive. All such reports are investigated.

  As with many other types of chemical compounds, there are some people who are allergic to organophosphorus compounds. Anyone who is known to be allergic to organophosphorus sheepdips is advised to use alternative licensed products.

  Leicester Night Shelter
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the decision by staff of his Department's Leicester offices to discontinue their practice of visiting the Leicester night shelter to take fresh claims; what reason has been given for this decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A number of representations have been received about this decision, which took effect in October 1987.

  The decision to discontinue the visits—a system which worked soley on the voluntary co-operation of local office staff was taken as a result of a physical assault on a member of staff outside the night shelter.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action is being taken to reduce the delays in assessing family credit.

  Mr. Portillo
  Clearance rates should improve as staff become more proficient and as more experienced staff are released from work on family income supplement now that the latter has come to an end. In the meantime, overtime is being worked and casual staff are being taken on to allow more of the permanent staff to concentrate on assessment work. In addition, further computer enhancements are due to come into effect shortly, which should improve administration, and consideration is being given to procedural changes which could speed up the action on cases which are most at risk of difficulties arising out of delays.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many times he has exercised his discretion under the Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations, part 11, paragraph 2(i); and how many times this was in respect of family credit.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not available about the making of interim payments of benefits generally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, the discretion to make an interim payment on account of family credit has not been exercised.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health authorities have suspended or diminished cervical cancer screening tests during the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  By April of this year all district health authorities in England had implemented computerised call and recall systems for cervical cancer screening. Health authorities are not required to report temporary suspension or reduction of the screening programme to the Department. However, we know that a small number of DHAs have taken action of this kind when problems have arisen in their laboratories. Those of which we are aware are:

  Winchester DHA and Basingstoke DHA—routine call and recall suspended because of shortage of laboratory staff in Winchester. Every effort is being made to find a laboratory to examine smears on a temporary basis until more staff can be recruited. Basingstoke expects to restore full service shortly.
  286

  Bassetlaw DHA—reduced rate of call at present to allow clearance of laboratory backlog.

  East Dorset DHA—suspended call and recall during April but now restarted.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was paid in single payments to social security applicants in Tameside in the last complete financial year; and how much has been allocated under the social fund for the current year.

  Mr. Portillo
  The metropolitan borough of Tameside is served by the Department's local offices at Ashton, Hyde and Openshaw. The boundaries of the areas covered by these offices are not conterminous with those of the borough. The amount paid in single payments of supplementary benefit in the year 10 April 1987 to 8 April 1988 is shown in the table. The figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  £

  Ashton

  385,725

  Hyde

  562,320

  Openshaw

  582,242

  Total

  1,530,287

  Information on the social fund allocations to local offices for 1988–89 was contained in the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 November 1987, at columns 774–81.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the backlog in single payment claims, made before 11 April, at his Department's offices in(a) Coventry and (b) nationally; and what instruction he has issued to managers as to the time limits for clearing the backlog.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has two local offices in Coventry, Coventry, east and west. On 31 May there were 5,125 cases awaiting action on single payment requests in Coventry, east office and 2,124 cases at Coventry, west. On 29 April the national total was 349,827 cases. These figures are provisional and subject to amendment. All claims are examined on receipt and priority was given to urgent cases.

  No national instructions on clearance times have been issued. Every local office manager is, however, aware of the importance of clearing the arrears as a matter of urgency, and in many offices the task has already been completed. In both Coventry, east and west additional manpower resources are being used to clear the backlog as quickly as possible.

  Additional Payments
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current backlog of claims for additional payments at each of the offices of his Department in the metropolitan borough of Tameside; what is the estimated time needed to clear them, given the present staffing levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The metropolitan borough of Tameside is served by the Department's local offices at Ashton, Hyde
  287
  and Openshaw. The boundaries of the areas covered by these offices are not conterminous with those of the borough. On 13 June there were no cases at Ashton or Openshaw awaiting action on claims for single payments of supplementary benefit. At Hyde there were fewer than 10 cases. These will be cleared as soon as the claimants concerned provide further information to allow their claims to be determined.

  Research Trials
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans for the central registration of research trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans for the central registration of research trials.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration his Department has given to the publication, funded by the Greater London Association for Disabled People, entitled "How Do We Get To Hospital"; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The publication has only just been received by the Department. We have not yet had time to consider it.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current waiting list of visits by occupational therapists to disabled persons in the county of Leicestershire.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may care to write to the chairman of Leicestershire health authority for the information he seeks.

  Royal Homoeopathic Hospitals
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will list the date or dates of visits made by Ministers in his Department to any of the royal homoeopathic hospitals since June 1979; and what further visits are planned.

  Mrs. Currie
  There is only one royal homoeopathic hospital, the Royal London homoeopathic hospital, which is at Great Ormond street, WC1. No ministerial visits have been made since June 1979 and none is planned.

  Benefits
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the position of patients in community care living in village community schemes established in hospital grounds under the current legislation for income support payments and other benefit payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  A patient's entitlement to income support and other benefit payments will depend on individual circumstances. These include whether the person has been discharged from hospital, or is still an in-patient, whether he is in paid employment and whether he has any other resources.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a table
  288
  showing the number of persons in low-income families in Wales (i) on supplementary benefit, (ii) below 100 per cent. of supplementary benefit and (iii) below 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit, for each of the years 1979. 1981, 1983 and 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 27 May 1988 at columns 413–14.

  Leicestershire Health District (Cleaners)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cleaners were employed by the Leicestershire health district in (i) 1980, (ii) 1984, (iii) 1987 and (iv) the present day.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest available figures to this level of detail are for 1986. The information is given in the following table.

  Cleaners12—ancillary staff in post in Leicestershire district health authority

  At 30 September

  Whole time equivalents3

  41980

  1,050

  1984

  980

  1986

  720

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes mechanical scrubbing machine operators and cleaner-domestic assistants. Excludes domestic supervisors and window cleaners.

  2 Part of the reduction since 1984 may be attributable to the effects of competitive tendering.

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

  4 Figures related to Leicestershire area health authority.

  Foetal Tissue (Committee of Inquiry)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 7 June,Official Report, column 557, what account was taken in his selection of candidates for membership of the committee of inquiry into the use of foetal tissue for transplant surgery of their publicised views on abortion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The members of the committee to review the report of the advisory group on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research were selected because of their expertise in their respective fields, which are relevant to the issues involved.

  "Doctors and their Careers"
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether organisations representing women as consumers of the National Health Service, appropriate trade unions, and the Equal Opportunities Commission will be attending the two seminars which he is holding to discuss the Policy Studies Institute report, "Doctors and their Careers".

  Mr. Newton
  Those invited include representatives of the royal colleges and faculties, health authorities, the British Medical Association, medical schools and universities, women doctors' groups, and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Departmental Premises (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what property in Easby road, Bradford his Department has purchased recently; what was the purchase price; and for what purpose the property was bought.

  Mrs. Currie
  Neither this Department nor the Property Services Agency which acts on behalf of Government Departments in this regard, has purchased any property recently in Easby road. I understand, however, that 48 Ash grove, Bradford, which stands on the corner of Ash grove and Easby road and is owned by Bradford metropolitan district council is about to be leased to Bradford health authority for use as a mental health resource centre. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Bradford health authority for any further details he may be seeking.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to change current arrangements for patient referrals to the dental reference service at the request of general dental practitioners.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no such plans. However, as mentioned in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health", we are consulting about the possible introduction of dental practice advisers in some family practitioner committees. It is expected that examination of patients at the request of their dentists would be one of the functions undertaken by dental practice advisers. Decisions about the introduction of dental practice advisers will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases have been referred to family practitioner committees for possible service committee proceedings by the Dental Estimates Board in each of the last 10 years in respect of treatment carried out and treatment proposed.

  Mrs. Currie
  The number of cases taken up with family practitioner committees in England and Wales by the Dental Estimates Board as recorded in the board's annual reports, is set out in the table. Information about the numbers which concerned proposed or completed treatment is not available.

  Year

  Number of treatments

  1977

  55

  1978

  77

  1979

  30

  1980

  139

  1981

  259

  1982

  176

  1983

  491

  1984

  384

  1985

  186

  19862

  421

  1986–87

  2141

  1 The period of the board's annual report was changed from calendar to financial year, beginning in 1986–87.

  2 January to March.

  Clinical Thermometers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the 290
  European Economic Community proposals for the harmonisation of standards on clinical thermometers; which problems the directive is designed to overcome; and what assessment he has made of the benefits which will accrue from this to the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  Directive 76/764/EEC relates to clinical mercury-in-glass maximum reading thermometers designed to measure the internal temperature of humans or animals. The directive describes instruments eligible to bear the EEC mark and thus assist the removal of a hindrance to trade. An amending directive is designed to ensure that such instruments which bear the EEC mark and sign to indicate conformity with pattern approval and initial verification do so conform. No assessment of the benefits to the United Kingdom has been made, but it is expected that British manufacturers will find it easier to sell their products to EC member states. Regulations will be laid to give effect to the requirements of the directives.

  Publicity Budget
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 725, he will itemise the £14 million social security publicity budget.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's planned spending for 1988–89 on publicising social security is as follows:

  £ million

  Press and television advertising:

  Pensions, Housing benefit, Family credit

  5·00

  Literature:

  Leaflets and posters

  8·70

  Services:

  Regional information services, radio and television fillers, Prestel etc.

  0·30

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the guidance given by his Department to local authority social service departments about the standards relating to the size of rooms and staffing arrangements which they should require from private residential homes under the Registered Homes Act 1984; and how he intends that those standards should relate to those obtaining in the local authority's own homes.

  Mrs. Currie
  Private residential homes have to comply with the requirements of the Residential Care Home Regulations 1984. These regulations require suitable and sufficient accommodation and staffing but do not lay down room sizes or staffing levels. The regulations are complemented by "Home Life: a Code of Practice for Residential Care", published by the Centre for Policy on Aging in 1984, a copy of which is in the Library. "Home Life" gives guidance on staffing levels. Local Authority Building Note No. 2, "Residential Accommodation for Elderly People" gives guidance on room sizes. Circular LAC(86)1 explained to registration authorities how this note should be applied to private and voluntary homes (copies of both are also in the Library). In circular LAC(86)6 we advised registration authorities not to expect higher standards in private and voluntary homes than those achieved in their own homes.

  Babies (Deaths)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the numbers and rates for stillbirths,

  Numbers and rates for stillbirths, infant, perinatal, early neonatal, late neonatal deaths in England and Wales 1985–87

  Year

  England

  Wales

  England and Wales

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Stillbirths1

  1985

  3,426

  5·50

  214

  5·79

  3,645

  5·52

  1986

  3,337

  5·32

  209

  5·61

  3,549

  5·34

  19876

  3,224

  4·99

  196

  5·16

  3,423

  5·00

  1985–876

  9,987

  5·27

  619

  5·51

  10,617

  5·28

  Perinatal mortality1

  1985

  6,100

  9·80

  378

  10·22

  6,498

  9·84

  1986

  5,977

  9·53

  384

  10·31

  6,372

  9·59

  19876

  5,742

  8·88

  351

  9·23

  6,107

  8·92

  1985–876

  17,819

  9·40

  1,113

  9·92

  18,977

  9·44

  Infant mortality3

  1985

  5,716

  9·23

  362

  9·84

  6,141

  9·36

  1986

  5,917

  9·49

  352

  9·50

  6,313

  9·55

  19876

  5,845

  9·09

  359

  9·49

  6,272

  9·20

  1985–876

  17,478

  9·27

  1,073

  9·61

  18,726

  9·37

  Early neonatal mortality4

  1985

  2,674

  4·32

  164

  4·46

  2,853

  4·35

  1986

  2,640

  4·23

  175

  4·72

  2,823

  4·27

  19876

  2,518

  3·91

  155

  4·10

  2,684

  3·94

  1985–876

  7,832

  4·15

  494

  4·43

  8,360

  4·18

  Late neonatal mortality5

  1985

  621

  1·00

  51

  1·39

  678

  1·03

  1986

  630

  1·01

  32

  0·86

  666

  1·01

  19876

  722

  1·12

  35

  0·93

  764

  1·12

  1985–876

  1,973

  1·05

  118

  1·06

  2,108

  1·05

  1Stillbirths: Late fetal deaths after 28 weeks of gestation.

  2Perinatal deaths: Stillbirths plus 0·6 days of life.

  3Infant mortality: Deaths at ages under one year.

  4Early neonatal deaths: At ages 0·6 days of life.

  5Late neonatal deaths: Deaths at ages 7·28 days of life.

  1, 2 Rates per thousand live and still births.

  3, 4, 5Rates per thousand live births.

  6Provisional.

  England: Deaths registered in England and Wales to usual residents of England.

  Wales: Deaths registered in England and Wales to usual residents of Wales.

  England and Wales: Deaths registered in England and Wales (includes residents for outside England and Wales).

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department provides the United Kingdom civilian medical member of the NATO joint civil military medical group. The other United Kingdom member is a military doctor representing the Ministry of Defence.

  The group, which meets twice a year, advises and reports to the NATO civil defence committee on matters involving joint civil/military planning and co-operation in peace and war and conducts a number of relevant studies. Members maintain liaison outside the formal meetings by acting as national points of postal contact.

  The Department also takes an appropriate advisory and playing part in NATO exercises from time to time.
  292
  infant, perinatal, early neonatal and late neonatal deaths in England and Wales, jointly and separately for the years 1985 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are no terms of reference specific to this Department for work on civil emergencies and home defence planning. However, in concert with other Government Departments, we are committed to planning for peacetime emergencies and the effects of warfare, whether conventional or nuclear; plans for these are kept under constant review.

  In this Department 5·5 whole-time equivalent staff are engaged in the work of civil and home defence planning.

  Departmental costs for the last three years are as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  1·36 outturn

  1986–87

  1·12 outturn

  1987–88

  1·64 estimate

  293
  These costs are attributable largely to storage of medical supplies and equipment. In addition, approximately £200,000 per annum is spent on staff costs.

  The Department issues specific guidance to the National Health Service on several aspects of emergency planning. We expect shortly to issue a new circular on civil defence planning in the NHS which also includes revised guidance in response to nuclear accidents.

  Health Care
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of gross domestic product each member of the European Community devoted to health care in 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  International comparisons of expenditure on health care are not available for 1987. Comparative data for 1985, the latest year for which comprehensive data are available from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, are as follows:

  Expenditure on Health Care as a Percentage of GDP, 1985

  Country

  Public

  Private

  Total

  Belgium

  5·5

  1·7

  7·2

  France

  6·7

  1·7

  8·4

  Denmark

  5·2

  1·0

  6·2

  Germany

  6·4

  1·8

  8·2

  Greece

  4·1

  0·1

  4·2

  Ireland

  6·9

  1·6

  8·0

  Italy

  5·4

  1·3

  6·7

  Netherlands

  6·5

  1·8

  8·3

  Portugal

  4·1

  1·6

  5·7

  Spain

  4·3

  1·7

  6·0

  United Kingdom

  5·2

  0·8

  6·0

  Source: OECD.

  Note: Luxemburg is excluded from the table because of inconsistencies in the national health accounts.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all hospitals where he has been notified of(a) total closure and (b) partial closure in the areas covered by the following health authorities: North West Thames, South West Thames, North East Thames, South East Thames, Basingstoke, Winchester, Portsmouth, Southampton, Isle of Wight, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury, Wycombe, East Berkshire, West Berkshire and Oxfordshire.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is important to note that closures may be offset or balanced by openings or reprovision elsewhere. The hospitals or units approved for total or partial closure from 1979 to end 1986 in the specified regional and district health authorities are in the table.

  The following districts have not approved any closures in the period:—

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  Milton Keynes

  Wycombe

  North West Thames

  Hospital

  District

  Type

  Year

  Soho Hospital for Women

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  pc

  1979

  St. Mary's Harrow Road

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  pc

  1979

  St. Charles

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  pc

  1979

  294

  Hospital

  District

  Type

  Year

  St. Helena's Recovery Home

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  tc

  1979

  Paddington Green Childrens

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  tc

  1979

  St. Elizabeth's

  Barnet

  tc

  1979

  Orme Lodge

  Barnet

  tc

  1979

  Stanmore Cottage

  Barnet

  tc

  1979

  West Middlesex

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  pc

  1980

  Luton and Dunstable childrens annexe

  Bedfordshire

  tc

  1980

  Tolmers Park

  Hertfordshire

  tc

  1980

  St. Columba's

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  tc

  1980

  St. Mary's Harrow Road renal unit

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  pc

  1981

  Gordon

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  pc

  1981

  West Middlesex

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  pc

  1981

  Daneswood Convalescent Home

  Bedfordshire

  tc

  1981

  Temple Hill

  Ealing Hamersmith & Hounslow

  tc

  1981

  Harpenden Memorial

  North West Hertfordshire

  pc

  1982

  Highlands

  Enfield

  pc

  1982

  Shenley

  Brent and Harrow

  pc

  1982

  Banstead

  Victoria

  pc

  1983

  Park

  North Bedfordshire

  pc

  1983

  Leamington Park

  Brent

  tc

  1983

  West Hendon

  Barnet

  tc

  1983

  North Hertfordshire Maternity

  North Hertfordshire

  tc

  1983

  All Saints

  Victoria

  tc

  1983

  Clapham

  North Bedfordshire

  pc

  1984

  Hertford County

  East Hertfordshire

  pc

  1984

  Banstead

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  pc

  1984

  Charing Cross

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  pc

  1984

  West London

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  pc

  1984

  St. Stephens

  Victoria

  pc

  1984

  Westminster

  Victoria

  pc

  1984

  Central Middlesex

  Brent

  pc

  1984

  295

  Hospital

  District

  Type

  Year

  West Middlesex

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  pc

  1984

  Ashford

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  pc

  1984

  Chepstow Lodge

  Paddington and North Kensington

  tc

  1984

  Hereford Lodge

  Paddington and North Kensington

  tc

  1984

  St. John's

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  tc

  1984

  St. John's

  Hillingdon

  tc

  1984

  Houndswood annexe at Harperbury

  North West Hertfordshire

  tc

  1984

  Ealing St. Bernard's wing

  Ealing

  pc

  1985

  Harpenden Memorial

  North West Hertfordshire

  pc

  1985

  Harrow

  Harrow

  pc

  1985

  St. Charles

  Paddington and North Kensington

  pc

  1985

  Westminster

  Victoria

  pc

  1985

  Park

  North Bedfordshire

  tc

  1985

  Priory

  South Bedfordshire

  tc

  1985

  St. Stephen's surgical ward

  Riverside

  pc

  1986

  Charing Cross

  Riverside

  pc

  1986

  Tenterden House

  North West Hertfordshire

  tc

  1986

  Hendon district

  Barnet

  tc

  1986

  St. Mary's Harrow Road

  Paddington and North Kensington

  tc

  1986

  Banstead

  Riverside

  tc

  1986

  North East Thames

  St. Margaret's

  Essex

  pc

  1981

  Whipps Cross

  Waltham Forest

  pc

  1983

  Highlands

  Enfield

  pc

  1984

  North Middlesex

  Haringey

  pc

  1985

  Orsett

  Basildon and Thurrock

  pc

  1986

  Garret Anderson

  Camden and Islington

  tc

  1979

  Thomas Barlow

  Camden and Islington

  tc

  1980

  Cromwell Lodge

  Camden and Islington

  tc

  1980

  London Jewish

  City and East London

  tc

  1980

  Bearstead Memorial

  Enfield and Haringey

  tc

  1980

  Waltham Abbey War Memorial

  Essex

  tc

  1981

  St. Faith's

  Barking and Haringey

  tc

  1981

  296

  Hospital

  District

  Type

  Year

  Aldersbrook

  City and East London

  tc

  1981

  Queen Mary's Newham

  City and East London

  tc

  1981

  St. Mary's Newham

  City and East London

  tc

  1981

  City of London maternity

  Camden and Islington

  tc

  1982

  Whittington Home

  Camden and Islington

  tc

  1982

  Enfield War Memorial

  Enfield

  tc

  1982

  Royal National Orthopaedic Great Portland street

  Bloomsbury

  tc

  1983

  Prince of Wales

  Haringey

  tc

  1983

  Clacton Maternity

  North East Essex

  tc

  1983

  Essex Hall

  North East Essex

  tc

  1983

  The Mothers

  City and Hackney

  tc

  1984

  The German

  City and Hackney

  tc

  1984

  St. Matthews

  City and Hackney

  tc

  1984

  Mildmay Mission

  Tower Flamlets

  tc

  1984

  Harts

  Waltham Forest

  tc

  1984

  Lugano nursing home

  Waltham Forest

  tc

  1984

  Royal Throat Nose and Ear

  Bloomsbury

  tc

  1985

  Brunswick House

  North East Essex

  tc

  1986

  Dagenham Hospital

  Redbridge

  tc

  1986

  Bethnal Green

  Tower Hamlets

  tc

  1986

  South East Thames

  Queen Mary's

  Greenwich and Bexley

  pc

  1981

  Joyce Green

  Dartford and Gravesham

  pc

  1982

  South Western

  West Lambeth

  pc

  1982

  Preston Hall

  Maidstone

  pc

  1983

  Sevenoaks Hospital

  Tunbridge Wells

  pc

  1986

  Lewisham unit children

  Lewisham

  pc

  1986

  Beckenham Hospital

  Bromley

  pc

  1986

  Holmhurst

  West Lambeth

  tc

  1979

  Bexhill convalescent home

  Hastings

  tc

  1980

  Mansell House

  Tunbridge Wells

  tc

  1982

  Newhaven Valley

  Brighton

  tc

  1983

  St. Giles'

  Camberwell

  tc

  1983

  St. John's

  Lewisham and Southwark

  tc

  1983

  Hawkenbury

  Tunbridge Wells

  tc

  1983

  Dreadnought Seamans

  Greenwich

  tc

  1985

  297

  Hospital

  District

  Type

  Year

  Sussex Throat and Ear

  Brighton

  tc

  1985

  New Cross Hospital

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  tc

  1986

  Lennard

  Bromley

  tc

  1986

  Beckenham

  Bromley

  tc

  1986

  St. Nicholas

  Greenwich

  tc

  1986

  South West Thames

  Haslemere

  South West Surrey

  tc

  1985

  Horsham

  Mid Downs

  pc

  1985

  Farnham

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  pc

  1985

  St. James' Hospital

  Wandsworth

  DC

  1986

  Schiff

  Mid Surrey

  tc

  1979

  St. George's Hyde Park Corner

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  tc

  1979

  Caterham main

  East Surrey

  tc

  1980

  Clerks croft

  East Surrey

  tc

  1980

  East Surrey

  East Surrey

  tc

  1980

  Horley

  East Surrey

  tc

  1980

  Smallfield

  East Surrey

  tc

  1980

  Cuddington

  Mid Surrey

  tc

  1980

  Queen Elizabeth House

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  tc

  1980

  St. Benedict's

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  tc

  1980

  Wimbledon

  Merton and Sutton

  tc

  1981

  Waddon

  Croydon

  tc

  1983

  South London Hospital for Women

  Wandsworth

  tc

  1983

  Cheam

  Merton and Sutton

  tc

  1984

  Murray House Ottershaw

  North West Surrey

  tc

  1984

  Bletchingley

  East Surrey

  tc

  1984

  Roffey Park

  Mid Downs

  tc

  1984

  Rowley Bristow

  North West Surrey

  tc

  1985

  Westmoor House

  Richmond Twickenham and Roehampton

  tc

  1985

  Queens

  Croydon

  tc

  1986

  St. Mary's

  Croydon

  tc

  1986

  District Health Authorities

  Winchfield

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  tc

  1981

  Tichbourne Down House

  Winchester

  tc

  1984

  Victoria

  Winchester

  tc

  1986

  298

  Hospital

  District

  Type

  Year

  St. John's Hospital

  Winchester

  tc

  1986

  King George's

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  tc

  1981

  Sandy Point

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  tc

  1983

  King George's

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  tc

  1986

  Longford

  Isle of Wight

  tc

  1985

  Tindal ward 3

  Aylesbury Vale

  pc

  1985

  Canadian Red Cross memorial

  Berkshire

  pc

  1979

  Peppard

  Berkshire

  tc

  1979

  Canadian Red Cross memorial

  Berkshire

  pc

  1981

  King Edward VII Windsor

  East Berkshire

  tc

  1982

  Farnham Park rehabilitation centre

  East Berkshire

  tc

  1983

  Henley War Memorial

  West Berkshire

  tc

  1983

  Canadian Red Cross Memorial

  East Berkshire

  tc

  1984

  Slade

  Oxfordshire

  pc

  1979

  Cowley Road

  Oxfordshire

  pc

  1979

  Cowley Road

  Oxfordshire

  tc

  1979

  Longworth

  Oxfordshire

  PC

  1981

  St. Mary's

  Oxfordshire

  tc

  1981

  Neithrop and Pines

  Oxfordshire

  tc

  1983

  Longworth

  Oxfordshire

  tc

  1984

  General Practice Finance Corporation
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how it is proposed to meet the expenses incurred in connection with the reconstitution of the General Practice Finance Corporation.

  Mr. Newton
  Parliamentary approval for this expenditure has been sought in the Supply Estimate for the Family Practitioner and Other Services, England, Vote (class XIV, vote 2) presented to Parliament on 15 March 1988. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure, estimated at £100,000, will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Medical Secretaries
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the annual average salary of a qualified medical secretary;

  (2) if he will give, for each regional health authority, district health authority and special health authority (a) the number of funded establishments for qualified medical secretaries and (b) the number of qualified medical secretaries in post;
  299
  (3) if he will give the average annual salary of a trained medical secretary.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answers 6 May 1988 and 9 May 1988]Medical secretaries are employed in the NHS on various grades with basic pay scales ranging from £4,733 to £8,990 per annum for an adult according to their individual responsibilities. In addition, allowances up to £635 per annum may be payable for tested proficiency in typing, shorthand and audio skills. London weighting allowances of £1,201 per annum within the inner zone and £718 per annum in the outer zone are also payable as appropriate.

  Payroll information identifying medical secretaries is not centrally available for all parts of the NHS. Based on information from eight regions and six special health authorities in the period April to December 1987, the average gross salary was estimated to be £6,620 per annum inclusive of proficiency allowances but excluding London weighting. There is no central classification or payroll identification of a trained or qualified medical secretary.

  The table shows the number of medical secretaries in post in each regional, district and post-graduate special health authority at September 1986. Figures for funded establishments are not held centrally.

  National Health Service Medical Secretaries at September 1986

  Regional Health Authority and District Health Authority

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Northern

  0

  Hartlepool

  13

  North Tees

  41

  South Tees

  75

  East Cumbria

  45

  South Cumbria

  31

  West Cumbria

  25

  Darlington

  30

  Durham

  35

  North West Durham

  5

  South West Durham

  22

  Northumberland

  42

  Gateshead

  36

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (T)

  126

  North Tyneside

  32

  South Tyneside

  27

  Sunderland

  12

  RHA Total

  596

  Yorkshire

  0

  Hull

  33

  East Yorkshire

  28

  Grimsby

  38

  Scunthorpe

  45

  Northallerton

  13

  York

  35

  Scarborough

  21

  Harrogate

  25

  Bradford

  68

  Airedale

  38

  Calderdale

  26

  Huddersfield

  30

  Dewsbury

  31

  Leeds Western (T)

  87

  Leeds Eastern (T)

  91

  Wakefield

  44

  Pontefract

  25

  RHA Total

  678

  Trent

  North Derbyshire

  35

  South Derbyshire

  59

  Leicestershire (T)

  108

  300

  Regional Health Authority and District Health Authority amd district Health Authority

  Whole-time equivalent1

  North Lincolnshire

  68

  South Lincolnshire

  58

  Bassetlaw

  16

  Central Nottinghamshire

  44

  Nottingham (T)

  174

  Barnsley

  31

  Doncaster

  62

  Rotherham

  40

  Sheffield (T)

  148

  RHA Total

  841

  East Anglian

  Cambridge (T)

  59

  Peterborough

  46

  West Suffolk

  31

  East Suffolk

  62

  Norwich

  84

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  38

  West Norfolk and

  36

  Wisbech

  Huntingdon

  20

  RHA Total

  377

  North West Thames

  North Bedfordshire

  38

  South Bedfordshire

  37

  North Hertfordshire

  25

  East Hertfordshire

  17

  North West Hertfordshire

  36

  South West Hertfordshire

  30

  Barnet

  48

  Harrow

  33

  Hillingdon

  65

  Hounslow & Spelthorne

  46

  Ealing

  31

  Brent

  30

  Paddington & North

  26

  Kensington (T)

  Riverside

  116

  RHA Total

  576

  North East Thames

  Basildon & Thurrock

  31

  Mid Essex

  30

  North East Essex

  63

  West Essex

  1

  Southend

  37

  Barking/Havering/Brent-wood

  76

  Hampstead (T)

  49

  Bloomsbury (T)

  94

  Islington

  31

  City & Hackney (T)

  58

  Newham

  20

  Tower Hamlets (T)

  83

  Enfield

  30

  Haringey

  41

  Redbridge

  25

  Waltham Forest

  39

  RHA Total

  708

  South East Thames

  0

  Brighton

  40

  Eastbourne

  21

  Hastings

  14

  South East Kent

  46

  Canterbury and Thanet

  68

  Dartford and Gravesham

  40

  Maidstone

  25

  Medway

  52

  Tunbridge Wells

  56

  301

  Regional Health Authority and District Health Authority and District Health Authority

  Whole-lime equivalent1

  Bexley

  2

  Greenwich

  27

  Bromley

  60

  West Lambeth (T)

  46

  Camberwell (T)

  40

  Lewisham and North

  71

  Southwark (T)

  RHA Total

  607

  South West Thames

  0

  North West Surrey

  43

  West Surrey and North

  36

  East Hants

  South West Surrey

  30

  Mid-Surrey

  32

  East Surrey

  32

  Chichester

  30

  Mid-downs

  49

  Worthing

  41

  Croydon

  38

  Kingston and Esher

  32

  Richmond, Twickenham

  33

  and Roehampton

  Wandsworth (T)

  98

  Merton and Sutton

  55

  RHA Total

  549

  Wessex

  0

  East Dorset

  54

  West Dorset

  10

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  7

  Southampton and South West Hampshire (T)

  61

  Winchester

  29

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  10

  Salisbury

  36

  Swindon

  50

  Bath

  33

  Isle of Wight

  25

  RHA Total

  313

  Oxford

  1

  East Berkshire

  38

  West Berkshire

  41

  Aylesbury Vale

  34

  Wycombe

  38

  Milton Keynes

  27

  Kettering

  51

  Northampton

  66

  Oxfordshire (T)

  109

  RHA Total

  405

  South Western

  0

  Bristol and Weston (T)

  88

  Frenchay

  10

  Southmead

  33

  Cornwall and Isles of

  69

  Scilly

  Exeter

  50

  North Devon

  26

  Plymouth

  83

  Torbay

  33

  Cheltenham

  43

  Gloucester

  44

  Somerset

  89

  RHA Total

  567

  West Midlands

  0

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  31

  302

  Regional Health Authority and District Health Authority and District Health Authority

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Herefordshire

  33

  Kidderminster and

  21

  District

  Worcester and District

  27

  Shropshire

  48

  Mid-Staffordshire

  37

  North Staffordshire

  99

  South East Staffordshire

  15

  Rugby

  17

  North Warwickshire

  24

  South Warwickshire

  40

  Central Birmingham (T)

  147

  East Birmingham

  64

  North Birmingham

  29

  South Birmingham

  75

  West Birmingham

  64

  Coventry

  70

  Dudley

  74

  Sandwell

  49

  Solihull

  30

  Walsall

  21

  Wolverhampton

  41

  RHA Total

  1,055

  Mersey

  0

  Chester

  32

  Crewe

  34

  Halton

  16

  Macclesfield

  29

  Warrington

  27

  Liverpool (T)

  151

  St. Helens with Knowsley

  38

  Sefton North

  16

  Sefton South

  41

  Wirral

  56

  RHA Total

  439

  North Western

  0

  Lancaster

  28

  Blackpool Wyre and

  51

  Fylde

  Preston

  47

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and

  44

  Ribble Valley

  Burnley, Pendle

  49

  Rossendale

  West Lancashire

  17

  Chorley and South Ribble

  23

  Bolton

  11

  Bury

  32

  North Manchester

  75

  Central Manchester (T)

  67

  South Manchester (T)

  52

  Oldham

  39

  Rochdale

  46

  Salford (T)

  80

  Stockport

  41

  Tameside and Glossop

  43

  Trafford

  36

  Wigan

  44

  RHA Total

  826

  London Postgraduate Special Health Authorities

  Authority

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Hospitals for sick children

  33

  National hospital for nervous diseases

  15

  Moorfields eye hospital

  23

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley hospitals

  49

  National heart and chest hospitals

  54

  The Royal Marsden hospital

  36

  303

  Authority

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Hammersmith hospital and Queen Charlotte's hospital

  51

  The Eastman dental hospital

  5

  Total

  264

  England total for all authorities

  8,801

  Source: DHSS(SR7) Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole time equivalent.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the possibility of transferring to regional health authorities functions currently carried out by his Department.

  Great Britain, Thousands

  Men

  Women

  60–64

  65–69

  60–64

  65–69

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  No.

  Per cent.

  Total

  1,381

  100

  1,211

  100

  1,506

  100

  1,445

  100

  Economically active

  753

  55

  158

  13

  283

  19

  80

  6

  of whom

  employed

  676

  49

  143

  12

  272

  18

  77

  5

  full-time

  615

  45

  56

  5

  73

  5

  14

  1

  part-time

  60

  4

  88

  7

  193

  13

  62

  4

  unemployed

  77

  6

  14

  1

  12

  1

  2—

  Economically inactive3

  628

  45

  1,053

  87

  1,223

  81

  1,365

  94

  of whom

  retired5

  254

  18

  837

  69

  651

  43

  4—

  other

  374

  27

  216

  18

  572

  38

  4

  Source:Labour Force Survey 1987(preliminary estimates)

  1 Includes those in employment and people unemployed and seeking work

  2 Number below 10,000.

  3 Includes those who are retired, sick or disabled, or not seeking work for all other reasons

  4 Question not asked of women in the 65–69 age group.

  5 Details are not available of the numbers of those who regarded themselves as retired but nevertheless undertook some paid work.

  Note: Numbers do not sum to total because of roundings.

  Capenhurst (Cancers)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the recorded levels of childhood leukaemia, malignant brain tumours among young people and the number of adult thyroid cancers, in the area covering a six-mile radius around the British Nuclear Fuels plc plant at Capenhurst; and how this compares with the incidence of these conditions in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 7 June 1988]The precise information is not readily available in the form requested. In a report published last year in the OPCS series "Studies on Medical and Population subjects" (No 51) [1] the following relevant information is given in relation to Capenhurst:
  304
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 25 May 1988]: The need to exercise functions centrally is kept under continuing consideration. For example, following a review of the Department's works function, authority for execution of capital building schemes at all stages subsequent to approval in principle was delegated to regional health authorities.

  60 to 70-year-olds
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of men and women, respectively, for each year between the ages of 60 and 70 who in 1987(a) were in full-time employment, (b) were known to be retired and who were working part-time or(c) whose status was unknown; and what percentage of their year each represented.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 7 June 1988]Information is not available in exactly the form requested. The available information is in the table and is for spring 1987:

  Local Authority Area with at least two-thirds of the population

  resident within 6 miles of BNFL site at Capenhurst

  Age Group

  1961–80

  Rate in area as a percentage of regional rate

  0–24

  Cases

  [2]

  All leukaemias

  Incidence

  38

  104·2

  Mortality

  33

  95·8

  Malignant

  Brain

  Tumours

  Incidence

  29

  122·7

  Mortality

  10

  77·0

  25–74

  Thyroid

  Incidence

  48

  16·60

  Mortality

  31

  171·0

  Copies of this Report are available in the Library.

  [1] "Cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations England and Wales 1959–80" (HMSO 1987)

  [2] This column shows the local incidence of disease and mortality expressed as a percentage of the regional average.

  Common Cold
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what research is currently undertaken into the prevention of the common cold; which institutions are undertaking such research; how much money is being provided, publicly and privately, for such research and by whom; and if he will make a statement on policy and research in this area.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]The Department is not at present funding any research on the prevention of the common cold. The main agency through which the Government promote medical and related biological research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that the Medical Research Council is at present funding research at the common cold unit, which is part of the clinical research centre's division of communicable diseases. In the financial year 1986–87 (the last for which figures are available) the council's expenditure on this research was £304,000.

  The Medical Research Council has agreed that the common cold unit should close in 1990 following the retirement of the director. A committee has been set up to evaluate the future need of a facility for studying infections in human volunteers.

  Details of research other than that funded directly by Government Departments or by research councils are not held centrally.

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourists (Expenditure)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has in sterling equivalent of the amount(a) spent in the United Kingdom by foreign tourists, and (b) spent overseas by British tourists.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that overseas residents spent £6·2 billion in the United Kingdom in 1987 and that United Kingdom residents spent £7·3 billion abroad.

  Urban Greening Initiatives
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will provide details of the number of Manpower Services Commission staff and participants employed on urban greening initiatives in the voluntary sector;

  (2) if he will provide details of the number of Manpower Services Commission staff and participants employed on urban greening initiatives in local authority sponsored schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no Manpower Services Commission staff employed directly on urban greening initiatives under the community programme. One of the programme's national initiatives, UL2000, includes amongst its five themes "greening the cities", but separate figures of participants on the different themes are not available.

  At 31 March some 6,782 people were employed on the UK2000 community programme national initiative in Great Britain. Of these, some two thirds are employed in the voluntary sector and around one fifth in local authorities.

  Training Schemes (Fatalities and Accidents)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatalities have occurred on Manpower Services Commission building and construction schemes under YTS, the job training scheme and the community programme for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  One fatality occurred in May 1986 to a YTS trainee in the construction and civil engineering occupations. There have been no fatalities to trainees on the job training scheme in these occupations. Central records of fatalities on the community programme are not held, although accidents on the community programme have to be notified to the Health and Safety Executive in the same way as for other employment.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents have occurred on Manpower Services Commission building and construction schemes under YTS, the job training scheme and the community programme for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Accident information by industries is available only for YTS and where the accident occurred after 1 July 1986. Comparable accident figures for adult trainees on the job training scheme and employees on the community programme are not available centrally. Accidents on the community programme have to be notified to the Health and Safety Executive in the same way as for other employment. The following table gives quarterly figures of fatal, major and minor YTS accidents in the construction and civil engineering occupations and includes accidents to both one-year and two-year YTS participants.

  Accidents3

  Period

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  1 July 1986–30 September 1986

  Nil

  21

  74

  1 October 1986–31 December 1986

  Nil

  26

  136

  1 January 1987–31 March 1987

  Nil

  15

  162

  1 April 1987–30 June 1987

  Nil

  35

  145

  1 July 1987–30 September 1987

  Nil

  30

  199

  1 October 1987–31 December 1987

  Nil

  32

  234

  1 January 1988–31 March 1988

  Nil

  41

  209

  1 MSC accident figures for YTS have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the commission's figures include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments which may not have been reportable to the executive had the individuals been employed.

  Mines and Quarries
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, South of 26 May,Official Report, column 315, why the inspector was concerned only with the security of the stockpiles on his visit to Penlee quarry on 5 January; how long was the visit; why no check was made on machinery guards and conveyors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The inspector visited Penlee quarry, not to carry out a routine inspection of the site, but to investigate a specific complaint from the public. The investigation took approximately three hours, was restricted to the extensive stockpiling areas and did not include the preparation plant area where the conveyors are sited.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether training managers under the proposed employment training scheme will be able to(a) charge trainees for any protective clothing, safety footwear and special equipment they may be issued with, (b) deduct any part of a trainee's training allowance as a deposit on any protective clothing, safety footwear or special equipment they are issued with and (c) impose any fines or deductions from any part of a trainee's training allowance for any trainee's unauthorised absences, lateness or irregular attendance.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Training managers will not be able to make any financial demands on trainees for protective clothing, safety footwear or special equipment, nor will they be able to impose fines or deductions from a trainee's training allowance.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many placements on the new employment training scheme will at any one time he available for use by voluntary sector agencies.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training will provide for about 300,000 trainees at any one time with about 600,000 trainees taking part during a full year. The emphasis will be on the individual training needs of trainees, and they may spend time in a variety of training opportunities during their period on the programme. I hope voluntary organisations will be extensively involved in employment training and so continue the valuable contribution which they have made to existing programmes. Training Commission officials are currently considering proposals from organisations interested in taking part.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many voluntary sector agencies have indicated that they will not take placements under the new employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training is a locally planned and locally delivered programme and the majority of discussions and negotiation with organisations which may wish to participate is being done at local level. There is no central record of organisations which have indicated that they either do or do not wish to take part. The voluntary sector has an important part to play in employment training and I hope most existing managing agents and sponsors will move forward into the new programme.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what alternative support will be offered to voluntary groups which are not offered placements from the new employment training scheme and to those which decide not to use such placements;

  (2) what consideration the Government have given to the probable impact of the withdrawal of the community programme on voluntary agencies which provide community services.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The community programme will be replaced from 5 September by employment training. Project-based training will be an important part of the new programme, with some 194,000 project-based opportunities in the first year, broadly the present level of community programme provision. I hope that most 308
  current CP projects will move forward into employment training bringing with them the worthwhile services that they currently provide.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met representatives of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to discuss the scope for the fullest involvement of the voluntary sector in employment training. Discussions are continuing between officials, including the role of the voluntary sector in providing worthwhile voluntary activities for those participants who, at the end of employment training, do not move directly into a job.

  YTS Agents
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there are any exemptions to the requirement for agents of YTS to have approved training status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no exemptions to the requirement that agents of YTS must achieve approved training organisations status. New organisations contracting with the Training Commission to deliver YTS programmes must apply for ATO status within one month of signing a contract and their training arrangements are monitored against the ATO criteria. A decision on whether to award ATO status will be made within a year of their contracting with the commission to provide training.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there are any agents of YTS who have not acquired approved training status still operating as agents of that scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Only 136 (4 per cent.) of all agents contracted to deliver YTS by the Training Commission have yet to acquire approved training organisation status. All these organisations have recently contracted with the Training Commission to deliver YTS training and their training arrangements are being monitored against the 10 ATO criteria prior to a decision on their status.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a full list of voluntary sector community programme placements classified according to type of work undertaken.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the number of filled places is not available in the form requested. The table shows the number of authorised places on the community programme as at 29 April 1988 (the latest date available) allocated to agents and sponsors in the voluntary sector, classified according to the type of work undertaken.

  Table of Authorised Places in the Voluntary Sector at 29 April 1988

  Type of Work Undertaken

  Number of Places

  Building and landscaping

  55

  Home insulation

  6,248

  Research and surveys

  2,771

  Library

  2,472

  Youth work

  14

  Other social services

  67

  Cultural

  3,695

  Workshop

  11,138

  CP agency management

  10,079

  309

  Type of Work Undertaken

  Number of Places

  Environmental and landscaping

  27,519

  Building and construction

  18,227

  Archaeological digs

  734

  Children's services

  5,813

  Young people's services

  11,084

  Services for the elderly

  29,746

  Services for the disabled

  13,176

  Centres for the unemployed

  407

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many voluntary sector community programme placements are allocated for work with(a) the elderly, (b) the disabled, (c) under-fives, (d) women, (e)black people, (f) children aged five to 13 years and (g) young people aged 14 to 25 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested. The nearest categories and the number of authorised places in each are shown in the table:

  Type of work undertaken

  Number of authorised places at 29 April, 1988

  Services for the elderly

  29,746

  Services for the disabled

  13,176

  Children's services (Up to 16)

  5,813

  Young people's services (16 to 18)

  11,084

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the specific matters in relation to the establishment and activities of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive and their subordinate agencies on which he answers parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for all matters concerned with the staffing and establishment of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive which do not fall to the Prime Minister as arising from the position of HSE staff as civil servants. He is also responsible for all the aspects of the commission's and the executive's work which cover primarily the protection of workers. He answers for the protection of the public from the generality of hazards, except where other Secretaries of State have responsibilities which involve the commission and executive. For a description of these responsibilities, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.

  Remploy
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he proposes to take to enable Remploy to increase its work force, its range of products and its subsidy.

  Mr. Lee
  The longer-term arrangements for supporting people with severe disabilities in employment, including the support given to Remploy, are among the matters to be considered within the internal review of the assistance 310
  offered by my Department to people with disabilities announced in March. We aim to complete this review as quickly as possible this year.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when was the last occasion on which he visited Remploy factories to discuss subsidies, pay, bonuses and working conditions.

  Mr. Lee
  I welcome the opportunity to visit Remploy factories whenever possible to meet both management and work force, and most recently visited the Burnley factory on 26 February. Discussions on the matters raised by the right hon. Member are generally held at a national level. I met members of the consortium of Remploy trades unions on 28 September 1987 to discuss pay issues and met the board of directors on 15 June to discuss a range of issues.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special provision is made in Remploy for those severely disabled people who may not be able to participate in bonus schemes.

  Mr. Lee
  By effective placement and training Remploy has increased the number of severely disabled workers who earn bonus from 86 per cent. of the disabled work force in 1980 to 98 per cent. in 1988. Those who are unable to achieve the bonus standard receive the basic Remploy wage.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of Remploy workers who lose money, compared with benefits, by working.

  Mr. Lee
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people are seeking work with Remploy but are unable to get jobs.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the number of severely disabled people seeking work with Remploy is not held. The company recruits and trains between 1,000 and 1,200 new employees each year.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost to the Government of each Remploy worker who benefits from the subsidy.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1987–88 the average cost to the Government of subsidising each severely disabled worker employed by Remploy, excluding loans to the company in respect of capital expenditure, was £5,529.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to provide new, modern skills for those Remploy workers who require them.

  Mr. Lee
  This is essentially a matter for the management of Remploy to determine within the resources available to it, taking account of the characteristics of those people with severe disabilities in its employment.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the cost to the Government in terms of benefits which would have to be paid if all Remploy workers become unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  A reliable estimate could be made only if information were available about the entitlement to
  311
  benefit of each Remploy worker. However, it is estimated, using general survey information, that the cost to the Government would have been of the order of £27·5 million if all the severely disabled people employed by Remploy had remained unemployed and claimed benefits during the whole of the financial year 1987–88. This estimate is based on information about the characteristics of severely disabled people in employment collected in 1986. It does not take account of changes in benefits introduced since that date.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in supervisory jobs in Remploy and how many of them are disabled.

  Mr. Lee
  Comprehensive information is not available, but 283 (42 per cent.) of the 667 supervisory staff in Remploy factories are severely disabled.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in management jobs in Remploy; and how many of them are disabled.

  Mr. Lee
  Comprehensive information is not available, but four of Remploy's 94 factory managers are severely disabled.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled workers are employed by Remploy; in which areas they are located; and what is their basic weekly wage.

  Mr. Lee
  On 31 March 1988 Remploy employed 9,042 severely disabled workers. This figure has been broken down into employment service regions as follows:

  Region

  Number of Severely Disabled Workers at 31 March 1988

  Northern

  920

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,104

  East Midlands and Eastern

  653

  London and south-cast

  990

  South-west

  516

  Wales

  1,492

  West midlands

  646

  North-west

  1,647

  Scotland

  1,074

  The basic weekly wage is £102·43 for workers in London and £90 elsewhere. With skill and productivity payments, average weekly earnings are £121·86 in London and £109·43 elsewhere.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet the management and trade unionists of Remploy to discuss the present subsidy.

  Mr. Lee
  I shall continue to meet the management of Remploy, and representatives of the trades unions with which the company negotiates, as and when the need arises.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the annual subsidy to 312
  Remploy for each of the past 10 years; if he will increase the present subsidy to enable Remploy to pay higher wages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The annual subsidy (excluding loans for capital expenditure) to Remploy for each of the past 10 years is given in the table:

  £000

  1978–79

  22,530

  1979–80

  27,263

  1980–81

  32,235

  1981–82

  39,195

  1982–83

  42,578

  1983–84

  44,572

  1984–85

  47,825

  1985–86

  48,415

  1986–87

  47,770

  1987–88

  49,726

  In the past three years pay settlements for Remploy"s manual work force have been above the annual rate of inflation. I am informed that Remploy's manual work force has voted by a substantial majority to accept a pay offer negotiated between the company and the consortium of Remploy trades unions earlier in the year, operative from 1 April.

  It is estimated that average weekly earnings of Remploy workers outside London have risen from £83·03 in April 1984 to £109·43 in April 1988. Workers at Remploy's London factories receive higher rates of pay. The new pay arrangements will be operated within the subsidy for 1988–89.

  Sheltered Workshops (Wage Rates)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the national average wage, and (b)that paid in local authority sheltered workshops.

  Mr. Lee
  The average gross weekly earnings (excluding bonuses, overtime and shift premiums) taken from the new earnings survey April 1987 for full-time adult employees whose pay was not affected by absences was £170·70. In April 1987 the average weekly rate of pay in most local authority sheltered workshops was estimated to be £95·10; the current average weekly rate of pay in these workshops is estimated to be £102·28.

  Civil Defence
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will identify(a) liaison arrangements between his Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees, concerning civil emergency and home defence planning, and (b) the extent of collaborative work carried out with these bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department of Employment has no liaison arrangements, and does no collaborative work, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil emergency planning boards and committees.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will identify the terms of reference of work on(a) civil emergencies and (b) home defence planning carried out in his Department, the

  313
  number of staff involved and the annual budgets for 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Work in the Department of Employment on civil emergencies and home defence planning is carried out within guidelines laid down by the Government. The work is done by staff, both in London and in the regional offices, who also have other duties. It is estimated that the total effort devoted to emergency planning is equivalent to about five full-time staff. This area of work is not costed separately, but is included in overall administrative costs and amounted to around £100,000 in the 1987–88 financial year; no figures are available for previous years.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish an analysis of the regional impact on jobs in the United Kingdom of the Commission's proposals to achieve a single market in the European Community by 1992.

  Sheltered placement scheme

  Remploy operating deficit

  Local authority workshops

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  South-east

  64

  222

  497

  1,600

  1,654

  1,699

  1,545

  1,714

  1,851

  London

  173

  284

  409

  4,336

  4,179

  4,228

  3,054

  3,259

  3,386

  South-west

  644

  1,457

  2,545

  3,345

  3,405

  3,645

  2,542

  2,734

  2,937

  West midlands

  76

  123

  264

  2,286

  2,404

  2.256

  1,678

  1,843

  2,142

  East midlands and eastern

  302

  382

  510

  5,382

  4,911

  4,797

  1,992

  2,118

  2,157

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  184

  249

  473

  5,510

  5,026

  5,643

  2,658

  2,520

  2,400

  North-west

  215

  368

  504

  9,267

  9,893

  10,612

  2,386

  2,448

  2,623

  Northern

  77

  79

  99

  5,354

  5,363

  5,269

  1,088

  1,065

  1,126

  Wales

  6

  18

  58

  9,825

  9,034

  9,697

  1,976

  2,011

  2,494

  Scotland

  212

  401

  705

  6,053

  4,995

  6,060

  2,833

  3,439

  3,385

  Great Britain

  1,953

  3,583

  6,064

  52,958

  50,864

  53,906

  21,752

  23,151

  24,501

  314
  Mr. Cope
  The impact of the single European market should be beneficial on output growth in the United Kingdom and so on jobs. The impact on jobs in different regions in the United Kingdom cannot be predicted with confidence.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost, in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987, and by each standard region, of providing(a) sheltered placement scheme places, (b) sheltered employment places in Remploy and (c) sheltered employment places in local authority workshops.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]:The information is not available in the form requested. Total expenditure nationally and by Training Commission regions (excluding the Department's expenditure on administration and capital expenditure, for which information in this form is not available) is given in the table for the last three financial years for which information is available.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been red earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EC Consumer Policy: Progress
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on matters discussed and progress made at the European Consumer Affairs Council held on 7th June, with particular reference to the Commission report on the integration of consumer policy in the other common policies put forward by the Commission.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Consumer Council agreed conclusions which call on the Commission to step up its efforts on the integration of consumer policy in other policy areas. It also agreed a resolution on consumer involvement in standards making but a decision to extend the system for the rapid exchange of information on dangerous products was deferred. Commissioner Varfis drew attention to progress in launching the child safety campaign.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I welcome the Council resolution and the decision to improve consumer involvement in the standardisation process. As the committees involved have many voluntary workers, are the Government willing to provide the extra resources necessary to make this a success? In regard to the child safety campaign about which I have asked the Minister before, can he tell the House the steps the Government intend to take to initiate this campaign and whether it will involve the voluntary workers and the media as well as the statutory services?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with regard to the noble Baroness's first point on the resources required, the Government believe that the Commission should reallocate existing resources if this is necessary. The Council's conclusions explicitly made this point.
On the noble Baroness's second point, the Government have made it clear that they are willing to participate in some form of child safety campaign provided that it is properly targeted and well thought through. The current proposals are a considerable improvement on the original ideas. However, any decisions on the scope of the campaign must await the outcome of further discussions.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Government continue to press the Commission to produce practical proposals in its report, requested by June 1989 in the Council resolution?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government will do everything they can to continue to encourage the Commission to produce the report in good time. The
370
noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will know the disappointment the Government felt at the previous rather inconclusive proposals. I know that the noble Baroness herself was disappointed. We welcome the pressure that has been brought to bear by the conclusions from the Council and we hope that this will lead to a more constructive way forward ready for June 1989.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the Minister said about the child safety campaign. Does he recall telling me not so long ago that the Government could not take any steps in this respect and that it was a matter for the Commission? Am I not correct in saying that the Commission has now decided that each country should be responsible for initiating its own campaign? If that is correct, what do the Government propose to do about it?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that the Commission has now produced a revised set of proposals for the child safety campaign. These are being considered and will be discussed by officials from all member states later this month. As regards what will happen in this country, I can tell the noble Baroness that it will be essential to involve the enforcement authorities and voluntary organisations with an interest in this area and that all these matters will come together when we discuss the detailed planning.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, am I right in assuming that the EC has already designated this year as Child Safety Year? If that is so, should we not do something before this year is over?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the issue of child safety has been under discussion in the Commission for a long time. We should like to see something come forward as soon as possible. The noble Lord will be aware that the original proposals were not feasible or practical; but we want to see as soon as possible a campaign that will be both beneficial and of lasting effect.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the House will bear with me, am I not correct in saying that the Commission tabled a letter which said that the child safety campaign would definitely be introduced in September or October of this year? If that is the case, do the consultations about which the Minister has just told us put that further off, or will the matter be taken forward very soon?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we hope that it will be as soon as possible. But, as I have already said, this has been slow in coming forward. For the past two years I have been answering the noble Baroness's questions on the subject. We have both been hopeful of being able to work towards a date. This has slipped back on a number of occasions, but I hope that by this autumn we should be in a position to make some progress.

Drugs Misuse: Report
3.7 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their response to the report of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, what further advice they have received from that body.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government have welcomed the advice on AIDS and drug misuse contained in the report of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. We have responded to a number of its recommendations and are looking in detail at others.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I was asking a slightly different Question from that which he has answered. I was asking whether the Government had received further advice from the advisory committee or from its working party, and if so what their response to it had been. Do I take it from what the Minister has said that the Government have not received any advice since the publication of the report from the committee?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct in that we have not received a reply to our response to the report of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. If we do so we shall look at it carefully.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I must confess to some surprise at that answer as both the committee and its working party have met since the report was published. In view of the urgency of the matter and the need for public education will the Minister consider asking the committee whether it has any advice? If it gives advice, will the Government publish it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is difficult to say precisely what the Government's action will be until we have received a reply to our response.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may emphasise the urgency of the recommendations in the report and express consternation that either there has not been a reply or a reply has not been sent to the department. If there is a reply with further recommendations, will the Minister kindly find out about it because this is urgent? Is he aware that one of the main conclusions of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs was that HIV is a greater threat to public health than drugs abuse? In the light of that will he give a little more information on, first, departmental support for GP services as recommended by the report; and, secondly, on the recommendations of the report on the identification of drug misusers in prison?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may just clear up the situation with regard to the ACMD report on AIDS and drugs misuse. The report was published on 29th March and copies of it have been
372
made widely available to health and local authorities and also to interested professional organisations. As the Government's response indicated, some of the recommendations in the report require detailed consultation with interested agencies and consideration is currently being given to what further action should be taken.
As regards the situation in prisons, I rather suspect that the noble Lord was referring especially to the provision of condoms. That is a matter for my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the tone of the Government's response to these questions gives rise to considerable concern. Does the noble Earl not agree that drugs misuse by those who inject drugs is one of the main channels of conveyance of HIV infection into the community? Further, does he not agree that the advisory council recommended the setting up of drugs crisis intervention units at fixed points in the cities and, I think, on a mobile basis throughout the country, which will require funding? Will the Government give urgent attention to these most important matters?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the latest stage of the Government's drugs prevention campaign, which was launched last September in conjunction with anti-injecting publicity, was largely heroin specific and was aimed at young people who might be tempted to use drugs. It warned them that doing so might well start a process of decline which could result in crime, deteriorating health and even injecting drug use and AIDS. Independent evaluation shows that negative beliefs about heroin, identified in previous stages, have been consolidated and resistance to trial remains high.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am still a little concerned over the lack of urgency about the recommendations and the response to them. I should like to help the Minister as to the two recommendations about which I asked for some report.
First, there was the recommendation that within the prison system the prison department should be asked to identify drugs misusers and that it should encourage them to identify themselves. Secondly, there was the support that health authorities and the department should give to general practitioners, thereby recognising their importance in the whole HIV situation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the points he has made on the matter. It is something that I shall be obliged to refer to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I must confess to being a little disappointed by the reply to my last question. I asked the noble Earl, as I am sure he will recollect, whether the Government would publish the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs. Does the noble Earl agree that public education is extremely important in this whole area? Further, can he give me one good reason why a report

373
to the Government of an expert committee such as this should be kept secret?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must make it quite clear that the Government have already published the ACMD's report and their response to it.

Emergencies: Training of Volunteers
3.13 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What funds are or will be available this financial year to enable local authorities to train volunteers for dealing with peacetime emergencies.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, no central government funds are specifically available for training volunteers for peacetime emergencies. However, we estimate that local authorities spent about £1 ·75 million in 1987–88 on training volunteers for civil defence. Expenditure is likely to be similar in 1988–89. Under the provisions of the Civil Protection of Peacetime Act, resources which are provided for civil defence purposes may also be used for peacetime emergencies.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. May I ask whether the Government accept that volunteers have an important part to play in major peacetime emergencies—especially if an incident such as that at Chernobyl should occur again—but that they need to be trained for the purpose? Is he further aware that some local authorities appear to consider that they do not need to enlist and train volunteers for peacetime purposes? What is the Government's attitude to that situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that such volunteers are an integral and most important part of any civil defence or peacetime emergency. Of course the local authorities must make up their own minds as to how best they can use the volunteers in their region. They can do this by keeping in touch with the voluntary organisations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that civic pride and initiative are being retarded throughout the country by the Government's policy of demoting local authorities? Is this not therefore a wonderful opportunity for the Government to make specific grants, for the purpose mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in order once again to encourage civic pride and to let authorities have some status?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would not expect me to agree with his quite fallacious remark that the Government are injuring the pride of local authorities. We have always taken the view that civil defence and the protection of people in peacetime are very much matters for the local authorities.
The Government have produced a planned programme of implementation upon which we have
374
invited local authorities to tell us how they are progressing. Indeed, they will be doing precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes; namely, responding to the reactions in their areas.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if local authorities are invited to get ready for emergencies of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out could easily happen and at the same time are under severe pressure in deciding the priorities on which to spend their money, surely some positive encouragement by the Government in doing what the noble Lord has asked will go a long way.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, some £22 million is already spent on civil defence. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—if he will contain himself for half a moment—will know that any requirements for civil defence can also be used for peacetime emergencies. Therefore, the structure required is already there.
I explained to my noble friend Lord Renton, in answer to his Question, that it was estimated that some £1 ·75 million had been spent on the training of volunteers during the past year. Further, it is anticipated that the proposed expenditure for this year is likely to be about the same. Therefore, work is in progress and expenditure has been allocated. The question is whether the local authorities are best placed to carry it out; I believe that they are.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many local authorities who regard civil defence as a joke? Therefore, to ask people to volunteer for such work is a waste of time. What is the Minister doing about encouraging local authorities not to treat the matter as a joke?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords,it is most difficult for me to answer when the noble Lord says that some local authorities regard civil defence as a joke whereas the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that the Government ought to allow local authorities to do what they want in this connection.
We have introduced a planned programme of implementation. We have invited local authorities—even those who regard it as a joke—to tell the Government what they are doing for civil defence purposes. The plan is being phased in over three years. However, I think I meet the points made by both noble Lords opposite when I say that the Government have a plan and it is therefore for the local authorities to implement it. It is the Government's duty to ensure that they do so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will my noble friend confirm that local authorities have statutory responsibility, laid down by Parliament, to carry out certain functions in relation to civil defence, and that therefore when spending money on that, either with or without the Government's help, they should also he directly preparing for peacetime emergencies?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to accept and train civil defence volunteers. It is equally

375
true that they can use those resources for peacetime purposes where they think it proper and fit to do so. Planning for civil emergencies is carried out at present by local authorities without there being a specific statutory duty. I am not sure that we need primary legislation to make local authorities do what they wish to do. The implication of that point will be considered in the consultation exercise which is being carried out at the moment.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister must surely know that there are many local authorities which do not take any notice of what the Government say about civil defence. Indeed, they have put up placards saying that they are nuclear-free zones, whatever that may mean.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, means and to what he refers. However, the great majority of authorities are responding well to their statutory obligations. They include those which from time to time style themselves as nuclear-free zones. I am not aware that any of those authorities are refusing to carry out their statutory obligations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister give the response of the local authorities to the Government's request for information? Can he say which local authorities are implementing schemes to deal with emergencies, such as the great storm of last October? Will he say what the experience of his department was following that storm? Were he and his right honourable friend satisfied that the local authorities had responded adequately? Will he give the House a little more information?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, clearly, when any disaster occurs it takes some time to gear the necessary forces together. Dealing with such disasters is very much a matter for the emergency services. We were satisfied with how the emergency services carried out their work during last autumn's disaster, to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred. We have had a number of discussions. I told the British Red Cross on 2nd March that we were looking closely at many proposals for improving the United Kingdom's response to peacetime emergencies. A discussion paper will shortly be circulated to seek the expert views of the operational emergency services both on their present abilities and on scope for improvements. That consultation document will be circulated and we shall see what the professionals and others have to say.

Pension Rights on Divorce
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to legislate following their consultation paper on occupational pension rights on divorce.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the responses received by the Government to the consultation paper on occupational pension rights on divorce raised a number of problems concerning the proposed scheme. The Government are considering the matter further in the light of these responses and of the changes effected by the Social Security Act 1986.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply and for his helpfulness on this subject. Is he aware of the real concern felt by a large number of women who spend a large part of their lives abroad with their husbands and who are therefore unable to work and accrue entitlement to a pension at the end of their days? If he cannot bring forward major legislation, will he consider an amendment to the present legislation to put that point right?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is comparatively easy to make technical changes which might increase the flexibility of the orders a court may make on divorce. I am considering that point carefully. The essential difficulty is that in relation to pensions the event to be dealt with must be funded. The provision that has been made in most pension schemes—this applies to the point about which my noble friend Lady Young is principally concerned—relates to marriage and widowhood and does not apply additionally in respect of divorce. The problem is that further funds are required if an additional arrangement is to be made with regard to divorce. The courts, on an order in respect of divorce, cannot deal with that problem.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would not giving legislative effect to the proposals in the consultation paper be beneficial to a wife by ensuring that she does not suffer hardship by losing, where it would be inequitable for her to do so, the chance to benefit under an occupational pension scheme when her marriage is dissolved? Is there not a great deal of concern about this matter? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can give an indication as to when the Government propose to make some positive proposals.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord draws attention to a difficulty of which I am well aware. The representations that were made to me by my noble friend Lady Young and the representatives that she arranged should see me would have alerted me to that difficulty if I had not already known about it. I shall give a typical case of where a husband is working and the wife, not having worked, is divorced. Of course, the matter operates the other way round as well. Where the husband and wife are divorced, there will be a provision in the pension scheme for the husband to enjoy a pension. Some part of that pension can be diverted from him to the wife, and the court has power to arrange that. If he is not married at his death, the provisions which normally exist in a pension scheme in favour of a widow do not operate so there is no money available to divert to anyone at that stage. That is the real difficulty. Pension schemes provided by third parties

377
cannot readily be forced to deal with that problem unless the members of the pension scheme are prepared to put in the money needed. The state pension scheme makes certain provisions to help a divorced wife in those circumstances. It may not be convenient to narrate those provisions now. They are technical. I can do so if it is required. The position of the divorced wife when she becomes pensionable is dealt with in the state scheme. We are talking now about schemes over and above the basic state scheme. The difficulty is that when the husband dies without leaving a widow, that event is not provided for in such schemes, and therefore is not funded. There is no money available to be paid out in that event. That is the fundamental problem. At the moment I do not see a solution open to me to deal with that aspect of the problem within the context of divorce law reform or anything of that kind.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord saying that it is not possible through legal means to interfere with an occupational pension scheme in the way that the Government have laid down in the state pension scheme, where it is obviously easy for them to do so? Is it not the case that when opting-out of SERPS was introduced, it was made a requirement of opting-out that there had to be adequate provision for widows? If the state can intervene in occupational pension schemes to make adequate provisions for widows, would it not be possible also for the state to intervene to make adequate provisions for the divorced wives?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly it would. Perhaps I may elaborate a little. The point is that when the state scheme says that a person can opt out of it provided he makes a guaranteed minimum provision which includes widows, then the people who are operating that private scheme have to pay for it. There has to be a provision which gives rise to contributions of money for that purpose. If in addition there were to be a provision that divorced wives had also to be provided for, that is a further provision which would require the contributors, both the employee and the employer, to provide additional money. It is not usual, although it may not be impossible, for people to provide for their divorced wives in the same way as they do for their widows. It is that requirement which underlies the difficulty highlighted here. Nothing that I can do by way of changing the law with regard to rights on divorce can meet the problem.
The problem is that that particular event has to be taken into account in the funding. If people generally want to do that in a private scheme, it is always open to them. Of course, they can. But any additional benefits require to be paid for. If there is additional benefit to a divorced wife as well as to a widow, that must be paid for by additional contributions in some shape or form. That is the essential problem.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that in other countries special cases are made for divorced wives of diplomatic officers whereby a proportion of the occupational pension will go to each wife? Will the noble and learned Lord say whether we can perhaps
378
learn from the experience of other countries in this regard?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a proportion of the husband's pension could certainly go in part to the divorced wife. There is no problem about that. So long as that money is there it is for the court to say how it is divided. There may be some slight technical problem about the precise form in which that result could be achieved. That is an aspect of what this paper was about. But that result can be achieved, perhaps not in the most elegant form, by the powers which the court now has; that is to say, diverting from the divorced husband part of his pension. There is no problem about that.
What is a problem is that once he dies and has no widow, then there is no further pension for anyone provided under the scheme. There is nothing the court can do to introduce one when it is not there. That is the essential problem. If someone wants to introduce it they have to pay for it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I quite see what my noble and learned friend is saying. The problem cannot be cured without legislation. However, would it not be possible under the matrimonial proceedings Act so to amend the law as to give the court power to direct the husband to pay an additional premium in order to protect the wife in the situation where he envisages that she will be deprived of her source of income in the event of the former husband's death?
I should have thought that it would have been possible to give the courts such a power, during the lifetime of both parties, to direct the husband to pay an additional premium.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend is aware, the consultation paper was dealing with the situation after the death of the husband. Of course, it is possible for arrangements to be made in which existing money, part of the joint estate, is used for a particular purpose. It would be perfectly possible to achieve the result that some part of the husband's money should be used to provide an annuity for his divorced wife after his death. That of course would be at the expense of his estate. It can be done.
All I am saying is that in order to make such a provision, money has to be found from somewhere. One cannot do it by operating on existing pension schemes in respect of benefits which are not there.

Business
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, 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 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill will be taken.

Consumer Arbitration Agreements Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.35 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: 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.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 185A:
After Clause 132, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consult ratepayers.
.—(1) A relevant authority shall consult under this section persons or bodies appearing to it to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates under sections 39 and 41 above as regards hereditaments situated in the authority's area.
(2) Consultations must be made as to each chargeable financial year, and must be about the authority's proposals for expenditure (including capital expenditure) in that financial year; and the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe matters which are to be treated as expenditure for this purpose.
(3) Each of the following is a relevant authority—

(a) a charging authority;

(b) a precepting authority which falls within section 142(2)(a) to (f) below.

(4) The duty to consult as to a financial year shall be performed—

(a) where the authority is a charging authority, before it makes calculations (otherwise than by way of substitute) in relation to the financial year under section 99 above:

(b) where the authority is a precepting authority, before it issues the first precept to be issued by it for the financial year.

(5) In performing the duty to consult, an authority shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning—

(a) persons or bodies to be regarded for the purposes of this section as representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates under section 39 and 41 above as regards hereditaments situated in the authority's area, and

(b) the timing and manner of consultations under this section.

(6) An authority shall make available to persons or bodies it proposes to consult under this section such information as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State and is in its possession or control; and it shall do so in such form and manner, and at such time, as the regulations may prescribe.").
The noble Lord said: The Rates Act of 1984 introduced a duty on local authorities to consult representatives of business in their areas about their spending plans and the proposed level of rates. This duty was designed mainly to provide local authorities with an opportunity to influence the setting of the level of rate poundage, but also to provide a forum for the discussion of the level of services to business and other matters of joint interest to business and local government. The Government initially took the view that with the introduction of the national non-domestic rate which will remove the question of the level of the rate from the local arena, the duty to consult will no longer be required. This view was set
380
out in the yellow paper, Amendments to the Rating Legislation in England and Wales which was published in July 1987. We have however been persuaded by the argument that various business organisations have put to us that retaining a formal consultative procedure would be both of value generally in ensuring that local authorities listen to business concerns and specifically in ensuring discussion of issues such as the level of services that authorities provide to business in an area.
Our conversion to this view was announced together with our other conclusions on the yellow paper in the letter of my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government of 29th March to the Member for Copeland, a copy of which was placed in the Library of this House. That letter also undertook to bring forward a government amendment to amend the Bill accordingly.
Government Amendment No. 185A fulfils that commitment. It places a duty on charging authorities and precepting authorities to consult with bodies representing non-domestic ratepayers about their plans for expenditure in a financial year. In the case of a charging authority, the requirement will be for the consultation to be performed before the authority makes calculations in respect of the financial year in question. For a precepting authority, consultation must be carried out before it issues its first precept for the year in question.
The consultation will be principally on the level of services provided to business. But it will also cover the local authority's planned capital expenditure which the Government recognise is in many cases even more important to local business than revenue expenditure. This is a point which the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have made very strongly to us.
The amendment would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the matters which are to be treated as expenditure for the purpose of consultation. It would also require local authorities to have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the bodies to be regarded as representative of business and the timing and manner of consultations.
I accept entirely the point that all good local authorities already maintain close links with local business. This amendment will not make a great deal of difference to those authorities. But, as I am sure we are all aware, there are some local authorities who take a very different attitude to business. The point of the statutory duty to consult which this amendment retains is to ensure that all local authorities follow the practices which the good ones follow anyway.
We believe that the amendment will lead to a broader and more constructive relationship between local government and local business. By moving the focus of discussions away from the level of the rate which, in too many cases in the past, became a source of confrontation and on to the quantity and quality of services provided, discussions will turn to questions which are of mutual benefit to the authority, its residents and local businesses which provide employment and other opportunities. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are not opposed to this amendment and the local authority associations are not opposed to it. So far as I know, no local authorities are opposed to the amendment. I regret however that it was necessary for the noble Lord, in introducing the amendment, to make the customary boring attacks on a minority of local authorities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Social security]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 185AB:
Page 74, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection 2 below,").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, together with Amendment No. 186ZA, seeks to take out of the Bill the proposal to make people on income support pay at least 20 per cent. of the community charge from the extra money which is to be given to them by the DHSS for that purpose. I have replaced my original amendment with one which has the same purpose but where the drafting, I am advised, is more effective. However, I am sure the Committee will recognise that we are dealing here with a major point of dispute in the way the poll tax is to be raised from some 4 ·5 million people on income support. If the Minister is now prepared to see the force of our argument and to remove this widely criticised feature from the Bill, I am happy to leave the final drafting to the Government, because I know that we in Opposition are always accused of technically incorrect drafting.
The poll tax, as we all know, is the flagship of the Government's programme. The flag which they are flying they call accountability. Many of us believe that unless the Bill is revised in this Chamber that flag will very soon be seen to be in tatters. This is a clear case in point. The basic argument of the Government is that if everyone pays the same amount for the services of his or her local council, he or she will vote for low-spending policies rather than high-spending policies. Low spending on public services, especially those which come under local authority control, is regarded by this Government as by definition a good thing. In taking that logic a stage further, they insist that even people on income support receiving all their money from the public purse must pay at least 20 per cent. or one-fifth of their local poll tax.
The Government have been arguing throughout this Bill that by doing so people will somehow make their elected representatives more accountable to them than they were before. Indeed the assumption seems to be that these 4.5 million people who will be given the cash by central government to hand over to local government will start to demand low-spending policies, even though many of the services provided by the local authorities are more important to them as users than for the people with the larger incomes. It is also noticeable in passing that the Government do not pursue the logic of that argument in the other direction. They do not suggest that the better off people, whose local taxation will be substantially reduced by the poll tax, will begin to look favourably on high spending policies as they will be paying much less towards them.
When we look at the practicalities of the proposal for the 80 per cent. rebate instead of 100 per cent. rebate, the Government scheme is almost worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera. I spoke at Second Reading about the convoluted way of moving public money around and back into the public purse. First, the local council remits 80 per cent. of the community charge, then the Government refund the cost to the council. Finally, the DHSS pays an extra sum to the claimant to make up the remaining 20 per cent. This is essential because otherwise the claimant would have no money to pay the charge. But the 20 per cent. community charge contribution is a once-for-all jump in the scale rates for income support. It is not to be recalculated annually, so it will very soon lose any relationship to the actual community charge bills paid.
The Government propose a maximum rebate of 80 per cent., leaving even the very poorest people to find one-fifth of their poll tax bill. These voluntary organisations which are concerned with social security believe that this principle is quite indefensible. There are some 456 district councils, each of which will make their own separate poll tax decisions. But, instead of a true 20 per cent. subsidy matching the actual sum due in each district, there is to be a national average figure. Thus some claimants will receive more than they owe to the council and others less. Some will profit, others will lose.
This is not good enough. On 1987/1988 figures, 112 of those 456 districts would be above the national average. Those tend to be the districts that are concentrated in areas of high unemployment and inner city deprivation. Many of those people could be as much as £2 a week worse off under this system. Ministers may still believe that they are engaged in an exercise in accountability, but I see no equity in it. This amazing money-go-round is created for the sole purpose of pretending that it improves accountability when manifestly it does not.
The argument that paying social security benefits only to have them paid back under the present community charge proposals in some way increases local accountability is a complete red herring. Inevitably there will be some leakage of money while it travels on this roundabout—the journey from the DHSS to the claimant, through the poll tax and back to the local authorities.
The officers of the local authorities who will have to collect this tax have advised me through their professional body—the Rating and Valuation Association—that the collection of relatively small amounts from people on income support will be wholly uneconomic. They point to the high level of mobility among social security claimants, especially in the bigger cities. They will have to collect one-fifth of the charge in 10 equal instalments, so the actual sum to be billed and then chased up each month will be only 2 per cent. of the total poll tax per head for that district. To take the national average figure quoted at £236, that means that local government officers, armed with all the enforcement powers which have been provided in this Bill, will be trying to pick up £4 ·72p a time from people such as single parent families and others.
One does not have to be much of a businessman or an administrator to see the financial nonsense of that kind of regulation. The cost of billing, of collection and sometimes even of taking action to recover these small accounts may well he out of all proportion to the amount due. Where the cost of collection outweighs the potential income to be received, I believe that the sum will in many cases be written off.
We are not out to damage the Bill by this amendment and it is not a wrecking amendment. We are trying to save Ministers from themselves. We dislike the waste of public money that they are cheerfully contemplating. We object to the excessive bureaucracy that they seem happy to have created. We should much prefer a simple rebate scheme up to 100 per cent. of the community charge.
Will the Minister tell the Committee how the Government will make the calculations when the system is introduced in Scotland next year, in England and Wales in 1990. and in at the moment 10 London areas between 1990 and 1994, when both rates and community charges will be paid? We do not expect the claimants to vote any differently at future local elections whether they are fully rebated from the poll tax or whether they are given extra money to pay the 20 per cent. of it. But, however one looks at it, the claimants' poll tax is paid from public funds and we may as well recognise that fact and organise this scheme accordingly. In the real world there will be no loss of accountability, but there will be seen to be some common sense in our dealings. I beg to move.
Lord Hayter: If and when this amendment comes to be voted on and you are asked by Members of the Committee in whatever part of the Chamber you happen to be what it is all about, I beg you to say that it has nothing whatever to do with banding. Banding was dismissed by the Committee in the first major amendment proposed to this Bill. We are not talking about banding between one section of the community and another. We are talking about the very lowest band, the poorest in the land.
Again, if you are asked whether this is a wrecking amendment attacking the principle of the Bill, you will have to say, "No". The amendment which the noble Baroness has just proposed speaks of the charge for which an individual "is liable". Those words are contained in the amendment. We recognise that everybody is liable to pay the tax. It is simply a question of how that is best done.
The Committee has spent a great deal of time discussing the relative inequalities of the flat rate tax. "The duke paying as much as the dustman" was a phrase which was much used. This amendment does not claim to address such points of high principle as equality. Instead, it seeks to highlight the plight of the poorest sections of our society. It is concerned with the position of people who are so poor that under the Government's proposals they will receive an 80 per cent. rebate. We are discussing the very poor, as opposed to the near poor or the plain wealthy who, as we all know, are doing quite nicely.
The amendment is concerned with people who are living on income support or equivalent levels of
384
income. It is worth repeating what those levels are because they are sums that many of us can quite happily spend without a great deal of thought. For a single person under the age of 25 who is unemployed and perhaps homeless, the state provides £26.05 per week; at the other end of the life spectrum, retired couples get £33.85 per person. Those are sums which you and I think nothing of. However, they are the essence of life to such people.
We maintain that the Government's provisions to help the poor are inadequate. It is this which is the major spur behind this amendment to allow 100 per cent. rebates for the poorest. Stated simply, the Government promise that, while everyone will have to pay 20 per cent. of their local community charge, there will be an addition to national income support levels based on the national average 20 per cent. contribution. I emphasise the word "national". That approach seems to me to be riddled with imprecision and uncertainty, which for the poor is a recipe for further impoverishment.
It is a commonplace worth restating that contributions to income support levels are based on the national average community charge and will provide little comfort for people living in areas of above average community charge. It would be far better, in terms of precision, simplicity and compassion, to offer 100 per cent. rebates on the local charge. The Government accept that even under their scheme some people will pay nothing, receiving an addition to income support to cover their full 20 per cent. local contribution. Our amendment would harmonise the position right across the country.
Furthermore, we must tackle the Government once and for all on the vagueness of their proposals. Contrary to popular myth, income support is not a rationally calculated sum reflecting the minimum income necessary for people to live at subsistence levels. It is an arbitrary figure, built up over the years through a series of piecemeal changes and adjustments.
The Government now propose to add a notional element of compensation for community charge payments to an already arbitrary figure. It would be quite wrong to see this compensation as an identifiable component of state support. In fact, any addition to income support which the Government claim to make will be swallowed up in the general income support figures, which are hidden from the public eye by the refusal of the DHSS to publish a breakdown of the income support payment.
These measures cannot be seen in isolation for they form part of a network of regulations, sometimes petty in themselves, that make for the growing marginalisation of large sections of our community. Those are the forgotten people: the single parents, the homeless and the destitute. Today I came up in the train with a man from Scotland Yard. I was telling him about our debate. He laughed at the idea that local authorities would go into a place such as Brixton, where the police cannot control the drug problem or the rioting problem, and attempt to register such people and obtain money from them. He said, "I know exactly what they will say". He then said the two words which I would not dare use in this Chamber. However, I am sure that he was right.

385
The Government repeat as often as anyone asks that everyone must pay in order to give them a stake in the fight to keep down local government spending. However, it seems to me particularly unfortunate as a moral premise to believe that the pockets of the poor should be used as a tool of central government. It is almost obscene. The principle that everyone should pay 20 per cent. before claiming any compensation is an unnecessary risk with the wellbeing of many families. It is here that I locate the nub of the amendment; it substitutes certainty for doubt, precision for rough calculation and compassion for disdain. As such, its passing would show that, in the Committee at least, we are able to take a broad view and see that judicious review can improve both legislation and the lives of many people.
A considerable number of Members of the Committee have received complaints about various aspects of the Bill. I have every hope that the Minister will heed the words of the poet John Milton:
"That the bounds of civil liberty are enlarged by ensuring that complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed".
4 p.m.
Lord Grimond: I rise briefly to support the amendment. It seems quite incredible that the Government intend to charge the poorest people in the land—the people who probably need the services of local authorities most—in the way in which the Bill proposes. I shall not reiterate what has been said about the illogicality of the Bill and the unfairness of the average community charge. However, perhaps I may say that in Scotland we are beginning to suffer the first impact of these measures. We have received our assessments or notices. It is apparent, as we all suspected, that there will be appalling anomalies. The Government have not thought out the logic of the measures.
According to the speeches that have been made, the logic is that everybody should pay something for local government services. It is believed that if they do so they will then look more carefully at proposals for local government expenditure. Presumably that also applies to the people who sleep under the arches on the Embankment. Are the Government saying that those people will be deeply moved about local elections by the fact that they have to pay something towards services? The proposition is ludicrous.
Furthermore, when it comes to the pinch, a great deal of the information for which we are asked in Scotland clearly presupposes that the tax, like the old rates, will be largely a matter for householders. As was pointed out at Question Time, we have been asked for details about when we acquired our houses, how many people are living in them, when they moved in and so forth. On the arguments put forward by the Government, that has nothing to do with the Bill. It should not matter whether or not one owns a house. The purpose which the Government now have in mind is that everyone who uses local services should pay for them. Ministers who come to their offices in Whitehall should pay their contribution towards Westminster services, wherever they live.
It is clear that that logic is being abandoned. In place of it, we are going to have confusion, out of
386
which, as is so often the case, the poorest will come off worst. They will be required to pay their whack, even though they may get it back to some extent. In the process, as has been said, there will be great expenditure and great ill-feeling and there will be an increase in bureaucracy.
As has also been said, to accept the amendment is not to wreck the Bill; it is simply to take on board common sense. It tells one that it is ludicrous to try to charge the very poor in the country for services which it is accepted they cannot pay for. To do so is not only expensive and ludicrous; it wrecks the whole consensus on which the country has been built up and the respect for government or local government.
It would not in the least wreck the principles of the Bill—which are being abandoned in any case to a large extent—to exempt the people it is proposed should be exempted by this amendment. I very much hope that Ministers, if they will not yield to common sense, will at least yield in another place to the very serious natural consequences which this type of enactment will have for the Conservative Party.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, in what, if I may say so, was an excellent speech, said he thought that the view he had taken and which the proposers of the amendment and the others who have so far spoken have taken was the broad view. That implies that the view that is taken by those who agree with the notion that everybody, with very few exceptions, should contribute to local government services is a narrower view.
It seems to me (and I believe it deeply) that the situation in local government is such that we need a radical change in the way it is operated. We talked about that at Second Reading and earlier in Committee. Perhaps the nub of the radical nature of the proposed change is the idea that the least well off should contribute something.
Thinking about how people approach life nowadays, how the poorest people are aware of the mainstream of society more than they have ever been and want to join in, thinking indeed of the problems of the people who sleep on the Embankment, I believe that the government proposal represents one of the ways in which we can treat our fellow men with proper modern respect appropriate to the 1980s. The Bill tries to make it possible for them to contribute on equal terms with everybody else to the services which they use.
It is true that that contribution will be in very small sums based on the average community charge as we understand it at the moment. It will be something of the order of 50p a week which is due, plus or minus a few pence according to the level at which the local authority sets the community charge. That is the figure which it is assumed the 20 per cent. of the charge payable will amount to. The total may, I suppose, be up to £1.
If one is one of those people receiving income support one will know that that average community charge is an element of one's cost of living which is provided for in income support. It will be like receiving money for buying the basic food—the bread, eggs, butter and so on. One of the items for

387
which one will receive money is the community charge. The problem one will have to face is how to ensure that one has that money in one's hand when the community charge has to be paid.
The policeman whom the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, met laughed at the notion. I can understand that. He knows exactly how people carry on and what the problems will be. But the way that we deal with these things at the moment is not working too well and the police know that best of all. It seems to me that the Bill represents a serious attempt—which incidentally should help the police—to treat people with modern respect and help them to feel themselves required to contribute like everyone else.
The issue concerns one's attitude to one's fellow man nowadays and what one perceives to be the right way to try to move along into modern times. I am absolutely convinced that it is right. I do not believe that this is a wrecking amendment but I think that a basic element of the concept of the community charge is that everyone should contribute, except those very few who we all agree should be exempted for reasons other than income.
I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment. I know that it is moved with the most compassionate of intentions and that those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it believe that that is the right approach. I believe that the approach set out in the Bill is a new approach, a more modern approach; and it is an approach which I think will work. I very much hope that the Committee will leave the Bill as it stands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has turned to the only answer that the Government could possibly give to the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords who have already spoken. It has been made clear—as if it needed to be made clear —that the complexity and the administrative extravagance of the system which is proposed cannot be defended in its own right. The noble Baroness did not attempt to defend it on those grounds. The differences between one local authority and another have been made clear. One may hate local authorities but it does not mean that one has to hate the poor who live in the areas with local authorities which have high spending.
I noticed that the noble Baroness did not attempt to answer that point. She concentrated on what is becoming almost a point of theology in the Government's thinking. I am interested that she agrees with it. It is the kind of theology which is concerned with the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin rather than serious philosophical thinking.
I do not think that the noble Baroness lives in the real world or that she meets many poor people. If she did she would know that when you are so poor that you have to rely on income support you pay money all the time from the very small amount that you have. You pay for your food, lodging and all the other essentials. You pay taxes because you pay value added tax on the things that you buy. It does not give anyone a feeling of great pleasure or social responsibility to do so, but they do pay taxes.
388
The reality of being very poor is that you save and scrimp for things that you know are essential but for which you do not have enough money. You save for shoes, for clothes, for something to give the children a decent life. What is proposed here is that on top of that you should pay something to a local authority on the basis of a theological argument that it makes you more accountable for local authority services. I do not believe that many noble Lords, when they think about it, will believe that that is a realistic or humane way to behave to our fellow citizens who have less money than we have.
I appreciate the sincerity of the position of the noble Baroness and I know that she feels it deeply. But I believe profoundly that she is wrong and that the Government are wrong in putting forward that argument.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, I must ask him not to assume that I do not know any poor people or that I have not discussed this subject with extremely poor people. The Bill concerns England. I do not know Haringey and I do not know London, but there are a lot of poor people in Scotland. Not all of them agree at all with the noble Lord. I ask him to respect the integrity of what noble Lords say and not assume that if they disagree with him they do not know what they are talking about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I paid specific tribute to the noble Baroness's integrity. I think that she is wrong.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, this amendment seeks to allow for 100 per cent. rebates of the community charge. Therefore, in effect, it is an amendment which asks for a blanket exemption from the community charge to be made for people who have low incomes. I believe that this point was considered earlier in our proceedings when the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved Amendment No. 34 and subsequently withdrew it.
One of the Government's fundamental aims is to increase local accountability. That is the point which has just been the subject of a discussion across the Chamber between my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The Government have already begun that process in our reform of the housing benefit system. Since last April people in receipt of benefit have been expected to make a 20 per cent. contribution toward their rates. That minimum contribution will continue with the introduction of the community charge.
Perhaps I may briefly say a few words on what the Government propose in relation to that. It is fairly obvious from the discussions that we have had that the Government's proposals fall into two parts. There is the notion of an 80 per cent. maximum rebate and a provision by which people on low incomes will be further helped to pay the remaining 20 per cent. As I have said, the 80 per cent. maximum rebate is a concept that already applies to rates. It was approved by this Chamber when it agreed to the housing benefit general regulations of 1987. There are

389
three crucial points. The first is that the rebate will be 80 per cent. of the actual community charge in the area. Thus, for example, in an area with a charge of £200 a year, the maximum rebate will be £160, leaving the individual to pay £40. If the community charge is £250, the maximum rebate will be £200, leaving the person concerned to pay £50. Secondly, each individual will be assessed for a rebate in his own right. This raises an issue which I know has very much worried people in the past. I should like to make it absolutely clear that, for example, an elderly parent who relies on the state pension and is living with relatives, or an unemployed son or daughter who is living with parents, will be entitled to the maximum rebate, irrespective of the income of the other people in the household. Thirdly, we intend that those who are entitled to rebates should receive help in the form of a reduction in their bills. There will normally be no question of paying, say, £200 and getting back £160. The bill will be for the net amount, which in this example is £40.
That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who spoke about the very poorest in the land. I emphasise that yes, indeed, those people who are wholly dependent on income support (that is the former supplementary benefit) and those single people who earn up to £5 a week, or couples who earn up to £10 a week, above the income support levels will be eligible straightaway for the 80 per cent. rebate. Single pensioners and pensioner couples who are reliant on the state retirement pension and single people over 25 who are reliant on unemployment benefit will be absolutely without question entitled to the 80 per cent. maximum rebate. However, in addition, there will be the arrangements for helping those on low incomes to pay the remaining 20 per cent.
We believe that the 20 per cent. minimum payment will help to promote local accountability —I join my noble friend Lady Carnegy in stressing that point—and will ensure that everyone has a direct interest in the spending policies of their local authorities. I have to say to the Committee that in view of the low numbers of people who turn out to vote in local elections these days, I wonder whether it can be said that the electorate at this moment has the direct interest that it ought to have in how its local authorities are representing it.
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he suggesting that this legislation will actually increase the turnout in local elections?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I am suggesting that it will increase the direct interest of people who will be paying the community charge. I do not know whether they will then go and cast a vote as a result, but I am suggesting that at the present time that direct interest is not to be found, as perhaps it ought to be, and that there is not that spur which I think desirable.
However, I am not saying that local electors receiving maximum rebates will have to pay the last 20 per cent. out of their own pockets. Their income support will be uprated to reflect 20 per cent. of the average community charge across the country and
390
that uprating will be carried out next year when the community charge is introduced in Scotland. It is not the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, suggested, that in some way there will be that uprating and then everybody will forget about it.
As I have said the income support levels will be adjusted from April next year when the community charge is introduced in Scotland, and that adjustment will reflect the average minimum contribution across Great Britain as a whole; but thereafter it will be absorbed in the general level of income support which is uprated every year. That means that although the amount will not be separately identified, in effect it will be increased year by year. So if the person who is receiving the maximum rebate together with the help given towards the 20 per cent. lives in an area in which local authority spending and therefore the community charge are low, the 20 per cent. uprating will be more than he needs and in fact there will be some money in his pocket. Conversely, if the 20 per cent. uprating is in a high spending area there will be a little to pay. If that person lives in an average spending area, the 20 per cent. uprating will fully meet his bill.
I said just now that there would be a little to pay. Perhaps I may now reply to one other point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, when she argued that some individuals in very high spending areas would find that the uprating of their income support fell some way short of their community charges. She mentioned a figure of £2 a week. I should like to point out to the noble Baroness that those figures would apply only in the case of those London boroughs which at the moment have the very highest spending to be found. However, it must not be assumed—and we on this side of the Committee certainly do not assume it— that when the community charge is introduced it will be at the figures produced on the basis of present spending; also, because of the provisions in Part IV of the Bill, the community charge in those high spending areas will be phased in and rates will be phased out over a period of four years.
Baroness Stedman: The noble Lord said that I was probably only talking about those people who live in areas where there are very high spending councils and who may have to pay an extra £2 a week over and above what they receive from the Government towards their community charge. Those are the people in the deprived inner city areas. There are a great many of those people and we are just as concerned about them and the effect that these regulations will have on them as we are about the few people at the other end of the scale who may well get back a little more from the DHSS than they need for their social services.
Lord Belstead: The noble Baroness is habitually very fair in her remarks; so let me put it straight to her. She is not right in saying that we are speaking of the very poorest people who live in the inner city areas. The example which the noble Baroness gave me related only to people who live in the very highest spending (inner London) boroughs to be found in this country. If I may say so to the noble Baroness, for the reasons I have just given it is not an accurate

391
reflection of what will happen to assume that those very high spending policies will continue—because there will be local accountability.
Perhaps the noble Baroness has forgotten the speech that was made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford when we started our discussions of this Bill many weeks ago. It was a remarkable speech in which my noble friend, with his great experience of both local and central government, pointed out that whatever one may think of this Bill the one thing that it will do is bring home to local authorities that the people of their areas really do care about how those authorities spend their money. So fair is fair! The noble Baroness put a point to me. It was not a point of general application but of specific application. I do not believe that it will work out in the way that the noble Baroness put to me for the reasons that I have given.
Perhaps I may put one other point to Members of the Committee opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said that the Government had no heart for those who sleep rough under the arches or in the countryside. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, this was precisely the point brought up in proceedings some weeks ago. My noble friend Lord Caithness agreed to consider whether this was a valid point and promised that he would come back to the Committee with an answer on it.
Lord Grimond: In saying that the Government had no heart, I may perhaps have exaggerated. However, it is surely odd that the noble Earl at this stage should have to consider the matter. Is he not aware of the number of homeless people in London? When they drafted the Bill, did the Government not consider that there are many people who sleep out? They matter a great deal. Is it a shock to the Government to find this factor late in the proceedings?
Lord Belstead: My noble friend Lord Caithness agreed to take the point away and to come back on it. My noble friend who has been in charge of the Bill was very ready to do that. Let me finally ask Members of the Committee opposite to take on board this point. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour was realistic and I think had a point when she said that our proposals will mean that, whatever area people live in, those who are on low incomes will have a direct interest in their local authority spending policies, as will everyone else.
That would not be the position under the amendment which has been put to the Committee today. Indeed, the weakness of the case—put so strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—is that it would encourage no interest in local authority spending by those who are on maximum rebates. That attitude would be held to be dismissive of the very proper concerns for what goes on in a locality by people, whether they are poor or rich. That is not an attitude that Parliament should encourage. For that reason, more than any other, I ask Members of the Committee not to agree with this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Since the provisions of this Bill will be applicable a year earlier in Scotland, it is therefore an immediate prospect. The highest spending areas, such as the city of Glasgow, are high spending not because they are irresponsible but because the need is greater. The people who live in Glasgow will be compensated to the extent of a national average which takes into account areas of less need. In these circumstances will the people in greatest poverty in Glasgow suffer even more as a result of the application of the principle which the noble Lord has just enunciated?
Lord Belstead: I quite understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I entirely accept what the noble Lord says: that the needs of Glasgow are greater than the needs of other areas. The Government say that this will be the criterion under which the 50 per cent. of the contribution towards the spending on local services will be based—in other words, in deciding what the government rate support grant of the future will be. Therefore when the noble Lord says to me that there will be problems—for instance, in Glasgow because of need, my answer is that the noble Lord may well be right, and this will be taken into account specifically by the government subvention system in the future. It has been said again and again on this Bill.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply although I cannot agree with very much of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to giving them back their self-respect and that they may have to pay plus or minus a few pence out of their own pocket if the 20 per cent. rebate they receive is not enough. A few pence is a very great amount to people who are almost on the poverty line or who are destitute. It matters to them that they have to find this money.
I am concerned also about the leakage that there will be from this money. It is paid by the DHSS in very small amounts, I know. But if a Member of the Committee opposite were a single parent with three children who never had any luxuries, never had anything, and who suddenly had £3 or £4 extra in his pocket, would such a parent not be tempted perhaps to buy the child a few sweets, or to buy a new pair of shoes, or, if it were an elderly couple, to buy a warm jersey? Those are the kinds of items on which the leakage will be used.
Are noble Lords saying that it is worth the while of local authorities and their officers to bill the amounts that are needed, to send someone round to chase these sums up, to go through all the processes which this Bill provides, to issue distress warrants, and eventually to try to get them into prison for paltry amounts such as this? In another place if a Member of Parliament puts down a Question and it costs too much to find the answer, he does not have the answer on the grounds that it is a waste of government money and would cost too much to provide it. These people are surely worth as much respect as a parliamentary question. If it costs so much to chase them up, is it really worth the bother of trying to get the money from them?

393
In my days as a county councillor I met very many poor people. I tried to help a lot of people who were on social security in those days. I do not wish to become too reminiscent, but I was brought up in a working class family during the miners' strike and during the hungry 'thirties. I know the problems that existed then, and I know the problems that many of the people about whom we are talking face now. The electorate will not take a greater interest in what the Conservative Party or Conservative councils are doing. My guess is that when this measure comes into being the blame for these people and many others having to pay anything will not lie at the door of their local councils. It will be the Government who take the can back for what is happening to these people.
I am sure that the Committee has some compassion. We have not seen a great deal of it from the other side this afternoon. However, I ask Members of the Committee opposite to consider whether it is worth all the effort to get these small sums back from people who are in such desperate need. One noble Lord has told me that while this debate has been going on he began to think we were back in the days of the Victorian value of pauperism. He reminded me that his grandfather once remonstrated with him because he gave a beggar sixpence. He was told that he was not respecting the man to give him charity like that. We are not asking for charity. We are asking for compassion. We are asking for fairness. I must ask the House to take a decision on this.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 185AB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Airedale, L.

Galpern, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Barnett, L.

Greenway, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blease, L.

Grimond, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hampton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hayter, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hooson, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jay, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L.

Listowel, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ezra, L.

Longford, E.

Falkender, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkland, V.

McCarthy, L.

394

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

McNair, L.

Scanlon, L.

Marsh, L.

Seear, B.

Mayhew, L.

Seebohm, L.

Milford, L.

Serota, B.

Milverton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stallard, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nathan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Porritt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rathcreeden, L.

Willis, L.

Richardson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rugby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fortescue, E.

Aldington, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goold, L.

Alport, L.

Gormanston, V.

Arran, E.

Grantchester, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Barber, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harvington, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hemphill, L.

Beloff, L.

Hertford, M.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hives, L.

Birdwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blatch, B.

Hood, V.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Borthwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ilchester, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Butterworth, L.

Killearn, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Kimball, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kitchener, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Luke, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Margadale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

De Freyne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Effingham, E.

Newall, L.

Elibank, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, L.

Erne, E.

Pender, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Foley, L.

Reay, L.

395

Reigate, L.

Strange, B.

Renton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Rodney, L.

Strathspey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Terrington, L.

St. Germans, E.

Teviot, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Trafford, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Selborne, E.

Wise, L.

Shannon, E.

Wolfson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 74, line 12, at end insert—
("For the purposes of calculating the rebate payable to any person he shall be deemed to be 25 years of age or over.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Banks. Unfortunately he is indisposed and cannot be here but he has asked me to move the amendment for him. I am pleased to do so because it deals with the problem of young people under 25 and in one of my strange manifestations I am a vice president of the British Youth Council.
Young people have been taking a considerable amount of stick from the Government in one way or another. When debating the winners and losers in the poll tax young people come down firmly on the side of the loser, particularly those under 25. Over the past few years they have been subjected to the board and lodgings regulations. Those regulations deny young people the right to play an active role in their community by forcing them to move from one place to another in order to claim benefit entitlement. The Wages Act 1986 removed the under-21s from the protection of the wages councils. More recently the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 introduced a lower level of benefit for the under-25s for, as far as we understand, no logical or rational reason. It is the relationship with the Social Security Act 1986 which impels the amendment.
The proposed rebate is based on the housing benefit rules within the Social Security Act 1986 and therefore the 25-year age barrier within the Act will apply also to rebate entitlement. The result is that young people with a lower level of income than those over 25 will lose all help with poll tax payments. Based on the English average, the threshold level for the under-25s is £57.70 and for the over-25s it is £58.10. Young people living outside London will lose all help with poll tax payments once their income exceeds £50.70. On the other hand, their counterparts over 25 will be able to earn up to £58.10 before the rebate disappears.
One could find two people living in identical circumstances aged 24 and 26, with identical jobs, earning the same amount, perhaps sharing the same flat and with identical outgoings. Under the Government's proposal the older person will receive some poll tax rebate whereas the younger person may not.
When this subject was raised in another place the Secretary of State said that the main reason for the distinction between the under and over-25s was that most of the under-25s live at home and do not have household expenses. However, is not the whole point about a poll tax that it is a tax on the individual for his use of local services and has nothing to do with the type or location of property in which he is living. Indeed we have heard today about cardboard boxes.
The Government amended their own Bill in the Commons to include Clause 3(2) which states that in deciding where a person has his sole or main residence in the area, the fact that he does not live in a building is irrelevant. Therefore, when it comes to assessing liability for tax the Secretary of State does not care where one lives, but when it comes to assessing rebate entitlement, the Secretary of State then cares whether or not you are a householder so that he can give you less.
I believe that this age barrier of 25 has no logical basis whatever. Amendment No. 186, which we propose, only ends some of the unfairness in the way in which it applies to young people. However, it would be the very least that we could do to reduce the unfair discrimination for that particular age group.
I could go on about how young people are our future and so on, but I do not think that that sort of emotional approach is likely to commend itself to the Committee. However, I believe that there is a very simple point here: there is this odd cut-off point at the age of 25 where, because of the operation of the 1986 Act, people under 25 will be discriminated against. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: We support this amendment. We have never understood why the arbitrary age of 25 was picked on to make such a different social security provision. I have often asked this question and I can recall being afraid that I was boring the Chamber with it during the social security legislation which introduced this proposal. We never received a satisfactory reply.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, one answer is that people under 25 are supposed to be living with mother. The Prime Minister said only the other day that homeless young people sleeping rough should go back home to mother. Members of the Committee opposite do not seem to understand that not everybody under the age of 25 has a mother. Sometimes the mother is dead or sometimes there is a wicked stepmother. There are all sorts of reasons which make it essential for people up to the age of 25 to be able to lead their own lives. They want to be independent, and many are homeless because they are trying to find work. Some leave home because of frictions, especially where there are broken marriages.
I did not feel young when I was 24½. I felt very old at that time. Many of those young people are married. Many are perhaps trying to set up in business, of which I am sure the Government would approve. Some may be performing jobs in the daytime and paying for further education courses in the evening. I know several who are spending more than they can afford on fees for something like the Open University. The idea that anyone under 25 is a

397
different sort of human being living in a different world from when one is 25 plus one day is absolutely mad.
This Government seem to hate young people. There have been these stringent bed and breakfast and lodgings rules which push them around. They must not stay in one place for more than a certain time and, if they go elsewhere and they find a nice landlady, they must not stay with her for too long. The whole emphasis seems to be on making it very difficult for young people to have a start in life and to deal with their own problems in an independent way. Up to the age of 24 years and 364 days they should not have to go and ask their parents for money. If their parents do not give them money it seems that under this Bill they will be penalised.
We believe that it is absolutely essential that this age should be changed. As I say, these people might be married or supporting elderly parents and are fully adult in every sense of the word. That is why we are moving this amendment so that in this wretched Bill, they will at least be treated on a par with other people whatever their age.
I was interested in the last debate when the Minister referred to making people feel responsible for their local authorities and for rushing off to vote. I wonder when he last asked anyone sleeping rough under which local authority's hedge he was sleeping. I do not think that many of the people at Charing Cross know the name of the borough, let alone are on the electoral register. When there is a mobile population it is very difficult for people to relate in the way in which the Government seem to think that they should to that big town hall which is very often to them just a building opposite the railway station.
For those reasons we are waiting to know what is holy about being 25. I ask Members of the Committee to look back and think what they were doing at the age of 25. How many children did they have? Were they living with mother? What sort of lifestyle did they want? Did they want to be independent and adult? The age of majority is 18 and I should have thought that to choose that age would have made some sense. However, I support this amendment, as do my noble friends, because we believe that there is no reality in having this extraordinary break-off at the age of 25.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: This amendment introduces what will become a statutory legal fiction with regard to an age limit. All age limits are, to an extent, arbitrary. They are necessarily based upon the most usual cases likely to occur. We have them in the statute book, in definitions of children and young persons. There is the age of voting at 18. The age limit is still 21 for certain purposes. For the purpose under discussion it happens to be 25. Later in life we find that there is an age limit when we have our retirement pensions—60 and 65. All these are arbitrary age limits.
The noble Baroness asked: what is holy about 25? One may well ask: what is holy about any other age limit? However, I should like to suggest to the Committee that legal fictions should be avoided in legislation, however good the motive for them. I am
398
not suggesting that there is a good motive in this case because we have to have age limits for certain purposes. This age limit was fixed by Parliament after very mature consideration. However, I must say that I hope that my noble friend would not fall for the temptation of agreeing to this legal fiction. It would make a nonsense of the age limit in this case.
Lord Bellwin: I wonder what evidence there is to show that people under the age of 25, the people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred, are in any way worse off today than they were in previous years under administrations which she supported. Where is the evidence to show that that is so when she says, "This Government seem to hate young people"? I do not believe that she should be allowed to get away with that as a statement and it then be assumed that that is a fact. Many of us on this side of the Committee would vigorously deny that that is so.
Perhaps I may turn to her question: what were we doing when we were 25? I lived at home when I was 25 and I did not consider in any way that that made me feel that I was not dependent. I felt very dependent. The fact is that I loved living with my parents because of the regard that I had for them.
Baroness Jeger: You were lucky.
Lord Bellwin: It may be that I was lucky. I suggest that there are many others who are lucky, too. While it is true that there are those in the categories to which the noble Baroness referred, nevertheless there are many who choose to live away from home. There is nothing at all wrong in doing that. Indeed, that is to be encouraged if it is so wished. However, that does not detract from the fact that in so doing such persons actually add to the burden of the housing problem. This is not to say that one should not always try to better the situation. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee subscribe to that. Nevertheless, it is a fact that those who could stay at home, but choose not to do so, add to the problem. I do not believe that it helps the discussion at all to say that that is not so.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying that he is abandoning the advice of a friend of his who said that they should get on their bikes and look for work? That is the main reason for people leaving home. When the noble Lord said that people under 25 may have been worse off under a previous government, surely it was a Conservative government that brought in the 25 years-of-age rule.
Lord Bellwin: I do not say anything of the kind. There will always be people who wish to find work in other places if it is not available locally. Surely, that is not to suggest that that is the basis of the whole problem. It is clearly not so. It does not add to the debate to distort the facts as they are, and that is the point I am taking up with the noble Baroness.
Lord Underhill: I generally respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, but he will not deny the official figures of homelessness, particularly in London. The official figures show a staggering increase. These are not people who have just, willy-

399
nilly, left home; they are people who are homeless because of all kinds of circumstances. I was fortunate because I was married at the age of 23 and had my first child at the age of 24. I was living on a very low income. Many of these people have practically no income at all. Most of us know people who have come to London in order to find work, do not find it and then, for various reasons, are homeless. These are the reasons why some of the inner London authorities have such high expenditure.
Lord Belstead: In listening to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, my feeling was that he had very much in mind that this amendment runs directly contrary to the way in which income-related benefits work. My other noble friend who spoke in this short debate, Lord Renton, pointed out that age limits are something of a legal fiction—
Lord Renton: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am saying that this amendment introduces a legal fiction as regards an age limit. I do not consider that other age limits are legal fiction, but they are arbitrary.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to my noble friend for interpreting him in a way which would not have redounded to my own case. I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me in his last words that when one has age limits they tend to be arbitrary. In his earlier remarks I remember him saying that presumably the ages of 60 and 65 are arbitrary as regards retirement benefits. There are reasons, and some age has to be fixed. Is it unreasonable to have this particular age in the social security system? In passing the Social Security Act 1986, the intention of Parliament was that in calculating income-related benefits, account ought to be taken of a claimant's personal circumstances. This is because the financial needs of a single 18-year old are likely to be different from the needs of a married couple with children. In turn, they are likely to be different to the needs of a physically handicapped pensioner.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that, whatever the argument, it very much seemed that the whole question depended upon whether one lived in a house. It is not quite like that. The assessed financial needs of a particular claimant are known as his or her applicable amount and, in calculating applicable amounts, 25 is held in the regulations made under the 1986 Act to be a significant age for single people because most of the older age group are becoming householders and their living expenses are becoming greater. As payments of rebates or benefits for the community charge are to be income-related, the calculation of entitlement should be based upon the same general rules for income-related benefits, such as income support or housing benefit.
So it is that, in calculating rebates for the community charge for people under 25, the way in which their entitlement tapers off will mean that single people under 25 will cease to be eligible for rebate at a lower level of income than single people of 25 years of age or over. This reflects the assumption upon which the social security system is based.
400
The first point I am making is that this amendment is not really aimed so much at the rebate system for the community charge, but at the social security system—
Baroness Jeger: Hear, hear.
Lord Belstead:—which makes different assumptions about the needs of people according to their circumstances. There is a second and a very important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is saying "Hear, hear"; in other words, I believe she is suggesting that I am saying something which is hardhearted. Perhaps I may show a little compassion. Let us be absolutely clear: a person who is under 25, out of work, or wholly dependent upon income support, will receive exactly the same benefit as someone over 25. In other words, he will receive the 80 per cent. rebate.
I emphasise that couples and lone parents under the age of 25 will also have the same benefit entitlement as people who are over 25. Those under 25, or out of work, married, or having children, will receive the full rebate if their income entitles them to do so. It is the social security system which assumes that the needs of the single person under 25 are less than those of people who are older. It is that which this amendment seeks to change and it is that which I ask the Committee not to agree to.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have joined in this short debate. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says and I have considerable sympathy for it. One would not necessarily wish to introduce a legal fiction if one can find a better way. If the noble Lord has a few spare moments between now and Report stage, I shall be grateful if he can indicate how it can be done in a way which does not create a legal fiction.
As regards the people concerned, it is not a fiction. Because of the effect of the 1986 Act, it is having a knock-on effect into this Bill which is grossly unfair. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, allowed himself to be seduced into somewhat peripheral issues. They may have been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who rightly feels extremely strongly about these matters. However, those points have nothing whatever to do with the burden of housing. The question of housing came in because of a reply in another place which suggested that the reason there should be a cut-off was because the majority of those over 25 are householders and have householders' expenses.
I sought to indicate that that is not the philosophy upon which this Bill is based. The owning or otherwise of property has nothing to do with this system of taxation. I do not see how I could have put the case more clearly, but the Government are seeing it as an attack on the whole of their social security system. It seems that the boot is totally on the other foot. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned in his response to the Minister, it is because of the arbitrary nature of the Social Security Act that we are faced with this situation. I believe that it is having a knock-on effect into this Bill which I do not think was intended by the original draftsman. I do not think,

401
particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, that I should pursue this amendment today. But I do not believe that the problem will go away. It is wrong that people under 25 should be dealt with more harshly when, in many cases they may well be living in exactly the same circumstances, as people over 25. If the age were 18 or something like that, there might be more of a case. However, with all the philosophy behind the Bill, it seems to me that 25 is an arbitrary age which should certainly not be introduced into this Bill. Nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 186ZA not moved.]
Clause 133 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Social security]:
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 186A:
Page 124, line 30, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 102D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 187 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 187ZA:
Page 126, line 3, leave out ("a prescribed percentage") and insert ("ten per cent. or less").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come to another element of the rebate system for the poor which is proposed by the Government. The first debate that we had this afternoon was on the subject of the threshold, and on that the Committee has made its decision, which I very much regret. But that is not the whole of the story. In addition to the provision that even the very poorest shall pay 20 per cent. of their personal community charge, subject to the provisions which we know about for changes in income support, there is a complex system of tapers to allow a reducing amount of rebate of the personal community charge as income increases over the minimum level. In Schedule 13 this percentage—the proportion by which the rebate decreases as income rises—is called the prescribed percentage.
I am somewhat surprised that the Government still think that they can get away with calling it the prescribed percentage and leaving it to regulation by the Secretary of State, because this was a matter of considerable political uproar in another place in April this year when the housing benefit regulations were debated and when the Government were forced by pressure from their own back-benchers to change the taper from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent.
Noble Lords will remember that this change took place a few days before the debate on housing benefits was due to take place, and it was intended to buy off the opposition of a number of Conservative backbenchers in another place. The effect of that politically was somewhat weakened by the fact that it became clear from leaked documents that the Government did not intend that there should be any
402
real further expense to the public purse from that. They intended these changes to be self-financing, and that did not do the Government's reputation any good either.
However, the Government still apparently think it proper to ignore the very strong political and public feeling about the percentage points of the taper by allowing it to be dealt with by secondary legislation in this Bill. We are proposing that the taper should not be the 20 per cent. originally planned, nor the 15 per cent. to which the Government agreed for housing benefits in April this year, but a figure of 10 per cent.
I think I should explain what that means in money terms to a couple facing the average community charge bill of £8 ·62 a week. Under the 20 per cent. taper as originally proposed, it would mean that they would get no rebate whatever if their net income, including any earnings disregard, exceeded £93 ·45 a week. Under the 15 per cent. taper which was accepted for the housing benefit regulations, they would get no rebate whatever if their earnings were above £104 ·12.
Under this amendment, which would put the figure straight on the face of the Bill and mean that the Government are prepared to stand up and be counted about it, it is still not a very high figure. We are still saying that there would be no rebate at all for net earnings above £125 ·45. When I remind the Committee that average net earnings based on average gross income of £213 are £166·66, noble Lords will realise that we are not exactly throwing money around to the lower paid. These people are still well below average earnings and are still receiving no rebate of any kind.
Let us accept that the Committee has agreed that the threshold for the very poorest shall not be changed. There is no logical reason why the Committee, even if it has taken that decision, should not recognise that those who are not our very poorest, but who are still substantially below average earnings, and therefore in very difficult financial circumstances, working in lowly paid jobs, perhaps only being able to work part-time or to work on a seasonal basis—there are many circumstances in which this happens—still deserve to some extent to have the wind tempered to them.
I put it to the Committee that it would be an act of conciliation, an act of recognition of the hard circumstances in which many of our fellow citizens live, if the Government were to agree to this amendment or to indicate that, even if they do not agree to it being put on the face of the Bill, this is the basis on which the taper will be calculated by the Secretary of State when he is determining the prescribed percentage. I do not want to make two issues— one of which is whether the percentage should be on the face of the Bill—confuse the basic humanitarian purpose behind this amendment, which is to increase the rebate system for those who are still very poor but not the very poorest.
I hope the Committee will feel that this is not in any way a threat to the principles behind the Bill. It is perhaps a very modest movement in favour of the Government's original intention of having a

403
replacement for the rates which took account of ability to pay. But it would not be a political defeat for the Government if the Committee agreed to this amendment. It would be, as I said, a humanitarian gesture and I hope that the Committee will feel able to agree to it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As this is the first amendment that we have discussed in relation to this schedule, except the earlier minor one, Amendment No. 186A, I wonder whether I may be forgiven for pointing out that this is the longest and most complex schedule in the Bill. It is necessary in order to amend the Social Security Act 1986, in order that the Government's policy of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, which is part of the policy under this Bill, can be implemented.
Having said that, I must point out that it, first, makes massive amendments to existing legislation by a system of cross-reference. Admittedly it is done by the admirable method of textual amendment, but one cannot possibly follow these massive amendments with a copy of this Bill in front of one.
The schedule also gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations, some of which may amend not only this Bill but previous legislation. But for the good purpose of this schedule I should have said that from the point of view of legislative drafting it really goes over the top. However, it has a good purpose and one should acknowledge that.
Having got that off my chest—and I hope I may be forgiven for doing so I now come to the amendment. When we are legislating, especially if we are legislating in ways which affect people's pockets—and of course this amendment does affect people's pockets—it is desirable that we should, if feasible and possible, be certain about what we are doing. There is no doubt that, by leaving the matter to be "a prescribed percentage", we are leaving it to the Secretary of State's good intentions. To that extent there is uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with I think a justifiable motive, is trying to remove the uncertainty by suggesting that the percentage should be 10 per cent. Frankly I do not know whether or not it should be. But if it is not to be, I am sure that we shall get a good explanation from my noble friend, to which I look forward.
Lord Somers: I am not a great mathematician but at least I can see that "a prescribed percentage" is much too vague to have in a Bill of this sort. "A prescribed percentage" may mean anything from ·001 per cent. to 99·9 per cent. We should have something more definite in the Bill as a protective measure.
Incidentally, the Bill says, "a prescribed percentage". Who will do the prescribing? We are not told that. This ought to be amended. Whether or not the percentage suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is the right one, I am not prepared to say, but I feel that something should be put there instead of what is there already.
Lord Renton: If the noble Lord were to turn to the Social Security Act 1986 he would find that the
404
percentage was to be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The Government announced in April that the taper for community charge benefit would be 15 per cent., which means of course a reduction of 15p in benefit for every £1 of extra income above the relevant limit. Previous examples of rebates and estimates of the number of people who would benefit from rebates had assumed a taper of 20 per cent., which is the figure which now applies to rate rebates. In bringing forward that proposal the Government were making an improvement on the rate rebates that people get at the moment, if their income so allows.
The decision to set the taper at 15 per cent. rather than 20 per cent. will ensure that a great many people who would otherwise have been just outside the rebate system will now benefit from it. With a 20 per cent. taper we estimate that about 8 million people would have been eligible for a rebate of their community charge. The 15 per cent. taper will bring in a further 1 million people, as well as benefiting the 4 million people whose rebate entitlement is less than the maximum 80 per cent. by giving them larger rebates than they would otherwise have received. Put another way, the introduction of the 15 per cent. taper proposal will mean that we get about 9 million people who will be able to qualify for a rebate.
But is the proposal for a 15 per cent. taper enough—because of course this amendment does two things? It says that the taper ought to be 10 per cent., but it also says that it ought to be written on the face of the Bill. Therefore I have to answer the question whether the 15 per cent. is enough. We have to set our social security budget taking into account people's needs and what the country can afford, and one has to decide how widely the available money can be spread. A 15 per cent. taper will provide for rebates a significant way up the income scale. For instance, a couple with two children paying the average community charge at current levels would qualify for a rebate if they had earnings of up to three-quarters of the national average. I believe that this is a reasonable range within which the rebate system should operate.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Renton when he says that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in trying to put the rebate on the face of the Bill, is endeavouring to remove uncertainty. I quite understand why he wants to be sure. But before I come to that point finally may I say that the noble Lord gave, if he will forgive me saying so, a somewhat distorted account of the announcement of the 15p taper by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The announcement did not actually follow a row, as the noble Lord alleged, on the housing benefit regulations, but if followed, as my right honourable friend made clear, lengthy deliberations as to the level of the target that it would be right to use for the community charge. Well, Members of the Committee laugh, but as I have already explained, the introduction of a 15 per cent. taper is going to mean a lot of extra money to a lot of extra people.

405
I come to an important point which I must put on record. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to an assumption that the increased cost of this better rebate system as a result of having the lower taper target would be met by other community charge payers. I am sure the noble Lord is aware, because it is a point which has been made explicitly by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that no decision has been taken as to how the cost is to be met. That will be decided in the usual way when the level of grant to local authorities is settled for 1990–91.
I come finally to the other point in the amendment, which is that whatever the level of the taper—and I am arguing that 15 per cent. is right—should it be put on the face of the Bill? This is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and my noble friend Lord Renton have mentioned, and I quite recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a perfectly justifiable concern here.
The proposal in the Bill is that it would be specified in the regulations, which as my noble friend Lord Renton rightly said, will be laid before Parliament by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, because the reference in the schedule is back to the 1986 Act, and all that will be after consultation with the local authority associations. Not only is it proper for it to be in regulations but it would be inconsistent with normal procedures to enshrine the level of the taper in primary legislation.
The regulations on rebates would come before your Lordships' House in due course and your Lordships would be able to debate the appropriate level of the taper. If at a later stage any adjustment to the figure is proposed, both Houses do not then have to go through the whole business of having to have a new Bill, but the matter can be done in primary legislation. There is nothing sinister in saying that, because one can always talk about figures going down as well as going up. It is for that final reason that I believe that this amendment is not well conceived. At any rate I am sorry, because the noble Lord is a good debater and we enjoy debating with him, but I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the examiner's judgment on that response would be, since the noble Lord himself used the word "improvement", that it was a courteous speech but there is still room for improvement in the conclusions that he reached. The amendment in one part is a probing amendment and in one part a determined amendment. The probing part is the attempt to put the provision on to the face of the Bill.
In moving the amendment, I said that if the Minister was able to indicate that the Government looked favourably on the 10 per cent. taper—the 10p loss of rebate for every pound of income, as he rightly specified—we should certainly withdraw it. However, having the figure on the face of the Bill is not the most important issue to us; the most important issue is trying to improve the financial lot of many people who are much worse off than we are. That is why the noble Lord was right in referring again to the responsibility that the Government have for ensuring that there is a determined and proper figure for total
406
social security benefits. The amendment would undoubtedly increase the cost of this element of social security benefits. We do not deny that.
Since we are being political about it, this is in the context of a budget that forwent vast amounts of income that government had had in the past by reducing taxation for the better off. The Government clearly thought therefore that to reduce taxation for the better off was a higher priority than to improve the lot of those who find themselves on well below average earnings and in need of the support of the rebate system. To that extent the Minister and I are in political opposition. There is no way of getting round that point.
I can seek to persuade the Committee that the 10 per cent. figure is right only by repeating what I said before: even at a figure very much below average earnings, even at a figure which makes keeping body and soul together very difficult, there will be no rebate of the personal community charge. Without seeking to pursue the matter of the drafting of the Bill, on which I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I think it right that I should seek the opinion of the Committee on the issue of the 10 per cent.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 187ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Basnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Milford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Grimond, L.

Seear, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayter, L.

Stallard, L.

Hooson, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

407

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Willis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Underhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bellwin, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Leathers, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Luke, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brightman, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Margadale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norrie, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cowley, E.

Oxfuird, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Reigate, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Rodney, L.

Elibank, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Germans, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Erne, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sandford, L.

Foley, L.

Selborne, E.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Goold, L.

Gormanston, V.

Strathspey, L.

Haddington, E.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trafford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hemphill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hereford, Bp.

Windlesham, L.

Hertford, M.

Wise, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Young, B.

Hood, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 187A:
Page 126, line 9, leave out ("on") and insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 129, line 41, after ("war") insert ("disablement pension or war").
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes a discrepancy between the provisions for community charge benefit and those for housing benefit in the Social Security Act 1986. Under that Act local authorities may disregard a war disablement pension or war widow's pension in calculating housing benefit. We want them to have exactly the same power in relation to community charge benefit, but as drafted the Bill would allow them to disregard only war widows' pensions. This amendment remedies the position. I hope the Committee will welcome the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As no other noble Lord on either side of the Committee is going to welcome the amendment, I should very much like to do so. It is right and proper that we should bear in mind those who have suffered in war and now receive war disablement pensions. I congratulate my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope it will be recognised that our silence on this matter does not indicate dissent but an anxiety to see the business of the Committee efficiently conducted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 132, line 11, leave out from ("benefits") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: In moving amendment No. 190 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 191 and 192. These are probing amendments. We want to know that the Government plan to reimburse to local authorities the costs of the administration of the poll tax and of the rebates which will take revenue away from local authorities. If the Government are willing to indicate that that is the case—and there is reason to believe from what the Government have said earlier that that is so—we will not pursue the amendments.
It is important that we should be clear whether the rates of subsidy under the current housing benefit system will be carried through into the poll tax rebates system. At the moment the Exchequer subsidy is paid at a rate of 97 per cent. of the actual gross costs on most expenditure and at a rate of 60 per cent. on administration costs. It is common ground among all the local authority associations, regardless of their political affiliation, that 100 per cent. of the administration costs—let us compromise on 97 per cent.—should also be reimbursed. I do not think it would be good enough for the Government to say in reply that this is dealt with in needs assessment. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will forgive me, there is a danger in using needs assessment to cover the costs of administration or the cost of rebates. Needs assessment is supposed to be

409
about needs and not about the cost of administration or the costs of rebates which are imposed on local authorities by central government.
For those reasons I hope that the Government will be able to give sufficient indications, first, as to the carry-through to this Bill of the method under the housing benefit system, and, secondly, as to the uprating of the compensation for administration from the present 60 per cent. level which applies under housing benefits. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Amendment No. 190 would remove the power of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the annual subsidy order to make adjustments to community charge benefit subsidy to allow for circumstances which the normal rules do not fit. It also removes the power to make deductions from subsidy so as to exclude items which it would be unreasonable to meet out of money provided by Parliament for subsidy purposes. What it would not do is to require subsidy to cover 100 per cent. of benefit paid. The noble Lord made it clear that he was aware of the high percentage in benefit at the moment and wanted to know whether that would be carried through to the new arrangements. The provisions which the amendment seeks to remove are not those that will be used to determine the rate of subsidy. Their purpose is very specific, and they are essential to ensure that authorities in special circumstances do not receive either too much or too little subsidy, and to prevent abuse of the system.
The noble Lord has made it clear that he is driving at a rather different point, the one which I have just mentioned. Yes, as my information is the same as his, the percentage which he recorded is the right one. As to what the percentage for the benefit in the future will be, that must he for future decision. All I can say today is that we are talking about a very high percentage. I simply cannot go further than that in answer to the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 191 would require my right honourable friend to support the costs incurred by local authorities in administering the community charge benefit scheme by direct subsidy. We envisage that the arrangements for subsidising administrative costs will follow a similar approach to those for the housing benefit scheme. The provision in the Bill is therefore similar to that in Section 34 of the Social Security Act 1986, which covers subsidy in relation to housing benefit.
Amendment No. 192 would require subsidy to be paid in respect of the whole of a local authority's administrative costs. This would be an open-ended commitment to meet all costs incurred by local authorities and would conflict with the Government's aim of increasing authorities' accountability and cost control. We will need to consider carefully the arrangements for subsidising the community charge benefit scheme when we are looking at the detailed provisions of the scheme itself. There is no question, however, of the Government accepting a commitment to meet all costs in full. I am sorry to be unhelpful on each of the three amendments. I hope nonetheless that the exchange of information which the noble Lord and I are having on the three amendments will be of some assistance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I well understand that the gap between us on administration costs will not readily be bridged. I should like to pursue for a moment the question of the percentage of the gross costs of the revenue loss from the rebate system. It seems to us that the principles which apply for housing benefit are so close to the principles which should apply for the rebate system that "a very high percentage", as the noble Lord has said, is not quite precise enough. However, if he would indicate without giving an actual figure—that the principles upon which the Government will be calculating the benefit to the local authorities are comparable to those for the housing benefit scheme, it would go a very long way to removing our disquiet.
By the nature of their social mix, the local authorities which have the highest level of rebates, and therefore would suffer most if their rebate loss was not made up, are those with the greatest number of social problems causing them the greatest expenditure. I recognise that some of the problems will be dealt with by the needs grant. Nevertheless, it would not be unreasonable or out of keeping with the Government's existing practice under the housing benefit scheme if they agreed to apply the same principles to this as to housing benefits. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some assistance on the matter.
Lord Belstead: I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the principles will indeed be comparable to those which are now used for housing benefit. I hope that what I have said is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, it is most helpful. It will be well received by those local authorities which are most concerned about the matter. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Tribunals]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 134, line 24, at end insert—
("Arbitration.
3A.—(1) This paragraph applies as regards any matter which falls within the jurisdiction conferred on tribunals by—

(a) section 22 above,

(b) regulations under section 47 above, or

(c) regulations under paragraph 3 above.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, where the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below agree in writing that the matter is to be referred to arbitration, the matter shall be so referred.
(3) The persons are the persons who, if the matter were to be the subject of an appeal to a tribunal, would be the parties to the appeal.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 192A, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak also to Amendments

411
Nos. 192F and 192G. This group of amendments covers a number of tidying-up measures to the provisions relating to valuation and community charge tribunals. It might be helpful therefore if I explain briefly the purpose of each of them.
Amendment No. 192A makes provision similar to that in Section 78 of the General Rate Act which is designed to permit a rating appeal to go direct to the Lands Tribunal rather than being heard by a local valuation court, provided all parties agree. Although this provision is rarely used, it is useful to have such a provision so that an appeal which raises major issues—and is likely to be taken to the Lands Tribunal in any event—may be taken there direct. The amendment similarly provides that an appeal against a decision relating to the community charge may be taken direct to the High Court, if all parties agree, where it raises a point of law.
Amendment No. 192F makes provision for further appeals against decisions of the valuation and community charge tribunal. As is now the case, there will be a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of the tribunal on a rating appeal. There will also be a right of appeal to the High Court on a community charge appeal, but only on a point of law. There is a reason for that distinction. Rating apeals involve questions of valuation and judgment and it is only right that there should be a second forum to which a person may appeal if he feels that the first decision is wrong. In the case of community charge appeals, these are essentially questions of fact.
Moreover, the tribunal is the second tier of the system: a person who is aggrieved will already have had the opportunity to take his case to the community charge registration officer or the local-authority. If they disagree, the person may appeal further—to the tribunal. That should give everyone the opportunity to have his case adequately considered. Where, of course, he considers that a point of law is involved, regulations made under Schedule 14 will provide for him to take his case to the High Court.
Amendment No. 192G contains a number of general provisions. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 14 provides for the local valuation courts to be wound up and reconstituted as valuation and community charge tribunals and for the VCCTs to assume jurisdiction in relation to any appeal made to a local valuation court before they were wound up. Paragraph 12A makes provision for regulations dealing with appeals that go to arbitration. Paragraph 12B provides that the procedures for dealing with rating appeals may differ from those relating to community charge appeals. Paragraph 12C deals with the case where a person has appealed against his register entry on the grounds that he has ceased to be liable. It is possible that the appeal may be heard some time after the person ceased to be liable. In such a case, paragraph 12C provides that the court or tribunal may in such cases order that the date on which he is shown on the register as ceasing to be liable may be earlier than the two year limitation imposed by Clause 8(3) of the Bill which provides that such an entry may only be backdated
412
two years from the date on which the register is amended to record that liability has ceased. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is so lucid that even I can understand him. Indeed, I am most grateful that we do not have too many of our professional surveyors in the Chamber this afternoon. The issues are so clear, and the need for the changes in the valuation tribunals so clear, that one cannot resist asking why the Government did not think about this when first drafting the Bill—or certainly at a much earlier stage than now.
Lord Renton: I have a rather different point to make. I should like to save the Secretary of State some trouble. If Members of the Committee will look at the first of this group of amendments—namely, Amendment No. 192A—they will see that the first paragraph is a mere recital, or reference back, to previous powers. Further, paragraph (2) reads:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that".
It then goes on to say what we that is, Parliament—are intending to do. Surely there is no need to have a regulation to repeat what is already written down. The same applies to paragraph (3) which says,
"The persons are the persons who, if the matter were to be the subject of an appeal to a tribunal, would be the parties to the appeal".
Again, there is no point in repeating that in regulations. Goodness knows there are quite enough regulations which must be made under the Bill. Therefore, if we can save the Secretary of State a little trouble it might also save Parliament some time, because the regulations will either be laid before Parliament (before they can be approved) or there will be an opportunity to pray against them. So may I suggest that in paragraph (2) the words,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that"
should be omitted?
As regards the other two amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 192F and 192G—I support the principles behind them. I think that one cannot avoid having either regulations made by the Secretary of State, or rules of court which are made in the way that rules of court are normally made. I wonder whether my noble friend would be able to obtain some advice as to whether such rules will be rules of court, or ordinary regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for the remarks he has made. I think it is only fair to say that I wish in some ways I had had the opportunity to become a parliamentary counsel so that I would be able to answer adequately the points he has made. However, I shall of course draw his remarks to the attention of those who are involved in this matter. It must be said that the Government are always grateful for any suggestions as to how they may improve the drafting of legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192AA:
Page 134, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
("(e) that some of the members (who may include the president) are to be appointed to the position of chairman, that the number to be appointed is to be stated by a prescribed person or persons, and that the appointments are to be made by the members themselves by a prescribed method or (if they default) by a prescribed person or persons;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment fulfils a commitment in relation to the method of appointment of the chairmen of valuation and community charge tribunals. At present, the chairman and deputy chairman of local valuation panels are elected by the members. When we were considering the formation of the new valuation and community charge tribunals, which will replace the local valuation panels and courts, we considered the possibility of appointing the president of the tribunal and the deputy chairmen (who will chair hearings) by a different method. The consultation document, Appeals and Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals, proposed that the president should be appointed by the Secretary of State and the chairmen should be appointed by the president.
The responses to the consultation document clearly demonstrated that both the members of the valuation panel service and other professional bodies considered this a retrograde step. We have accepted that view. In Committee in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced the Government's intention to retain the existing system of election by the membership. Schedule 14, paragraph 4, provides that the president is to be appointed by the members by the prescribed method. Regulations made under Schedule 14 will set out that method, which will be by election. We had hoped to make a similar provision by regulations for the election of the chairman, but it is not certain that the Bill, as drafted, gives us power to do that. Amendment No. 192AA makes it certain. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One and a half cheers for democracy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 192B to 192E:
Page 137, line 21, leave out ("or reduced").
Page 138, line 14, leave out ("or reduce").
Page 138, line 17, leave out ("or reduce").
Page 138, line 22, leave out ("or reduce").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 192B, 192C, 192D and 192E have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192F:
Page 138, line 26, at end insert —
("Appeals
9A.—(1) Regulations under paragraph I above may include provision that—

(a) an appeal shall lie to the High Court on a question of law arising out of a decision or order which is given or made by a tribunal on an appeal under section 22 above;

414

(b) an appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal in respect of a decision or order which is given or made by a tribunal on an appeal under regulations under section 47 or 68 above.

(2) The regulations may include—

(a) provision as to the persons who may appeal to the High Court or the Lands Tribunal;

(b) provision authorising or requiring an appeal to the High Court or the Lands Tribunal to be dismissed if it is not initiated within a prescribed time;

(c) provision as to the powers of the High Court or the Lands Tribunal on an appeal to it (which may include provision allowing the tribunal's decision or order to be confirmed, varied, set aside, revoked or remitted, and provision allowing the making of any order the tribunal could have made);

(d) provision requiring a charging authority, the community charges registration officer or valuation officer for a charging authority, or the central valuation officer, to act in accordance with any order made by the High Court or the Lands Tribunal, and provision that paragraph 8 or 9 above is to have effect subject to such a requirement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 192G:
Page 138, line 46, leave out paragraph 12 and insert—
("12. Regulations under paragraph 3 above may include—

(a) provision for the winding up of local valuation courts or for their reconstitution as valuation and community charge tribunals;

(b) provision as to orders, which may include provision requiring the carrying out of an order made by a valuation and community charge tribunal in exercising jurisdiction conferred by the regulations;

(c) provision that an appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal in respect of a decision or order which is given or made by a valuation and community charge tribunal in exercising jurisdiction conferred by the regulations;

(d) provision as to the persons who may appeal to the Lands Tribunal, as to the time within which an appeal may be initiated, and as to the powers of the Lands Tribunal on an appeal to it;

(e) provision requiring the carrying out of an order made by the Lands Tribunal on an appeal to it.

12A. Regulations under paragraph 3A above may include—

(a) provision applying enactments relating to arbitration:

(b) provision that an award in an arbitration may include any order a valuation and community charge tribunal could have made in the matter concerned;

(c) provision requiring the carrying out of an order so included.

12B.—(1) Without prejudice to section 141(1) above, regulations under this Schedule may make different provision for cases where valuation and community charge tribunals exercise jurisdiction conferred on them by or under different provisions of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to section 141(2) above, regulations under this Schedule may include provision amending, adapting, repealing or revoking any provision of or made under the 1967 Act or any other Act.
12C.—(1) Where a tribunal, arbitrator, umpire or court deals with a matter falling within the jurisdiction conferred on tribunals by section 22 above, section 8(3) above shall not apply as regards the matter if the tribunal, arbitrator, umpire or court so orders.
(2) But sub-paragraph (1) above shall not have effect if the order is set aside on appeal.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 192H:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
("Land occupied by private generator or supplier.
.No land occupied by a private generator or supplier shall be liable to be rated or included in any valuation list or in any rate

415
where that land is occupied or intended to be occupied solely or mainly for the purpose of extracting therefrom landfill gas as a source of energy for the generation of electricity.").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is sorry that he is inadvertently unable to be here, so I beg leave to move Amendment No. 192H.
The purpose of the amendment is to exempt from rating landfill gas which is used to generate electricity. Landfill gas, a mixture of methane and other gases, is produced by bacterial decay of putrescible waste, such as household refuse, at waste disposal sites. There are over 1,000 of those sites in the United Kingdom. The gas is smelly. It kills vegetation and it can also be explosive. In one incident in Derbyshire, a house was totally destroyed and the occupants seriously injured.
Furthermore, gas may be given off for many years after the site has been closed. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution recently estimated that over 60 per cent. of currently active sites, and 75 per cent. of those closed in the past 10 years, are generating gas in sufficient quantities to require proper management to avoid their becoming a problem. There are various schemes for the removal and beneficial use of landfill gas. That trend has been encouraged by the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment. Public funds have been made available for research and demonstration projects.
One way to put landfill gas to good use is to produce electricity, using the gas to drive an alternator. At present, there is a handful of such projects in the United Kingdom. More are planned but are being delayed by various obstacles. Two of the problems faced by private generators are, first, that the price paid for their electricity by local boards is nearly 30 per cent. less than that paid to the CEGB: and, secondly, they have to pay 20 or 40 times more in rates than does the CEGB per unit of power sold. Those anomalies have been recognised by the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment and are not the target of the amendment, although they are severe disincentives.
The amendment seeks to remove, as I said, the additional hurdle faced by anyone who makes commercial use of landfill gas. He has to pay rates on land from which gas is extracted, on the principle that he is in beneficial occupation of that land. Most land and buildings are assessed in that way, with the interesting exception of agricultural land. There is a case for making a similar exception for landfill gas used for electricity production. No rates are being charged on land from which landfill gas is allowed to escape into the atmosphere or to surrounding land. Rates are being charged only on gas being put to a useful purpose. Many landfill gas sites are intended to be returned to agricultural land, and then, again, no rates will be charged.
I wish to make it clear that the amendment seeks to exempt from rating only the land from which the gas is being pumped, not the land under the buildings and the buildings which comprise the power station.
I hope an amendment whose appeal is so broad that it sports the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and myself will be irresistible to
416
the Minister! I hope he will agree that the extraction and proper disposal of landfill gas should be encouraged. It improves the land, helps to deal safely with a serious problem and contributes to the nation's energy requirements. The amendment would remove one of the disincentives to the development of worthwhile project. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I should like to come in by a side wind and refer to the extraction of methane gas used for the generation of electricity from agricultural sources. I am referring to manure. There is increasing interest from farmers in that process, although in some cases their enthusiasm has been a little diluted because there is a tendency for methane and other digestors to explode. However, as I said, there is interest among farmers for this alternative source of energy.
When the Minister responds to the amendment will he say how that response would relate to the production by farmers of methane gas from livestock waste products? Will he ensure that the way the Government intend to deal under the Bill with the extraction of methane gas from land, which was referred to when the amendment was moved, will not affect its extraction for agricultural purposes?
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 192H would be to exempt from rates any land from which landfill gas is extracted and used as a source of energy for electricity generation. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was sadly unable to be here, but the case was well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). Private electricity generators who extract and use landfill gas are penalised because the operation of extracting the gas is rated. There is no intrinsic difference between extracting landfill gas a source of energy and extracting coal or any other mineral. Those operations are all rateable.
The benefits derived from the extraction and use of landfill gas contribute to the rent which a tenant would be prepared to pay to occupy the site for the purpose of the business, whether that be to generate electricity or manufacture goods, and to that extent should add to rateable value. That is a fundamental principle of rating which we have no intention of changing. I accept that the extraction and use of landfill gas contributes to a cleaner environment and to the safeguarding of human life and buildings. The Government are also keen to encourage, and indeed actively support, the development of new sources of energy; but the rating system is not the vehicle for achieving those aims.
Private electricity generators are looking for comparable treatment in the payment of rates with the Central Electricity Generating Board, as the noble Baroness brought to the Committee's attention. The effect of the amendment would be to introduce considerable disparity between the rating of private generators using landfill gas and other private and public generators. It would discriminate against other industries which also use landfill gas either directly or indirectly in a manufacturing process or for heating.
The comparable treatment of private generators is being dealt with by a working group set up to review

417
the rating of the electricity supply industry. The Government have already agreed in principle that all private generators exporting electricity to the supply distribution network should be rated on a comparable basis to the rest of the electricity supply industry, but it is essential that that is also considered in the light of the proposed privatisation of the industry.
There is one small feature of the rating which the noble Baroness did not bring to the Committee's attention. It is that there is a depletion allowance against the rates which equates to some 50 per cent. That allowance goes some way towards alleviating the problem. With regard to the position of agriculture, I shall have to get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad that he is in favour of a cleaner environment and also safeguarding life. I shall read with interest what he said about the amendment discriminating between those generating from landfill gas and others. I feel that perhaps there is a case for a little positive discrimination. I accept what the Minister said about the sliding scale and I shall read carefully what he said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his support. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Schedule 15 [Amendments]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 139, line 44, at end insert—
("Local Government Act 1972 c. 70
. In section 147(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (expenses of principal councils) at the end there shall be inserted "and in a district in which there are one or more parish or community councils the district council shall, after consultation with the parish or community councils, declare by resolution such part as is appropriate of any expenses incurred by it for the benefit of part only of the district in the exercise of any function, (which is also being exercised by one or more of the parish or community councils) to be special expenses chargeable only on such part of its area as benefits from the expenditure and is specified in the resolution".").
The noble Baroness said: There has been an ongoing problem for many years between the district councils and their parish and community councils over the financing of the expenditure by districts on functions which are also functions of the parish councils. The greatest difficulty has always been in those districts where not all the district is covered by parishes. Perhaps the best example I can give is the one of street lighting. If the parish council provides the lighting, as many of them do, the cost falls on the ratepayers within the parish. If the district council provides the lighting for the major town within the area, then the cost is borne by all the district ratepayers, including those parish ratepayers who are paying for their own street lights.
Under Section 147 of the Local Government Act 1972, a district may charge the cost of street lighting on part only of its district. It need not charge the parish areas, which are paying for their own lights, the additional cost of providing the street lighting
418
over the rest of the district. But very few of the districts have actually done this. The Government have always argued that it is a matter for local decision because there are so many local variations that it is impossible to legislate in general terms.
In the discussion on the Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act 1981—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not in his place now—I raised some of these problems on behalf of some of the Yorkshire parish councils. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was extremely sympathetic. He went to a lot of trouble and I believe that he tried very hard to come to a satisfactory conclusion. However, if it is left as a matter for local decision and negotiation, the districts are under no real pressure to be fair to the parishes. They can allege that it is difficult to decide who should pay and who should not. They will end by failing to make any arrangements at all. I believe that if we could adopt something like the amendment that I am suggesting it would preserve the local decision-making, accepting that there are many local variations from parish to parish. It would supply the necessary pressure on districts by requiring them at least to consult with their parishes and to make some arrangements whereby the district and parish councils have concurrent powers.
I believe that the requirement to make some arrangement will lead to many more satisfactorily negotiated arrangements and local schemes. It will make it possible for the parish councils to exercise their powers locally, free from the pressure to avoid double rating which they often have to face at the moment, by surrendering their powers to the districts.
It has often been said in this Chamber that decisions ought to be taken at the lowest possible level. I know that if the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, were here this afternoon—unfortunately he is not—as president of the National Association of Local Councils he would be supporting me in this amendment. I urge the Minister to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to offer our support for this amendment, but I bet that the noble Baroness could not read it all without drawing breath. It is one sentence ten lines long, which cannot be the most desirable precedent for legislation.
I am sure that the National Association of Local Councils has been well advised on this matter. Certainly the objective of the amendment, which is to provide financial justice as between different parts of a district council area without taking away the local responsibility for its own actions, is entirely laudable. I hope that the Government will find it possible to agree at least to the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: Under the provisions of Clause 30 it is open to a district in either England or Wales to reduce its own charges in those areas where a parish or community council provides services which elsewhere the district itself provides. Thus if both the parish and the district provide the service in question to the same level and with equal efficiency, and the district makes such a reduction, the charge payer in

419
the parish and the charge payers in the other parts of the district's area would have the same charge. If the parish provides a higher level of service than the district, then the parish charge payers would face higher charges.
However, we have some sympathy with the concerns of parishes. I accept that, should a district decide not to reduce its charges in this way, those in parished areas may pay higher charges than those in non-parished areas. As my noble friend said on Monday evening, in order to protect those in parished areas from being unfairly treated, the Government propose to take this matter up with the Association of District Councils and will seek to agree with the association guidelines for councils to give some specific recognition to parish services when setting the community charge.
In view of what my noble friend and the noble Baroness said on this matter on Monday night, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I said thank you to his colleague on Monday night and I say thank you to him this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Amendments No. 193A, 193B and 193C have already been debated. Is it the Committee's wish that they should be moved en bloc?
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments No. 193A, 193B and 193C:
Page 140, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
("6.—(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall be amended as follows:
(1A) The following shall be substituted for section 12(3) (accounts subject to audit)—").
Page 140, line 18, at end insert—
("(1B) The following shall be inserted after section 25A (power of auditor to issue prohibition order)—
"Restriction on power to issue prohibition order.
25AA.—(1) In a case where—

(a) report is made under section 118(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the 1988 Act), and

(b) copies of the report are sent in accordance with section 118(4) of the 1988 Act,

during the relevant period no prohibition order may be issued as regards any decision, course of action or item of account which led to the report being made.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the relevant period is the period—

(a) beginning with the day on which copies of the report are sent, and

(b) ending with the day (if any) on which the body's consideration of the report under section 119(2) of the 1988 Act begins.

(3) If section 119(3) of the 1988 Act is not complied with, it is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above."
(1C) In section 29 (miscellaneous functions of Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted "or
(c) for certifying the body's calculation under paragraph 5(6)(b) of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 of the
420
amount of its non-domestic rating contribution for a financial year, and for certifying the amount calculated."").
Page 140, line 19, leave out ("This paragraph") and insert ("Subparagraphs (1A) and (1C) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 193ZCA is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 193CA or 194.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 193ZCA:
Page 141, leave out lines 3 to 17.
The noble Lord said: While I am moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 193ZCA, 193CA, 194, 194ZD, 194ZH to 194ZK, 206A and 206B. I hope I have got that right.
The amendment proposes to take out lines 3 to 17 in Schedule 15, page 141. This is one of the general powers which the Government are very keen on inserting. So far as one can see, more or less, if the Government decided that they wanted to get rid of mice they would take power to abolish all animals of any sort, subject to a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe. That is our complaint about the very wide-ranging nature of the powers.
The Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe the principles and:
"Regulations made under subsection (8A) …
may be made so as to apply differently to different areas or in relation to different cases of classes of case;
may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions",
and so on. What might as well be said is that the Secretary of State shall take over all valuation of all lands and heritages, which will be an interesting set of principles.
As the Minister no doubt knows, the Scottish Assessors' Association has expressed great concern about the wide powers being taken in this clause. It is understood that this is intended to deal with the difficulties of the contractor's principle and the decapitalisation rate. But if that is the intended mischief to be attacked why not say so and confine it to that'? Why give the Secretary of State these wide-ranging powers? The purpose of harmonisation of decapitalisation rates is all very well and we should support the Government if that is their intention. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—one of whose amendments is in this small list—is also concerned with the same principle. But again, if that is what is aimed at why not say so? Why allow anything to be done which the Secretary of State may in any way consider at that particular moment for that particular case to be suitable? The Secretary of State under these powers, as far as I can see, could say that the BP plant at Grangemouth will be assessed on principle A and that the Esso plant at Mossmorran will be assessed on principle B. It is as extraordinary as that.
I appreciate that the government Amendment No. 193CA does restrict this to a certain extent, but not by very much. My criticisms would remain in principle the same. The Minister may be relieved to know that I have no objection at all to his Amendments Nos. 194ZD and 194ZH to 194 ZK—

421
they are in the same group—and Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B. If he is too shattered by my agreement on that, he can no doubt recover and agree with me that the amendment which I propose is very reasonable. He can also come back with something that restricts the amendment to what he really intends to do, which is to deal with the harmonisation of decapitalisation rates. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: For the first time in discussions in Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill I find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The effect of his amendment would be to scrap what is achieved in the amendment which follows, standing in the name of the Government. As has been pointed out, if the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I wish to say that my amendment was a probing amendment which was down long before the Government managed to think up their amendment. It might have been different if the government amendment had been down first.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have heard many apologies for amendments in this Chamber. That is the latest one. I accept it in the spirit in which it is given. It nevertheless remains true that, if this amendment is carried, the present totally unsatisfactory and anomalous position in the comparison of Scottish rating with English rating will not be solved. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, with whom I discussed my amendment—the amendment which gives greater powers to the Secretary of State not only to prescribe the principles but also to prescribe the principles and the rules in connection with the application of rating in arriving at the value of lands and heritages under this part of the Bill.
The Committee will observe that I put down an amendment suggesting that the word "rules" should be added, thereby strengthening the powers of the Secretary of State. I did so on the advice of counsel who examined the Bill and the latest appeals in connection with this matter. There was an appeal by ICI to the Lands Tribunal against the rating valuation of the Central region. ICI mentioned the comparison between the rating of its plant at Grangemouth and its plant carrying out the same process in Huddersfield.
The Lands Tribunal decided that because of the different basis of assessment in Scotland compared with that in England, the appeal was irrelevant and threw it out. So long as that basis continues—and that is what would happen if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, were to be carried—there would be no change in the existing arrangements. The existing provisions are being changed by the government amendment which follows and which I strongly support. I am encouraged by representations I have received from the associations of chambers of commerce, the CBI in Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the chemical associations which are
422
affected. The national chambers of commerce which embrace England as well as Scotland also see the wisdom and fairness of my amendment and support it. There is no basis at the moment in law for cross-Border comparisons. The amendment to be moved by the Government that has my support at least gives the Secretary of State powers to prescribe the rules as well as the principles covering the assessment. Accordingly I very much support it; I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Lord Renton: We find ourselves in an unavoidable position having passed the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act last year and being anxious, as I know the Government are, not to have unnecessary disparity between what we do for England and Wales and what we have done for Scotland. Nevertheless, owing to the immense complexity of some aspects of the matter, it does become necessary to make quite considerable amendments in the Scottish law, however much we may regret it.
When I first looked at paragraph 9 of Schedule 15 I was surprised that the 1956 Act practice under which has been well established for over 30 years—should be so drastically amended by the Secretary of State in regulations that could even introduce new principles. Normally when principles are involved we try to provide for them in the main legislation, and not by regulations.
However, in the nature of things, it may be necessary to do something on these lines. 1 naturally read Amendment No. 193CA standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden with hope to see if we could somehow mitigate the introduction of new principles in 30 year-old well established legislation in Scotland in order that there should be no disparity between what we are doing for Scotland and what we are doing for England and Wales.
I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Sanderson says. Fortunately, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has been moved as a probing amendment. So it may well be that between now and Report some better and more conventional way of achieving the Government's intention might be found instead of this rather drastic proposal which, on the face of it, may be necessary because, as I say, in the nature of things and in the timing of things we cannot always have everything done perfectly and in the way that we should wish.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): We are considering a large group of amendments dealing with a number of aspects of rating and valuation. As I shall explain in a moment, much of what the amendments contain is of an essentially technical nature. It is convenient that the first three amendments in the group deal with what I think we would all agree is the most important matter; namely, the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe principles of valuation.
Amendment No. 193ZCA in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Morton, probes the purpose of the provision contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 15 to the Bill. The noble

423
Lord, Lord Taylor, has raised questions relating to the effectiveness of the wording. Perhaps it will be helpful if I first explain the purpose of the provision and outline the area in which the regulation-making power might be used. Basically it provides a means whereby the Secretary of State, if necessary, can introduce measures by regulations to further harmonisation of valuation practices north and south of the Border.
We do not envisage that wide use will be made of that power. However, there is one area of difference which requires to be brought into line before the 1990 revaluation and where the power might be used to achieve that. I refer to the decapitalisation rate used in the contractor's principle valuations in Scotland and the contractor's test valuations in England and Wales. The starting point to removing the differences in valuation practice between Scotland and England and Wales has been technical discussions between the Scottish Assessors' Association and the Inland Revenue Valuation Office. As I explained on Tuesday, their discussions have made significant progress.
I accept that in these classes of property for which there is little or no rental market the difference in valuation practice north and south of the Border is more fundamental. The properties, which include refineries and chemical works, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are valued under the contractor's principle in Scotland and the contractor's test in England and Wales. Since 1973 the decapitalisation rates applied in determining the rateable value have diverged significantly north and south of the Border. We have undertaken to consider prescribing a common rate in order to bring valuations made on the contractor's basis north and south of the Border more into line.
It is clear that those affected would like the proposed power of prescription to be used. The Committee will have seen the briefing paper supplied by the Chemical Industries Association, for example, and we take those representations extremely seriously. We have now had the opportunity to consider the wording of paragraph 9 more closely. There may be doubt as to whether empowering the Secretary of State to prescribe the principles to be applied in arriving at a net annual value would in fact allow him to determine a decapitalisation rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has reached the same conclusion. His amendment, Amendment No. 194, would allow prescription of rules or principles. However, in case there may be similar doubts as to whether the decapitalisation rate is a rule, we consider it desirable to go further. The amendment has been drawn to the attention of assessors and others with an interest. We shall be taking into account before Report stage any comments we receive on whether the provisions now appear to be fully adequate for the purpose. Given that the wording of our amendment also includes rules and is designed for the same purpose, I shall invite the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to withdraw Amendment No. 194 in due course.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, would delete the provision
424
from the Bill. The effect of that would be to remove the power enabling the Secretary of State to introduce measures aimed at promoting harmonisation. The Committee will be aware of the considerable pressure on the Scottish business community to bring the rating system north and south of the Border into line. Yet the amendments would limit the steps which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might take in order to achieve such harmonisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, mentioned representations from the Scottish Assessors' Association and its criticism that the power is too wide. I recognise the concerns of the association, which it has expressed directly to the Scottish Office. The power of prescription proposed in paragraph 9 of Schedule 15 is very wide, covering the whole range of valuation and not just the contractor's principle cases on which our discussion has tended to focus. The power is intended to be wide. If it is to be helpful in promoting harmonisation, it must be capable of use in relation to any part of the valuation system where differences emerge and where prescription of principles, rules and considerations could be helpful.
That does not mean that the power will necessarily be widely or frequently used. As I have repeatedly made clear, my understanding is that the technical discussions on harmonisation are making good progress. However, the representations from the assessors also imply that the basis of valuation would be for ever changing. It would be foolish to give a guarantee that the new power will never be used between revaluations since some glaring anomaly might emerge which could easily be put right. However, I am glad to have the opportunity to make it clear that our general approach is that when the power is used—I emphasise again that we do not envisage widespread use—it should be at times of revaluation so that assessors are able to operate on a consistent and clear basis through each five-year period.
Mention was made of the situation north and south of the Border. It must be recognised that harmonisation is a two-way street. Therefore, provision needs to be made for changes in the principles of valuation to be applied south of the Border as well as north of the Border under the power we are discussing. That is taken care of in Schedule 6 to the Bill which deals with valuation for rating in England and Wales. I confirm that to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
Section 19 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 was intended to enable Scottish assessors to use valuations south of the Border as evidence and a basis on which to determine the valuation of certain subjects which would otherwise have been valued according to the contractor's principle. The assessors have not done so. A number of cases are currently subject to appeal. Until the appeals are settled, it is premature to say that Section 19 has failed. I cannot speculate as to the outcome of the appeals, which I understand are being considered in the Land Valuation Appeal Court this month. Obviously I cannot comment in detail on the substance of matters which are before the court. The

425
outcome of the cases will be one of the matters which we shall be taking into account in considering what use it will be appropriate to make of the new powers proposed in paragraph 9 of Schedule 15.
I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was in agreement with Amendments Nos. 194ZD, 194ZH, 194ZJ, 194ZK and 206A. I should like to comment briefly on the government amendments. There are no changes of substance. As the Committee will be aware, there are considerable problems in applying conventional valuation methods to the lands and heritages of some public utilities. The problem is more acute where they consist of network undertakings crossing several valuation areas. Perhaps I have said enough at this stage on that subject.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, replies, let me say that I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend in this difficult mattter. Therefore I do not expect him to give an answer now to a point of substance which I feel I should make. He has spoken of harmonisation of the law north and south of the Border. That is obviously a good thing to try to achieve. However, if we look at line 10 on page 141, we see that:
"Regulations … may be made so as to apply differently to different areas or in relation to different cases or classes of case";
that is, the principles are applied differently. For all we know it means applying different principles to different areas and different cases. That seems to me to be the opposite of harmonisation. Differences and harmonisation are opposites. We are trying to achieve harmonisation.
Therefore although I do not expect an answer from my noble friend at the moment, as he has said that he wants harmonisation and will think about all of this between now and Report stage, I hope that he will bear that apparent incongruity in mind.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: As is usually the case on this kind of point, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
If one looks at what is left after the Government's amendment to paragraph 9 on page 141, as the noble Lord has said, anything can be done to any principle in any particular case. I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are all in favour of harmonisation and we want to achieve it. However, if one considers Schedule 6—as I am sure the Minister has considered it in great detail—it is apparent that it does not give the Secretary of State in England the same power as the Secretary of State is taking to himself in Scotland under Schedule 15. Paragraph 2(9) of Schedule 6 states that:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations providing that in arriving at an amount under sub-paragraph (1) above"—
which is the notional rental—
"prescribed principles are to be applied; and the regulations may include provision for the preservation of such principles, privileges, and provisions for the making of valuations on exceptional principles, as apply or applied for the purposes of the 1967 Act".
That is different from the Secretary of State's sweeping power to say that the principles will be what
426
the Secretary of State for Scotland says the principles are to be in any particular case at any particular time, and for Tuesday it may be different from Wednesday and for one ICI works it may be different from another.
I think that this is another example of the Government taking power to do what they like when they like. This House or both Houses of Parliament should be very careful of this kind of thing. Principles should be set down in Acts of Parliament; they should not be suddenly narrated in regulations which are subject to the negative procedure. That is a very serious point.
There were valuation Acts in 1956 for Scotland and in 1967 for England and Wales. The principles in Schedule 6 are apparently to be upheld but the principles for Scotland are to be abolished at the whim of whoever may he Secretary of State for Scotland. That will not do if Parliament is to retain any power. That is the purpose behind the probing amendment—which I shall withdraw in a moment.
What is wrong with saying on the face of the Bill that we want harmonisation between England and Scotland on the contractor's principle and the contractor's test and on decapitalisation rates and the Secretary of State can make regulations to achieve that end? If that was what was proposed I should have no objection and nobody on this side of the Chamber would either. But that is not what is said. What is said is that anything anywhere in Scotland can be valued on any principle or non-principle that the Secretary of State wishes to put in a regulation. That cannot be right.
That is the reason why I moved this probing amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will come back with a more coherent answer to the problem which gives Parliament some power before the next stage of the Bill. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 193CA is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 194.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 193CA:
Page 141, line 8, leave out from ("prescribe") to end of line 9 and insert—

("(a) the manner in which and the principles, rules and considerations by reference to which the net annual value of lands and heritages is to be arrived at under subsection (8) above;

(b) that the principles, rules and considerations referred to in paragraph (a) above or any of them shall be such as are determined in accordance with the regulations.").

The noble said: We have discussed this amendment at length. I should like to make one point clear which I do not think was made clear earlier. I am very glad—although I sometimes find it difficult to understand—that the other side of the Chamber in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is in favour of harmonisation. That is good.
I should like to pick up one point which was made in the debate which referred to the provisions for England and Wales. I said that it had to be recognised

427
that harmonisation is a two-way street. Provision therefore needs to be made for changes in the principles of valuation to be applied south of the Border as well as north, as I think we all understand. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has clearly pointed out, that is taken care of in Schedule 6 to the Bill which deals with valuation for rating in England and Wales. Paragraphs 2(8) and 2(9) provide that the Secretary of State may prescribe assumptions to be made and principles to be applied in the valuation process. If Ministers were to decide to prescribe uniform decapitalisation rates throughout Great Britain I understand that it is by means of those powers that the prescription would be made in relation to England and Wales.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. If one wants to harmonise and have the same decapitalisation rate, why for heaven's sake not just say so instead of introducing this power which allows the Government to do anything at all from Land's End to John O'Groats?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We well understand that major difficulties have appeared in trying to arrive at harmonisation. The Government for their part looked very carefully at the kind of amendment which would give the power required to assist in that harmonisation. I shall not withdraw Amendment No. 193CA. We have debated it. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Since the passing of this amendment would exclude my Amendment No. 194 I should like to say that my amendment is entirely covered by the government amendment and the insertion of the words "rules or".
I should also like to say that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, this afternoon in which he accepted the substance of my amendment will be widely welcomed by the business community in Scotland. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to say that we should start again with a new Bill aimed at harmonisation and all its complications. That could take a great deal of time and would probably be impossible in the legislative programme before us.
The amendment we are dealing with now represents some progress towards abolishing or limiting an existing anomaly. That anomaly is a total disincentive to Scottish business and to inward investment and is punishing Scottish business. We are taking the opportunity in this Bill to do something about it. To that extent I very much welcome the government amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is very interesting on this subject. Of course he will appreciate that anything that is said in this Chamber cannot be founded on in any court. He will also appreciate that under the powers in either Schedule 6 or Schedule 15 the Secretary of State can make regulations which this House or the other place will have no opportunity to amend. We can either reject it or let it go. What we are dealing with here is a provision allowing the Secretary of State—the
428
Government—to legislate on a very wide and important field and withdrawing from Parliament any opportunity to consider that seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may be very happy with that but I for one am not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 194ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZB:
Page 141, line 17, at end insert—
("Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (c. 49)
. After section 28A of the Registration of Births. Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Intimation of death to Community Charges Registration Officer.
23B.—(1) The district registrar for each registration district shall furnish to the Community Charges Registration Officer of each region or islands area within which the registration district wholly or partly falls such particulars of such deaths as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section.
(2) Regulations under this section may provide that the duty imposed on a district registrar by subsection (1) above shall, instead, be a duty imposed on the Registrar General.
(3) Regulations under this section may make provision as to the time at which and manner in which particulars are to be furnished under this section, and may make different provision for different cases or classes of case.
(4) Regulations made under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this amendment briefly.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, says that we have already discussed this amendment. Unless I am totally wrong, I do not think that we have discussed it. The amendment concerns the registration of births, deaths and marriages. Before I try and say what is wrong with it, perhaps the noble Lord can say what is right with it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I apologise to the Committee. I thought that the number mentioned was 194ZD. Amendment No. 194ZB is brought forward following an approach from the Scottish Assessors' Association on behalf of the community registration officers. It inserts into the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 a new section which imposes on registrars of births, deaths and marriages a duty to supply to community charges registration officers details of people whose deaths are registered in their district. District registrars will be required to supply prescribed details of such persons to each community charges registration officer whose area includes at least part of the registrar's district. Registration officers will therefore receive details of some deaths which have occurred in their areas but which are of persons resident elsewhere. It will be for registration officers to convey the details of such deaths to the appropriate community charges registration officer under the standard arrangements by which registration officers may exchange information.

429
The new section also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that the duty imposed on district registrars shall instead be imposed on the Registrar General if, at some future time, it were considered more convenient for the information to be processed centrally before distribution to registration officers. What we have in mind is that computerisation may continue to go forward at its present pace.
The new section, together with the provision in paragraph 22 of Schedule 15 to the Bill requiring executors to notify registration officers of deaths, will facilitate the process of keeping the community charges register up to date. And this in turn will ensure that notices issued by registration officers are not sent out bearing the names of persons who have died—a matter about which some concern was expressed at an earlier stage of the Bill in another place.
This is a useful amendment which has been discussed and agreed with the Registrar General for Scotland. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZB, Amendment No. 194ZBA:
In section 28B(1), line 1, leave out ("district registrar for each registration district") and insert ("Registrar General").
The noble Lord said: In order to make sense of Amendment No. 194ZBA one must also look at Amendments Nos. 194ZB and 194ZBC which all run together, so to speak. Before I speak to my amendments, perhaps I may refer to the fact that the Minister mentioned the duty on executors to tell the community charges registration officer of deaths. The noble Lord said that the provision was to be found somewhere in Schedule 15. I cannot find it at the moment but no doubt he will be able to tell me precisely where it is.
Does the noble Lord appreciate that in many cases people may be appointed executors without ever knowing that it has been done? What penalties fall on executors if they fail in this dire duty? Are they sent to prison for life? What happens to them? Perhaps the Minister can explain. It seems a ridiculous burden to put on executors. Many people in Scotland die leaving no material estate and nobody takes any part in winding up whatever is left. It just happens without anybody being very much concerned.
I am not surprised that the assessors' association put forward this proposal to help the community charges registration officers, since the community charges registration officers are the assessors. It is not therefore surprising that they thought of this measure. Nor am I surprised to hear that the Registrar General is in favour of it, because it entails no action on his part. It has nothing to do with him. The duty falls on the district registrar. The Registrar General will not have to pay for it and as the Registrar General is part of central government, no doubt St. Andrew's House is wholly in favour of the proposal.
The one body which does not appear to have been consulted is the district council. The district councils
430
are required to pay for the costs of the district registrars and the costs of sorting the deaths into the various community charge areas. To send out the information will amount to something. Will the Minister arrange for St. Andrew's House to pick up the bill or can he say who is to pay for that service? Why should it land on the districts? My amendments propose that the Registrar General should be responsible.
We have no objection in principle to the registrar sending out information to the assessors, poll tax register holders and all the other relevant bodies, but the cost should not be added to those costs which St. Andrew's House tells local authorities that they should not have incurred. If the Registrar General is happy with this arrangement—and no doubt he is told about every death eventually—he can sort the information and send it out. The Registrar General will no doubt be happy to do so and will perform the task even more efficiently once his department becomes more fully computerised. Having told the Committee the purpose of the amendments, I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has thought about the time element involved. I quite understand that once the whole procedure is computerised and the names of those who have died travel as fast as light to the centre, it will all happen with some speed. However, it is extremely important that people who become widows or widowers should not receive the community charge bill of their deceased husband or wife in a short space of time after they have died. I should have thought that speed is of the essence. Therefore, until the computer programme is organised and everything linked up, the notification has to be local. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has anything to say about that.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may say in answer to the noble Baroness that, of course, it has not been stated. We are told as usual that regulations may be made under subsection (3) of the amendment. We do not know what will happen. The regulations may say that the district registrar will inform the community charges registration officer within six months, but we do not know that. On the face of it there does not seem to be any anxiety that this should be done quickly but only that the information should be accurate.
The amendment says nothing about time. If the Minister will assure me that local authorities which incur extra expense from meeting the district registrar's duties under these regulations will have those costs met by central government, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I cannot imagine that this exercise would be very costly. It may be, but I should not have thought so. Surely it would not be possible for this to be done speedily at the moment if the procedure were centralised. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I have a good deal of faith in Scottish local authorities. I am sure that they will perform the task in a sensible way. If it is done locally it can be

431
done speedily; but if the procedure is centralised, as the noble Lord's amendment suggests, will it not slow the whole thing down? Or am I misunderstanding the point?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My understanding is that with computers it does not matter how far away from each other they are; they can be linked up. If it is not on computer it will take as long as it takes someone to gather the information together and put it into a letter. If it is sent from Edinburgh by first-class post, according to the Post Office it should reach anywhere in Scotland in much the same time as it will take from anywhere else.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for explaining his amendments to my amendment. First, I should explain to the Committee why we consider it necessary to impose on district registrars the duty to provide information about deaths but to have a power to make regulations transferring that duty to the Registrar General. It is clearly important that details of deaths are notified to registration officers as soon as possible after they occur so that the register can be kept up to date, and so that early action can be taken to ensure that communications about community charge matters are not issued addressed to persons who have died.
Under the present arrangements, processing information about deaths centrally prior to its distribution to registration officers would involve a four-week to six-week delay—I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who raised this matter —between the death being registered and the information about it being passed to the registration officer. That is why our amendment provides for information to be passed directly from district registrars to registration officers.
As the registration service's computer systems are developed, however, the time may well come when it will be administratively simpler, and not involve any undue delay, for information to be collected, processed and disseminated to individual registration officers centrally rather than individual district registrars. That is why we propose that the Secretary of State should have a power to make regulations transferring the duty to provide information from district registrars to the Registrar General.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked about the duties of executors, and about paragraph 22 of Schedule 15. There are no specific penalties. The change was made simply in order to avoid notification being sent to dead persons. The sanction upon executors is that as long as a deceased's name remains on the register there will be a liability to pay the personal community charge, which will be required to be paid by the deceased's estate.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, raised the question of costs. I am sure that this was at the root of these amendments. Community charge registration officers are employed by the same authorities as employ district registrars.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Is that right? Community charge registration officers are employed by the regions or the islands councils. The district registrars are employed by the district councils. Is that not right? Therefore you are putting a cost on the district councils to supply information to the regions.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It seems as though the noble Lord is correct. I should like to check that point before I confirm that he is correct.
However, the provision of information about deaths direct to registration officers will greatly simplify the task of keeping the community charge register up to date. The new duty on district registrars is therefore, if anything, likely to result in net savings for authorities. The important point on which the noble Lord would like me to comment is this. Any cost which results will be taken into account through the revenue support grant mechanism. That is the crucial point.
Perhaps I may clear up one other point. District registrars are employed by regions and islands.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My information, which comes from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is that they are employed by districts. However, no doubt that can be checked.
My understanding is that after I move house I have a certain period of time in which I can backdate my move, and receive a repayment of my community charge in respect of that residence. We discussed that some time last year. Is the Minister saying that if somebody dies, the executors may remain liable to pay that dead person's community charge until they notify the community charge registration officer? That cannot be right.
The Minister seemed to say that. I feel sure that he is wrong. Even this Government would not have tried that one on. The late and much lamented Lord Ross of Marnock would never have allowed them to get away with it if they had. There cannot be a liability after death. The Minister must be wrong. Perhaps he will look at what he appears to have said and consider that point again.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall look again at that point and see what the position is. Backdating, which is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, will be sorted out in due course. However, the ending of the liability would then be backdated.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 194ZBA to Amendment No. 194ZB.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194ZBB and 194ZBC not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 194ZB agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZC:
Page 141, line 17, at end insert—
("Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (c. 52)
In section 181 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (scope of provisions relating to interests of owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this subsection, substitute for any reference in these provisions to "annual value" or "hereditament" such other reference as he may consider appropriate; and such regulations may make such supplemental or consequential amendments of this Act or of any other enactment whether passed before or after this Act as the Secretary of State thinks fit.".").
The noble Lord said: The first grouping of rating and valuation amendments that we discussed today included a number of provisions concerned with the replacement of various references to rating and valuation matters which are contained in other statutes. At that stage I explained the general background.
The present amendment before the Committee, which we are considering separately, deals with the same general area. The provision in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to which reference is made deals with the scope of certain provisions relating to planning blight. They define the properties for which compensation is available by the use of an upper limit of annual value as shown in the valuation roll. The relevant definitions contain references to "annual value" and "hereditament" which are drafted in a form which makes them unsuitable either for the simple substitution of rateable values as at 1st April 1989 as would result from Section 5 of the 1987 Act in its original form or for the straightforward application of the provisions now contained in paragraph 13 which allow for other factors to be inserted. That is the only reason a separate amendment is made in relation to this provision.
I must emphasise that the move away from references which depend on the rating system in this, as in other enactments, does not necessarily imply any change of policy in relation to the operation of those enactments.
I think it would be premature to speculate in detail on the way in which references to annual value, for example, might be changed, but one obvious possibility would be capital value. I emphasise, however, that our objective in seeking replacements for the rating references will be to ensure that the provisions which in this case, I may say, appear to be little used operate to broadly the same effect as at present. There is certainly no intention to broaden or to limit their scope. I would also point out that the present provisions allow the Secretary of State to change the upper limits by order, so concern about changing the basis of the limit is, I have to say, somewhat academic. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This is one of the appalling amendments on which the Government seem to be keen. The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this subsection, substitute for any reference in these provisions to 'annual
434
value' or 'hereditament' such other reference as he may consider appropriate; and any such regulations may make such supplemental or consequential amendments of this Act or of any other enactment whether passed before or after this Act as the Secretary of State thinks fit"
In other words, it is another power which gives the Secretary of State power by regulation to rewrite the law and amend any Act which Parliament has passed.
It is quite bizarre to include it at this stage. It is even more bizarre when, as the Minister is aware, in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act there exists a provision concerning the way the matter should be dealt with. The Minister is moving the Committee to approve an amendment providing that the people who are allowed to apply in respect of planning blight can be varied in any way the Secretary of State may at any time think fit.
It is a ridiculous proposal and it becomes even more ridiculous when the Minister suggests that the question of which properties apply for planning blight and which do not will be fixed by capital value. Who will fix the capital value? We abolished valuation of domestic rating, so why bring back capital value? Who will assess them and at what time? Are we in Scotland to have a register of capital values for domestic property and a register of rental values for non-domestic property? It seems to be absurd. The amendment is an appalling example of giving the Secretary of State a blank sheet and allowing him to do whatever he wishes.
The noble Lord appeared to say that planning blight provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 were not used in Scotland; I can assure him that they were. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the same Bench as the Minister may be able to give him the same information. It will not do suddenly to change the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act and say that the Secretary of State will make regulations which vary those who may apply for planning blight without telling Parliament what the variation will be. On those grounds I oppose the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to try to pick his legalistic way through what he believes to be unnecessary provisions. As I made clear, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can change the limits now by way of regulations. Therefore I believe that the concern expressed by the noble Lord is quite unjustified—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As a non-lawyer I should like to take exception to the words "legalistic" which the Minister applied to my noble friend. We are dealing with the law.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that we are dealing with the law. Part of the liberty of a subject is to have the law clearly defined. We are not even told of the basis for this. At least Section 181 of the 1972 Act stated that it would be on the basis of annual values. As far as I am aware, the Secretary of State can make regulations, providing that it will depend on the political views of the occupant, on the number of windows or chimneys in the house or on anything

435
else. This is the kind of power to which we are continually objecting. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is no longer in his place. However, I should like to remind the Minister of what he said about 20 minutes ago. Exactly the same point is arising again.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The amendment concerns a reference to incidental and consequential provisions. The purpose of that is quite simply to enable us to trace through other parts of the 1972 Act and certain consequential references in the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 to annual value and hereditament which are a consequence of the references which are the subject of the main amendment. Any other approach would involve a vast number of detailed amendments appearing in primary legislation. I am confident that what we are doing in the amendment is entirely justified.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister has failed to say what effect the amendment will have on Section 5 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act. That provides a basis for applying annual values where they are applied by other Acts. Why change it? We already have it in Section 5 of last year's Act. What is the point of the change?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We could carry on for a long time with this matter but I shall read carefully what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I do not withdraw what I have said. However, if the Government ought to consider any factor that the noble Lord has raised, we shall do so. In the meantime I remain convinced that the Committee should agree to Amendment No. 194ZC.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should like to make an announcement about a correction. The number of Peers voting in the last Division was incorrectly announced. The Tellers agree that the numbers voting Not-Content should have been 129 and not 130.
Lord Hesketh: I suggest that this is a suitable moment to break for dinner and that we return at five minutes past eight. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill
7.7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords who follow such matters will be aware that the Bill was piloted through another place by Mr. Andrew Mackay. I have the pleasure and
436
privilege of carrying out the same task in your Lordships' House. It will have been noted that, although there were vigorous discussions and changes to the Bill in another place, it was finally given full approval by all sides of the House. That applies especially to the Home Office Minister, the honourable Douglas Hogg, who made many helpful suggestions. I should like to place on record my gratitude and that of others to him for his attitude on this matter.
The Bill's main purpose is to bring under the licensing regime the sale of alcohol from the backs of lorries and other similar points of sale. The significant aim of the Bill is that all sales of alcohol should be treated as retail sales, and thus are subject to the licensing laws, unless they fall within the scope of the exemptions set out in Clause 1. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 1(1) prescribe various exemptive sales, whereas paragraph (e) deals with quantity. If the nature of the transaction is such that it falls within paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), or if the quantity falls within paragraph (e), it is an exempted quantity or sale. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are probably what most people would describe as wholesale transactions—that is to say, a sale to another trader for the purpose of his trade, a sale to a registered club for the purpose of the club, a sale to a canteen or mess or a sale to the holder of an occupational permission. Each such transaction is properly regarded as a wholesale transaction to which it would not be right to apply the full rigour of the licensing laws.
Paragraph (e) deals with quantity, to exclude what is defined as wholesale quantity from the full rigours of the licensing laws. It was added in another place and protects genuine wholesalers dealing in substantial quantities provided that they trade from their ordinary business premises as defined in the Bill. The exemption was understandable and won support in another place.
Wholesale sales of intoxicating liquor to or by persons under the age of 18 on wholesale premises are covered by the provisions in Clause 17 of the Licensing Bill. It is an offence for a wholesaler thus defined to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of 18. Moreover, it is an offence for a wholesaler to allow a person under the age of 18 to make a sale of intoxicating liquor unless that sale has been specifically approved by the wholesaler or by a person over the age of 18 acting on his behalf.
I should like the House to note that in particular the Bill tackles the dreadful problem of under-age drinking. I do not believe that there is a noble Lord who has not discussed with anxious parents, social workers, teachers or other interested parties the problems of school children consuming large quantities of alcohol. I have carried out research—and quite clearly one reads the proceedings of this Bill in another place with interest—and have read some of the illustrations, which are not hypothetical, of the situation that were drawn to the attention of the Committee, and it is very distressing indeed. If this Bill even remotely helps to deal with some of those problems I believe it will be a very good thing indeed.

437
I ask the House to take on board what Mr. Dafydd Wigley said in Committee in another place. He quoted from the Western Mail of 9th October:
"Almost 4,000 11-year-old schoolboys in Wales have been drunk at least twice during their first year at secondary school. In some areas 12-year-old children regard themselves as regular drinkers and some teenagers frequently drink more than 25 pints of beer a week. Latest figures contained in a special investigation by the Press Association show that Wales is becoming the booziest area of the UK, with problems already far worse than England's".
Knowledge of the extent to which children can purchase liquor came to me as a bolt out of the blue, as it would all right-minded parents and citizens.
Perhaps I may ask the Committee—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to be pedantic but this is a Second Reading debate and therefore this is the House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise. I stand corrected and suitably chastened. Perhaps I may ask the House whether it will take note of the fact that some of those young people have been able to obtain liquor in a manner which, while it may not have been illegal, was certainly reprehensible. I am told that one company hires space at an easily identifiable venue—for instance, a cricket or football ground or a hotel on a Sunday morning— and extensively advertises a wine club to which membership is free. These meetings command considerable support. I am told that direct supply is another route whereby alcohol can be obtained by young people. Advertisements are placed in local newspapers giving the temporary telephone number and venue of the vendor's visiting representative. Inquiries lead to delivery and supply. Sale or return is an established trade technique and is now beginning to appear in conjunction with each of the examples I have given.
Representatives have established regular rounds of visits calling, for example, every Tuesday evening. Although purporting to deliver orders taken previously, the quantities on their vehicles usually fail to tally with advice notes. I am certain that the Minister and others who may speak are well aware of some of these avenues whereby sales are obtained.
However, your Lordships' House is indebted to the report of the Working Group on Young People and Alcohol which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. This was a report commissioned by the Home Office, by the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. It was a very good report indeed which laid before us a horrifying situation. Perhaps I may very quickly indicate to the House some of its findings in substance. It stated:
"—there is evidence of regular, often illegal, drinking of alcohol by adolescents;
—it is not possible to prove a causal link between the consumption of alcohol and crime in general;
—there is a strong association between intoxication and certain crimes of violence and disorder, and that there is by definition a link between intoxication and offences of drunkenness and drink-driving;
—that young people (particularly young men) are especially implicated in these types of crime, and are the heaviest drinkers, mainly drinking beer:
—that the law regulating the consumption of alcohol by those under 18 is complicated, anomalous, and widely flouted".
438
Many of us have watched with absolute horror what some young people under the age of 18 have been getting up to in Germany in the last few days. However, that was the latest incident of a series of incidents where alcohol can be seen to be the root of the problem.
We are absolutely horrified by the statistics. The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also told us that there is no evidence collated about the extent of drinking by young people. For example, it shows that under a heading:
"Have had a 'proper drink' (i.e. a substantial measure of an alcoholic drink)".
The number of 13 year-olds in England and Wales was 82 per cent., the number of 14 year-olds was 88 per cent., the number of 15 year-olds was 92 per cent., the number of 16 year-olds was 91 per cent. and the number of 17 year-olds was 92 per cent.
Of the same group who usually had an alcoholic drink at least once a week the number of 13 year-olds was 29 per cent. and the number of 14 year-olds was 34 per cent. The House is entitled to wonder where they drink and if they are drinking in unlicensed premises. Sadly most of them indicate that they drink at home. That is where most young people are drinking. I simply wish to emphasise the importance of the home in early drinking of alcohol and the extent to which home drinking is under adult supervision.
The purpose of this modest amendment to the law is to seek to close some of the loopholes whereby alcohol has been made more freely available than Members of your Lordships' House would wish. When I make inquiries examples I am given are that people come to a pop festival or carnival and make alcohol available off the back of a lorry. That is one method and there are many more. The reputable trader is as horrified as Members of your Lordships' House at the continuing damage and the danger that alcohol can cause especially to young people. The law has been flouted to some extent. The measure that I bring before the House has the full approval of the British Independent Grocers' Association, the British Retailers' Association, the Retail Consortium and many other reputable organisations.
Perhaps I may refer to a point that was raised more than once in another place as regards accessibility to alcohol illegally at one-day markets or markets in general. The overwhelming majority of markets in this country are organised by highly reputable local authorities and others are organised by private operators who are also highly reputable. Market traders are highly reputable, especially those who are members of the National Market Traders' Federation. They would be as horrified as anyone if any of their members were engaged in the kind of activity which has been drawn to our attention. They have as much to gain as anyone else by operating within the law and not offending good public order and taste.
I very much hope that the Minister will say some kind words about the speed at which the Bill may progress through this place.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
7.21 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this albeit modest Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has put before the House. Modest though it is, it is a most important Bill because it closes yet another loophole in the law as regards the definition of what is a wholesale sale and what is a retail sale of alcohol. One has to view this Bill against a sad background in this country. It is a sad commentary on British life that a section of British youth seems determined to use a large proportion of its disposable income in buying alcohol not simply for eventual consumption but for immediate consumption. More often than not, that leads to intoxication, with alarming results. Those results are very evident on a bank holiday, for example.
On a recent bank holiday I went to a quiet cathedral town not 50 miles from London. I was staying with friends and on two of the evenings over the bank holiday weekend I saw scenes in the centre of the town that were indescribable. I saw hordes of youths coming out of pubs, and presumably that is where they got their alcohol on this occasion. The town in question has a lot of pubs. Their behaviour was at best rowdy and inconvenient to any members of the public who happened to be passing. At worst, it was disgusting. It was a parade of vomiting, rudeness and surly, aggressive behaviour.
If one reads the report of the Association of Chief Police Officers which was released recently, one sees that this is the pattern over a great deal of the country at the moment, particularly in the south of England. I do not know whether this is a commentary on the dark side of our new prosperity, which has brought a great deal of affluence to young people, who are unfortunately using it in this way.
It is a sad commentary that we have to talk through Bills of this kind when we are shortly to go into the European Community. Many other countries in that Community conduct themselves in a much better way as regards alcohol. For example, one does not see in Italy, France or Spain young people drinking quickly—in this country it is mostly beer of high strength—with the sole intention of getting drunk quickly and then behaving in a manner which is becoming increasingly alarming to the public at large.
Against this worsening situation, it is a happy event to see a Bill which seeks to make it more difficult for people who are not responsible purveyors of alcohol to ply their trade in places where young people gather; namely, at football matches, carnivals, sporting events, and in places of this kind. Drink may be obtained from the back of a lorry or at a stall. Ostensibly, it is sold wholesale and it makes it far too easy for young people to obtain drink. When I say "young people", I refer to those who are below the age at which they may legally purchase alcohol. Many of the purveyors who work from these kinds of places are not too concerned whether they break the law.
I should like to see this Bill taken further. I am considering tabling an amendment to provide that there should be some area or distance from the point of a sale of this kind within which it is illegal to
440
consume alcohol having bought it wholesale. The amendment would try to make it more difficult for people to buy alcohol wholesale. Young people are quite at liberty to go behind a wall and put together their money and then send along one of their number to buy alcohol. It will be perfectly within the scope of this Bill, when it is enacted, for one of a group of young people to buy a case of beer and then to return behind a wall and consume it with his fellows who have shared in the cost.
To expect the police to watch out and catch people in the act of consumption of alcohol in this way is putting additional strain upon them. I know that the police are most concerned at the alarming increase in drinking by the youth of this country. The Home Office committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, criticised the attitude of the Advertising Standards Authority. I was personally dismayed at its attitude, which was also criticised by the committee for the lax way in which it interpreted the standards which it is supposed to police. I believe advertising is damaging when it is on the borderline of being legal and advertises drink as being attractive to young people, making them sexually attractive or more masculine, in the case of men.
This Bill will not change the attitude which brings about this problem but I hope it will go some way to countering its effects. We welcome the Bill and I believe that your Lordships will all welcome its simple proposition. With recent legislation and a new approach by the police and the public at large, I hope there will be a gradual growth in understanding of the dangers of increasing drinking by young people and of the effects of intoxication.
I do not believe there will be an immediate improvement as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. Those of us who watch television saw scenes which showed what young people are capable of when they go abroad to support their teams at overseas football matches. This has really brought the attention of the public at large to a very grave and worsening problem. It behoves us in this House, and it behoves everybody in a position of responsibility, to do his utmost to see that this problem does not grow any worse. We therefore welcome this legislation wholeheartedly.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton for the lucid and, if I may say so, very sober way in which he introduced the Second Reading of this important little Bill. The Bill states in one short sentence at the very top of the first page what its object is. It is:
"An act to amend the definition of 'sale by retail' in section 201 of the Licensing Act 1964".
It may be necessary in just a few moments, which is all that I intend to take of the time of the House, to look at the whole question of drinking by those under the age of 18 years.
In case anybody thinks that the Bill is incomplete in the way it deals with that problem, which has been so eloquently discussed by previous speakers, the Licensing Bill as it was, now the Licensing Act, which

441
received Royal Assent on 19th May—very recently indeed—provides that youngsters under the age of 18 shall no longer be able to obtain legally drink from wholesalers, from off-licences and indeed from supermarkets.
But there was a gap. And this little Bill fills the gap. I hope your Lordships will forgive my terminology. I believe however it properly describes the people of whom I am thinking. The Bill stops the spivs from selling alcoholic drinks to young folk under the age of 18 off the back of lorries, and places like that, when there are funfairs or other similar activities going on. That is a very useful thing to have done. I believe this House owes a debt of gratitude to the honourable Member for Berkshire, East for having used his opportunity to introduce this Bill and take it through the Commons. Now, as my noble friend Lord Graham as said, it is a privilege for him to move its Second Reading in this House and for those of us on this side to support it.
7.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for taking up this Bill and for bringing it forward for the consideraton of your Lordships this evening. Although the Government's attitude is one of neutrality to the Bill, I hope that it will not be out of place for me to say that I think that it will prove another useful albeit minor weapon against alcohol misuse, and that it will complement the recent Licensing Act 1988.
The Bill seeks to amend the definition of those sales of alcohol which require the authority of a justices' licence and it will, I hope, simplify and clarify this technical part of the law. Quite sensibly in my view, the Bill will not require a justices' licence to be in force in order to permit the sale of alcohol to those whose business it is to sell or supply alcohol either to fellow traders or to members of the public.
The significant provision of the Bill is perhaps its reference to sales of alcohol in wholesale quantities to members of the public. Your Lordships may be aware that the sale of a case of wine or spirits can be made by anyone, anywhere, without the need for a justices' licence. Most transactions of this kind will take place perfectly respectably from establised premises such as wine warehouses, but they can also take place, as has been explained this evening and—I am hound to say that it came as a great surprise to me on discovering the purpose of the Bill—from the backs of lorries or at one-day fairs. Whatever the circumstances, provided that the minimum quantities are observed the provisions of the licensing law do not apply.
The effect of the Bill will be to allow the established wholesaler who operates from permanent premises to continue to trade with the public without a justices' licence, so long as the quantities which are involved are not less than one case of wine or spirits or two cases of beer or cider. But it will no longer be possible for itinerant operators to escape the net of the law, and it is in that respect that the Bill strengthens the controls available under the 1964 Licensing Act.
442
We have thought long and hard about the apparent anomaly in the licensing law whereby a person selling small quantities of alcohol is subejct to detailed controls whereas the wholesale dealer can operate more freely. Indeed, we considered the possibility of requiring all wholesale operators to hold justices' licences and thereby become subject to the panoply of the licensing regime.
We concluded that this could not be justified for most circumstances. Wholesale purchases from wine warehouses tend to be planned transactions and those likely to misuse alcohol are unlikely, on the whole, to buy their wares from established wholesalers. A detailed licensing system is therefore inappropriate for such outlets.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, drew particular attention to the problems of under-age drinking, as indeed did the noble Viscount. Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think that we are all rightly concerned about the growing problem and evidence of under-age drinking, and for that reason we included specific provisions in the new Licensing Act. Those will make it an offence for the holder of an off-licence, a wholesaler or his staff to sell alcohol from his premises to a person who is under the age of 18 and to fail to supervise effectively any sales by younger members of his staff. In addition, it becomes an offence for a young person to buy or attempt to buy alcohol in wholesale quantities on wholesale premises. The new Act will therefore bring established wholesalers into line with off-licensed outlets so far as under-age sales are concerned.
The new provisions will not, though, apply to those wholesalers who operate from temporary stalls or from vehicles. The Bill before us will close that loophole. If it proceeds to the statute book, the Bill will make it an offence for those who sell to the public—in whatever quantities—to do so without a licence if they sell from anywhere but permanent premises. I believe that this measure, modest as it is in scope, will serve a useful purpose both in simplifying the present law and in removing a potential opportunity for alcohol misuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether I would say something about the speed with which the Bill could pass through your Lordships' House. That would not be for me to do; it would be up to your Lordships. I rather fancy however that if it proceeds as quickly as it has this evening it will not have a very great deal of trouble. I have tried to contribute in that respect by making a speech which is rather shorter than I might otherwise have intended, though substantially longer than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister has made a majestic speech covering one of the major aspects with which the Bill deals. I refer to the wine warehouse which now has a legality. The other people who are selling in wholesale quantities from the kind of places that we have talked about will be caught by the law. I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for filling in a number of gaps which I might fairly have spelled out.

443
Although the Minister is perfectly right in saying that it is a Private Member's Bill, I have deduced from the words used by the noble Earl's ministerial colleague in another place and from correspondence I have seen between others and the Minister that there is goodwill all round.
At the end of the day we still have the problem of enforcement. And we still have the problem of attitudes. Very little that the law can do will instil into parents what you and I would call parental responsibility. There is very little that the Minister and his colleagues can do that will encourage those who are determined to break the law to desist from doing so.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon properly drew attention to the fact that the Licensing Bill had a tiny loophole which this Bill seeks to fill. I understand that even that loophole might have been filled by the Licensing Bill but that there were problems. This Private Member's Bill will, I hope, complete in 1988 one small additional weapon that society and the law will have provided to try to obviate the tragedies that come from too early drinking and too heavy drinking. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 p.m. to 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 15.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZD:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
("Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (c.30)
10A. In section 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (valuation by formula of certain lands and heritages) for subsection (I) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) In the case of such lands and heritages as may be prescribed or of any class or description of such lands and heritages as may be prescribed, the Secretary of State may by order provide that their rateable values or the aggregate amount of their rateable values shall be—

(a) such as is prescribed; or

(b) such as is determined in accordance with prescribed rules.".").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 194ZD, which is grouped with Amendment No. 194ZCA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZE:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
("10B.— (1) In section 9 of that Act (payment of rates pending valuation appeal) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) Notwithstanding that an appeal under the Valuation Acts is pending with respect to any lands and heritages the rates levied on those lands and heritages shall be payable in accordance with section 8 of this Act.".
(2) The amendment made by sub-pararaph (1) above shall not have effect as regards any lands and heritages with respect to which an appeal under the Valuation Acts is pending at the date of commencement of that sub-paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: I shall explain Amendments Nos. 194ZE and 194ZF together because they are part and parcel of the same measure.
Amendment No. 194ZE requires a ratepayer to pay his rates bill in full pending the outcome of his appeal, which is the position in England and Wales. If the appeal is successful, Amendment No. 194ZF requires the rating authority to repay not only the amount overpaid but also, where that amount is in excess of a prescribed limit, interest on that amount at a rate set by the Secretary of State.
I appreciate that some Members may be concerned at the proposal that ratepayers be required to pay their rates bills in full pending appeal rather than nine-tenths of the bill as at present. I suggest, however, that the minor benefits to the ratepayer of retaining 10 per cent. of his rates bill are more than offset by the administrative difficulties that this causes for the rating authorities. Currently, whether an appeal is successful or not, the amount paid requires to be adjusted, and that can result in considerable work for the rating authorities. Against this the advantages for the ratepayer are not great, particularly when it is recalled that he requires to make provision to meet the full cost of his rates bill should his appeal be unsuccessful.
I accept that where an appeal is successful the ratepayer will in effect have made a loan to the rating authority of the amount by which his rates bill is reduced on appeal. It is only proper where this is a significant amount that the authority should pay interest to the ratepayer for the use of his money during the period of the appeal. It is this requirement to pay interest not only in the case of a successful appeal but also where an error has been made in the rates bill in the authority's favour that Amendment No. 194ZF seeks to introduce.
The amendments together are to the benefit of ratepayer and rating authority alike. They are also to the benefit of all ratepayers in that they remove any encouragement to lodge appeals where no real grounds exist. Such appeals slow down the whole process to the detriment of those with genuine grievances. I ask the Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is interesting to hear the Minister speak about convenience to the rating authorities. That would have been met with much greater appreciation if the rating authorities had been consulted about the amendment. It appears to have come from St. Andrew's House after no consultation with any rate-receiving authority. The Minister will doubtless be able to tell us why it is of such great interest to the rating authorities, which have never asked for it. However, so be it.
Why is the charge to be made? If somebody appeals against his rates assessment he does not have to pay

445
the full amount of the rates. The time taken for an appeal is alarmingly long. We are still dealing with appeals from the 1985 valuation. I understand that the period for appeals to be disposed of will have to be extended yet again. If that is so, and if somebody is appealing because he has not been de-rated, the amount of money at stake may be considerable. This appears to be a backdoor way in which, for administrative convenience of government—in the sense of central government and local government—the ratepayer is suddenly to be asked to pay the full amount instead of a restricted amount pending the appeal. For the sake of freedom of the individual, something to which I thought the Government occasionally paid some lip service—I am receiving what no doubt is a critical glance from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I thought that the Government occasionally considered the interests of ratepayers. Why is it in the interests of ratepayers that they should have to pay the full amount instead of only a proportion of the amount pending the appeal?
A considerable proportion of appeals are successful. If we are looking for harmonisation between England and Scotland, it may be that the individual ratepayer would prefer the Scottish position to the English position. Therefore I am dubious whether this provision is really necessary, whether it is demanded by the industrial and commercial ratepayers in Scotland and whether there is anything behind it other than sheer administrative convenience.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It is all very well to say that it is just administrative convenience, but the noble Lord will be well aware that administrative convenience can also save money. The saving of money by a local authority in turn must save money for the ratepayer himself. The expenditure goes down and therefore there is a saving to be made.
I understand the noble Lord's perfecty legitimately held view that one way forward is to pay nine-tenths of the bill and wait for the appeal to go through. The Government feel on this occasion that the provisions in the Bill for dealing with appeals are a better way forward than the present position in Scotland. The noble Lord and his party are entitled to their view, hut nothing he said convinces me that the change is for the worse.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am obliged to the Minister. It would be much easier to know whether this proposal was for the worse or the better. Have the Government consulted any of the rate collecting authorities in Scotland? It is my understanding that there was no consultation whatever and that this provision has been brought in because it suits England and Wales.
It may be that in England and Wales appeals can be disposed of much more quickly. It would be alarming to think of anything much slower than the way in which we in Scotland manage to dispose of valuation appeals. It is really appalling. However, before bringing forward the amendment, would it not have been better to at least consult the people who are involved in rating appeals?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We could go on and talk about consultation but we shall come to that later this evening. I am looking forward to discussing consultation in regard to other matters. Bearing in mind that domestic rates will cease and therefore the case load will become smaller, there are grounds to hope that delays will be reduced considerably. I speak as someone who was involved in business in Scotland. I am perfectly certain that industry will welcome this procedure and therefore I cannot agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am pleased to hear that this will be welcomed by industry in Scotland and I am surprised to hear that industry, which is not unaccustomed to appealing against valuations, is happy to pay 100 per cent. on the spot instead of nine-tenths. That seems strange, but no doubt the Minister has consulted the CBI, the Council for Development in Industry, or both, and is able to tell us the results of those consultations; or has this been thought up without consultation by St. Andrew's House? The noble Lord has said what industry will think. Perhaps he will be able to tell us whether there has been any consultation about this amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: In answer to the noble Lord, the consultations which have taken place within government have brought us to the conclusion that this is the best way forward on a United Kingdom basis. From his many contributions to these valuable debates I should have thought that the noble Lord believed in harmonisation north and south of the Border. I should have thought that it would be useful for the noble Lord to realise that in some areas it is better to try to harmonise on these matters, especially when many companies north and south of the Border have branches on either side of it. It is very much easier to have a system which is the same right across the United Kingdom.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am glad that we have established, first, that there was no consultation and that therefore this is being imposed by the Government without consultation with industry or business; and, secondly, that harmonisation is not to be on the basis of the way rating is approached, which is what we were discussing earlier, but that we in Scotland are to do whatever central government or St. Andrew's House decide is reasonable. That is what we on this side of the Committee sometimes cynically thought. It is nice to get confirmation from the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZE:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
10C. After section 9 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Interest on rates paid in error.
9A.—(1) Where any amount, in excess of such limit as may be prescribed, has been paid in error to a rating authority in respect of rates and the rating authority in respect of rates and the rating authority repays the amount the rating authority shall also pay to the person to whom the repayment is made interest on the

447
amount at such rate as may be determined in accordance with subsection (3) below.
(2) No payment of interest under subsection (1) above shall be made after the end of the sixth year after that in respect of which the amount was paid in error unless application for repayment was made before that time.
(3) The rate of interest referred to in subsection (1) shall be such rate—

(a) as the Secretary of State may prescribe; or

(b) as is to be determined in such manner as he may prescribe,

and regulations made under this subsection may not make provision for a rate of interest in respect of any period before the regulations come into force.
(4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) above shall apply to the repayment of the amount of an overpayment which a rating authority is required to repay under section 9(2) of this Act as they apply to the repayment of an amount referred to in the said subsection (1).
(5) This section shall not require the payment of interest in respect of any period before the commencement of paragraph 10C of Schedule 15 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and subsection (4) above shall not have effect in relation to any repayment in consequence of an appeal which was lodged before such commencement.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZG:
Page 141, line 38, at end insert—
("Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65.).
In subsection (7) of section 2 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (manner in which local authorities are required to publish information) in paragraph (a) the words "or the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973" shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) Its dispatch with, or inclusion in—

(i) a demand for payment of rates issued under section 237(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947; or

(ii) a demand notice for payment of a community charge issued under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.".").

The noble Lord said: If it will be convenient for the Committee, I shall group Amendment No. 194ZG with Amendments Nos. 194ZY, 194ZZ, 194ZZA, 194ZZB, 194ZZC, 194ZZD, 194ZZE, 194ZZF, 206E and 194ZZZ, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
The government amendments in this group are a miscellaneous set of amendments dealing with a number of issues relating to community charge payment and collection. They fall into five groups, which I shall deal with in turn. Amendment No. 194ZG will allow the Secretary of State to issue to local authorities a code of practice setting out the information to be sent to community charge payers along with their demand notices. At present additional information on local authority expenditure is provided on a separate statement issued at the time of the demand notices for rates. This procedure was established in 1982, when the Secretary of State issue a code of practice under the provision of Part II of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We intend to issue an updated code of practice which will cover the information to be issued with community charge demand notices—for instance, the amount that a local authority is proposing to spend on each of the services it provides. The code of practice will of course be the subject of consultation with local authorities.
The amendment puts Scotland on a similar basis to England and Wales, where my right honourable friend intends to use his order-making powers under Clause 141of the Bill to set out a code of practice. The amendment simply puts it beyond doubt that a similar course may be followed in Scotland.
The second main topic dealt with by this group of amendments is that of discounts and incentives, provided for by Amendment No. 194ZZ. The amendment allows local authorities to offer discounts or other incentives to encourage payment arrangements which will be of financial benefit to local authorities. I should emphasise that we are bringing forward the amendment in response to suggestions from local authority interests themselves. Provision for discounts for early payment of the community charge in England and Wales is already included in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
The kind of arrangements we have in mind are for discounts to be made available if a person agrees to pay the full personal community charge as a single lump sum payment early in the financial year. The extent of the discount which may be made available is restricted by my right honourable friend's power to prescribe a limit, and we do not envisage that the discount should be more than a few percentage points of the payment.
On the question of incentives, we envisage that these might take the form of a reduced charge for local authority services such as recreational facilities or entry into a prize competition. Again, this is made available with the safeguard that the cost of the inducement taken with the cost of any reduction in liability offered should not exceed the savings which accrue to local authorities under the agreements reached.
I should stress that the main method of payment for the community charges will remain as 12 monthly instalments. However, the amendment gives local authorities a desirable degree of flexibility to maximise their cash flow in appropriate cases.
The third point covered by the amendments is the repeal of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. That is dealt with by Amendments Nos. 194ZZD and 206E. The repeal removes the requirement for a levying authority to apply for a court decree, rather than a summary warrant, in cases where it is basing recovery action on joint and several liability for the personal community charge. That provision was included because joint and several liability is not a registration matter and cannot therefore form the subject of an appeal to the sheriff at the point of registration.
It was therefore provided that, where recovery action was based on joint and several liability, it should be necessary for the levying authority to obtain a decree so that the court could have a full opportunity to consider the substantive issue of whether joint and several liability in fact applies. The amendment we have made to Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 26 of Schedule 15 to the Bill provides for the substantive issue on joint and several liability to be considered by the levying authority, and by the sheriff on appeal, when there is an appeal against a demand notice

449
based on joint and several liability. There is therefore no need to restrict the subsequent recovery action to the obtaining of a court decree. As opportunity will have been available for the substantive issue to be considered previously in all cases, there is no reason why recovery should not be pursued by way of summary warrant.
The final substantive amendment in the group is Amendment No. 194ZZE, which remedies an omission in the 1987 Act.
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that in carrying out its functions under the Bill charging authorities in England and Wales may make use of information obtained under other Acts, unless that information falls within a prescribed description of information which cannot be used. The amendment makes similar provision for Scotland. A power to use such information would, for example, enable a levying authority to check from its other records whether a person who has defaulted on payment of his community charge is married and thus to decide whether it should invoke the joint and several liability provisions of the 1987 Act in order to effect recovery of the amount outstanding.
Finally, I turn to the other amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 194ZY, 194ZZA, 194ZZB, 194ZZC and 194ZZF. They are either purely drafting amendments or amendments to ensure that the arrangements for levying and collecting the community water charges are on all fours with the corresponding arrangements for levying and collecting the community charges themselves. There is no policy content in the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It must be said that this is a fairly wide-ranging group of amendments; and one sometimes wonders how such groups come into being. However, I shall deal with them as best I can, without trying to send Members of the Committee to sleep, as Amendment No. 194ZZZ, tabled in my name, is apparently designed to do.
The first point I should like to make is that at present there is a voluntary code on what is sent out with the rates notice. Indeed, this has been a matter of discussion and agreement between the various local authorities and the Government at certain times. We are now told —and it is nice to be told with no statutory backing—that there will be consultation. Apparently the Secretary of State will lay down regulations as to what is to happen in regard to the notices.
As I have said, it is nice to know that there will be such consultation, but there is nothing in the Bill which specifies that there will be consultation. Therefore we are far from certain whether consultation means what the dictionary says it means or whether it means that the Government are saying, "This is what we intend to do. We will give you a week to agree to it but, if you do not agree, we will pass the regulations". We are not at all satisfied with the situation although it is perhaps a minor point.
The Minister may be quite happy to know that I have no comments or objections to make on
450
Amendment No. 194ZY. However, Amendment No. 194ZZ is a different matter altogether. Indeed, I have an amendment to it, which the Deputy Chairman of Committees will have to deal with when it is called. Paragraph 4B(1) of Amendment No. 194ZZ provides that local authorities may,
"offer inducements of a financial or other nature (including inducements in the forms of chances in a local lottery within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976)".
As I understand it, what happened was that when the Government put down the amendment the local authorities, through CoSLA—Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—wrote and asked what it meant. I think that the provision appeared first and then the amendment came out. The idea that most local authorities in Scotland are asking for a local lottery to induce people to pay their community charge early seems slightly bizarre. For example, I doubt whether this request came from the Western Islands Council. Indeed, I should have thought that this is completely outwith the general Scottish approach. Therefore that is the purpose of Amendment No. 194ZZZ, which is tabled in my name. I must say that I am very proud to have been able to achieve an amendment which has so many letters after it.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the inducement a purely financial one. Of course I am happy with that proposal. If there is to be some power to give a discount to a payer of the charges who pays the full charge at once, that is fine. To my recollection, that situation occurred before 1973 or 1974 when many local authorities had a provision that if one paid one's total rates bill by a certain date then one received a certain discount. That would seem to be perfectly reasonable. However, the idea of taking chances in a local lottery seems to be something entirely un-Scottish. It may go with the sort of English behaviour that we have noticed in Dusseldorf, but we do not want that brought into Scotland. I am sorry if my noble friend beside me is getting upset. I do not think that he was in Dusseldorf. It is in that frame of mind that I shall move my amendment. There is a strong case for offering a discount but not for offering free laundry facilities, free rides in the local circus or chances in the local lottery.
The next stage is Amendment No. 194ZZD. I have great difficulty with that amendment. Its purpose appears to be that a married couple will receive a notice when the demand notice is sent out which, in my understanding, will be in the first half of April each year. They will then have a short period within which to appeal. The provision does not cover married couples only. It covers the circumstances referred to in Aberdeen as a "bidey-in". There seems to be a strange idea, about which I have often complained, that with this legislation the Government do not appear to live in the real world. This is a wonderful example of that attitude. In effect what is said here that a man and a woman living together at the beginning of April will accept joint and several liability. That means that they will not separate until some time about the end of March the following year.

451
My recollection of practice in the divorce courts is that the separation of married people was not restricted to the first half of April in any one year. They separated at various times during the year. My recollection of the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act is that one is liable for one's spouse only during the period when one is living with him or her. If one has a restricted time after the notice demanding joint and several payment is served in April, what will happen if, at the end of May, the couple separates? What will happen if in June one or both decide to live with different people? It seems to me, with all respect to the Government, that they have not thought the matter out at all.
The position, as I understood it before, was that in April each person in the couple received a demand notice; and, although it was described as a joint and several liability, it was in fact a cautionary liability because the person who did not pay (the other party)—it is difficult, and I should talk about the married couple only—the spouse, incurred a liability once the other spouse did not pay. The Government are changing that. The Government are saying that if John and Janet—to use simple language that we have all learnt in school from the age of five—are living together in April, they have a joint and several liability. If they are not living together, one of them can then appeal to the sheriff. If the time for appeal expires, they are presumed not to have separated until the following year's demand notice goes out. With all respect to the Minister, that is daft, because it is totally unreal. People separate at times of the year other than April. There is nothing in the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act to say that it is only then that people may cease to live together. We should go back to the old system, which may be rather awkward but which at least has some basis in reality. This provision is completely unreal.
I turn to Amendment No. 194ZZE. It relates to the exchange of information, which the Government say is the same as in the English legislation. However, I wonder whether the Government have consulted the Data Protection Act and want to drive a coach and horses through it. If so, why? They have not explained that provision. Perhaps the Minister can explain all those points in this rather heterogenous group and then we may see where we go from there.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that although his instinct may be that it is extremely un-Scottish to have anything to do with a lottery, Tayside Regional Council mooted the idea of a lottery to raise money for sports and leisure facilities. A number of councillors objected strongly to that idea. They said they could not possibly vote for it. They went home for the weekend. When they came back the following week they had to confess that they could not find anyone who objected to such a proposal. Tayside Regional Council ran a successful lottery. Everyone rather enjoyed and accepted it. It is not necessarily an un-Scottish notion, although of course the lottery was not applied to paying for the community charge. It was to raise money for local government facilities. One should
452
not jump too quickly to conclusions about what is Scottish and what is not. I was a little concerned about the noble Lord's reference to English football hooligans. I do not think that we can be too sure that that is always a purely English manifestation.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that I did not give the impression that only the English went in for certain forms of football hooliganism. No one who is a Scot would ever have suggested that, nor would anyone who reads the newspapers. All I was trying to suggest was that to ask people who are provident and want to pay their debts early to take part in a lottery does not necessarily fit all elements of all Scots. I think the provision needs to be thought out. In the past week or two since it was produced, the amendment has brought forward a certain amount of criticism.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Just to follow what the noble Lord said, I do not believe that he had realised that a lottery had been run by at least one local authority in Scotland. I do not know whether it has been done by others. It was accepted by people. The council did not push it, but people backed it and enjoyed it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is one thing to give the prospect of a lottery to anyone who cares to take part by buying a ticket in the lottery; it is another thing to say to anyone who wants to pay their whole debt to the local authority that by doing so they take part in a lottery. I can think of a few people who have a strongly rooted objection, which I fully accept even if I do not always agree with it, to taking part in any form of gambling. We should recognise that feeling. I should have thought that it would be better that the financial inducement should be restricted to a financial discount. That is the purpose of my amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: To give the Bill its due, it provides only that a council "may" run a lottery. It does not have to.
Earl Russell: Just for once I must say that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and not with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I accept that those objections exist, but, if I have understood the proposal aright, it is not being proposed that anyone should be forced to take part in a lottery. I must admit that I also take some exception to the comparison of lotteries with football hooliganism. It seems to me that one of them does no harm to anyone except possibly to the participant and probably not to him either. The other does a good deal of harm to other people. On the other hand, if the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, had concentrated on the question whether a lottery will raise enough money to make a statistically significant contribution to paying off the community charge, he might perhaps have been on rather stronger ground.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry, if I could, I would willingly withdraw anything I said about the football hooligans whom the noble Earl is so anxious

453
to defend. The point, as I understand it, is different. If I pay my rate, my community charge, in a lump sum early, and if I happen to be in a local authority which has decided on a lottery, I gather I do not get a financial discount, I do not get anything. If the local authority so decide, then I get a chance in a lottery. I may have a rooted objection to taking part in any lottery. Why should the local authority make that decision for me?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As we said at the beginning of this discussion, this grouping of amendments covers a very wide spectrum. I shall do my best to deal with the three points which I think the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, brought to our notice.
Perhaps I may deal first with the point about the code of practice. At present Section 3 of the 1980 Act provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring local authorities to adhere to any code of practice in respect of rates issued under Section 2. It has not proved necessary so far to invoke this provision but the option is available, should it prove necessary to use it. We envisage that voluntary arrangements will similarly be effective under the community charge system.
Perhaps I may move now to deal with the noble Lord's famous amendment, which was meant to put everyone to sleep but which in fact has not put me to sleep. I understand the reference to local lotteries, about which there has been so much comment in recent days. As we see, it comes from the amendment which the noble Lord has put down and which deals with the provision by local authorities of discounts and incentives to encourage people to enter into payment arrangements for the community charge which are of financial benefit to the local authority.
The most obvious example is a lump sum payment at the start of the year, which both saves the local authority the administrative costs of handling 12 monthly payments and gives it the cash flow advantage of having money in hand. The provision of a discount or other incentive to encourage such payments seems entirely reasonable, and I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, agrees with that part.
The amendment however goes wider than the straightforward provision of discounts because in the course of consultations with local authorities in Scotland it was suggested that it should. One proposition was that certain benefits might be offered to those who entered into more economic arrangements such as direct debit. For example, they might enjoy reduced charges for local authority facilities such as swimming pools.
It was also suggested that they might have prize draws, as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities of course have established powers to run local lotteries. They were given these in 1975 in the Lotteries Act 1975 and the provisions were subsequently incorporated in the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 in the subsection referred to in the amendment, which was brought forward by the party of the noble Lord opposite.
I understand that these measures were not the subject of party political discussions and were
454
considered by Parliament entirely on their merits and in a non-partisan spirit. It is arguable that levying authorities for the community charge would already have power to offer inducements in the form of chances in a local lottery because the 1976 Act empowers local authorities to promote a local lottery for any purpose for which they have power to incur expenditure under any enactment.
However, it was thought that in view of the fact that specific provision was being made empowering a levying authority to offer inducements, it should be made clear that these inducements would take the form of chances in a local lottery. The amendment therefore merely clarifies the position and that is why the reference to local lotteries which it contains is in the form of a parenthetical aside—that is, in brackets. Members of the Committee will have noticed press reports in which CoSLA confirms that its discussions with the Scottish Office suggested that clarification of the existing powers about inducements was needed. That is precisely what we have provided.
Perhaps I may make two general points. First, provisions for discounts or any other form of incentives are entirely discretionary. There is no question of the Government forcing or requiring local authorities to operate any such schemes as seems to have been inferred in some of the press comment at the weekend. Secondly, any arrangements which local authorities make must be self-financing. There is absolutely no justification for the assumption that discounts or any other forms of incentives will be given to those who can afford to pay early, at the expense of other community charge payers.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way, there is a question I wish to ask.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I may finish. If the noble Lord does not mind, I should just like to complete this section because it is quite important. Since the amendment was tabled it has attracted a lot of comment, both in this House and more particularly outside. The points which the noble Lord makes are very relevant. I think I interpret the feelings of those to whom I have spoken. On balance it would be preferable for prize draws or lotteries perhaps not to be available within the range of actions which local authorities may take to encourage people to enter into forms of payment arrangements. This is not a matter on which the Government feel strongly. They acted on the advice of those who were in the local authority area. We would not have included the point had it not been mentioned to us.
As a matter of legal technicality however, I cannot simply accept the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, puts forward. By removing the parenthetical reference we should merely be returning to the position in which clarification was called for in the first case where, under the powers of the Lotteries and Amusement Acts 1976, local authorities might well have power to offer prize draws as an incentive in this case. However, in the

455
light of the views which have been expressed, I undertake to consider very carefully whether the reference to local lotteries needs to remain. I shall raise the matter again on Report and bring forward an amendment if I judge that to be necessary.
Finally, the point was made about joint and several liability. I think that was on Amendment No. 194ZZD. Notices based on joint and several liability will only be issued after there has been a failure to pay one or both of the community charges. There is then a full right of appeal to the sheriff. There is absolutely no suggestion that couples would automatically receive joint and several notices at the beginning of each year.
I hope that the remarks I have made have clarified the Government's views on the various points raised.
Lord Morton of Shuna: On the question of lotteries, I should have thought that the way out would perhaps be to make sure that, if a lottery is to be permissible, it should be provided for those who have a rooted objection, if I may put it that way, that they are bound to receive a straight financial incentive rather than a chance in a lottery. I think that would be one way out of it.
As regards the married people, my understanding is, I am afraid, different. The demand notice that is referred to in Amendment No. 194ZZD is, I understand, the demand notice that we are talking about in Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. It is the demand notice for the payment of the community charge. That is the only demand notice we are talking about at this stage and it is the demand notice that each of us who resides in Scotland will receive sometime in April next year, 1989. It is that demand notice against which apparently under Amendment No. 194ZZD the couple if—I may refer to them as such—have the right to appeal. How they can say that they will enjoy life together, whether they are married or believe themselves to be married, I do not understand.
If we are talking about a different demand notice, that is not clear from the amendment, and it is not clear to me in such reading as I have been able to do of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act. There appears to be only one demand notice. That is the demand notice for the community charge. Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding this position, but if "demand notice" is used with two different meanings in the one Act, let us find out about that now and call it by different names when it means different things. There is no doubt that the demand notice which the Minister is talking about is different from the demand notice that I understand from reading Schedule 2 of the 1987 Act.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister responds, there was one phrase that he used which I do not have exactly right and which puzzled me very much. He said that there was no question of offering financial inducements to those who were very well able to pay on time. I must have misunderstood the Minister. I do not understand how one can discriminate between those who are making an effort to pay on time and need the inducements and those who are very well able to pay on time.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I do not think that I said that. However, I shall look very carefully at what is printed in Hansard. Of course the inducements are available to those who can afford to pay on time. That is what helps a local authority in its cash flow position.
As regards the point made about joint and several liability, page 147 of the Bill states in Schedule 15(26)(3):
"(a) the levying authority shall not issue a demand notice before the date prescribed under paragraph 2(1) above",
and so on. That is the joint and several demand notice. It is not issued in April. If the noble Lord wishes to study Schedule 15(26)(2A) he may like to enlighten me as to whether or not he has a point on this.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I think that I have. It is very difficult to wander from a schedule to one Act to a schedule to another Bill, but, on page 147 of the Bill that we are discussing, paragraph 26 refers to:
"Schedule 2 to that Act".
I think that that refers to Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. Schedule 15 (26) (2) to the Bill refers to:
"paragraph 2(1) (demand notices)".
The demand notice in Schedule 2 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act is the demand notice that we receive, or will receive, in April of next year which will tell us that the community charge is x pounds and that we have to pay it. If my reading of this is right—of course I may be totally wrong, but I think I read things more or less as a normal person would—that is the demand notice meant. It is not a later demand notice that is made when someone has failed to pay. I shall certainly study what the Minister has said, but I think that he is using "demand notice" in two different ways—using the meaning that it has under the Bill and the other meaning that it has under the Act. If that is really what he intends, it will cause desperate confusion.
The Lord Chancellor: I venture to intervene because I think that the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna, may not be taking account of the fact that paragraph 26 of Schedule 15 provides for a demand note in a situation other than the ordinary situation which is provided for in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1987. In effect it says that—to take the paradigm case—where there is joint and several liability and one of the persons has not paid, there will be a possibility of a demand in respect of that person's liability against the person who is jointly and severally liable with that person. That is the demand that can occur after the failure of payment by the first person who is in question.
It is not a matter of a demand note being used in different senses. It is that there is more than one situation described in which a demand note may be issued. This is dealing with a particular type of situation—namely, where one of the spouses has defaulted and has not paid within the due time. In that situation a demand note can be issued, not in April but at the time of the failure. Then there is a period of appeal that follows on that. That is what I think the provision means, but obviously there is room for me to be corrected on the point.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no doubt that that is what it was intended to mean, but I do not know whether that is what it does mean. The noble and learned Lord referred to Schedule 15(26)(2) to the Bill. That states:
"In paragraph 2(1) (demand notices) at the beginning there shall be inserted—
'Subject to paragraph 2A below'".
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act states:
every levying authority shall, in respect of the financial year 1989–1990 and of each subsequent financial year, issue, before such date in relation to each of those years as may be prescribed, to every person liable to pay … a notice in respect of that liability (in this Act referred to as a 'demand notice').
That is the notice that we shall all receive in April of next year. If it is intended that a demand notice is also to mean a different thing, which is what the noble and learned Lord appeared to say—that, for example, come July the spouse of the delinquent who has failed to pay the three months' instalment will suddenly receive a notice saying that Jenny Smith has not paid and the authorities think the people concerned have been living together—it is confusing to refer to that in the same schedule as a demand notice.
The Lord Chancellor: This could go on, subject to patience, almost indefinitely. The noble Lord will notice that in Schedule 15(26)(2), amending Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act, it states:
"Subject to paragraph 2A below".
That paragraph—2A—inserts a further situation in which a demand note to pay a community charge may be issued. That is where:
"a person's liability to pay a community charge arises only by virtue of section 8(7) of this Act (joint and several liability)".
Therefore it is saying that in addition to demand notes that are issued in respect of the primary liability to pay the community charge, they may also be issued in respect of the secondary liability to pay the community charge. The second type of demand note shall be issued only after such time as it appears to the local authority that it will be unable to recover payment of the community charge from the other person who is liable to pay. That is the way I understand it. However, as I say, I am subject to correction and perhaps we should look at the matter again. I intervened only because I thought I understood the matter.
9 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has an advantage in the general quickness of his understanding compared with mine. However, the amendment appears to use "a demand notice" twice in the same schedule meaning different types of notice. That seems to me to be confusing. With respect, and from such knowledge of the law as I retain after being down here for far too long, we are not talking about joint and several liability. We are talking about cautionary liability. We are only bringing in the liability after the debtor has failed to pay. It does not appear to me that that assists at all. However, if the noble and learned Lord, assisted by the Minister, will look at the matter carefully and sort out Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act and
458
Schedule 15 to the Bill, I with interest to see what happens.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZH:
Page 142, line 35, leave out ("other").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to, as were Amendments Nos. 194ZJ and 194ZK, in our discussions on Amendment No. 193ZCA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZJ:
Page 142, line 35, after ("rating") insert ("or valuation for rating").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZK:
Page 142, line 36, leave out from ("be") to end of line 37 and insert ("such as is prescribed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZL:
Page 143, line 1, leave out ("or by virtue of section 30(2) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 194ZL and 194ZM when we debated Amendment No. 184D on Tuesday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved amendment No. 194ZM:
Page 143, line 6, after ("above") insert ("and subsection (8) below").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZM:
Page 143, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this subsection—

(a) require such educational establishments as may be prescribed to supply, in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed, to every person undertaking or about to undertake a full time course of education provided by the establishment a certificate containing such particulars as may be prescribed;

(b) require such educational establishments as may be prescribed to supply to the registration officer within such period (being not less than 21 days) as may be prescribed such information as the registration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the exercise of his functions under this Act, being information which is in the possession or control of the establishment."

( ) In subsection (6) after the word "of" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words ""educational establishment"".").
The noble Lord said: In common with several of the other government amendments to Schedule 15, this amendment is essentially concerned with the compilation and maintenance of the community charges register. Student status for community

459
charge purposes confers on the student a reduced liability for the personal community charge. It is important that registration officers are able to satisfy themselves that those who are listed as students on canvass forms do indeed fall within the prescribed definition. We consulted interested bodies in February about the provisions which might be needed in this area. In the light of that consultation, we have brought forward this amendment which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring educational establishments to issue students with certificates confirming their student status.
The amendment also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring educational establishments to provide registration officers with the names of people undertaking full-time courses of education at the establishment, together with such other information as is relevant to the registration of that person for personal community charge liability only. We shall of course consult interested bodies further before making the necessary regulations soon after the passage of the Bill. The amendment will make provision for Scotland similar to that which is already made for England and Wales in Clause 127 and paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Government are very strange at times—perhaps "at times" is the wrong expression. We discussed the English provision contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill on 7th June at col. 1295 of the Official Report as regards Amendment No. 83A. It was explained very carefully on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh—he will remember it well—that all that is required is that the education authority shall give to the registration officer the names and addresses of students at the start of the academic year. It was agreed on all sides, and notably by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that it was unrealistic to ask for anything else.
It is clear that paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 does not contain any mention of a certificate. Therefore, to say that that follows the English provision seems to me to be incorrect. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 on page 86 says:
"Regulations … may include a provision that a certification officer"—
who is someone in an educational establishment—
"shall supply to a registration officer for a charging authority such information as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)".
Sub-paragraph 2 says:
"The information is—

(a) the name of each person who (on the day the request is made) is undertaking a full-time course of education and has his sole or main residence in the area of the charging authority, and

(b) the address of the sole or main residence of each such person".

The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, made it quite clear that the university (to use that shorthand for the various bodies which may be involved) was not under any obligation to certify that the addresses were correct. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave us a florid recollection of the speed at which students
460
move from one address to another. I shall not attempt to repeat that.
However, the provision contains nothing about certificates. If certificates are to be issued—that has an unfortunately correlation with carrying an identity card around saying that one is a full-time student—why should they be necessary in Scotland for Scottish students and not in England and Wales? Where have those certificates come from? Where are they provided for in England? What value is such a certificate to have? If on 6th October in any given year the University of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or St. Andrews issues a certificate which may be shown to various officers saying that John Smith or Hugh Morton is a student and he then ceases to be a full-time student because he does not attend classes or takes up another obligation, who is going to withdraw the certificate? The certificate based on that information seems to be totally valueless and possibly confusing. As far as I can see it is not something that will apply in England. If we are all to carry identity cards, so be it, but let us have it in general legislation and not introduced for a certain sub-class in Scotland.
On the face of the Bill and this amendment certification is complete nonsense. Therefore I wonder whether the Minister can clarify this point.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps it escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, but if he turns to page 16 of the Bill he will see under Clause 27(2)(b) that:
"a certification officer shall at a prescribed time supply to a person who is pursuing or who is about to pursue a course at the establishment, and who is of a prescribed description, a certificate in a prescribed form and containing prescribed particulars".
I stand by what I said.
It is nonsense to suggest that the issue to students of certificates confirming their student status is akin to the introduction of a system of identity cards. I hope that we can see this proposal in its proper context. Student status will entitle the student to a very considerable reduction on what his community charge liability would otherwise have been. It is only right therefore that a clear system of checking entitlement to that reduction should be set up. The issue of certificates will therefore be helpful both to registration officers in their task of compiling and updating the community charges register and to students in demonstrating that they qualify for the 80 per cent. reduction in community charge liability.
Such certificates will simply provide evidence of the holder's status as a student. They will have no value or significance in any other context, and will be used only for the single and clearly defined purpose of giving evidence of a person's student status. They will not therefore be identity cards any more, for instance, than are matriculation cards or student railcards.
Earl Russell: In the hope of saving the Committee time by avoiding an unncessary speech perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is his understanding of this clause that universities are required to certify students' addresses.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I shall need to look at that point but I think that the answer is no as far as concerns addresses. I should like to check that and come back to the noble Earl.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not know whether the position is the same from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, as it is from that of the Minister, but it is reported in cols. 1296–97 of Hansard of 7th June 1988 that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that it was only the address which the university had that had to be provided to the registration officer and that there was no guarantee of accuracy at that point.
I accept that Clause 27 relates to the certificate. I continue to question the value of the certificate and whether it has any more value than the student railcard or anything else. If there is to be any checking it will necessitate that the registration officer goes to the university to see that the student is still there. That must be necessary.
We shall have a whole host of people wandering round the country with certification that they are a student. There are certain people in both England and Scotland, and probably in Wales too, who are quite adept at copying things. It may well be that those certificates will be more of a nuisance than they are worth.
The Minister did not reply at all to my major criticism that the certificate seemed to be a practically worthless piece of documentation. Why should the university issue a certificate—presumably in October at the beginning of the academic year—when a certain number of people will drop out and will still have certificates? There is no obligation on anybody to say that they have lost their status.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZP:
Page 143, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) In subsection (7)—

(a) after the word "shall" there shall be inserted ", notwithstanding that they are not otherwise liable under this Act for a personal community charge,"; and

(b) for the word "each" where it second occurs there shall be substituted the word "either".").

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments all relate either to liability for the community charge or to the compilation and up-dating of the community charges register. They are also all of an essentially minor and technical nature. While I am of course happy to explain the details of the changes which they make, I propose to concentrate my comments on one of the amendments which arguably makes a change of substance—namely, Amendment No. 194ZV.
Section 15 of the 1987 Act currently provides that where an entry in the register is amended, the registration officer should make a record of the entry before amendment and retain it for two years, and that that record may he inspected in the same way as the register may be inspected under Section 20 of the Act.
Amendment No. 194V makes three minor changes to the provisions of Section 15. First, it ensures that
462
a note of the date on which the record is made forms part of the record. Secondly, it provides that the provisions of Section 20 of the 1987 Act relating to inspection of the register, including any provisions prescribed under that section, apply, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, to inspection of the record as they apply to inspection of the register. The power to prescribe modifications will give the Secretary of State the flexibility to provide that the publicly available parts of the record should be less widely available for inspection than the publicly available parts of the register if this appears to be appropriate for operational reasons.
Thirdly, the amendment provides that persons shall be entitled to obtain copies or certified copies of entries in the record in the same way that they can obtain copies of entries in the register. Like the right to obtain copies of entries in the register, however, this right will be restricted to copies of entries which the person in question is entitled to inspect. With those comments I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am using these amendments as a vehicle in order to ask the Minister a question. Why is it necessary to retain the requirement that the Scottish register and therefore the Scottish "responsible person" needs to provide the dates of birth of everybody for whom that person is answering? I can imagine circumstances in which inquiring after the date of birth of one's mother-in-law might prove difficult. There is no such provision in the English Bill. Why does Scotland need to have dates of birth bandied about on registers and in the forms that need to be filled in?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, was in his place last Tuesday when I answered a Question that had a bearing on this subject. We remain of the view that this provision will make things easier for the registration officers, whose job is not an easy one, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. During the discussion on Tuesday my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy spoke of the Macleans and Mackenzies and Mackays, and of how difficult it would be to distinguish who was who in any particular family, village or community.
We still feel that there is a necessity for identification purposes to insert that provision. It will be especially important when one reaches the stage at which people are moving from one place to another, within and without a community. I know that the noble Lord is taking this opportunity to raise the matter and I am surprised that he has not raised it before. I know that he holds very strong views on the subject, which was debated at great length when the Scottish Bill came before this Chamber. However, I have to say that the Government have not changed their mind so far as concerns Scotland. I shall be very interested to observe the implementation of the Act when it is on the statute book as regards England and Wales.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Government must have discussed this matter with great seriousness at

463
some stage. Can the noble Lord explain why there should be more John Mackays living in the same house in Scotland than there will be John Smiths or John Bulls in the same house in England? There seems to be no logic in the argument.
In general, people who live in the same house tend to be related to each other. Basically they are fathers, sons and grandsons and mothers, daughters and grandaughters, all of whom have the same name. If in England there is no confusion with the names of John or Jenny Smith so that either may be a grandchild or a granny, why does that same situation cause great confusion in Scotland, Wales or anywhere else? There is no satisfactory answer to that question, yet the Government must have considered it very seriously because there was so much fuss made about it last year.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I may be permitted to come back on the English and Welsh situation. It has been acknowledged that information about dates of birth could be collected at the discretion of registration officers in certain circumstances where it would aid in the identification of individuals—for example, where several people of the same name had been arrested at the same address. I imagine that this information will be of particular importance in Wales because of the number of Williamses and Edwardses who happen to live in the various close communities.
We could prolong this discussion. I know the noble Lord's views and so far as concerns the Scottish Bill they do not coincide with those of the Government. As I have said, I look forward with interest to see how the implementation of the legislation in England and Wales reflects in this area.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 194ZQ and 194ZR:
Page 143, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) In subsection (4) for the words from ("and that liability") to the end there shall be substituted the words ("and where at any time two or more people are liable to pay the standard community charge under this subsection they shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge.".").
Page 143, line 47, at end insert—
("(6) After the said subsection (10) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(10A) Where at any time premises are let, sub-let or permitted to be occupied as mentioned in subsection (10) above to more than one person, only one standard community charge contribution in respect of the standard community charge payable in respect of any financial year shall be recovered in respect of the period of such lease, sub-lease or permission to occupy and such persons shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the contribution.".").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZS:
Page 143, line 49, at end insert—
464
("1A) In subsection (3) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below,".
(1B) After subsection 3 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) The registration officer shall not designate premises which are or form part of land designated by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1A to this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 194ZS on Tuesday in connection with Amendment No. 184D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZT:
Page 143, line 49, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (5) for the words from ("and that liability") to the end there shall be substituted the words ("and where at any time two or more people are liable to pay the collective community charge under this subsection they shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge.".".).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZTA:
Page 144, line 15, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment consequential on Amendment No. 194ZU, which we discussed on Tuesday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZU:
Page 144, line 16, at end insert ("and
(d) in paragraph (c) for the words "section 8(8)(c) of there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 11 of Schedule 1A to".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 194ZU and also Amendment No. 194ZV on Tuesday when we discussed Amendment No. 184D. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZV:
Page 145, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) in subsection (3)—

(a) after the word "entry" where it second occurs there shall be inserted the words "including a note of the date upon which the record is made": and

(b) for the words "the date on which it was made" there shall be substituted the words "that date".

(1B) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) The provisions of section 20 of this Act relating to the inspection of the register and the obtaining of copies of entries in the register (including such provisions as are prescribed under that section) shall apply, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, to the inspection or obtaining of copies of a record made under subsection (3) above as they apply to the inspection of or obtaining copies of entries in the register.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZW:
Page 145, line 44, at end insert—
(". In section 17 of that Act (duties in relation to registration) in subsection (6) after the words ""responsible person"" there shall be inserted the words "in relation to any premises".").
The noble Lord said: We spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZX:
Page 147, line 33, at end insert—
(". After Schedule 1 to that Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—
"Schedule 1A
PERSONAL COMMUNITY CHARGE: EXEMPTION
Prisoners
1.—(1) A person is exempt if he is a convicted person who is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence.
(2) "Convicted person" means a person found guilty of an offence (whether under the law of the United Kingdom or not) including a person found guilty by a court-martial under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957, or on a summary trial under section 49 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, or by a Standing Civilian Court established under the Armed Forces Act 1976, but not including a person dealt with by committal or other summary process for contempt of court.
(3) "Penal Institution" means a prison or other institution to which the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 applies.
(4) A person detained for default in complying with his sentence shall not be treated as detained in pursuance of the sentence (whether or not the sentence provided for detention in the event of default).
Visiting forces
2.—(1) A person is exempt if he has a relevant association with a visiting force.
(2) A visiting force, in relation to any particular time, is any body, contingent or detachment of the forces of a country to which any provision in Part I of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies at that time.
(3) A person has, at any particular time, a relevant association with a visiting force if he has at that time such an association within the meaning of that Part.
International headquarters and defence organisations
3.—(1) A person is exempt if he is a member of a headquarters or a dependant of such a member.
(2) A headquarters, in relation to any particular time, is a headquarters or organisation designated at that time by an Order in Council under section 1 of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964.
(3) A person is, at any particular time, a member of a headquarters if he is at that time such a member within the meaning of the Schedule to that Act.
(4) A person is, at any particular time, a dependant of such a member if he is at that time such a dependant within the meaning of that Schedule.
The severely mentally handicapped
4.—(1) A person is exempt if he is severely mentally handicapped.
(2) A person is severely mentally handicapped if he is suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another definition for the definition of severe mental handicap for the time being effective for the purposes of this paragraph.
Children
5. A person is exempt if another person is entitled to child benefit in respect of him.
Student
6.—(1) A person is exempt if he is undertaking a full-time course of education and he is resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland for the purpose of undertaking the course.
(2) Regulations made under this paragraph shall make provision for the purpose of determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether a person is undertaking a full-time course of education.
Members of religious communities
7.—(1) A person is exempt if—

(a) he is a member of a relevant religious community; and

(b) he has no income or capital of his own and is dependent on the community concerned for his material needs.

(2) A relevant religious community is a religious community whose principal occupation—

(a) is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education, or any prescribed occupation; or

(b) consists of two or more of the occupations mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(3) A prescribed occupation is such occupation as may for the time being be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.
(4) In construing sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, income by way of pension in respect of a former employment is to be ignored.
Hospital patients
8.—(1) A person is exempt if he is a patient who is solely or mainly resident in a hospital.
(2) "Hospital" means a health service hospital within the meaning of section 108(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another definition for the definition of hospital for the time being effective for the purposes of this paragraph.
Patients in homes
9.—(1) A person is exempt if—

(a) he is solely or mainly resident in a residential care home, nursing home or hostel; and

(b) he is receiving care or treatment (or both) there.

(2) A residential care home is—

(a) a residential establishment provided and maintained by a local authority in respect of the functions under section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 transferred to them by section 1(4)(c) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; or

(b) a residential establishment to which Part IV of the said Act of 1968 applies; or

(c) residential accommodation provided and maintained by a local authority under section 7 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984,

where the sole or main function of the establishment or accommodation is to provide personal care or support, combined with board, to persons who are solely or mainly resident in the establishment or accommodation.
(3) A nursing home is—

(a) a nursing home within the meaning of section 10(2) of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 in respect of which a person is registered; or

(b) any premises in respect of which an exemption has been granted under section 6 or 7 of that Act.

(4) A hostel is an establishment in which residential accommodation is provided and which is—

(a) managed by a housing association registered for the time being in a register maintained under section 3 of the Housing Associations Act 1985; or

(b) operated other than on a commercial basis and in respect of which funds are provided wholly or in part by a Government department or agency or a local authority; or

(c) managed by a voluntary organisation,

where the sole or main function of the establishment is to provide personal care or support, combined with board, to persons who are solely or mainly resident in the establishment.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made under this paragraph substitute another definition for any definition of a residential care home, nursing home or hostel for the time being effective for the purpose of this paragraph.
(6) In this paragraph—
"personal care" includes the provision of appropriate help with physical and social needs; and
"support" means counselling or other help provided as part of a planned programme of care.
Residents of certain Crown land
10.—(1) A person is exempt if he is solely or mainly resident in Crown land which is designated under this paragraph.
(2) The Secretary of State may designate land under this paragraph if at the time of designation the first and second conditions are fulfilled.
(3) The first condition is that it is land in which there is any interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or to a Government department or to a Minister of the Crown or held on behalf of Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government department.
(4) The second condition is that in the Secretary of State's opinion the land is used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of individuals and in his opinion most or all of them—

(a) reside there for short periods; or

(b) should in the interests of national security not be registered as subject to a personal community charge.

(5) The Secretary of State—

(a) at any time may, and

(b) if the first or second conditions ceases to be fulfilled shall—

revoke a designation under this paragraph.
(6) A designation under this paragraph shall take effect at the beginning of the day following that on which it was made, and shall cease to have effect at the end of the day (if any) on which it is revoked.
Residents of certain other premises
11. A person other than a person such as is mentioned in section 8(4) of this Act is exempt if he is solely or mainly resident in premises—

(a) in respect of which the collective community charge is payable; or

(b) which are subject to non-domestic rates.".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment on Tuesday in connection with Amendment No. 184D. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): As an amendment to this amendment, I have to call Amendment No. 194ZXA.
[Amendment No. 194ZXA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZX, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 194ZXB, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZX, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 194ZX agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZY:
Page 148, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa) in sub-paragraph (7)—

(i) after the words "amount due" there shall be inserted the words "in respect of any community charge (including any amount due in respect of the corresponding community water charge)"; and

(ii) for the words "rebate under or by virtue of section 24 of this Act from that amount or instalment" there shall be substituted the words "reduction in that amount or instalment in consequence of any rebate or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986; and").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZZ:
Page 148, line 11, at end insert—
("(5A) After the said paragraph (4) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"Discounts and incentives
4A.—(1) Where a person enters into an agreement with a levying authority under sub-paragraph (10) of paragraph 4
468
above for payment of a community charge and the levying authority are satisfied that it would be of greater financial benefit to them if the payment were made under such an agreement than if it were made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) to (9) of that paragraph they may reduce the amount which the person is liable to pay by not more than such limit as is prescribed.
(2) The limit mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above may be calculated by reference to such percentage as the Secretary of State may prescribe.
4B.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a levying authority may, for the purpose of encouraging persons to enter into agreements under paragraph 4(10) above and without prejudice to the making of such reductions as are mentioned in paragraph 4A above, offer inducements of a financial or other nature (including inducements in the form of chances in a local lottery within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976).
(2) In any financial year the aggregate cost of any inducements offered under sub-paragraph (1) above taken with the cost of any reductions made under paragraph 4A shall not exceed the savings which the levying authority estimates will accrue from agreements made by them under paragraph 4(10) above,".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 194ZZZ, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZZ, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 194ZZ agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 194ZZA:
Page 148, line 12, after ("bodies)") insert—

("(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added the words "or of any of the authority's responsibilities as regards rebates or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986"; and

(b) ").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 194ZZB, 194ZZC, 194ZZD, 194ZZE, 194ZZF and 194ZZG when discussing Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment Nos. 194ZZB to 194ZZG.
Page 148, line 17, leave out ("the payment of such community charge or instalment") and insert—

("(a) the payment of any community charge or instalment;

(b) the payment of any community water charge; or

(c) the payment of any rebate or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986").

Page 148, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa) in sub-paragraph (4) after the words "community charge" there shall be inserted the words "and community water charge"; and").
Page 148, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph 7 (recovery of arrears of community charges)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words "(4) to (6)" there shall be substituted the words "(5) and (6)";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) after the word "application" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words—

"(i) have each been issued with a demand notice and that in each case the time limit for appealing against a demand notice under paragraph 3 above has expired without an appeal being made or that in a case where an appeal has been made it has been finally determined in favour of the levying authority; and

(ii)".").

Page 148, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) After paragraph 9 there shall be inserted the following—
"Use of information
10. The Secretary of State may prescribe that, in carrying out their functions under this Act, a levying authority, or a housing body exercising functions under paragraph 5 above, may use information which—

(a) is obtained under any other enactment; and

(b) does not fall within any prescribed description of information which cannot be used.".").

Page 148, leave out lines 29 to 36.
Page 148, line 36, at end insert—
("29. In Schedule 5 to that Act (water and sewerage charges) in paragraph 11 for the word "Schedule" there shall be substituted the words "Schedules Al and".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Having contained myself in silence since half past six I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words about the situation produced by Schedule 15. There is a page or so of amendments dealing with English law but eight pages of amendments relating to Scotland. Now, at Committee stage, we are given 13 more pages which are almost all government amendments in addition to those originally on the Marshalled List.
The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act was dealt with in the last Parliament. It has been known for a long time that legislation would be brought forward for England and Wales, and I am glad of that. However, I believe that we are entitled to an explanation as to why we have an almost unprecedented situation. There are 20 pages of amendments to Scottish law, many of which are very complex. I have admired the manner in which my noble friend Lord Sanderson has grappled with the remarkable list of amendments and also the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has applied his mind as a Scottish lawyer to try to discover what is involved. It is a great burden upon the Committee and I believe that a brief explanation is required. It is no use Members trying to find it in the explanatory memorandum to this complicated Bill. That is silent on the matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Of course my noble friend is right. No one could be more concerned about bringing forward so many amendments to the Bill at this stage. I shall give him two reasons which I gave on Tuesday when we started on this particular course. One reason welcomed on all sides of the Committee—I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was particularly pleased—is that the schedule puts together all the various exemptions so that we can see where we stand. That was required, and we felt it important to bring forward proposals at this stage, particularly in view of the situation of my noble friend Lord Caithness at tile moment in relation to exemptions and what may yet be decided by the Government.
The second point is that I remember, on becoming Minister and answering a question on the subject of this particular Bill as it affects England and Wales, I gave a clear undertaking that if measures were adopted in England and Wales which we would have
470
to replicate in Scotland, it would be done at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his complimentary remarks about myself. I was not certain whether I was swimming about at the bottom of a pool or really understanding what was happening in respect of this schedule. It is an example of the appalling nature of legislation that is going through at the moment. Anyone buying a copy of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act will, if this Bill is passed, have an Act that is wrong.
Lord Harvington: Will the noble Lord speak up; it is very difficult to hear him?
Lord Morton of Shuna: If someone buys a copy of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act, which was only published last May or June, they will buy an Act which, when this Bill goes through, will be wrong. A whole number of other Scottish Acts will also now be wrong. It is incredibly difficult for anyone not advised and kept up to date by civil servants to know what is the law. These incessant schedules make it very difficult for anyone to understand. It is difficult enough for a lawyer who is supposed to be supplied with details very quickly; it is quite impossible for any layman to try and understand what is the law. That is a very serious problem which the Government have done a lot to make worse.
Earl Russell: I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said what he did. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, replied to the point with dignity and care. However, this is not the first time that it has happened. We have had before us two large Bills which have grown very remarkably in the telling—and I mean that in the most literal sense of the word. The practice of adding to Acts is one that has increased, is increasing and should be diminished.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 136 [Judicial review]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 75, line 11, leave out ("as a simple contract debt").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple, technical drafting amendment to clarify the terminology used in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This is really a Scottish lawyer asking for an explanation. Why does it make it simpler to take out those words? What is, "A simple contract debt" in English law and what does it mean? Why is the Bill simpler if those words are omitted?
Lord Hesketh: I shall have to arrange to communicate with the noble Lord. As he knows, I am not fully conversant with the finer points of the law.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may presume to help though I am becoming a very rusty old lawyer. From my student days I have known that a simple contract is one that is not under seal.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 [Separate administration in England and Wales]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 194B:
Page 75, line 43, after ("State") insert ("or the Treasury").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 194B, for the convenience of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendment No. 194C. These amendments give the Treasury the same flexibility as is open to the Secretary of State in respect of subordinate legislation. Amendment No. 194B gives the Treasury power to make different provisions for England and Wales and Amendment No. 194C gives the Treasury power to make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to be necessary or expedient.
In practice these will apply only to the power in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 7 to uprate the NNDR multiplier by less than the RPI, which is the sole power exercisable by the Treasury. It is sensible for this power to be consistent with the order-making powers open to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 139 and 140 agreed to.
Clause 141 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 194C:
Page 76, line 47, after ("State") insert ("or the Treasury (as the case may be)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 77, line 10, after ("Schedule 6") insert ("or section 122").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to bring into the scope of affirmative resolution not only Schedule 6 to the Bill but also Clause 122. That clause is a peculiarly opaque part of the Bill. It appears to say that whenever there is a reference to rating in any Act the Secretary of State may by order vary the reference to rating to a reference to something else. I believe I summarise it too simply but I do not believe it is anything less wide than that.
The problem with Clause 122 is precisely that it is the most extreme extension of regulation-making powers of secondary legislation that one can see anywhere even in this Bill, which is conspicuous for its reliance on secondary legislation. We let it go through when we were dealing with the regulation itself in anticipation that the way to handle it would be to restrict the willingness of the Secretary of State to use the very wide powers which he has under Clause 122 by saying that he has to ask for an affirmative resolution. If anybody thinks that this might clog up Parliament, I would suggest that the Secretary of State should do so at regular and frequent intervals by bringing in all of the amendments that he wishes to be made to Clause 122 in an indigestible lump. In that way he might succeed in deceiving and bypassing the Opposition, not all of whom are as conscientious as my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. I think that on examination it will be found that the powers given under Clause 122 are very wide and that it is desirable, if not that they
472
should be subject to the affirmative resolution, that there should be some better indication of what they mean—I am not asking for a long speech—and why it is that they are justified. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 122 is necessary because various elements of the present general rating system are used for a wide variety of purposes unconnected with rating. Statutory provisions are found in both public and private legislation. The abolition of domestic rates means that the majority of these provisions will need to be changed. In some cases the amendment will be relatively simple, substituting reference to some other relevant factor—for example, market value—for reference to rateable value. In other cases a more extensive recasting of the existing provisions will be needed.
Clause 122 is concerned with those cases where rateable value is used as a reference point in other legislation. Examples include the ceilings for Rent Act protection and the right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Acts; home loss payments where property is compulsorily purchased for development; and the valuation of rent free accommodation for income tax purposes.
Clause 122 is in effect a fall-back power which will enable essential changes to be made to non-rating legislation where this would cease to work once one could no longer rely on the assumption that every property will have a rateable value. The power to prescribe necessary changes has, on the one hand, to be broad enough to cover all the rating factors employed and the variety of their uses, but on the other to provide sufficient safeguards so that the policy intention of the legislation cannot be radically altered.
With this background in mind, I now turn to Amendment No. 195 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The effect of this amendment would be to impose the affirmative resolution procedure on all orders under Clause 122. It is our view that the negative resolution procedure provides a perfectly adequate level of parliamentary control. It is a procedure which applies to the vast majority of statutory instruments under all legislation and which will apply to the great majority of those which will be laid under the powers in this Bill.
There are at present only two powers which require the affirmative resolution procedure, that in paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 which provides for the determination of rateable values for the public utilities by formula rather than by conventional methods, and the power to under-index the NNDR contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 7. We have also given a commitment that the powers in Clause 49 and the new clause following it, which provide for the non-domestic transitional arrangements, will also be subject to that procedure, and we shall be tabling an appropriate amendment at Report stage.
It is entirely appropriate that these instruments, which will materially affect the level of rates paid on non-domestic hereditaments, or classes of hereditament, should be debated both in the House and in another place. But I can see no reason why the power in Clause 122, which is of course limited to enabling the Secretary of State to make necessary consequential adjustments to preserve the effect of

473
existing legislation, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have already consulted the appropriate organisations on our proposals for adjusting provisions in housing and landlord and tenant legislation which refer to rates and rateable values, and there will be consultation in other cases too.
Apart from the few major areas where substantial amendments will be required, there will be a large number of minor and local amendments. It would in the Government's view be unjustified to subject each of these to the affirmative resolution procedure. Where a particular set of regulations raises issues of wider concern, it will of course be open to any noble Lord to table a prayer against them and so give us an opportunity to debate the issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I always knew that this Bill was a foolish and reckless venture and this clause proves it. I am only given pause for thought by the fact that the next Labour Government will have to repeal it and replace it by a more just system of local government finance. I imagine that we will suffer the same difficulties in implementation that the Government are finding now. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 77, line 15, at end insert—
("(8) An order under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 below shall, if apart from the provisions of this subsection it would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly technical but not uninteresting amendment. It relates to orders made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Bill, a provision which has I think not so far figured in the Committee's deliberations. That paragraph is concerned with what is commonly known as formula rating. This is a method of rating applying mainly to statutory undertakers, especially those with national networks such as the railways and the electricity industry.
It has long been recognised that individual signal-boxes or sub-stations cannot be valued by conventional means since no one would rent them in isolation. Some formula therefore has to be arrived at—in conclusion with the industries concerned and the local authority associations—for putting a value on the network as a whole so that the industries concerned can pay their fair share towards local authority revenue. This process has to be carried out afresh for each revaluation, and consultations on the new formulae to operate from 1990 are already well advanced.
In the past, however, it has been thought fit to enshrine not only the principles of these formulae but the detailed methodology and in some cases the resulting values in primary legislation. Nearly a quarter of the General Rate Act is taken up with these provisions, although only one man in the Department of the Environment and a few dozen in the outside world ever need to read them. Their presence in the General Rate Act serves little purpose except to add weight and cost.
In this Bill, we have therefore provided for effect to be given to all these formulae in regulations under Schedule 6, paragraph 3. This simplifies the Bill itself and will greatly simplify the process of keeping the formula values up to date. Arguably, however, the power is a rather broad one, which would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State simply to determine the rate bills for these industries—many of which are now in the private sector—by whatever means he felt most appropriate. In practice, we intend to adopt a coherent approach to all the industries concerned and to consult very thoroughly. But it seemed right nevertheless that the exercise of such potentially wide-ranging power merited the fuller parliamentary scrutiny given by the affirmative resolution procedure.
There is just one catch to this. Whereas there are no rules as to hybridity relating to the parliamentary handling of negative instruments, once an instrument becomes affirmative it also, if it makes different provision for different individuals or bodies, then becomes hybrid and subject to the special procedure (under Private Bill Standing Orders 216 and 216A) involving reference to the Hybrid Instruments Committee and then to a Select Committee and the hearing of petitions from those concerned.
There is no doubt that orders under Schedule 3, paragraph 3, will treat different bodies differently in a technical sense. There will be one rateable value for British Rail, another for British Gas, and so forth. But they will do so in accordance with a consistent set of principles. Moreover, there will already have been very thorough consultation with the industries concerned. It therefore seems to us that this is a case where the full panoply of the hybrid instruments procedure is not justified, and Amendment 195A therefore specifies that it shall not apply.
Perhaps to pre-empt noble Lord's questions, I should say that such a provision is far from being unprecedented. A quick glance at Erskine May offers as precedents Section 1 of the Manoeuvres Act 1958, paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1972, Section 3(11) of the Water Act 1973 and Section 3(7) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1974. The second of those measures concerned the determination of the boundaries of the new local government areas, a matter of far more public controversy than formula rating. So, although it is undoubtedly a little unusual for a government Bill to seek to circumscribe the operation of the Standing Orders of the Chamber, I trust that the Committee will accept that it is done with the best of motives. Noble Lords will have ample scope to consider these instruments when they come before them for affirmative resolution as required by Clause 141(6). I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I view this with a certain amount of misgiving. Private Bill Committee Standing Orders are an important constituent of liberty. They restrain the bringing of the full statutory juggernaut to bear on a particular private individual, which I think is necessary.
I understand why the proposal is put before us on this occasion. I think that I follow the reasoning behind it. It causes me more misgiving rather than

475
less, however, that the Minister says that he can find a considerable number of precedents. Can the Minister give me an assurance that he does not mean to make a habit of this?
Lord Renton: I had some doubt about the amendment when I first read it. However, having heard my noble friend's explanation, I feel that it is justified. Indeed, it is justified for a reason beyond that which he gave. The question of whether there is a case for hybridity is unfortunately very uncertain and sometimes has had to be referred to the authorities of this House or—less often—of another place. It may be to the advantage of people who think that their interests are affected to know that they should not waste their time and money trying to go for hybridity. We should not lightly deprive people of the right to appear before a Select Committee of either House and to adduce evidence when their legitimate interests are at stake. We should do so only for good reason. I believe that on this occasion sound reasons have been given.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may put at rest the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I assure him that we shall not make a habit of it. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Renton for providing an additional reason why this is a good amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 141, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 142 [Interpretation: authorities]:
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 77, line 33, at end insert—
("(2A) A waste disposal authority is an authority established at any time by an order under section 10(1) of the Local Government Act 1985.
(2B) A combined police authority is a combined police authority established at any time by an amalgamation scheme under the Police Act 1964.
(2C) A combined fire authority is a fire authority constituted at any time by a combination scheme under the Fire Services Act 1947.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 [Interpretation: financial years etc.]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 77, line 44, leave out ("1990") and insert ("1991").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 197, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 198 to 202. The purpose of Amendment No. 197 is to delay the operation of the Bill by one year and to extend the transitional period by agreement between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations. In a period of less than two years, the local authorities will need not only to be in place but to have working successfully much local government bureaucracy and machinery. They will need computer hardware and software, which must be
476
purchased. New staff will have to be recruited and trained and new office accommodation will be needed.
This is against the background of the manner in which over many years the Government have frustrated the ability of local government to incur capital expenditure. We know that the Government have made available to local authorities £25 million for the transitional period. Is the Minister satisfied that that sum is sufficient adequately to meet the needs of local government in gearing up for the transitional period? We do not think that it is. Has any provision been made in the Government's expenditure plans for local authorities in 1988 and 1989 to cover revenue expenditure directly related to the transitional period?
Two matters are covered by transitional arrangements. First, there are the grant safety nets which will cushion the impact of the introduction of the poll tax on domestic taxpayers; and secondly, in inner London domestic rates and the poll tax will run together. The Minister is well aware that we take a dim view of that additional vindictive and petty burden placed on the inner London authorities. We want the transitional period to be delayed by one year. That would be welcome in local government. We wonder what reasons the Government may have for not allowing this to be delayed by one year. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The Government gave a firm commitment before the last general election that the community charge would be introduced in England and Wales on 1st April 1990. Nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said has given me any reason to believe that it would be right to go back on that commitment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Did the noble Lord say that the Government gave a firm commitment before the election that the community charge would be in place by 1990? I should very much like to have the reference for that, because the Government did not make up their minds on the poll tax as the alternative to domestic rates until after the election.
10 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: We gave a commitment. In the process of formulating that commitment we decided on a date. The noble Lord may not like it but I hope to be able to give the reasons why we believe we are right to carry on with that date.
Local authorities and central government will have a period of nearly two years to continue planning for the implementation of the new system, building on the valuable preliminary work that has already been undertaken. I have every reason to believe that we shall be more than ready for the sending out of the first community charge bills in the spring of 1990.
I should also remind the Committee that the community charge system will come into effect in Scotland on 1st April 1989. How could we justify deferring the introduction in England and Wales until 1991 when north of the Border the change will occur as planned in 1989? I do not believe we can justify such a proposal. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 197, 198, 199 and 202 if should they be pressed by the noble Lord.

477
If accepted, they would result in the Government reneging on an election commitment, letting down the Scots and denying the people of England and Wales the benefits of a fairer, more accountable system of local government finance. That would be quite unacceptable.
Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 would empower the Secretary of State to extend the period during which residual domestic rating applies and the transitional grant safety net is applied under Part VI of the Bill. In view of the support given on Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to the removal of Part IV of the Bill, I am surprised to find the Labour Party supporting an amendment which would extend the period of dual running.
The amendments would produce unacceptable uncertainty for all authorities. As I have said, the safety net grant will be settled before 1st April 1990. It will set out the safety net adjustments for all authorities for each of the transitional years. It will mean that everyone is absolutley certain, right from the beginning of the new system, what the effect of the safety net will be and when it will disappear. The same applies to residual rates. Once the multiplier has been fixed, everyone will know that it will taper to nothing over four years. If we were able to decide, in say 1992, to change our minds and lengthen the transitional period, we should be introducing a new source of instability and confusion. That would be quite wrong.
The Government have already given a great deal of thought to the question of the length of the transitional period. Members of the Committee may recall that the 1986 Green Paper proposed that domestic rates should be phased out over a period of up to 10 years in England and six in Wales and that the safety net could last indefinitely. We listened to the views expressed about those proposals, which were that such a transition period was too long and, for the safety net, not specific enough. We responded by proposing a fixed four-year period for the transition in respect of both rates and the safety net, where applicable.
As regards costs, we are committing £25 million for 1988–89 and we will be announcing shortly what will be available for next year. The commitment to introduce the community charge was in the election manifesto and followed the 1986 Green Paper, which proposed a starting date of 1990. We have made it clear on every occasion since 1986 that 1990 was the target date. We believe that this represents a fair balance between the need for reform and the need to give individuals time to adjust.
Lord Trafford: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would consider another aspect which bears on the proposal to delay the introduction of the charge for a year. I think it was on Tuesday that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, pointed out that over the year between 1989–90 there would be a net emigration of nurses from Scotland to England. It must be said, of course, that many of us in England would be grateful should this happen, because it would solve the English nursing problem. However, although the further delay of a year would mean another year in which this problem might be
478
helped in England—the way you look at this problem will depend on whether you are English or Scottish—it would certainly cause a severe complication from Scotland's point of view.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend was right to resist the amendments. Indeed, he has given very strong reasons for so doing. However, before we leave the matter I wonder whether I may draw the attention of all Members of the Committee to Clause 143(2). If ever there was an example of meaningless repetition it is in that subsection.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My heart bleeds for the problems which the Government have created by dealing separately with Scotland. The Minister has pointed out that he intensely dislikes the inequity between the treatment of Scotland and England; and yet it was the Government themselves who decided to treat Scotland separately, and earlier than England. They cannot have it both ways. The amendments seek to respond to the words that we have received from the local authority associations.
I acknowledge and accept what the Government have said about firm commitments. However, nothing is written in tablets of stone. If in fact they are saying that they never change anything and that they always carry out every dot and comma of the election manifesto, then you could have fooled me. I think what they are really saying is that this is a piece of the manifesto which they intend to carry out because they have a mandate for it. Nevertheless, there are many times when they do not have a mandate but they somehow manage to justify what they do. Moreover, there are many times when they change the mandate in the light of circumstances.
Therefore what the Minister is saying in effect is, "This is what we said a year ago and no matter what the circumstances are or what pleas are made, we intend to get on with it". As I have sought to point out, the Minister has told us—confirming what I told the Committee—that an allocation of moneys to get ready for the change has been made. However, he has not been able to tell us how much they will allocate for the year. He used the word "shortly". Of course I acknowledge that there are times when such information is not available to him. Nevertheless, local government is very worried indeed about its inability to keep to the Government's timetable. I appreciate the care with which the Minister has sought to justify his inability and unwillingness to accede to the request of local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 198 to 202 not moved.]
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Interpretation: other provisions]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 78, line 17, at end insert—
("(5A) In this Act "population" including "relevant population", "aggregate of relevant populations", population falling "within such description as is specified in Regulations", or however described so long as the context allows, shall be the Registrar General's estimate as certified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act and other relevant enactments, orders, or regulations.

479
(5B) The Secretary of State shall inform all local authorities, the local authority associations, and such other persons and bodies as he considers appropriate of all estimates of population made by the Registrar General under subsection (5A) above.
(5C) The parties listed in subsection (5B) above may make representations in writing to the Registrar General as to the accuracy of any estimate of population made under subsection (5A) above and the Registrar General shall respond in writing within one month.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to use the Registrar General's estimate of population where a measure of population is specified under the provisions of the Bill and to permit local authorities to make representations as to the accuracy of any estimates.
In Clause 76, a measure of population is referred to for apportioning precepts of precepting authorities over the appropriate charging authorities. In Schedule 8, paragraph 9, a measure of population is used to apportion the national non-domestic rate pool between charging authorities. The use of population as a measuring rod or a yardstick is established. We do not quibble with that concept.
The amendment seeks to provide an opportunity to challenge the estimate. I shall take the Minister through an example. In Westminster, on the 1987–88 figures there is a forecast poll tax of £396. The adult population is 150,000. Let us assume an evasion rate of 10 per cent. of the people on the register. That amounts to 15,000. The number on the poll tax register paying the poll tax will therefore be 135,000. The shortfall in the contribution from the NNDR pool will be £233 times £15,000, which is £3,495,000. That shortfall is equivalent to £26 per adult extra on the poll tax for those who pay. If the Minister can satisfy us that there will be opportunities or a method or process whereby the estimate can be looked at again, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: However good the motives of the amendment may be—and they seem to be reasonable—we do not need it. There must he some limit to the extent to which we write into the Bill matters which take place in the normal course of administration. I should expect the Government to resist the amendment because it is unnecessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I can help the Minister. If the Registrar General's figures appear to be punitive but there is a means whereby they can be adjusted, I would agree with the noble Lord. The amendment is moved so as to achieve equity and fairness. If the Minister can tell me that errors in estimates of population can be taken into account, there is no need for the amendment.
Lord Renton: All that the noble Lord has described is something which one would expect to be done in the normal process of consultation between government departments, the Registrar General's department and the local authorities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will hear what the Minister says.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would permit any of those who receive notification of these estimates to make representations as to their accuracy and would require the Registrar General to respond within one month. But no specific provision is needed to empower an authority to write to the Registrar General and say, "Excuse me, I think there has been an error". Authorities are and will be free to do just that. I know that they raise problems with the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys when they believe that their population has been wrongly assessed. This new provision is quite unecessary. I pass over the requirement for a response within one month. We all wish for a speedy resolution to problems and would like to see queries dealt with without delay. But in practice there are bound to be queries which cannot be handled within that time for a number of reasons.
To sum up, Amendment No. 203 is in part unnecessary and in the remainder unhelpful or misconceived. I do not think it will assist local authorities in any way and it will not assist the Government in reaching a view on the right basis for population. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the Minister can help us. Will be tell us what measure of population the Government intend to use? We have sought to insert into the Bill the Registrar General's estimate of population. When I look at Clause 76, for instance, I am puzzled about what basis of population the Government intend to use. The noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, Mr. Ian Grist, said on 8th March that he understood that English authorities would be receiving consultation papers shortly. That is almost three months ago. The consultation paper on how to make progress on this matter has not been received. It is no good the Minister being bland about it and simply ignoring what repercussions this could have. It is possible for this to have a serious effect and I invite the Minster to help me.
Lord Hesketh: Whenever the term "population" is used in this Bill it should mean the Registrar General's estimate as certified by the Secretary of State. The Registrar General's estimate is the one that we use at present for assessing the need to spend. The estimates of population in each area are the most soundly based consistent set of population data available. It may be that they will be the best figures to use in the new system also, but, as I said, no decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister makes an interesting point about what should happen and says that no decisions have yet been taken. I accept what he says about the absence of a decision. I accept too that it would be normal to assume that those data are the best, but "It ain't necessarily so". The Minister may look at some other measuring rod, and there may be valid reasons why these are not the best data. However, what the Minister has said on the record

481
will enable those outside the House to draw conclusions as to whether what is happening is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Power to make supplementary provision]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 78, line 34, at end insert—
("(6) Any Order to be made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the coining into force of this act and in February of each succeeding year he shall list all the orders or regulations he intends to make in the following two financial years under the provisions of this Act and specify for each of them the following details—

(a) the estimated date the draft orders or regulations are to be published,

(b) a summary of the purpose of the orders or regulations.

(c) the persons or bodies to be consulted (generally to include the local authority associations),

(d) the estimated periods for consultation,

(e) the estimated period for the Secretary of State to consider responses to consultations,

(f) the estimated date for making the order or regulation,

(g) the latest date by which the order or regulation should be made to enable all local authorities a reasonable time to make the necessary preparations to discharge their functions rising from the order or regulations and this Act.

(7) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State any order or regulation shall not be made by the date specified in subsection (6)(g) above he shall forthwith make a further order amending the details contained in the original order under subsection (6) above and specify any necessary amendments to this Act as to dates and other prescriptions that are incidental thereto.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The purpose of the amendment is to invite the secretary of State formally to establish a timetable for the consideration of secondary legislation. The impact of secondary legislation can be very great indeed. Secondary legislation gives effect to the primary legislation and therefore there is much to be done. When this Bill reached the House of Lords it contained 58 clauses or schedules under which separate sets of regulations can be made covering 508—I repeat 508—separate matters for decision, in addition to 25 matters to be covered by orders. Further government amendments to the Bill have already been made in the Chamber. The amendment is pretty blunt. It states that it is essential that a timetable for secondary legislation is established and regularly updated.
I hope that the Minister will act as democratically and as equitably as possible and that consultations will take place before the secondary legislation is produced. I simply repeat what those at the sharp end of local government have told us. If the legislation is as wide and as deep as that, there will need to be a lot of consultation. Even the timetable that I am suggesting could very well be drawn up in consultation with local government. If the Minister can satisfy those outside the Chamber that they will at least have some opportunity to do what the law will require them to do, that will be a big help. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I do hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. It seems to me to be creating quite unnecessary bureaucratic effort. The reasons given for it by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would need—if one had time at this late hour of the night—to be analysed in order to test them. Many of the 500 or so matters the noble Lord mentions which are to be covered by regulations will come into one regulation. I do not know how many separate regulations there will be. I have already, by implication, complained that there will be too many. But let the Minister get on with the job; let him not waste time in unnecessary bureaucracy. I hope that my noble friend will advise the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I understand the concern that lies behind the amendment. I hope that I can put the minds of Members of the Committee at rest. We recognise that much of the burden of implementing this legislation will fall on local authorities and that much of the detail of the legislation will be set out in regulations. It is in no one's interest to spring any surpises and it is not our intention to do so.
In most cases the purpose and the extent of the regulations that are needed are well telegraphed on the face of the Bill. Two examples are Clause 47, which deals with the alterations to non-domestic rating lists, and Clause 103, which provides for regulations about funds. Where it is appropriate to do so we shall consult the relevant local authority associations about the regulations. In other cases we have already given specific undertakings to the Committee that local authorities will be consulted about the regulations we propose; for example, in the case of Clause 76, which deals with the definition of relevant population for the purpose of an authority's precept. But to impose a specific duty, as the amendment seeks to do, would be too onerous and might even be unhelpful.
The amendment might prevent, for example, an unforeseen need for regulations to be met or regulations to be made earlier than originally envisaged. Nor would the amendment, as drafted, enable draft regulations to be redrafted or withdrawn following representations from local government unless the date for them to be made was delayed, although I am sure that that was not the intention. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing out that the amendment would create a great deal more bureaucratic work. In the light of the assurances I have given that the purposes of the orders and regulations are already clear from the Bill, that we shall consult local authority associations on them where appropriate, and that we shall as far as possible indicate the likely timings of the regulations, I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In his very last words the Minister gave an assurance. Local authorities will have an indication of the likely timetable that will be worked through. That is all they want. They are not interfering with the manner in which the Government and their advisers seek to give effect to the Bill. What

483
they want is some idea, not of getting ready for it—they will get ready for it when the Bill receives Royal Assent and they know what is to befall them—but of how they can prepare themselves properly, allocate staff and so on.
When the record is read it will be seen that what the Minister said in his last 10 or 12 words is broadly what this amendment seeks. I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clauses 146 and 147 agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 149, line 13, at end insert—
("1922 c. 51 Allotments Act 1922 Section 16").
The noble Baroness said: When the subject of the amendment was first put to me I wondered what allotments had to do with the poll tax. However, after eight days in Committee, I am no longer surprised that anything has something to do with the poll tax. The amount that any local authority which is an allotment authority—that could be a district, parish or community council—can spend on the provision of allotments is limited in Section 16 of the Allotments Act 1922. It is limited to the total of what the council gets by way of receipts from allotments which it lets, plus such an amount as would be produced by a rate in its area of 0.8p. That is the only such limit on a specific local authority function. It is a relic of a much older way of considering the conferment and financing of functions.
I am told that it was thought probable that the limit would be abolished in the 1972 Act when other older legislation vanished in the Local Government Act of that year. However, it was thought that the allotments law would soon be codified. Therefore, no interim changes were made in that Act. The law is now outdated and the only present-day effect is to inhibit those authorities with limited resources from making appropriate provision for allotments when both the authority and those who want the allotments would like to have them.
The limit will have to be expressed in a different way once the community charge has come into force. It is an arbitrary limit, and because the cost of allotment provision in an area bears no relation to the rate of product or any other factors I hope that the Minister will agree that the easiest and most sensible way to answer the question of what we do with a 0.8p rate limit when we no longer have rates is to abolish it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take the amendment seriously. I say that not only because I love repealing schedules and am sorry that this one is not much longer but also because I know that the noble Baroness shares with me an interest and concern in allotments. It was in the county in which we both live and have done for many years that the first and largest statutory
484
smallholdings and allotments estate was to be found. If it be a fact that the law is obsolete, I hope that it will be added to the repeal schedule whether or not, technically speaking, that is the right place for it.
Lord Hesketh: I am happy to say that we accept the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. We have for some time regarded the provision of allotments as a matter for individual local authorities to decide. They are in the best position to assess what proportion of their resources they can allocate for allotment purposes and, in the light of local circumstances, whether they can justify expenditure in excess of the receipts from allotments.
We believe that the present limitation serves no useful purpose. Unfortunately, however, I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. Schedule 16 can only include legislation which is expressly repealed in the Bill or as a necessary consequence of the Bill's provisions. These amendments do not meet those criteria.
The existing limitation provision will however become unworkable when general rates are abolished and will require amendment. Clause 145 of the Bill provides a power to make such consequential amendments by amending, repealing or revoking provisions in other legislation. I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that when we come to make orders under that provision we shall give effect to the point of her amendments which is to leave the matter of allotment spending to local decision.
Lord Renton: Could my noble friend be a sport and put it into the repealing schedule?
Lord Hesketh: I am rather too insignificant to be a sport.
Baroness Stedman: It is pleasing to come to one of the final amendments in this great schedule of amendments we have had over eight days on such a happy note from the Minister. I am delighted, as I know that people who asked me to look after this point will be.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 150, line 20, at end insert—

("1947 c. 42. Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.

In Section 5 in subsection (3) the words "from the valuation roll or otherwise known", and the words from "Service of a notice" to the end of the subsection.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 206B to 206E:
Page 150, line 20, at end insert—

("1975 c. 30.

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975.

Schedule 1.

1978 c. 4

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978.

Section 2.

1980 c. 45.

Water (Scotland) Act 1980.

In Schedule 10, the entry relating to Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975.

1981 c. 23.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981.

Section 10.

1981 c. 38.

British Telecommunications Act 1981.

Section 36.

1982 c. 23.

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 23.

1984 c. 31.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 18.

1986 c. 44.

Gas Act 1986.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 21.").

Page 150, line 36, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 17(5) the words "in respect of any premises in his registration area".").

Page 151, line 5, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 30(2).").

Page 151, line 7, column 3, at end insert—

("and in paragraph 7, in sub-paragraph (2) the words "Subject to subparagraph (4) below", and sub-paragraph (4)".).

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 148 to 150 agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 208:
Line 10, after second ("to") insert ("rates and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 184A, 184B, and 184C, to which the House agreed last Tuesday. Those amendments altered the current law on certain matters of rating and valuation. The inclusion of those amendments in the Bill has extended its coverage slightly, and the change which this amendment seeks to make to the long title reflects this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.

  HONG KONG: VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
  HONG KONG: VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
  EC FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 13th/14th JUNE
  EC FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 13th/14th JUNE
  MILITARY TERMINOLOGY
  MILITARY TERMINOLOGY
  VALUATION OFFICE: STAFF AND RESOURCES
  VALUATION OFFICE: STAFF AND RESOURCES
  EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SCHEME
  EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SCHEME
  SOUTH CARRIAGE DRIVE, HYDE PARK
  SOUTH CARRIAGE DRIVE, HYDE PARK
  OPENCAST COAL MINING
  OPENCAST COAL MINING