Sitting of 20 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    DARTMOUTH-KINGSWEAR FLOATING BRIDGE BILL
    Lords amendments agree to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Tyre Treads
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many European Community states conform with the draft directive for a minimum tread depth for tyres; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): First, I present the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is at an important meeting of Transport Ministers in Europe.
    One, Luxembourg.
    Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful information. How much longer are we going to wait before we agree to the EEC draft directive? Does it not make a shambles of the Government's policy of being seriously concerned about road safety when all the organisations concerned with road safety have said that a minimum tyre depth of 2 mm is appropriate—yet we shelter behind this lower figure? When will my hon. Friend take their representations into account?
    Mr. Bottomley: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the way in which I answered him the last time that we debated this issue. If any of these organisations want to send the safety case to me, we shall of course consider it.
    Mr. Dalyell: Many of my constituents work in Uniroyal. What is the cost of the Government's review of the safety regulations? What figures does the Minister have?
    Mr. Bottomley: The cost is estimated at about £70 million a year. The real question is what the benefit is. All the research has demonstrated that this may make a marginal difference at more than 50 miles an hour on roads with smooth surfaces; other than that, there is no safety advantage in having a lower or higher tread depth.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not the case that many of the countries that have deeper tread depth requirements also have, as a
    826
    representative truth, far more days of snow a year that we do? Is that not a major consideration, and is not tread pattern in many cases of great importance, too—not just tread depth?
    Mr. Bottomley: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says. It is important to realise that a Government of any political persuasion in this country would want to do what is effective. Going for higher tread depth in this country would not be particularly effective. I have told my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that if one of the tyre manufacturers wants to put forward a serious safety case we shall, of course, consider it.

    Transport Policy
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards quantifying the relative environmental, energy and safety advantages of rail transport and road transport in formulating transport policy.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The Government's policy is to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness by increasing choice and competition and by removing distortions between transport modes so far as possible.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities are now conducting studies to bring back rail links that were cut in the Beeching era? They include West Lancashire, Sefton and Lancashire county councils. If the hon. Gentleman is aware that they are endeavouring to carry out such studies, will the Government help with these initiatives, and if so, how?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Burscough curves, which are the subject of a report that has been commissioned by the Lancashire county council from British Rail. The first part of that report has been delivered and the balance will be delivered early next month. It is a matter between British Rail and Lancashire county council.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend recall telling me some time ago that he was satisfied that the investment criteria for rail were the same in this country as in France'? May I assume that he has studied article 14 of chapter 3 of the French Internal Transport Act 1982, with its stress on social and environmental issues as major factors in decisions on rail investment? How does he square his statement with that legislation?
    Mr. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend looks carefully, he will see that on that occasion I was referring to the TGV line which is proposed from Paris to the Channel tunnel mouth and to the Belgian border. It is a requirement of the French Government that it should be a commercially viable proposition.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister agree that the advantages of rail depend upon long hauls without transhipment and without delay? In that respect, why does he not commit himself to through travel from the north of England to Europe via the Channel tunnel with customs clearance en route for both freight and people?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is a requirement of the Act for people and it will be implemented in due course. Under

    827
    section 40 of the Act, British Rail has embarked on a series of consultations designed to discover the best places for assembling freight for the very purpose about which the hon. Gentleman speaks.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the complex decision-making processes of investment in British Rail, such as apply to the line from Waterloo to Exeter via Salisbury? Is he aware that I and some of my hon. Friends discussed this matter with British Rail and were astonished to discover that when considering matters such as double tracking British Rail is not required to undergo any kind of cost-benefit analysis for investment criteria?
    Mr. Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I have a constituency interest in the circumstances affecting that line, which is below the standard that British Rail wishes to achieve. I am assured that an investment proposal will be put to me later this year. I look forward to it and hope that it will arrive as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that if environmental, energy and safety advantages of rail transport were accepted we would have a railway system as well financed as that in the rest of Europe? As our railways suffer from a supine and incompetent management, and a sponsoring Department that is largely indifferent to rail's advantages, the Minister's Department will continue to squander billions of pounds on supposed road improvements which will have the effect of moving a traffic jam a few miles further up the road.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman alleges that the environmental benefits are not recognised by the Government. They are recognised through section 8 freight facilities grants. Rail transport can bring substantial environmental benefits, and section 8 is designed to get regular flows of unsuitable goods off the roads. Since 1983 there have been 62 grants worth over £26 million, and they have removed about 1 million lorry journeys a year off the roads. That is worth while and is an example of our recognition.

    Road Construction
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what efforts his Department takes to ensure that new roads are designed to be environmentally sensitive.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We minimise the impact of new roads on the environment by careful design. We fit schemes into the landscape, plant tress and screen traffic. We take special measures to protect wildlife.
    Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend will know of the laudable financial commitment of Kent county council, Gillingham borough council, the city council of Rochester and Medway, English Estates and the Rochester bridge trust to a new relief road running round the north side of the Medway towns. When his Department considers this proposal, will he recognise that the environmentally sensitive answer to crossing the Medway is a tunnel rather than a high-level bridge? Will he commit his Department to such a crossing, even if it is more expensive initially?
    Mr. Bottomley: I hope that we will get a touch of private funding for the Medway crossing. That has been a
    828
    tradition in the past. Of course, we shall take environmental considerations strongly into account. As today is the birthday of Professor Bell of Kew, of Professor Southwood the zoologist, and of my hon. Friend the Minister of State who leads the Department in "Transport and the Environment", we will take that very much to heart.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister recently had a deputation about the urgency of the need to improve road communications between Manchester and Sheffield. Is there anything that he can say about action to be taken on an issue of so much importance to both cities and to the north's gateway airport in Manchester?
    Mr. Bottomley: As I said to the right hon. Gentleman at our meeting, we want to improve the top road, and there are great worries about any proposals in the national park.
    Mr. Hanley: In expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend for his original answer, and for the birthday greeting to my excellent constituent, Professor Bell, may I also mention a serious matter to him? The surface that is eventually put on the roads, especially motorways, in Britain, has a great bearing on the subsequent noise emissions from those roads. Does he insist on the quietest possible road surface, or does money come into the argument?
    Mr. Bottomley: No, and yes.

    Settle-Carlisle Line
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations and individuals who expressed interest in buying the Settle to Carlisle railway line prior to 16 May.
    Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir. Such information is commercially confidential. However, British Rail has adopted a positive attitude and has now appointed Mr. Chris Lewin to interface with those in the private sector who are interested.
    Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure he will be aware of how many hon. Members are seriously disturbed about the proposals to privatise that line and the effects not only on the people but on tourism in the area, and the possible knock-on effects on other lines used for tourism. May I remind him that on 26 May my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) asked whether the consultation period on the timetable could be extended for a year? Will he now consider that proposal?
    Mr. Mitchell: I wish to make two points to the hon. Lady. First, the period from now until, at the latest, November is for the Secretary of State's further consideration as to whether there is new evidence. After that there will be a further four months, so there is a long period.
    Secondly, I went on the line myself last Saturday and was one of the many people who enjoyed the benefits of a trip on it. I do not think that either I or the other people needed it to be subsidised.
    Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend should be congratulated on the personal and positive commitment that he showed on Saturday in travelling on that line with me and many other people. Given that that line is very different in its

    829
    nature and scale from other privately run railways, will he confirm that any private operator who came forward would not be required to conform with the slow running requirements involved in a light rail order?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting question. There are three alternative ways in which it will be possible for a private operator to operate. British Rail could set up a subsidiary for disposal to the private sector and the powers to operate the line could he transferred to that subsidiary. It could be transferred by a private Act, by order of the Secretary of State under the Transport Act 1981, or by a light rail order made by the Secretary of State. The 25 mph restriction to which my hon. Friend referred applies to the last of those three.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that more than 22,000 objectors to the closure were deeply offended by the Minister's original comments when he made the deplorable announcement? They do not want to see a toy-town railway or someone playing with trains to amuse himself. That line forms an integral part of the transportation needs of an isolated part of the country and its closure will mean that many people will be deprived of any method of transportation for much of the year.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is referred to as a secondary line going north. It is a duplicate line. British Rail does not have duplicate lines for most of the network, and it does not need one here.

    Heavy Vehicles
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in taking action against overloaded foreign heavy vehicles entering the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: During the present financial year the Department's traffic examiners will weigh nearly 50 per cent. more foreign lorries than last year. In addition, we propose during the next few months to install automatic screening equipment at the major ferry ports.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome that development. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that it still means that fewer than 5 per cent. of such lorries are weighed? Given that a recent survey showed that more than one in five are found to be overweight, would not the best deterrent be, not only more screening and weighbridge facilities, but for the courts to impose much more severe fines for what are serious and dangerous offences?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. It is worth recognising that most foreign lorries are regular visitors, so, even though the one in 20 figure is low, the chances of a regular visitor who overloads being caught are fairly high.
    I do not have ministerial responsibility for the sentences that magistrates impose, but I notice that the fine imposed, instead of the maximum £2,000 fine, is usually about 10 per cent. of that, so the deterrent value is not as high as a higher fine.
    Mr. Spearing: How far does the action that the Minister will take follow the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General's report? Will the automatic weighing be for every vehicle and every
    830
    axle, even if it is a coarse weight? Would it not be better to do that, and is it not sensible to weigh every axle as it comes off the boat?
    Mr. Bottomley: That is obviously true. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is contained in the reply from the Department to the Committee.
    Mr. Irvine: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new screening devices, which I am glad to hear he proposes to introduce, will weigh the vehicles in motion as they pass through the ports, so avoiding congestion?
    Mr. Bottomley: That is the point of screening.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the administration involved in the screening and checking of on-road vehicles, which hon. Members on both sides of the House will endorse, an enormous expense? Would not the Government be better off spending money and effort in transferring road weights to rail, to make sure that the freight goes on rail in preference, and, in so doing, helping to keep railways, such as the Settle-Carlisle line, open? That is a magnificent main line route to the north and it can carry——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary on the previous question.
    Mr. Bottomley: We recognise that the hon. Gentleman would have liked to get in on the previous question. In answer to this question— [Interruption.] The hooligan tendency is putting on a lot of pressure. The answer is that between the section 8 grants and the Channel tunnel there is more encouragement for heavy freight to use the railways for longer journeys, and that is to be welcomed.

    Motorway Roadworks
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans have been made to limit the extent of motorway road works during the August bank holiday weekend 1988.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Wherever possible, roadworks involving lane closures are suspended during bank holidays and other peak holiday periods. Some roadworks are unavoidable at these times. Sometimes temporary removal of a large contraflow can be more disruptive than leaving it in place.
    Mr. Franks: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain parts of the country, including my constituency, have local economies that are largely dependent on tourism? In granting further contracts for motorway repair and maintenance, will my hon. Friend bear that in mind?
    Mr. Bottomley: We shall go on doing the best that we can, and we hope that that will be better than previously.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister understand the anger and frustration of hundreds of thousands of motorists caught in traffic jams over all holiday periods, not just the August bank holiday? People have complained to me about the incompetence of a Department that simply cannot get roadworks done in such a schedule as to allow holiday traffic to go to and fro at the busiest time of the year.
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, but we have two advantages. First, we are spending money on doing some of this reconstruction. Secondly, we do not have the hon.

    831
    Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) saying that he wants all the money for some other mode of transport. We go for an effective balance.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does the answer that my hon. Friend has just given refer to the replacement of central barriers as well as lane repairs? I believe that the lane rental procedure does not operate for central barrier repairs, which are therefore taking a great deal longer.
    Mr. Bottomley: I should like to see reward and penalty extended to most aspects of work on roads, all the way from potholes through to major motorway reconstruction.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet received the report from the safety advisory committee about the construction of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My Department has formally received two annual reports, but no reports on specific questions. Reports from the safety authority can be made to the Government. In general, they have been made and will continue to be made to the Intergovernmental Commission.
    Mr. Taylor: Has my hon. Friend read the extraordinary report by Dr. Richard Haworth of the geological survey about the potential serious seismic risk which could affect the viability and safety of the Channel tunnel? Will he assure me that the safety advisory committee will examine the report? Secondly, will he assure us that the House will be told of the results of the inquiries?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have not read the report, although I have read some accounts of it. The authority will be considering this matter. If there is anything untoward that arises from it, I shall ensure that it is reported to the House.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Question No. 7 was not taken, but will the Minister tell me whether there will be any facilities for toads and hedgehogs to go down the Channel tunnel and cross the Channel safely?
    Mr. Mitchell: There are 150 toad crossings on various roads in Britain. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman about the Channel tunnel, where special steps will be taken to ensure that rabid toads are not able to cross.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in any discussions on safety within the advisory committee he will not be consulting Mr. James Sherwood or Sir Jeffrey Sterling?
    Mr. Mitchell: I can assure my hon. Friend that the machinery for consultation on safety, which was set out in the Channel Tunnel Bill, which was subsequently approved as an Act in this place, is being adhered to closely.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister recollect that way back in 1830— [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was a Minister then. Does he recall that in that year Dr. Dionysus warned that anyone travelling through a tunnel at more than 30 mph would be asphyxiated? Will he assure
    832
    the House that Dr. Dionysus is alive and well and is representing English nationalism in Southend, albeit through an imported view from Glasgow?
    Mr. Mitchell: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The belief that passengers passing through Brunel's tunnels to the west country would be made deaf were proved to be wrong, and fears about safety will be proved wrong in this instance.
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount of room the various statutory authorities will need reserved for their purposes in an international train using the Channel tunnel; and whether this will have any implications for rolling stock construction.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Customs and Immigration authorities are currently discussing their requirements with British Rail. Any agreed on-train requirements will be taken into account in the specification for the Channel tunnel rolling stock.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be on-board inspection on all trains using the Channel tunnel? Will he confirm, or deny, unconfirmed reports that Customs and Excise and immigration authorities require the equivalent of two carriages for their various tea rooms, searching rooms and interview rooms? Will he persuade them to conduct inter-frontier controls in the way in which they take place between France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and other continental countries, where their equivalents of Customs and Excise and immigration have about 35 places, not 150?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is a requirement that there should be facilities for searches on trains travelling to the north of London, subject to agreement between British Rail and the authorities concerned. It has been our view until now that the appropriate way of proceeding with trains travelling south through Waterloo would be to provide the necessary facilities at Waterloo itself.
    The United Kingdom concentrates its checking at its frontiers. We do not have identity cards, as most continental countries do, and we do not carry out internal spot checks as they do. For that reason, our demands are somewhat more than those of continental countries.
    Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Customs and Excise and immigration authorities that there is no need to make passengers disembark to be checked? If on-board checking works perfectly well on the continent, surely it can be made to work equally well for our purposes.
    Mr. Mitchell: I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: If there is any real difficulty, will the Minister explain to Customs and Excise that one way in which it can facilitate movement is by creating customs posts elsewhere, particularly in the north-west? I suggest that Crewe would be an excellent site.
    Mr. Mitchell: For freight, British Rail is in the process of consulting about bases in the north which would be suitable for inland clearance depots and for the collection of freight for shipment through the tunnel. I hope that the hon. Lady will take some encouragement from that.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend explain to Customs and Excise that there is now a Common Market, that there is a Single European Act, which comes into effect in 1992, that it is time it woke up to that fact and started to behave as we expect to be treated in other countries, and that it should start to be sensible about these things?
    Mr. Mitchell: Some controls will still be needed after 1992 to counter drug smuggling, terrorism and things of that sort.
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from British Rail on facilities for incoming travellers on trains using the Channel tunnel, or at the Waterloo station Channel tunnel station, or at terminals for Channel tunnel trains at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The chairman of British Rail has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggesting that the Government should consider the case for having on-train customs and immigration controls on those trains that will terminate at Waterloo, as well as arrangements as provided for in the Channel Tunnel Act on those trains serving destiations to the north of London. We are currently considering the matter in more detail with British Rail.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that when the NUR group of Labour Members were the guests of the chairman of British Rail he produced an unanswerable case for the contents of that letter? Is it not the fact that, on this issue, Transport Ministers are foreseeing, prudent, wise, imaginative and understand the problems, and that the stick in the mud Home Office is being very unreasonable, but the Home Office is the senior Department and carries more clout than the Department of Transport?
    Mr. Mitchell: I cannot accept that description of the Home Office, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to. Having said that, I must say that I have noted the consensus in the House for more progress to be made more quickly on how on-train operations will be mounted.

    British Rail (Privatisation)
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the privatisation of British Rail.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Three letters. I am making it clear to correspondents that I have no plans at present, but I am considering long-term options for the future, and the possibilities of privatisation are not ruled out.
    Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind the recent privatisation of the Japanese state railway, which means that it now joins the other 11 private companies in Japan that are run by free enterprise? If that is going too far, will my hon. Friend consider establishing some form of track authority, so that we can at least have some private competition back on British Rail?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that experience in Japan will be taken into account, but there is a property feature, which is somewhat unique, in that case which may not be
    834
    appropriate to British Rail. The possibility of having a track authority will be examined with British Rail if we decide to go down that line.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What negotiations is the Minister having about the possible impact of privatisation on rural communities, which are still suffering from the cuts made by the Beeching axe? Is he aware that we will refuse to accept any further cuts?
    Mr. Mitchell: There has not been any suggestion that the subsidy provided for the provincial network, including Scotland, should be at risk in any way. There have been substantial improvements in rural services, many of which now use modern, fast sprinter trains. When I travelled on some Scottish routes recently I found ScotRail's morale much higher than it was a few years ago and that the standard of service provided for the customer is much better. ScotRail is looking much better than it used to.
    Mr. David Curry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the urgent need is for British Rail to get out and sell the privatisation of the Settle-Carlisle line? Does he also agree that one chap sitting in an office hoping that somebody will turn up, knock on the door and ask whether he happens to have a railway to sell is not a substantial marketing effort? Will my hon. Friend ensure that BR sets out to succeed, bearing in mind that BR is in a heads-we-win tails-you-lose situation, because if the line is not privatised there is a risk of its being closed?
    Mr. Mitchell: I understand that British Rail intends to market and shortly to advertise for those interested to come forward. There are two potential ways forward. First, if the Secretary of State is minded to confirm his announcement, what I call in shorthand a "Mr. Big" might come along and develop the whole line commercially as a tourist project. Secondly, there might be some co-operative local effort to ensure the future operation of the line. If what I have characterised as a Mr. Big appears, it would be highly desirable for him to make his presence known as soon as possible, preferably within the next month.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State suspect that the prospect of privatisation is the reason why new seats have been placed on British Rail's main line stations from London to the north-east? Is he aware that all the seats are red, except at Grantham, where they are blue? Will he explain that phenomenon? If it is because of the Prime Minister's connection with that town, does he not feel that her attachment to the railway system is so meagre that it does not deserve consideration?
    Mr. Mitchell: The Prime Minister told me how much she enjoyed her journey on British Rail on one particular occasion. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the improvement at stations along the east coast main line. I travelled along that line on Sunday and I was impressed by the smartening up of the stations and the general improvements.
    Mr. Paice: When considering privatisation, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous success during the last few years of the Government's investment in British Rail, especially in the sprinter services and the electrification of lines? Will he also bear in mind that there is a need for a dramatic increase in investment and that perhaps only a private entity could provide the level of funds required?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the Government. I have approved every investment proposal that British Rail has put to me since 1983. It is true that I had to send one back because I was not satisfied with it, but after British Rail reworked the arrangements for the operation of the Royston to Cambridge line I approved the proposal. Therefore, no proposals from British Rail for investment have not been approved. I do not believe that the private sector could have provided better investment. Of course, it is only by sucking it that we shall find out.
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there have been any discussions between his Department and British Rail staff concerning the possible sale of British Rail.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I have no plans for the privatisation of British Rail, but my Department is discussing long-term options with British Rail, including the possibilities of privatisation, and having regard to the need for systems of regulation and subsidy to loss-making services.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in the midlands about the future of the east coast line and fears that it may be privatised now that it has been electrified, which may lead to the midland line becoming defunct? Will he reassure all the people in Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham and elsewhere that the line to St. Pancras has a long-term future into the next century?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have no reason to believe that British Rail has any plans to downgrade the midland main line. The hon. Gentleman will know that that line has had substantial investment in resignalling and that the current HST service runs as fast as the track will allow. Electrification would not make it any faster.
    Mr. Gow: Although, in the past, many people may have believed that British Rail should remain in public ownership for all time, is my hon. Friend aware that the climate of opinion and the experience of recent years have transformed that belief? Is he further aware that many people would welcome the privatisation of British Rail? Will he bring forward a measure to that effect in the next Parliament?
    Mr. Mitchell: As I said earlier, we are examining long-term options for British Rail. Those options include the possibility of privatisation, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks until the options have been properly and thoroughly investigated, and I certainly could not do so this week.
    Mr. Boyes: When considering the long-term future of British Rail, will the Minister join me in praising the efforts of the catering staff on trains? They are working in very difficult circumstances, often with a shortage of manpower, food and many things that customers want. The responsibility lies with the Government, because they are cutting back on the cash that enables British Rail to provide a proper service. It is unfair that the people at the sharp end are the catering staff, who are answerable for the Government, when they should not be.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in referring to the improvements that have taken place, not only in British Rail catering, but through the introduction
    836
    of private-sector trolley operations on many British Rail routes. Both give a good standard of service, substantially higher than it used to be. I made use of those services over the weekend and was much impressed by the facilities available at York station, on which I compliment British Rail.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General what action the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken following the completion of the investigations by the City of London police into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings: and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): As a result of information that came to his attention the Director wrote on 30 March to the Commissioner of Police for the City of London to ask him to make inquiries into two matters connected with the appeal of William Power and others, heard at the Central Criminal Court last November and December.
    The two matters were the disappearance of personal papers belonging to Dr. Skuse, one of the witnesses at the hearing, and the possibility that Dr. Skuse had discussed the case, before he had completed his evidence, with another witness who had already been released. The investigation into those matters has not revealed any evidence of criminal conduct.
    A further allegation has been made, by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), that during the course of the appeal hearing Dr. Skuse had been in contact with Police Sergeant Ray Paton, who gave evidence at the original trial of those convicted of the bombings but was not a witness at the appeal hearing. The hon. Gentleman's immediate source for that allegation has only recently been disclosed to the police, and accordingly the allegation is still being investigated.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Attorney-General tell the House what explanation Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade have offered for the two long telephone conversations that took place between them on the night of 17 November, very shortly after Dr. Skuse left the witness box? Does he agree that it is very unusual for the two principal Crown witnesses in a case of this magnitude to be liaising with each other?
    The Attorney-General: I can answer the hon. Gentleman to this extent. I understand that Dr. Skuse has said that the only matter relevant to the trial that was discussed on those two occasions was the whereabouts of papers that he had mislaid and later believed to have been stolen. It is normal for a witness, before he has finished his evidence, to be directed not to discuss the case if any substantial matter is involved. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that Dr. Skuse had completed his evidence on 17 November and was not subsequently recalled. It was a few minutes before midnight on that day that he made the first of the two telephone calls.
    Mr. Fraser: The Attorney-General says that there is no evidence of criminal conduct. If the telephone calls had been made to another witness, in breach of an injunction

    837
    by the court not to discuss the matter before giving evidence, that would, as I understand it, be contempt of court, and hence a matter that ought to be referred back to the Court of Appeal. Is that correct?
    The Attorney-General: The question is hypothetical in the light of the facts that have been established. Whether anything said in breach of an order made by a court would constitute contempt would depend on all the circumstances of the case, including what was said and the stage that the proceedings in question had reached.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Attorney-General what were the terms of reference given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the City of London police when asking them to inquire into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal hearing of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 17 June 1988, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether he is satisfied with the way in which those terms of reference have been discharged? Does he agree that it is a tragedy that the commendable vigour and energy that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has put into pursuing the truth in this matter do not appear to have been equalled by those charged with the responsibility for conducting those inquiries? Will he tell the House specifically why the police did not interview the ITN journalist, Chris Jameson, who reported having seen Dr. Skuse and Superintendent Reade together? Does not this whole matter still leave profoundly important questions unanswered? Should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to publish a detailed account of the inquiries that have been undertaken and the reasons why no prosecutions have been made?
    The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied with the way in which the investigations by the police into potentially criminal conduct have been carried out. I see no reason to dissent from the view formed by him. I reject the assertion that the inquiries have not been carried out with proper vigour. That is about as far as I need to go in answer to the question. I shall not dilate on the attitude of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South to the appeal hearing that was conducted over six or seven weeks in November of last year.

    Family Courts
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Attorney-General what recent information he has about the cost of introducing an integrated family court.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I understand that the Lord Chancellor will shortly be receiving a copy of the report commissioned by the Family Courts Campaign examining the cost of a family court.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the needless costs of our present system is that it frequently exacerbates the human misery and difficulties associated with divorce and family break-up?
    838
    Can he confirm that the preliminary findings of the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for the Family Courts Campaign show that substantial savings are to be made overall by the introduction of an integrated family court—largely in terms of legal aid and matrimonial care orders? More than that, will my hon. and learned Friend say when his Department will come forward with its costings, to show that it is serious in its intention to move towards an integrated family court?
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, conciliation is currently the subject of research by Newcastle university, and studies are also in progress in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department into the requirements for staffing, resources and welfare expertise in relation to wardship and care proceedings at each court level. The report of the Cleveland inquiry is expected shortly and, following a study of that, the Government hope to come forward with further announcements on the development of a family court.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is my understanding wrong? Did not the then Lord Chancellor, now Lord Havers, suggest last year that his Department hoped to produce conclusions on the prospective costs of the various options for a family court system? Was it not hoped that that report would be brought out by the beginning of the year? What has happened to that report, or has it already been produced?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that my hon. Friend has not really had an opportunity to keep up with developments. The Lord Chancellor made it clear that the first priority was to get the child care law right, but a number of studies have been in progress and he hopes to come forward with further announcements on the development of the family court following the receipt and study of the Cleveland inquiry report.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Attorney-General for what reasons the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the Commissioner of the City of London police to establish an inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal by those found guilty of the Birmingham pub bombings.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I have given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
    Ms. Ruddock: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), is the Attorney-General aware that the case is beginning to stain the entire fabric of our judicial system? Would it not be better for him to admit that British justice would be better served if he faced that fact and honestly admitted that something has gone seriously wrong in the Birmingham bombings case?
    The Attorney-General: I have dealt with the questions that I have been asked, save that I did not answer part of the last question on why, in the first instance, inquiries were not made in relation to Police Sergeant Paton. The

    839
    reason is that the immediate source of that information to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was disclosed to the police only recently.
    On the latter part of the hon. Lady's question, my feeling is that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South might now usefully consider broadening his search for justice in this case by identifying those whom he claims he knows were responsible for the bombings and ensuring that steps can be taken to bring them to justice.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of us supported the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in the appeal procedure? It was the longest appeal in the history of this country. Is anything to be gained by trying to disparage and discredit British justice? No one had a fairer trial. No one had a fairer appeal. Is it not time that the Opposition looked at the IRA, instead of being its greatest supporters.
    The Attorney-General: I regret efforts to undermine confidence in the outcome of an appeal that was conducted with all the qualities to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Attorney General what were the grounds for the Director of Public Prosecution's decision to ask the Commissioner of the City of London police for an inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal on the Birmingham pub bombings trial.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have just given the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
    Dr. Reid: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, another question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and he did not answer it. It relates to why the witness to alleged collusion between two witnesses during the trial was not interviewed by the police. Will he assure the House that that witness will be interviewed? Do not the amply-sized nostrils of the Attorney-General's office even now begin to detect a whiff of scandal associated with the case? Is this not the fourth police inquiry into various aspects of the case without due result? Will the Attorney-General ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to publish the details of the investigations, so that Parliament and the public can be satisfied that British justice has been done in this case?
    The Attorney-General: There has been no witness—to use the hon. Gentleman's expression—to collusion between witnesses in this case. The immediate source of the information to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has drawn attention was identified recently. He has been away on holiday. He was interviewed today on his immediate return. That is why I said that investigations into the matter are continuing.
    On the more general part of the question, I greatly deprecate broad and general assertions that a carefully conducted inquiry, on the reference of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Court of Appeal, has been characterised by qualities that have not resulted in justice being carried out. That is much to be deprecated. Attempts to undermine confidence in the administration of justice in this country are harmful.
    On the remaining part of the question, it is not the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions to publish the details of police investigations.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Overseas Aid
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value in current prices of Her Majesty's Government's overseas aid in 1979 and 1987.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): Gross public expenditure on overseas aid, at current prices, amounted to £939 million in 1979, and £1,283 million in 1987.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that, in real terms, every year since 1979 the amount of aid has been below the 1979 level? Will he confirm that last year, at 0·28 per cent. of gross national product, the figure hit an all-time low? Why was that?
    Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman had tabled a different question asking about constant rather than current prices, I should have given him the figures that he wanted. As it happens, I am pleased to confirm that the aid programme is increasing in real terms by 3·4 per cent. this year.
    Mr. Lester: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this week, in addition to those figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the structural facility of the IMF loan, in which Britain has given a sixth of the capital and has been the first to provide it? Will he further confirm that in the discussions of the Group of Seven conference any solution to Third world debt problems will be in addition to the aid programme?
    Mr. Patten: First, there is a difference between the position now and that of the late 1970s. In those days we were a main beneficiary from the IMF, whereas nowadays we are a main contributor to its programmes to help the most indebted countries. I confirm that the costs of our debt initiative would represent a net addition to the aid programme. I am delighted that we appear to be making good progress in Toronto, although we shall want to see the programme implemented in full as soon as possible. Nevertheless, progress seems to be good.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a great deal of credit from both sides of the House for his initiative on this matter. Nevertheless, will the Minister assure us that this is not simply the Government facing up to writing off bad debt, but is an earnest of their intent to change the direction of their policy and to contribute more in future towards overseas aid than they have done to date?
    Mr. Patten: As I have confirmed now and previously, the costs of the extremely important debt initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the most indebted countries in Africa will represent a net addition to the aid programme. We have made it clear again and again that there is no point in initiatives to deal with African debt unless one spends more money. The initiative that my right hon. Friend has launched, and for which he has deserved credit, covers re-scheduling and writing off aid loans, which we have already done to the tune of £260 million for 14 African countries. It also covers a cut in the interest rate

    841
    for countries pursuing sensible economic policies. I hope that we can reach agreement on an initiative along those lines at Toronto, or at the latest by the autumn.
    Mr. Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increase in the overseas development budget that he has managed to get from the Government. May I hope that he will redouble his efforts this year to ensure that we maintain that progress? Can he tell us how much of that increased budget he has allocated to Africa? In particular, can he say what difficulties he is experiencing in disbursing that increased aid, especially to countries such as Ethiopia?
    Mr. Patten: In answer to my hon. Friend's question before that on Ethiopia, I can tell him that we shall be spending most of our increase in aid this year on enhancing our programmes in Africa, particularly our support for structural adjustment and economic policy reform. Our major assistance to Ethiopia has been for the emergency, on which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has recently produced such a good report. In the past 18 months we have committed £45 million on that operation. I fear that the long-term weather forecasts suggest that we may have to spend a good deal more.
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reach the Pearson target for overseas aid and expenditure.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Her Majesty's Government accept in principle the United Nations' target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product, but, like previous Administrations, have not set a date for reaching it.
    Mr. Anderson: It is not very good for those in desperate need that the Government accept the target in principle. Before the Government get lyrical about this year's so-called increase, had they not better accept that that increase is on a record low and that they inherited a proportion in excess of 0·5 per cent. of gross domestic product, and rising? When the Minister next meets the Prime Minister—he will recall his predecessor's complaint on leaving office that he never met her—will he gently remind her that when she next gives a sermon in Scotland, or elsewhere, she might remember that loving one's neighbour includes one's neighbour in the Third world?
    Mr. Patten: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am bound to say that confidence in the ability of a Labour Government to run the economy in a way that would enable them to support a large aid programme is not widespread. I am not sure whether such confidence is widespread on the Opposition Benches. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am delighted that this year we shall be spending about £95 million more than the likely outturn of our aid programme last year.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: As the direction and use of overseas aid are as valuable as the percentage, may I have my hon. Friend's assurance that part of it will be directed towards the burden shouldered by women in the developing countries?
    Mr. Patten: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said. Not only must we do all that we can to ensure that we support the role of women in development, but we must continue to support the poorest countries through our aid programme. As my hon. Friend will know, last year's OECD report commended us for spending more than the average spent by OECD countries on helping the poorest.
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries' aid budget as a percentage of gross national product exceeds the figure of 0·28 per cent. in 1987, or in the latest available year.
    Mr. Chris Patten: In 1986, the latest year for which official estimates have been published, the net official development assistance of the following member countries of the OECD's development assistance committee represented more than 0·28 per cent. of their GNPs: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speed with which he read out the list of names, but I remind him that the figure of 0·28 per cent. is only slightly more than half the proportion of GNP spent on aid by the Labour Government, who left office in 1979. The Minister talks about the amount having been increased, but he omits to mention how that amount has fallen as a proportion of GNP. As Britain is now 15th or 16th in the list of OECD countries, and as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly stand at the Dispatch Box and say how well off the country is, could we not expect more of that wealth to go to the Third world? Instead, the amount is declining at a time when the countries that we visited are in desperate need.
    Mr. Patten: I am delighted that our economy is growing strongly enough to enable us to increase our aid programme in real terms. I am also delighted that our economy is sufficiently strong for us to make such a major contribution to the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility and for us to have taken the lead in dealing with the debt problems of the poorest African countries. W hen the Labour party was in government we borrowed money from the IMF, rather than lent it money to give to others.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate to measure aid in terms of percentage of GNP, because a British Government who produced a low GNP would inevitably create a higher figure?
    Mr. Patten: I have no doubt that, without increasing the aid programme, if the Labour party were in government there would be an increase in the percentage of GNP devoted to aid, since the growth rate would fall rapidly.

Council Tenants (Purchase Advice)
3.33 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for Government advice to council tenants on the purchase of their houses in the light of the activity of property speculators."
Last Friday, Dundee's two daily newspapers—the Courier and Advertiser and the Evening Telegraph and Post—carried reports of an investigation which revealed growing concern that property speculators were attempting to take over the ownership of the homes of elderly council tenants in the city through manipulation of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1984.
The manipulation takes the form of speculators approaching elderly tenants—in one case a woman in her eighties who was living alone—with what appears on the surface to be a generous offer. The speculator promises to give the tenant the cash needed to purchase his or her council home under the Act. The tenant is then told that he or she can stay in the house, rent free, for the remainder of his or her natural life. In return, the speculator is guaranteed ownership of the house when the tenant dies.
A number of serious and important issues are raised by this matter, most importantly the prospect of property speculators preying upon elderly people whom the speculators believe do not have long to live. There is also the question whether such vultures are acting within the law. If they are, what do the Government intend to do about it? There is also the question of the abuse of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, which was intended to provide massive public discounts to sitting tenants and not massive profits to property speculators at ratepayers' expense. Some of those speculators stand to pick up £22,000 council houses for as little as £7,000 by their methods. There is also the question of hard-pressed pensioners who have been on the receiving end of the recent rent and social security changes. They are particularly vulnerable to such sharp practice.
For those and for other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I beg you to recognise the urgency of the matter and to allow a debate so that the House can explore this issue fully and openly and resolve it in the interests of the people whom we were sent here to represent.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for Government advice to council tenants on the purchase of their houses in the light of the activity of property speculators."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about this matter, but I regret that I do not consider that it can be appropriately raised under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House, but I hope that he will seek other ways of keeping the matter before the House.

Points of Order
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often deprecated reflections upon the integrity of hon. Members. You were in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) referred, in an intervention, to Labour Members being among the biggest supporters of the IRA. We loathe the IRA, which is a murderous organisation. You will be aware that I, among others on the Labour Benches, have constantly attacked—and I will continue to do so—the terrorism of the IRA. Only last week we saw the sort of action in which the IRA indulges.
Would you be willing to accept, Mr. Speaker, that those of my hon. Friends who raise, rightly, what they believe to be a miscarriage of justice are in no way justifying the evil activities of the IRA? In those circumstances, is there not an obligation on the hon. Member for Selly Oak to withdraw immediately his accusation?
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My remark was prompted only by the sense of frustration when seven questions—obviously all done together—are tabled to draw attention to a matter that has been dealt with before. Does not the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) realise that the only people to whom such questions give comfort are members of the IRA? That is what I said, and that is what I meant.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not judge the comment of the hon. Member for Selly Oak as being a reflection upon the integrity of hon Members and it was not out of order. However, I fully accept that the language that we use in this House is very important and that no reflection upon the integrity of hon. Members should ever be made.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Selly Oak can ascribe his frustration as being reason enough for suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other Labour Members were giving aid and succour to the IRA. The hon. Member for Selly Oak is a fairly reasonable bloke, even though he writes for The Sun from time to time. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, should invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his slur.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it is the intention of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to seek to correct a miscarriage of justice and fight the IRA, is it not incumbent upon him to inform the Attorney-General of the names of those he believes to be guilty of the outrage?
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming an extension of Question Time. I hope that the hon. Member for Selly Oak was not impugning the honour of any hon. Member. If he was giving us his opinion that anything that happened here gave comfort to the IRA, that is one thing; but if he was impugning the honour of another hon. Member I am sure that he would wish to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I recognise that there is passionate regard for the issues that we all support from time to time. If any hon. Member, especially the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, assumes that I thought that he was an IRA supporter, let me say that that was furthest from my mind.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Further to the point of order. Mr. Speaker. I do not find the statement that has just been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark)——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a withdrawal. We cannot allow an extension of Question Time.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on another matter?
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It raises the general issue of scrutiny of the Law Officers in the House. With changing circumstances, is it not deeply unsatisfactory that the Attorney-General should be scrutinised for only 10 minutes and the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate not at all in their individual capacities? Is there any way in which the general issue of the scrutiny of the Law Officers can be looked at, because surely a period of 10 minutes is deeply unsatisfactory, despite the great efforts that you have made, Mr. Speaker, to allow a full 10 minutes, which is appreciated?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that I am not responsible for the allocation of Question Time. He should raise the matter through the usual channels, where it might be corrected.

BILL PRESENTED
  FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT (AMENDMENT)
  Dr. David Clark, supported by Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. Ron Davies, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Ms. Joan Walley, Ms. Joan Ruddock and Mr. Martyn Jones, presented a Bill to amend section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to provide that all amendments or variations of emergency orders must be laid and expire unless approved by Parliament before coming into force: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 179.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New clause 7

  USE OF VIDEO RECORDINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ABOUT SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN
  '. —(1) When a person is charged on indictment with an offence involving the sexual abuse or molestation of a child under the age of 14, a video recording of an interview with that child shall be admissible as evidence; provided that the Judge presiding over the trial of such a person shall after consultation with Counsel appearing for the defence and the prosecution determine how much of such a video recording shall be shown to the jury.
  (2) At the time the jury sees such a video recording the child who is alleged to have been the victim of such sexual abuse or molestation shall be present in a room in the vicinity of the court and shall be visible and audible to that jury by means of video-link; but the child himself shall not be able to see or hear the proceedings in the court.
  (3) For the purpose of enabling the accused person or Counsel for the defence or prosecution to test the evidence contained in the video recording, a prescribed officer of the court shall be present in the room with the child and shall, at the direction of the Judge, relay to that child questions that either of those Counsel with the consent of the Judge wish to put to him.
  (4) To enable these questions to be put to the child and his replies to be received within the hearing and vision of the jury, the prescribed officer shall be provided with—

  (a) an aural receiver through which he can hear the questions that Counsel wish him to relay to the child, and

  (b) such anatomical drawings or exhibits as the Judge shall order to be produced for the purpose of enabling the child to answer the questions put to him.

  (5) For the purpose of this section a prescribed officer of the court shall be a qualified social worker, child psychologist or probation officer.'.— [Sir Eldon Griffiths.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.41 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 21— Admissibility of video recording as evidence—
  '. —(1) Video recordings shall be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings concerning sexual offences against children from such day as the Secretary of State may appoint.
  (2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make such regulations as he thinks necessary regarding the use of such recordings.'.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The clause is in my name and those of hon. Members from all parties on both sides of the House.
  When we debated the Bill in the week before last, emotions were running high and they divided the House. This is another subject that is worthy of emotion, but I believe that those emotions unite the House.
  I should like to start with something close to one of those warnings that are issued by cinema companies and by some television companies when they broadcast matter that is perhaps hard for sensitive ears to hear. I should like to demonstrate to the House just how extensive and evil is

  847
  the problem of child abuse. I shall relay to the House some specific cases that have been researched for me by women members of the police service in all parts of the country. I have to warn those of a squeamish disposition that some of the evidence is disturbing.
  The first case that I want to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister is of a three-year-old child. The stepfather had been touching the child, who was a bright little girl and able to talk, and when interviewed she spoke using graphic language about this man
  "gobbling her and her gobbling him"
  and
  "pretending to f… her".
  She used very graphically the anatomical dolls that were provided to her for the purposes of the interview. That three-year-old child used the male doll on herself and lay down with the doll lying on top of her and put the doll's penis into her mouth.
  The case was thoroughly investigated by the police with the aid of the social workers. Unfortunately, it could not be taken to court because of the age of the child and the lack of an admission by the offender.
  The second case is of a little boy of four. The suspect was an adult male. The little boy graphically used the anatomical dolls and gave an explicit account of buggery. I remind the House that the child is four years of age. He inserted the male doll's penis into the boy doll's anus and he would not give up until it really went in. That four-year-old child spoke to the police officers about the male doll's penis not being as big as it should have been. This case, too, could not be brought to court because of the child's age.
  The third case is of a three-year-old boy who was persistently sexually abused by his mother and a female neighbour. There was evidence of physical abuse by cigarette burns on his body and of sexual abuse by having objects pushed into his anus. The mother and the neighbour were interviewed and refused to make any admission, but the medical evidence clearly substantiated the case. No prosecution was possible because of the age of the child.
  I have, from all parts of the country, hundreds of precise, researched, documented examples of the sexual abuse and even torture that is perpetrated on large numbers of our children, but little, if anything, can now be done about it because our laws and rules of evidence are inadequate.
  I turn now to some of the comments on these types of case that have been made by practising police officers and social workers who investigated them and took part in the original interviews with these abused toddlers. In this House, we rightly maintain a cool, clinical detachment; we examine these matters as we should, and form a judgment on what is right under the law. I thoroughly approve of that. However, I am sure that the House will understand that the policewomen who have to deal with the cases immediately cannot perhaps look at them quite as coolly.
  The first case, with the comment made on it, is that of a two-year-old child. Her parents are separated and her father had access at the weekends. While visiting her grandmother, this two-year-old baby was being bathed and said, "Don't touch me like daddy does." She then gave a graphic description of her father putting his fingers into her vagina and anus. The medical evidence substantiated
  848
  that complaint. When interviewed, the father would not admit the act, and the Crown Prosecution Service could not prosecute because of the age of the child. The police officer's comment was:
  "Video"—
  a recording of the child being interviewed—
  "would have shown the child describing very vividly what had occurred."
  Under our rules that evidence cannot be placed before the court.
  Another example with a police comment is of a three-year-old boy who was the subject of prolonged indecent assault by a 22-year-old female nanny who cared for him during the day. The assault included anal penetration. The medical evidence substantiated the allegation, but the CPS could not prosecute because of the lack of admission and the child's age. The police officer commented:
  "Video would have shown child describing what had occurred, and child could not have known of words and details"
  —he was only three—
  "if not personally experienced assault."
  I offer another example with a police comment. It concerns a four-year-old girl with gonorrhoea. She was admitted to hospital for tests because of a minor infection and gonorrhoea was duly diagnosed. The doctor stated that she had caught it through sexual transmission. Inquiries were made, persons were interviewed, and the cohabitee of the house in which the mother was living was discovered to have gonorrhoea. The child maintained that the cohabitee had put his penis beside her private parts —what the police describe as dry intercourse. The cohabitee was interviewed. There was no admission. There was only the medical evidence, and that was insufficient because the child was too young to testify. The comment of the police officer, in this case a senior officer, was that "video would have been superb."
  I shall give another example with a comment. It concerns a 13-year-old girl. She was the subject of buggery and incest by her father, with the mother aiding and abetting the offences. The medical evidence corroborated this, but there was no admission and, although the parents had been charged by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service would not take the case to court because in the view of the service the 13-year-old could not have stood up to cross-examination. I shall quote precisely the comment of the officer in charge of the case. He said:
  "Video recording would at least have ensured a prosecution."
  I could provide hundreds, indeed thousands, of examples of cases in which the view of highly experienced police officers—women police officers for the most part—and of the social workers who had interviewed the children as quickly as possible after the offences were discovered is that without video evidence such cases cannot be brought to court. The abuser gets away with it; the children continue to suffer.
  I shall conclude this part of my speech with one or two child abuse cases referred to a police station in one force area. The force area is Lancashire and the cases were referred to that one station during the months of January to March of this year. For reasons that the House will understand, I shall again obscure the details. During the first 12 weeks of this year this one police station had reported to it no fewer than 42 child abuse cases, and 14 of them led to court proceedings. Of the 28 cases that in the

  849
  end had to be marked, "No further action", the police are convinced that at least 17, of which 12 were very serious —11 of them committed against babies—could and would have been placed before the courts if video recordings had been admissible.
  I conclude this evidence with a few other cases in the Lancashire force. A four-and-a-half-year-old boy was masturbated by his stepfather while he was bathing him and he made the child return the masturbation. The medical evidence showed severe bruising of the child's private parts. The child was too young to give evidence and the comment reads, "Video would have helped."
  Lastly, I shall outline the case of a 12-year-old deaf and dumb girl. She had started to attend a special school but continued to live at home. She had not disclosed before what had been happening to her, but as soon as she was able to communicate she said that her father had been coming into her bedroom at night and touching her private parts. She was medically examined. She had bruising on the inside of her legs where force had been used. The Crown Prosecution Service would not prosecute because it said that the child, being deaf and dumb, would not make a suitable witness.
  The police believe that, in this case, a video would have allowed the child to convey to a jury and a court of law what she conveyed to the police and social workers. Even though that child cannot communicate, being deaf and dumb, she can and does use sign language. It can be but a matter of opinion that if that child had been, with the aid of a video, brought before the court, notwithstanding that she was deaf and dumb, the judgment of the police would have been vindicated and a prosecution could have been brought and would quite likely have succeeded.
  I have said more than enough about those cases. I also have cases from the Cheshire police, the Avon and Somerset police, the Greater Manchester police and the Metropolitan police; and so it goes on. We have a serious evil on our hands and the House has a duty to tackle it.
  I acknowledge the Government's efforts in outlawing the possession of pornographic material involving children, in checking the criminal records of many of those people in jobs with regular access to children and in improving liaison between the police and the caring agencies in investigating cases of child abuse.
  I very much welcome, on behalf of the police service, the clauses in the Bill that advance the cause of protecting innocent children. I welcome clause 31, which provides for children to give evidence via a live closed-circuit television link. Clause 33, which provides for the abolition of the requirement that the unsworn evidence of a child must be corroborated, is an important step forward. I welcome clause 44, which provides for an increase from two years to 10 years as the maximum prison term for the offence of child cruelty. I welcome clause 35 and its provision to enable the Attorney-General, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, to refer a case to it where the sentence appears to be unduly lenient. That could well be so in a case of child torture.
  The Government cannot be criticised for failing to address themselves to this serious problem, but, unfortunately, all the advice available to me is that those welcome moves simply will not do the trick. The crux of the problem, as the police service sees it, is that, since the decision in the stated case of Regina v. Wallwork in 1958, it has been virtually impossible for a charge to be brought where the prosecution would have to rely—I stress the
  850
  word "rely"—almost wholly on the evidence of a toddler. I quite understand and agree with the reasons that led that court to express its disapproval of bringing a child of tender years into court to give evidence, but I believe that, as the Police Federation says, the invention of video recording means that technology can now come to the aid of justice.
  The Home Office, to its credit, has consulted about the possibility of admitting video recordings and has taken a keen interest, as has my hon. Friend the Minister of State, in the Bexley experiment, which I need not describe to the House. He has seen that experiment, as have other hon. Members, but what has been the outcome of the consultations and the experiment?
  The response to the Home Office's consultative paper on that matter was overwhelmingly in favour of admitting video recordings. The police, the British Medical Association, the Council of Circuit Judges and 20 other respondents welcomed the proposal, and only three groups were against it. I can assure my hon. Friend that the chief superintendent in charge of the Bexley experiment believes intensely that the time has come to allow video recordings to be used, under proper safeguards, as the House will wish to ensure. It is worth quoting the conclusion of the Bexley experiment. Which was this:
  "Further consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation to permit the criminal courts to accept video recorded interviews of children as evidence."
  4 pm
  I have spoken about the views of the police and will speak now about the views of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I know that others more closely connected with it than I will want to refer to its comments. It says this:
  "Many perpetrators admit their guilt when confronted with the testimony of an early video recording of a child's evidence … The American experience suggests that this may occur in a very high proportion of cases … The video recording … could significantly minimise the accumulation of stress before the court hearing by reducing the number of times the child has to repeat her story … It may also lead to a reduction in the pressure on the child from other members of the family to change her evidence."
  There is considerable experience of children retracting their evidence when subjected to prolonged family pressure. The NSPCC says:
  "The children come under great stress … to sustain such strain, to delay the opportunity to begin treatment and to put bad experiences behind the child until after being called to give live evidence is to inflict great cruelty, risk permanent psychological scarring, and hazard the reliability of the evidence. It is far preferable to video record the child's story in a properly structured way as near as possible to the time of the incident."
  I agree with that.
  Originally I tabled this new clause on behalf of the policewomen, but it now has the unanimous support of the Police Federation and, I believe, the entire police service. We agonised and worried over it for nearly two years. I accept that anybody not blessed with the advice of parliamentary draftsmen will not get it right. I have been a Minister and I know the difference between amateurs and professionals when it comes to drafting.
  We have sought to achieve three aims. The first is to safeguard the rights of the accused. No man should be sentenced unless he can, through his counsel, test the evidence brought against him. I believe that my new clause achieves that. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I

  851
  want to safeguard the child against the traumas of court appearances and cross-examination and the possibility of division being struck between what he said at one stage and what he said at another. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and in particular my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary feel deeply about that. It is to their credit that they do so. Thirdly, the new clause is structured to allow justice to be done and to bring evil men and women to court.
  Stage one of the process that I now propose is that, when a person is charged on indictment with an offence involving sexual abuse or molestation of a young child, a video recording of that child made as soon as possible after the event is discovered should be admissible as evidence, but it should not be admissible as evidence raw. Rather, the judge, the defence counsel and the prosecuting counsel in chambers should examine the video and determine what parts of it are extraneous and might involve other people, and what parts could properly be brought before the court. The judgment that has been made available to me is that, confronted with that evidence, many a defence counsel would change his client's plea to guilty, and the case would not need to go to the courts. Certainly that has been the experience of many of the states in America. That is the first stage of the judge and two counsel looking at the video and deciding which parts of it should go forward.
  Lest anyone should imagine that this is unprecedented, let me remind the House that some years ago we insisted that all police interrogations should be audio recorded. I resisted that move and I was wrong to do so. Now that all police interrogations are audio recorded, experience has shown that extraneous matter thrown into those interrogations by some old lag who will take the opportunity of aspersing a Minister or someone like that must be removed. It is removed by agreement beween defence and prosecution, with the concurrence of the judge. I propose exactly the same procedure in respect of video recordings.
  If the defence decided not to admit the offence and insisted that the case should go forward, as is the right of any accused, we have provided, in the remainder of the new clause, the means whereby a test can be made of the evidence. The jury would be able to see the video recording. The child would be in an adjoining room with one-way see-through glass so that the jury could see the child but the child would not be exposed to the panoply of the court. This, I can assure the House, is technically very easy to arrange. It is done all the time.
  It would then be possible for the defence, with the consent of the judge, to have questions put to that child, transmitted by a prescribed officer of the court, probably a social worker, with whom the child felt comfortable, and the jury could see those questions being put to the child. That would safeguard the proper interests of the accused. Above all, we should be dealing with justice.
  Let me now make a few comments on some of the arguments addused by my hon. Friend the Minister in his resistance to this new clause in the correspondence that he has courteously exchanged with me and the Police Federation. He said that he is not persuaded that material that has been
  "video recorded for investigative purposes should be routinely admissible."
  852
  We are talking not about it being routinely admissible, but about it being made available to the judge and the two counsel in chambers so that they may determine what shall or shall not be brought forward. It is our contention that this would lead to a number of guilty pleas.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend said something that I find hard to swallow. He feels that experienced prosecutors would find it more difficult to establish a rapport with the child if they cannot take the child through the entire story. He is a curiously experienced prosecutor if he is unable to do that. In any case, if he is the prosecutor, he would have the inestimable benefit of that best evidence, that fresh evidence, of the video recording. We have provided the interlocutor precisely to enable the rapport with the child to be maintained. That will be someone with whom the child is comfortable and whom it trusts. He or she will be able to put the questions to the child in a manner and in language that will not disorient or disturb it under the direction of the judge.
  At the heart of my hon. Friend's objection and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is the feeling that pressure on the child will be increased if small inconsistencies can be picked out between the child's video account, in the earlier stages, and the later account in court. That problem exists anyway. The child is, in any event, confronted with the original witness statement, which is the basis of the prosecution and such evidence as it is, one way or another, required to give in the court. The opportunity for the defence to divide the child's testament between what it said originally in a written statement and what it says in court is available to it in any event. The only difference is that a video recording would be virtually an unarguable account of events. It would be made not long after the commission of the crime and it would be subject to the judgment of the court, which means the judge and prosecuting counsel. None of the arguments of my hon. Friend is convincing to me.
  The House has been patient in listening to the log of appalling events that I have outlined. If the new clause is defective—probably it is—I shall be happy to withdraw it in favour of new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). New clause 21 is shorter and simpler and is an enabling provision. I should be prepared to withdraw new clause 7 in favour of any new clause or amendment that my hon. Friend the Minister might with to introduce.
  The Bill is passing through the House and we have a mischief in our land with which we must deal. Let the Government at least take powers within the Bill to introduce a system of the sort that I have outlined as, when or if the Home Secretary, after experiment, examination and consideration of the technicalities and the costs, is satisfied that it is ready. There is precedent for that. I resisted the introduction of audio recordings of police interrogations and the House insisted upon it. The Government reluctantly accepted the idea but said that they were not ready at that time to introduce such a system. They said, "We are not yet ready. We shall have to ascertain precisely how the system will operate." Six experiments were conducted throughout the country to ensure that audio recordings could be made fairly, objectively and efficiently. The power to introduce audio recordings was included in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  I ask the Minister to insert in the Bill the power to allow video recordings to be admissible as and when he and my

  853
  right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are satisfied that such recordings can be made efficiently and well. I ask for this for innocent children, not on behalf of the NSPCC, which wants it, not on behalf of circuit judges, not on behalf of the media, which are behind it, and not as a response to the great mass of public opinion. We owe it to children. I ask the Government to back the sense, if not the language, of the new clause.
  Mr. Roger Sims: The House will be aware that I have the privilege of sitting on the central executive committee of the NSPCC, which warmly supports the proposal that video recordings should be accepted in the courts in child sexual abuse cases. If I do not develop the argument at great length, it is because my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has already done so extremely effectively. The relative brevity of what I have to say should not be taken as a reflection of the strength of feeling within society, nor of my personal views on the issue.
  The Government have already recognised how difficult it is for a child to give evidence in court. The Bill establishes the principle of a video link, which we shall be discussing later. Surely the next logical step from that is to recognise the value of a video recording of an interview that is made soon after the offence has come to light.
  4.15 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has given a number of dramatic examples. The problem is that we do not know the extent of child sexual abuse. We suspect that many cases are not reported. Father, stepfather, grandfather, uncle and sometimes even auntie involves the child in some sort of sexual activity and then says, "This is our secret." That is so often how it remains. It is extraordinary to note the number of adults who have, so to speak, surfaced and told of how they experienced child sexual abuse when they were young. This has happened in recent months since child sexual abuse has become much more widely discussed.
  Another reason for our lack of knowledge is the lack of a national register of the cases that come to light. A more limited register is kept by the NSPCC, which last week released some figures. The figures revealed that the number of cases of child sexual abuse that were added to its register in 1987 increased over 1986 by 21 per cent. The society estimates a national figure of about 7,000 cases a year. Whatever the figures and whatever the extent of the problem, once the offence—or offences; more often than not, it is a long story of offences—is committed the damage has been done. To what extent can the damage be repaired? That depends upon others apart from the court. Surely it is incumbent upon our society that we do all that we can to prevent a repetition of the offence once it has come to light. That will be achieved by the conviction of the offender and by a sentence that will preclude, or at least lessen, the chances of him reoffending.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, many suspected offenders are not even charged, let alone convicted, because the prosecution is unable to proceed without the most vital evidence, which is that of the child. There may be several reasons for this. A child's memory is naturally short and it may he as long as a year before the case comes to court. In the intervening period the child may be subjected to many family influences that are designed to persuade it to change its story. Even if that
  854
  is not the case, the child will probably have been treated by a social worker or someone of that sort, who will try to get the child to forget the experience to which it has been subjected. However, when several months have passed, it may be asked in court to remember certain incidents. However strong the suspicion or case against the person responsible for abuse of a child, the parents of the child may be unwilling to subject it to a court hearing. That is entirely understandable.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is that a valid argument? Under the new clause the defendant would be entitled to cross-examine the child in any event. If for some reason the child is not willing to give evidence, the prosecution will be in difficulties in any event. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in cross-examination, the cross-examining counsel does not pick questions out of the air? One has to take witnesses, especially child witnesses, through a sequence of events. The comment that it would be less traumatic for the child if the proposals in the new clause were accepted does not hold water and I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on whether they are bogus. In cross-examination the child will be taken all the way through the allegations.
  Mr. Sims: I do not accept that it is necessary to do that, especially if there is a video recording. I accept that the ability to cross-examine may have to be available, and I shall come to that. That does not alter my argument that in the present circumstances parents are understandably reluctant to allow a child to appear before the courts. It is not difficult to imagine what the effect on the child is of the court setting, let alone being taken, as my hon. Friend suggested, in detail through the incidents which he or she has found so distressing. At the moment, after an offence has come to light, the child can be interviewed by a police officer and a written statement, which is available to the court, made. It is now possible for tape recorded material to be available to the court, so why not a video recording?
  The problem with a written statement was mentioned in the Bexley experiment, which reported:
  "Traditional methods of police interviewing, including the taking of a written statement, presented obvious difficulties. Even where the interviewer was able to develop sufficient rapport with a child to discover the nature of the offence, transposing the child's words into an acceptable form of written statement had evidential shortcomings, particularly where the child's vocabulary did not extend to recognised adult terminology. Police officers were often accused by defence lawyers of putting words into the child's mouth and interpreting the child's language incorrectly."
  That is the problem with written evidence. The great advantage of the video recording is that it captures the words the child uses and the gestures, expressions and the spontaneity with which he or she speaks. It enables the child to demonstrate what happened by using dolls far more effectively than is the case with words. Once a video has been done, it can be shown to others involved in the case who would otherwise have to subject the child to a series of similar interviews.
  It is argued that if a video is accepted as evidence, the child will have to be available for cross-examination. I accept that, but that is already the case with a written statement. I suggest, however, that a video would be far more difficult to challenge. The evidence from the United States is that a high proportion of offenders, when faced in

  855
  the early stages of an investigation with a video which they know can be produced in court, change their plea, thus avoiding the need for a trial.
  Using videos in court is now being introduced in Canada. Videos are already used here by the NSPCC, for example, other than for court cases. I have had an opportunity to see a couple of them. We have also had the Bexley experiment. It was interesting and enabled the police and social services to work together. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has seen the Bexley experiment in action as well—I had the chance to see a video taken during an interview.
  The NSPCC and Bexley experiment videos have been extremely valuable for those trying to discover more detail about a case and pursuing it, but they cannot be used to secure a conviction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, even though a case may be strong, there cannot be a conviction because a child is unable to give evidence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has set out in new clause 7 a detailed way in which the proposal could be implemented. He has tried to meet some of the legal and practical objections. I congratulate him and the Police Federation on their ingenuity, but I suspect that, when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will be able to draw attention to some technical imperfections. That is why I have tabled new clause 21, which is simply an enabling clause. It establishes that video recordings can be admissible as evidence, and it enables the Secretary of State to make relevant regulations.
  I suggest that my new clause offers the way for the Government to accept the principle while leaving them free to decide on the details of how videos should be made and used. Having had an opportunity to study the subject, and having visited the Bexley experiment and discussed it with officers, I realise that there are important details to be considered.
  There is the legal issue of how far leading questions are acceptable and how much of the video is acceptable. The judge can decide that having viewed the video beforehand. There are practical issues such as how many microphones there should be. It is not possible to keep a child still while giving an interview, and it is all very well to hide the microphone in a pot of flowers on a table, but the child may prefer to lie on the floor.
  It is probably a good thing to have more than one camera. One of the difficulties which emerged in the Bexley experiment is that a child often turns his or her back on the camera or it is unclear what the child did with the dolls to demonstrate the alleged offence. It is not always possible to see clearly the expression on the child's face. The camera does not necessarily cover the whole room, so it can be suggested that there is somebody outside the camera's view who is indicating the answers that the child is required to give.
  The ideal arrangement would be a fish-eye camera which covers the whole room and a separate camera, perhaps operated behind a one-way mirror, which is directed at the child's face and follows him or her. Both pictures could be shown on the screen. One could be superimposed or there could be a split screen.
  All of these matters can be considered at leisure so that, when regulations are drawn up, they cover every
  856
  eventuality. All that is needed at present is that the Secretary of State should take the necessary powers. I urge him to do so by accepting my new clause.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Yet again I rise to speak on behalf of young children who are or have been subjected to sexual abuse and violence, of adults who have been scarred by the perverted desire of some men —and some women—to abuse small children, and of the families who suffer from the effects of these cruel abuses, and to ask that the House supports a change in the law which I and many informed people believe would redress the balance in favour of innocent children and those who have been wrongfully accused whose cases, because of our restrictive laws, are never brought to court.
  We should consider what the Bill provides to make it easier for young children to give evidence in court. It provides for the giving of evidence by live video link. At the moment, children must tell their stories in open court in the presence of the dependent. They often break down in tears or are struck dumb with fright. The video link would enable the child to give evidence from another room in the court. The court would be able to see the child, but the child would be able to see only the person who was speaking to him or her from the court.
  The Bill also abolishes the law on corroboration. At present, no court may convict on a young child's evidence, or even on the evidence of several young children who give the same story, unless it is corroborated by a person of an age that the court thinks makes that person capable of giving sworn evidence. By its very nature, sexual abuse often takes place in secret between a child and the perpetrator. The abolition of this rule is long overdue and will enable the child's evidence to be heard and considered by the court. The Government must be congratulated on making some important changes, but they should be seen as only small steps in the overall need to redress the balance and to protect the innocent.
  What else needs to be done? First, let us consider the case for the admission of video recordings as evidence. It seems obvious that a child's evidence is best obtained as soon as possible after the event. It would he a distinct advantage for a court to be able to see and to hear the child's first full coherent attempt to explain what he or she had been subjected to, with every hesitation, gesture and tone of voice safely recorded. Surely such evidence is as important in arriving at the truth as that given many months later by a child in open court, who may have forgotten some details or been influenced by suggestions. I am not one of those who believe that many children easily forget what has been done to them. I believe that they find it very hard indeed to forget.
  It has been suggested that a video recording would be detrimental to and increase the stress on a child. What is the reasoning behind that? The supposition is that it will be necessary for a number of tapes to be made—one for evidence, one for the social worker and one for the psychiatrist—thus causing the child to retell her story a number of times. In fact, that objection is unrealistic, because the child is already questioned repeatedly by the police, social workers, doctors, lawyers and so on.
  Need there be a number of tapes? Why does the Minister assume that there must be? Could not a tape be made that shows the child being put at ease and questions

  857
  being asked by properly trained people who are acceptable to the court and aware of the use that will be made of the tape?
  4.30 pm
  Many people may wonder whether a training programme has been considered. It has, and much work has been done by social workers, police and doctors working together. A training programme has been introduced that includes self awareness in attitudes to joint working, sexual abuse, procedural and legal aspects of child sexual abuse and the technical skills of interviewing. Most of those who have attended that training programme feel strongly that a joint investigative approach reduces the trauma for a child.
  Is it not feasible for a judge, in conjunction with the prosecution and defence, and having seen the whole tape, to determine how much of the video recording should be shown to the jury as admissible evidence, but with the added safeguard that an unedited tape could be available to the prosecution, the defence and the judge?
  If a video tape is unclear it should be banned, but it is not an answer to ban all tapes including those done fairly. It is thought by some that a video recording would remove the right of the defence to cross-examine the child. Why should they think that? Is it that they do not realise that the video recording is only part of the evidence presented to the court and is not the whole case? Of course, the defence must maintain its right, under the direction of the judge, to cross-examine a witness. How could the interests of justice be served if that were not so? After all, it is justice that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House want, for both the child and the accused.
  It is said by some, including the Minister, that evidence given on a video recording could conflict in some details with the evidence given in court and therefore cause additional stress to the child while being cross-examined. If that is so, we must ask ourselves what is more stressful to the child. At present, she must repeat in court, from memory and without help, the story that she originally told to the police months earlier. The proposal is to use the original video statement in the child's own words, admissible to the court as part of the prosecution evidence and on which the child could be cross-examined. That is surely a fuller and more reliable statement than that which the child manages to utter in the witness box.
  People may be worried that the child giving live evidence could be cross-examined on discrepancies between what she said in court and what she said on a tape, but that is an evil already with us under the existing rules of evidence. Those who fear the planting of evidence by questioning on an uncontrolled video should consider whether a nine months' delay in the case coming to court should be a greater cause of concern because of the opportunities to plant evidence in that child's mind. Is not a video recording taken as soon as possible after the event, in a manner admissible to the court, a better protection for both the child and the accused? Surely it must be. Is it not more satisfactory, in seeking the truth, that a judge should be able to decide whether undue pressure was put on a child when she first told her story? Surely it must be. That is what a video recording will achieve.
  There has been much support for a change in the law. Of those who responded to the Home Office consultation paper issued in May 1987, only one organisation was positively against the proposals, and one person felt
  858
  unable to comment. The remainder were in favour. They included Baroness Lane-Fox, of the all-party children's group, John Spencer, tutor in law at Selwyn college, Cambridge, the British Medical Association, Cambridgeshire social services, the London Boroughs Association, the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges, the Justices' Clerks Society, the Criminal Bar Association, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Children's Legal Centre, Dr. Barnardo's, the West Yorkshire police authority, the National Children's Home, Rotherham metropolitan council, the Inner-London Juvenile Courts Panel, the NSPCC, the National Council of Women of Great Britain, the National Children's Bureau, the Police Federation, the Association of Educational Psychologists, the British Psychological Society, the Association of County Councils, the Health Visitors Association, the Greater Manchester police authority, the British Paediatric Association, Somerset county council, the Metropolitan police and the London hospitals' college consultant in child and adolescent psychiatry. That is a great cross-section of people, but in fact many more individuals support the proposals.
  I want to deal with a child having questions put through a third person during cross-examination through a video link. Let us consider a six-year-old child whose private parts are covered in sexual warts. Her mother's brother, whom the child has alleged buggered her on several occasions while baby sitting, is also found to have the same type of sexual warts on his private parts. There is clear evidence that the mother's brother is molesting the child. The accused is aware of how frightened the child is of him, and also that unless he admits the offence there is no chance of the case being brought to court. Therefore, he does not admit the offence. The little girl is taken from her family and put into care, but the man is still at large, free to molest and infect other children.
  Where is the sense in a law that allows that to happen? Would it not be better to have a video recording of the child being gently questioned? It is to be hoped that the accused, having been shown the video and knowing that it would be acceptable to the court, would admit the offence, thus allowing treatment for him and giving the innocent child the opportunity to return to her home and family.
  In Texas, video recordings of children's evidence have been shown to the accused, of whom 221 out of 235 have consequently admitted the offence, thus saving the child any further stress. The American Bar Association Journal, volume 70, contains a report from the Minneapolis police stating that during the first two years of video tape interviews of child abuse cases it never lost a case and no child had to be called by the defence to testify. In the third year, 60 out of 75 defendants in cases of child abuse pleaded guilty as soon as they saw videos of the interviews.
  If the young child was nevertheless brought to court, would it not make sense to make some provision for questioning to be put through a third person by video link, at the discretion of the judge, if the judge found it difficult to put the questions to the child himself? I accept that the method proposed for third-party questioning in the new clause is not necessarily the best, but it nevertheless raises the need for consideration to be given to the matter.
  It is of course necessary to consider the question of competency. At present, under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, a child must understand the duty of speaking the truth as interpreted in Wallwork (1958) 42

  859
  Criminal Appeal Reports. That precludes the court from hearing any child of five or under and makes it very difficult to accept the evidence of a child under eight. That abstract idea of duty to speak the truth can, and does, present problems to a child who is old enough to describe her experiences, but too young to grasp a concept such as duty.
  It is time that we moved on from 1933 and scrapped the competency requirement. In Scotland the courts are able to listen to children down to the age of three. Why should that not apply in England and Wales as well? If the Government cannot bring themselves to go as far as that, the wording should be altered to make it easier for young children to be listened to. There is no evidence to support the idea that they are less capable of telling the truth than adults. Many adults are very good liars and will happily lie their heads off for their own ends, but no one ever suggests that they should not be allowed to give evidence. Why should the law make it more difficult for children?
  The law as it stands cannot be said to give justice to young children. No one knows better than the child who has been beaten, starved or sexually abused what was done to him, and by whom. All that my hon. Friends and I ask is that young children should have the chance to be listened to. We should make provision in the Bill to enable them to give their evidence, and to let the judge and jury decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused by hearing all the evidence. Surely that is what justice is about, and I beg the Minister for the sake of all our children to make provision for it in the Bill.
  Mr. John Wheeler: I wish to speak only briefly on this important debate.
  I followed the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). It would indeed be difficult to find anyone who opposed the principle of the new clause. I also listened carefully to what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst and I are both magistrates. We understand that this is a complicated issue, and that we may do immense damage and defeat the very object that we are trying to secure if we are not careful. Immediately attractive though this idea is, I have serious doubts about it.
  There is a danger that what is being proposed may end up making things much harder for the child victim rather than improving his lot, which I know is very much on hon. Members' minds today. First, the use of the new technology in video recordings is still very much in its infancy, and the technology itself is changing almost by the month. We are contemplating a change in the law when the technology is not yet perfected. Secondly, associated with the change in technology is the need to ensure that the police are trained in its use, which is a very skilled technique. I very much doubt whether the criminal investigation departments of the 43 police forces in England and Wales will easily be able to absorb the changes that the new clause seeks to make.
  I believe that the way forward is as proposed by the Government, and that the proposal to enable young children to give evidence in an anteroom of the Crown
  860
  court by live television link, rather than in the court room itself, is a major and welcome advance. I am sure that the whole House will endorse that.
  4.45 pm
  The cardinal principle in proceedings before a jury in the Crown court is that those who seek to secure the prosecution must produce the evidence. I see no alternative, in certain circumstances, to the child being available to answer questions in the way that we now understand the jury system and Crown court procedure to operate. I do not see how that can be avoided.
  The Bexley experiment has been valuable. It has enabled the police and the social services department to work closely with others concerned for the welfare of the child. An interview thus obtained is probably natural, and suits both the needs and convenience of the variety of practitioners who have different parts to play in the proceedings and, in particular, the welfare of the child. If we change the nature of the interview, there is a danger that it will become more formal, because those recording it are bound to have in the back of their minds the knowledge that it could well be used in criminal proceedings before a Crown court jury. If it becomes more formal—as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has suggested—the whole purpose of the interview will be damaged, and that cannot be what we intend in wishing to improve the welfare of child victims.
  Such an interview would probably have to be edited to remove the part that would not be admissible as evidence before a jury. There would then be a problem over the editing. Learned counsel for the defence would be bound to say, "The bit that is missing is the vital bit that would help to secure the acquittal of my client." That conflict lies at the heart of the problem, and I do not see how it can be avoided.
  For all those reasons, I feel that my hon. Friend the Minister should think very carefully before agreeing to accept the new clause.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: Many of us were here late on Thursday night to follow a tantalising and fascinating debate, which I watched from the Strangers' Gallery. That was an extraordinary experience. This debate, while it may be calmer, is none the less extremely important.
  We are dealing with one of those problems and scourges of our time which may be ineradicable but which preoccupy us all. Having lived through the events in Cleveland last year, my knowledge and experience come from personal observation. At an early stage I set for myself a context in which to examine such issues. First, we had to prosecute the perpetrator; secondly, we had to protect the child; thirdly, we had to protect the innocent family. Those principles, not necessarily in that order, should be the goals and priorities of people considering the issues of child care law.
  This is a timely debate because, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has said, the NSPCC issued its figures a few days ago. It is also a year ago this week that the Cleveland child abuse crisis broke across the nation, and in two or three weeks time we shall obtain from Lord Justice Butler-Sloss a report which, I am sure, is awaited with great interest by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by the public.

  861
  I am irritated by the number of false prophets who tell us what is in that report when it has hardly reached the Minister's desk. The only information to which I am privy is that it is 700 pages long in typescript; no doubt its size will be reduced in print. As far as I know, there are no leaks of the report. We are looking forward to the recommendations, which will be helpful to the Government. The child care reform White Paper issued in January 1987 provides further guidance. It is my earnest hope that the Government will produce a child care law incorporating the recommendations of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss and the recommendations and conclusions of the White Paper. I am grateful to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss for deciding to return to Cleveland to tell us her conclusions about what happened in 1987 and, it is to be hoped, how we may avoid a recurrence of those appalling events.
  As I said at the time, what happened in Cleveland was about a particular diagnosis of reflex anal dilatation and not about the issues of child abuse referred to by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who gave the House a series of categorical cases in chronological order to show what child abuse is about. In Cleveland, we were dealing with a controversial diagnosis, how that diagnosis was handled and what conclusions might be drawn from that. We await the report.
  In the meantime we are discussing the new clauses. It may help if I refer to some of the Cleveland families' experiences. During the long saga that afflicted both children and parents there were video sessions with children. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was referring to the video that could be used in criminal proceedings. In Cleveland, we were considering videos that would be used in civil proceedings in giving evidence before the High Court. Children and social workers were confronted with a dilemma that was different from the one to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred. In the cases to which he referred, there was clear evidence of sexual abuse that the child had reported and the problem was how to collate it—whether on the basis of a police statement as at present or on the basis of a video that could be used before a court. In Cleveland, we had an extraordinary situation in which a medical diagnosis had been made and social workers were then called to obtain a disclosure from the child. That was extraordinarily difficult if, as happened in many cases that ended up before the High Court, the children were found not to have been sexually abused at all.
  One child of seven had about seven interviews, four of which were general interviews with a policewoman, one was with a consultant paediatrician and two involved non-directive play therapy. Three video recordings were made, of which two survived. A social worker destroyed the tapes rather than have them shown to a judge in a court. One can see how delicate and sensitive an issue video evidence is and how it must be treated with the utmost caution.
  On one of the videos a social worker was seen to suggest to a child who refused to make a disclosure that what happened in her family home might have happened to her while she was asleep. The social worker said:
  "You are going to be with foster parents for quite a while, OK, you know that, don't you? Whatever happens, you have got to he with foster parents. Even if they do not tell us, we are not going to let you go back. I'm going to fight really hard for you not to go back home, OK?"
  862
  One can imagine the feelings of a seven-year-old child in the world of video evidence with sometimes a police officer present and sometimes not, but with a social worker trying to make her feel at home. Even so the child felt terribly alone and isolated and insisted that she had not been abused by anyone. A girl who was described as having a sunny disposition became sullen and nervous as time passed. In a civil sense, the issue in Cleveland was who had control over the family—was it the social services or the doctors, or did control lie within the family unit?
  We have to disentangle the cases of clear sexual abuse that the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) described from those civil cases where the child categorically refuses to say that he has been interfered with, in which no evidence goes to court and the family is cleared.
  In another case in Cleveland, a boy was interviewed four times and a girl three times. There were several interviews before the first video recording was made—not counting the police interviews. There was an unwitnessed and unrecorded interview with a doctor and there were interviews with a child psychiatrist and a social worker. All of those took place before the child was led into the room where the video recording was to take place. One must ask what kind of pressure may be put on a child before he gets into the video room and before the video camera begins to record. What will a defence counsel make of that in court?
  The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), who has experience as a magistrate, referred to those difficulties. It is incumbent upon a counsel to seek to elicit all the evidence in the interests of the accused whom he is defending. In Cleveland, there was a background of different interviews before the child entered the room in which the recording was to be made. There were cases in Cleveland when, regrettably, after six months of disclosure sessions a child would finally ask, "If I say my father did it, can I now go home?" That was recorded on the video.
  Most of the video evidence in Cleveland never saw the light of day in a court of law; once counsel for Cleveland county council saw the evidence, it was ruled inadmissible and it was withdrawn. One of the social services representatives in the cases that went before the court suggested that those cases would have been won if all the evidence had been presented, but the evidence could not be presented because it was inadmissible. There had been leading and menacing questions and the children had been threatened so that the whole exercise was inadmissible as evidence.
  In dealing with children's evidence, we need to understand its significance in a case wholly unrelated to the events in Cleveland. Three children had been sexually abused. When they disclosed this to their teacher at school they named the wrong perpetrator—their uncle rather than their stepfather. They did not want their stepfather to be removed from the family home. One child's evidence was very clear and the description of what had happened could not be refuted, but the child had given the wrong name. The man was arrested because the evidence was clear and only later, when the child was threatened with further abuse by the real perpetrator, did he say who had really committed the abuse. The consequences were dramatic. The man hanged himself in Durham gaol. That was the terrible tragic consequence of being wrongfully named by the child, who was seeking to protect his stepfather.

  863
  When we raise the emotive tone of our discussions of child abuse and consider the human drama experienced by the child, we must also consider the human drama of the parents, who may be entirely innocent but whose family life has come under serious attack.
  The hon. Member for Westminster, North referred also to technology. It may be that technology and the law are outstripping the skills of those who might carry out video recordings. The police and some social workers have such skills, but I notice that the new clause refers to qualified social workers. In Cleveland, there was a lack of skill, common sense, and proper approach to family life and children. There must be some doubt about whether the necessary skills exist at the moment.
  5 pm
  It is rather nonchalant of me—I did not examine the Bill during all its stages—to make recommendations to the Government on how to handle the new clauses. I am grateful to my learned Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) for joining us. I read with interest his speeches on these matters in Committee. He urged caution. I have often referred to the Cleveland child abuse crisis in relation to the Salem witch-hunts of 1692, when innocent people were obliged not only to defend their innocence but to prove it before the people of Salem. Nineteen members of the Salem community were hanged by law and one pressed himself to death before the unhappy events came to an end. They came to an end because the puritan elders of Salem urged exquisite caution upon the citizens, the judiciary, and so on. I urge the Government to exercise exquisite caution when dealing with these matters.
  The Cleveland child abuse inquiry report will be available in two weeks. No doubt the video evidence that was used in the proceedings will be the subject of some recommendations. Although we all might welcome the extension of video evidence in relation to abused children and their traumas, my final word to the House is that exquisite caution might be the order of the day.
  Mr. John Watts: I am sure that the House will agree that the sexual abuse of children is one of the most evil crimes that society must face today.
  I listened with great interest and care to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I agree that there is a need for caution in these matters so that one does not lightly enter into prosecutions if there is no foundation. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there is a clear distinction between circumstances in which no allegation has been made by a child but when, for misguided reasons, people actively look for cases of child abuse—that was the case in Cleveland—and the problem that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), in which children may have made accusations and been investigated by the police, and the police are absolutely satisfied that the accusations are true, but our present judicial procedures prevent prosecution and conviction of those who are guilty of such evil crimes.
  My support for the new clause is based upon two or three cases in my constituency. They were brought to my attention by parents who were distraught at the knowledge that, because of our legal procedures, no prosecution could be brought against those who have perpetrated evil
  864
  crimes against their children. I concede that some of the measures within the Bill go a long way to facilitating prosecution when it is justified. In particular, I refer to the removal of the requirement for a child's evidence to be corroborated when the child is too young to give evidence on oath and the introduction of the facility for a child to give evidence through a live video link to avoid the distressing experience of having to give evidence in open court and facing the person who committed the offences.
  We should go one step further and admit into evidence a video recording of an interview in the police station, close to the time when the offence was reported—we may then have a contemporaneous account from the child—with the safeguards in the new clause, so that the admissibility of the video recording may be considered by a judge in chambers before it is shown to the jury. Also, there should be a facility for a child to be cross-examined, through the video link, on the evidence contained within the video recording.
  Mr. Gerald Birmingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are two great dangers in having two films? The first set is made shortly after the event when the child is in a highly emotional state. He or she is wide open to suggestion, and is shown various things and makes various comments. A little while later, when he or she is over the trauma of whatever did or did not happen, the child is interviewed in respect of the court case, cross-examined by way of the video link, and so on. What will happen when the child is shown that there are glaring differences between the two sets of allegations? That is dangerous not only for the defendant but to the child in the long term.
  Mr. Watts: if in the initial interview a child made comments or accusations becase he was led or coerced, it would become apparent to the judge and counsel from viewing such evidence. If there were subsequent discrepancies between that evidence and that which was obtained at a later date, it would, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, cast doubt on the veracity and validity of the evidence. I do not resile from that.
  I approach these matters with the benefit of not being burdened by a legal background. My concern is that, when such crimes are committed, we should not so load the balance of our judicial system that prosecutions cannot be brought and convictions cannot be secured. With this Bill, the Government have gone a long way towards redressing the balance. I should like the Government to go a little further along the lines suggested by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). If we are serious about dealing with this evil crime, we must make sure that our judicial procedures permit prosecution and conviction.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: In this instance we should agree that the interests of the child are paramount. That is easily said. Various pieces of legislation dealing with children and adoption and fostering state that the interests of the child should be paramount. In the children's hearing system in Scotland the interests of the child are paramount, but in England the interests of children who may have been most bitterly and repulsively reviled are not paramount. That seems strange. If the interests of the child are paramount, justice is much more likely to be served. There may well be children who make false accusations and incorrect

  865
  statements, but they are also victims who need considerable assistance. What causes a child to make such accusations against people? We need to consider this matter consistently from the child's point of view.
  What would be the use of video recordings in proceedings about sexual offences against children? We must think about the physical surroundings of a court for a child and how intimidating and bewildering the proceedings are. That adds to the stress and complex emotions experienced by a child victim. During the debate hon. Members often seemed to imply that we are talking about isolated instances of sexual abuse that occur on a one-off basis. The normal pattern is of continuing abuse, which may go back for several years, and which may be endemic within the family. A court is an austere setting, with strange people in unfamiliar dress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) spoke of the lack of skill of social workers. That may be true in some cases, but is it any wonder, considering that we attempt to train them for this complex task within one or two years? Perhaps we should talk more about the lack of skill among lawyers. They may well have been trained for many years, yet be singularly inept at using their professional skills to obtain the truth from a child.
  A child will find it difficult to understand the functions of all the people in the court, will not understand the proceedings and the language, and is likely to be intimidated by the objections, arguments and motions of counsel. Above all, the child will have to face the accused—the alleged perpetrator of the offence—which will be the most daunting experience. The child may be afraid of, or angry with, the accused. The child may even love the accused, or be bound up in all those complex emotions and feel intense guilt. It is intimidating to have to describe sexual experiences in front of the accused while feeling all those emotions. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) describing various cases. To hear that language in this House and to realise how awkward it is here brought home to me how intimidating it must be for a child to find the appropriate words.
  The timing of a court hearing or trial will often be many months after the event, and it may be difficult for a child to open up after such a period, or to remember and repeat the details of the offence. If the interests of the child are to be paramount, it is important that the child should heal and recover from those experiences. If there is anything that we can do by not forcing the child, many months after the event, to open up those wounds again, we should take that opportunity.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the defendant's right to cross-examine any witness in court? I have the most profound reservations about the new clause because it places an intermediary between counsel, the voice of the defendant and the voice of the prosecutor, and the child. Surely any person accused of these filthy crimes has every right to test the evidence, to put questions, and not to have them interpreted or changed by an intermediary.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Worthington: This is a foul crime to be accused of and to have committed against one. The interests of the accused must seriously be taken into account and I agree that that would include the right to cross-examine. One of
  866
  the most powerful facts in convincing me that this is a good new clause is the number of trials that would not take place because the quality of the evidence of the child would make it clear to the accused that he did not have a chance of getting off. If we can avoid children being cross-examined unnecessarily because we can get better evidence, we shall be adding to the amount of justice in society.
  Many of the objections about the technology are stone age and Luddite. People who have become used to pen and paper will not accept that a better quality of evidence will be available through video. No doubt when, in the past, we were talking about written statements some lawyers said that this new-fangled thing, the slate, could not be accepted.
  The Scottish Law Commission has recently produced valuable research evidence on this theme. Kathleen Murray has looked at the use of videos in the United States of America, and she states:
  "The child's demeanour, facial expressions and gestures are preserved. If the interviewer's behaviour or the child's story is later questioned, the recording can provide a verbatim account of the early interview. The tape can be used by others involved in the case and thereby spare the child from repeating accounts of the alleged abuse."
  That is a powerful case.
  The advantages of the proposal is that the child would be in more sympathetic physical surroundings. I accept that the presence of video cameras is not automatically homely, but such surroundings would be considerably more homely and relaxed than the atmosphere of a court. I hope that a child would be interviewed in a room with child-sized chairs and removed from the awesomeness of wigged and gowned judges and counsel. The child would also be spared the intimidating nature of motions, objections and arguments.
  Lawyers may try to make people feel at ease, but inevitably when they play on home ground they constantly forget and lapse into language that is intimidating or obscure to others. Under the proposal, a child would be interviewed by a person specially trained for the purpose. That is extremely important. Those skills are precious and the interview needs to be done sensitively. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, in saying that many social workers do not have these skills, is making the point that it is a skilled business to get a child to relax and go over painful experiences. If skilled social workers do not exist in sufficient numbers, it is likely that others with such skills do not either.
  Another difficulty is that the memory required from a child in court is, in psychological terms, an advanced form of memory. It is asking the child to recall. Many small children do not have the skill—nor do many adults—to recall in logical order what occurred. It is a different skill from the skill of recognition or reconstruction, where the child's knowledge can be liberated if the surroundings or the stimuli are appropriate. We must create circumstances that will free the information held by the child, and intimidation and stress can reduce a person's willingness and ability to retrieve information from his memory.
  Mr. Bermingham: Why does my hon. Friend believe that a child who is videoed immediately after a dramatic event, who may have been removed from his home circumstances and who is suffering from considerable pressure and emotional upheaval will have a better memory than a child who has been allowed to get over the

  867
  shock of separation, is spoken to gently, is counselled and later asked to give evidence, perhaps by way of a video link to a separate room?
  Mr. Worthington: It is likely that the earlier the memory is called upon, the more it will be accurate. I have had only one experience of being in a court, when I was called as a witness to a drunken affray. Several months later, in court, I identified a distinguished member of the legal profession as one of the people who had committed the crime. That brought home to me the fallibility of memory over a long period. Especially with children, an account given soon after the incident is more likely to be accurate. But, of course, I take into account my hon. Friend's point about emotions.
  Mr. Devlin: Any practising member of the Bar would tell the hon. Gentleman that often people who are interviewed immediately after an event have a very jumbled idea of exactly what happened. I am sure that it would be even worse with children. The difficulty with the early video is that there will inevitably be questions which lawyers would have wished to ask, or points with which they would have taken issue, on which the child cannot be cross-examined.
  Mr. Worthington: We are after the most accurate reconstruction of events. If we can have the freshness of a video that is made at an early stage, it will add to the quality of evidence. In any event, the later recall can he tested in court. The vividness of the video that is recorded early will be very important.
  For years society has failed to consider seriously the evidence of children. We have given pre-eminence to legal practitioners and, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, allowed them, through their procedures, to cause massive injustices to occur. The advice given by legal practitioners about the quality of evidence that they will allow has caused massive injustice, especially to the most vulnerable and insecure. We must also acknowledge the commonly held belief that the evidence of children, especially girls, is less to be trusted than that of adults. Recent research discounts the arguments about the fantasies of children, but because some people have held those beliefs about fantasies, we have allowed injustice to occur.
  Taking Kathleen Murray's point, the Scottish Law Commission believes that the evidence from what has gone on in the United States and elsewhere is that interviews should take place as soon as possible, and that they should be as few as possible. That is another problem. I expect that many hon. Members used to play the party game where one has to tell a story, which then goes from person to person and one does not recognise the story that comes out at the end. That may occur if a child is asked to repeat a story many times. Its accuracy may diminish. We should also ensure that the interviews are carried out by trained people and, if possible, always by the same person.
  The Scottish Law Commission produced a discussion document containing two options that are currently being considered in Scotland. The first was:
  "Where an accused has been charged and a child is likely to be required to give evidence in a criminal trial the procurator fiscal should be entitled, at his discretion, to arrange for that child to be interviewed by an independent interviewer.
  868
  For this purpose the interviewer may be from any background, whether professional or otherwise, but should be skilled and experienced in suitable interviewing techniques, and should be approved for the purpose by the Sheriff Principal for the court district concerned.
  The interview should be conducted in a suitable room having a one-way glass screen on one wall. The accused and his lawyer, and the procurator fiscal, should be entitled to be behind this screen, out of sight of the child, but they should be able to communicate with the interviewer (using microphones and an ear receiver) so as to suggest desired lines of questioning to be put to the child.
  During the interview it should be possible, at the discretion of the interviewer, for the child to be accompanied by a parent or other adult.
  The whole interview should be video recorded."
  The alternative option would be to make the interview
  "admissible in lieu of more formal evidence by the child, but both the accused and the prosecutor would have an absolute right to require the child to give evidence in a more formal manner."
  The world is waiting for us to move on this issue. Our present court procedures are manifestly inadequate and cause a great deal of injustice. It is no use waiting for technology. We must make our decision now. There has been much evidence in recent years that children who have been sexually abused are then further abused by the courts. We should put that shame behind us.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The remarks of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) have stung me to intervene. Legal practitioners are not the cause of injustice in our society; the ill-thought-out laws and procedures that are laid down in this place are at the root of injustice. Legal practitioners, in common with Members of Parliament—although at a later stage in the proceedings—afford the only real protection to the individual against the injustices of the system, of the Establishment and of the machinery of government. To think otherwise is totally to misunderstand the role of the defence lawyer in our society.
  5.30 pm
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) has already said, the problem is not the burden of a legal background, but that hon. Members do not realise the practical problems behind many of their well-meaning ideas. It is not just the impracticality of this proposal that causes me concern, but its possible counter-productivity.
  In practice it is extremely difficult to ask questions through an interpreter—that is what a "prescribed officer" would be. Juries do not want to do an injustice to defendants, however horrifying the crime with which they are charged. When a defendant is charged with a horrifying crime, a jury particularly wants to ensure that justice is done. From my experience, I know that juries will not want social workers, child psychologists or probation officers acting as a further barrier to an understanding between the questioner and the answerer. Even if good interpreters are always available in our courts whenever they are wanted, which I very much doubt, even if those interpreters want to do such work, which I very much doubt, and even if they could do it without emotion and with objectivity, which I doubt, new clause 7 would establish barriers in the process of persuading a jury of the guilt or innocence of the accused, and therefore I object to it. If too many barriers are erected between those acting for the accused and the child witness, the result will be not more convictions of the guilty, but, I fear, more acquittals of the guilty.
  Mr. Bermingham: I was saddened by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He normally applies terrific logic to what he says, but in his contribution tonight logic appears to have been lost in the sea of emotion. Although there is much to be said as to how we can best prosecute and secure the conviction of evil men and women for child abuse—it is not a male-only crime—we must, as I said in Committee, tread with caution.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has great experience in such matters, was right to say that if we erect too many barriers and raise too many questions we will run too great a risk of acquittals. Let us suppose that a child has been gently interviewed and videoed shortly after it has been taken into care. That is an emotive time and one of great stress. Arising from that video, questions may he asked by a social worker or police officer. For the sake of argument, let us assume that those individuals are extremely skilled. They can look for all the nuances and for all the evidential problems that may arise later. If that child breaks down in the course of that video recording, should we edit that video? Do we take such bits from the video film, which may take four, five, six, seven or eight hours to record? Which bits do we tape? The minute one begins to edit, one gives the defence an open sesame. The defence will cry "cheat" or "foul". It is bound to do so in the interest of its client, and such is the duty of the defending solicitor or counsel in any court room. I declare my interest in such matters.
  It is the duty of the defence to look for holes in the prosecution case. In our system one must never forget—and I do not seek to preach a sermon—that it is not for the defence to prove anything. It is for the Crown to prove its case. The defence is under no duty to give or to call evidence. It can spend the whole of its time asking questions, and, at the end, say, "Members of the jury, the Crown has failed to prove its case."
  There are some who would like the burden of proof to be shifted, and regrettably that tendency is growing. While we maintain a system that puts the burden of proof upon the Crown, the very introduction of the suggested preliminary stage creates an enormous hurdle for it. That hurdle is created because of the length of time it takes to make the video. It will not be shown in full to the court; it will be edited. Such a video may then be contrasted with a case where the child has refused to give evidence.
  Mr. Worthington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statements that are put in front of the court are a heavily edited account of what occurred in terms, for example, of the police investigation of a case?
  Mr. Bermingham: That is not the case in the English system. A written statement is the means by which a person sets out his or her allegations. It is not edited. If it were found to be so, the unedited, unexpurgated version would be produced for the defence as a matter of law under the Attorney-General's guidelines relating to unused material. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has a question, he should stand up and ask it and I will answer it. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to make a sedentary intervention, which is bad manners.
  Editing is unknown to our law. There have been experiments regarding tape, recordings where the whole tape untampered with and untouched, is delivered to the
  870
  defence. It may be that an agreed synopsis is produced, but it must be agreed. If it is not, the full version must be accepted.
  When tape recordings are made at a police station, tried and experienced officers ask the questions. New clause 7 provides not for the investigating authority or, in the ultimate stage, the prosecuting authority to ask questions, but rather for social workers or some other well-trained person to do so. I am not critical of that, but I am suggesting that one would be presented with a hostage to fortune. The minute that a third-party stage is introduced, one runs the risk of conflict of evidence and continuity of evidence as well as all sorts of other risks. In common with the hon. and learned Member for Burton, I suspect that one would run the even greater risk of the guilty going free. At this stage I am not prepared to accept that risk.
  In Committee I urged considerable caution. I am not averse to the idea of a child giving its evidence in a separate room within the court. I can see a lot of wisdom in that, as well as in a child being interviewed via a video link. At the Old Bailey, for example, it has been found that screens have worked in certain cases, and children have given their evidence freely and well.
  I looked with care at this new clause. The spirit behind it is the same as the spirit of those who seek to protect children. Those of us who oppose the new clause do not do so because we want to deny children their rights. We urge that we should proceed with great care so that ultimately every person who is prosecuted for such a heinous crime, where evidence exists against that person, will be convicted.
  In our land it is for the Crown to prove its case. We should not rush into untried or experimental systems. We should not set them in tablets of stone, as we do in this place, and then leave it to others to sort out. That is why I was saddened by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie about lawyers. It should not be left to the lawyers to scrabble around in a morass and say, "How on earth can we protect the citizens of this state?" The spirit of the new clause is good, but its construction and drafting are appalling. I ask the House to vote against it.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Before I came into the Chamber I was reading my local newspaper, the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette, in which there is a story of a young lady who claimed that she had been raped. There was a hue and cry and, according to the report, 20 detectives were involved. After a few days, the lady changed her mind. It was all a hoax—but it could have all been video-recorded.
  As the Member of Parliament whose constituency includes one third of Middlesbrough, I have been deeply involved in what has happened over child sex abuse there, although my colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), carried the weight. At the height of the problems one of my constituents, a social worker, went missing for a few days, and it was thought that she might have taken her own life. Fortunately, that was not so. She returned and is now all right. But the pressures on that social worker caused that problem. I should be absolutely appalled if I thought that the House would pass the new clause.
  I hear comments that we must look after the interests of the children. I believe that we must look after the interests of justice, and the Criminal Justice Bill is for that purpose.

  871
  It would be wrong and foolish of the House at this stage to pass the new clause without a specialist authority with a wider remit looking at the concept of video recording——
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Holt: No, because I have been asked to make a brief speech.
  That should happen whether it is for child sex abuse, rape or any other concept. The House would be misled if it agreed to the new clause.
  The idea of a qualified social worker being an intermediary frightens the life out of me. I have been at the heart of the child sex abuse problems in Cleveland, and one thing that we do not want is the intermediary in a child sex abuse case to be a "qualified social worker"——
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The new clause does not say that.
  Mr. Holt: With respect, the new clause says:
  "a prescribed officer of the court shall be a qualified social worker".
  That is what we are being asked to agree to and that is what I am opposing. So far, no one has been asked to learn the skills of conducting an interview when it is video-recorded. Yet hon. Members are proposing that, under the law, a qualified person without those skills should conduct the interview.
  I was asked to speak briefly. However, one does not need to speak at length to make a point that should carry weight with the House, especially with hon. Members such as my colleague the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who also represents part of Middlesbrough. Those of us who come from that area would find it difficult to face our constituents and all those who have been deeply involved if we supported the new clause. I ask all those who are concerned about justice for everybody, not only the child, but all the relatives and perhaps the accused person, to think long and hard before supporting such a loose and woolly new clause.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: In contrast to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), I believe that many children throughout the United Kingdom have been saved from a pretty miserable and horrible fate by the intervention of a qualified and deeply compassionate social worker. That should not be forgotten.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) seems to have been subjected to some quite severe criticism today because he argued that the interests of the child must be paramount. I have a great deal of sympathy for that viewpoint, but I suppose that the law must reconcile the interests of the child with those of the accused. The two principal promoters of the new clauses, the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), have sought to attain the most difficult of objectives. In my view, the criminal investigation of such cases must require the most humane and compassionate treatment of the children involved. In too many cases, interviews are inflicted upon the children, which places an intolerable strain on them. Another dreadful strain
  872
  inflicted upon the children in such cases is the knowledge that, if they tell the truth, in all probability they will wreck their own family. I believe that such knowledge reduces many children to silence.
  5.45 pm
  The whole procedure must become more humane. I compliment the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Chislehurst, and those who have supported the new clauses, on seeking to develop that trend, but I have a couple of reservations about both new clauses and some questions for their promoters. For example, does new clause 7 allow for the accused and his or her counsel to ask the court to declare the video recording inadmissible as evidence?
  Secondly, would the accused and his or her counsel have the absolute right to require that the child give evidence in a more formal or structured way? I hasten to add that I have a great deal of sympathy for the new clauses. I attempted to introduce similar amendments to extant Scottish legislation, but I failed in my endeavours.
  Thirdly, would the jury be allowed to take the video recording to the jury room to examine sections of it or to view it again in its entirety when it makes its deliberations? That is an important question which was raised by the Scottish Law Commission in the recently published document to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I imagine that it would fall to the discretion of the judge to respond to such a request from the jury.
  Dr. Godman: That partially answers the question, but I feel that there are too many ambiguities in the new clause. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about his lack of experience of parliamentary draftsmanship, which I share.
  As I said, despite my questions, I have a great deal of sympathy with the new clauses. However, I would raise the upper age limit to 16 years from 14, which is far too low. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and his supporters talked about sexual abuse and molestation. Do those terms include sexual exploitation—for example, introducing or manipulating a child into child pornography or prostitution?
  If we are to talk about video recordings, we should talk about pre-trial deposition proceedings, which would involve the formal cross-examination of the child by counsel in a room away from the austere surroundings of the average court room. I think that I am right in saying that one of the most modern court rooms in the United Kingdom is the new sheriff court in Glasgow. I visited it recently and discovered that in such a case a child in that most modern of courts could be sitting or standing less than 9 ft away from the accused in the dock. The architectural design of that court room in Glasgow is an abysmal failure. When bringing a child into a small court room it must be remembered that the proximity of the accused might frighten the child into silence.
  Mr. Bermingham: We have already agreed that children could give their evidence on video in a separate room. Does that not meet my hon. Friend's objection?
  Dr. Godman: It does to a certain extent. The judge should oversee these proceedings in as informal an ambience as possible. Failing that, they should be presided over by an official appointed by the court.
  The proceedings should take place in a room whose design and layout present a pleasing prospect for the child to enter and stay in for some time. If the Bill meets that requirement, I shall be pleased to hear about it. The surroundings should be as informal as possible. The judge, counsel and child—plus what we call in Scotland the befriender—should be seated around a table. The befriender's status derives from the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
  The accused should be present but concealed from the child by means of a two-way mirror or closed circuit television. A child advocate should be appointed to protect the interests of the child who is a principal witness in such a case We could expand the role of the safeguarder, which was created 20 years ago in the legislation introduced by Willie Ross, as he then was.
  Perhaps the way ahead lies in the use of closed circuit television, with the child placed in a room close to the court room, but I intend to reserve my remarks about that for a later debate.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: We have had an interesting debate on a significant subject. We can all agree that every abuse of a child, sexual or otherwise, is a vicious crime, not least because such abuse deprives the child of the security that should be the right of all children. We can all agree that we should spare no effort to provide them all with that security. One of the things to look for in the new clauses is whether they will contribute to that.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that the debate was worthy of emotion. When we speak we must control our comments, because we all feel extremely strongly about people who commit these vicious crimes. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it would be equally wrong for us to be too cool, clinical and detached—because we are discussing serious difficulties. Anyone who has spoken to the parents of children who have been abused knows that feelings run high on the subject. That must be taken into account when we discuss such a sensitive issue.
  When we discussed this matter in Committee, we all agreed that clause 31 was an important step forward. It is the clause to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred a few moments ago when he spoke of children giving evidence on a closed circuit television link. He outlined problems in the design of courts which mean that children must be close to the person who has committed the crime against them. That has caused a great deal of concern, and I and my hon. Friends think that the provisions of clause 31 will go a long way towards easing the problem and relieving the strain on children. We know of cases that have broken down recently because of the strain under which children have been put through being able to see the accused in court. We all want an end to that, and we welcome clause 31 because it makes significant progress towards solving the problem.
  The common aim that we all share is that of making it as easy as possible for the child in what must be a difficult situation. Everyone agrees that the child's interests must come first. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, there may be false
  874
  accusations because a child has been pushed into a corner and feels that that is the way in which to make progress. My hon. Friend pointed out the difficulties that arise when children give the answers that they feel are expected of them. When we discussed clause 31 in Committee, even though we all agreed with it in principle, Opposition Members believed that many questions still had to be answered and that guidelines needed to be laid down to ensure consistency in the way in which the courts operated the new procedures so that everyone knew what the child's rights and the defendant's—or his counsel's—rights were. The Minister was open-minded about the need for guidelines and took on board many of the points that we made during one of the most constructive debates that we had in Committee.
  Many difficulties are involved in the role of the pre-recorded interviews that are proposed in the new clause. We all hope that such interviews may have a role to play in certain circumstances, but if they have, it will be limited. If pre-recorded interviews have a use, it may not be limited to cases of child sexual abuse. Perhaps they could be used in cases of rape and in other cases in which witnesses are reluctant to give evidence or feel that they would rather discuss what happened away from the court room.
  Some of the arguments in favour of pre-recorded interviews have exaggerated the contribution that they might make to relieving the anguish of children in this situation. Too often the case has been presented too simplistically and hopes have been raised that pre-recorded interviews might produce more good than they ever could. They are in no way a panacea. At best they will have a limited contribution to make in certain specific cases.
  I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said that we should proceed with caution. There are many pitfalls in this path—and some potential advantages. If, at some stage in the future, we were to adopt a system in which pre-recorded interviews could be used as evidence in court, we should need strict guidelines and clear codes of practice, because we would be changing the rules of evidence in a fundamental and significant way.
  The one way in which pre-recorded interviews might have a role to play—to judge from all the evidence I have seen—is in cases in which the person who is accused is guilty and, having seen the child giving evidence on a video recording, is caused to change his mind and plead guilty, so that the social workers and everyone involved in the case can make some progress. That might avoid the lengthy and tortuous experience of a contested court case that would be very difficult for the child and its family.
  That may happen, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said, the Cleveland experience shows that children and parents will sometimes give the answer that is wanted because they hope that that will lead to a breakthrough and a progression of the case when a log-jam occurs and social workers or the police are convinced that abuse has taken place. That may lead to children being persuaded to make accusations, or it may lead to parents, relatives or the person accused being persuaded to admit to some sort of abuse in order to make progress. In some cases that may be done in order to allow children to go home.
  6 pm
  Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Lady agree that if that thesis were carried through, the opposite should also be the case? I have a letter from the Cleveland social services department which says that a life-sized rubber doll of a man was used in a child sex abuse case. When a sweet was placed in a specific place on the doll the child went into the room and took the sweet, and that was taken as absolute evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Does the hon. Lady agree that in such a case a person could be found not guilty?
  Mrs. Taylor: I agree that such evidence and such experiments could be interpreted in many different ways. We must be cautious about all these matters, and one of the lessons that everyone will learn from the Cleveland experience is that there is still a long way to go before procedures on a whole range of matters are considered adequate and before we can have full confidence in them.
  I have some questions for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but perhaps the Minister will deal with them in his winding-up speech so that it will not be necessary to ask them twice. Obviously, there are many difficulties in dealing with such cases. Hon. Members have put forward a strong case for saying that interviews should be held as quickly as possible after the abuse has taken place. However, we must be realistic about this and understand that very often abuse takes place over many weeks, months and sometimes years. For that reason, a delay of a week or two may not make the difference that is sometimes suggested. If it is a question of one incident of abuse, or indeed of rape, it is useful and beneficial for interviews to be conducted as quickly as possible. Where there has been prolonged abuse, perhaps an early interview is not as important as ensuring that the interview takes place in the right context, with the right people present, and in the right atmosphere.
  Interviews of very young children conducted by social workers and police officers—I know that many women police officers are extremely experienced and good at conducting such interviews—are not for evidential purposes. They are for counselling purposes, for drawing out the child's experiences and for starting to help the child to recover. It would be quite legitimate for the people conducting the interview to lead the child, to draw out the story and even to suggest what might have happened in a way that would normally go against all the rules of evidence. We should be quite clear that such interviews will not be used later as evidence in court. However, if social workers and police officers have that fact at the back of their minds, they might be less good at counselling the child in the first instance.
  My second point on the practicalities is about where video interviews should take place. Will they take place in a police station, in a hospital, in a social worker's office or in the child's home? From the point of view of the child's recovery, the best place for the interview may not be the best place for recording the experiences of the child, when more than one camera may be needed. Certainly we could not have cameras invading a child's home to take evidence.
  Mr. Devlin: Does the hon. Lady agree that the best place for such interviews would be the new family court buildings, one of which would be built in each town? Such buildings would be properly financed and would be part of a national change in procedures. That is long overdue.
  Mrs. Taylor: We welcome support for the principle of family courts. The Minister makes noises about the cost, but it is a cost that is well worth bearing. If the Government want to make a contribution to the welfare of children, not just to those who have been abused in this way, but to children involved in divorce proceedings and so on, they should introduce family courts. We would support legislation on that and should like to see it introduced as soon as possible.
  The problem of cross-examination was briefly raised by some hon. Members who are lawyers. The new clause allows for cross-examination. A child who is to be cross-examined in court will not attract the benefit of an early and quick recorded interview that will be presented in court with the idea that that will be the end of the matter. It is clear that if a child is cross-examined about what he said in one or more interviews some weeks or months before, it would put not less, but probably more, strain on the child. That will create great difficulties. Although the child will give evidence from a different room, it will be the duty of defence counsel to trip up the child or to find inconsistencies between what the child has said in the recording and his answers in court.
  I am not trying to knock holes in the case or to say that there is no role at all for video recordings. I stress that the simplistic answer that is sometimes put forward is fraught with many difficulties. It could be counter-productive if a clever counsel for the defendant destroyed the child in court. That might happen if proceedings went ahead in the way that I have suggested. An early interview of the child that could be shown to the defendant might lead to a plea of guilty. However, as soon as the defendant obtained access to a lawyer—which might be after charges are preferred and after he, the defendant, has seen the video—his legal advisers might suggest a change of plea. In such a case a lawyer might then find it even more necessary to destroy the child's evidence, and in so doing he might destroy the child as well.
  Although we all want to reduce stress on the child and to help him, we must be sure that we do not create new stresses and new problems for the child. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) talked about a child's memory and said that interviews immediately after an incident might be far more helpful than later asking the child to repeat the story time and again. Immediately after an incident there could be a great deal of confusion in a child's mind. Children who have worked out the sequence of events in their mind are extremely accurate when recalling the very tiny details of many events. That would often happen in cases such as those that we are talking about.
  We all share the same objective. We want to make it as easy as possible for the child to explain what has happened to it and for the responsible authority to prosecute somebody who has committed an abuse. We want to ensure that those who deserve conviction are convicted, but we must ensure that there is full justice, that the defendant's rights are preserved and that we do not take a step that could create more problems than it solves. I hope that the Government will consider those matters, but will not rush into a system of giving evidence that we have not fully examined in this country and that might be fraught with difficulties. We welcome the changes so far. We fully supported clause 31 in Committee and believe that it is a

  877
  significant step forward, but there are some difficulties in the new clause and we hope that the Government will consider it further in greater detail.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has counselled caution and been even-handed in her approach. Her speech has been characteristic of speeches made on both sides of the argument in the two and half hours of debate this afternoon. If anyone had come to listen to the debate this afternoon, he or she would have heard two things: first, an extremely measured form of debate and, secondly, a form of debate that was neither party nor partisan. I do not think that non-party and non-partisan debates are necessarily good or particularly interesting to listen to, but this afternoon the intensity of debate and the care with which hon. Members have deployed their arguments has been exemplary. If anyone had been listening and trying to keep track of the voices on both sides of the argument, and whether, if there should be a Division, it should be restricted to those people who have spoken, he or she would agree that it is a cliff-hanger, on a knife edge, because the arguments on both sides have been so balanced.
  We have heard the most powerful advocacy from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in the interests of obtaining better justice for children. They have been supported in equally powerful speeches by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and others. On the other hand, we have heard, across the party divide, hon. Members counselling caution, as in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), in his short and forceful intervention, and, perhaps most notably of all, in the case of the three hon. Members who represent Cleveland—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
  That note of caution was present throughout our debates in Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that those debates were most constructive. Since then, I have taken every opportunity to consult those people who wished to see me, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to discuss those issues. I have, of course, consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and representatives of the police and acknowledge their formidable argument. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst and to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) who accompanied a delegation from the NSPCC. That was a most useful meeting, and I wish to pay tribute to the work done by the NSPCC in experiments on video recordings. I also met my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), together with representatives of the National Children's Bureau.
  In anticipating the spirit of the debate this afternoon —my hopes have been borne out—I have made known my views as openly as possible, in advance of the debate, in the letters that I have sent to everyone who has corresponded with me. Those letters included a weighty appendix in which I tried to weigh the pros and cons, but, at the end of the debate, I am left with two big question marks in my
  878
  mind: what happens in the trial itself and what happens in the period before the trial? I shall try to deal with each of those questions in turn.
  First, at present, in a trial, the first person to examine a child witness is prosecution counsel, who will take the child step by step through its evidence-in-chief. That will be a friendly face with which the child is familiar. If video recordings were admitted, the first person against—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North—would be defence counsel. In his client's interest, quite properly, defence counsel's aim is to try to expose holes in the child's story. We must remember that the child is anonymous, whereas the accused person is not and he is on trial for his reputation and faces a possible prison sentence.
  6.15 pm
  We then come to the important concept introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds—that there should be a video recording, and that many of the issues could be overcome by an interlocutor, from the caring or legal professions, putting the points to the child on behalf of the defendant. That is where we come to the question raised so powerfully in Committee by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I recommend hon. Members to read the hon. Gentleman's speech in Committee. He said that it is surely a defendant's right—not everyone accused of child abuse is guilty by any means—to have the counsel of his or, more rarely, her choice putting the questions on his or her behalf. That is a substantial principle.
  However, I am worried that, if the child's friend is drawn from the caring or legal professions, he or she will have attempted to establish a relationship with the child beforehand to set him or her at ease. On the other hand, we must also consider what would happen to the child when he or she suddenly found that friend, in the specially designed informal room off the court room, saying, "Why did you say this? Why did you say that? Why is there a difference between what you said then and what you say now?" Will that be in the child's interests? We must consider the question raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South both in the way that he put it and in the way that I have tried to extend the argument.
  Secondly, most people recognise that video recordings of children are taken for a number of purposes. I have been to Bexley and seen the excellent experiments. The chief superintendent, social workers and others who have co-operated have performed a singular service for all those people involved with child abuse. The video recordings are made for evidential and investigative purposes by the police who want to try to find out what happened. They are made for therapeutic purposes, because the child needs to be helped, and it is important for the social worker or the doctor to help the child by talking the terrible experience out of his system. The recordings are also used for investigative medical purposes by the doctor or, more rarely, by the social worker to try to tease out what happened. We all know, from evidence given in recent cases, how difficult that can be.
  We all agree that the child should be spared the trauma of having to give his or her evidence very often. One or more recordings to try to encompass all that would lead to considerable pre-trial editorial problems, as was pointed out by the hon. Members for Dewsbury and for St. Helens, South and by my hon Friend the Member for

  879
  Westminster, North. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds also recognises those points, because we have had the chance to discuss them.
  I believe that those problems need careful consideration. That is why I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that we should look more deeply at the use of video recordings for the evidence not just of children but of others who are witnesses in trials—rape victims, the disabled and those who suffer in a number of different ways from a number of disadvantages. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has invited, and his invitation has been accepted by, the Common Serjeant in the City of London, Judge Thomas Pigot, who is a most experienced Crown court judge, to inquire into these issues. He will be assisted by representatives of the police force and the social work world and by a barrister. The inquiry will look as quickly as possible at the evidential difficulties of using video recordings and will report back to my right hon Friend as soon as possible.
  I hope that that move will meet the general approval of many hon. Members. I hope, too, that with that undertaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will feel inclined to withdraw his new clause.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am naturally disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister has not been able to accept my new clause, although I am not surprised. He has been fair and generous. The Pigot inquiry, which he has just announced, will, in all the circumstances, be able to examine this matter. I hope that it will do so quickly. I am delighted that it will have, as one of its assessors, an experienced police officer. I hope, too, that my hon. Friend will accept some suggestions along the lines of the new clause. Equally, it must be right that he includes within that commission someone from the caring services and an experienced barrister.
  I hope that I heard my hon. Friend clearly, and that the inquiry will examine not just the difficulties of using video recordings, but the possibilities and the opportunities. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary here. On the understanding that he wants to see this matter progress speedily, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

  POWER TO SEARCH
  `(1) A police constable may search any person whom he suspects of possessing a prohibited or offensive weapon, if that officer fears that the use of such a weapon will endanger his personal safety or that of any other person;
  (2) If a search conducted under subsection (1) of this section leads to the discovery of a prohibited or offensive weapon concealed on the person of the suspect, a Constable may arrest that suspected person without a warrant.'.— [Sir Eldon Griffiths.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I hope that I can be equally brief on this. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he was proposing a radical change in the law on the
  880
  carrying of knives, and that the danger was overwhelmingly the concealed carrying of such weapons. There is no doubt that many crimes are committed with the aid of knives—muggings, assaults, rapes and so on. Therefore, the Government are quite right to tackle that problem as they have. However, they leave the police service with one difficulty, which is that unless one can search for a concealed knife, it is difficult to bring into play the powers that the Bill will now provide, including the reversing of the burden of proof.
  I make it clear that neither I nor the Police Federation have any wish to return to sus. That is not my objective. However, I wish to raise with the Government the narrower point of the code of guidance that is set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is too restrictive and makes for some difficulties. It says that a reasonable suspicion is needed to justify a search and it must be founded on fact. There must be some concrete basis for the officer's belief, related to the individual concerned, which can be considered and evaluated by an objective third person. The difficulty is that in many cases it is a one-to-one situation and it is extremely difficult for a police officer, faced with someone whom he suspects may be carrying a concealed knife, to establish the degree of fact that will justify the search on reasonable suspicion.
  My design in moving the new clause is not to take us back in time. It is simply to ask the Government whether they will examine the code of practice, and if they find that the police case—that it is not working satisfactorily—is a good one, they will take steps to revise it.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: When I first looked at the new clause, I was inclined to look for a motive behind it. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has made it clear that his intention is not to increase the powers of the police, although he referred to the restrictions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members will emphatically reject the new clause, because it is inevitably bound to be regressive. In particular, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can believe what he has written here.
  The hon. Gentleman has a great reputation, and hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that during his time as parliamentary representative of the Police Federation he has carried out his duties in an energetic way. Sometimes we have been annoyed at the way in which he has done it, because he has been so persistent, but I cannot believe that he wants the House to introduce such legislation.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: To ease the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, I assure him that I have no intention of pressing this matter to a vote. I simply want to explore the statutory code of guidance in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and this is the only way to do it. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about asking his hon. Friends to repudiate what I am doing—I shall do so myself by withdrawing the new clause.
  Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to withdraw the new clause if he felt that he could not accept it. He did not say clearly that he could not accept the new clause. As he has said that he wants to use new clause 8 to debate the existing powers, it is worth hon. Members on both sides of the House talking about parts of the new clause, in particular subsection (1), which says:

  881
  "A police constable may search any person whom he suspects".
  That could be construed as a return to sus. We would then be returning to 1824 and the passing of the Vagrancy Act.
  Mr. Bermingham: As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has said that in view of my hon. Friend's powerful oratory he will withdraw the new clause, would it not be better if he did so as soon as possible?
  Mr. Randall: That is a matter for the business managers. Like the horse in "Animal Farm", I plod away and do the job that is needed of me.
  6.30 pm
  Under the terms of the 1824 Act, sus was an offence. The scope of that Act was extraordinary. I refer the House to page 103 of the report of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, dated 13 March 1980. The relevant passage reads:
  Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, includes an offence (known colloquially as 'sus') which prohibits 'every suspected person or reputed thief from … frequenting or loitering about in any river, canal or navigable stream, dock or basin, or any quay, wharf or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street or highway, or any place adjacent to a street or a highway, with intent to commit an arrestable offence."
  The Act was intrusive. It impinged very much upon the liberty of the citizen. Until section 4 of the Act was repealed in 1981, police forces in various parts of the country used the sus offence. The consequences were serious.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs repudiated sus in 1980 and stated that it had been bad for race relations. I think that we were all pleased with the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which repealed the sus provisions. The strength of feeling of the members of that Committee was profound. The Committee stated that if the Government failed to produce the required legislation, it would promote it.
  I am a strong supporter of the police force. I believe that it is fundamental to our democracy. The throwing of grenades—metaphorically—at the police is to be deplored. I accept, however, that the police are not perfect. Members of the police force are a cross-section of the community, as we are in this place. My main concern—it was shared by many others—was that imperfect people were free to exercise wide-ranging provisions.
  There was a feeling that some police officers abused the law. There are many blacks and Asian people in our inner cities, and strong feelings were aroused in them because of the abuses that took place. There were "fishing expeditions". Those were bad at times. The police had a power that led to much damage being committed, especially in our inner cities and areas of deprivation generally. We heard stories of police officers entering Indian restaurants, placing people against the wall and telling them to put up their hands. There were horrific stories and, irrespective of whether they were true, strong feelings were aroused within the community. All that was detrimental to race and community relations.
  We believe that stop-and-search powers should be exerciseable only if there is reasonable suspicion. The powers of stop and search were defined in section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Subsection (3) states:
  882
  "This section does not give a constable power to search a person or vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles."
  The definition of those articles includes offensive weapons, and subsection (9) defines offensive weapons.
  The second part of the new clause refers to the discovery of knives as a result of a search. We arc all for finding and dealing with those who carry knives and other offensive weapons. That does not need to be said, because it is obvious. We all want the provisions in our legislation that allow that to happen to be as effective as possible. We are concerned, however, about increasing the powers of the police where there is merely a suspicion. The concept that that is a ground for taking action is anathema to the notion of liberty. We are entirely opposed to it.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has been assiduous in his service to the Police Federation, and we respect him for that. I have read that when the Royal Commission met before the new legislation was introduced it was aware that the police had asked for the retention of the sus powers. The House decided in its wisdom that it would have the section 1 powers of the 1984 Act, which introduced reasonable suspicion rather than giving the police wide powers that would enable them to proceed merely on suspecting someone.
  The new clause should be taken seriously. I see it as a desperate measure. We have the highest crime figures in Britain's history and we have a Government whose crime policy is failing miserably. If we consider all classes of crime, it is clear that crime generally is on the increase. There have been massive increases in crime rates in certain categories and I suggest that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is clutching at straws. He knows that the Government's crime policy is in a mess. A serious manifestation of that is the football hooligans and their awful activities in Frankfurt, Stuttgart and other German cities. The Government's policies have led to a society that lacks decency. Consequently, we have a selfish and greedy society. Nasty things are coming home to roost. When contemplation is given to this sort of new clause at a time when crime figures are so serious, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws.
  Mr. David Sumberg: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the paradox that, when unemployment was rising, the Labour party blamed it on Government policies, but now that unemployment is declining and the Government's policies are working he is blaming wealth creation?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The new clause concerns powers of search. I ask hon. Members to stay with that.
  Mr. Randall: The powers of stop and search, known as sus, were used in inner cities, or what I prefer to refer to as areas of deprivation. There is a strong correlation between crime and deprivation. When those powers were available, people were discriminated against. Blacks and Asians, who are already deprived by income, by unemployment, by inadequate housing and by inadequate hospital services, were the victims of stop and search. They would be affected again if new clause 8 were agreed to. It is important to put that on the record.
  As the Select Committee report said, those people do not have equal rights before the law. They do not have

  883
  equal representation in court, they do not enjoy the same legal aid as others and they tend to be given custodial sentences.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds understands the police force well. Knowing what sort of man he is, I cannot believe that he would want to damage community relations, and it is therefore inconceivable that the new clause will be agreed to. I shall therefore not present any more arguments against it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) focused on the code, so I shall concentrate exclusively on it. He articulated his concern that the code as drafted contains too strict a definition and interpretation of the concept of reasonable suspicion. In that, he reflects the anxiety of the police service.
  I understand the force of my hon. Friend's arguments —that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has commissioned a review of the code. We hope to have comments in by the end of October, which will enable us to decide whether we should redraft the code to give a different interpretation of the concept of reasonable suspicion. The points made by my hon. Friend and by the police service will be kept fully in mind during the review. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he moved the new clause.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

  EXEMPTION FROM JURY SERVICE
  `At the end of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 there shall be added "those who object on grounds of religious belief to serving on juries.".' — [Mr. Peter Archer.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This is a proposal which I believe transcends party differences and I should like to acknowledge the indications of support that I have received from parliamentary colleagues in all parts of the House.
  I should like also to acknowledge the vigilance of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). As originally set down, the new clause referred to the Juries Act 1984. That error escaped everyone but the hon. Gentleman. The draft was taken, as I had fully intended, from the Official Report of our proceedings in Committee. Although we debated the Juries Act 1974, it was transcribed as the Juries Act 1984 in the Official Report. I say that only by way of explanation. I fully understand the Official Report's difficulties. Indeed, because we so rarely find a mistake we come to rely on it uncritically.
  I should like to seize this opportunity to correct one other misconception. Dr. Bryan Wilson of All Souls—who I understand is the distinguished constituent of the Minister—to whom we are all indebted for having drawn attention to this problem in the first instance, also pointed out to me that, following the Official Report of our debate
  884
  in Committee at column 881 on what was then new clause 65, there is a reference, in column 893, to new schedule 65, which is reported as having been added to the Bill. I understand that this has led to some genuine misconceptions. I should like to place it on record, lest anyone be misled, that, unhappily, as I believe, nothing was added to the Bill relating to this matter. It was left that the Minister would investigate some of the examples that had been given and that he would write to me. That is an undertaking which he very properly observed.
  I believe that most hon. Members take the view that, in return for the privilege of living in a democratic society, citizens should be prepared to undertake their share of the burdens entailed in its working. I would not wish to question that principle, but it sometimes happens that a good conscientious citizen says, "Although I am normally prepared to shoulder my share of the burdens, this one is not one in which I can conscientiously participate." It may be an obligation to undertake military service or an obligation to return a census form. There may be other obligations about which that could be said.
  I believe that, at that stage, every tolerant society says not, "We must automatically respect this objection," but, "We must balance the equation—we must balance the consequences, if the objection is allowed, against the respect we would normally accord to an individual conscience." There may be circumstances in which to allow an objection would tempt large numbers of other citizens to take a similar objection and, in what I think is the common terminology, open the flood gates. If someone had a conscientious objection to paying his income tax, I would not recommend that we give effect to that objection. But that will not happen in this case. Vast numbers of people will not rush off to become Exclusive Brethren to avoid jury service. I am always impressed by the readiness of members of the public to drop all their other concerns and apply themselves with great concentration to assisting the administration of justice.
  On the other side of the equation, there is the respect that our country has traditionally accorded to those with conscientious scruples, especially those who do not usually seek to avoid their obligations as citizens and are good and conscientious members of the community. The brethren objection is to sitting in judgment as a member of a jury, because that is the interpretation that they accord to certain scriptural texts. I do not share their conclusions, but I respect them and am totally persuaded of the sincerity with which they hold those views. Of course, in any particular case it may be an issue whether someone summoned for jury service really holds such views or is merely seeking an excuse to avoid his obligations.
  The House will have noticed that this new clause is narrowly drafted. It does not seek to provide an excusal as of right for anyone who objects on the ground of conscience; it is an excusal for those who object on religious grounds. An excusal on grounds of conscience might present a court with a difficult issue to resolve. But the new clause should not provide any difficulties. Usually all that would be required would be a letter from a local pastor saying, "Mr. X is a member of my congregation and attends my church regularly. He plays a full part in our activities. I am satisfied that he genuinely believes our teachings. What our church teaches on this issue is …" Usually, nothing more would be required. If it were, I have no doubt that the pastor would attend court and expound

  885
  on that and answer any questions. Excusal as of right would not, in principle, provide any difficulties for the administration.
  There is also a good, pragmatic reason for allowing an objection as of right. The brethren's objection is to sitting in judgment with others. So if one of them applies to be exempted and that application is refused and he has to serve on the jury, he will stand aside from the discussions in the jury room. He will write down his individual verdict and request the foreman or the usher to deliver it to the judge. Not surprisingly, that would place the judge in a difficult position because he is not allowed to receive an individual verdict. That cannot be a way of effecting justice. Most judges would prefer not to have a reluctant juror. It is better for everyone to have 12 jurors, participating willingly. Where, in addition, one juror is not willing to discuss the case with the other jurors, that does not effect justice.
  Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 lists certain categories of people exempted as of right. Section 9 provides that, in certain circumstances, the appropriate officer has a discretionary power to exempt from jury service someone not exempt as of right. If that officer does not grant the exemption, there is a right of appeal to the judge.
  It is not the first time that there have been proposals to add those with religious objections to the category of those exempted as of right. In 1965, Lord Morris's committee on jury service considered the proposal that those with religious scruples should be added to that category. It concluded that that was not necessary and, in para 153 of its report, said:
  "We recognise that there are people whose religious scruples would make it genuinely distressing for them to serve on a jury but we cannot think that excusal as of right would be an appropriate way of dealing with this problem. In our view such persons should apply for excusal in the normal way, and we have no doubt that summoning officers and courts will deal with the applications sympathetically."
  The committee was right: it would have been better to deal with them in that way. Over the years, tolerance, sympathy and common sense have worked well and there has been no need to discuss amendments to legislation. However, recently in a few specific courts a number of members of the Exclusive Brethren have applied for exemption and been refused. It is a problem that has arisen only——
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am aware of the Coventry cases where judges have said no. Bearing in mind that the judges have a discretion and that, in some cases, that discretion has worked in favour of the Exclusive Brethren and the Plymouth Brethren and so on, does he feel that this problem should be dealt with not by legislation but by the Lord Chancellor sending a circular to all circuit judges and recorders alerting them to the problem and making them aware of the strong, heartfelt feelings of the Exclusive Brethren?
  Mr. Archer: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I would have agreed with him had it not been for the fact that that has already been tried. In a moment I shall try to explain what has gone wrong. The problem has arisen in only a few courts—although more than just one—and it has given rise to a great deal of distress and, I suspect, to some real anxiety among those on trial about whether justice really has been achieved. Their problem is that they do not know what happened in the jury room, so they do not know whether they received justice.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as the deliberations in the jury room are for ever silent and secret, if one of the Exclusive Brethren opts out any contribution that he may have made is withdrawn from the general discussion of the jury? There will always be a question mark in the minds of both the defendant and, in the case of acquittal, the Crown that had there been a 12-man rather than an 11 or 10-man jury the verdict might have gone the other way.
  Mr. Archer: I agree with my hon. Friend and would not seek to improve on the way that he put it. We do not know whether it has affected the outcome in any particular case. But we know that if the proper procedures are not followed someone will be left unhappy.
  As usual, one problem left unresolved leads to others. Some people have applied for exemption and been rejected—somewhat peremptorily, I am told—by a judge without what they would regard as a proper hearing. They then asked to appear by counsel to put their case and explain their reasons, but that was also rejected. I understand that consideration is now being given to an application for judicial review of that decision. If nothing is done, this will grow into a major issue and everybody will make a meal of it, and that is not what the brethren want.
  The Minister said in Committee that the Lord Chancellor's Department had written to the court service asking it to
  "place on record the specific concerns of the Exclusive Brethren and the Plymouth Brethren, to draw them to the attention of the judiciary and to remind the courts of the relevant laws and procedures." — [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 29 March 1988; c.885.]
  7 pm
  I have not seen the circular and I would not ask for it, but I wonder whether it made itself understood. I am told that recently a member of the Exclusive Brethren telephoned the office at Acton which deals with the selection and summoning of jurors in London and was told that the Lord Chancellor's Department had said that applicants should not be excused jury service on grounds of their religious belief. When he telephoned the Lord Chancellor's Department and expressed surprise, he was told that no such guidance had been given. Whether he misunderstood what was said to him by the Acton office or whether the Lord Chancellor's circular, in attempting to help, had merely created confusion is a matter on which I, at least, can shed no light. Perhaps the Minister can. I would have agreed with the hon. Member for Yorkshire, South—
  Mr. Hind: Lancashire, West.
  Mr. Archer: Geography was never my strongest subject.
  I would have agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the circular should be tried if it had not already created confusion. In Committee, the Minister very fairly said that he would investigate some of the cases and write to me. He did so, and I understand that the problem is that, as no record is kept when an application is made for exclusion from jury service, it cannot be investigated. Perhaps one day such records will be kept: to do so surely would not impose an inordinate burden on the courts.
  I do not propose to elaborate on the matter at great length. In my view, the case makes itself. If we are all agreed that a genuine religious conviction should be

  887
  respected, that a reluctant juror who will not discuss the case with the rest of the jury is not conducive to effecting justice, that deciding who has a legitimate claim would entail the simplest and briefest of investigations and that this would not open the floodgates to a host of applications for exemption by newly enrolled Exclusive Brethren, what is the objection? If there is no objection, why should we not remove all the difficulties and prevent the escalation of problems by writing the new clause into the Bill?
  Mr. William Cash: My constituency contains a number of Exclusive Brethren, but the issue is not confined to them. It concerns a point of principle, and goes back to a practice direction made in 1973 by Lord Widgery, then Lord Chief Justice. He said that a juror may be excused
  "at the discretion of the judge on grounds of personal hardship or conscientious objection to jury service."
  He went on to say:
  "It is contrary to established practice for jurors to be excused on more general grounds such as race, religion or political beliefs or occupation."
  Since then the Juries Act 1974 has become law. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) stated in his cogent speech, section 9 prescribes that
  "If any person summoned under this Act shows to the satisfaction of the appropriate officer that there is good reason why he should be excused from attending … the appropriate officer may excuse him from so attending and shall do so"
  if the person falls within the various categories specified in schedule 1. Schedule 1 makes exemptions for, among others, vowed members of religous orders. There is a category specifically related to the clergy and to exemptions which appear to all intents and purposes to be made on religious grounds. If the practice direction has been overtaken by a discretion conferred by Parliament under the 1974 Act—which I believe could be argued—and the only basis for the obligation to exempt is contained in section 9 and the schedule that includes religious exemption, the words "good reason" must include a basis not exclusively related to the practice direction.
  Surely, in all conscience, it is reasonable for us to make provision in the Bill to ensure that we do not get into the tangle of difficulties mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. There is inconsistency, on the evidence that I have seen, in the way in which the matter is being handled by different courts. There is a good case in principle for excluding those with genuine religious convictions. It will not lead to a rash of applications. It would be sensible to bring the Juries Act 1974 up to date with what I regard as reasonable and proper practice, in the interests not only of the Exclusive Brethren but of others who hold similar convictions. That would also deal with what I fear could also be difficulty in the case of majority verdicts under section 17 of the 1974 Act. If people were effectively exempting themselves from participating in a majority verdict, it would be a very difficult problem for the courts.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend is legally qualified and I am not. Can he tell me what happens under the existing law if someone who believes that he ought not to serve as a juror turns up but refuses to take the jurors' oath or affirmation?
  Mr. Cash: That is governed by a subsequent section in the Juries Act which deals with the various offences of failure to comply with a summons. Section 20(4) provides:
  "A person shall not be liable to be punished under the preceding provisions of this section if he can show some reasonable cause for his failure to comply with the summons".
  Although he may have technically committed the offence, such a person may be able to excuse himself on the basis of "reasonable cause". We return again and again to the question: what is "reasonable cause" or "good reason"?
  We should clarify the matter by passing the new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give reasonable consideration to the arguments which I have advanced and which, no doubt, others will put forward.
  Mr. Bermingham: A long time ago there was talk in the land that anyone who was a conscientious objector went to prison. That was during the first world war. Then suddenly people began to think about the issue, and began to have some sense. People such as the Quakers, for whom I have infinite respect, served in the second world war not as soldiersߞbecause they were conscientious objectors—but as ambulance men for the field hospital in which my father served. After the war he said that they were the bravest men that he had ever known. When people have a conscientious objection to something, it is because of a profoundly held belief. The Exclusive Brethren have a profoundly held belief that they should not serve in judgment on others.
  For once I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who showed us the dichotomy that arose between a practice direction and a section of a subsequent Act. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee unanimity of practice in this country, no matter how we try, as was rightly pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). What do we find—the events that took place in Coventry. We find that certain other judges take a robust view. I have had the misfortune to fall foul of such a robust view. We were told, "The man must serve," and serve he did. A disagreement arose and when the final note came after three or four hours' deliberationߞwe had the practice direction in two hours, 10 minutes—it was a majority verdict. We were told, "Nine of us are for, two of us are against, and one won't say because he objects to sitting in judgment." That was the man who had been forced to serve.
  What did we do? The defendant had to stand trial again; the jury was locked. Are we seeking to put people of conscience—whose conscience we respect—in such a position that they know that because they stand by their conscience they may affect the livelihood or way of life of another? Let us consider the case that I mentioned. That person had to stand trial again. The outcome on the first or second occasion matters not. The point is that more than one person suffered. The witnesses, the defendant, the state, and the man who stood by his conscience all suffered. Do we really want that to happen? The Lord Chancellor's Department sent out an advice but one cannot enforce an advice.
  What are we asking the House to do? The new clause seeks to turn back the clock to Lord Widgery's direction, which said that if a matter of conscience is involved a juror should not serve. A provision later in the Bill removes the right of peremptory challenge; it is a provision with which I violently disagree. We shall leave the right to challenge for cause. As a practising lawyer, I know what I shall do.

  889
  Every time someone says, "I'm from the Exclusive Brethren" I shall challenge for cause for all the reasons given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West. [Interruption.] It is all right for the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), whom we nearly exported to Yorkshire, to say that that is his right, but do we really want to start building up challenges for cause in which we test a person's religious belief to justify the challenge?
  Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has illustrated the point that I wanted to make. He has shown the farcical nature of challenge for cause. We have been told that there is no need to have peremptory challenge because one can challenge for cause, but if one challenges for cause in Coventry, will that be held to be a good challenge for cause by the judge who insisted that those people should sit on a jury?
  Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid and strong point with which I entirely agree. I sought to argue that, if the matter is left to the lottery of the individual choice of judges, whether it be on challenge for cause or under the Juries Act 1974, we shall get different results. We shall get a different outcome in Coventry from that in Snaresbrook or elsewhere.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman knows my view on peremptory challenge. Is it not clear that we shall build up a body of law on challenge for cause that will inevitably be tested by the Court of Appeal time and again? We shall extend the time that cases will take to try as a result.
  Mr. Bermingham: I have just realised why I did not export the hon. Gentleman to Yorkshire: I agree with what he has just said. He has made a valid point showing the shortsightedness of the Bill in removing the right of peremptory challenge and leaving only challenge for cause. He is right in saying that if we are not careful we shall go down the American road; it takes four of five days to empanel a jury in America. The Minister may tell me that I am seeing mountains where there are none. If he opposes the new clause, I shall merely tell him that he has given me my first 20 or 30 challenges for cause. I shall challenge for cause on the ground that a person has a right not to serve as a matter of conscience.
  I shall seek to detain the House no longer. I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices crying from both sides of the House, and in particular to the voice of justice, which cries that the jury must be free in its deliberations and that no one in the jury room must be reluctant, whether for religious or other reasons. If a juror is reluctant, he will not play the full part that is so necessary in trial by jury and to the future of the person on trial. In conscience, I ask the Minister to use his conscience and to support the new clause.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Lawrence: If the Government do not like the new clause, they have only themselves to blame. Many of us, especially those who are lawyers, warned the Government that if they abolished peremptory challenge something like this was bound to happen. At present following the practice direction, the judge, in his discretion, may excuse the Exclusive Brethren or anyone for reasons of conscience from serving on the jury. If he fails to do so, it is never in
  890
  the interests of counsel—either prosecution or defence—to allow to serve on the jury someone who clearly does not want to serve and who has no interest in contributing to justice. Under the rule of peremptory challenge, the Exclusive Brethren, the Plymouth Brethren or the conscientious objector is nearly always challenged. That is one of the safety valves provided by peremptory challenge. Now that that is being abolished, the Exclusive Brethren and those who are concerned about conscientious objection are rightly worried.
  We now have to choose between the complicated procedure of challenging for cause, which no one would welcome, and the new clause, which will give those under the pressure of conscientious objection the right to say, "No; I do not want to serve on the jury." Conscientious objection is a traditional privilege that the citizen of Britain has always been able to enjoy in a whole range of activities. It is a mark of a free society and we should not forbid it.
  Although I should not have supported this change in any other circumstances, because I should have thought it entirely unnecessary, the stubborn determination of the Government to carry on with the proposal to abolish peremptory challenge leaves me no alternative but to support the new clause to ensure justice and protect the tradition of exclusion for conscientious objectors.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I do not intend to detain the House unduly because from the speeches made thus far it is fairly clear that there is a general welcome for the new clause. It is right that I should place on record, as other hon. Members have, the fact that in normal circumstances it is the duty of the citizen to submit himself to jury service. It is part of the price that we pay for living in a democracy, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said.
  In my experience of working in the legal profession, it never failed to surprise me how readily people submit themselves for jury service. Some are prepared to wait for days on end before being called. When they are called to serve, they do so willingly, and regard it as part of life in a free society. We all subscribe to that view.
  I confess that I was extremely worried when I read of the reports that have been referred to. In some courts in England, members of the Exclusive Brethren were denied the right not to serve on juries on religious grounds. That was a step back from the position that pertained many years ago. As we have heard, it is only recently that difficulties have arisen about not serving on juries on religious grounds. Most hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the matter have received copies of the arguments that were used by the Exclusive Brethren and the Plymouth Brethren in seeking to be excused, and the arguments used by the courts to deny them that right. That disturbed me. In the past, courts allowed exclusion for that reason, but, suddenly, a spate of applications were refused and so I came to the view that the system was breaking down.
  It has already been mentioned that the right to peremptory challenge is to be withdrawn when the Bill becomes law. Then this clause will be the only way in which people can be excused on religious grounds. Essentially, it is a matter of principle—a right that people with conscientious objections should be able to exercise.
  I come from a Welsh tradition of nonconformity. Over generations and centuries people fought hard to achieve

  891
  religious freedoms and rights. It is right that hon. Members continue to uphold such principles. When we consider that such rights are being denied, we should uphold them.
  As I stated, the arguments have been well rehearsed. In view of the clear support for this small but important measure, I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
  Sir George Young: As a non-lawyer, I intervene briefly to speak against the new clause. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) in the Chamber. The parallel with conscientious objection against war was not convincing. Those who objected were against war in principle. In this case, those who seek exemption are not against justice. It was not a direct parallel.
  We must determine whether there is a good case for exempting from jury service people who are able, intelligent and conscientious and examine the problems that we face nowadays in getting good juries. We saw recent cases of intimidation of jurors in Birmingham. There is growing evidence that many cases are becoming complex. We must now think carefully before introducing a blanket exemption on religious grounds.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) spoke about the brethren. Of course, the new clause does not mention the brethren at all—it mentions religious belief. Quite frankly, the sort of cross-examination that the hon. Gentleman envisaged taking place before a jury is sworn fills me with apprehension about clogging up the system of justice. He envisaged a vicar being cross-examined on whether someone was a church attender or a church member. To go through that sort of rigmarole when one is trying to swear in a jury will slow down rather than accelerate the jury process.
  Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to deploy his argument, but he is not entitled to attribute to me things that I did not say. I certainly did not paint a picture of a long cross-examination of a pastor or minister of religion about whether someone attended his church. How long could cross-examination on that point conceivably last?
  Sir George Young: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was sure that the pastor would give evidence. We shall find out from Hansard whether he said that. A pastor could give evidence about the religious beliefs of an individual who had been called to jury service. That would slow down the process of jury service. I do not share the view that no one would abuse the exemption. I can think of many people who would like an excuse not to serve on a jury. As the new clause is drafted, it would be perfectly possible for anybody to claim, "I have a religious belief that protects me against jury service. I wish to be exempt." I do not accept that that is a sensible way to make progress.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: I shall not give way. My remarks will be brief.
  Each time a parliamentary problem arises, I am, like other hon. Members, lobbied by the brethren. On previous
  892
  occasions, I was swayed by the force of their argument. In 1979, I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) in the case that he deployed against rating. On the occasion when I was visited at my advice bureau, I was struck by the fragility of the argument, and I said so to those who came to see me, and explained that I would speak against it. I did not like their phrase "yoked to unbelievers". There is a risk of enshrining in statute a questionable approach to one's fellow citizens. When one is swearing in a jury, the basic question is whether they are able people who would perform their task. Like the rest of us, the brethren benefit from the imprisonment of criminals and the protection of society that our judicial system offers. I was not persuaded that being yoked to unbelievers was a sufficient cause for exemption.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in principle, there is little between what he just objected to and, for example, pacifists? They may take a similar line because they regard an issue of principle in the same way.
  Sir George Young: I tried to deal with that matter in a sentence at the beginning of my speech. Those who seek protection behind the new clause are in favour of justice and the judicial process, and they want criminals to be put in prison. Those who objected to war were against war. That is why I do not accept that there is a direct parallel with conscientious objection.
  Some obligations of citizenship are indivisible. Tax paying is one and sitting on a jury is another. I should be gravely disturbed if the Government are minded to accept new clause 16.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I have been subject to a great deal of canvassing on this subject. To use a word that has already been mentioned, some of it has been rather robust, to the point at which it almost persuaded me to be less than sympathetic to the proposal. I am convinced by the strength of the belief of those who have sought to enlist my support that this is a measure that, in turn, I should support.
  I was interested in a phrase used by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). He took exception to the expression, "yoked to unbelievers." I do not share all the beliefs of the Exclusive Brethren. If this were an argument about doctrine, I could think of several points that I would like robustly to put to them. But I do not for a moment want to detract from their right to believe as they do. This is a matter of conscience. If their consciences drive them in a certain direction, it is not my right to seek to alter that or to drive them in another direction. The truth is that the issue is inextricably linked to the right of peremptory challenge. It is proposed that that should be abolished, although, happily, north of the Tweed it still exists.
  My experience of peremptory challenge has always been that when one arrives in court the court officer or usher has inevitably, by the intelligence system that operates on these occasions, found out who might wish to be excused and for what reason. Therefore, the peremptory challenge is frequently an informed one, based on the knowledge that there is a person who has a substantial objection to service.
  If the proposal is enacted there may be a slowing up in the administration of justice to the extent that the depth of

  893
  a person's religious belief will have to be examined. However, I cannot help thinking that a recognised form will soon be achieved which will satisfy the judges.
  7.30 pm
  What if the administration of justice is slowed up? Is that not a legitimate price to pay if, as a consequence, one is ensuring that a person who has a conscience against serving on a jury is entitled not to do so? To have people serving on juries whose conscience so divides them from those with whom they must serve and makes their contribution to the work of the jury impossible cannot strengthen the jury system or the system of justice.
  The proposal is right in principle, and, if enacted, it will avoid the evils of practice which might otherwise arise. For those reasons, it should commend itself to the whole House.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: First, I hope that the Government will accept this new clause, which I have signed, or make some positive move in that direction. We all accept that it is not the job of Parliament or the Government to make provision for people's strange views. I do not like wearing seat belts, and we all object in particular to things of that sort. But it would be wrong to consider this matter in that regard. There is no doubt that we are dealing with a deeply held religious belief, of which all hon. Members who have spoken to the brethren and who have observed their rites in our communities must be aware.
  Secondly, the Government must be aware that the present circumstances in some instances cause great offence and distress to those involved.
  Thirdly, we must bear in mind that in this case we are dealing not with an anti-social group of people who cause social problems, but with a group who lead good lives as good citizens whom we would not wish to condemn in any way.
  Finally, I hope that the Government will think about the problem in so far as it affects the courts. How does it help the judicial process to have reluctant jurors? Will it not simply be a prescription for injustice to the defendant? It seems unreasonable that the Government cannot make some move in this direction.
  I am sorry that the excellent amendment No. 2, which I and some hon. Friends tabled, is not being debated with this new clause. It calls upon the Government to give guidance in statute to the courts to exercise their discretion so that religious beliefs and deeply held convictions are taken into account. That would be not an instruction to judges, but some sort of guidance on how they should exercise their discretion.
  I hope that the Government will appreciate that we are dealing with a matter that is important to the administration of justice and the respect that the House should have for the deeply held religious views of a group within our community.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: Two matters are of particular interest in this debate. The first is the inordinate number of lawyers on both sides of the House who seem to turn out for an interesting legal point. The second is that this is one of the few occasions on which we can all truly say that we have no self-interest whatever in the matter under discussion.
  894
  Members of the sects to whom we are referring not only do not wish to serve on juries, but do not vote, join political parties or take part in many aspects of collective decision making. Surely that is their right.
  It is not a question of whether we resent some group being allowed to wriggle out of jury service. We are considering two different questions. First, are the interests of justice served by forcing a member of a sect to serve on a jury? If a person by definition will not play his or her proper part in arriving at a collective decision with other jurors, is it in the interests of justice or of the defendant? It is not.
  Secondly, does the present rule cover the matter adequately? The Government will no doubt argue that it does. From the many cases cited tonight, the answer, again, must be no. It allows the awkward or robust judge, if we are to use those various euphemisms, through his discretion, to circumvent the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Therefore, we should consider the new clause as a reasonable means of ensuring that people with strong religious beliefs and conscientious objections against serving on a jury are not forced to do so.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Those of my constituents who are members of the Exclusive Brethren have made the point to me that they are obliged to rely on the provisions of section 9 of the Juries Act 1974 to be excused from jury service. As the House has heard from several hon. Members, it is clear that that discretion does not operate uniformly. Often those who object on conscientious grounds are excused without difficulty, but on several occasions, which have been reported to all hon. Members interested in this matter, one judge or another has clearly not felt able to excuse a person who has been summoned for jury service.
  I was interested to read the report of Lord Morris's committee which considered this matter in 1965. The committee decided that it was better to deal with the question of being excused from jury service on a common sense basis rather than by statutory exemption. In his report, Lord Morris said:
  "we have no doubt that summoning officers and courts will deal with their applications sympathetically."
  Unfortunately, that does not always happen. Clearly that causes distress to members of the Plymouth and Exclusive Brethren, and they have asked me and others to support this new clause.
  In reply to my constituents, I quoted the words of my hon. Friend the Minister who is in charge of the Bill. In Committee, he said:
  "We must not open loopholes through which others can drive a coach and horses. In the end it is a matter of judgment."
  We know that this is a matter of judgment, but it does not seem to be working as we might hope. My hon. Friend went on to say that between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department there was unanimity of view, and
  "that the Lord Chancellor's Department should write to the court service in December 1987 to place on record the specific concerns of the Exclusive Brethren and the Plymouth Brethren, to draw them to the attention of the judiciary and to remind the courts of the relevant laws and procedures." —[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 29 March 1988; c. 883–85.]
  Was that letter sent by the Lord Chancellor's Department in December 1987, and is the Minister satisfied that it has worked as intended and is working

  895
  uniformly? The House has a choice to pass this new clause or to continue to rely on the discretionary procedure. That is the crux of the matter.
  To help me to make up my mind whether to support the new clause, I ask my hon. Friend to tell me whether the provisions of schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974, especially the part which refers to people being excused on grounds of conscience, still operates. It says that a person shall be excused if he is
  "a vowed member of any religious order living in a monastery, convent or other religious community."
  Do the Exclusive Brethren who live in the religious community in my constituency qualify for exemption under that schedule? What is the definition of a religious community? I suspect that we are getting near to an agreement that people who are vowed members of a religious community, whether it be residential or non-residential, should be exempt from jury service.
  If my hon. Friend cannot accept the new clause, will he ask the Lord Chancellor to issue further guidance, requests or instructions to the judiciary to have regard to the genuinely held religious scruples that have been demonstrated by the Exclusive Brethren so as to achieve the uniformity of practice that so many hon. Members have made clear is greatly to be desired?
  Mr. Worthington: I have listened with great interest to hon. Members who have much experience in the courts. One might have thought that the objection to the new clause would be the difficulty in obtaining good juries and the fact that a coach and horses can be driven through the present exemptions, or the floodgates can be opened, or whatever image one wishes to use. But apparently that argument is not being used. The system seems to work reasonably well, although I believe that there are exemptions for holidays, which would be much more prone to having a coach and horses driven through them. It is difficult to accept that the new clause would cause major problems to the courts. The Minister will have to find stronger grounds than that.
  It will not be difficult for the courts to establish the strength of a claim to conscientious objection on the ground of religious belief. Some time ago a Member of the House was named because he objected to the presence of others at Prayers. It would be difficult for some us to make a similar claim to a long pattern of religious belief as the ground upon which one should be excluded. It is difficult to pretend that one has been a member of a faith for a long time.
  We have heard what was said by the judge who saw the brethren who were claiming exemption. He said:
  "I have your letter. I notice you refer to the scriptures. Have you considered the gospels where it says 'Render to Caesar what is Caesar's'? Have you got anything to say?"
  The reply was, "I respect the court." The judge then left. It is difficult to accept that as a mature consideration of the case. The judge also said:
  "If we went by this, I would be out of a job. You are a British citizen with privileges like voting; you therefore need to be included also in services. You will have to serve."
  When one member of the Plymouth Brethren referred to the scriptural background, the judge said:
  "No, that's enough. There are other scriptures in the New Testament which refer to Pharisees. I suggest that you have a
  896
  look at those as well. Your reasons are not sufficient. You will have to decide when it comes to the day whether to attend or pay the penalty."
  The worst example was the clerk of the court saying:
  "The judge has no time for conscientious objection."
  Those actions by judges do far more to weaken the English legal system than anything that we may do today by allowing conscientious objection. That is why I hope that the House will support the new clause.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Like many hon. Members, I became involved in this matter because members of the brethren came to see me. Having read all that they gave me, I have come to the conclusion that new clause 16 is fundamentally wrong. First, it is wrong in principle. Secondly, even if the House finds the principle acceptable, the wording is wrong.
  The principle at stake is that of being able to opt out of jury service on the grounds of religious belief. What justification have we been offered? The letter from the brethren to the Minister of State dated 15 April this year states that their conscience is governed
  "by conviction based on the holy scriptures".
  The first belief is that it is wrong to judge, while the second is that it is wrong to sit with unbelievers. There are difficult implications for all of us in both beliefs. If we accept the point that it is wrong to judge, does that mean juries only, or judges, too? Either way, it undermines our concept of the rule of law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, the belief that it is wrong to sit with unbelievers postulates two classes of citizens: brethren and others. We enshrine that concept in the statute book at our peril.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend may recall that one of the most important British constitutional cases was that of Bradlaugh in the 19th century. That dealt with whether a Member of this House should be allowed to take his seat on the basis of his religious conviction that he would not swear an oath but would affirm. That case reverberated throughout the House for a long time and was decided in Bradlaugh's favour. My hon. Friend is dealing with an issue that goes to the centre of gravity of the constitution of the House and the country.
  Mr. Wilshire: Time is against me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Were it not, I would happily enter into a long debate about the significance of religious belief and how it is translated into freedom of action, which are two different concepts. For my purposes, I see the relevance in the judge saying:
  "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's."
  We are all citizens of the United Kindom. We receive things from it and it grants us rights and privileges. In return, we all have civic duties and responsibilities, one of which is jury service.
  There is a danger in trying to legislate via biblical quotations. I shall explain where it leads using a simple example. The Children of God are a fringe Christian sect who believe sincerely that the saying in the New Testament,
  "I will make you fishers of men,"
  means that their young women members should become prostitutes to recruit new members. Will that be entered as a defence against a charge of soliciting in the future?
  The wording of new clause 16 raises two problems. First, it does not define religious belief, and, secondly, it

  897
  provides no test of the genuineness of religious belief. The only definition to hand is that offered by the brethren in their letter to the Ministerߞthat it should be based upon holy scripture. Whose holy scripture is relevant? We are on a dangerous path.
  I have with me a book that looks exactly like the Bible. To the Children of God that book contains divinely inspired words. In that book, however, there are detailed instructions on how to be a prostitute and it advocates sex betwen children and adults.
  I believe that to try to establish the genuineness of religious belief is dangerous. Will it simply be enough to say, "I do not believe in jury service"? If so, that will provide everyone with a cop-out. I hope that new clause 16 will be rejected. Like it or not, we are all part of British society.
  Mr. Madden rose——
  Mr. Wilshire: I shall not give way, because time is against me.
  We all benefit from being part of that society and we owe it something in return. We fulfil our calling when we play our proper part in making it work.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hesitate to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) down some of the paths he was travelling. Some of his arguments would be extremely dangerous were they applied to other areas upon which we legislate.
  I wish to make a brief speech because hon. Members generally are in agreement and most of us would like to move to a vote. I want juries to consist of as wide a cross-section of the public as possible. I believe that that hope is common ground among most hon. Members. I believe that we would all agree that members of the public should not be excused from jury service lightly. That should occur only when there is good reason for it. There are two arguments that I should like to make to emphasise to the Minister the seriousness with which we consider this new clause.
  The first argument relates to the principle of religious belief. If people have a strongly held religious belief that precludes them from certain activities, even though they are desirable civic duties, we should respect their right to opt out. If the Exclusive Brethren find it offensive to sit on juries because it is against their religous principles, we should make provision for their exclusion from such service.
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne has misled the House. We do not have to accept people's religious beliefs to respect them. We now live in a multi-cultural, multi-religious country and it is dangerous to criticise other people's religious beliefs in the way that the hon. Member for Spelthorne has sought to do. We believe that one should respect religious beliefs even though one does not agree with them. We believe that the Exclusive Brethren have a strong case and we shall support the new clause that was moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
  The second important argument for the Minister to considerߞit was made in Committee and has been repeated todayߞis that a reluctant juror is not an asset to justice. The Minister acknowledged that in Committee, and if he plans to resist the new clause he must explain to the House how he can square that circle. It will not be in the interest of justice for reluctant jurors to sit on juries.
  898
  I hope that on those grounds and on the ground of respecting religious beliefs the Minister will accept the new clause.
  Mr. John Patten: I am sure that all of us would agree that we want to have the widest possible pool of jurors from whom to pick. The Bill widens the pool from which that selection takes place because it will make it possible for those between the ages of 65 and 70 who wish to serve on juries to do so. I believe that that has been widely welcomed.
  It is clear from this debate and the powerful speeches that we face a collision between principle and practice regarding the operation of jury selection—a collision between strongly held religious convictions, which I appreciate and agree are those that a free society should mark, and the demands of good citizenship. I am sure that all of us would recognise that we are on a collision course and that it is not an easy problem to solve. My hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and others have tried to deal with the problem in an extremely helpful way.
  Whatever scheme is introduced it is clear that, in the end, it is not a mechanistic test. It is not like sticking a piece of litmus paper into a solution to see what colour it turns. Someone must decide whether a person is a conscientious objector or whether he should serve in the armed forces. In Australia someone must decide whether someone has a proper reason not to vote. In this connection we must decide whether someone has a genuine, conscientiously held religious conviction that should persuade the summoning officer for the jury that that person, be he a Jehovah's Witness, a member of the Select Brethren or a member of the Roman Catholic, Jewish or Anglican faiths, should not serve on the jury. There is no easy way of doing that. A human being must decide whether another human being has such a conviction. There is no magic formula.
  The formula suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) does not save a human being from having to judge whether another human being has strongly held religious convictions and to decide whether that should exempt him from jury service. Such arguments exercised the Morris committee. I do not believe it is necessary for us to go over the findings of that committee and what it considered was and was not in the public interest.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that when dealing with the manner in which discretion is exercised the problem is that there are insufficient criteria to determine the question in one direction or another? That is what leads to inconsistency and, in the absence of peremptory challenge, it will lead to reluctant jurors. That will create chaos in our legal system.
  Mr. Patten: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am discussing the general principles at the moment rather than learned judges' practical applications of the rules and practice guidelines handed down. The points that my hon. Friend has raised are similar to those raised by my distinguished constitutent, Mr. Bryan Wilson, who is a fellow of All Souls. He is not a member of the Select Brethren or a Jehovah's Witness, but he has given a lot of the intellectual underpinning to the argument. Nothing sharpens up a Minister more than to have a prominent

  899
  constituent leading the campaign—especially if he keeps the cellar at All Souls. There are fearful sanctions that he could exercise against me should the vote go against me.
  Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that something could be taken from the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who cited Lord Widgery's practice direction to the judges on how to deal with cases where there was some true reason for the citizen not taking part in jury service? Perhaps that is the way to resolve this matter. The Lord Chancellor could make a direction for circulation to judges so that they could interpret section 9 of the Juries Act 1974.
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has made an extremely helpful suggestion; he has put his finger on it. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that we voted in favour of the new clause. That would not stop Jehovah's Witnesses or members of the Select Brethren or other religions arguing their cases to the jury summoning officer or the judge of appeal. The new clause would not get the summoning officer or the judge of appeal out of making the difficult decision on whether a person's conscientious objections were genuinely held.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend accept that, in addition to those who are excluded from jury service at the moment, there are those who are specifically permitted to seek to be excused from jury service? They simply tell the officer who requests their service the reason for that. All that we are seeking is a simple extension of the rule to a relatively small number of people. Is it not as simple as that?
  8 pm
  Mr. Patten: I do not think that my hon. Friend is quite right. It is perfectly simple. If one has a series of exemptions from the public duty of a citizen to serve on a jury which is based on a profession, such as being a Member of Parliament or a barrister, that class is easily identifiable. It is slightly different—I do not think that I am logic chopping—for someone to turn up and say that he is a member of Jehovahs' Witnesses, the Roman Catholic Church or the Jewish faith and to show something from his rabbi, bishop or pastor to attest that that is so. It may be easy in the case of those mainstream faiths, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is right in saying that many organisations call themselves religions and, under certain circumstances, from each of those organisations there could come arguments about strongly held religious convictions. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of that, but it would ill behove the House to dismiss it as if it were a problem that would never arise.
  Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are concerned only about these two sects and it would be obnoxious to spell them out in the legislation. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, would it not be possible for the summoning officer to have a letter from the pastor saying that the person belonged to that sect? If the summoning officer was not satisfied, all that he would have to do would be to refer the matter to the judge. Judges are highly paid. They are highly qualified to do just this—to judge. Why do we not let them judge? That is their job.
  Mr. Patten: It is exactly that process of judgment by judges that is being criticised. My hon. Friend is right in intimating that it would be obnoxious to enshrine in legislation the names of one, two, three or more faiths. The trouble is that if one does not do that, not next year, but the year after or the year after that, one could well find other people coming forward and using that as a perfectly legitimate excuse.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: I must answer the Uxbridge question.
  Mr. Archer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: I am just answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). As he said, those who are ineligible include ministers of religion and, in the words of the statute,
  "A vowed member of any religious order living in a monastery, convent or other religious community"
  —"living in" being the key words. Those people are in a slightly different category. They are ineligible for jury service on the ground that their vocation and position in the community are incompatible with jury service. The question before us is the slightly different one whether adherence to a particular religion but living in the community should be treated in the same way. That is where the line needs to be drawn.
  Since the Committee debate, I have discussed the matter further with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. It would not be proper for either him or me to comment on the three cases that have arisen in this calendar year and say whether they were correctly or incorrectly treated. Those matters are within the discretion of the court and would remain so should the new clause be passed.
  I should like to answer a highly pertinent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. The Lord Chancellor is considering whether the December guidance on the law and practice relating to jury service should be supplemented. That is happening at the moment. My noble and learned Friend and I share the hopeߞit is important that I put these words on the record —that applications for excusal from jury service based on genuine conscientious scruples should be sensitively and sympathetically considered by the courts within the discretion that the law allows them. My noble and learned Friend will not hesitate to issue further directions along those lines should he judge it necessary to do so. I hope that the House will agree on reflection that that is the right way to proceed.
  Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Order. Has the Minister finished his speech?
  Mr. Patten: I am afraid I have.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that you have only just arrived in the Chair, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) moved the new clause at 6.46 pm and there seems to have been a great deal of unanimity of view. I sense that many hon. Members wish to vote. Will you accept a motion, That the Question be now put?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall consider it later.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall overlook the unusual discourtesy of my hon. Friend the Minister in rising to speak while colleagues of his who have sat through the debate were still trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It means that my hon. Friend will have to ask your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reply to points that have yet to be made in the debate.
  There is only one point that I wish to make. It is quite clear that the new clause does not refer only to the Exclusive Brethren. It is general rather than particular. It is also clear that it could be abused for economic reasons by those who have no authentic religious belief. Therefore, the question must be: how does one protect those who have an authentic religious belief while eliminating as far as possible those who would wish to make a spurious claim of religious belief for their own economic advantage to avoid jury service? That is a real problem, and I doubt not that it is one that taxes the Government, and reasonably so.
  Reference has been made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) to the fact that it is usual in wartime for those who successfully plead conscientious objection nevertheless to serve the community, often in peril of their lives— [Interruption.] Will the Government Whip on duty allow the Minister to listen to what I am saying? I thank him. I should have thought that the problem could be avoided in the following way. If the new clause were carried, and then when it went to another place an amendment were made to it that those who claim exemption rather than excuse on the grounds of religious belief should have to be present at the court building, although not necessarily in the court proceedings, for the duration of the trial, the conscientious objection would be met, but those involved would secure no economic advantage from it. I should have thought that that would protect those of genuine conscience and at the same time protect the judicial system from abuse of the conscientious claim for the economic, commercial or unworthy advantage of spurious claimants.
  Mr. Mike Woodcock: The argument is fairly simple. It cannot be just for people to be forced to serve on juries when they have strong religious objections. It cannot be just for the accused to have reluctant jurors. The tradition of the House is to defend the right of conscience and religious freedom. Present interpretations of the law are not serving those causes. In the absence of a clear commitment and clearer directions to judges, we should amend the law. This is a sensible new clause and we should support it.
  Mr. Ashby: As we do not have jury challenge, we could now have jurors who cannot read, which will cause problems in cases in which there are large numbers of documents. We shall now have jurors who perhaps cannot speak or understand English. Yet we are told that people who do not want to participate in jury service will be forced to do so.
  In this Chamber there are many lawyers with a wealth of experience. They have given their views, but been completely ignored by the Minister. This new clause is not open to abuse, and to say that it is is nonsense. It would be obnoxious if an amendment named the Plymouth Brethren. A juror should come along and give his
  902
  objection and a judge should then decide whether that objection is genuine. For those reasons, I support the new clause.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall always respect a Christian's right to conscientious objection, which is what the clause is really about. I welcome what the Minister said, and, as a non-lawyer, ask the right hon.and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) to clarify something for me. Would a judge betake a specifically legal view when considering whether to excuse a juror, or would he, as a Christian member of the Church of England or of the Church of Rome—a body other than the Plymouth or Exclusive Brethrenߞmake a Christian judgment of the individual who was seeking to be excused jury service in certain circumstances? If he did that, he might take the view that the individual concerned should be part of the leaven of society, share its burdens, and therefore undertake jury service.
  Mr. Watts: The mood of the House and the balance of the debate has been overwhelmingly in favour of the new clause, so I find it unnecessary to reiterate the points that have been fully and persuasively made by other hon. Members. However, I have one question for my hon. Friend the Minister, which I would have made in an intervention had he not sat down so quickly.
  The Minister said that it was his wish that all who have a genuine religious objection to jury service should be released from that obligation. If that is his intention and that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, in view of the poor past performance of the guidance for achieving that objective, why does he still seek to rely on further guidance notes? Can he not accept that there is an overwhelming case for accepting the new clause so that a right is enshrined in law that would make it much more difficult for judges, such as those who have been cited by Opposition Members, to say that they do not believe in religious objection?
  Mr. Archer: I want briefly to reply to two questions that I have been asked. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked whether a judge would decide this matter as a Christian. He will decide as a judge. He will decide, as a simple question of fact, whether the applicant has a genuine objection on religious grounds to serving on a jury. He will do that, one hopes, in the interests of tolerance and of justice.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised the difficulty of deciding whether an applicant genuinely had a religious objection or whether he might be motivated by economic considerations. I would be content to leave the amendment that he proposed to be discussed in another place. I can see the argument, but I am not sure that the House needs to resolve it tonight.
  The issue tonight is: will it be too difficult for a court to decide whether someone has genuine religious objections? I am sure the Minister will recognise that when I opened the debate I tried to face the objections to the new clause. If I were persuaded that any of them were valid and had been established, I would not persist in calling a Division. But the only objection that has been ventilated is the apparent difficulty that a court might have in deciding whether an objection is genuine. I do not see how that could be a difficulty for a court. If a person says he has genuine religious objections, he will have to establish that he is a regular member of a congregation. I cannot believe

  903
  that anyone will attend a congregation, Sunday after Sunday for years on end, because one day he might be called for jury service and would not want to do it. There can be no doubt about whether someone has attended a congregation. It can easily be resolved.
  The only remaining issue is whether a congregation genuinely holds this doctrine. There is no difficulty in calling someone in authority from the congregation to say that that is its doctrine. I cannot foresee any problems for the courts.
  Mr. Cash: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the point that he has just made is equally applicable in principle in the case of religious communities?
  Mr. Archer: I should have thought that it was. I fully take the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, but at the moment I cannot amend the new clause further. This is a limited amendment, and there can be no problem about this aspect of it.
  None of the arguments would benefit from being repeated. I have respected the Minister's approach throughout our debates on the Bill. He has usually tried to address his mind to the matters that we have raised. On this one, for reasons that I do not follow, he has raised objections that do not exist. This is a sad day for British justice and tolerance. We propose to proceed to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 209.

  Division No. 366]

  [8.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashby, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dover, Den

  Blair, Tony

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Blunkett, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Boateng, Paul

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Boyes, Roland

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bradley, Keith

  Eastham, Ken

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Buchan, Norman

  Fatchett, Derek

  Buckley, George J.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Caborn, Richard

  Fearn, Ronald

  Callaghan, Jim

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

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Fraser, John

  Clay, Bob

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clelland, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cohen, Harry

  Galloway, George

  Coleman, Donald

  Gardiner, George

  904

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Murphy, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Parry, Robert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Prescott, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Radice, Giles

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoyle, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  Illsley, Eric

  Rooker, Jeff

  Irvine, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Janner, Greville

  Rowlands, Ted

  John, Brynmor

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles

  Short, Clare

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lambie, David

  Snape, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Leighton, Ron

  Stott, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Straw, Jack

  Lewis, Terry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Litherland, Robert

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Turner, Dennis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  McAllion, John

  Vaz, Keith

  McCartney, Ian

  Wall, Pat

  McKelvey, William

  Wallace, James

  McLeish, Henry

  Walley, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Watts, John

  Madden, Max

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Marek, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wilson, Brian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Winnick, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Maxton, John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Worthington, Tony

  Meacher, Michael

  Wray, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michael, Alun

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkins, Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Allason, Rupert

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amos, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  905

  Benyon, W.

  Hayward, Robert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hill, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Holt, Richard

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Howard, Michael

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

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

  Bowis, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Irving, Charles

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

  Jack, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Jackson, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Janman, Tim

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Jessel, Toby

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Butcher, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Lilley, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lord, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Cran, James

  McCrindle, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Maclean, David

  Curry, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

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

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Day, Stephen

  Madel, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Dunn, Bob

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Mills, Iain

  Evennett, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Favell, Tony

  Moate, Roger

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Franks, Cecil

  Mudd, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Neubert, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fry, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Patnick, Irvine

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Renton, Tim

  Gow, Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Riddick, Graham

  Gregory, Conal

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Rost, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ground, Patrick

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

  Squire, Robin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Harris, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Stern, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis

  906

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mr. David Lightbown

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Sir Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have to report to you that, in the last Division, the Division bell did not ring in St. Stephen's Tower, where my office is located. I should be grateful if you would cause an inquiry to be made into why it did not ring.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries into the failure of the Division bell.

New Clause 18

  SALE OF KNIVES TO JUVENILES
  `. (1) Any person who sells to a person under the age of sixteen an article to which section 132 of this Act applies shall be guilty of an offence.
  (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.— [Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.30 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following new clauses:
  No. 19ߞ Advertising of knives ߞ
  '(1) Any person who sells, hires or offers for sale or hire with verbal, written or graphic reference to its potential offensive or defensive use an article to which section 132 of this Act applies shall be guilty of an offence.
  (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a tine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
  No. 29— Sale of knives to juveniles (No. 2)ߞ
  `. (1) Any person who sells to a person under the age of eighteen an article to which section 132 of this Act applies shall be guilty of an offence.
  (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.
  No. 45— Sale of offensive weapons to children ߞ
  `No person shall supply, offer to supply or agree to supply any items referred to in section 134 of this Act to any person apparently under the age of 16 years.'.
  No. 46— Advertising of offensive weapons ߞ
  `(1) No object which is an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 134 of this Act may be sold, hired or offered for sale with verbal, written or graphic reference to its potential offensive use.
  (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.
  Mrs. Taylor: Following the last interesting debate and very close vote, I hope that the Government will take a great deal of notice of the arguments to be marshalled in later debates, because the more Conservative Members listen to the arguments, the more they are willing to vote against the Government. I hope that the Government will take that on board and perhaps consider the points raised in the last debate and other ways of dealing with the problems that we discussed.
  New clause 18 deals with another important issue—the problem of knives and the carrying of knives and, particularly, the sale of knives to juveniles and the way in which knives and other offensive weapons are advertised in this country. New clause 18 would ban the sale of knives to young people under age 16. Some people have suggested that we should ban the sale of knives to people under 18. We shall be happy to discuss what would be an appropriate age, but we have suggested banning the sale of knives to young people under 16 because knives are extremely dangerous weapons and are being used increasingly.
  We must act quickly to counteract the serious knife-carrying sub-culture that appears to have developed, particularly among young people and in certain parts of the country. That is primarily, but not exclusively, a problem in London and, like many other problems that started in London, it is now being exported elsewhere. Perhaps the violence that we have seen recently in Essex and other rural parts of the country will make the Government realise that violent crime is not just an urban problem. It has pervaded the whole country and must be taken more seriously.
  The carrying and use of knives has become increasingly commonplace. Between 1985 and 1986 the number of street robberies in London involving the use of knives rose by one third. In 1986, knives were used in 650 muggings and 1,100 violent attacks in Lambeth alone. We know that young people are increasingly involved in crime generally and that many of the offenders involved in street crime are young people.
  The Minister of State, who is not here at present, told us in Committee that the peak age for offending is now 15, for both boys and girls. Many of us may well be surprised when we first learn at what age young people start to carry knives. In a recent police amnesty on playground weapons, knives were handed in from children as young as 11 or 12. When we discussed that problem in Committee, I quoted the case of a head teacher in my area of West Yorkshire who had confiscated many knives from youngsters in his school and handed them to the police during the amnesty and was quite rightly appalled to see even more offensive weapons, and weapons described as offensive, on sale to anyone.
  In new clause 18 we are trying to make it as difficult as possible for youngsters to get hold of weapons. We must try to halt the trend for carrying knives by hitting at the root of the problem. If it is easy for young people to obtain knives, it is all too easy for them to carry and use them. We realise that simply by saying that weapons should not be sold to young people we shall not see the end of the problem. Youngsters will continue to obtain weapons from friends and parents, and some may steal them. But we should still try to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of children who try to obtain and use knives.
  We have all heard about the events in Europe last week with the English soccer fans. I do not want to dwell on that
  908
  now, but one incident involved a young West German who was stabbed by English supporters in one of the several fights that took place. It is clear, not just from events abroad, that carrying knives has become fashionable—strangely fashionable to those of us who are a little older —among young men wanting to promote a macho image. What develops as a fashion then becomes a necessity. Young people need to be convinced that it is silly and dangerous to carry knives.
  Mr. David Winnick: I apologise for not being here for the start of my hon. Friend's speech. Is she aware of reports that there are certain gangs that will not allow a youth to join unless he has a knife on him and, in some cases, unless he can say that the knife has been used? Such is the knife culture in our sick society.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to describe such a culture as part of a sick society. We have seen too many gangs of youngsters egging each other on and encouraging each other to use violence. That is a dangerous state of affairs.
  We believe that the way to prevent the spread of that knife-carrying culture and of the groups to which my hon. Friend referred is to discourage people from as early an age as possible from carrying knives. At present, any young person can get hold of a knife or other dangerous weapon, and the new clause seeks to make that task much more difficult.
  It was disturbing to read in newspaper reports last week that children as young as 10 or 11 are now carrying knives in London, out of fear. The problem was identified by a number of community and police consultative groups in a joint letter to the press, which said:
  "The carrying of knives must be curbed before it spreads uncontrollably—for when one set of youths carries knives out of bravado, the next set carries them out of fear, for self-defence (which so easily results, not in security, but in the giving or receiving of injuries). Youths need to be persuaded that it is foolish not glamorous or protective to carry knives."
  The police officer involved in the south London campaign to reduce the carrying of knives by the young there said that knife carrying was no longer simply for machismo or robbery, but because young people were afraid to walk the streets without protection.
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I am aware of that campaign in south London because my constituency is affected by the knife culture. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that many young people who carry knives for protection end up being injured by those knives. Because they have protection, they get into a conflict, and the knife that they are carrying to protect themselves is used to injure them. That is an immense danger of which young people should be made aware.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes the valid point that knives are dangerous to the carrier as well as to the potential victim. As she says, the knife may be carried not as an offensive weapon but as a defensive weapon. That is a salutary point that should be emphasised to young people. A vicious circle of weapon carrying is being created, and we are trying to break it with our new clause.
  Mr. Winnick: Especially if there is drink.
  Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend rightly says, this is especially so if drink is involved. That point relates to other amendments to this and other legislation that we

  909
  shall discuss at a later stage. The combination of knife carrying and the consumption of alcohol is extremely dangerous. It is something that young people who are under the age for drinking, and who should, we argue, be under the age for buying weapons, ought to bear in mind and have emphasised to them as part of their general education.
  Young people fear that others may be carrying knives, so they themselves carry weapons for protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, that does not always have the desired effect. We want to break this dangerous habit of young people carrying offensive weapons for defensive reasons.
  In Committee we welcomed and supported clause 132, and we accepted, with some reluctance but out of necessity, clause 133, which extends the powers of the police to stop people who are carrying knives and alters the onus of proof. The Government have argued that a ban on the sale of weapons such as that suggested in new clause 18 would be difficult to implement and would be ineffective. The Home Office has said:
  "Nor does the Home Secretary believe that much would be achieved by banning the sales of knives to people under the age of 16. Many of the knives carried by young people are found in every home and imposing age restrictions on their sale could not prevent young people from getting hold of them."
  The legislation banning the sale of solvent glues and of fireworks to children has not always prevented young people from getting hold of those commodities, but that does not invalidate the benefits of such legislation. It has reduced the number of children who get hold of such items without parental supervision. Extending such a ban increases parental guidance and authority over what children are doing. In view of some of the Government's comments on other matters, I should have thought that they would be interested in this. It has been argued that it is difficult for shopkeepers to tell the age of young people who are trying to buy knives. This is a problem, but it is one that will always exist. Such problems have not stopped the introduction of bans on the sale to juveniles of solvents, fireworks, cigarettes and alcohol.
  We must stop the developing culture of weapons carrying among the young, and one of the best ways to do that is to make it more difficult for young people to obtain these weapons. We do not claim that the new clause will immediately stop the sale of knives to those under 16.Some youngsters look older than their years, but others will be discouraged from trying to buy weapons, or will find that they are refused when they try to do so and the responsible shopkeepers challenge them as to their age.
  8.45 pm
  We know that the Government are aware of the problems of the use of knives, but they have concentrated their efforts on making the possession of a knife without good reason the offence. We support that move and the ban on the sale of martial arts weapons. The new clause, which would ban the sale of knives to juveniles, would complement the steps being taken by the Government. If the Government were to accept the new clause, it would contribute towards breaking the culture of knife carrying.
  New clause 19 seeks to control the advertising of knives and other offensive weapons. The Government see the possession of knives as the main problem, but we believe that this is only part of the problem. The growing sub-culture that encourages possession is one of the main
  910
  difficulties that we face. Part of this may be due to fear, but a major part of the problem is the easy availability of knives and the way in which they are advertised. Action is needed to counter the sub-culture by reducing the glamour associated with it, which the advertisers of the knives encourage. The advertising of knives as offensive weapons must be stopped if we are to combat the problem of knife-carrying youths. The problem is particularly prevalent in gun and survivalist magazines, which often offer for mail order purchase offensive weapons and knives that can be dangerous.
  In a letter to the Lambeth police consultative group the Home Secretary said:
  "It would be difficult to seek to prohibit the advertising of weapons which can be purchased legally, nor do we believe that statutory controls would be a suitable means of attempting to influence such advertisements. The British code of advertising practice, however, exercises a voluntary control, and we have entered into discussion with the Advertising Standards Authority, which administers the code, to see whether there is scope for developing further guidance in relation to the advertising of weapons."
  Progress on those lines is not adequate, but it seems doubtful that the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the retailers who advertise an object as having a defensive use will wish to be bound by a voluntary code. Given that the criminal law is to be changed to make it an offence to carry a knife or other implement in a public place, it seems only logical to place statutory controls over how such items are advertised. It makes a mockery of the law that, while it is illegal to have knives as offensive weapons in a public place, it is not illegal to have them advertised in a way that suggests that they have a use as a defensive weapon in a public place.
  If the Government are serious about wanting to deal with the problem of knife carrying and the use of knives as an offensive weapon, they should accept the new clause to ban the advertising of such knives. The glamour of weaponry should be discouraged. The macho knife-carrying culture is something that advertising encourages, and we would like to see the problem tackled. I hope the Government will acknowledge that this is a real problem and accept our new clauses as constructive suggestions on how to deal with it.
  Mr. Tony Favell: I shall direct my remarks to new clause 29, which stands in my name. Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I want to prohibit the sale of knives to young people. The difference between us is that I want to prohibit sale to those under 18 years as opposed to those under 16.
  Like the hon. Lady, I am seriously worried by the increasing number of young people who carry knives I agree that there is a spiral effect. Young people carry knives to project a macho image. I agree that the next step is for young people to carry them as a form of self-defence. I speak from personal experience. My son is now 19 years of age, and I recall that when he was 15 or 16 he asked me whether I thought that he should carry a knife for his self-defence. Fortunately, he came to me. I would have considered it a serious matter if a shopkeeper had sold him a knife. It would not have been an offence at that time, nor is it an offence now. For that reason, I have tabled new clause 29.
  It is unfortunate that figures on the use of knives are so scanty. However, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury said, during the first half of 1987 the number of robberies, or street robberies involving the use of knives, or sharp

  911
  instruments, increased by almost one third in London. Many of those offences involved young people. It was suggested in another place by Lord Caithness, Minister of State, Department of the Environment, that many youths in some parts of the country carry knives as everyday wear. At Burnage high school in Manchester, which is not far from my constituency, there was a horrendous murder of a young coloured child, resulting from the carrying of knives in the playground.
  It has been estimated that 13 or 14 per cent. of all offences of violence are committed by persons under the age of 16 years. The figure increases to 25 per cent. when we include offences committed by those under the age of 18 years.
  Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I welcome clause 132, which introduces the new offence of carrying a knife without lawful excuse. I have pressed for such a provision ever since I was elected to this place. I should like to see the clause go further, as the new clause suggests. If it were not an offence to sell tobacco to a person under 16 years of age, more would smoke even though it is not an offence to do so. If it were not an offence to sell liquor to someone under 18 years of age, I think that more would drink. If it were not an offence to supply drugs to persons of any age, more people would take drugs. More people will use knives, especially young people, if it is not an offence to sell such items to them.
  Mr. John Fraser: I support the provisions in the Bill relating to offensive weapons, including knives. I support also the new clauses that have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, which I prefer to the two new clauses of a similar nature which I tabled. I want to strengthen still further the controls that are set out in the Bill. In saying that, I am representing the views of constituents in all walks of life. As I represent a multiracial constituency, I can say that I represent the views of all races as well.
  My constituents, both as individuals and members of organisations within the community, are sickened by the injury, maiming and slaughter resulting from the use of dangerous implements, especially knives. Sometimes a knife is used in temper. That, of course, does not mitigate the results of that action for the victims. If a knife is carried, what might have resulted in a bloody nose can extend to the severing of an artery or the puncturing of a lung. What might have involved a bruise becomes a serious laceration. In other circumstances, knives are used for the cold and calculating creation of terror in the course of robbery or other crimes.
  In the past year or so I can think of about six unlawful killings that have taken place in my constituency. It is true that not all of them have resulted in convictions for murder. Sometimes those who have committed the offences have not been apprehended. Alternatively, of those who have appeared before the courts, some have been found not guilty. However, that toll of unlawful killings is extremely high in one constituency over about a year.
  We in Lambeth have been very much reinforced in our attitudes by the hard work that has been undertaken by those who have campaigned against knives. I refer especially to Jean Hayley and David Green, who have been associated with a campaign called WHY, which has
  912
  operated in my constituency and beyond. The campaign has received the full co-operation of Lambeth borough council, including its recent leader. It has used our libraries to mount exhibitions of the sort of weapons that are used. Photographs have been shown of the ghastly results of the use of knives. This has helped to turn public opinion against knives. Of course, those who have supported WHY have not been the only ones to campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to the local police-community consultative committee. The local authority has been active, and that is true also of the local newspapers.
  The results of this activity have been interesting. Many parts of the community have got together—tenants' associations, the WHY campaign, the police-community consultative committee and both black and white organisations have worked side by side—and there has been a fundamental change in public opinion. There is widespread disapproval among adults and older people of the carrying of knives, and that has started to cause a reduction in the habit. That is the only way in which crime can be fought effectively. If people in clubs and pubs disapprove of a course of action—in this instance, the carrying of knives—and if that view is taken by people in one's street, block or the house next door, eventually that course of conduct tends to diminish. That is the result if the view is taken generally by those with whom one lives, plays and works. It becomes less fashionable and less of a culture, with the result that the crime tends to diminish. That is the only way in which we can effectively control crime.
  There are many examples. Harsh penalties have been introduced for heinous offences, including terrorism. If there is emotional, material and spiritual support within a community for particular types of crime, those crimes will continue to be committed, no matter how harsh the penalties, the punishment, the vigour of the pursuit of detection and the controls that are introduced.
  In my constituency, the general expression of public disapproval is having an effect on the carrying of knives and the views that young people have of them. They are now receiving a different message from their parents, pals and what sociologists call their peer groups. If the House accepts my analysis—that the most powerful and cheapest weapon is public opinion and social and peer group pressure—it must back up the community. It is no good our doing all these things and not being backed up by legislation and the Government.
  We have to work against encouragements which operate in a different direction such as advertisements, shop displays and pictures in magazines. My objection is not that the displays or advertisements are neutral, but that the context is of illegal use. The atmosphere implies that the weapon should be used as an illegal weapon of offence or defence.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of these weapons seem to have very little lawful use? Indeed, they are designed and decorated to look offensive and frightening. The advertiser makes them look offensive. That is part of the culture about which we are talking.
  Mr. Fraser: I am sure that that is right.
  The Bill divides weapons into two classes. One class consists of those with no inherent useful purpose, such as death stars and certain types of flail. I take it that if they

  913
  are banned outright, their advertisement and display will also become illegal. The second class includes knives. It is true that there is some ambivalence about their use, but the advertising or display about which I am speaking makes it clear that the intention of the advertiser or the person displaying the knives is that they should be used unlawfully.
  9 pm
  It is no use the community working its guts out to reduce the use of knives when they are glamorised in magazines. People know what instincts they are pandering to when they sell them. Knives are sold by mail order to people, irrespective of age, attitude or mentality who the vendors do not meet. We should assert that the advertisement of weapons and knives in that way should be illegal.
  If the House acts, it will not be so difficult for newspapers and the Advertising Standards Authority to follow our lead and to ensure that, by following the honest, decent, legal and truthful code, they can operate administratively to control advertisements for such weapons.
  We must also bar advertisements by means of display. Such advertisements would not automatically be illegal. There are shops which sell little other than knives and weapons and which display them in circumstances which make it clear that they are intended for aggressive purposes. There is a shop in Rye lane one half of which is devoted to the display and advertisement of the most lethal-looking sheath knives and clasp knives. They are displayed in a context which makes it clear that their use is likely to be illegal.
  Knives, chisels and other sharp instruments are displayed in hardware shops or builders' merchants, but in a context where their use is likely to be useful and lawful. Those who go to the kitchen department of a multiple store will see knives and canteens of cutlery on display, but in an atmosphere where their use is likely to be legal. Perhaps the amendments on armoury shops are a more appropriate vehicle than those which concern advertisement, but I object most strongly to knives being sold in a context which is not associated with a useful purpose. That is bound to inspire the wrong motives in buyers. I think that we ought to apply the test of intention and likely use. The House should prevent the advertisement and display of such weapons in the circumstances that I have described.
  A new clause which bans the sale of knives to juveniles will not, of course, prevent some juveniles from being able to get hold of knives. They will still be able to go into the kitchen department of a multiple store and buy knives, but an amendment would add care and prudence to the sale. New clause 29 would prevent juveniles from buying knives in kitchen departments or hardware shops.
  We should put a seal of disapproval on the purchase and possession of knives. We should say that people should be prudent and worried when a knife is sold to a young person. If a knife is really needed a parent or responsible adult should buy it; it should not be sold to a juvenile. It would not cost very much to do that. There are many examples in legislation of a ban on the supply of goods or products to young people. It has been conspicuously successful in the sale of solvents and glue, which has caused a monstrous problem in my part of London. That problem is now diminishing because of the
  914
  lead given by the House, after long hesitation. I am sure that the same will be true of knives. I hope that the House will reinforce the air of disapproval that has developed in my community.
  As the new clauses are linked to clause 132, I should like to know whether the Minister will consider how it will operate. It appears to allow two defences. First, it will be a defence if there is a lawful excuse for carrying a knife in a public place. Secondly, and without prejudice to the generality of the clause, there is a particular defence of using a knife for religious or work purposes. The problem is that when someone is charged with the offence of possessing a knife in a public place, he always seems to have a lawful excuse. The Government should reconsider clause 132 so that the new clauses, if they are agreed to, will be effective.
  My father-in-law is a farrier, so it would be a lawful use of a knife if he were paring the hoof of a horse in the street. That would be part of his work. However, a frequent excuse for carrying a knife is that the person is a chef or a butcher. Clause 132 should make such a defence much more difficult. A knife should be carried to work in a way that ensures that it cannot instantly be used. For example, a carpenter would have it locked in his tool box. That would help to prove the reasonable excuse that the knife was being carried for the purpose of work.
  Clause 132 should include a provision that if a knife or weapon is not in immediate use—for example, paring the hoof of a horse—it should be an offence to carry it unless it is firmly wrapped up or locked away and cannot immediately be used. Without that provision, there will continue to be a long trail of defences. Somehow, people coming out of bars, dance halls, football grounds or discotheques always seem to be on their way to a fishing expedition, to repair a window or to cut some string.
  I ask the Government to reinforce the weight and wave of public opinion against the use of knives by accepting the new clauses.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I support the new clauses and wish to make two short, but fairly important, points. The first relates to the increasing use of knives by young people, to which reference has already been made and with which the new clauses seek to deal as far as is possible.
  The use by so many young people of such a shocking number of knives leads to the use of other weapons. As has been demonstrated in many court cases, when young people are outside a pub of discotheque there is an expectation that some of them will have knives, and that undoubtedly leads to others bringing bottles and glasses out of the pub or discotheque and using them. The use of knives has a knock-on effect that leads to the use of what can sometimes be far more dangerous weapons, which can often cause even more disabling injury. In my view, the new clauses can make a valuable contribution to reducing the number of knives in circulation, and therefore reducing the number of other weapons used in an allegedly defensive response to the carrying of knives.
  My second point is one that I have made before in the House. It relates to what is euphemistically called "survivalism". It seems to me that young people and, indeed, older people, if they want to enjoy aggressive outdoor pursuits—even pursuits of a somewhat militaristic nature—can do so quite successfully without the use of knives, machetes, bayonets and other vicious weapons that

  915
  can be bought in shops, and even obtained by mail order. It is shocking that so many such shops have sprung up in this country—there is one on the Euston station concourse, where some pretty vicious weapons can be bought on British Rail premises—and have been able to sell items that can only have an offensive and illegitimate purpose. They are doing so under the guise of survivalism.
  It is even more shocking that publications now abound in which similar weapons are advertised for sale. Some of the publications are aimed at adults, but many are aimed specifically at foolish young people whose aggression can be channelled into the lethal weapons that they advertise, possession of which can never really be justified.
  I welcome clauses 132 and 134. Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I recognise, albeit reluctantly, the necessity for clause 133, but I feel that in accepting the new clauses—or, perhaps, more elegantly drafted versions of them—we would be tackling further and more meaningfully the two problems that I have put to the House.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am afraid that I cannot commend any of the new clauses to the House.
  The debate has essentially revolved around two issues. The first is whether it should be an offence to sell a sharp bladed or pointed instrument to a young person—the age limit has varied, depending slightly on the speaker. The second is whether we can apply the criminal code to advertisements.
  Let me deal first with the question of sale, not only of knives, but of sharp bladed and pointed instruments. It is important to emphasise that the new clause is not confined to the sale of knives, but applies to any article that falls within the scope of clause 132. For understandable reasons, hon. Members who have spoken have tended to focus on knives, although clearly the matter goes much further.
  It is right to say that the carrying of knives in a public place is a matter of considerable concern. I stress that it is the carrying of knives in a public place rather than possession qua possession—which may be in a private place—that is the essential cause of concern. It is because the Government recognise that the carrying of knives in a public place is a grave matter that it was they who brought forward clause 132. In essence, the clause provides that a person carrying a bladed or sharp pointed instrument will be deemed to be committing a criminal offence unless he can establish the existence of a good reason.
  That, in essence, is the offence. There are two important points. First, we are dealing with the carrying of pointed or bladed instruments in public placesߞthat is the mischief. Secondly, we have to accept that good and lawful reasons exist for the possession of such instruments, and those lawful reasons can exist for young people as well as for adults.
  9.15 pm
  When one looks at the scope of clause 132, one immediately appreciates the reason. All bladed and pointed instruments fall within the scope of that clause. Scissors, mathematical dividers, any old piece of household cutlery, gardening and agricultural tools, carpentry tools, craft or hobby equipment and sports equipment all inevitably fall within the scope of clause 132.
  916
  The question is whether we wish to say that young people can never lawfully purchase for themselves or by themselves the articles to which I have referred. I do not believe that the House would be justified in asserting that proposition. It is true that we should tackle the problem of possession in a public place, but it does not follow from that that we should prohibit the sale to under-aged persons of articles that they properly and legitimately require for their own use in a private place. I believe that that goes much too far.
  My final point is essentially a drafting one, but as we are talking, not about principle but about legislation, it is right that I should make it. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and I have served on various Committees in the past and most recently on the Committee considering the Licensing Bill. May I say how much I enjoyed that privilege. We discussed the sale of alcohol to under-aged persons, and I remember that she stressed her opposition to the concept of the absolute offence and asserted the need to provide a trader with a defence in the event of a bona fide mistake. I do not rest my argument on a drafting point. I would merely mention that the hon. Lady has created an absolute offence and has failed to provide a defence for the bona fide trader acting in good faith. I think that that was a slip and is inconsistent with her attitude to the Licensing Bill.
  Another matter to be considered is the question of advertisements, and again I wish to stress my opposition. It seems to me that one element of criminal law is that it should be reasonably precise in its meaning and capable of reasonable recognition and certain interpretation. The new clause is very subjective in judgment. I cannot readily call to mind any offence concerning the content of advertisements other than those that contravene race relations legislation. I oppose the new clause on the grounds that it is too subjective, too imprecise and is incapable of certain meaning.
  Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister recognise that we are dealing with the continuing use of knives, as illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who said that in his constituency, in the course of a year, there were six deaths following the use of knives? In view of that, do the Government not recognise that we are faced with an emergency? The Minister's remarks do not seem to recognise the deep anxiety of the Opposition about the continuing use of knives and the knife culture that unfortunately exists among many of our young people.
  Mr. Hogg: There are at least two answers to the hon. Gentleman's points. First, the existence of a major problem does not justify the House passing bad legislation. If my criticism of the advertising clause is right, the legislation is bad, and, notwithstanding the existence of the problem, we should not do it.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall finish this point and then give way.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would be well advised to remind himself that clause 132 is the Government's response to the problem. It was not anybody else who brought it forward; it was the Government.
  Mr. Winnick: After pressure.
  Mr. Hogg: No. The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong on that point. I have a great familiarity with the clause because, before my hon. Friend the Minister took responsibility for the Criminal Justice Bill, I was heavily involved in the formulation of this offence. I can tell the House with absolute certainty that the Government came forward with this proposal to deal with precisely the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. Fraser: The Trade Descriptions Act 1972 makes it a criminal offence to publish certain misleading advertisements. The Act is difficult to enforce and there are problems. In practice, there is an arrangement between trading standards officers and the Advertising Standards Authority. The authority is able to translate what we want into a code of practice that it administers—for most of the time without the intervention of the criminal law. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would do something to give legal support to the Advertising Standards Authority in constructing a code of practice which as a matter of practice, if not as a matter of the operation of the criminal law, will outlaw that type of advertisement.
  Mr. Hogg: That subject is not referred to in the new clause, as the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind. Under the Trade Descriptions Act the court is concerned with whether a statement is misleading. In the end, that is a matter of fact. We are now concerned with the subjective interpretation of the content of an advertisement, and that is different in kind.
  There is scope for discussions between the Home Office and the Advertising Standards Authority. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who read out a letter from my right hon. Friend, has made plain, we are doing that. In the end, the major problem is the carrying of knives in a public place. It is that matter to which the House needs to devote its attention.
  Mr. Favell: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend speaking about the difficulty of forbidding the sale of all items that will be covered by clause 132. I am disappointed that, apparently, the Government will not accept the amendment. Will my hon. Friend monitor whether, when clause 132 becomes part of the Act, it reduces the number of offences involving the use of knives? Unfortunately, at the moment Home Office figures about the use of knives are scanty. They show the number of offences of violence, but not those offences involving the use of knives. It would be helpful if the figures were available in case further legislation is to be brought forward.
  Mr. Hogg: If the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis were to conclude that the legislation reflected in what is now clause 132 was inadequate, he would tell us without much delay. That is perhaps the most effective way of responding to the concern that my hon. Friend has voiced. We are concerned specifically with the carrying of sharp bladed instruments in public places. Clause 132 is an effective response to that problem, and I would not commend any of the new clauses to the House.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has shown a remarkable degree of complacency about this important and significant problem. Earlier we were all in agreement—certainly some Conservative Members agreed with us—that the increase in violence was extremely worrying. It is not simply a London problem, as the Minister seemed to imply when he said that he would listen to the
  918
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; it is a much wider problem. It affects not only all our major cities, but many large towns and, over recent weeks, rural areas, too. I should have thought that that would bring home to the Government how extensive some of these difficulties are.
  The Minister is complacent because he is suggesting that the major problem is simply the carrying of knives in public places. It is far more complex and difficult than that. I should have thought that it was obvious that if we restricted the sale of knives there would be fewer knives to carry in public places. The Minister has not taken on board our arguments and anxiety about violent crime.
  Mr. Winnick: When the Minister said that the Government acted without any pressure, would it be useful to remind him that in this Parliament my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) introduced an Adjournment debate on the subject, the response to which was along the lines that no action could be taken? It was as a result of renewed public pressure at about this time last year and the way that the Metropolitan police, for example, displayed a number of knives being used that the Government decided to act, and we now have clause 132.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a significant point. Before I was in this House, many Opposition Members were pressing for far stricter controls on the sale, use and carriage of knives. Yet it is only in the past year or so that the Government have recognised this problem.
  The Minister did not give an answer to the problem of violent crime. He simply concentrated on the carrying of weapons. He did not, for example, deal with the point that the peak age for offenders is now 15 years. In other words, the largest single age group of offenders are of the young age of 15. They would be covered by a ban on the sale of knives such as we are proposing. If they are covered, that would surely help to reduce—it would not completely solve the problem—the number of young people who carry and attempt to use knives.
  The Minister gave as reasons for rejecting the new clause several problems. He said that the ban would be difficult to implement and we all know of those difficulties. But they did not extend to glue sniffing and the problems that the Government saw in acting on that.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have been chiding the Government for late conversion, but I am sure that they both studied the Conservative manifesto with considerable attention. It made a positive commitment to strengthening the law dealing with the sale and possession of offensive weapons, of which this is a reflection, not a late conversion.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the Labour party's document, "Protecting Our Children", which was published six months before the general election, advocated even tougher controls on the sale of knives. Obviously the Minister learnt from reading our policy documents and I shall send him copies of many others in the hope that he will learn a great deal more.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister has been extremely complacent about the matter. It must be obvious to any lay person what is more dangerous—solvents, glue, fireworks, or knives and

  919
  sharp-edged weapons. If the Government can bring themselves to control the sale of glue, solvents, fireworks, cigarettes and alcohol to young people, they should control the sale of dangerous weapons. Until we take strong action, the influence of the knife culture will increase and there will be more crimes of violence on our streets.
  We welcome clause 132, but it is not sufficient and I urge the House to vote for the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:ߞߞ
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 218.

  Division No. 367]

  [9.30 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Gould, Bryan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Grocott, Bruce

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Battle, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Home Robertson, John

  Blunkett, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Janner, Greville

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Buchan, Norman

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Buckley, George J.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Caborn, Richard

  Lambie, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lamond, James

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Litherland, Robert

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clay, Bob

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McCartney, Ian

  Corbett, Robin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cousins, Jim

  Marek, Dr John

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Michael, Alun

  Dixon, Don

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mullin, Chris

  Eastham, Ken

  Murphy, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  O'Brien, William

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fatchett, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  Patchett, Terry

  Fearn, Ronald

  Pike, Peter L.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Flynn, Paul

  Reid, Dr John

  Foster, Derek

  Richardson, Jo

  Fraser, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Rooker, Jeff

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Rowlands, Ted

  George, Bruce

  Ruddock, Joan

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Snape, Peter

  920

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wall, Pat

  Wallace, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walley, Joan

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Alexander, Richard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Amess, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Amos, Alan

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Arbuthnot, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Ashby, David

  French, Douglas

  Atkins, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Gale, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Gardiner, George

  Baldry, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gill, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Benyon, W.

  Gow, Ian

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gregory, Conal

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Grylls, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bowis, John

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

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Harris, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayward, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hill, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Burns, Simon

  Holt, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Howard, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Irvine, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Irving, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jack, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cran, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Key, Robert

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knowles, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Durant, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  921

  Lilley, Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stern, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Trippier, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waller, Gary

  Neubert, Michael

  Ward, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Watts, John

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Patnick, Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Riddick, Graham

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 60

  PROSTITUTION (OPTION OF CUSTODY)
  `The court may impose a custodial sentence on a prostitute convicted of soliciting when it does not consider a fine an appropriate deterrent.'.— [Mrs. Maureen Hicks.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I thank Mr. Speaker for judging my new clause worthy of debate. It would restore to the courts the ability to imprison prostitutes found guilty of persistent soliciting where fines have not been considered an effective deterrent. Such is the magnitude of the problem in the town of Wolverhampton, part of which I represent, and the other red light centres that have been regularly featured in some horrific television programmes recently that I felt moved to table this, my first ever, new clause. That surely reflects the gravity of the problem which, I believe, needs to be urgently resolved for the sake of those who live with it on their doorstep.
  Had I been called to speak last Thursday evening, I should have expressed my personal fear that, unless the Government took urgent steps to address themselves to the growing problem of street prostitute soliciting and residents living within the same neighbourhood, those directly affected in Wolverhampton would resort to taking the law into their own hands, as people have done in Birmingham in recent months. It is with great sadness that
  922
  I have to report that on Friday, by sheer coincidence, that is exactly what happened. One group of residents who suffer particularly from the problem had reached the end of their tether. They called a meeting at which they decided to form their own vice patrols to get rid of the problem themselves. In addition, they threatened to withhold payment of their rates. I am glad to say that swift action by the local police in co-operating with them has resolved the problem temporarily. They have agreed to postpone their actions, but warned that if the police fail to get rid of the prostitutes they will go ahead with their plansߞwhich only serves to increase my anxiety.
  I ask the House to recognise that the Criminal Justice Act 1982, which removed the option of imprisonment, has proved unsuccessful. Far from having limitedߞlet alone eliminated—the problem of soliciting, the 1982 Act has merely served to increase it. In places such as Wolverhampton it has opened the floodgates to what can only be called a thriving business, to the detriment of local residents who unfortunately now realise that they are living in a town with the reputation of the vice centre of the west midlands.
  9.45 Pm
  In Wolverhampton, from January to May of this yearߞonly a five-month period—there were 683 arrests, which was nearly the same as the total for 12 months in 1983, the year after imprisonment was removed, when there were only 737. Such high figures speak for themselves, and there are still seven months to go.
  This large increase is not confined to my area. Nationally, in 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, 9,098 prostitutes were found guilty of street soliciting. That compares with 1982, when only 5,811 were found guilty. So how can anyone argue that the legislation that we endorsed has succeeded in checking the rise?
  It is easy for us, debating statistics in the Chamber, but I am concerned about the human effect on the people who are touched by the problem. They are the people who must live with the problem on their doorsteps night and day, and naturally they are running out of patience. They feel imprisoned: they can no longer live with the problem, but they cannot sell their homes because it would be commercially unrealistic to do so. It might be easy for hon. Members from leafier suburbs, who talk liberally about letting the prostitutes live—as long as they do so in other people's back yards. But if we had to look out of our front windows every day, only to be confronted by prostitutes visibly touting for business, we might see the problem differently. If hon. Ladies knew that when they went to their local bus stop they stood a good chance of being stopped by a kerb crawler who might assume that they were on the game—for that is the assumption made about all ladies in these areas—they might see it differently, too.
  How would we feel about bringing up children in an environment in which it is commonplace to see scantily dressed, provocative females, whose appearance is designed to entice and excite would-be customers? I have a nine-year-old child, and I would like to think that he was at home doing his homework or playing with his toys in the evening. So imagine my sadness when Wolverhampton ended up in the national newspapers in a story about a little girl of eight who had been enticed by a prostitute to become involved in sexual activity with a male customer.

  923
  I hear reports from residents of 13-year-old boys being used as pimps to stop kerb crawlers and get them round the corner to do business with prostitutes.
  Often, things must be seen to be believed. In the early days, when I was a candidate, I thought that the problem might be exaggerated and I made up my mind to go out on a night patrol with the vice squad for a complete shift. That experience convinced me that if I ever got into the House, however unpopular the subject might be, it would be my duty to do something about the most serious problem that confronts my town. What I saw that night on patrol was an absolute farce. The prostitutes seemed to mushroom as the night went on and the police were forced to take them in. The police were so regularly taking them in that they were on Christian name terms. They laughed at me, assuming that I must also be on the game. The police knew that within half an hour of paying a small fine the prostitutes would be back on the streets trying to get business.
  Prostitutes know that the courts have at their disposal only a modest fine to impose, and the police say that, if the fines do anything, they encourage the prostitutes to work even harder. As the House knows, mounting fines are commonplace, and only two years ago Birmingham recorded that it had £40,000 worth of outstanding fines! On that patrol night the prostitutes were laughing and saw the whole thing as a joke. We had to break off playing cat and mouse round the streets to look for two young children who had been missing for days. It increased the seriousness of the matter for me when the police had to stop looking for those children because they were needed again in the vice squad area. That brought home to me whether this was the best use of police resources in a town that puts many demands on its police. But obviously we have a duty to answer the demands of the people who have to live with the problem.
  The time has come for the House to recognise that we might not have known best and that fines are not a deterrent. We have frustrated police officers, frustrated magistrates, frustrated residents and a frustrated council all of whom feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall. In addition, magistrates now lack the power to impose even a community service order. They could have done that when imprisonment was an option. It may sound strange to the House when I say that it is considered that community service orders were used successfully in the past.
  Time prevents me from developing arguments about the role of the pimp and other matters, but I should like to pose some questions. We have in my town a vigilant police force and a chief superintendent who recognises the priority of the problem. He has increased manpower accordingly, often at the expense of other areas. That police force is frustrated and engaged on a soulless task, and the only penalty is a fine. If the fear of AIDS and drug-related problems has no effect, if improved lighting and road management schemes have merely served often to move people from one street to the other when roads have been blocked off, if the Sexual Offences Act 1985, which made kerb-crawling an offence in the hope that it would reduce the problem, and if letters sent to the families of known kerb-crawlers and publicity have failed to contain, let alone reduce, the problem, we have a duty to
  924
  legislate immediately to provide a deterrent, to give the police the back-up for which they are crying out and to improve the quality of life for long-suffering residents.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Is the hon. Lady aware that since the law was changed in 1983 to make soliciting not an imprisonable offence more prostitutes have ended up in prison because they have been unable to pay the fines?
  Mrs. Hicks: I am aware of that, but I am also aware that it has become a farce in Birmingham. Prostitutes on whom mounting fines have been imposed merely sit at the back of the court for an hour or two, and that is the end of £400, £500 or £600 worth of fines. I cannot agree that it has proved to be a deterrent. First, the Minister must say to prostitutes that if they continue to cock a snook at the law they will face imprisonment.
  Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to review the kerb-crawling legislation in the light of two years' experience as, to date, it has proved very difficult to enforce. Police officers invariably talk of having pages of evidence and of following kerb-crawlers for hours, yet those kerb-crawlers are still let off because there is difficulty in defining what constitutes the word "persistent".
  Given the number of kerb-crawlers that must be around, as it takes both a prostitute and a customer to participate in an activity, we must ask why so few men are being prosecuted. Although we have been successful in Wolverhampton in 1986–87, during which time 47 kerb-crawlers were prosecuted, how is it that, in London, which has the biggest problem, but where only one third of all prosecutions for prostitution come from the Metropolitan police area, a grand total of only three kerb-crawlers were convicted in 1986? The total national figure, in the light of that law which was intended to deter, reveals only 189 prosecutions in England and Wales and 161 convictions.
  Thirdly, I ask my hon. Friend to give further consideration to community orders as another possibility for deterring persistent offenders.
  I hope that the Minister will have taken on board the seriousness and urgency of my case. It might be worth considering that, in 1959, when such blatant street soliciting existed, it was considered that the normal, decent citizen should be able to go about the streets without affront to his or her decency. To achieve that, it was agreed that imprisonment would be introduced as an option to the courts for persistent offenders. The sharp fall in street soliciting after that decision, I believe, speaks for itself.
  Ms. Jo Richardson: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) is, in my opinion and that of my party, going down a dangerous road in proposing the new clause. I shall read the report of her speech with care tomorrow, but I did not catch a word about the causes of prostitution and the reasons why women go into prostitution, nor did I catch very many words about the role of men in that, except in her reference to the lack of prosecutions for kerb-crawling.
  In 1983, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned, Parliament took a progressive step in attempting to keep women out of prison by imposing fines rather than custodial sentences. I well recall the successfully persuasive words of a member of the hon. Lady's party, who is no

  925
  longer a Member of this House—Mr. Matthew Parris—who argued that soliciting should not be an imprisonable offence. Since that came into force, more women have been put in prison for prostitution, but under the guise of unpaid fines, than were in prison for the offence of soliciting. If the hon. Lady consults her figures, I am sure that she will be able to confirm that.
  I am sorry that that is happening because I do not believe that it is right to put those women in prison and I do not believe that it is a deterrent. The hon. Lady's proposal is a backward step and will increase overcrowding in our already overcrowded prisons. The hon. Lady wants to institutionalise that trend by transferring the non-payment of fines sentence into a sentence for soliciting. I hope that the House will resist her proposal.
  Has the hon. Lady been to Holloway prison recently? I suggest that she goes there. It is extremely overcrowded, as are other women's prisons. If she talked to the governor and the prison officers, she would find that they would not welcome what she is proposing, because they are having enough difficulty in coping with the prison population, which includes many women on remand. Apart from the women who are imprisoned for serious offences, there are a number of women in Holloway who are imprisoned for trivial offences, such as shoplifting. This is not the best way to deal with such offences. Before the hon. Lady puts into the minds of magistrates that they have the option, which many of them would useߞߞ
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

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

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Ms. Richardson: Before the hon. Lady goes down this road, she should discuss the matter with some of the people who have to operate our prisons and who would not welcome her move.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Although I have not been to Holloway, I have discussed this problem with other prison officers. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
  Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady may reassure me, but she does not tell me what they said. I am not convinced that they will have said, "Yes, yes, please. We would open our doors if you would propose in Parliament a clause making custodial offences and institutionalising and soliciting once more."
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is it not more likely that prison governors would say that they are worried about the overcrowding of prisons in general, but would not express a view about certain types of offences, which are extremely serious to those who suffer from them, if not to those who represent happier constituencies? Have prison governors truly said that there are certain offences for which they do not wish to see imprisonment, rather than speak in general about the numbers?
  Ms. Richardson: In the discussions that I have had with the prison officers, I have not heard that view expressed. I have not heard that they would think it was a good idea to overcrowd their prisons with women convicted of what many of them would regard as a trivial offence. Many prison officers are overstretched in looking after people who have committed serious offences. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East has mentioned people who live in areas where there is prostitution, but prostitution is a victimless crime. It is not a crime from which somebody who is involved in its operation actually suffers. The hon. Lady would have done her constituents a better service by examining some of the reasons why women are driven into prostitution.
  By and large, women go into prostitution because they are poor and because the Government have taken away such economic power as they had—they did not have much before. Women who are single parents, white women, single women, black women, young women and even older women, women who are hit by poor housing, large gas and electricity bills, the inability to care for their families, by the depression which overcomes them because they cannot support their children in the way that they want to do, turn to prostitution. It would become the hon. Lady much better if she recognised that women are the majority of the low paid in this country and in the world. If she asked the Government to adopt policies that did not hit women so hard and instead supported the work that women are trying to do, training schemes for women and women who want to earn a living, she would do a much better service to the constituents who complained to her about the problems caused by prostitution. Instead, the hon. Lady attacks prostitutes, and that will not achieve what she wants.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The hon. Lady seems to be concentrating on female prostitution. Does she believe that male prostitution is no problem?
  Ms. Richardson: I believe that male prostitution is a problem as well. Insofar as I know much about it, often young male prostitutes are driven into prostitution through the lack of money. I have concentrated on women because it happens to be my job to speak for women on behalf of the Opposition, but I am not denying that there are male prostitutes. As I have said, I am sure that many of them have been driven into prostitution because they are poor, badly trained or lack training. If they are poorly trained or untrained, they will lack the ability to take on a variety of jobs. That is something that should be tackled by the Government. The Government should be encouraging employers to pay decent wages.
  Many young girls, young women and young boys go to large cities, in some instances to find jobs. Others wish to get away from difficult home circumstances. Such young people cannot always find jobs. They are often driven into prostitution because they are ill trained and cannot find the variety of jobs that should be available to them to choose from.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that in some respects the state is pimping on prostitutes? I used to be a visiting teacher at Holloway prison, where I met prostitute women who could not pay the huge fines that were being demanded of them repeatedly. They were often single mothers who went on the game because they could not pay the bills. When they

  927
  were fined repeatedly, there was no way that they could come off it. We need a better benefit system so that these women will not get in that mess in the first place.
  Ms. Richardson: I was about to talk about older women but, first, I shall address myself specifically to young girls.
  Prostitution is a tragedy for girls and young women. However, my hon. Friend is right. I do not have any statistics, but it is probably true that the majority of prostitutes have children and have homes to look after. The only way that they can obtain a decent income is to go on the game. They cannot look to the social security system for that income. I do not think that that is a good thing, but the choice is theirs. I wish that they would find other courses of action preferable so that they could make their contribution in a different way.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest problems when young girls are loose in large cities, if I might put it in that way, is that they often fall prey to the pimp, and once in his hands they are exploited? If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) were to have her way, many more prostitutes would find their way into prison. The prostitute has to pay the pimp, and if she cannot pay the fine she will end up in prison. She will go to prison rather than default on the pimp, who often has great physical power over her.
  Ms. Richardson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There are young girls, and presumably young boys too, who are under the power of pimps. They get themselves increasingly into difficulties from which they cannot escape because there is no alternative.
  I watched a moving film on television a few weeks ago —I think that it was a repeat—about a husband and wife who were looking for their 15-year-old daughter who had disappeared two years earlier. It was not a documentary. Eventually the father found her in the big city. Although it was not stated explicitly, she was a prostitute. I did not see the problems that faced the father and the problems that faced the daughter that led her to leave home. She wanted to get away and she could not find a job. We know that that happens. We must provide the sort of society that will not cause women to resort to that way of life.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. She has painted a picture of girls who think that they are forced, through economic circumstances, to go on the game, but how do so many single parents who also maintain homes manage not to do that? Will the hon. Lady consider the cumulative nuisance of prostitution rather than stories of young girls who apparently cannot manage when hundreds of thousands of their counterparts can?
  Ms. Richardson: I do not know where the hon. Lady has been, but I wish that she would come to my surgery. She is right to say that hundreds of thousands of single parents and women with partners try to manage without becoming prostitutes, but they are doing it with the utmost difficulty. It is a constant problem to pay bills.
  I am afraid that the question is rhetorical, but does not the hon. Lady have people coming to her surgery saying that their gas or electricity is about to be cut off, that they are buying cheaper food than they want to buy because
  928
  they cannot get a job which pays a decent wage or because they cannot get decent income support out of the rotten social security system that has recently been introduced?
  The hon. Lady asked why I do not pay attention to the pleas of women constituents of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. Of course I have sympathy for people who feel that some offence is being committed which is a nuisance to them. All I am saying is that imprisoning them is not a deterrent. They will go to prison and, when they come out, if they still do not have a job or some proper and dignified means of supporting themselves and their families, they will return to prostitution. The hon. Lady is merely ensuring that prisons are fuller than ever. She can be sure that, if magistrates have the option, they will send them straight to prison rather than impose a fine.
  We want a decent policy against poverty for men and women. There should be a decent sentencing policy which ensures that the most serious offences are properly punished but that trivial ones are not. That is how to look after the nuisance, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East calls it, caused to some people in some residential areas. Imprisoning the women concerned is not the answer, and I hope either that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause or that the House will defeat it.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) has highlighted a considerable social mischief in her constituency, and her constituents will be extremely grateful to her for that, but I cannot commend the new clause to the House. There are four considerations that may influence my hon. Friend and persuade her not to press the clause to a Division.
  The first is a slight drafting difficulty. We are not resting on principle todayߞwe are dealing with a proposed inclusion in a Bill. The problem with the new clause is that it does not prescribe a maximum penalty of imprisonment.
  Mr. Corbett: Life.
  Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is no upper limit. That causes a slight difficulty, because courts in some areas might impose a 10 or 15-year sentence. That would be within the scope of the new clause, and I do not think that my hon. Friend intended that.
  10.15 pm
  I shall now deal with the substantive matters. Secondly, this category of offence should not attract a prison sentence. We are trying to confine prison sentences to serious crime—defined, perhaps, as crimes of violence or serious crimes against property. I accept that my hon. Friend has made it plain that prostitution is a serious social mischief, but it is not a crime that should attract a prison sentence. I have no desire for our prisons to be full of prostitutes.
  Thirdly, imprisonment has never served as a deterrent to any prostitute. Until 1982 a sentence of imprisonment was available to the courts, and it was also available at the time of the Wolfenden report. Prostitutes roamed the streets, and the courts were full of them. There is no reason to believe that the problem has become worse since then.
  The fourth consideration that will weigh with the House, if not with my hon. Friend, is the little matter of sexual equality. If we lock up a number of female prostitutes, what will we do about the rent boys? Surely

  929
  they will also have to be locked up. The mind boggles at the prospect of Brixton and Pentonville full of rent boys. That would do nothing for good order and discipline. It would also have a serious effect on the incidence of AIDS in prisons— [interruption.] I have even persuaded my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose name I was about to invoke because he is shortly to publish a consultative document about alternative punishments in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is understandably worried that prostitutes cannot be sentenced to community service. She may wish to make some representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the context of that consultative document.
  Mr. Bermingham: I hope that the Minister is not serious. I know that it is late at night, but this is a serious subject. Those of us who were around in the 1970s will remember that those convicted of prostitution and soliciting were sent to prison, which caused enormous problems. We have sought to avoid any hint of imprisonment, so it has been with great sadness that many of us have noted the use of punitive fines as a backdoor method of imprisonment. I hope that the Minister is suggesting only in a jocular way that community service should be an alternative to imprisonment, because that always carries a penal sanction for breach.
  Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being serious. It is important that there is an ultimate sanction against those who persistently and deliberately refuse to pay a fine. It is right that the courts should have the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment on prostitutes in breach. I make no apology for that.
  I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East that it would be appropriate
  930
  to make representations in the context of the consultative document. I am not saying that the Government would respond favourably; I am merely responding to a specific comment. My hon. Friend should be aware of her ability to make such representations. I recognise that in Wolverhampton and elsewhere prostitution is a serious social mischief, but I do not believe that imprisonment is a proper solution. I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will not wish to press the clause to a Division.
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, but obviously I am bitterly disappointed. lie has offered few crumbs of comfort to those who must live with the problem. I hope that he will in due course reflect on its seriousness and, in the light of any future escalation, consider the matter further. I also hope that he will monitor the position carefully, with due regard to what I have said.
  I suppose that I must thank my hon. Friend at least for telling the people that he intends to issue a consultative document, and I shall of course make myself au fait with the contents. I hope to make a contribution to the arrangements for alternative punishments in the community, as he suggests. In the light of that small but beneficial offer, I shall bow to his judgment and not press the new clause to a Division. I assure him, however, that I intend to monitor the situation carefully, because of my heartfelt sorrow for those who live with it. I have seen the extreme effect that it has on them.
  I have tried tonight to highlight the problems of those who suffer, but the problems of prostitutes themselves are a matter for debate on another occasion. I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in listening to me.
  Question put and negatived.

New Clause 63

  INCOME-RELATED FINES
  `A court imposing a fine on an offender convicted of an indictable offence shall, so far as the disposable income of the offender appears or is known to the court, impose a fine of the number of days' disposable income which it appears to the court that the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender require.'.— [Mr. Worthington.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Worthington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause proposes to increase the credibility of the fine systems by ensuring that fines are related more directly to the ability to pay. This is known as the day-fine system, and there are two sides to it. One is to ensure that those with limited incomes are not threatened with an overwhelming fine that is not related to their ability to pay. The other is to ensure that the fines imposed on those with sizeable incomes make an impact on them.
  Day-fine systems have been introduced, and have apparently worked well, in a number of countries, including West Germany, Sweden and Austria. The amount of the fine is arrived at by multiplying a number reflecting the gravity of the offence by a sum that varies in proportion to the offender's income. It is a kind of tariff system, which I think is much fairer.
  This needs to be seen in the context of the general crime position in this country, and also the problem of overcrowding in our prisons. Fines are the principal non-custodial sentence that is imposed. Although they have fallen proportionately in recent years, they still form 39 per cent. of the penalties imposed for all indictable offences.
  As a Scottish Member, I am especially pleased to move the new clause. Scotland has a particular problem of fine defaulting—even larger than the problem in England and Wales. In 1985, half of all admissions to Scottish prisons were due to fine defaulting. Only 6 per cent. of all offenders in prison at any one time were fine defaulters, but their impact on the prison system is colossal, because the overwhelming majority of such sentences are short-term. There are over 400 movements in and out of Barlinnie prison in Glasgow each day, and a significant proportion of those prisoners are fine defaulters. That imposes a considerable logistical problem on the prison. It means that many of the staff can be used not for positive duties, but simply for duties involved in maintaining the prison.
  We wish to consider fines in the context of all other disposals. It is important that those who commit offences receive the appropiate punishment. Sometimes fines are imposed when it is inappropriate, and that leads to people ending up in prison. The opening of a designated place for drink offenders in Albyn house, Aberdeen, had an almost miraculous effect. In the previous year there had been 600 prosecutions for drunkenness. After the opening of Albyn house there were only three, and that meant that there was a significant reduction in the number of fine defaulters.
  Our proposal for day fines is linked to the need to ensure that fines are not imposed inappropriately. I am sure that there is common ground on that. We wish to ensure that there are appropriate disposals for those with drink problems, that the probation service is developed to its full and useful extent, that community service orders are used and that day attendance centres receive more attention than they have done previously.
  Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the serious problem of assessing a person's income if he is self-employed? Would it be assessed on the previous year's income as declared for taxation? Would it be assessed before, or after, business expenses have been considered, and would it include factors that are not allowed for taxation, such as depreciation? Would the present year's income be considered for a person in employment, and, if so, is the hon. Gentleman not further discriminating against people who are assessed under schedule E?
  Mr. Worthington: Before I answer that question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us how income is assessed at present.
  Mr. Hanley: I shall not answer that question, for the simple reason that I know how to assess an income for tax purposes. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us how he will get an accurate assessment of a person's income for the purpose of fines.
  Mr. Worthington: The reason why I asked the hon. Gentleman to intervene again is that at present there seems to be a limited system for calculating whether people can afford to pay the fine that is imposed. We should move to a system that gives a clearer appreciation of a person's disposable income so that magistrates and Crown courts can be more aware of people's ability to pay. It is sheer foolishness to take a sum out of the air and impose it if the consequence of that will be a waste of public resources. The average cost of maintaining someone in prison is about £250 a week—it ranges from £150 to £500 a week. That is what it costs to imprison people who have defaulted on fines which are on average about £100. It is folly not to examine the size of fines much more closely than we do at present in terms of public resources.
  Mr. Hanley: I merely suggest that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps look to a reform of the taxation system before a reform of the fine system.
  Mr. Worthington: I am working simultaneously on this Bill and the Finance Bill. I am thus attempting to deal with the fine and taxation system at the same time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if my proposals for a taxation system were adopted many more people at the bottom end of the income scale would be in a position to pay their fines.
  10.30 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at any specific time, it is relatively simple to determine someone's disposable income? If all courts had the debt counselling system that the Government have advocated, and which Opposition Members would certainly support, we could help people who find it difficult to pay their fines and develop the expertise for working out people's disposable income when a fine is about to be imposed.
  Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I said earlier, we hope that, following acceptance of our proposal for day fines, there will also evolve a much more satisfactory system of ensuring that fines are paid, by making sure that the proper social services support or money advice is available. At the moment it seems to be a hit and miss system.
  It would not be sensible to impose a large fine on someone on social security without taking into account all

  933
  the other outgoings that that person may have, particularly in the present circumstances. Two of the Government's measures will increase the problems of those on social security. One such measure is the poll tax, which will mean that at least 20 per cent. of the country's average poll tax will be paid by people on social security. If anyone imagines that the Government will increase the amount of benefit to compensate for that, he is slightly more naive than I am.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, every day, courts are in the business of assessing defendants' disposable income and that that is done for single applications for legal aid? The criminal legal aid form applies a test that is aimed at finding out a person's disposable income. The term "disposable income" is used in the new clause. Therefore, there is no difficulty in assessing disposable income.
  Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. Of course that is so. As always, the worst possible case has been presented, that of the self-employed person, but the vast majority of people who come before the courts are likely to have no difficulty in declaring their disposable income. It is a familiar request. It is made on numerous occasions in respect of income tax or benefits. It is not a major obstacle.
  This proposal reflects a social fact. The value of money is not the same to everybody. A fiver to one person is not the same as a fiver to another person. Fifty pounds to one person is one family's disposable income for a week. To another person, £50 is lunch. We would not treat offences with the same seriousness if we were to impose the same lines upon people.
  Unfortunately, some judges and magistrates have lost touch with the value of money to those who are poorer than they are and impose fines that are out of all proportion to the ability to pay. One would want to set limits for those in the social security system and never require them to pay back more than £1·50, or some such sum, per week.
  I mentioned that the poll tax is one imposition on people with limited incomes. The social fund is another. Those who find it necessary to use the social fund will have to repay whatever loans they receive from that benefit. It is unrealistic to impose a hefty fine on that family, who may also have fuel debts. It is easy to forget that we are largely talking about the impact of fines as they affect families, because behind every fine defaulter there is a family in difficulty.
  Before fines are imposed, much more information should be available to the courts about the disposable income of the offender. Instead of a standard rate tariff there should be a sliding rate according to the ability to pay. That would make for a much fairer system and ensure that our prisons were not filled with people who should not be there—a goal which I know the Minister shares.
  Mr. Cash: What the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said was dangerous. If people guilty of the most appalling crimes could escape with a small fine because they did not have many resources, we would have a most appalling mess in no time.
  934
  Recently a magistrates court fined a student £1,100 for a driving offence, which by any reasonable standards was incredible. During the proceedings an examination—not an effective one as it turned out—was made of his income, and, although the facts were examined, they did not seem to bear any weight with the magistrates. Not only did they ban him from driving for 18 months, but they imposed a fine of £1,100. The student, deciding that he had not had a fair trial, appeared in person before the Crown court and managed to get his fine reduced to £400. A sensible judge, in a formal sensible proceeding, reduced the fine, with the result that the student could pay. Everything was done as it should have been done and a reasonable result ensued.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is saying is a strong argument for the proposal of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)?
  Mr. Cash: I was about to say that, although l have grave doubts about a sliding tariff, which is what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie proposed, there is some merit in the notion that when courts are considering such questions they should, and often do, have regard to the requirements and circumstances of the offender. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to say something about that.
  The hon. Gentleman made a further important pointߞ that the punishment should fit the crime. There is a prison in my constituency, Stafford. We are anxious, as is the prison service as a whole and the Home Office, not to fill prisons with people who are not suited to be there. Too many people are being given the wrong punishment.
  I have much respect and time for my hon. Friend the Minister, who performs a distinguished service to the country. We have not yet had an opportunity to read his new proposals, but no doubt we shall in time. Then we may be able to congratulate him on his proposals for hard labourߞ [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and others laugh at the thought of hard labour, but hooligans—especially football hooligans—should not be allowed to get away with fines when hard labour should be meted out to them. I do not mean indiscriminate, mindless hard labour, but effective hard labour that would make them think twice. It would go a long way towards solving the problems on the terraces.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: We were smiling at the phrase "hard labour," because the Government are schizophrenic in their attitude to community service. They say that they appreciate the work that is done as part of community service orders, many of which entail very hard work. But the term "hard labour"—certainly as employed by some Conservative Back-Bench Membersߞhas negative connotations. The Minister is trying to ride two horses: he is trying to be constructive and support the community service scheme, and he is also trying to use language that will appeal to some of the backwoodsmen behind him.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not follow the hon. Lady down that road. We are discussing fines.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: She started it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a matter not of who started it, but who finishes it. The buck stops here.
  Mr. Cash: Fines are appropriate on some occasions. The hon. Lady has fallen straight into the Socialist trap. It is what I call Socialist claptrap: confusing an important matter with Socialist middle-speak. She forgets that the expression "hard labour" means something, and in the contextߞߞ
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman not to follow that road. I am a most tolerant individual in the Chair, but my tolerance has now expired. We must return to the new clause.
  Mr. Cash: I agree absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  There is much merit in what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, and I look forward to the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. I suspect that he will have some important statements to make.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I apologise for flippantly taking the Chair in vain a little earlier, but I was perplexed as to how hard labour related to a day fine system.
  The problem with fines is that, proportionally, they tend to be much higher for the lower-paid. Courts are embarrassed in two respects. First, they are embarrassed by imposing what appear to be extremely high fines, albeit on people who may have extremely high incomes. However, who could say that it was unjust for the person who earns £100,000 a year to pay a fine of £3,000 and for the person who earns £10,000 to pay a fine of 300 for the same offence? That must be elementary justice. The courts also appear embarrassed to impose low fines on the low-paid. A fine of £300 may sound little for a fairly serious offence, yet it may be imposed on someone whose net income is only £300 a month. The new clause seeks to strike justice, so that high-earners and low-earners can be fined by the same set of standards.
  This proposal is not a kite that is being flown out of the imagination of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He has pointed out that countries in northern and central Europe successfully operate a day fine system. They use simple forms to assess people's income and there is no difficulty in doing so. Those who falsely declare their income are committing the extremely serious offence of perverting the course of public justice. That offence is always punished by imprisonment.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Hanley: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that a custodial sentence should be imposed in proportion to the length of life that the accused has had upon the earth or in proportion to a person's life expectancy? Should one impose a hard labour sentence according to the strength of the individual? Where does the argument end?
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his lack of experience in such matters. If a 70-year-old man is charged with a serious offence, he will generally get a much lesser sentence than a 25-year-old man who has committed the same offence—unless the sentence is fixed by law. If a sick man is convicted of a serious offence, he will receive a lighter sentence than a healthy man who has committed the same offence. That is only fair and just.
  Sentencing is not merely an objective exercise; it has a strong individualised element. The day fine system is a
  936
  simple and fair way to ensure that fines are such that they strike that balance between the objective and the subjective at which every sentencer should be aiming.
  Sentencers have a public duty to perform—the duty to impose a sentence that, broadly speaking, fits the category for which the crime calls. They also have a duty to perform by the accused that involves sentencing that person within the broad framework in a way that is not unduly harsh on that individual.
  The two embarrassments of which I spoke would be removed if a court was able to use the day fine system. I do not support the argument that courts should use only the day fine system. In many instances small, standard monetary fines for everyone convicted of a particular offence—for example, a byelaw offence—are justified.
  Mr. John Patten: Where would the hon. and learned Gentleman draw the line between the common use of the day fine and the use of other forms of set fines?
  Mr. Carlile: I believe that the court should have available to it a day fine system. It could choose between fixing a monetary fine and imposing a day fine.
  Courts often face the problem of ascertaining at the hearing the precise earnings of the accused, especially if that person is unrepresented. Those practising solicitors who are in the Chamber know that they can face such a problem in court. It is not always easy for solicitors to ascertain, at the moment of sentence, the precise earnings of their client. If a court, faced with such a dilemma, was able to say, "We impose a fine of five days' or five weeks' disposable income", it would enable the appropriate inquiry to be made afterwards if necessary. In that way the precise figure for the fine could be assessed.
  I urge the Minister, either now or during the review, to which we look forward with great interest, to study closely the possibility of introducing a practical and also pragmatic measure that would make life for sentencers much simpler and the consequences for criminals much fairer.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the measure has considerable practical and pragmatic appeal, but it is also right in principle that punishments should mean the same to each person who is being punished for roughly the same offence. If we had a system of day fines, or income-related fines, that would be fairer, because each person would be punished according to the extent to which the punishment hurt him, was meaningful and affected his everyday life.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, it would have the practical consequence of reducing prison overcrowding, because many of those who are in prison for the non-payment of fines are there because they cannot pay the fines imposed on them, not because they wilfully refuse to do so. That imposes an undue burden on our prison system, because the vast majority of fine defaulters spend a short time in the prison system, and the administration that is caused by that creates considerable difficulties.
  We should all try to seek systems by which fewer people end up in prison because of defaulting on fines. We must also be realistic and recall that many women end up in prison because they cannot afford to pay their fines. The

  937
  day-fine system that we suggest is particularly appropriate to many women, because many of them have a low disposable income. That should be taken into account.
  The new clause outlines the situation clearly and should deal with some of the concerns raised by Conservative Members, although often from sedentary positions. The new clause makes it clear that we are talking about disposable income and that the seriousness of the offence is to be taken into account by the court. It would be helpful if the court had that as an option, although I should like to go slightly further than the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and hope that if it were introduced it would not be left simply to the courts, but that clear guidelines would be issued as to when it was considered appropriate to use the system.
  I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's thinking on the issue.
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is always clear.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Minister's hon. Friend accuses him of always being clear, but I have to tell the House that in Committee the Minister resisted our amendment on this topic, but the Home Secretary, when he made his statement on overcrowding in prisons, hinted that he would like to move towards an income-related fine system. It appears that the Home Secretary has slightly more of an open mind than has the Minister of State. Perhaps we shall hear tonight that the Home Secretary has been able to open up the Minister of State's mind a bit further. Perhaps, along with my hon. Friends, the Home Secretary will have given the Minister cause for thought. I hope that we shall have a more favourable response now than we did in Committee.
  Mr. John Patten: As the then Prime Minister of France, M. Fabius, said when there was a dispute about whether there was any disagreement between him and the President of the Republic, M. Mitterrand, there was not a centimetre's difference between his position as Prime Minister and that of the President of the fifth Republic. I can say exactly the same. There is not a centimetre's difference in policy between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself. I have combed the statements by my right hon. Friend in reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and he has never said that he wishes to see the introduction of a day-fine system. What he has said clearly, which I think is common ground across the Floor of the House, is that he wishes to see the fine system related to income. As with M. Fabius and President Mitterrand, so with the Home Secretary and his junior Minister.
  The hon. Lady gave notice in Committee that she wanted to pursue this point. This evening it has been pursued by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who is a glutton for punishment. He is serving on the Committee examining the Finance Bill, and he has come to take part in this debate, too. I share his aim: we do not want inappropriate fines to be imposed on offenders.
  The courts are already encouraged to take full account of means when determining the size of fines. The problem is that it is said that they sometimes do not—hence the sort of problems that emerged in the speech by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, and the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
  938
  Sometimes people who default on fines go to gaol. The numbers who go to gaol are still higher than the Government want. That is a strain on prison administration. We can take only a little comfort from the figures. It might interest the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie if I gave him the most recently available figures. In 1982 there were 24,500 receptions into prison following fine default. By 1986, that had fallen to about 19,000—a substantial, although not astounding, reduction. Equally, and probably more importantly, the average number of people in prison at any given time for fine default fell from about 900 in 1982 to about 500 in 1986.
  We are by no means unsympathetic to the thinking behind the new clause. But we doubt whether the pure day-fine system, as operated in some western European countries, would work well here. That system requires the courts to express the fine as a number of units on all or most occasions. Courts impose fines on more than a million occasions a year, so this would be a considerable strain on the court system.
  We think that the system would be unduly mechanistic. It could be rigid, and it would certainly be bureaucratic. There are all sorts of practical problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) put his finger on them earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also pointed to the sort of problems that can arise. The essence of the day-fine idea should be explored and promoted, if that essence has to do with ability to pay.
  This is why, as I said in Committee, we are setting up some experimental projects in several parts of the country. They are designed to do exactly what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), with all his experience as a deputy recorder and the times that he has appeared in Mold Crown court—the centre of the United Kingdom judicial universe—rightly wants us to do: to examine the possibility of relating fines to income We are introducing the projects to devise a systematic way of relating fines to the means of offenders. As part of the experiment, we shall introduce a new form, which will make for consistent decision taking about fine levels across the country. The aim is to establish a procedure that is not unduly bureaucratic—which a strict day-fine system, whether compulsory or available at the discretion of the court, might well be—but which will relate fines more closely to income.
  In Committee, I said that we hope to have two of these experimental schemes quite soon. One will be in Bradford and the other in Swansea. I can announce to the House that, with the agreement of the court authorities, we will be able to have a further experiment, which will begin almost immediately, in Teesside. Therefore, there will he three experiments—one naturally in Wales, one in Bradford and one in Teesside. These experiments will run for six months and the Home Office will get reports about the findings not in 1995 but in 1989.
  11 pm
  I think that in trying to relate fines much more closely to income we are travelling along much the same road as the Opposition. However, we think that the day-fine system is too rigid and too bureaucratic, at least for the moment, and would prefer to experiment on the basis that I have described.

  939
  In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and her hon. Friends will be content to leave matters as they are and not press the new clause to a Division.
  Mr. Worthington: We wish to press ahead with the new clause. Before I sum up, I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), because we should have added his name to the list of proposers of the new clause. That was an omission.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for telling me that she knew the Minister would not accept the new clause. She has worked out his body language and knows that when he is about to say no he has his arms folded. My hon. Friend has never persuaded him to say yes. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for the moment of exquisite pain that he inflicted on the Minister when he used the term "hard labour". The Minister tries to be loved by everybody and the term "punishment in the community" is exquisitely balanced but is hardly how the Minister wanted to see his new proposal described.
  None of the Conservative Members who spoke tackled seriously enough the problem that I posed in proposing the new clause. It is that in Scotland 50 per cent. of the admissions to prison are for fine default. In England and Wales it is about half that, about 25 to 30 per cent. That is an enormous problem for the prisons. The Minister said that our proposals would impose a strain on the court system. What on earth does he think the present procedures impose on the prison system?
  We must tackle the problem of some unpaid fines being disposed of by an inappropriate, short sentence. We accept that that is a difficult problem because, while over 90 per cent. of fines are paid, it is quite difficult to identify the fines which will not be paid and which, because of their large number, create a considerable problem for the prison system. We must press the new clause because we think that it would make the courts much more systematic than they are at present.
  As I said, there are two sides to this argument. Someone who has committed an offence should have imposed upon him a penalty that makes him think about the serious consequences of his actions. The penalty should be such that it causes people to say that society seriously disapproves of their actions. There is no doubt that if a substantial fine is imposed upon a poor person he will get that message. If one imposes a moderate fine on a wealthy person, one has not penalised him. Therefore, there should be more substantial fines, or disposals, which have an impact on the life of that person.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall the support that the Home Secretary gave to this concept, when he said in the House that the answer to many of the problems outlined by my hon. Friend
  "is to make the level of fine realistic in the first place"? —[Official Report, 30 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 1090.]
  Mr. Worthington: The Home Secretary has said some sensible things, and I wish that they could be codified into a day-fine system.
  As the Minister knows, we have the massive problem that in England and Wales we imprison more people than
  940
  are imprisoned almost anywhere else in Europe. I am delighted to see present the Under-Secretary with responsibility for prisons in Scotland, because the problem is even worse there. Only the record in Turkey exceeds the number of people who are imprisoned in Scotland.
  We shall never be able to deal with this problem unless we can tackle the supply side. There is also the problem, which in a way is a good one, that the judiciary is independent and is not the judicial arm of the political system. We must ensure that there are no rogue courts that are taking up more of the country's resources than they should by imposing fines or other disposables, with the result that people are being sent to prison needlessly.
  A good court will have an informal day-fine system anyway, and a good judge will take into account people's ability to pay, but all the experience is that we cannot simply leave it to good practice. There has to be a codified system of day fines, which lays down on a formula basis how fines should be calculated, taking into account both the seriousness of the offence and the ability to pay if we are both to use the fining system sensibly and avoid the needless use of our prison space.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:ߞߞ
  The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 197.

  Division No. 368]

  [11.7 pm

  AYES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Battle, John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lewis, Terry

  Boateng, Paul

  Livingstone, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Livsey, Richard

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  McCartney, Ian

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Maxton, John

  Clelland, David

  Michael, Alun

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Murphy, Paul

  Cohen, Harry

  Nellist, Dave

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  O'Brien, William

  Corbett, Robin

  Parry, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  Patchett, Terry

  Cryer, Bob

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Primarolo, Dawn

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

  Rooker, Jeff

  Dewar, Donald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dixon, Don

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alexander

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Faulds, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Fearn, Ronald

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Flynn, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Gordon, Mildred

  Worthington, Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Amess, David

  Ashby, David

  Amos, Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  941

  Baldry, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gill, Christopher

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gow, Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

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

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Harris, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butler, Chris

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butterfill, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Holt, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howard, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

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

  Cash, William

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Irvine, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Janman, Tim

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lilley, Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Lord, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  942

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end F.)

  Maples, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tracey, Richard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Trippier, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mills, Iain

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Whitney, Ray

  Moss, Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Neubert, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Stern, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. ߞ [Mr. Dorrell.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  SOCIAL SERVICES
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Terry Patchett be discharged from the Social Services Committee and Mr. Andrew Smith he added to the Committee— [Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

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

  ANTARCTICA
  That the draft Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) (No. 2) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved— [Mr. Darrell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Psychological Operations (Northern Ireland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Dorrell]
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I have sought to raise this matter on the Adjournment because, quite frankly, it has become impossible to gain through questioning the Government on the Order Paper any detailed answers to the points that I wish to raise.
  I shall deal with the questions and answers which have been exchanged between myself and the Government during the past few months and which clearly demonstrate a complete evasion by the Government on the nature of the psychological operations and the warfare in Northern Ireland.
  On 27 October 1976, The Irish Times quoted an internal Army document, "An Introduction to Psychological Operations", that set out the nature and scope of such activities. Those activities were confirmed at that time—following a question tabled by the late Tom Litterick—by the then Under-Secretary of State in the Labour Government. The reply was clear:
  "The syllabus consists of the study and analysis of propaganda techniques and their countermeasures; elementary psychology and community relations."—[Official Report, 4 November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 693–94.]
  Yet when I asked the current Secretary of State for Defence to publish the syllabus of courses in psychological warfare operations in the United Kingdom from 1972 to date, the answer was simply "No". If the syllabus could be published in 1976, why not now? Is it that the Government have something to hide of which the then Labour Government were not aware?
  On 7 March, answering my question on the number of armed forces and Civil Service personnel trained in psychological warfare from 1972 to 1987, the Under-Secretary of State told the House that information was not available prior to 1983. That was not the case. The numbers involved for the years 1973–74 and 1974–75—a total of more than 200 individualsߞwere made available in a written reply in Hansard on 4 November 1976. Once again, it was strange that the information available to the Government could not even stretch to checking previous editions of Hansard.
  Following a further written question by myself, the information appears for the period 1973 to 1976, but the Under-Secretary of State now states that the figures for 1976 to 1982 are no longer available. How convenient, how amazingߞjust the figures that they do not want us to have.
  That policy of disinformation towards the House continued when I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
  "Where courses have been held on psychological warfare and psychological operations in which his Department was involved in each year from 1972 to the current date, in the United Kingdom and the United States of America."
  Following a delay through a holding reply, the Under-Secretary's answer fell into two parts: first, information for the United Kingdom was made available only up to 1982. As to post-1982, the reply stated:
  "Since 1982 responsibility for the courses has transferred to MOD central staff."
  That avoided answering the question. Why are the Government so keen not to reveal the location? Is it
  944
  because it would mean admitting that the current location for such courses is the joint intelligence centre, where the Army co-ordinates all intelligence operations, including the covert activities of MI5 and MI6, or is it because they would also be admitting to Parliament that psychological operations are an integral part of the state's secret intelligence function?
  It is not surprising, therefore, that when the Secretary of State was later asked what his policy has been since 1982 towards holding courses on psychological warfare and psychological operations at the joint intelligence centre, his answer was simply to refer to the reply given on 6 May.
  The second issue raised concerned courses in the United States of America. The Minister replied:
  "With regard to courses in the USA, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 7 March."—[Official Report, 6 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 622.]
  Yet the question on 7 March was:
  "how many members of the armed forces and civil servants from his Department were engaged in psychological warfare in Northern Ireland each year from 1972 to 1987."—[Official Report,7 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 59.]
  I was asking about the location of training in the USA, not about the numbers involved. Why was a reply provided for the United Kingdom but not for the USA when it had previously been provided by the then Labour Under-Secretary in Hansard in 1976? The answer may lie in the fact that the Government do not want to admit that courses are currently being provided at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where psychological operations training is heavily influenced by experiences in Vietnam and specially oriented towards catering for special forces such as the SAS. They involve instruction on kidnapping, explosive booby-trapping and assassination techniques. They were put into operation during the USA assassination campaign called Operation Phoenix in the Vietnam war. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Minister refused to provide a straight answer as well as refusing to comment on the details of course content, especially those provided in the USA.
  According to one study, "Britain's Military Strategy in Ireland" by Roger Faligot, in October 1972 Keith Belbin, from the publicity agency Colman, Prentice and Varley, then handling the election account of the Tory party, was present. Also present was Alan Protheroe, a major in army intelligence, who later became assistant director-general of the BBC and is currently working for the Ministry of Defence. In 1979, BBC news editor and Radio 3 controller Ian McIntyre was present.
  I asked on 6 May how many employees of the BBC attended psychological operation courses, only to be told by the same Minister:
  "The present courses arc only open to students from Ministry of Defence and NATO military and civilian staffs." —[Official Report, 6 May 1988, Vol.132, c. 622.]
  He thus avoided the question by answering one that I had not asked. Perhaps we can speculate that as the security services were intent on destabilising the legitmately elected Government during the 1970s, the BBC management could prove a useful ally.
  On 14 June I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
  "what are the precise details and responsibilities of the Army information services in Northern Ireland?"
  The ever-ubiquitous Under-Secretary evaded an honest reply by saying:

  945
  "The role …is to represent the Army (including the UDR, TA and Cadets) in Northern Ireland in all matters relating to publicity and the media.—[Official Report, 14 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 121–22.]
  That employs a total of more than 40 press officers. What his reply failed to confirm when considering psychological operations in Ireland was the covert role played by the Army information policy department, set up in September 1971, later to become a separate, militarily-staffed information unit within the Army information services. The Government refuse to confirm the unit's existence. It has functioned under different names. From 1970 to 1971 it was the information liaison unit; from 1971 to 1975 it was the information policy unit; in 1975 it became the information planning unit. According to Mr. Peter Broderick, employed as chief information officer at Army headquarters Northern Ireland from 1973 to 1974, his brief was to
  "use psychological means to assist operations strategically and tactically."
  Mr. Colin Wallace, a senior information officer at that time, was a key figure in the operation of the unit. According to a statement by the IPCS in October 1975, in addition to ordinary public relations duties Wallace was required to engage in secret black propaganda disinformation activities as part of his official duties. That, of course, required a secret job description on the basis of psychological operations. To comply with Civil Service regulations, a false job cover description was put out by the Ministry of Defence. That has been repeatedly denied by the Government.
  The IPCS stated that Wallace's responsibilities included the
  "unattributable briefing of journalists which included the revelation of 'privileged and sensitive information' …
  operations to discredit individuals and cause dissension within organisation …
  operations designed to result in a 'favourable press' for the Department and the Government, by countering hostile propaganda."
  Thus Wallace claims that he was unlawfully employed by the MOD Army information services and used by the intelligence services to disseminate information and disinformation designed to discredit key political personalities, particularly during the 1974 general election —a topic dealt with in Mr. Peter Wright's book.
  The growth of psychological warfare dates back to the publication of "Low Intensity Operations" by Frank Kitson. Indeed, prior to that the Army published "Land Operations—Counter Revolutionary Operations" endorsing and committing the Army to the use of those methods.
  On 28 March I asked the Secretary of State for Defence about the use of forged CIA documents by the armed forces in Northern Ireland from 1971 to that date. The Minister replied:
  "I am unaware of any evidence that such documents have been used at any time by the armed forces in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 28 March 1988; Vol 130, c. 362.]
  Following a holding answer, he replied on 6 May to a question concerning the policy of the Ministry of Defence to the forging of documents by Army printing presses in Northern Ireland in connection with covert operations:
  "It is not the practice to comment on operational mattters." —[Official Report, 6 May 1988; Vol 132, c. 620.]
  Once again, it was not a denial, which is wise given the mounting evidence to the contrary.
  I have a photostat of the CIA forged document of authority that Colin Wallace sent to the Prime Minister
  946
  asking her to investigate how he came to be in possession of such an item. I am not at all surprised that the Minister does not wish to deny its existence.
  A current assistant chief public relations officer at the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Chris Whitehead, also carried a false CIA card. Members of the Army information service masqueraded as members of a paramilitary group with captured terrorist weapons and explosives at Belfast airport in 1974. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister can give a categorical denial of that.
  The leaking of the plans formulated by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), to set up a special community police force to try to bridge the gap between the communities was leaked in order to wreck those plans. That was admitted by my right hon. Friend in March 1987 on Ulster Television. The leak was conducted by the Army information servicesߞsupposedly at that time loyal servants of the Government, who would not be expected to leak information to derail their policies.
  In addition, in his book "A Personal View", the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland admits to the existence of
  "Freelance attempts by the Army information people to use black propaganda."
  Clockwork Orange, the plan to discredit politicians and the legitimately elected Government, formulated and activated by the unit working within the Army information services in Northern Ireland, reached its climax in the mid-1970s. In reply to a question about the nature of Clockwork Orange, I was fobbed off by the Minister, who referred to a previous answer stating that all allegations made by Mr. Wallace had been carefully investigated. This was in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and appeared in Hansard on 20 July and did not state the precise nature of those investigations. Subsequent questions about this matter have repeatedly failed to elicit the information—particularly information as to who initiated such a project. I hope that the Government will state clearly how many investigations were conducted, by whom, who was interviewed, what the investigations cost, to whom they were reported and who has seen them apart from the Ministers concerned.
  Major General Sir Peter Leng, a former commander of land forces in Northern Ireland in 1973–74 when his unit was active, admitted the existence of Clockwork Orange in an article in The Listener, entitled "A Wilderness of Mirrors", on 6 August 1987. I shall be interested to hear whether the Government formally deny that such a project ever took place.
  When on 6 May I asked what percentage of officers commanding the information policy unit, the information liaison unit and the information planning unit in Northern Ireland underwent training at home or abroad in psychological warfare, after a delay the Minister, referring to a previous answer, said:
  "It is not the policy to comment on operational matters." —[Official Report, 7 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 59.]
  That was inconsistent as details had previously been given about the individuals who had been "trained". Such details were given by the Prime Minister in Hansard on 7 March 1988. Furthermore, the question was not about operational details. Once again the Government were failing to answer the question by answering another

  947
  question. As there is dual involvement of the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office, it has been difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the relationship, although the Prime Minister stated that the Secretary of State for Defence was ultimately responsible.
  That is interesting, given that a question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took nearly a month to answer concerning his Department's policy towards Psyops from 1972 was not directly and automatically referred to the Ministry of Defence. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office replied:
  "It is not the general practice to comment on detailed matters of security policy."—[Official Report, 23 May 1988; Vol. 134, c. 36.]
  There is a need to explain the link between the psychological operations, Lisburn army information services and the small covert unit working within it. Those links have continually been denied. Does the Secretary of State for Defence retain ultimate responsibility, or does it go higher? My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South was asked on Ulster Television in March 1987 whether he knew of a Psyops unit in Army HQ. He stated that he did not know of its existence until late 1974, and then took steps to disband it.
  It is important to know that the Information Research Department, a sinister body set up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and later disbanded by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), was formed to monitor "Left-wing" activities and was involved in information policy in the 1970s. It should also be noted that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office stated on 6 May 1987 that allegations made by Mr. Wallace were indeed matters for the defence Ministers. The Minister assured the House that
  "these allegations have been fully and carefully investigated and that there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate any of them. I am satisfied."—[Official Report, 6 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 808]
  In addition, the Prime Minister, when asked about
  "false job descriptions, psychological warfare and propaganda",
  following information received from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, stated that all the allegations had been
  "fully and carefully investigated and no evidence had been found to substantiate any of them,"—[Official Report, 26 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 96.]
  Furthermore, on 6 May 1988 the Secretary of State for Defence was asked if he would make a statement as to which officials in charge of Army information services had been interviewed by any inquiries into psychological operations. It is important to remember that, according to the Prime Minister, Psyops falls under his responsibility. He replied that he does not comment on specific individuals. When he was asked on 14 June 1988 how many individuals were interviewed, the same evasion was provided:
  "We have been assured repeatedly that full investigations have been undertaken, but no information has been forthcoming as to their nature and scope."
  Even more amazing, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when asked whether Wallace was ever interviewed concerning Psyops, political disinformation or alleged use of forged documentation, replied:
  "Not as far as I am aware."
  948
  In fact, none of Mr. Wallace's former colleagues has ever been interviewed by MOD or NIO about these allegations. In particular, this includes the key accuser Colin Wallace.
  If that is what passes for full and careful investigation by the Government, we are in a sorry state. Should we be surprised by the answers provided? Obviously not, given the political embarrassment that would inevitably result —particularly as they dovetail with what Peter Wright has been saying in his book. I also note that Mr. Wright has made it clear on television in the last few weeks that there are 10 major secrets that he did not reveal because they would be so damaging. I have not the slightest doubt that the almost complete absence in the book of any mention of what has been going on in Ireland reflects his desire to save the Government from much more devastating embarrassing revelations than could ever have been the case from anything else that he has written.
  We shall not have a safe and secure democracy in this country until we can be satisfied that an elected Government are not undermined by their own security services, and that those services do not operate as cowboys pursuing their own plans and strategies irrespective of loyalty to the elected Government of the day.
  11.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has spoken for 19 minutes. I am sure that he realises that he has somewhat limited my opportunity to respond. I shall certainly study the Hansard record of what he has said tonight and, as I am unable to cover the ground that I had originally intended, I shall then respond to any points that require a detailed reply.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of so-called psychological warfare operations in Northern Ireland—based in part, I believe, on a number of allegations made to him about events that are alleged to have taken place in the Province more than a decade ago. I know from their presence tonight that several other hon. Members have interested themselves in this general issue, and, indeed, in the specific cases lying behind the hon. Gentleman's allegations.
  It has been the general practice of successive Governments not to comment on detailed matters of security policy. I need hardly stress the importance of adhering to that practice where operations in Northern Ireland are concerned, and I have no intention of departing from it this evening. The Government are committed to pursue their efforts to restore peace and order in Northern Ireland, and, in keeping with the security policy that has been followed by successive Governments, are determined to fight terrorism, with all appropriate resources, under the rule of law.
  The hon. Gentleman has made several allegations about so-called psychological warfare operations and alleged criminal activities committed by the security forces in Northern Ireland. These allegations appear to stem from two individuals, Mr. Colin Wallace and a former Army officer, Captain Fred Holroyd, who both left Northern Ireland over a decade ago.
  The position rests as I described it in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 3 March 1987, at column 577. The various allegations made by Captain Holroyd and Mr. Colin Wallace over many years about the conduct of the security forces in

  949
  Northern Ireland have been fully and carefully investigated since they brought them to the attention of the authorities some years after they left the Province in 1975. No evidence has been discovered, as a result of those investigations, to substantiate any of their allegations. If the hon. Member for Brent, East believes that he has new evidence of illegal activities by the security forces—and nothing that I have heard tonight suggests that—he should bring it to the attention of the proper authorities, as I have made clear to him before.
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Who has done the careful investigation of Colin Wallace?
  Mr. Freeman: I regret that, in the time available to me, it is not possible to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Brent, East, or the points that he may have cared to raise, if this were anything but an Adjournment debate, about the allegations of Mr. Colin Wallace. I shall write to the hon. Member for Brent, East tomorrow and put in the Library a copy of my letter, with fuller remarks about the allegations raised by Mr. Colin Wallace and Captain Fred Holroyd.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East raised a plethora of points about parliamentary answers that I and other Ministes have given. If he is not satisfied with the answers that he has received, I invite him to table further questions, and I shall do my duty and answer them promptly.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the time available I shall add to the powerful case that was deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Like several of my colleagues, I have seen Colin Wallace and Fred Holroyd. It would be presumptuous and impertinent to pretend that I can come to any final judgment on extremely complex intelligence matters. I can only say that, starting from a position of sceptism, by the end of the third hour I was convinced that there was a formidable case to be answered relating to Colin Wallace. I am extremely sceptical about whether any real effort has been made to carry out a careful, thorough and detailed investigation. I should have thought that the Minister's answer would contain some details of the nature of the investigation. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and to the Minister's reply. My hon. Friend has put the more heavyweight argument tonight. The matter cannot be left as it is.
  11.44 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is now 14 months since I led a long debate on this matter and raised all the issues in some detail. I shall ask the Minister a
  950
  question that I know he will not answer from the Dispatch Box, but he might reflect upon it. It is a simple question. Does he know the truth? Does he know what exactly happened? If he does not know the truth, does he think that it is right that he should stand at the Dispatch. Box tonight and reply to the debate?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Many Conservative Members will be disgusted by what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has said tonight. It is open to any hon. Member to challenge the workings and actions of the Government. It is often the case that the hon. Gentleman seeks to obtain information which must be calculated at least to undermine the efforts of the Government in pursuing a difficult and dangerous counter-insurgency war in Northern Ireland, for that is what it is. The hon. Gentleman, amusing and personable though he is and having friends on both sides of the House, in raising this debate must give cause for concern about his motives: whether to obtain information that the security forces have not been acting within the law, or to undermine the efforts of the security forces—our constituents' sons, daughters and fathers—who are fighting a war against a vicious, brutal, nasty and inhuman enemy who is constantly destroying the lives of Innocent people.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others, in holding themselves up as the great champions of democracy and in seeking to take on the might of Government to expose Government wrongdoing, will bear in mind that as hon. Members we enjoy privileges and bear an enormous responsibility to ensure that we do not undermine the work of our security services in trying to defend the democracy that we profess to uphold and which is more seriously under threat in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a most curious Adjournment debate. The Minister complained that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had taken 19 minutes, so he had only a short time in which to answer. Then, lo and behold, the Minister sits down, leaving plenty of time to others. He cannot have it both ways. Was there ever any intention to answer the debate? The Minister has time to answer that question.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a question that the Chair cannot answer. It is not my responsibility.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will now set up an inquiry into the policy considerations and decisions which led to the recent operation involving military personnel in Gibraltar and the shooting of three Irish Republican Army personnel.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The inquest in Gibraltar is the proper occasion for the matter to be examined. We hope it will be held as soon as possible.

  Members' Letters
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her practice with regard to answering letters from right hon. and hon. Members directly from her Office or referring them to other Departments.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 22 April 1988 at column 583.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister what information she has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in the Cabinet Office who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  The Prime Minister
  The names of the schools attended by civil servants at grade 3 level and above in the Cabinet Office are recorded on personal files in only a few cases.

  University of Newcastle (News Media Unit)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister why British Nuclear Fuels plc made it a condition of its offer to fund a news media unit at the University of Newcastle that Mr. Bernard Ingham be associated with the project.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Ingham remains my Chief Press Secretary and is not available to take up any post in Newcastle.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the basis for the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask the Commissioner of the City of London police for an inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal in relation to the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
  370
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Attorney-General what line of inquiry the Director of Public Prosecutions suggested to the City of London police when asking them to inquire into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal hearing of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 17 June 1988, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

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

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 15 June 1988, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Court Proceedings (Tape Recording)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the introduction of the taping of court proceedings in England and Wales to replace shorthand writers.

  The Attorney-General
  Representations in writing have been received by the Lord Chancellor's Department from 13 sources.

  DPP (Meeting)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

  The Attorney-General
  I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on Wednesday 15 June 1988 to discuss matters relating to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  King Edward (Remains)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Attorney-General what costs have been incurred to public funds to date in legal proceedings involving the bones of Edward, King of England, Saint and Martyr.

  The Attorney-General
  Costs expended to date amount to £2,361·99.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.
  371
  The Attorney-General
  There is only one such person in my Department. He was educated at a private school.

  Crown Prosecution Service (North Report)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the implications for the Crown Prosecution Service of the recommendations in the North report on fatal road accidents.

  The Attorney-General
  The road traffic law review, chaired by Dr. Peter North, published its report on 12 April this year. The report contains 137 recommendations, several of which propose major restructuring of the current road traffic offences which may be applicable when a fatal accident occurs, including those where drink is involved. The report is currently receiving detailed scrutiny, and whilst I cannot anticipate any future legislation, the Crown Prosecution Service would naturally welcome any move which would assist in bringing to justice on appropriate charges those who commit serious driving offences.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average percentage of gross national product given in aid by the members of the European Community that are also members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development assistance committee, excluding the United Kingdom, in 1987 or for the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1986, the latest year for which figures have been published, the net official development assistance of these countries represented 0·55 per cent. of their combined GNP.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated expenditure on overseas aid in the current financial year.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of expenditure on overseas development.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The overseas aid budget, including aid administration, for the current financial year is £1,337 million.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of Vietnam's 25 May undertaking to withdraw half its troops from Kampuchea by the end of the year, he will reconsider the provision of development assistance to Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We see no reason at the present time to change our position on aid to Cambodia.

  Africa
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support Her Majesty's Government are giving to programmes of structural adjustment in Africa.
  372
  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987–88 Britain provided an estimated total of over £90 million of quick-spending balance of payments finance in support of structural adjustment programmes in African countries. We have pledged at least £250 million of similar assistance over the next three years in association with the World Bank's special programme of assistance to low-income, debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are following appropriate programmes of economic reform. We are also giving very substantial support to the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility. Our contribution to the interest subsidy account will be greater than that of any other country, and will be sufficient to subsidise the interest on lending up to SDR 1 billion—about £750 million.

  SADCC and Front-line States
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value, in 1980 prices, of British bilateral aid to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference and the front line states in(a) 1980, and (b)

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1980 prices gross bilateral aid to the member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference was £133 million in 1980 and £73·5 million in 1986. The 1980 figure is particularly high because of large post-independence expenditure in Zimbabwe. Finance pledged to the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference is recorded as aid to a particular country once expenditure has taken place.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase British and European aid to Afghanistan after the withdrawal of Soviet troops and advisers.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have already pledged £10 million to support the work of multilateral organisations and British voluntary agencies once properly co-ordinated international relief arrangements have been established. If appropriate, additional resources will be made available later.

  When the situation in Afghanistan allows, the European Community could also make an important contribution to international aid efforts. Emergency and food aid, channelled through international organisations, will be priorities.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's assistance to Afghan refugees.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following signature of the Geneva agreements in April, I have announced a doubling of our annual programme of support for Afghan refugees to £10 million in the current financial year. These funds will support the work of British voluntary agencies and multilateral organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. This assistance will be conditional on properly co-ordinated international arrangements for the resettlement of Afghan refugees being put in place.

  Africa (Locusts)
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is providing to counter the threat of locusts in north and west Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have recently agreed to provide £1·3 million of new bilateral aid for a programme to help combat locust infestations in 16 countries of north and west Africa. This support is in addition to some £1·5 million already provided bilaterally and through the European Community.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is, for each year since 1970, the amount of bilateral aid to Nicaragua.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Between 1970 and 1987 British bilateral aid to Nicaragua amounted to £2·49 million. I shall publish in the Official Report a breakdown by calendar year.

  Following is the information:

  £'000

  1970

  4

  1971

  21

  1972

  66

  1973

  87

  1974

  248

  1975

  398

  1976

  287

  1977

  405

  1978

  186

  1979

  246

  1980

  127

  1981

  91

  1982

  49

  1983

  64

  1984

  9

  1985

  116

  1986

  86

  1987

  —

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider his decision not to respond to the Government of Vietnam's request for emergency food aid as a result of the drought in northern Vietnam.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No. The European Community has, however, agreed to provide 20,000 tonnes of cereals.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the famine relief effort in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The international community has responded promptly and generously to the renewed threat of famine in Ethiopia and estimated food aid requirements for 1988 have been largely met by pledges made. For our part, we have committed over £45 million in famine relief assistance since the beginning of 1987, including the cost of some 95,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid and our share of European Community assistance. The relief effort is,374
  however, being seriously hampered by increased military activity in Eritrea and Tigray. As a result the number of people, particularly in Tigray, who can be reached by current relief operations has been substantially reduced. The situation is further aggravated by the Ethiopian Government's continued refusal to permit full resumption of the relief activities of the voluntary agencies and the ICRC.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to provide reconstruction aid for Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  When I visited Sri Lanka this year, I signed an agreement for the provision of £20 million in reconstruction aid to Sri Lanka. A number of projects have already been agreed, and others identified, for expenditure against this aid.

  Africa (AIDS)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what special assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing for African countries affected by the spread of AIDS.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have already committed £7·75 million, including £4·5 million this year, to the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS which is working with 44 countries in Africa. In addition, we have offered to provide a total of £4·6 million over five years for national AIDS control programmes agreed with the World Health Organisation in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will express Overseas Development Administration expenditure as a percentage of gross national product(a) in the financial year 1978–79 and (b) in the current financial year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Expenditure under the net aid programme in 1978–79 represented 0·41 per cent. of GNP. The comparable figure for the current financial year will not be available until later next year.

  Underdeveloped Countries (Technical Aid)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current provisions for technical aid to underdeveloped countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987 some £320 million was spent on technical assistance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drink-Driving Convictions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of drink-driving convictions in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
  375
  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is for findings of guilt at all courts for driving and so on after consuming alcohol or taking drugs. It is published for 1976 to 1986 in table 7 of Home Office statistical bulletin 36/87, "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales 1986", copies of which are in the Library. In 1986, there were about 107,000 such findings of guilt. The figures for 1987 will he published later this year.

  Passports
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average period required to process applications for passports in each passport office in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  The current times for straightforward non-urgent applications are shown in the table. Urgent applications are given priority.

  Passport office

  Delay (Working days)

  London

  59

  Glasgow

  38

  Peterborough

  35

  Newport

  22

  Liverpool

  14

  Belfast1

  4

  1 The Belfast office is by far the smallest and deals only with Northern Ireland residents.

  Child Care
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has in relation to the number of social workers, teachers, medical staff, ancillary staff and other members of the public who have been vetted by police before they are employed in jobs where they work with children; and whether his Department keeps information as to the number of people refused employment and the reasons therefore.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The police do not vet applicants for posts which involve close contact with children; they supply information which they may have about the criminal background of individuals to prospective employers, who then decide whether or not to employ the individual in the light of all the information they may have about him or her.

  The latest figures available on the number of checks undertaken under these arrangements were given in a reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member on 29 April at column 283. A further survey will be undertaken for the year to 31 August 1988 and the results should be available in the autumn.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking the withdrawal of his announcement of 18 May regarding the rise in the cost of concessionary television licences; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Between 19 May and 14 June, 12 members of the public and six hon. Members complained about the concessionary licence fee increase. Replies have explained 376
  that the increase is necessary to cover the costs of administering the concessionary scheme and of extending it.

  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has arranged to meet the Commissioner on Wednesday 22 June. He plans to discuss a number of policing issues, including football hooliganism.

  Television
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the progress being made by the broadcasting authorities in improving television reception in areas at present experiencing difficulties.

  Mr. Renton
  The BBC and IBA do their best to assist viewers who experience difficulty in obtaining good television reception. They have undertaken a joint programme to extend UHF television coverage to all unserved areas with a population of at least 500. and smaller communities where practicable. Twenty-six new relay transmitters were installed in 1987 serving some 20,000 people. Some 99·4 per cent. of the population are now able to receive BBC and IBA services.

  Immigration Officers (Holyhead)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration officers are at present employed at the port of Holyhead; and what are the corresponding figures for 1979 and 1984.

  Mr. Renton
  No immigration officers are at present stationed at the port of Holyhead; none were stationed there in 1979 or in 1984.

  Welsh Language Programmes
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the availability of Welsh language television and radio programmes and other programmes made in Wales to viewers outside Wales.

  Mr. Renton
  I am aware of only one such representation in recent months.

  Police Houses (Sales)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to propose any changes in the method of valuation of ex-police houses for the purpose of their sale to serving officers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for police authorities to arrange for the valuation of surplus police houses which they propose to offer for sale. They are authorised by the general consents issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1981 to sell such houses to serving police officers on the same terms and at the same rates of discount
  377
  as those offered by housing authorities to council tenants. It is for individual police authorities to decide whether a discount should be offered and, if so, what the rates of discount should he, subject to the maximum rates of discount set by the general consents.

  Metropolitan Police (Racial Equality)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold discussions with representatives of the Metropolitan police concerning the future establishment of appropriate structures to monitor and settle problems of racial equality in the service, the promotion of black officers and appraisal procedures, and training improvements.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since December 1986, the Metropolitan police have been implementing an equal opportunities programme with the help of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the race relations advisory service of the Department of Employment. Issues of race and sex equality are handled by the equal opportunities unit which has been set up in the force and last year a procedure was introduced to enable officers to seek redress for grievances under the Race Relations Act 1976.

  I understand from the Commissioner that recruit selection is undertaken only by those trained in equal opportunities. All probationers, and other serving officers, also receive such training. The force is also developing a computerised system to monitor equality of treatment, and the staff appraisal system has recently been modified taking account of the need to ensure equal opportunities. At present, 7·1 per cent. of the 442 officers from ethnic minority backgrounds hold supervisory ranks.

  Given the continuing progress being made by the Metropolitan police in this area, we do not consider that discussions are needed at present.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the national shortage of court clerks and inadequate space and facilities in many courts, he will make a statement about planned additional funding for the magistrates courts.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are aware of the concern expressed by justices' clerks and others about difficulties in recruiting and retaining court clerks, especially those qualified as solicitor or barrister. I understand that the joint negotiating committee (JNC) which negotiates pay and conditions for magistrates' courts staff is collecting information on recruitmemt and retention, and will take it into account when considering the pay settlement for 1988. We will consider very carefully whatever proposals the JNC puts forward. Capital funds are available for replacing or improving accommodation and are allocated in order of operational need.

  Immigration (Grants to Local Authorities)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been spent on section 11 grants under the Local Government Act 1966 in each of the last four years.
  378
  Mr. John Patten
  The amount of grant paid under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in respect of each of the last four years was:

  £ million

  1984–85

  73·6

  1985–86

  81·2

  1986–87

  87·8

  1987–88

  98·8

  The figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are estimates subject to adjustment when claims from local authorities are finally settled. The grant represents 75 per cent. of the eligible expenditure incurred by local authorities.

  Category C Prisons (Escapes)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of prisoners who have escaped, or attempted to escape, from all category C prisons in the last 20 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Statistics on escaps are published in annual reports on the work of the prison department, copies of which are available in the Library, and show that the following numbers of prisoners escapd from category C prisons:

  Year

  Number

  1969

  9

  1970

  12

  1971

  20

  1972

  45

  1973

  36

  1974

  26

  1975

  44

  1976

  50

  1977

  48

  1978

  44

  1979

  94

  1980

  62

  1981

  76

  1982

  98

  1983

  91

  1984–85

  105

  1985–86

  98

  1986–87

  68

  The 1984–85 figure is for the 15-month period from 1 January 1984–31 March 1985. Subsequent reports relate to the year from 1 April. Between 1 April 1987 and 31 May 1988, a total of 103 prisoners escaped.

  The figures need to be viewed in the context of the substantial increases which have occurred during the period in both the number of category C prisons, and the total average population of such establishments.

  As to attempted escapes, the information readily available centrally relates to 1986–88 and shows that, during these years, the following numbers of prisoners were reported as having attempted to escape:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  72

  1987

  93

  1988 (to 31 May)

  26

  Entry Rules
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules govern entry into the United
  379
  Kingdom by (a) citizens of Eire and (b) citizens of Commonwealth countries; and if privileges granted are reciprocal for United Kingdom citizens in Eire.

  Mr. Renton
  Because the Irish Republic forms part of the common travel area, its citizens are generally free to enter the United Kingdom, whether coming from within or outside that area. Irish citizens, may, however, be subject to deportation, or to exclusion under either the immigration or the prevention of terrorism legislation. Under regulations in place in the Republic of Ireland, complete reciprocity is accorded to British citizens, thus allowing them unrestricted access to the Republic. The entry of Commonwealth citizens to the United Kingdom is controlled by the Immigration Act 1971 and by the immigration rules made under it.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what entry documents are required for(a) citizens of Eire entering the United Kingdom and (b) Commonwealth countries; and if these rights are reciprocal for United Kingdom citizens entering Eire.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 a person must produce a valid passport or some other document establishing his identity or citizenship if required to do so by the immigration officer examining him. This applies to all nationalities without distinction. Additionally, any person requiring an entry clearance must be in possession of this at the time of entry. Entry clearance requirements however do not apply to citizens of the Irish Republic.

  Persons arriving in and departing from the United Kingdom on a local journey within the common travel area, that is to say, the Channel islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland, are not generally subject to control under the Immigration Act and would not therefore normally be required to submit to examination by an immigration officer, nor required to produce entry documents under the provisions of that Act. Arrangements for the operation of the common travel area are reciprocal.

  Requirements placed on persons entering the Republic of Ireland from outside the common travel area are matters for the Irish Government.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the progress being made against computer crime; what steps are being taken to combat it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned about computer crime, but it is a complicated matter and my right hon. Friend is awaiting a report from the Law Commission about it before deciding what, if any, action needs to be taken by Government to deal with it. In the meantime, the subject is receiving close attention from the police. I know, for example, that the Metropolitan police give lectures and talks to companies and have contributed to conferences on the dangers, and security aspects, of computer crime.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that companies who are the victims of computer crime are co-operating fully with the police; and if he will make a statement.
  380
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All citizens have a general duty to co-operate with the police in the investigation of offences. We have no information to suggest that companies which have become victims of computer crime are not co-operating fully with the police.

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated total involved in known mortgage fraud; what steps are being taken to identify those responsible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Criminal statistics do not distinguish between mortgage and other types of fraud and no information is therefore available on numbers of offences or amounts of money involved. It is the responsibility of chief officers of police to take whatever steps they think appropriate to investigate suspected offences and to identify offenders.

  Police (Establishment)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out for each police authority area in England and Wales the current establishment of police officers and the shortfall where applicable in the actual numbers of police officers in service below that establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Force

  Establishment as at 31 March 1988

  Vacancies

  Avon and Somerset

  3,030

  17

  Bedfordshire

  1,020

  21

  Cambridgeshire

  1,160

  —

  Cheshire

  1,845

  8

  Cleveland

  1,474

  8

  Cumbria

  1,144

  3

  Derbyshire

  1,793

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,802

  15

  Dorset

  1,235

  1

  Durham

  1,357

  28

  Dyfed Powys

  935

  18

  Essex

  2,742

  14

  Gloucestershire

  1,164

  11

  Greater Manchester

  6,943

  —

  Gwent

  986

  7

  Hampshire

  3,105

  2

  Hertfordshire

  1,631

  28

  Humberside

  1,972

  19

  Kent

  2,911

  3

  Lancashire

  3,158

  19

  Leicestershire

  1,733

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1,183

  15

  Merseyside

  4,679

  32

  Norfolk

  1,318

  10

  Northamptonshire

  1,086

  —

  Northumbria

  3,453

  —

  North Wales

  1,316

  16

  North Yorkshire

  1,368

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  2,259

  7

  South Wales

  3,109

  —

  South Yorkshire

  2,931

  19

  Staffordshire

  2,156

  21

  Suffolk

  1,186

  —

  Surrey

  1,639

  —

  Sussex

  2,923

  29

  Thames Valley

  3,486

  —

  Warwickshire

  981

  2

  West Mercia

  1,963

  17

  West Midlands

  6,684

  45

  West Yorkshire

  5,204

  20

  381

  Force

  Establishment as at 31 March 1988

  Vacancies

  Wiltshire

  1,074

  —

  City of London

  798

  11

  Metropolitan

  27,815

  127

  122,751

  596

  Members' Representations
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Stretford of 31 December 1987 and 14 April 1988 concerning the practice of writing directly to constituents on matters raised by a right hon. or hon. Member.

  Mr. Renton
  I hope to do so shortly.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Hurd
  About one half of officers at grade 3 level and above attended private (including the then direct grant) schools: the remainder either attended state schools or the information is not readily available.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those held on remand in custody awaiting trial have been held(a) over three months and (b) over six months, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available information on the length of time since the initial remand in custody of untried prisoners relates to 30 June 1987 and was given in the reply to a question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 27 May at columns 379–80.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Home Tutors (Cheshire)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the pay of home tutors in Cheshire.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I understand from the Cheshire local education authority that it will be reinstating the rate of pay applicable before 1 October 1987 for those home tutors who had a contract with the authority on that date, for the duration of those contracts. I have written to my hon. Friend on this matter.

  Education Support Grants
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the operation of education support grants in Norfolk, in particular those which are specifically geared to the needs of rural areas.
  382
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The total expenditure that has been approved for support by education support grants in Norfolk in the four years to 1988–89 and the amount of expenditure on which grant has been claimed is given in the table.

  The authority has taken part in the pilot project to improve the quality or the range of the curriculum provided in primary schools in rural areas and figures are given in the table. This is the only activity that is specifically geared to the needs of rural areas.

  Education support grants: Norfolk

  £ cash prices

  Expenditure supported by ESGs on

  All activities1

  Curriculum in primary schools in rural areas (included in all activities)

  Financial year

  Approved

  Claimed

  Approved

  Claimed

  1985–86

  386,400

  368,203

  66,600

  66,600

  1986–87

  1,412,850

  1,005,444

  123,600

  123,600

  1987–88

  1,461,400

  —2

  107,300

  —2

  1988–89

  1,833,200

  —2

  134,100

  —2

  1 As well as curriculum in primary schools in rural areas the other activities are:

  Mathematics in Schools

  Science in Primary Education

  PICKUP

  Midday Supervision

  IT in NAFE

  Education needs of unemployed adults

  DP equipment in FE

  Misuse of Drugs

  GCSE

  Education for a multi-ethnic society

  Portage.

  2 Figures not yet available.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer of 14 June to the hon. Member for Wakefield, if he will take steps to encourage the greater availability of rugby league as part of the content of physical education courses at teacher training colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the additional estimated transport costs faced by local authorities as a result of the implementation of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We do not consider that there need be any significant additional transport costs associated with the implementation of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to issue guidance on admissions to county and voluntary schools in the light of the more open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Draft guidance is being issued today. Its purpose is to inform discussion of this topic during the remaining stages of the Bill's passage through Parliament; to guide local education authorities and others in any preparatory work they wish to undertake and to give all concerned an early opportunity to comment. Comments are invited by 16 September 1988.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the number of letters his Department has received to date from parents of children attending schools in the Inner London education authority area who(a) expressed opposition to the abolition of the authority and (b) approved of the abolition.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Some 3,350 letters have been received since the announcement of the Government's proposals on 4 February. Correspondents do not always give their circumstances and it is therefore not possible to state how many are parents. Initially, many correspondents expressed concern at the proposals, but as these have become better understood the emphasis has shifted to inquiries about specific areas of education.

  Undergraduate Tuition
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current, average, annual, per student full cost of undergraduate tuition, excluding capital costs, for degree courses in veterinary science, medicine, law, physics, modern languages and English, at(a) university and (b) polytechnic.

  Mr. Jackson
  Table 9 of "University Statistics 1985–86—Volume 3, Finance" provides information (excluding some central costs) about university academic provision within each of 37 cost centres. Similar information about polytechnic provision in each of 17 cost centres is contained in "Polytechnic Expenditure, Actual 1986–87". Copies of both volumes are in the Library. The cost centres do not necessarily tally with the individual subjects identified in the question but, in any case, the figures do not permit the separation of first degree course tuition costs from other departmental activity.

  Amnesia
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research into amnesia has been and is being supported by his Department; and what plans there are to increase it.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the Medical Research Council (MRC) is currently supporting 10 research projects on amnesia. In the financial year 1986–87, the last year for which figures are available, the council's expenditure on this research was £254,000. The MRC also supports a variety of other projects which have a bearing on aspects of memory. University departments and medical schools also undertake research in this area supported by UGC block grant funds. The MRC will consider soundly based scientific proposals for further research in amnesia in competition with other applications.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a detailed statement on the up-to-date progress being made on the individual plans to set up the various city technology colleges in the various sites earmarked for this purpose.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Sponsorship for six city technology colleges has now been announced. The first, sponsored by 384
  Hanson plc in Kingshurst, Birmingham will open in September this year, the second CTC, in Nottingham, sponsored by Mr. H. Djanogly, CBE, will open in September 1989 when I hope that the Teesside CTC sponsored by BAT Industries will also open. Dixons plc, the Sir Philip and Pauline Harris Trust, and jointly, the Mercers' Company and Thamesmead Town have announced their sponsorship of three more CTCs. We are making good progress in discussions with a number of other prospective sponsors and over prospective buildings-sites.

  City Technology College (Thamesmead)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has incurred any cost in drawing up a proposal to establish a city technology college in Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. The cost of planning for the proposed Thamesmead CTC is being borne by the prospective sponsors. The cost of local consultation prior to a decision on the publication of related proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 would be met by Bexley local education authority. As part of their normal duties, officials in the Department have given information and advice to the prospective sponsors and to the local education authority.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has discussed with the sponsors of the proposed city technology college in Thamesmead the college's admission policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Officials at the Department have advised the prospective sponsors of the proposed Thamesmead CTC of the general policy for admission to city technology colleges and ways in which it might be applied in the particular circumstances in Thamesmead.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the draft financial memoranda covering relationships between his Department and the PCFC and between his Department and the UFC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  These documents will set out formal financial requirements on matters such as transfer of funds and accounting and audit. They will be drafted in discussion with the interested parties and made publicly available in due course.

  Medical and Scientific Research
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the comparative expenditure in medical and in scientific research for each year since 1974 in Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany in pounds sterling of 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  Figures showing international comparisons of expenditure on research are published in the 1987 annual review of Government-funded R and D, which is in the Library. For 1985, the latest year for which figures are available, the details are as follows:
  385

  £ million 1985 prices

  Belgium

  France

  Holland

  Italy

  Denmark

  Federal Republic of Germany

  United Kingdom

  Civil Research

  372

  4,018

  883

  1,948

  n.a.

  4,900

  2,203

  of which Medical Research

  26

  232

  22

  99

  n.a.

  169

  167

  Details of expenditure for each year back to 1974 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is, for each year since 1974 and in 1988 moneys, the expenditure on medical or scientific research in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales. (iii) Northern Ireland, (iv) England and (v) the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available.

  Non-advanced Further Education
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the public spending per head for senior school pupils and those in non-advanced further education in pound sterling for Germany, France, the United States of America and Italy.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information is shown in the table. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) explained in his reply of 10 June to the hon. Member, for international comparisons, non-advanced further education is included with secondary education at the second level. Figures for the United Kingdom have been included for comparison.

  Recurrent public expenditure per pupil/student at the second level at 1984 values1

  Year of data (beginning in)

  £ purchasing power parity2 (1984 values)3

  Germany, Federal Republic of4

  1984

  1,410(1,340)

  France5

  1982

  1,610(1,520)

  United States of America6

  1983

  15207

  United Kingdom4

  1984

  1,400(1,280)

  Main source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook.

  1 Where necessary, data have been adjusted to calendar years.

  2 Local currencies have been adjusted using purchasing power parities, which allow for differences in the cost of living as well as exchange rates. Basic data prior to 1984 have been adjusted by Consumer Price indices.

  3 Bracket figures exclude unallocated sums within budgets.

  4 Public sector education only.

  5 Public expenditure including subsidies to private education and pupils in public and private education.

  6 Public elementary and secondary schools.

  7 Based on a combined 1st and 2nd level expenditure figures. All expenditure is allocated.

  Universities (Government Expenditure)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give Government expenditure, excluding home student fee income, in total and per head of university population for each year since 1978–79 at constant prices, including planned expenditure per head for 1988–89 to 1990–91; and if he will give the number of new undergraduate entrants for 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the table, Government expenditure has been taken as the University Grants Committee recurrent 386
  grant to universities. Otherwise, the per capita figures are on the same basis as those contained in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 13 June at columns 8–9. The full-time home undergraduate intake for the academic year for 1978–79 was 72,994.

  Government expenditure (constant 1986–87 prices)

  Per student

  £ million

  £

  1978–79

  1,120·3

  4,352·4

  1979–80

  1,156·4

  4,386·9

  1980–81

  1,267·4

  4,671·6

  1981–82

  1,211·1

  4,380·1

  1982–83

  1,401·2

  5,095·3

  1983–84

  1,396·5

  5,147·4

  1984–85

  1,371·4

  5,096·2

  1985–86

  1,324·5

  4,914·7

  1986–87

  1,320·1

  4,855·1

  11987–88

  1,394·4

  5,066·9

  11988–89

  1,441·7

  5,145·3

  11989–90

  1,441·2

  5,058·6

  11990–91

  1,424·2

  4,941·7

  1 Based on estimated figures.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  CHIEF Computer Project
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will place in the Library a copy of the business case on which his decision on the CHIEF computer project was made.

  Mr. Lilley
  No. The business case for CHIEF contains commercial information that was supplied in confidence. This confidence would be breached if the report became a public document during the course of the contractual negotiations which are still taking place.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost over the next 10 years of granting the CHIEF project to British Telecom, rather that its being continued in-house.

  Mr. Lilley
  Contractual negotiations for the development and operation of CHIEF are currently taking place with British Telecom and will not be concluded until towards the end of the year and figures will not be finalised until then. The release of information about the costs of the options for CHIEF could compromise these negotiations.

  Customs and Excise Computers Project
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to privatise the Customs and Excise computers project.

  Mr. Lilley
  I assume that this question refers to the CHIEF project which is currently being negotiated
  387
  between Customs and British Telecom. CHIEF will replace the current DEPS system which British Telecom already operate under contract with Customs. There is therefore no privatisation involved.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average weekly Civil Service pension; and what percentage of Civil Service pensioners are on or below this average.

  Mr. Brooke
  The average pension in payment to retired civil servants is £54 a week; the average in payment to dependants is £21 a week. Some two thirds of retired civil servants and of dependants are on or below their respective averages.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he proposes for customs clearance on high-speed trains to and from the north of England using the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Section 12 of the Channel Tunnel Act provides for customs and immigration checks to be undertaken on board trains going beyond London via Olympia, subject to adequate facilities being provided. Discussions are at present taking place between Customs and British Rail about the facilities that would be required on these trains and the back-up accommodation needed at Olympia.

  Government-owned Companies
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the trading concerns and companies which are still either fully or partly owned by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Major
  Details of Her Majesty's Government's holdings of shares and other securities are shown annually in the "Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts, Supplementary Statements", a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Alcohol and Tobacco
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a special and additional tax on alcohol and tobacco, the proceeds of which are to be spent exclusively on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not the Government's policy to introduce taxes whose revenues are hypothecated to particular programmes.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information on the type of school attended is not held on personnel records or in any other form.

  Own Resources
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the early payment of non-value added tax own resources to the European Communities in June.

  Mr. Brooke
  As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Ian Twinn) on 8 June at columns 602–3, the European Commission estimates that its spending obligations during June will exceed the available resources available for that month, thereby leading to cash flow difficulties. In order to help ease these difficulties, and in accordance with article 10(2) of Council regulation 2891/77, the Commission has requested member states to advance into this month their payments of own resources other than VAT which would otherwise have been made in July. The Government are satisfied that the request complies with article 10(2). The gross amount of the advance is £147 million. However, the actual payment to be on 20 June in respect of the advance will be only some £36 million as a result of two adjustments to the gross figures:

  As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on 29 March at column 397, in accordance with the conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 11–12 February 1988, member states are entitled to deduct at source 10 per cent. of non-VAT own resources to cover collection costs. This replaces the previous arrangements whereby 10 per cent. of the amounts in question was refunded to member states.

  The outstanding amount of the Commission's borrowing up to 20 June under article 12(2) of Council regulation 2891/77 will be recovered.

  The article 10(2) facility does not affect the total amount which the Community is authorised to spend during the year. The payment of levies and duties on 20 July will be reduced by the amount of the advance. The Commission's request does not, therefore, involve any net addition to public expenditure.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Ecofin Council met in Luxembourg on 13 June. I represented the United Kingdom. The Council approved the interinstitutional agreement between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the implementation of the conclusions of the Brussels European Council on budget discipline.

  The Council reached agreement on a directive providing for complete liberalisation of capital movements in the Community and a regulation combining the two existing mechanisms for medium-term balance of payments support. The complete abolition of exchange controls by those countries that still retain them will represent an important move towards a freer and less-regulated Europe, and an essential step towards the completion of the single market.

  The Council also agreed that there should be further discussion on tax exemptions for temporary importations of means of transport.

  Land and Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement explaining the variation in the figures for general Government gross domestic fixed capital formation, purchases of land and existing buildings net of sales in 1987–88 as(a) forecast in the 1987 public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 56, (b) estimated in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 288, (c) provided in the Official Report, of 28 March 1988, column 321, and (d) most recently estimated, following publication of figures for sales by the new town commission.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 14 June 1988]: The table gives planned expenditure and estimated outturn figures for purchases, net of sales, of land and existing buildings by Department for 1987–88.

  No detailed update to estimated outturns for 1987–88 has been made since these figures were produced for the 1988 public expenditure White Paper. The overall difference between planned expenditure and estimated outturn is mainly the result of substantially larger than expected sales.

  The table shows purchases, net of sales, of land and existing buildings included in the planning total. Between Cm. 56 and Cm. 288 the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Development Board for Rural Wales (new town activities) were given external finance treatment and their capital expenditure no longer features in the planning total. The presentation of the figures is consistent with the coverage used in the 1987 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56-II, Table 2–9) and in the table provided in the Official Report of 28 March 1988 at column 321.It differs, however, from the presentation of purchases, net of sales, of land and existing buildings shown in table 2.11 of volume I of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper, which excluded public corporations not given external finance treatment.

  Purchases, net of sales, of land and existing buildings, by department, 1987–88

  £ million

  Plans (Cm. 56)

  Estimated outturn (Cm. 288)

  Difference

  Defence

  -31

  -63

  -31

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office1

  35

  36

  +1

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food2

  -10

  -28

  -18

  Employment

  2

  —

  -2

  Transport

  75

  36

  -39

  DOE—Housing

  -1,236

  -1,850

  -614

  DOE—Other environmental services

  -463

  -830

  -367

  Home Office and legal departments3

  -15

  -27

  -13

  Education and science

  -51

  -98

  -47

  DHSS—health and personal social services

  -138

  -199

  -61

  Scotland

  -155

  -261

  -106

  Wales

  -74

  -93

  -19

  Northern Ireland

  -8

  -4

  +4

  Other departments4

  -36

  -33

  +3

  TOTAL

  -2,105

  -3,413

  -1,308

  1 Including Overseas Development Administration.

  2 Including Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and Forestry Commission.

  3 This group comprises the Home Office, Lord Chancellor's

  390
  Department, Northern Ireland Court Service, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Office, Procurator Fiscal Service and Lord Advocate's Department.

  3Including Property Services Agency and Civil Superannuation.

  VAT
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to impose a 14 to 20 per cent tax on talking books for blind and disabled people, and on aids and equipment for disabled people, in accordance with proposals from the Commission of the European Communities.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 10 June 1988]: I have made it clear on a number of occasions that Her Majesty's Government do not accept the Commission's proposals for the approximation of indirect taxation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the destination of the 377,000 individuals who left the unemployment register between May 1987 and March 1988 but did not apparently enter work.

  Mr. Cope
  In the 10 months May 1988 to March 1988 the total outflow from the United Kingdom claimant count was over 4·1 million. Information on the destinations of those leaving the count is not available.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the total number of persons out of work and claiming benefit for each(a) assisted area and (b) intermediate area on 8 April.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the library. The table shows the total number of unemployed claimants for each development area and intermediate area on 8 April 1988.

  Unemployed claimants—April 1988

  Development Areas

  Unemployed Claimants

  South West

  Falmouth

  1,636

  Helston

  1,189

  Newquay

  1,817

  Penzance and St. Ives

  2,913

  Redruth and Camborne

  3,362

  East Midlands

  Corby

  2,605

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  19,925

  Scunthorpe

  7,089

  Whitby

  1,138

  North West

  Liverpool

  86,887

  Widnes and Runcorn

  8,931

  Wigan and St. Helens

  28,079

  Wirral and Chester

  30,936

  North

  Workington

  3,593

  Bishop Auckland

  6,795

  391

  Development Areas

  Unemployed Claimants

  Hartlepool

  8,185

  Middlesbrough

  23,944

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  53,464

  South Tyneside

  12,503

  Stockton on Tees

  12,086

  Sunderland

  31,471

  Wales

  Aberdare

  3,645

  Blanau Gwent and Abergavenny

  5,422

  Cardigan

  1,428

  Holyhead

  3,338

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  891

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  8,632

  Neath and Port Talbot

  5,623

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  9,121

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  9,156

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,556

  Wrexham

  5,833

  Scotland

  Arbroath

  1,535

  Bathgate

  7,671

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  4,031

  Dumbarton

  5,010

  Dundee

  13, 027

  Glasgow

  97,865

  Greenock

  9,116

  Irvine

  9,980

  Kilmarnock

  4,723

  Lanarkshire

  27,400

  Unemployed claimants—April 1988

  Intermediate Areas

  Unemployed Claimant

  Region

  South West

  Bodmin and Liskeard

  2,764

  Bude

  734

  Cinderford and Ross on Wye

  2,543

  Plymouth

  16,023

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  92,855

  Coventry and Hinkley

  27,097

  Dudley and Sandwell

  33,370

  Kidderminster

  3,786

  Telford and Bridgenorth

  8,716

  Walsall

  19,241

  Wolverhampton

  19,352

  East Midlands

  Gainsborough

  1,671

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  13,835

  Bradford

  23,665

  Doncaster

  17,489

  Grimsby

  10,562

  Hull

  24,225

  Sheffield

  38,899

  North West

  Accrington and Rossendale

  4,879

  Blackburn

  7,343

  Bolton and Bury

  21,850

  Manchester

  85,606

  Oldham

  9,269

  Rochdale

  7,872

  North

  Darlington

  5,954

  Durham

  7,643

  Morpeth and Ashington

  7,637

  392

  Intermediate Areas

  Unemployed Claimant

  Wales

  Bangor and Caenarfon

  4,129

  Bridgend

  6,906

  Cardiff

  22,442

  Fishguard

  538

  Haverfordwest

  2,998

  Llanelli

  4,816

  Newport

  10,000

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  4,884

  Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog

  736

  Pwhelli

  890

  Swansea

  13,751

  Scotland

  Alloa

  2,971

  Ayr

  5,780

  Badenoch

  463

  Campeltown

  707

  Dunfermline

  7,225

  Dunoon and Bute

  1,268

  Falkirk

  8,478

  Forres

  652

  Girvan

  734

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  3,074

  Kirkcaldy

  10,632

  Lochaber

  1,210

  Newton Stewart

  613

  Skye and Wester Ross

  952

  Stewartry

  818

  Stranraer

  1,230

  Sutherland

  772

  Western Isles

  2,050

  Wirk

  880

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report each travel-to-work area, not being either an assisted or intermediate area, in which male unemployment on 8 April was 10 per cent. or higher.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of male unemployed claimants, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed for each of the non-assisted travel-to-work areas in Great Britain, on 14 April 1988, in which the male unemployment rate was 10 per cent. or higher. The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Not assisted areas Unemployed claimants—April 1988

  Travel to work area

  Rate

  Skegness

  22·6

  Torbay

  19·2

  Thanet

  19·2

  Mansfield

  19·1

  Alnwick and Amble

  18·8

  Castleford and Pontefract

  18·1

  Clacton

  17·9

  Blackpool

  17·8

  Worksop

  17·8

  Conwy and Colwyn

  16·9

  Buckie

  16·5

  Bideford

  16·3

  Louth and Mablethorpe

  16·2

  Chesterfield

  16·0

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  16·0

  Stirling

  15·8

  Crieff

  15·4

  Keith

  15·4

  Inverness

  15·3

  Fraserburgh

  15·3

  Peterhead

  15·1

  Islay/Mid Argyll

  15·0

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  14·9

  393

  Travel to work area

  Rate

  Berwickshire

  14·8

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  14·8

  Minehead

  14·6

  Monmouth

  14·5

  Brechin and Montrose

  14·4

  Orkney Islands

  14·3

  Folkestone

  14·3

  Great Yarmouth

  14·2

  Bridlington and Driffield

  14·2

  Machynlleth

  14·0

  Edinburgh

  13·8

  Burnley

  13·8

  Nottingham

  13·8

  Alferton and Ashfield

  13·6

  Peebles

  13·6

  Isle of Wight

  13·4

  Goole and Selby

  13·4

  Annan

  13·3

  Banff

  13·3

  Weston-super-Mare

  13·2

  Elgin

  13·2

  Wisbech

  13·1

  Blairgowrie and Pitlochry

  13·1

  Barnstaple and Ilfracombe

  13·1

  Lincoln

  12·9

  Harwich

  12·9

  Scarborough and Filey

  12·8

  Horncastle and Market Rasen

  12·6

  Oban

  12·5

  Newark

  12·5

  St. Austell

  12·2

  Dartmouth and Kingsbridge

  12·1

  Perth

  12·1

  Cromer and North Walsham

  11·9

  Berwick on Tweed

  11·9

  Forfar

  11·9

  Thurso

  11·9

  Retford

  11·9

  Lockberie

  11·8

  Warrington

  11·8

  Pendle

  11·7

  Truro

  11·7

  North West Fife

  11·6

  Northwich

  11·6

  Leeds

  11·5

  Aberystwyth

  11·5

  Hawick

  11·5

  Denbeigh

  11·5

  Derby

  11·4

  Llandeilo

  11·4

  Thirsk

  11·4

  Carmarthen

  11·3

  Boston

  11·3

  Hastings

  11·1

  Burton on Trent

  11·1

  Preston

  11·0

  Keighley

  10·9

  Dumfries

  10·9

  Calderdale

  10·9

  Lowestoft

  10·8

  Huddersfield

  10·8

  York

  10·7

  Bournemouth

  10·7

  Kelso and Jedburgh

  10·7

  Dover and Deal

  10·7

  Sittingbourne and Sheerness

  10·6

  Huntly

  10·6

  Newton Abbot

  10·6

  Portsmouth

  10·6

  Whitchurch and Market Drayton

  10·4

  London

  10·4

  Southend

  10·3

  South Molton

  10·3

  Malvern and Ledbury

  10·2

  Llandrindod Wells

  10·2

  Fakenham

  10·2

  Launceston

  10·0

  Canterbury

  10·0

  394
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the percentage level of unemployment at the latest available date in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the percentage figures for unemployment for the top 10 constituencies in England and Wales and the percentage of the bottom 10 constituencies.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available. The Department does not calculate unemployment rates for areas smaller than travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has for each of the member states of the EEC concerning(a) the average weekly hours worked, (b) the average holiday entitlement and (c) the normal retirement age in the most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  The table sets out the latest available information published by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) covering average weekly hours worked in manufacturing industry. Information on average holiday entitlement and age of retirement is not. readily available.

  Average weekly hours worked in manufacturing

  Country

  Hours

  Year

  Belgium5

  33·0

  1986

  Denmark1

  33·0

  1986

  France

  38·6

  1986

  Greece3

  39·1

  1986

  Ireland

  41·2

  1986

  Italy

  67·77

  1984

  Luxembourg

  40·3

  1986

  Netherlands3

  40·3

  1985

  Portugal1

  38·1

  1985

  Spain4

  36·9

  1986

  West Germany3

  40·4

  1986

  United Kingdom2

  41·6

  1986

  Source: ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics 1987.

  1Provisional.

  2United Kingdom's figures are for full time workers on adult rates of pay; excludes quarrying.

  3Hours paid for rather than hours actually worked.

  4Spain's figures are for employed persons (including armed forces) aged 16 years or over.

  5Belgium's figures exclude primary iron and steel industries.

  66 Per day.

  Restart
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of individuals attending restart interviews since 1986 have moved straight into employment; if he will provide a breakdown of the destinations of the remainder; and what information he has as to how many have been switched from unemployment-related benefit to some other form of benefit.

  Mr. Cope
  The table shows the proportion of people interviewed under the restart scheme who have been referred to various opportunities, including jobs. We do not know how many of these move straight into employment, nor do we know how many people have moved from unemployment related benefits to some other form of benefit.

  Between July 1986 and 29 April 1988, a total of 3,725,563 restart interviews took place. These resulted in:
  395

  As percentage of those interviewed

  Submitted to:

  Jobs

  8·8

  Community programme

  8·0

  Voluntary projects programme-voluntary work

  2·2

  Jobclub

  8·7

  New job training scheme

  6·8

  Other training

  8·2

  Employment rehabilitation centre

  0·2

  Restart course

  7·6

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  3·9

  Referred to:

  Disablement resettlement officer

  3·4

  Claimant adviser

  4·2

  Other referrals (inc. PER)

  18·2

  Some people may be referred to more than one opportunity. The remaining represent people who have either declined an offer or for whom an offer was not appropriate.

  New Jobs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the net new jobs created in the United Kingdom since 1983 have been full-time and how many part-time; and what evidence there is on how many of the new part-time jobs have been taken by people already in employment.

  Mr. Cope
  As the employed labour force estimates for Northern Ireland do not distinguish between full-time and part-time jobs, the figures are for Great Britain only. Between December 1983 and December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there was a net increase of 603,000 full-time and 760,000 part-time jobs in the employed labour force—the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces. It is estimated from the labour force survey that between spring 1984 and spring 1987, the number of people with two or more jobs increased by 133,000.

  Employment Growth
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures to show how net employment growth in the United Kingdom since 1979 compares with that of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries when measured on a common basis in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Cope
  Comparative data for employment in terms of full-time equivalents are not available. Figures for net change in total civilian employment in the major OECD countries are as follows.

  Net change in civilian employment between 1979 and 1987

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Canada

  +1,559

  +15·0

  United States

  +13,616

  +13·8

  Japan

  +4,320

  +7·9

  Italy

  +590

  +2·9

  Germany

  -249

  -1·0

  France

  -340

  -1·6

  United Kingdom

  -410

  -1·6

  Source: United Kingdom-Department of Employment. Other countries—OECD.

  Benefit Fraud Investigations
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average duration of unemployment of those denied benefit after fraud investigations in the year to April; what are the net savings to the taxpayer; and how these are calculated.

  Mr. Cope
  Records are not kept separately of the number of unemployed people whose claim to benefit is disallowed by the independent adjudicating authorities in fraud cases. Where a person voluntarily withdraws a claim to unemployment benefit following a fraud investigation it is assumed, on the basis of DHSS research, that the person refrains from claiming benefit on average for a period of 22 weeks. Net savings to the taxpayer for the year up to 31 March 1988 amount to £54·6 million and are calculated by multiplying by 22 the total amount of weekly benefit in payment at the time that a claim is withdrawn and deducting the costs of the fraud operation.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the numbers flowing through unemployment in the year to April is represented by those denied benefit after fraud investigations.

  Mr. Cope
  Records are not kept separately of the number of unemployed people whose claim to beneift is disallowed by the independent adjudication authorities in fraud cases. In the year ending 31 March 1988, a total of 80,088 people voluntarily withdrew their claims to unemployment benefit following a fraud investigation. This figure represents 1·83 per cent. of the total number of people who withdrew their claims in that year.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what access his Department has, and by what means, to details of the names and addresses of licensed taxi drivers in(a) Glasgow, (b) Birmingham and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's investigators requested and obtained from the local authorities in Glasgow and in Birmingham lists of the names of licensed taxi and private hire car drivers. They would adopt the same method in other parts of the country.

  Job Club Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of unemployed who, having used the Government's sponsored job club scheme, have successfully gained a job during the last 12 months(a) nationally and (b) in the (i) Doncaster area and (ii) Mexborough area; and if he will make a statement on the general working of the scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  From April 1987 to March 1988 a total of 105,677 people passed through job clubs. Of these 57,080 (54 per cent.) went into jobs. During the same period, 680 people passed through job clubs in the Doncaster area of which 295 (43 per cent.) went into jobs. A total of 226 people passed through job clubs in the Mexborough area and, of these, 122 (54 per cent.) went into jobs.

  Restart
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each month from March 1987 the number of restart interviews at each jobcentre within the London borough of Camden.

  Mr. Lee
  Restart interviews are carried out at two offices within the London borough of Camden—Swiss Cottage jobcentre and Camden employment office. The table gives the available figures:

  Camden employment office

  Swiss Cottage jobcentre

  Total

  1987

  April

  461

  —

  461

  May

  579

  —

  579

  June

  708

  —

  708

  July

  612

  459

  1,071

  August

  395

  724

  1,119

  September

  407

  671

  1,078

  October

  297

  805

  1,102

  November

  215

  681

  896

  December

  211

  519

  730

  1988

  January

  264

  684

  948

  February

  246

  613

  859

  March

  244

  698

  942

  April

  301

  794

  1,095

  Access to Employment
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what comparable access to employment in the United Kingdom(a) citizens of Eire and (b) citizens of Commonwealth countries enjoy; and if such access enjoyed is reciprocal for United Kingdom citizens seeking employment in Eire.

  Mr. Lee
  European Community law provides for free reciprocal access to employment between the United Kingdom and Eire. Commonwealth citizens require a work permit or other permission to work in the United Kingdom, unless they have the right of abode or are settled in the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Lee
  This information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Printing Industry
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the barriers to be removed from the printing industry by the completion of the EEC internal market by 1992.

  Mr. Maude
  I am not aware of barriers peculiar to the printing industry which need to be removed by 1992. If the hon. Member is aware of obstacles particularly affecting the printing industry, I should be glad to receive details.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made by Lloyd's in the implementation of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into regulatory matters at Lloyd's.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further progress has been made by Lloyd's in the implementation of the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into regulatory matters at Lloyd's.

  Mr. Maude
  The chairman of the council of Lloyd's has recently submitted a memorandum which records the progress made to date and Lloyd's plans for further implementation. This is the third such report to have been submitted by Lloyd's; the last having been placed in the Library on 18 November 1987 as I announced in the Official Report at columns 555–56. I have today placed a copy of the latest memorandum in the Library. It shows that the council of Lloyd's has implemented 38 of the 70 recommendations in the committee's report which was published in January 1987. A steady programme of consultation on the remaining recommendations, including that on deficit clauses, continues. Implementation of virtually all the committee's recommendations should be: completed by the middle of 1989.

  I expect Lloyd's to maintain momentum in accordance with that agreed timetable for full and complete implementation. I shall continue to follow closely their progress and to keep the House informed.

  Fur Marking Order
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects that the proposed Fur Marking Order will be laid before the House.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) when he intends to introduce a labelling order for leather goods manufactured from fur-bearing animals which he has identified as being commonly caught in leghold traps;

  (2) whether he will list the scientific evidence on which he bases his identification of certain animals as commonly being trapped in leghold traps;

  (3) if he will make it his policy not to lay the forthcoming order on fur labelling before Parliament in advance of a decision by the House on the principle of the matters to be covered by the order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have been giving careful consideration to the representations which were made during the consultation process. Legal difficulties have been raised, and I have regretfully come to the conclusion that it would not be practicable to proceed in the way originally envisaged. I have therefore decided not to proceed with the proposed order and to defer further action on the matter.

  Professional Liability
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names and occupations of the members of the three study teams he has set up to establish
  399
  the implications of liability problems faced by selected professions, as announced in his reply to the hon. Member for Salisbury on 28 October 1987, Official Report,column 298; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  As announced on 11 May by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—Official Report, House of Lords, columns 1208–9—we have appointed Andrew Likierman, professor of accounting and financial control at London business school, to be overall chairman of the fact-finding studies of the liability problems of selected professions. The names and current or former occupations of the members of the three study teams are as follows:

  Name

  Occupation

  Auditors:

  William Morrison (Chairman)

  chartered accountant

  Robin Jackson

  Lloyd's underwriter

  Anthony Mallinson

  solicitor

  Geoffrey Williams

  merchant banker

  Architects/consulting engineers/construction surveyors:

  Donald Bishop (Chairman)

  academic, chartered engineer

  Bernard Anderson

  regional health authority estate manager

  Peter Down

  services engineer

  Donald Keating

  Queen's Counsel

  Anthony Kidd

  insurance underwriter

  Clifford Lansley

  architect

  James Myatt

  building contractor

  Roger Squire

  director, property company

  Chris Vickers

  chartered surveyor

  K. Wesley Whimster

  consulting engineer

  Other surveyors:

  Ian Oddy (Chairman)

  chartered surveyor

  John Chapman

  chartered surveyor

  Brian Grainger

  chartered surveyor

  Edward Hartill

  the City Surveyor

  Kim Lewison

  barrister

  Ray Moorman

  managing director, property company

  Jeremy Mortimer

  insurance broker

  Scotch Whisky (Japan)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in negotiations with the Japanese Government to ensure the early removal of discriminatory import taxation on Scotch whisky as agreed under the general agreement on tariffs and trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Japanese authorities have now announced their intention to introduce, from April 1989, a single rate of tax for all whiskies, at a level 45 per cent. below that currently applying to Scotch. This news is most welcome. Nevertheless, since some discrimination in the tax rates applying to other competing spirits will remain, the impact of the proposes changes would need to be kept closely under review, and the possibility of further recourse to the general agreement on tariffs and trade left open.

  Harvard Securities
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many items of correspondence he has received complaining about the activities of Harvard Securities in each quarter of 1985, 1986, 1987 and the current year respectively.
  400
  Mr. Maude
  The number of complaints received in respect of Harvard Securities plc between January 1985 and April 1988 are as follows:

  Quarter

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  January-March

  16

  3

  37

  34

  April-June

  16

  5

  26

  110

  July-September

  10

  14

  42

  —

  October-December

  9

  84

  28

  —

  1 To 29 April 1988.

  Following the repeal of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 on 29 April 1988, complaints have been dealt with by the Securities and Investments Board. Three complaints relating to Harvard have been passed to the SIB since that date.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the monitoring returns made by Barlow Clowes to his Department in October 1987 were accompanied by an accountant's report from(a) the former Barlow Clowes auditors Spicer and Pegler, (b) the current Barlow Clowes auditors Touche Ross or (c) from any other firm of accountants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  While the facts of my Department's handling of the Barlow Clowes case are under investigation, I do not believe it would be appropriate to answer specific questions relating to the case.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many firms are presently operating with interim authorisation under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  I understand from the Securities and Investments Board that on Wednesday 15 June, the most recent date for which figures can be supplied, there were 4,184 persons holding interim authorisation within the terms of paragraph 1 of schedule 15 to the Financial Services Act.

  Securities Licences (Investigations)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many firms have been subject to more than the usual investigation prior to being granted a securities licence by his Department in the years 1984 to April 1988.

  Mr. Maude
  The extent of investigation varied considerably from case to case, depending upon the circumstances, and it is not therefore possible to provide a meaningful answer.

  Estate Agents Act 1979
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what sections of the Estate Agents Act 1979 are currently not in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are no regulations in force under sections 16, 17, 19 or 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979. We have considered the need for such regulations but have no plans to implement these sections for the time being.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is not currently held, and to obtain it would involve disproportionate cost.

  Deregulation (Small Businesses)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from which organisations representing small businesses he has received representations in connection with his Department's forthcoming White Paper on deregulation.

  Mr. Maude
  No representations from organisations representing small businesses have been received dealing specifically with the forthcoming White Paper on deregulation. The enterprise and deregulation unit, however, has frequent contact with those organisations about issues involving all aspects of deregulation.

  Handsworth Task Force
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the projects approved so far by the Government's Handsworth task force.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Following is the list:

  Approved projects

  Task force

  Total Government spending

  Black Star Car Company—motor vehicle repair project run as a community business

  28,535

  94,535

  Broughton road housing refurbishment local labour initiative

  575,000

  1,350,000

  CANDEL Potohari Hinko: provision of a community base to develop employment and training opportunities, and provide a drugs and AIDS awareness programme

  68,000

  240,000

  Copthorne Hotal customised pre-recruitment training programme

  6,500

  36,500

  CP Management Training for ethnic minorities, and follow-up

  85,800

  126,800

  Grove Lane Baths—Community and youth enterprise centre

  272,000

  1,266,250

  Handsworth employment scheme catering training unit

  53,000

  104,000

  Handsworth opportunities programme for employment (HOPE): Sikh managed CP scheme to refurbish the groups training base

  36,500

  216,618

  Handsworth churches forum YTS training centre and neighbourhood care project

  115,075

  266,926

  Handsworth single homeless housing association development worker

  15,000

  15,000

  Hotel and catering pre-recruitment training compact with 12 major Birmingham hotels

  92,500

  142,500

  Inner city contracts—non profit making building company, providing jobs for local people

  58,325

  58,325

  402

  Approved projects

  Task force

  Total Government spending

  Inner City Glass Decorating: a craft workshop for predominantly disabled Task Force area residents which will develop into a community business

  14,318

  52,118

  Local recruitment in the finance sector—feasibility study

  3,967

  3,967

  United Youth Association: construction skills training

  105,025

  148,189

  Villa Cross Employment Centre (formerly Villa Cross Pub)

  302,875

  967,875

  Asian Business Institute

  17,000

  142,000

  Birmingham Interpretation and Translation Service (BITS): grant to turn existing voluntary organisation into a self financing business

  32,269

  32,269

  Black Business in Birmingham: venture capital fund to assist development of local small black business

  88,800

  88,800

  Business Action Team offering free business consultancy to small local business and developing an executive recruitment service

  113,605

  113,605

  Federation of Black Housing Associations seminar on construction contracts

  4,670

  4,670

  Establishment of Handsworth Builders' Association, to advise and train local small builders

  105,000

  105,000

  Handsworth Task Force Development Fund: grants and loans in co-operation with National Westminster bank and the City Council

  200,000

  200,000

  Redevelopment of the Lozells Road Shops (including feasibility work)

  494,198

  578,198

  Micro Business Support Service to those receiving Task Force Development Fund assistance

  34,907

  34,907

  Rastafarian Enterprise Initiative, expansion of existing community business

  23,500

  23,500

  Winson Green/Rotton Park Employment Project

  25,000

  107,500

  Attock Welfare Employment and Training—CP pilot initiative

  10,000

  25,000

  Birmingham Young Volunteers: support and advice to young people at risk.

  8,000

  22,000

  Broadway Lower School technology laboratory—computer hardware and refurbishment costs.

  20,000

  59,000

  City and Handsworth Alternative Scheme (CHAS): employment and training advice for ex-offenders.

  38,604

  49,854

  Effective leadership in inner city schools: management development training for local teachers.

  780

  780

  Fire service pre-recruitment training programme

  7,500

  17,700

  Guru Ravidass Cultural Association: skills workshop conversion.

  18,000

  72,000

  Handsworth Employment Scheme feasibility work and subsequent capital equipment funding for bakery and YTS workshop on the Camp Lane site.

  150,610

  194,564

  Handsworth Under Fives Forum (HUFF) Training for nursery staff.

  27,800

  27,800

  403

  Approved projects

  Task force

  Total Government spending

  Industrial Society, providing employment/enterprise awareness training in schools.

  16,000

  16,000

  Information Technology Network—data link between Holte School, Handsworth Technical College and Austin Rover IT centre

  49,956

  49,956

  Inner City Community Sports Leadership training-pilot Lozells Electronic

  5,400

  7,000

  Workshop: training and low cost purchasing/servicing facility

  21,864

  103,244

  MACRO Films video/film YTS training workshop

  69,045

  213,260

  Opportunities Industrialisation Centre (OIC): training and employment advice to alienated local people

  97,005

  154,005

  Outward bound self-development scheme

  5,300

  5,300

  Positive Action for training in Housing Management (PATH) scheme for people from ethnic minorities

  72,000

  130,000

  Handsworth Technical College personal services workshop (hairdressing, care of the elderly etc.)

  58,900

  90,400

  Positive Image—childcare training centre

  76,038

  136,541

  Holte School/Industry Centre in conjunction with business and the Local Education Authority

  69,760

  69,760

  Schools Outreach pilot preventive care project

  32,000

  32,000

  YTS project placement officer, to develop high quality employer led placements for local voluntary sector YTS providers

  18,672

  35,135

  Villa Park Self Build—assistance with construction skills training for a group of Bangladeshis wishing to build their own houses

  59,200

  59,200

  Afro-Caribbean Resource Centre—day care for elderly and creche facility

  29,000

  94,300

  Handsworth Youth Crime Prevention Scheme—property marking using CP

  1,648

  56,121

  Handsworth Day Care Centre Latchkey Scheme

  5,000

  29,611

  Ladworth Community Safety project—small grants scheme for local groups

  15,000

  65,000

  Lozells Shops security measures

  28,500

  28,500

  Police Foundation—mobile crime prevention workshop

  25,000

  37,000

  Progress 2000—CP refurbishment scheme to improve nursery protection

  44,000

  75,392

  Think Green—training in horticultural skills for local people and development of a garden centre as a co-operative

  54,700

  86,830

  Homework Centres—bridge funding to assist underachieving pupils in the Task Force area

  25,500

  25,500

  Birmingham Area Improvement Team—security and environmental work to a residential area, involving 64 properties, to improve community safety

  149,570

  199,570

  Handsworth Wood Boys School—equipment for the craft and design technology department

  2,500

  2,500

  404

  Approved projects

  Task force

  Total Government spending

  Handsworth Skills Partnerships—feasibility work

  7,500

  7,500

  Prince of Wales Community Venture—capital (training) equipment

  8,400

  8,400

  Villa Cross Bingo Hall—conversion into managed workspace for local businesses

  300,000

  450,000

  Handsworth Employment Scheme—second capital equipment phase, also developing security services and contract cleaning businesses

  185,931

  185,931

  Marcus Garvey Supplementary School—audio-visual and other equipment

  9,000

  9,000

  Inner City Task Forces
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is making any changes to the inner city task forces.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. There are now 16 Government task forces operating in small inner city areas. The task force in Handsworth in Birmingham set up two years ago has made remarkable progress in stimulating enterprise and creating jobs for local people. The time has now come to transfer the benefits of the task force approach to another deprived part of Birmingham. I am therefore setting up a new Government task force to focus on the Saltley, Nechells and Washwood Heath areas of east Birmingham. The new task force will work closely with the private sector-led Birmingham heartlands urban development agency which is already tackling the economic regeneration of east Birmingham.

  The new emphasis on east Birmingham does not mean that Handsworth will be forgotten. There is much work still to be done and projects to implement. The task force has brought a new impetus and freshness to tackling the area's problems and has proved that Handsworth is a place with a future worth investing in. The task force has contributed £4 million to 60 projects whose total cost has been 10 million. We estimate that it will have created over 2,000 jobs and training opportunities for local people and the ongoing effect of the projects will create many more.

  I have always made it clear that task forces were short-term pump-priming and experimental teams working in deprived areas. I envisage the Handsworth team remaining for another nine months or so, but the demands on it are such that it will not be able to accept any new projects from today. Over the next few months the task force will be consulting with other public and private sector bodies, including the Government city action team, Birmingham city council and the CBI, to determine the best means to continue its work and maintain its record of success.

  Through our action for cities programme, the Government will continue to focus a wide range of special assistance on Handsworth. We will also continue to learn from experiences in Handsworth and other task forces, and apply the lessons to the Government's continuing support for inner cities. Our new high priority in Birmingham will be the work of the east Birmingham task force.

ENERGY

  Council of Energy Ministers
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the meeting of the European Communities Council of Energy Ministers on 9 June.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Council was unable to agree conclusions on the three major items on the agenda. Those were the Commission's paper of obstacles to the completion of the internal market in energy, the Commission's review of progress made by member states against the 1995 energy objectives, and a draft recommendation on co-operation between public electricity supply companies and auto-producers using new and renewable and certain other sources of electricity. Objections were made to a reference in the first case to consumer choice, in the second to an opening up of the electricity market and in the third to the possibility of common carriage. The two latter items were remitted to permanent representatives for further work; on the first of these items the presidency, on its own responsibility, adopted conclusions which did not fully reflect the majority viewpoint.

  The Council did however adopt a recommendation on measures to encourage the exploitation of renewable energy sources in the Community. A common position on this recommendation had been agreed last November; it has since been considered by the European Parliament.

  The Council also agreed conclusions on a report by the Commission on implementation by member states of two 1983 recommendations encouraging the use of solid fuels in industry, public buildings and district heating schemes. The Commission will prepare a further report on the possibilities for increasing the use of these fuels.

  Potassium Iodate
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will identify the extent of potassium iodate stocks held in Wales, their locations and the arrangement for their distribution in the event of an emergency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The operators' detailed site emergency plans include arrangements for the storage and distribution of stable iodine tablets to protect those who may be at risk in the unlikely event of an accident having significant off-site radiological effects. These plans are available in local libraries in the vicinity of the site, and in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Parkinson
  About half of the civil servants at grade 3 and above in my Department were educated in private schools and half in state schools.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish the report on the development 406
  of renewable energy sources referred to in the debate on energy renewable sources, on 30 October, Official Report,columns 564–623.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am today publishing Energy Paper No. 55 "Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward". The report is on sale by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report outlines our view on a development strategy for renewable energy to the year 2000. By that time we hope that technologies will have been successfully developed to the point of commercial application and responsibility for exploitation taken over by industry. The report gives our view on the development path for each technology together with our estimation of the costs to be shared between Government and industry. We hope that the report will provide the basis for discussion with industry and the necessary increasing levels of collaboration.

  Our aim is to stimulate the development of renewable energy sources to the fullest practicable extent where they have prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable. This aim will be pursued by two main means:

  A collaborative research, development and demonstration programme with industry leading to commercial application for the more promising technologies;

  The establishment of an institutional framework which will ensure that renewables can compete in the market on equal terms with other energy sources.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how he proposes to inform those involved of the benefit consequences for them of the social security rule concession in his announced speech to the House on 27 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 14 June 1988 at column 152. In addition a national press publicity campaign was carried out during week commencing 23 May.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people receive housing benefits, in each of the last three financial years; and what is the estimated number of recipients for 1988–89.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is shown in the table. The figures represent the estimated average numbers of households receiving rate rebates. Most households receiving assistance with rent will also be in receipt of a rate rebate.

  Thousands

  Rent rebate

  Rent allowance

  Rate rebate

  1985–86

  3,710

  1,150

  7,020

  1986–87

  3,720

  1,180

  7,050

  1987–88

  3,760

  1,250

  7,030

  1988–89

  3,430

  1,055

  5,845

  Source: Public Expenditure White Paper 1988, table 15·6. 1988–89 updated to take account of changes to capital rule, income tax changes and latest information on rent and rates.
  407
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of households(a) by tenure and (b) by household type who were expected to cease to qualify for any housing benefit as a result of the changes to the scheme implemented in April; and what is his estimate of the effect on these figures of his announcement of 27 April, including in both cases the effect of the new capital rule.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer June 1988]: An estimate of the numbers losing all entitlement to housing benefit is contained in the tables. This is on the basis of the changes implemented in April. About 100,000 of these will be brought back into housing benefit by the capital changes introduced on 30 May. A breakdown of this 100,000 by household or tenure type would be unreliable because of data limitations. It is likely that the vast majority will be pensioners. The transitional payments scheme has no effect on the actual housing benefit caseload.

  Lose entitlement to housing benefit on April 1/4 (thousands)

  Table 1

  Pensioners 80+

  70

  Pensioners 60 to 79

  540

  Sick/disabled

  10

  Lone parents

  70

  Couples with children

  180

  Others

  120

  TOTAL

  990

  Table 2

  Local authority tenants

  300

  Private tenants

  140

  Others

  560

  TOTAL

  990

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to tax units rather than households.

  2. Figures may not add owing to rounding.

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average sum paid by way of living expenses entitlements for prisoners on home leave, payable to their partner or relatives by paragraph 6304 of the social fund manual; in how many cases the notional entitlement is below the £30 threshold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available. However I am pleased to say that Secretary of State's direction 28, which prevents the award of community care grants for amounts below £30, has been amended today. The revised direction provides an exception to enable community care grants to be awarded under paragraph 6304 of the social fund manual in such cases where living expenses are calculated at less than £30.

  Employment Training (Benefits)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, and in what ways, any of the additional payments that might be paid to adult trainees under the proposed employment training scheme, over and above their basic training allowance, including end of scheme bonus, earnings outside the programe and any additional 408
  top up in addition to their £10 premium, will affect their entitlement to (a) income support, (b) transitional protection payments, (c) housing benefit and (d) other passported benefits, including free prescriptions.

  Mr. Portillo
  Participants in employment training will be paid a training allowance, which will include a training "premium". If they are on income support when training starts, that benefit will continue but at a reduced level. This will safeguard automatic passported entitlement to other benefits, such as housing benefit and free prescriptions.

  The training premium will not count as income in calculating a trainee's entitlement to any of the means-tested benefits.

  The Government have announced an end-of-training bonus scheme, and intend that payments under that scheme will, likewise, not count as income in calculating entitlement to benefits. Any earnings received from work outside the training programme will be treated in the normal way with the appropriate disregard. Any voluntary top-up to the premium made at regular intervals will attract a £5 disregard.

  We have ensured that training allowances do not erode transitional protection for income support purposes.

  District Medical Staff Committees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the relationship between a district medical staff committee and a district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is the responsibility of each DHA to establish professional advisory machinery in a form that best meets the professional advice needs of that district. This may well include a district medical staff committee whose role is to provide advice on professional medical issues to the DHA. Whether that advice is implemented or not is a matter for the DHA.

  Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning maternity services at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup.

  Mrs. Currie
  Four letters were received, all in 1987, including three from right hon. and hon. Members about the effect on maternity services at Queen Mary's hospital of changes in service in Dartford and Gravesham health authority, and one from a consultant about staffing aspects of the service at Queen Mary's hospital.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning maternity services at West Hill hospital, Dartford.

  Mrs. Currie
  A considerable number of representations were received from right hon. and hon. Members and members of the public about Dartford and Gravesham health authority's proposals to rationalise some of its acute hospital services, which included transferring maternity services from West Hill hospital to Gravesend and North Kent hospital. I visited the health district on 1 September 1987. No representations concerning maternity services at West Hill hospital have been received subsequent to Ministers' decision on 15 September 1987 to approve the transfer.

  Home Defence Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 25 April to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock),Official Report, column 30, whether the details of the limited participation by the National Health Service in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake' Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown, and Strong Link have been finalised; how much such participation is now estimated to cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Currie
  The Ministry of Defence has requested limited participation by certain National Health Service authorities in some of these exercises. The extent of any participation which would be on a voluntary basis—has not been decided, and the cost cannot yet be estimated.

  Income Support
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether claims in writing for income support forwarded by organisations providing emergency accommodation will be treated as valid claims in the terms of regulation 4(1) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 14 June, at column 172.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce an independent right of review for disabled persons who are refused assistance by the Independent Living Fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The Independent Living Fund is an independent discretionary trust and it is for the trustees to decide how they will deal with cases which give rise to dissatisfaction. I know, however, that it is their intention to look at such cases very carefully.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans his Department has to enable the Independent Living Fund to assist with disabled persons' claims after the £5 million provided by the Government has run out.

  Mr. Scott
  I am confident that the sum of up to £5 million for the current year will be more than enough. We shall review the level of funding for future years in the light of experience.

  Brain Injury (Rehabilitation Services)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will commission an assessment of the probability of long-term improvement occurring from the provision of specialised rehabilitation services immediately or soon after brain injury occurs; and if he will examine the cost effectiveness for the National Health Service and the social services departments combined of such provision.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are aware of the issues raised by the right hon. Member. Officials are currently considering the way forward.
  410
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many brain injury rehabilitation units there are in(a) the National Health Service and (b) the private sector.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Amnesia
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what are the most common causes of severe amnesia;

  (2) what estimates he has of the number of people suffering from serious amnesia who live at home with their families; and what evidence there is on the adequacy of the support provided by social services departments;

  (3) what estimates have been made of the number of patients suffering severe amnesia who are long-stay patients in hospitals which are not able to give specialised treatment to them.

  Mrs. Currie
  Severe amnesia can be a symptom of a range of medical conditions. Statistics on amnesia are not collected centrally.

  The National Health Service is organised to treat medical conditions rather than specific symptoms and there is therefore no special provision for patients with severe amnesia. Patients may be treated in a number of settings such as neurological, mental illness or geriatric units. Local authority social services departments usually provide services on a client group basis.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what research into amnesia has been and is being supported by his Department; and what plans there are to increase it.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department does not directly commission research specifically into amnesia. The main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related biological research is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  Brain-Injury and Amnesia
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what National Health Service provision there is for specialised treatment for(a) serious brain injury and (b) serious amnesia; what plans he has to increase such provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The National Health Service offers a range of facilities for treatment of people with brain injury, including accident and emergency departments, neuro-surgery, and rehabilitation facilities. Treatment for amnesia sufferers is related to the medical condition with which the symptom is associated. It is for individual health authorities to determine the level of provision.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates he has of the number of people suffering(a) serious brain injury and (b) serious amnesia; and how many new sufferers there are annually.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available centrally. I am aware that the Medical Disability Society has recently published a report which contains estimates of the number of people suffering from brain injury.

  Brain Injury Service
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what response he has given to the proposal of the Royal College of Physicians that each district health authority should have a named consultant to provide and oversee a complete brain injury service.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are aware of this recommendation and officials are considering the best way to take the matter forward, in the light of the recent report of the Medical Disability Society's working party on the management of traumatic brain injury.

  Hospitals (Leasing)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 93, whether health authorities may lease hospitals on a permanent basis to the private sector.

  Mrs. Currie
  At present, when a health authority does not envisage any further use for a National Health Service property it is required to dispose of the freehold. Exceptionally, a long-term lease may be granted, but only where there are strong reasons in the public interest for doing so.

  Lithotripsy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) where in England hospitals are equipped to treat kidney stones by using the lithotripsy process;

  (2) what is the cost of equipping and staffing a hospital with the lithotripsy method of treating kidney stone patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 29 April 1988 at columns 341–42.

  Kidney Stone Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will release funds to enable(a) Chester district health authority and (b) Mersey health authority to purchase equipment and to appoint staff to enable them to treat kidney stone sufferers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  This is a matter for the health authorities concerned. They must determine their own priorities and use the resources they have available in a way which best serves the needs of the local population.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients with kidney stone problems are treated annually in the Chester district and Mersey health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such information which is available centrally relates to the estimated number of patients treated with the main diagnosis of calculus of kidney and ureter, and is set out in the table:412

  Estimated Number of Discharges of In-patients, by Regional Health Authority, NHS Non-psychiatric Hospital, England, 1985

  Diagnosis

  ICD Code1

  England

  Mersey

  Chester

  Calculus of Kidney

  592·0

  4,480

  150

  2

  Calculus of Ureter

  592·1

  5,580

  230

  2

  Urinary Calculus, unspecified

  592·9

  260

  2

  2

  1 International Classification of Diseases—9th revision.

  2 The number in the sample is too small to make reliable estimates.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the Mersey regional health authority and the Chester district health authority to see what information is available locally.

  Maternity Units (Closure)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many maternity units have been closed since 1979, or are planned to close, in each health authority area in England.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the numbers of maternity units by regional health authority approved for closure between 1979 and 1986. It is important to note that closures may be offset or balanced by openings or reprovision elsewhere.

  Number

  Northern

  3

  Yorkshire

  9

  Trent

  10

  East Anglian

  6

  North West Thames

  4

  North East Thames

  7

  South East Thames

  2

  South West Thames

  3

  Wessex

  3

  Oxford

  1

  South Western

  5

  West Midlands

  4

  Mersey

  3

  North Western

  3

  Figures of closures for 1987 should be available shortly. I regret that information regarding planned closures is not available centrally.

  Pensions (Eire Citizens)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Social Services what entitlement to pension by virtue of age, injury or disability is granted in the United Kingdom to citizens of Eire; and if these rights are reciprocal.

  Mr. Scott
  The United Kingdom social security scheme does not discriminate on the grounds of nationality. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland in the United Kingdom are entitled to all social security benefits payable on account of age, injury or disability providing they satisfy the relevant conditions. Similarly, a United Kingdom citizen in the Republic of Ireland who satisfies the conditions for Irish benefits will be entitled to them.

  Single Payments (Birmingham)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for single payments were outstanding at the social security offices at Kingsbury road and St. Margaret's road in Birmingham on 30 April and 31 May.
  413
  Mr. Portillo
  The numbers of cases awaiting action on claims for single payments of supplementary benefit on 29 April are shown in the table. The figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  29 April 1988

  31 May 1988

  Erdington local office (Kingsbury road)

  412

  42

  Washwood heath local office (St. Margaret's road)

  1,017

  263

  Unemployed Persons (Removal Expenses)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the specific provisions in the new social security system for help with removal expenses of unemployed people who need to change their places of residence in order to take up new jobs.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. Such provision would be inappropriate to the social security system.

  Water Supplies (Aluminium)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask The Secretary of State for Social Services what studies have been conducted by his Department, water authorities or other bodies into a possible link between high aluminium levels in water supplies and senility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has not commissioned any research into a possible link between high aluminium levels in water supplies and senility. I understand that the Medical Research Council, which is the main agency through which the Government support medical research in the United Kingdom and which receives a grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science, has supported two studies on this subject in its own units. The results of one of these studies have still to be published. I am also aware that other research on this subject has been carried out at the University of Surrey, but details are not held centrally.

  Dental Reference Service
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many references have been dealt with by officers of the dental reference services, showing how many were in respect of(a) treatment and (b) estimates for dental treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  In the year 1987–88 dental officers in England examined patients in the following numbers of cases:

  Number

  Proposed treatment

  13,724

  Completed treatment

  14,419

  TOTAL

  28,143

  Unemployment benefit as a percentage of average weekly net1 earnings

  All males

  All manually employed males

  Single person

  Married couple

  Married couple plus 2 children

  Single person

  Married couple

  Married couple plus 2 children

  Date

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  November 1978

  24·1

  37·0

  41·7

  26·1

  40·0

  44·9

  November 1979

  23·2

  35·8

  39·9

  25·3

  38·9

  43·3

  414
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take in the light of the Benner report on the review of the dental reference service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The report has been sent to interested parties and their comments invited by 31 July. No decision as to whether or not its recommendations should be implemented will be taken before then.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Moore
  I regret that a reply cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Hospitals (Staff Shortages)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will urgently introduce measures to help teaching hospitals with staff shortages which cause damaging interruption of clinical research due to the need to attend to the care of patients.

  Mr. Newton
  The allocation of resources to teaching hospitals is a matter for health authorities subject to the guidance issued to them. The Department, in guidance to health authorities last year, reminded them of their responsibility to support clinical teaching and research.

  NHS Workers (Career Structure)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce new arrangements for the career structure of National Health Service workers aimed at the promotion of medical or scientific research.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so. The present medical career structure is flexible enough to accommodate doctors who wish to make a career in academic medicine or to combine scientific research with an NHS commitment.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the value of unemployment benefit for a single person, a married couple and a married couple with two children under 11 years as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and all manually employed males for each year between November 1978 and the latest date available.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is given in the table.
  415

  All males

  All manually employed males

  Single person

  Married couple

  Married couple plus 2 children

  Single person

  Married couple

  Married couple plus 2 children

  Date

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  November 1980

  22·1

  34·2

  36·7

  24·9

  38·2

  41·1

  November 1981

  22·3

  34·5

  36·1

  25·4

  39·1

  40·9

  November 1982

  23·3

  36·0

  36·5

  26·7

  40·9

  41·5

  November 1983

  23·4

  36·1

  36·3

  26·9

  41·2

  41·5

  November 1984

  22·6

  34·7

  34·7

  26·1

  39·8

  39·8

  November 1985

  22·7

  34·8

  34·8

  26·3

  40·1

  40·1

  July 1986

  21·5

  33·0

  33·0

  25·2

  38·4

  38·4

  April 1987

  20·2

  31·2

  31·2

  24·0

  36·7

  36·7

  1 Net average earnings are the estimates of average gross weekly earnings less tax and national insurance contribution at the contracted out rate.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the value of the retirement pension for a single person and a married couple as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and all manually employed males for each year between November 1978 and the latest date available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.

  Retirement pension as a percentage of net average weekly earnings at uprating date

  Date

  Male manual workers

  All male workers

  Single

  Couple

  Single

  Couple

  November 1978

  32·3

  48·9

  29·8

  45·3

  November 1979

  31·8

  48·4

  29·2

  44·6

  November 1980

  32·8

  49·7

  29·1

  44·4

  November 1981

  33·4

  50·9

  29·3

  44·9

  November 1982

  35·0

  53·1

  30·6

  46·7

  November 1983

  33·9

  51·3

  29·5

  44·9

  November 1984

  32·9

  49·6

  28·4

  43·2

  November 1985

  33·1

  49·9

  28·5

  43·3

  July 1986

  31·6

  47·8

  27·0

  41·1

  April 1987

  30·1

  45·7

  25·3

  38·8

  Social Security
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how the changes in the social security schemes announced to the House on 27 April will affect (i) war widows, (ii) industrial injuries benefit and (iii) special hardship allowance as respects income assessment for housing benefit; and if they will be protected by the minimum loss of £2·50 per week.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 17 May 1988]: The changes announced on 27 April did not alter the method of calculating housing benefit but people in these groups may receive transitional payments if they incurred losses in housing benefit in excess of £2·50 per week as a result of the changes in the structure of the scheme from 1 April. However, local authorities continue to have discretion in the new housing benefit scheme to disregard up to the whole amount of a war pension. Therefore, we will not compensate for losses arising from any reduction in the disregard through changes in local authorities' own discretionary schemes for war pensions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commodity Prices
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of producer countries concerning improvements in commodity prices.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers meet their opposite numbers in the Governments of commodity-producing countries at regular intervals. On these occasions the developmental problems facing producer countries, including the prices their commodities command, are often discussed.

  Spain (British Tourists)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to how many British tourists have been killed on Spanish beached over the last seven years by drowning.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over the past five years our consulates in Spain have been informed of 83 British nationals who died by drowning. Of these, a number drowned in swimming pools.

  Not all such deaths are reported to us. Further statistics are not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  "Platform on European Security Interests"
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he took to publicise the Western European Union statement entitled, "Platform on European Security Interests", arising from the meeting of the Foreign and Defence Ministers meeting at the Hague on 27 October 1987; and if he will make a statement as to what extent it represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Western European Union "Platform on European Security Interests" was placed in the Library of the House following its adoption and has received considerable media publicity. It has been quoted regularly in ministerial and other speeches and has been further publicised in a Western European Union brochure about that organisation's activities. We endorse the platform.

  Israel
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
  417
  further statement of Her Majesty's Government's latest assessment of relations with Israel and on its policy towards the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about recent Mossad activities in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following the trial and conviction of Ismail Sowan, the Israeli ambassador was informed on 17 June that a member of his diplomatic staff must leave the country by the end of this month. Additionally, the Home Secretary is requiring the departure from Britain by the end of the month of a staff member currently serving in the PLO office in London.

  We will not tolerate the export to Britain of middle eastern feuds and violence.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 10 June,Official Report, column 696, what is the United Kingdom's representation in (a) Greek southern Cyprus and (b) Turkish northern Cyprus; and why he has no figures for non-Cypriots resident in southern Cyprus.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are 30 United Kingdom-based members of staff and 37 locally engaged staff in the British high commission in Nicosia. The high commission represents Her Majesty's Government's interests throughout Cyprus.

  Information about the number of non-Cypriots resident in the south was not available when I answered the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, but further inquiries were then made. I understand that there are about 15,000 non-Cypriots resident in the area controlled by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

  Diplomatic Staff (Languages)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list for each post overseas the number of diplomatic staff, the number and percentage whose skill in those local language is functional or better, and the number and percentage whose skill is extensive.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. However, of the total 3,257 mainstream Diplomatic Service officers, 2,978 have one or more language qualifications. Many have qualifications in more than one language. The total number of qualifications at functional level or better is 4,172. Of these 967 are at higher levels.

  Spain (British Holidaymakers)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Spanish authorities regarding the behaviour of young British males in holiday centres; what action is proposed to combat their activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I visited Spain from 12 to 14 June 1988. I had frank and useful talks on tourist security and 418
  behaviour of British visitors with local and regional authorities in Alicante and Valencia, and in Madrid. Some 3,000 extra policemen are being sent to the main coastal resorts, Seville and Grenada for the peak summer period, and a publicity campaign to give practical advice to tourists about security will be launched by the Spanish authorities shortly. We are exploring a number of further practical measures including restrictions on alcohol sales.

  We shall be continuing our public education campaign both here and in Spain to reduce as far as possible the small minority who tarnish Britain's image abroad. The Association of British Travel Agents and the major British tour operators also recognise the need to advise their clients on the spot about behaviour and security and we shall be pursuing further initiatives with them. In addition, in conjunction with other interested bodies, we shall be looking at the possibility of curbing excessive consumption of alcohol at airports prior to departure.

  Sharpeville Six
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government has made to South Africa concerning the Sharpeville Six; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Foreign Ministers of the Twelve issued the following statement in Luxembourg on 14 June:"The Foreign Ministers today discussed the situation in South Africa following the decision by the Supreme Court of Pretoria not to reopen proceedings in the case of the Sharpeville Six.
  The Ministers expressed their deep distress and concern about the fate of the Sharpeville Six.
  They urged that all legal options available in South Africa should be used to prevent the death penalty from being carried out. In this connection they drew attention to earlier representations by the European Community."

  The German ambassador in Pretoria will be making representations to the South African Government on behalf of the Twelve.

  Soviet Union (Republics)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account Her Majesty's Government takes in its policy towards recognition of the legal status of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as republics of the Soviet Union, of the manner in which they acquired that status; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the resumption by these states of their independence by peaceful means.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have not recognised de jure the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union, because of the unacceptable way in which it was carried out. It follows that we would respect the right of these former independent states to determine their own future status in a peaceful manner, as is indeed provided for in the Soviet constitution.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what evidence he has on the extent
  419
  to which the proposed set-aside scheme will cause a reduction in pollution caused by agricultural activities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what evidence he has on the extent to which the diversification scheme will reduce pollution caused by agricultural activities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he has evidence on the extent to which the introduction of environmentally sensitive areas has resulted in a reduction in pollution caused by agricultural practices in those areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In my report to Parliament later this year on the first year's operation of the environmentally sensitive areas, I will he considering among many other things, the evidence available on their impact on pollution. We shall also be monitoring the impact of the set-aside scheme which we announced on the 14 June. The main aim of the farm diversification grant scheme is to provide additional non-agricultural sources of income for farmers and it is not therefore likely greatly to affect pollution from agricultural activities but I shall obviously keep this question in mind.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to reduce the levels of nitrates as a result of the Hatton catchment nitrate study.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government are currently looking at a mumber of options for further action to reduce nitrate pollution—including those identified in the Hatton study. A publicity campaign was launched earlier this year with the support of interested organisations aimed at encouraging farmers to adopt practices which minimise the risk of nitrate loss. The agricultural development and advisory service also takes every opportunity to put the message across in the course of its regular contact with the farming community.

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting on 13 to 15 June in Luxembourg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Minister for State and I attended this Council of Agricultural Ministers of the European Community, which began on Monday afternoon, 13 June, and finished last Friday morning.

  The Council agreed to two directives harmonising charges for meat inspection and bringing the standards for export-approved and non-export slaughterhouses closer into line. Other member states were strongly opposed, partly on the ground that it would have been administratively cumbersome, to our preference that the harmonised inspection charges should be based on the principle that the charges should equal the actual costs of inspection in all cases. We did however in the end secure agreement to an increase from 50 to 55 per cent. in the reduction which is permitted from the standard charges where the actual costs of inspection are low. The result of this is to minimise the effect of the new arrangements on United Kingdom slaughterhouses. The arrangements will come into effect on 1 January 1991. The harmonised charges and the 55 per cent. reduction factor will be
  420
  reviewed by the Council in 1992. The Council also agreed a directive laying down animal health requirements for trade in cattle semen, and a directive dealing with safeguards against the spread of enzootic bovine leucosis.

  There was also a short introductory discussion on the Commission's revised proposals for income aids.

  The major part of the Council was taken up with further negotiations on prices and other support arrangemens for agricultural commodities for 1988–89. I very much regret that, just as it seemed that agreement was in reach after prolonged and difficult discussions the negotiations broke down when the Greek Minister invoked the Luxembourg compromise, signalling that the matter was so important for him that he wished discussion to continue until there could be unanimous agreement. The 11 other member states including ourselves were prepared to accept the compromise package proposed by the presidency and Commission at that stage. Negotiations will have to be concluded at a date still to be determined.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the interaction between the set-aside scheme announced on 14 June and the arrangements for environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The schemes have separate objectives. Moreover, while set-aside applies throughout the United Kingdom, environmentally sensitive areas are limited to particular localities.

  Those farming within ESAs will be able to join the set-aside scheme provided they meet the conditions, but to avoid double payment on particular parcels of land, farmers will not be eligible for set-aside for any land to which an ESA agreement applies. A farmer in an ESA will have to consult the ESA project officer about the management of any land to be set-aside before he makes an application under the scheme.

  Mr. John
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food upon what estimated take-up by farmers he based his agriculture set-aside proposals announced on 14 June.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As this is an entirely new scheme, and it is voluntary, it is not possible to make a scientific assessment of take-up in advance.

  Mr. Tony Lester-Card (Statement)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take against Mr. Tony Lester-Card, a civil servant in his Department, whose public statement reported in Farmers' Weekly of 8 June on the inefficacy of voluntary agricultural set-aside schemes was repudiated by him on 14 June, Official Report, column 178.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As I explained to the House on 14 June, the official mentioned was not speaking for the Government.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the
  421
  proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in (a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The personnel records for officials at grade 3 and above in my Department include information on schools attended. However, this information has not been analysed in the terms of the question asked.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to whether vaccines in use in the United Kingdom to protect poultry from Newcastle disease will protect against strains found in north America.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no reason to suppose that the Newcastle disease vaccines licensed in the United Kingdom, when used in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, are not effective against strains of the virus found in north America.

  Cereals (Testing)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the estimated costs for(a) Cambridge and (b) Edinburgh which make up the joint total of £233,000 for cereals test operations given in paragraph 253 of the report of the review on plant testing and seed certification.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]: The estimated costs for 1987–88 were £152,000 for Cambridge and £81,000 for Edinburgh. The estimate for Cambridge includes costs for centralised activities not undertaken at Edinburgh.

  Sugar
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the current annual production and consumption of sugar in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: For 1987–88, the Commission estimates European Community sugar production at 13·198 million tonnes, including 12·384 million tonnes of quota production, and sugar consumption at 10·750 million tonnes.

  Budgie Seed
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the European Economic Community Commission's proposal to increase the levy on budgie seed will be considered by the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) today.

SCOTLAND

  Homicides
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been convicted in Scotland of homicide since the abolition of the death penalty for murder.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From 1966 until 1987, a total of 749 people were convicted of murder. Comparable figures for culpable homicide are only available from 1969. From 1969 until 1987, a total of 647 people were convicted of culpable homicide.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons convicted of homicide in Scotland and released on licence or termination of sentence have been convicted of homicide again since the abolition of the death penalty.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1965. three people released on licence from a previous murder conviction have been convicted of murder. Comparable information about homicides other than murder is not readily available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Speed limits
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his criteria in determining whether to grant a request from a regional roads authority to change an existing speed limit; how many such requests he has received from Highland region over the past five years and of these(a) how many have been approved and (b) how many have been turned down; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The criteria for determining appropriate speed limits apply throughout Great Britain. They are set out in Scottish Development Department circular No. 18/80 and were issued after full consultation with various representative bodies, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland).

  Thirty applications have been received from Highland regional council in the last five years. Nine applications have been approved, 18 have been turned down and three are currently under consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend refuses consent for a speed limit only if he is satisfied that the relevant criteria are not met.

  Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will instruct the procurators fiscal for the Borders and Grampian regions to institute proceedings against the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust for breaches of charity law as it applies in Scotland on the grounds(a) that charitable status applies only to organisations dealing with endangered animal species and (b) that expenditure on extinguishing netting rights unlawfully discriminates in favour of proprietors of rod fishing rights and against the interests of netsmen.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No reports alleging breaches of the criminal law have been received by my
  423
  noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate or by any of the procurators fiscal in Grampian, Highlands and Islands region or Lothian and Borders region against the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust. Accordingly the Lord Advocate has had no occasion to instruct procurators fiscal in this matter.

  Health Boards (Grievances)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as part of its review of procedures relating to individual employee's grievances with local health boards, he will direct the General Whitley council to consider any changes intended to expedite settlement of such grievances.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  While my right hon. and learned Friend approves General Whitley council agreements in Scotland, he has no power to direct the deliberations of that council.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as part of its review of procedures relating to individual employee's grievances with local health boards, he will direct the General Whitley council to seek to obtain statistics on the average time for settlement of disputes between local health boards and the British Medical Association and on the total cost to the Health Service in locum salaries, ex-gratia settlements and administrative costs of such disputes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I believe that the hon. Member's concern may arise from a constituency case about which we are in correspondence, and I shall write to him.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will describe the remit of the current review being undertaken by the General Whitley council on procedures relating to individual employees' grievances with health boards; and what options are under consideration.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no formal remit for the current review of General Whitley council grievance procedures. Informal exploratory discussions between management and staff sides are taking place which may lead to formal negotiations on a new agreement. It remains to be seen what options emerge during discussion and negotiation.

  Remand
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the average time spent on remand for men and women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated average periods spent in custody on remand in 1987 were as follows.

  Days

  Men

  20·1

  Women

  17·6

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) women and (b) men were put in prison while waiting for trial and subsequently freed over each of the past five years.
  424
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available.

  Cornton Vale Prison
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to ensure that Cornton Vale prison benefits from having(a) a state registered nurse and (b) a drama therapist.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am satisfied that the present complement of seven nursing staff at Cornton Vale, who are all state-enrolled nurses, is adequate for the present requirements of the establishment. There are no plans to employ a drama therapist.

  Elsie Inglis Maternity Hospital
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, of 10 June,Official Report, column 723, he will place a list of all those who made representations to him in connection with the closure of Elsie Inglis maternity hospital, and a copy of all such representations, in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Boards (Ancillary Services)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made for health boards ancillary services tenders to be considered by English health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time taken by the Scottish Legal Aid Board in dealing with applications for legal aid; and what were the figures in each of the four previous years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the Lord Advocate has received about the working of the legal aid system in Scotland; and if he plans to speed up the time taken in dealing with legal aid applications.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since the Scottish Legal Aid Board assumed its duties on 1 April 1987, the Lord Advocate has received nine such representations from right hon. and hon. Members, bodies representing the legal profession and the general public. They covered delays in the determination of applications for legal aid, refusals of legal aid and other matters. Legal aid is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, who announced on 15 December 1987 our intention to make regulations to assist in improving procedures. These will be laid shortly. The Scottish Legal Aid Board is also considering an expedited civil application procedure.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Two of the Department's staff at grade 3 and above attended independent schools, 11 attended schools which were grant-aided by central Government and 19 attended schools which were managed by an education authority.

  Education (Opting Out)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the leak inquiry into the unauthorised disclosure of memoranda between his Department and the Prime Minister's office on opting out of the education system.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 16 May 1988 at column 350.

DEFENCE

  US Bases
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the location by parliamentary constituency of all United States bases and military facilities in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will list those Royal Air Force bases that are allocated for use as operating bases by United States forces, signifying which have been equipped with minimum essential facilities;

  (3) if he will list the location by parliamentary constituency, of all military and civilian facilities in the United Kingdom that are allocated for use by United States forces in wartime.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The following bases and facilities have been made available for use by United States forces in the United Kingdom:

  Base and Designation

  Constituency

  Main Operating Bases

  RAF Alconbury

  Huntingdon

  RAF Bentwaters

  Suffolk, Coastal

  RAF Fairford

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  RAF Lakenheath

  Bury St. Edmunds

  RAF Mildenhall

  Bury St. Edmunds

  RAF Upper Heyford

  Banbury

  RAF Woodbridge

  Suffolk, Coastal

  Cruise Missile Bases

  RAF Greenham Common

  Newbury

  RAF Molesworth

  Huntingdon

  Standby Deployment Bases

  RAF Sculthorpe

  Norfolk, North

  RAF Wethersfield

  Braintree

  Storage/Support Facilities

  RAF Bicester

  Banbury

  RAF Brawdy

  Pembroke

  RAF Burtonwood

  Warrington, North

  RAF Caerwent

  Monmouth

  RAF Chelveston

  Bedfordshire, North

  RAF Chilwell

  Broxtowe

  Eastcote

  Ruislip Northwood

  Felixstowe

  Suffolk, Coastal

  426

  Base and Designation

  Constituency

  RAF Feltwell

  Norfolk, South-West

  Framlingham

  Suffolk, Coastal

  High Wycombe Air Station (Daws Hill)

  Wycombe

  Holy Loch

  Argyll and Bute

  RAF Hullavington

  Wiltshire, North

  RAF Hythe

  Romsey and Waterside

  RAF Kemble

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  London USN Europe HQ

  City of London and Westminster, South

  RAF Machrihanish

  Argyll and Bute

  Marchwood

  Romsey and Waterside

  Oakington

  Cambridgeshire, South-East

  Ridgewell

  Saffron Walden

  RAF Ruislip

  Ruislip Northwood

  RAF Spadeadam

  Penrith and The Border

  RAF St. Mawgan

  Cornwall, North

  RAF Upwood

  Huntingdon

  RAF Welford

  Newbury

  RAF Watton

  Norfolk. South-West

  Contingency Wartime Hospitals:

  RAF Chessington

  Surbiton

  RAF Arbroath

  Angus, East

  RAF Kirknewton

  Livingston

  RAF Lanark

  Clydesdale

  RAF Little Rissington

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  RAF Locking

  Weston-super-Mare

  RAF Nocton Hall

  Grantham

  Communications Facilities:

  Aberdeen

  Kincardine and Deeside

  RAF Barford St. John

  Banbury

  RAF Barkway

  Hertfordshire, North

  Botley Hill

  Surrey, East

  Bovingdon

  Hertfordshire, South-West

  RAF Chicksands

  Mid-Bedfordshire

  Coldblow

  Mid-Kent

  Christmas Common

  Henley

  RAF Croughton

  Daventry

  Daventry

  Daventry

  Dunkirk

  Canterbury

  RAF Edzell

  Kincardine and Deeside

  Great Bromley

  Colchester, North

  RAF Inverbervie

  Kincardine and Deeside

  RAF Kinnabeer

  Angus, East

  Latheron

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Martlesham

  Suffolk, Coastal

  Mormond Hill

  Banff and Buchan

  Fort Murkle

  Caithness and Sutherland

  RAF Swingate

  Dover

  RAF Thurso

  Caithness and Sutherland

  RAF Uxbridge

  Uxbridge

  NATO Armaments Depots:

  Broughton Moor

  Workington

  Glen Douglas

  Dumbarton

  The following Royal Air Force and Procurement Executive airfields, all of which have sufficient operating facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, are allocated for use as collocated operating bases by United States forces:

  Collocated operating bases

  Constituency

  Abingdon

  Oxford West and Abingdon

  Bedford

  North Bedfordshire

  Benson

  Henley

  Boscombe Down

  Salisbury

  Brawdy

  Pembroke

  Coltishall

  Norfolk, North

  Cottesmore

  Rutland and Melton

  Finningley

  Don Valley

  Odiham

  Basingstoke

  Scampton

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  Waddington

  Lincoln

  Wittering

  Huntingdon

  427
  In addition to the bases and facilities listed in the tables, a number of other facilities would be made available to the United States in wartime, but details of the sites involved are classified.

  NATO (US Units)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis United States forces units in the United Kingdom not assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation operate in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  All United States forces in the United Kingdom contribute to the security of the United Kingdom and the NATO Alliance generally. The formal assignment to NATO of such forces is a matter for the United States Government.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose and function of the proposed communications mast at Royal Air Force Greenham Common.

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposed communications tower at RAF Greenham Common would act as a communications relay station for United States forces based in Europe in support of NATO.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made any decision on the future use of the United States Air Force facilities at Daws Hill, High Wycombe, that are used in support of the cruise missile deployment at Greenham Common and Molesworth, once those missiles have been removed.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  High Wycombe air station at Daws Hill provides administrative and logistic support to the United States Air Force in London and south-east England and will thus have a continuing role after the departure of the ground-launched cruise missiles currently based at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth.

  Sidewinder
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements to the Sidewinder missile are planned to be in operation during the next two years; and which of these improvements result from experience gained in the Falklands war.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We constantly seek to improve the performance of all our weapons. However, it is not our practice to give details of the operational capability of individual systems. For the performance of Sidewinder missile in the Falklands campaign, I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 222 of "The Falklands Campaign: The Lessons" (Cm. 8758) and paragraph 56 of "Implementing the Lessons of the Falklands Campaign: Government Response to the Fourth Report from the Defence Committee Session 1986–87".

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of the United Kingdom arms 428
  exports in the last five years for which figures are available; what equivalent information he has about the United States of America; what is his estimate for 1988–89 for the United Kingdom; and what equivalent information he has for the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The total recorded value of deliveries of United Kingdom defence export equipment for the calendar years 1982–86 is assessed at £10,198 million. The equivalent United States figure (derived from the United States arms control and disarmament agency) is $51,460 million. Both figures are at current prices.

  Equivalent figures for 1987 and 1988 United Kingdom defence exports are not yet available. (SDE Volume 2 gives only an incomplete figure for 1987). I am not aware of any estimates for United States arms exports for the same period.

  The United Kingdom figures refer to actual deliveries of defence equipment as opposed to defence sales contracts signed during 1987 (vide para 420 Vol. 1 SDE 88).

  NATO—Warsaw Pact Forces
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest balance between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact naval forces.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The latest figures showing the balance between the principal naval forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact are shown in figure 17 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now received any request from the Gibraltar coroner in relation to military personnel involved in the Gibraltar operation appearing at the inquest into the deaths of three IRA personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 17 May at columns 369–70.

  Jaguar Aircraft (Dropped Fuel Tank)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the circumstances in which an RAF Jaguar dropped a 10 ft long auxiliary fuel tank near the village of Halberton, Devon, at approximately 16.30 hours on Tuesday 14 June; and what effective action he proposes to take to prevent such an event happening again.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At about 4.15 pm on 14 June, during a routine training flight, an external fuel tank was inadvertently released from a Procurement Executive Jaguar aircraft of the Empire test pilots' school at Boscombe Down, Wiltshire. The tank fell on open ground near Halberton. We have received no reports of consequential injury to any person or livestock or damage to property. A unit inquiry has been convened and I expect it to report on the incident in about two weeks' time. Meanwhile it would be premature to prejudge the outcome of the investigation or to predict any measures which it may suggest to be necessary.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he has carried out monitoring exercises in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively,

  (2) whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave him on 17 June.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to improve equality of opportunity for women and for people from ethnic minorities in all grades of his Department, in connection with employment, training and promotion, respectively.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has an equal opportunities action plan which is reviewed on an annual basis. The aim of the plan is to set out actions required in respect of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in relation to employment, recruitment, training and promotion within the Department. For example these actions include ethnic monitoring of recruitment, programmes for advertising in the ethnic press and including ethnic minorities in recruitment literature, and a review of women-only training.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in the Ministry of Defence who were educated at private schools is 39·2 per cent. and at state schools is 60·8 per cent.

  Weapon

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  Army

  Pistol/revolver

  10

  12

  6

  8

  3

  10

  5

  12

  66

  Pistol-Very

  4

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  10

  SLR

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  8

  SMG

  5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  9

  LMG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Others

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  8

  RAF Nil

  Royal Navy (including RM)

  Winchester rifle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  SMG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  LMG

  —

  -—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Notes:

  1. These figures do not include small arms weapons lost and not recovered from cadet units or Service museums.

  2. Figures for RN and RM not available before 1985.

  Helicopters (Rescues)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish figures for the last available three years stating the number of rescues carried out in Devon and Cornwall each year by helicopter, proportioning the figures attributable to each helicopter station; what plans he has to make alterations to the service in Devon and Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to introduce a computerised automatic flight planning system for the United Kingdom low-flying system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]:Plans to introduce a computerised notification and deconfliction warning system in the United Kingdom low-flying system are currently under consideration.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being introduced to improve the safety of night low-level flying over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: The deconfliction warning that would be provided by the introduction of a computerised notification and warning system, which is currently under consideration, could be expected to contribute to the safety of night low-level flying over the United Kingdom.

  Missing Weapons
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether efforts are made to record all military weapons which go missing in the United Kingdom, which belong to(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy; and if he will indicate in a table in the Official Report, by category of weapon, as recorded, such information as is available to him relating to weapons which have gone missing in each year since 1 January 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 7 June 1988]:Instructions require all weapon losses to be reported. Such losses are investigated by the appropriate authority in each service. The figures for small arms weapons lost and not recovered by year since 1980 are as follows:

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 June 1988]Records are not kept of rescues in individual counties. The following information relates to an area from 3°W to 7°W and from 49°45'N to 51°5'N. This covers all of Devon and Cornwall (including the Scilly Isles and Lundy) with the exception of some very small parts of Devon; a large part of Somerset; and also the adjacent sea areas. The figures relate to persons rescued by military search and
  431
  rescue helicopters and record the number of people who were recovered alive from a hazard or who were transported for urgent medical attention.

  Persons rescued in or near Devon and Cornwall

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Boulmer

  —

  —

  4

  Brawdy

  4

  1

  4

  Chivenor

  50

  46

  59

  Culdrose

  74

  55

  51

  Lee-on-Solent

  —

  1

  1

  Aircraft from these stations also rescued many people in other areas. The hon. Member may be aware that on 1 April 1988 the readiness states of the search and rescue Sea Kings at RNAS Culdrose were improved to enable them to respond to incidents within 15 minutes by day, and 45 minutes by night. As regards other decisions which may affect the service in Devon and Cornwall, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 13 June 1988 to my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) at column 71.

  >Denmark (Nuclear-capable Ships)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current policy towards the use of Danish ports by nuclear-capable ships of the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1988]:It remains our policy neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard particular HM ships. The new Danish Government have confirmed that visits by ships of the Royal Navy can continue under the same procedures which obtained previously and a normal programme of visits to Danish ports by HM ships is planned.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Heart Surgery
    Mr. Beggs
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland presently require heart surgery and await notification that bed space has become available in hospital; and how many heart operations have been carried out weekly in Northern Ireland hospitals during the last 12 months.

    Mr. Needham
    At 31 March 1988 the waiting list for admission for cardiac surgery totalled 707. The Royal Victoria hospital is the only hospital in Northern Ireland to provide cardiac surgery; the number of heart operations, excluding catheterisations, carried out during the period from 28 September 1987 to 6 March 1988 were as follows:

    Week Commencing

    Number of Operations

    28 September 1987

    6

    5 October 1987

    4

    12 October 1987

    10

    19 October 1987

    6

    26 October 1987

    5

    2 November 1987

    10

    9 November 1987

    7

    16 November 1987

    10

    23 November 1987

    7

    30 November 1987

    11

    432

    Week Commencing

    Number of Operations

    7 December 1987

    6

    14 December 1987

    8

    21 December 1987

    6

    28 December 1987

    3

    4 January 1988

    7

    11 January 1988

    7

    18 January 1988

    6

    25 January 1988

    7

    1 February 1988

    10

    8 February 1988

    11

    15 February 1988

    9

    22 February 1988

    6

    29 February 1988

    10

    Information on the weekly number of operations carried out before 28 September 1987 or after 6 March 1988 is not readily available.

  >WALES

    Lithotripsy
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) where, in Wales, hospitals are equipped to treat kidney stones by using lithotripsy; and if he will make a statement;

    2. if he will release funds to enable Clwyd area health authority to purchase equipment and to appoint staff to enable them to treat kidney stones by lithotripsy method; and if he will make a statement;

    3. what is the cost of equipping a hospital in Wales with lithotripsy method.

    Mr. Grist
    Lithotripters are a developing technology which is being monitored by the Department. The cost of equipping a hospital with a lithotripter is estimated to be in the region of £700,000 capital for installation and £200,000 annually for running costs. No hospital in Wales is presently equipped with the technology and the Department have no plans to fund Clwyd health authority to acquire a lithotripter. It is open to the authority to consider appropriate arrangements to obtain lithotripsy treatment from those centres which provide the service.

    >Kidney Patients
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients are treated annually in each of the Welsh area health authorities, for kidney stones.

    Mr. Grist
    The latest available information, for

    District health authority

    Patients1

    Clwyd

    97

    East Dyfed

    28

    Pembrokeshire

    22

    Gwent

    144

    Gwynedd

    127

    Mid Glamorgan

    96

    Powys

    2

    South Glamorgan

    125

    West Glamorgan

    162

    1 Number of discharges (including deaths) from National Health Service hospitals with diagnosis Calculus of Kidney and Ureter.

    Maternity Units (Closure)
    Mr. Strang
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many maternity units have been closed since 1979, or are planned to close, in each health authority area in Wales.

    Mr. Grist
    Since January 1979 a total of 14 maternity units have closed and four have opened in Wales. The breakdown by health authority is as follows:—

    Maternity Units

    Closed

    Opened

    Clwyd

    5

    1

    East Dyfed

    2

    —

    Gwent

    —

    —

    Gwynedd

    1

    —

    Mid Glamorgan

    2

    2

    Pembrokeshire

    2

    1

    Powys

    —

    —

    South Glamorgan

    —

    —

    West Glamorgan

    2

    —

    Closure proposals have been submitted to my right hon. Friend for decision in respect of St. David's hospital, Bangor, Gwynedd, and the unit at County hospital, Griffithstown, in Gwent.

    Nuclear Accidents
    Dr. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list those circulars produced by his Department relating to nuclear accidents and the response of the emergency services.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    The following are the circulars: 146/75

    WHC (76)48

    WHC (85)34

    Letter dated 10 September 1985

    Emergency plans for individual nuclear installations are drawn up by the operator in consultation with the emergency services and are available at local libraries in the vicinity of the plant. A description of the measures to be taken in the event of an emergency at any licensed nuclear installation in the United Kingdom is contained in the Health and Safety Executive's booklet "Emergency Plans for Civil Nuclear Installations", published by HMSO. The lead within Government for nuclear accident planning in respect of installations in England and Wales is taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

    Tonyrefail Railway Station
    Mr. John
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, pursuant to the statement on page 31 of his valleys initiative, it is proposed as part of new park and ride facilities at Tonyrefail to rebuild the disused Tonyrefail railway station and to relay the track necessary to reconnect it to the rail network; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    I apologise for an unfortunate clerical error; the reference in page 31 should have been to Tirphil and not Tonyrefail. I am arranging for the error to be corrected in future prints of the document.

    Water Supplies
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken by the Welsh water authority to reduce aluminium levels in water supplies in Wales.

    Mr. Ian Grist
    The Welsh water authority has an on-going programme of remedial works to water supplies in Wales containing levels of aluminium above that specified in EC directive 80/778/EEC (the drinking water directive). These works are part of an overall programme, which will be mostly completed by 1990, to ensure that all drinking water supplied complies with the provisions of the directive.

    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies have been conducted by his Department, the Welsh water authority and other bodies, respectively, into a possible link between high aluminium levels in water and senility; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    No such studies have been conducted by the Department or the Welsh water authority.

    Research at Southampton university is said to indicate a correlation between Alzheimer's disease (which causes premature senility) and aluminium in drinking water. The report has not been published and so it is not yet possible for medical advisers to comment. When it is published it will be assessed and appropriate action taken if necessary.

    In the United Kingdom and many other countries, aluminium salts are used widely as coagulants in water treatment to remove undesirable suspended contamina-tion and potentially harmful bacteria. Aluminium can also occur naturally in some raw waters. In the United Kingdom, however, the concentrations of aluminium in tap water are controlled mainly by the efficiency with which aluminium is removed during water treatment, irrespective of the source of aluminium.

    The current standard which the Government have adopted, after taking advice from medical experts, for aluminium concentrations in drinking water is that contained within directive 80/778/EEC (the drinking water directive). Most water supplies comply and, where they do not, the Welsh water authority has a programme of remedial action.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Grocott
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    All oflicers in my Department at grade 3 and above were educated in state secondary schools. However two of these 14 had some of their education in private schools.

    Cancer Treatment (Clwyd and Gwynedd)
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the English health authorities and with Welsh health authorities, indicating which, to agree the terms of reference for a comprehensive study of all cancer treatment services as they relate to patients from Clwyd and Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    The terms of reference of a study of cancer treatment services for north Wales patients have been the
    435
    subject of consultation with officials of Clwyd, Gwynedd, Powys, Shropshire and Wolverhampton health authorities and North Western, Mersey and West Midlands regional health authorities.

    Satellite Radiotherapy Centre
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to see the establishment of a satellite radiotherapy centre in north Wales related to cancer radiotherapy, currently given to north Wales patients in Wirral, Cheshire; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Grist
    A review of cancer treatment services to north Wales patients, to be mounted as soon as possible, will address the feasibility of providing a satellite radiotherapy centre in north Wales.

    Rents
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimates on the likely changes in average rents paid in(a) council housing, (b) housing association properties and (c) privately rented housing in (i) Wales and (ii) the area covered by the valleys initiative as a consequence of the Housing Bill.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    The Bill will have no effect on the determination of council house rents: this will continue to be a matter for the local authorities. It is not possible to give reliable estimates, for the whole or any part of Wales, of the Bill's possible implications for housing association or private sector rents. Rents charged by associations will continue to reflect the cost of providing accommodation and the availability of public subsidy. As regards private 436
    lettings, existing tenants will continue to be entitled to a fair rent, while rents for new lettings will primarily be for agreement between landlords and tenants.

    Council House Completions
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the totals of council homes completed by Welsh councils in each year since 1974 and the estimated totals for the next five years.

    Mr. Grist
    The total number of council homes completed by Welsh councils in each year since 1974 is show in the table:

    Local authority completions1

    1974

    3,247

    1975

    7,967

    1976

    7,369

    1977

    6,890

    1978

    4,459

    1979

    3,326

    1980

    3,702

    1981

    3,530

    1982

    1,875

    1983

    1,738

    1984

    2,152

    1985

    1,073

    1986

    870

    1987

    810

    1 Including Newtown.

    Forecasts of housing provision in different tenure categories are not made by the Department.

    Income Support
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimates of the likely changes in Wales this year and for the next five years, in the total amounts claimed in income support in(a) Wales and (b) the area of Wales covered by the valleys initiative.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    No Government, past or present, have ever produced estimates of this nature.

    Private House Completions
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the totals of new private homes(a) started and (b) completed in each local district council area in Wales in each year since 1974 and the estimated totals for the next fives years.

    Mr. Grist
    The required information on private housing starts and completions from 1974 to 1986 is published in "Local Housing Statistics" copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

    Data for 1987 are given in the following table.

    Forecasts of housing provision in different tenure categories are not made by the Department.

    1987 Private sector

    Welsh Districts

    Starts

    Completions

    Alyn and Deeside

    232

    208

    Colwyn

    369

    241

    Delyn

    215

    189

    Glyndŵr

    169

    116

    Rhuddlan

    119

    109

    Wrexham Maelor

    297

    250

    Carmarthen

    205

    169

    Ceredigion

    212

    149

    Dinefwr

    91

    69

    Llanelli

    98

    51

    Preseli

    32

    331

    South Pembroke

    193

    166

    Blaenau Gwent

    64

    59

    Islwyn

    64

    25

    Monmouth

    468

    376

    Newport

    407

    335

    Torfaen

    220

    219

    Aberconwy

    156

    255

    Arfon

    126

    110

    Dwyfor

    55

    69

    Merionnydd

    14

    10

    Ynys Môn

    128

    166

    Cynon Valley

    56

    60

    Merthyr Tydfil

    149

    127

    Ogwr

    408

    438

    Rhondda

    43

    15

    Rhymney Valley

    169

    213

    Taff-Ely

    560

    330

    Brecknock

    114

    84

    Montgomeryshire

    206

    207

    Radnor

    122

    130

    Cardiff

    1,691

    1,458

    Vale of Glamorgan

    584

    457

    Lliw Valley

    87

    160

    Neath

    121

    96

    Port Talbot (Afan)

    29

    15

    Swansea

    355

    361

    Cwmbran

    57

    54

    Newtown

    56

    91

    WALES TOTAL

    8,741

    7,975

    Local Government (Labour Statistics)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimates based on experience elsewhere of the changes in the numbers employed by local government in the areas covered by his valleys initiative following the implementation of the privatisation proposals in the Local Government Act 1988.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    Phased implementation of the competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988 will not begin until 1 August 1989. Estimates of changes in the numbers employed by local government as a result of competition are not available. If local authorities are already competitive there would be no change. If they can improve their competitiveness it may make resources available for other activities.

    National Health Service (Privatisation)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimates on the likely job losses or gains in the National Health Service that would result in(a) Wales and (b) the areas covered by the valleys initiative if the Government privatisation proposals are fully implemented.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    No such estimates are available. District health authorities in Wales have been encouraged to introduce competitive tendering for certain ancillary services. This, however, is not a policy of privatisation. The object is to compare the efficiency of in-house teams with that of private contractors. Authorities are asked to place contracts with whoever provides the lowest acceptable tender. To date, most tenders have remained in-house.

    Budget (Income Tax Changes)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimates of the average change per household in income tax payments following the Budget in(a) Wales, (b) the area covered by the valleys initiative and (c) the south-east of England.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    I regret that regional estimates of the effect of the Budget changes are not available.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish amounts of rate support grant and other Government grants paid to all Welsh district and county councils each year since 1974, using 1974 as the base year expressed as 100.

    Mr. Peter Walker
    An index of the amounts of rate support grant and other Government grants paid to all Welsh district and county councils each year since 1974–75 as reported by local authorities is given in the table:

    1974–75 = 100

    1974–75

    100·0

    1975–76

    133·1

    1976–77

    151·3

    1977–78

    161·4

    1978–79

    174·2

    1979–80

    195·5

    1980–81

    235·4

    439

    1974–75 =100

    1981–82

    246·6

    1982–83

    257·3

    1983–84

    268·5

    1984–85

    276·5

    1985–86

    291·3

    11986–87

    312·4

    1 Provisional.

    Housing Association Homes
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the totals of housing association homes(a) started and (b) completed in the areas of Welsh district councils in each year since 1974 and the estimated totals for the next five years.

    Mr. Grist
    The required information on housing association starts and completions from 1974 to 1986 is published in "Local Housing Statistics" copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The corresponding information for 1987 is shown in the table.

    Forecasts of housing provision in different tenure categories are not made by the Department.

    1987 Housing Associations

    Welsh Districts

    Starts

    Completions

    Alyn and Deeside

    —

    —

    Colwyn

    25

    10

    Delyn

    12

    —

    Glyndŵr

    28

    9

    Rhuddlan

    —

    —

    Wrexham Maelor

    32

    47

    Carmarthen

    49

    23

    Ceredigion

    27

    12

    Dinefwr

    24

    —

    Llanelli

    —

    —

    Preseli

    30

    33

    South Pembroke

    6

    —

    Blaenau Gwent

    23

    40

    Islwyn

    —

    —

    Monmouth

    123

    —

    Newport

    —

    —

    Torfaen

    12

    —

    Aberconwy

    —

    —

    Arfon

    42

    30

    Dwyfor

    8

    35

    Meirionnydd

    —

    —

    Ynys Môn

    27

    —

    Cynon Valley

    81

    40

    Merthyr Tydfil

    6

    14

    Ogwr

    —

    —

    Rhondda

    51

    8

    Rhymney Valley

    49

    14

    Taff-Ely

    —

    12

    Brecknock

    —

    12

    Montgomeryshire

    20

    —

    Radnor

    6

    —

    Cardiff

    265

    23

    Vale of Glamorgan

    —

    31

    Lliw Valley

    —

    —

    Neath

    32

    —

    Port Talbot (Afan)

    20

    28

    Swansea

    16

    46

    Cwmbran

    —

    —

    Newtown

    —

    —

    WALES TOTAL

    1,014

    467

  TRANSPORT

    Cycling
    Mr. Roger King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new efforts his Department is making to encourage cycling.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Safer cycling is a high priority. We have a continuous programme of research, and undertake advisory and promotional activities. We helped sponsor the Cyclists' Touring Club's new guide "Positive Cycling". I have just opened a major new cycle route in Exeter and innovative cycle schemes are being opened in Cheltenham and Darlington.

    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has had any communication with the European Commission over the implementation of the European Parliament report, "The Bicycle as a Means of Transport"; and whether his Department has taken any steps itself to fulfill the recommendations of the report, particularly with regard to paragraph 6 of the report concerning cycle tracks.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    The Department has had no communication from the European Commission over the implementation of a report from the European Parliament over cycling. We recognise cycle tracks as a means of enhancing the safety of cyclists. Other techniques, engineering treatments at danger spots such as some junctions and roundabouts, offer more generally applicable ways of helping cyclists.

    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that Eurotunnel complies with its statutory responsibility to make provision for the conveyance by means of the shuttle trains of pedals cycles in the vehicles that will use the Channel tunnel.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    Eurotunnel is drawing up plans for the conveyance of pedal cycles on Channel tunnel shuttle trains. For safety reasons, it intends to transport cyclists in minibuses towing trailers carrying their cycles. The detailed arrangements will be submitted for approval by the intergovernmental commission.

    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on providing cycling facilities in the last financial year for which figures are available; and how much local authorities have spent during this time.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    We spend much time on cycling.

    The Department spent £160,000 in 1987–88 on its programme of experimental cycling facilities. Figures are not collected centrally on the amounts spent by local authorities on cycle facilities, or on the Department's continuing expenditure on cycle elements in its trunk road improvement schemes.

    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of cycle track have been provided as a part of new and improved trunk roads during the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    This information is not held centrally. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

    Pedestrian Safety
    Mr. David Porter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent measures his Department has taken to improve pedestrian safety.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    We have issued a number of leaflets to help local authorities reduce pedestrian casualties by improved road layout. On 17 May we co-sponsored a conference aimed at identifying the most promising new measures. A total of 95 per cent. of pedestrian casualties are in urban areas. First results from our "urban safety" pilot projects suggest that it is possible to reduce overall pedestrian casualties by 14 per cent. using an areawide approach. I am having copies of the reports placed in the Library.

    British Rail (Privatisation)
    Mr. Gareth Wardell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has made any studies of the potential for selling off rural railway lines.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    No.

    Settle to Carlisle Line
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations and individuals who have expressed an interest in buying the Settle to Carlisle railway line since 16 May.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    No. I regard such information as commercially confidential. It is for the organisation concerned to decide whether to seek publicity at this stage.

    South-Western Region (Bypasses)
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new bypasses are scheduled to open in the south-western region in the near future; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Four new trunk road bypasses will open in July. The Blackwater bypass in Cornwall will open early in the month. I hope soon to perform three opening ceremonies at Bridport in Dorset, Ilminster in Somerset, and—the most significant of all for the west country—Okehampton in Devon.

    Motorways (Charges)
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reduction in motorway congestion he would expect from the introduction of tolled fast lanes.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    No assessment has been made of such a proposal.

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has made any assessment of the economic impact of charging vehicles for the use of motorway fast lanes.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Tolling of individual lanes on existing motorways is impracticable. If we receive proposals for the construction of additional lanes on which tolls are to be charged we shall have a full assessment made of their effect. Meanwhile there is no need to do so in any detail.

    Ferry Safety
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to seek to amend his powers to enforce safety improvements in ferry design on United Kingdom and foreign flagged ferries.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    No. I have the powers that I need under the Merchant Shipping Acts.

    Mr. Nellist
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that the IMO is in a position to agree improvements in ferry safety within acceptable time scales.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    In April this year the maritime safety committee of the IMO adopted amendments to the safety of life at sea convention 1974 in the minimum time permitted by the articles of that convention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already introduced regulations that apply those amendments to ships using our ports.

    Mr. Pendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comments he has received from the IMO concerning his Department's research into roll-on roll-off ferry safety.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    Such comments as individual members of IMO have made 'welcomed my Department's research into ferry safety.

    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions lie has had with the IMO concerning ferry safety.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed the 15th session of the assembly of the International Maritime Organisation on 9 November last year when he impressed on representatives the United Kingdom Government's's concern to secure early international agreement on measures to ensure the highest safety standards for roll-on roll-off ferries. The assembly sympathised with and supported this concern. The Maritime Safety committee, at its April meeting, considered and endorsed our first package of proposals on ferry safety, including new international requirements on indicator lights, television surveillance and supplementary emergency lighting. The committee also agreed, with the United Kingdom's active support, upon new damage stability requirements for passenger ships, as explained in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 19 May, Official Report, columns 524–25.

    Main Line Railway Stations
    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will raise the question of the conditions of British Rail's main line stations.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    No. The conditions of main line stations are purely a matter for British Rail, who are well aware of the importance of quality of service, in the widest sense. If the hon. Member has a particular area of concern perhaps he will write to British Rail (and copy his letter to me).

    London Underground (Bakerloo Line)
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals there are to extend the southern end of Bakerloo line beyond the Elephant and Castle; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    It is for the operators to bring forward investment proposals. Possible extensions to the Bakerloo line, together with other proposals to relieve congestion in the central area of London, are being considered as part of the central London rail study announced on 25 March 1988.

    London Underground (Security)
    Sir John Biggs-Davison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about security on the London Underground.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    Following my Department's report on crime on the Underground, London Underground Limited is implementing a wide-ranging programme of security measures with the support of £15 million made available by the Government.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to the amount of room the statutory authorities will need on a train using the Channel tunnel; and whether this will give rise to any special difficulties in rolling stock construction.

    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conditions as to space for their purposes the statutory authorities will impose on British Rail for trains using the Channel tunnel; and whether there will be any special conditions for rolling stock construction.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    I understand that the Customs and immigration authorities are currently discussing their requirements with British Rail. Any agreed on-train requirements will be taken into account in the specification for the Channel tunnel rolling stock.

    Mr. Anderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the provision of customs and immigration facilities for the Channel tunnel.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

    Mr. Adley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive from British Rail its report on additional rail routes to the Channel tunnel; and when he expects to publish it.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    I expect to receive British Rail's report in July, and that it will he published before Parliament rises for the recess.

    Basildon (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the visit by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) to Basildon.
    444
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    I visited Hawtal Whiting of Pitsea, Essex on 10 June to see at first hand the work of a United Kingdom company successfully applying new technology in its work for home and overseas customers, particularly in the field of vehicle safety.

    A1 (Improvements)
    Mr. Holt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the three road improvements under way on the A1 in Yorkshire to be completed.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Work on the new Wetherby bypass is due to end in August 1988. The new interchange at Dishforth should open by the end of 1989. Resurfacing work on the Leeming bypass should be completed in July 1988.

    Car Telephones
    Mr. French
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to stipulate that the only types of telephone permitted to be used by the driver of a car whilst in motion are those equipped with voice-activated dialling.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Our advice is clear: anyone who can afford a car phone can afford a hands-free microphone.

    Current legislation already places the responsibility on drivers to have proper control of their vehicles at all times. A driver who fails to do so as a result of distraction or lack of concentration is liable to prosecution.

    There are no plans to introduce legislation to stipulate the type of car telephones permitted to be used.

    Ship Discharges
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he is planning in controls over discharges from ships in British coastal waters.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    There will be changes when annex V of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships enters into force on 31 December, 1988, when new restrictions will be placed upon the discharge of garbage into the sea. My officials are consulting the industry before I lay subordinate legislation before the House. Other recent changes in controls have come about as a consequence of decisions at the second North sea conference held in London last year. Subsequently airborne surveillance of our coastal waters, in particular for oil discharges, was increased, and new arrangements set up to ensure ships suspected of violations are visited by marine surveyors when they enter not only United Kingdom ports, but ports in Europe.

    Motorways
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will prepare a new motorway construction programme for Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    We are continuing to develop and improve the trunk road and motorway network. The need for further motorway development is closely monitored and new schemes are added to the programme as the need
    445
    is identified. Motorways in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.

    British Rail (Rolling Stock and Locomotives)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold discussions with the chairman of British Rail about the provision of rolling stock and locomotives for the 1990s.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I already hold frequent discussions with the chairman of BR on investment in new locomotives and rolling stock, for which BR plans to spend around £1 billion over the next five years, making this the biggest programme of locomotive and rolling stock renewal for decades.

    Cars (Clamping)
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on research into alternatives to the clamping of cars in London and the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Current research into parking enforcement is concentrated in and around wheel clamping areas in London and now takes into account the effects of vehicle removal in these areas. Wheel clamping commands much public support. Evidence so far is that clamping is uniquely effective for those parking offences that do not cause danger or delay by obstruction. Parking research elsewhere is largely confined to evaluating the effectiveness of new kinds of parking payment equipment.

    IPCS (Meetings)
    Ms. Quin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants involved in transport industries.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present to do so.

    British Rail (Privatisation)
    Mr. Bill Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has conducted any studies of options for the sale of British Rail.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans for the privatisation of British Rail.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    I have no plans at present for the privatisation of British Rail. But I am beginning to consider long-term options for the future and the possibilities of privatisation are not ruled out.

    London Underground (Safety)
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his staff have had any discussions with London Regional Transport concerning its report on actions taken to improve safety since the King's Cross fire.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    Actions to improve safety on the Underground as a result of the King's Cross fire are 446
    matters for the board of LRT which is statutorily responsible for safety; they keep my officials fully informed.

    Mr. Jim Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recommendations his Department has made to London Underground concerning safety improvements, following the King's Cross fire.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    The safe operation of London Underground is the responsibility of London Regional Transport. However LRT has explained to my Department its plans for improving safety following the King's Cross fire.

    British Rail
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of British Rail on 24 May and discussed a wide range of matters of mutual interest.

    Mr. Bowis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting the chairman of British Rail on 27 July to discuss matters of current interest.

    Drink-Driving Campaign
    Mr. David Martin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in his anti-drink and driving campaign.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    The Secretary of State launched the latest phase of the Government's campaign against drinking and driving on 15 June. This continues the. "drinking and driving wrecks lives" theme from last year. We have now produced a new TV commercial to supplement the previous ones.

    Our research shows that our campaigns are making an impact. There is evidence of a long-term reduction in the amount of drinking and driving.

    We are greatly encouraged by the support of the private sector, and in particular the contribution of the brewing industry. New low and non-alcoholic beers have been introduced and sales are increasing rapidly.

    We are determined to maintain the momentum of this campaign. Over 1,000 people each year are killed due to drinking and driving. It requires a major collective effort by all concerned to reduce this terrible toll.

    London Underground (Automatic Ticket Barriers)
    Mr. Chris Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for passenger safety on the London Underground of the installation of automatic ticket barriers to replace manned ticket booths.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    London Underground Limited has discussed the safety implications of the new system with the railway inspectorate. All the new automatic ticket barriers can be opened simultaneously from any one of at least three separate places on each station.
    447
    Inspecting officers have visited a number of stations where the new barriers have been installed and are satisfied that the arrangements for the emergency opening of the gates are satisfactory. There will be a wider overall opening in the barrier line with the new system compared with the old manned ticket booth system. Therefore a better means of escape in an emergency will be provided.

    Motorways (Franchisement)
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans for franchising individual motorway lanes.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Not of existing lanes. If we receive proposals for the construction of new lanes on a franchise basis we shall consider them.

    Autoguide System (London)
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the autoguide system to be in operation in central London.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    We hope that a pilot autoguide scheme will be operating in London by 1990, provided that Parliament grants the necessary powers and private industry makes a satisfactory proposal. The pilot scheme is intended to provide the basis for a fully commercial autoguide service, to which the public can subscribe in the early 1990s.

    Lead-free Petrol
    Mr. Jacques Arnold
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has of how many vehicles on the road could be adapted to take lead-free petrol.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Nearly half the cars on the road could use or be easily adapted to use unleaded petrol. About 2 million cars currently on the road could use unleaded petrol without modification and about 7 million others could be easily adapted to do so.

    London (Public Transport)
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has to improve public transport in London; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    The Government have approved investment by London Regional Transport of £365 million for this year and for Network SouthEast the planned investment is £197 million per annum on average over the next five years. We look forward to receiving next month the initial report of the central London rail study on improvements to London's rail services in the longer term. London Buses will be restructured into smaller units, providing some benefits as a result of increased competition; and in the early 1990s the benefits of deregulation will further improve service for the public.

    A1 (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Devlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last made an official visit to any part of the A1 in Yorkshire.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw the constructional works on the new 448
    A1 Wetherby bypass on 13 December 1987. During his visit he inspected conditions on the road north of Wetherby.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met representatives of the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive to discuss the transportation of radioactive waste and other nuclear materials; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    No, but regular contact is maintained at official level.

    Passenger Transport Authorities
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has made for monitoring and acting upon the effects of the change in funding of passenger transport authorities, in the light of the proposed community charge.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    We shall be watching with interest metropolitan district expenditure billed from the PTAs and indicators of output made available annually by the PTES. The responsibility for deciding the levels of service will remain as now with the district representatives making up the PTAs.

    Severn Crossing
    Mr. Roy Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with the provision of a second Severn crossing; and when construction is likely to be completed.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Preparatory work on the second Severn crossing is progressing well. Survey work necessary to develop the design of the crossing is under way and consultations with interested parties are continuing. This would enable the bridge to be completed by the mid-1990s if the build up of traffic needs it by then and Parliament so decides.

    M25–M23 (Traffic Delay)
    Mr. Higgins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why traffic turning south from the junction of the M25 and M23 was delayed for over 50 minutes at about noon on Saturday 11 June; who is responsible for co-ordinating the work of the police and other authorities to ensure that traffic is not unnecessarily delayed and motorists are informed when approaching motorway junctions that an alternative route should be used; why no attempt to reduce congestion was made on this occasion; and if he will review his Department's policy to ensure that traffic flows are maintained.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    The delays on 11 June were caused by lane closures imposed while a deflectograph machine measured the structural condition of the road. The county council, as the Department's agent, is responsible for co-ordinating lane closures and traffic management. The work was undertaken at short notice to take advantage of the availability of the machine and favourable weather conditions. I regret the inconvenience to motorists. We will aim to avoid similar hold-ups.

    Wild Animals (Crossings)
    Mr. William Powell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department does to assist wild animals in crossing busy roads and railways.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    On trunk roads the Department takes special measures to protect wildlife. Examples are deer runs to provide for safe crossing and special fencing and reflectors designed to frighten animals from straying on to roads. Special road signs advise motorists of 150 sites where migrating toads cross during the spawning season. British Rail takes similar measures where practicable, including provision of gaps in electric rails where there are known badger runs.

    Roadworks
    Mr. Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the effect of construction prices on his plans for road building and maintenance this year.

    Mr. Channon
    We are achieving a high level of activity in road building and maintenance. Our planned spending on capital items is over 30 per cent. more in real terms than in 1978–79. Spending on roads this year is at an all time record level of over £1 billion.

    We are also making more rapid progress with schemes than expected. I have reviewed the scheduling of our work. All work currently in hand will continue. I shall continue to give high priority to safety schemes, though there will be implications for the phasing of major reconstruction works. My aim remains to start within the year all planned new construction schemes which are ready.

    Motor Cyclists (Prescription-lensed Goggles)
    Mr. John Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on helping those motor cyclists with prescription-lensed goggles comply with the eye protectors regulations.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Amending regulations exempting existing prescription lensed goggles and postponing until 1 April 1989 the requirement for new ones to be approved and marked to BS 4110 were laid before the House today. The regulations also permit the use of glass lensed goggles approved to an earlier version of the standard which did not require marking with the letter "A" to show abrasion resistance. The regulations will come into force in early July.

    M1 (Southbound Carriageway Congestion)
    Mr. Marlow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the causes of congestion on the southbound carriageway of the M1 between junctions 15 and 12 between 20.00 and 22.00 hours on Sunday 12 June, and what immediate action he intends to take to prevent a recurrence.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Southbound traffic on this section of MI is very heavy on Sunday afternoons and evenings. A fatal accident near junction 12 at 18.30 hours on 12 June caused congestion to build up rapidly. The delays extended throughout the evening.

    An experimental automatic incident detection system is being installed on the northbound carriageway of the M1
    450
    between junctions 10 and 19. No immediate measures are to be taken on the southbound carriageway until the results have been evaluated. We continue the work of engineering, education, enforcement, exhortation and example which is designed to cut casualties, their causes and consequences by one third in 12 years.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Grocott
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the proportion of civil servants at grade 3 and above in his Department who were educated in(a) private schools and (b) state schools.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    In the last 30 months I have neither needed to know nor asked. I do not intend to start now. The hon. Member could associate information in "Whitaker's" and "Who's Who".

    Motor Cycle Leg Guards
    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he made of the cost of providing motor cycle leg guards when considering his policy towards their future fitting on motor cycles.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    It might range between 3 and 10 per cent. of the cost of a new motor cycle. Cost and benefits are always taken into account in considering safety specifications to cut deaths and injuries. In the case of leg guards the cost would vary according to the type of motor cycle, its equipment, the manufacturer's design and production methods.

    Motor Cycles (Accidents)
    Mr. Speller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many injuries there have been from road accidents involving motor cycles; and at what cost of treatment, over the most recent period for which figures are available.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    The information is as follows:

    Number of casualties in accidents involving motor cycles

    Great Britain: 1986

    Killed

    Seriously injured

    Slightly injured

    All casualties

    915

    17,678

    41,754

    60,347

    Of these, pedestrian casualties were:

    119

    1,360

    2,909

    4,388

    Number of casualties among motor cycle users

    Great Britain: 1986

    Killed

    Seriously injured

    Slightly injured

    All casualties

    762

    15,704

    35,814

    52,280

    The estimated medical and ambulance costs of all accidents involving motor cycles were £42 million, out of a total of £150 million for road accident casualties, at 1986 prices; 406 of the pedestrian casualties were incurred al. zebra crossings.

    North Circular Road (Subsidence)
    Ms. Richardson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long the 5 ft wide hole in the middle of the
    451
    northbound carriageway of the Barking to South Woodford relief road north of the viaduct over the Barking to Fenchurch Street railway line will take to repair; whether other structural defects have appeared; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Neil Thorne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry, with the results to be made public, into the circumstances of the subsidence on the northbound outside lane of the South Woodford to Barking relief road (north circular) between Barking and Ilford which occurred on or about 7 June; what action will be taken against those responsible; how much compensation will be received for the loss of use of part of the road; and when the repair work will be completed.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Repairs will be carried out as quickly as possible. The subsidence was caused by the failure of a connection between a drainage gully and the main drain for the road, some 5 ft below the central reservation. Water draining through the gully washed away material below the surface.

    As this occurred during the one-year maintenance period following the road's opening, the relevant contractor is responsible for the repairs at his own expense.

    A considerable amount of material has blocked the main drain. Clearing this may involve further excavations and temporary traffic restrictions.

    Roads (Private Investment)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations and individuals who have expressed an interest in private sector investment in the provision of roads.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Much interest has been shown. I wrote to a number of firms asking for ideas on how to improve the country's transport infrastructure. Over 30 responded.

    Vehicle Excise Duty
    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the campaign against vehicle excise duty evasion in the north-west.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    The recent campaign against vehicle excise duty evasion in the north-west was run in conjunction with the Cumbria, Cheshire, Iancashire and Greater Manchester police forces. Two weeks of extensive local publicity in early May, to encourage motorists to license their vehicles voluntarily, were followed by a fortnight of intensified police activity to catch evaders who had failed to heed the warnings given. More than 1,400 offenders have so far been reported for prosecution. I shall write to my hon. Friend when the full results are available.

    Home Defence Exercises
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 25 April to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock),Official Report, column 70, if he will list the sites occupied by public sector transport undertakings at which exercise activities will take place in any or all of the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drakes
    452
    Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    No. It would not be in the public interest to disclose these sites.

    ATL Holdings
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many public service vehicle licences are held by ATL Holdings Ltd. or any of its subsidiary companies; when they were granted; how long they have been held; and what were the variations in those licences in the last five years;

    (2) how many times the north-west traffic commissioners have reduced the public service vehicle licences held by ATL Holdings; on what dates; for which companies; and on how many vehicles;

    (3) on how many occasions, and on which dates, ATL Holdings has had any of its public service vehicle licences reduced because of road safety violations or the use of unsafe vehicles.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    ATL Holdings does not hold a PSV operator's licence. The current licence of its subsidiary Yelloway Motor Services Ltd., was granted on 8 April 1988 and its first licence on 1 March 1982. The current licence of Crosville Motor Services was granted on 17 August 1987, and its first licence on 1 August 1981. The current licence of SUT Ltd. was granted on 19 June 1987 and its first on 1 May 1987. The current licence of Yelloway Trathens Express was granted on 1 November 1986 and its first on 28 November 1985.

    The number of vehicles which Yelloways Motor Services is authorised to operate on its PSV operator's licence was reduced from 50 to 35 with effect from 1 June 1987 because of severe maintenance problems. It was further reduced from 35 to 30 on 8 April 1988 on account of new prohibition notices.

    The other variations in the number of vehicles which these companies were authorised to operate over the last five years were:—

    Yelloways Motor Services was granted a reduction from 60 to 50 in February 1987.

    Crosville Motor Services Ltd. was granted an increase from 764 to 774 in January 1985; a reduction from 774 to 478 in October 1986 (when the company was divided into two); and a reduction from 478 to 450 in August 1987.

    Yelloway Trathens Express Ltd. was granted an increase from 10 to 20 in March 1987.

    National Bus Company
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he last consulted the north-west traffic commissioners; what were the subjects of his consultations; and whether he discussed the sale of Crosville Motor Co. with any of the north-west commissioners before approving the sale by the National Bus Company of the company;

    (2) what consultation procedures exist to enable him to establish from the traffic commissioners whether an applicant for the sale of National Bus Company assets is a fit and proper person; and how such procedures were followed in the case of ATL Holdings.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    There is no formal procedure for the Department to consult the traffic commissioners on
    453
    these matters. As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member's similar question on 18 May at column 614 the National Bus Company took steps to satisfy itself about the suitability of the purchasers of Crosville Motor Services. Its inquiries included discussion with the traffic commissioner's office and inspection of the maintenance facilities. The results of these inquiries were taken fully into account before approval to the sale was given.

    Public Service Vehicles (Maintenance)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department lays down minimum requirements for the maintenance of public service vehicles in regard to adequate numbers of fitters, maintenance depots and general maintenance inspections; and how often the north-west traffic commissioners have discussed this matter with him.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 provides that an application for a public service vehicle operators licence shall not be granted unless the traffic commissioner is satisfied that there will be adequate facilities or arrangements for maintaining in a fit and servicable condition the vehicles to be used under the licence. It is for the traffic commissioner to decide how this requirement is to be met. The traffic commissioner for the north-western traffic area has had no recent discussions with the Department on maintenance matters.

    Motor Insurance
    Mr. Shersby
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has concerning the extension of comprehensive and third party motor insurance to other European Community countries in the light of the forthcoming completion of the Channel tunnel and the single European market.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    Motor insurance policies issued in one member state already provide the cover required by law in each of the others. From 31 December 1988, policies throughout the Community will cover liability for damage to property as well as bodily injury. This is required by directive 84/5/EC. We introduced regulations last December to comply with the directive. The Community's effort has been directed to the harmonisation of compulsory requirements to protect the interests of accident victims. Our view is that it is for individual drivers to decide what cover they require in addition to compulsory insurance.

    Dial-a-Ride Service (London)
    Mr. Cartwright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the number of drivers employers by each dial-a-ride service in the London Regional Transport area at(a) the most recent convenient date, and (b) 12 months earlier.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    This is a matter for the management committees of the voluntary organisations concerned and for London Regional Transport which funds them.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Service (Disabled People)
    Mr. Tom Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with representatives of the British and French railways to ensure that all 454
    trains that will be used on the Channel tunnel rail service links will be properly equipped to ensure suitable seating and toilet facilities for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    The design of the rolling stock for the Channel tunnel through rail services is the responsibility of the railway operators concerned. I understand that the draft specification for the high-speed rolling stock which has been agreed between the British and the French railways already includes suitable facilities for disabled people.

    London Buses
    Mr. Cartwright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the number of vehicles operated by each district road service in the London Regional Transport area of(a) the most recent convenient date and (b) 12 months earlier.

    Mr. David Mitchell
    The detailed deployment of vehicles to services provided by London Regional Transport through its subsidiary London Buses Limited or secured by them through tendering is a matter for the operators concerned.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Bradfield Court, Nottingham
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the tenants of Bradfield court, Nottingham, regarding the selling of their homes.

    Mrs. Roe
    None.

    Housing Bill
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning proposals contained in the Housing Bill to allow local authority tenants choice of landlords; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    I have received many representations concerning the proposals in part IV of the Housing Bill—"Tenants' Choice"—from members of the public, from organisations and from local authorities. Where these were in response to our explanatory paper and the senders gave permission, copies were laid in the Library.

    Water Supplies
    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to make permissible levels of aluminium in the water supply lower than the level allowed under European Community regulations, following recent research suggesting that water that passes these regulations may be dangerous.

    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the research findings of Southampton university on the possible link between Alzheimer's disease and aluminium compounds added to water, what immediate action he proposes to take to safeguard the consumer while scientific investigation is carried out; if he will consider alternatives to aluminium compounds; and if he will make a statement.
    455
    Mr. Moynihan
    I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 17 June.

    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that water authorities comply with the European Community regulations limiting the levels of aluminium in the water supply; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moynihan
    We have agreed action programmes for the 31 supplies which do not at present comply with the aluminium standard set in the EC drinking water directive, owing to the use of aluminium in the treatment process. Most of these supplies should comply by 1990.

    Where aluminium is naturally occurring in water the directive allows the Department to grant derogations. The Department has granted 16 derogations, but has stressed that these should be phased out over the next few years.

    The hon. Member is also referred to the statement I made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 17 June.

    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by water authority areas and their districts, the levels of aluminium in the water supply.

    Mr. Moynihan
    This information is not held centrally.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the water supplied by the Newcastle and Gateshead water company exceeds the European Economic Community limit for aluminium content; and whether he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moynihan
    The local areas served by the Newcastle and Gateshead water company which have been supplied with drinking water containing aluminium levels above those specified in the EC drinking water directive since the directive came into operation in 1985 are:

    Rochester

    West Woodburn

    Otterburn

    Wark on Tyne

    Bellingham

    There are about 3,500 people in these areas. However, improvements have been carried out and all the company's supplies now comply with the aluminium standard set in the directive.

    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusion he has reached as a result of the Hatton catchment nitrate study.

    Mr. Moynihan
    The Hatton catchment nitrate study provides a thorough and useful assessment of the various options for controlling nitrate in water supplies in an area which may have lessons for other areas. The study is being taken into account in the Government's current review of the nitrate issue.

    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a list of water authorities in England and Wales, indicating in each case how much use it makes of aluminium compounds to achieve the characteristics sought in the water which it supplies; and whether his Department is to issue guidance in response to the alleged link between the long-term generation of Alzheimer's disease and the employment of chemicals containing aluminium in the public water supply.
    456
    Mr. Moynihan
    All water authorities in England and Wales use aluminium compounds in some of their treatment works for the removal of suspended matter from surface waters. Those which make the most use of aluminium are Northumbria, North-West, Severn-Trent, South-West and Yorkshire. With respect to the alleged link with Alzheimer's disease I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 17 June.

    Mr. Favell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in the Stockport area receive water with aluminium content exceeding European Community permitted levels; what are the levels of aluminium in such water; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moynihan
    About 180,000 people in the Stockport area receive water with aluminium content exceeding the aluminium standard in the EC directive for drinking water. Current concentrations of aluminium are not considered a health risk. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 17 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).

    National Rivers Authority
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) where it is intended to locate the headquarters of the new National Rivers Authority;

    (2) if he will locate the headquarters of the new National Rivers Authority in Liverpool.

    Mr. Moynihan
    No decision has yet been taken.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether community charge officers will be able to trace debtors and defaulters by asking for information concerning an individual's name and address from gas, water and electricity boards.

    Mr. Howard
    No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 May at column 305.

    Mr. Cartwright
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of (i) the staffing implications and (ii) the administrative costs of his proposals announced on 17 November 1987 and 25 April to require 10 London boroughs to operate residual domestic rating for four years in addition to the community charge.

    Mr. Howard
    I have not yet completed consideration of the findings of the Price Waterhouse study of the implementation of the community charge.

    Mr. Cartwright
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he used in establishing the threshold above which 10 London boroughs will be required to operate residual domestic rating, announced in his reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 25 April,Official Report, at columns 61–62.

    Mr. Howard
    The basic criterion was the combined level of spending above assessed need on all local services, and therefore the implied level of community charges, based on 1987–88 budgets. We also had regard to the evidence from provisional expenditure returns for 1988–89
    457
    of reductions in aggregate overspending; to representations received and to assurances given about measures to be taken which would further reduce community charge levels. At the time of my announcement no representations had been received from the individual authorities to which part IV of the Local Government Finance Bill is now to apply.

    Community Charge Register
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the procedures or restrictions that will be associated with the sale of names and addresses from the community charge register.

    Mr. Howard
    I refer the hon. Member to what was said by my noble Friend the Minister of State during the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill in another place—Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June; column 1139–41.

    Environment Council
    Mr. Hanley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 16 June.

    Mr. Moynihan
    My noble Friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Water represented the United Kingdom at this meeting, which was adjourned at 4 am on 17 June and will resume on 28 June.

    The Council adopted the directive limiting diesel car particulate emissions, on which the Council had previously adopted a common position.

    I am pleased to say that the Council reached a common position on the Commission's proposals to ratify and implement the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, subject to parliamentary reserves on behalf of the United Kingdom and several other member states. The Council also agreed a political resolution which emphasises the importance of voluntary action to reduce further the use of CFCs and halons and specifies that such reductions should not be offset by increases in other uses or in other parts of the Community. The Commission was invited to seek voluntary agreement with industry on a Community label for CFC-free products.

    I am especially pleased to report that after four and a half years of negotiation the Council was able to reach agreement on the large combustion plants directive, subject to scutiny reserves by France, Italy, and Portugal and parliamentary reserves on behalf of Denmark and the United Kingdom. Under the agreement, the United Kingdom accepts a phased programme of reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions from existing large combustion plants, from 1980 levels, of 20 per cent. by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003; and in nitrogen oxide emissions of 15 per cent. by 1993 and 30 per cent. by 1998. These ambitious new targets will require a very substantial additional effort over and above our existing programe of retrofitting 6000 MW of coal-fired generating plant with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. The agreement represents a firm and positive commitment on the part of the United Kingdom which will result in substantial benefits for the environment, and will also give the industries concerned firm targets for their future planning.
    458
    There was further discussion of the second stage of exhaust emission standards for small cars (the "Luxembourg package"). My noble Friend indicated that the United Kingdom was willing to agree to the Commission proposal, subject to parliamentary reserve, and several other member states followed him in doing so. However, I am sorry to say that there remained a blocking minority which prevented progress. The dossier was referred for further discussion on 28 June.

    I am pleased to report that the Council reached agreement in principle, subject to a United Kingdom parliamentary reserve, on a second amendment to directive 82/501/EEC on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities (the "Seveso" directive). This amendment will strengthen the parent directive's provisions on informing the public and will extend the scope of the directive to cover more premises storing dangerous substances—both isolated warehouses and process-associated storage. In the light of this extension, the Commission undertook to review urgently the list of substances and thresholds in annex III of the parent directive.

    The Council had a preliminary exchange of views on a Commission report on the environmental consequences of the changing nature of agriculture and also discussed the export of hazardous wastes to Third world countries and current pollution and algae problems in the North sea.

    On 28 June the Council will resume consideration of emissions from small cars and will also discuss wastes from the titanium dioxide industry and a proposed pilot scheme concerning environment and employment.

    Drinking Water
    Ms. Quin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 50 areas for which derogations have been given from European Economic Community requirements concerning levels of aluminium in drinking water.

    Mr. Moynihan
    The 47 areas where the Department has given the aluminium derogations under article 9 of the EC drinking water directive or has applied to the European Commission under article 20 for a further period of time to comply with the aluminium standard are as follows:

    Northumbrian Water Authority

    Tunstall

    Severn-Trent Water Authority

    Parts of North Warwickshire, Coventry and Nuneaton

    Parts of Charnwood, Hinckley and Bosworth areas

    Part of Stroud district council area

    Areas supplied direct from Elan reservoirs aqueduct

    Part of Montgomery

    South West Water Authority

    Parishes of Seaton and Beer

    Areas supplied from Tottiford treatment works

    Areas supplied from Prewley treatment works

    Bideford

    College supply zone—Falmouth and Penrhyn

    Watercombe supply zone

    Higher parts of Penzance

    Launceston and Callington areas

    Bodmin and Wadebridge areas

    Princetown

    Chagford Crediton hamlets

    North West Water Authority

    Parts of Sefton M.B

    Parts of Stockport M.B

    Parts of Bolton M.B.

    459

    Parts of Tameside M.B

    Parts of Oldham M.B

    Parts of Carlisle District

    Parts of Eden District

    Parts of Lancaster Borough

    Parts of Ribble Valley District

    Yorkshire Water Authority

    South East Sheffield

    Central Sheffield

    Parts of West Barnsley (2)

    South West Sheffield

    Thornton pressure treatment works supply area, West Bradford

    Area east of Thirsk

    Area west of Harrogate

    Addingham

    Parts of Dewsbury, Mirfield and Huddersfield

    Part of North Bradford

    Huddersfield, Holmbridge, Holmstyes area

    Parts of Huddersfield

    Rural area of Keighley

    Reva treatment works supply area, Rombalds

    Parts of Huddersfield

    Rural areas west and south of Halifax (2)

    Northern area of Halifax

    Halifax, served by Thrum Hall treatment works

    Otley

    Ms. Quin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the local areas, served by the Newcastle and Gateshead water company, which have been supplied with drinking water containing aluminium levels above recommended European Economic Community limits over each of the last five years;

    (2) how many people in the Newcastle and Gateshead areas have been supplied with drinking water containing aluminium over recommended European Economic Community limits, for each of the last five years;

    (3) he will list for each of the areas which have been given derogations from European Economic Community limits concerning aluminium levels, by how much the European Economic Community limits were exceeded for each of the last five years.

    Mr. Moynihan
    This information is not held centrally. The level of aluminium in drinking water in areas which do not yet meet the standard for aluminium set in the EC drinking water directive is considered acceptable by medical advisers.

    Planning Appeal (Banbury)
    Mr. Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to announce his decision on the appeal relating to the retail warehouse parts and so on at the old automotive products site in Banbury.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The Secretary of State currently awaits the submission of an agreement, to be concluded between the parties, under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, relating to various highways and access works. It is not therefore possible to state when a decision will be reached on the appeal.

    Pollution
    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions have been taken to reduce the emissions causing acid rain; by what percentage these emissions have been reduced to date; what further actions he proposes in this field; what is the largest percentage reduction; and if he will make a statement.
    460
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the levels of sulphur emissions from power stations; and what action he is taking to have these levels reduced.

    Ms. Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he now intends to take to introduce an urgent programme of heavy cuts in the pollution from cars and power stations that causes acid rain.

    Mr. Moynihan
    Total United Kingdom sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions have fallen by nearly 40 per cent. since 1970, while nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions have remained broadly stable. We have authorised the Central Electricity Generating Board to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment to 6,000 MW of electrical generating capacity (three major power stations) and low-NOx burners to all 12 major CEGB coal-fired power stations. All new power stations are to have the technology to control acid emissions, to the requirements of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

    We have now agreed, subject to parliamentary reserve, to a new European Community directive on the control of emissions from large combustion plants, and I would refer the hon. Member to my answer today to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). This will represent a very substantial reduction in United Kingdom emissions.

    The European Community Luxembourg package which was agreed last December provides for substantial reductions in motor vehicle emissions. We intend to implement the new standards in full. We expect that the Luxembourg agreement will fully compensate for the growth in traffic between now and 2000 and will achieve significant reductions in both primary and secondary pollutants.

    Mr. David Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the water authorities succesfully prosecuted under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for excess discharge of sewage; what action he has taken to see that plant is updated by the water authorities before any privatisation takes place; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moynihan
    I understand that Thames water authority did not contest a prosecution last year for breaches of discharge consent conditions. I know of no other completed cases against water authorities. A major programme to renew and upgrade sewage treatment works is in progress. Investment in sewage treatment and disposal is planned to rise in real terms from £217 million last year to £260 million this year. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is investigating all sewage treatment works which failed to comply with consents in 1987 to establish the reasons for non-compliance and the remedial measures water authorities are proposing to deal with the problems.

    Housing Statistics
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and the proportion of all households accounted for by owner-occupiers, for each of the last 20 years.

    Mrs. Roe
    Estimate of numbers and proportions of dwellings in owner-occupation from 1976 to 1987 appear
    461
    in table 2.22 of the quarterly "Housing and Construction Statistics", No. 32, a copy of which is available in the Library. Estimates for England from 1968 to 1975 are as follows:

    Estimated stock of owner-occupied dwellings in England

    End of year

    Thousand

    Per cent, of all dwellings

    1968

    7,870

    50·6

    1969

    8,029

    50·9

    1970

    8,214

    51·4

    1971

    8,501

    52·4

    1972

    8,780

    53·5

    1973

    9,029

    54·5

    1974

    9,205

    54·9

    1975

    9,385

    55·3

    Note: Although numbers are expressed to the nearest thousand they should not be regarded as accurate to the last digit.

    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority area in England and Wales the number of homes made available to people under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act in 1986–87; and what percentage this represented of the total number of houses available for new tenants in 1986–87.

    Mrs. Roe
    The information provided by English local authorities in their housing investment programme returns for 1987 is in the following table. For information about Welsh authorities I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    Local authority lettings to homeless households in priority need in 1986–87

    Local authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    through mobility schemes

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Region North Inc. Cumbria

    Cleveland

    Hartlepool

    171

    28

    —

    Langbaurgh

    67

    11

    —

    Middlesbrough

    397

    41

    n.a.

    Stockton-on-Tees

    252

    23

    —

    Cumbria

    Allerdale

    45

    15

    —

    Barrow-in-Furness

    27

    10

    —

    Carlisle

    77

    12

    —

    Copeland

    68

    17

    —

    Eden

    23

    14

    —

    South Lakeland

    22

    9

    —

    Durham

    Chester-le-Street

    28

    5

    —

    Darlington

    66

    13

    —

    Derwentside

    17

    2

    —

    Durham

    78

    11

    —

    Easington

    24

    2

    —

    Sedgefield

    68

    7

    —

    Teesdale

    16

    25

    —

    Wear Valley

    51

    9

    —

    Northumberland

    Alnwick

    12

    6

    —

    Berwick-upon-Tweed

    11

    6

    —

    Blyth Valley

    78

    14

    —

    Castle Morpeth

    22

    9

    —

    Tynedale

    29

    14

    —

    Wansbeck

    112

    19

    —

    Tyne and Wear

    Gateshead

    335

    21

    —

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    781

    15

    n.a.

    North Tyneside

    719

    45

    —

    462

    Local authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    through mobility schemes

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    South Tyneside

    168

    15

    —

    Sunderland

    270

    12

    —

    Region Yorkshire and Humberside

    Humberside

    Beverley

    107

    25

    —

    Boothferry

    32

    11

    —

    Cleethorpes

    24

    8

    —

    East Yorkshire

    14

    7

    —

    Glanford

    41

    10

    —

    Great Grimsby

    78

    13

    —

    Holderness

    24

    12

    —

    Kingston upon Hull

    561

    28

    —

    Scunthorpe

    53

    9

    —

    North Yorkshire

    Craven

    37

    22

    —

    Hambleton

    46

    21

    —

    Harrogate

    71

    24

    —

    Richmondshire

    37

    21

    —

    Ryedale

    61

    29

    —

    Scarborough

    107

    30

    —

    Selby

    38

    9

    —

    York

    143

    28

    —

    South Yorkshire

    Barnsley

    83

    5

    —

    Doncaster

    53

    2

    —

    Rotherham

    119

    5

    —

    Sheffield

    1,042

    25

    —

    West Yorkshire

    Bradford

    508

    15

    —

    Calderdale

    156

    11

    —

    Kirklees

    1,023

    30

    1

    Leeds

    1,090

    20

    —

    Wakefield

    62

    2

    —

    Region East Midlands

    Derbyshire

    Amber Valley

    139

    37

    —

    Bolsover

    27

    7

    —

    Chesterfield

    75

    10

    —

    Derby

    313

    22

    —

    Derbyshire Dales

    39

    16

    —

    Erewash

    103

    20

    —

    High Peak

    65

    19

    —

    North East Derbyshire

    84

    14

    —

    South Derbyshire

    58

    33

    —

    Leicestershire

    Blaby

    61

    31

    —

    Charnwood

    96

    14

    —

    Harborough

    45

    28

    —

    Hinckley and Bosworth

    29

    13

    —

    Leicester

    443

    21

    —

    Melton

    50

    28

    —

    North West Leicestershire

    70

    18

    —

    Oadby and Wigston

    52

    46

    —

    Rutland

    45

    58

    —

    Lincolnshire

    Boston

    17

    5

    —

    East Lindsey

    56

    16

    —

    Lincoln

    101

    14

    —

    North Kesteven

    46

    12

    —

    South Holland

    38

    26

    —

    South Kesteven

    142

    24

    —

    West Lindsey

    62

    15

    —

    Northamptonshire

    Corby

    197

    30

    —

    Daventry

    74

    27

    1

    East Northamptonshire

    66

    19

    —

    Kettering

    62

    20

    —

    463

    Local authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    through mobility schemes

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Northampton

    214

    14

    —

    South Northamptonshire

    95

    41

    —

    Wellingborough

    78

    15

    —

    Nottinghamshire

    Ashfield

    186

    28

    —

    Bassetlaw

    173

    25

    n.a.

    Broxtowe

    88

    21

    —

    Gedling

    57

    24

    —

    Mansfield

    201

    21

    —

    Newark and Sherwood

    41

    8

    —

    Nottingham

    355

    14

    —

    Rushcliffe

    59

    23

    —

    Region East Anglia

    Cambridgeshire

    Cambridge

    184

    41

    —

    East Cambridgeshire

    44

    21

    1

    Fenland

    21

    9

    —

    Huntingdonshire

    180

    38

    —

    Peterborough

    102

    22

    —

    South Cambridgeshire

    90

    29

    —

    Norfolk

    Breckland

    111

    25

    —

    Broadland

    54

    28

    —

    Great Yarmouth

    54

    16

    —

    Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

    122

    28

    —

    North Norfolk

    103

    43

    —

    Norwich

    409

    28

    —

    South Norfolk

    62

    32

    2

    Suffolk

    Babergh

    147

    63

    —

    Forest Heath

    26

    14

    —

    Ipswich

    149

    46

    —

    Mid Suffolk

    58

    23

    —

    St. Edmundsbury

    49

    15

    —

    Suffolk Coastal

    18

    7

    —

    Waveney

    87

    28

    —

    Local authority lettings to homeless households in priority need in 1986–87

    Local Authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    Through mobility schemes

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Region Greater London

    Inner London

    City of London

    15

    12

    —

    Camden

    1,373

    72

    17

    Hackney

    674

    64

    151

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    437

    60

    42

    Haringey

    873

    70

    13

    Islington

    941

    63

    101

    Kensington and Chelsea

    255

    49

    5

    Lambeth

    1,142

    48

    75

    Lewisham

    1,219

    73

    76

    Newham

    818

    59

    n.a.

    Southwark

    1,404

    59

    173

    Tower Hamlets

    627

    44

    120

    Wandsworth

    364

    49

    82

    Westminster

    554

    60

    10

    Outer London

    Barking and Dagenham

    1142

    13

    n.a.

    Barnet

    319

    46

    25

    Bexley

    190

    42

    —

    Brent

    579

    79

    4

    Bromley

    602

    80

    6

    Croydon

    511

    67

    6

    464

    Local Authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    Through mobility schemes

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Ealing

    522

    57

    17

    Enfield

    353

    42

    1

    Greenwich

    21,130

    81

    112

    Harrow

    211

    59

    —

    Havering

    260

    35

    4

    Hillingdon

    326

    56

    —

    Hounslow

    625

    61

    12

    Kingston upon Thames

    175

    69

    3

    Merton

    290

    48

    —

    Redbridge

    287

    60

    3

    Richmond upon Thames

    199

    46

    —

    Sutton

    285

    57

    n.a.

    Waltham Forest

    564

    50

    —

    Region South East Excluding London

    Bedfordshire

    Luton

    26

    5

    —

    Mid Bedfordshire

    43

    14

    —

    North Bedfordshire

    108

    24

    1

    South Bedfordshire

    122

    37

    —

    Berkshire

    Bracknell

    107

    39

    —

    Newbury

    116

    39

    —

    Reading

    159

    52

    —

    Slough

    236

    46

    10

    Windsor and Maidenhead

    73

    26

    —

    Wokingham

    46

    24

    —

    Buckinghamshire

    Aylesbury Vale

    144

    30

    —

    Chiltern

    43

    17

    —

    Milton Keynes

    119

    30

    —

    South Bucks

    13

    9

    —

    Wycombe

    179

    47

    —

    East Sussex

    Brighton

    185

    44

    —

    Eastbourne

    130

    36

    —

    Hastings

    141

    42

    3

    Hove

    138

    63

    —

    Lewes

    82

    35

    —

    Rother

    108

    52

    —

    Wealden

    154

    51

    —

    Essex

    Basildon

    121

    30

    —

    Braintree

    109

    20

    —

    Brentwood

    41

    13

    3

    Castle Point

    33

    30

    —

    Chelmsford

    162

    39

    3

    Colchester

    337

    50

    1

    Epping Forest

    13

    4

    1

    Harlow

    190

    26

    —

    Maldon

    61

    48

    —

    Rochford

    50

    51

    —

    Southend-on-Sea

    116

    38

    —

    Tendring

    57

    30

    1

    Thurrock

    198

    33

    10

    Uttlesford

    34

    25

    —

    Hampshire

    Basingstoke and Deane

    85

    21

    —

    East Hampshire

    85

    42

    —

    Eastleigh

    74

    31

    —

    Fareham

    41

    25

    —

    Gosport

    165

    54

    —

    Hart

    37

    38

    —

    Havant

    45

    16

    —

    New Forest

    308

    73

    —

    Portsmouth

    167

    18

    —

    Rushmoor

    173

    65

    —

    Southampton

    148

    11

    —

    Test Valley

    149

    40

    —

    Winchester

    84

    25

    —

    465

    Local Authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    Through mobility schemes

    Number

    Percentage

    Number

    Hertfordshire

    Broxbourne

    96

    56

    —

    Dacorum

    70

    13

    —

    East Hertfordshire

    133

    43

    —

    Hertsmere

    114

    44

    2

    North Hertfordshire

    63

    16

    —

    St. Albans

    139

    51

    —

    Stevenage

    160

    28

    —

    Three Rivers

    118

    43

    —

    Watford

    117

    39

    —

    Welwyn Hatfield

    89

    18

    1

    Isle of Wight

    Medina

    104

    43

    —

    South Wight

    85

    58

    —

    Kent

    Ashford

    84

    19

    —

    Canterbury

    163

    43

    —

    Dartford

    81

    27

    —

    Dover

    49

    16

    —

    Gillingham

    111

    45

    1

    Gravesham

    85

    37

    —

    Maidstone

    195

    53

    —

    Rochester upon Medway

    42

    15

    —

    Sevenoaks

    179

    46

    2

    Shepway

    5

    2

    —

    Swale

    85

    30

    —

    Thanet

    40

    10

    —

    Tonbridge and Malling

    156

    64

    —

    Tunbridge Wells

    128

    49

    —

    Oxfordshire

    Cherwell

    145

    30

    —

    Oxford

    119

    30

    —

    South Oxfordshire

    27

    7

    —

    Vale of White Horse

    18

    8

    —

    West Oxfordshire

    42

    18

    —

    Surrey

    Elmbridge

    117

    44

    —

    Epsom and Ewell

    10

    13

    —

    Guildford

    80

    26

    —

    Mole Valley

    21

    13

    —

    Reigate and Banstead

    87

    30

    —

    Runnymede

    62

    45

    —

    Spelthorne

    24

    10

    —

    Surrey Heath

    39

    33

    —

    Tandridge

    102

    37

    —

    Waverley

    119

    45

    1

    Woking

    101

    35

    —

    West Sussex

    Adur

    71

    42

    —

    Arun

    40

    13

    —

    Chichester

    145

    36

    —

    Crawley

    169

    32

    —

    Horsham

    98

    35

    —

    Mid Sussex

    90

    46

    3

    Worthing

    65

    30

    —

    Local authority lettings to homeless households in priority need in 1986–87

    Local Authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    through mobility schemes

    number

    percentage

    number

    Region South West

    Avon

    Bath

    177

    42

    —

    Bristol

    493

    22

    —

    466

    Local Authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    through mobility schemes

    number

    percentage

    number

    Kingswood

    76

    38

    —

    Northavon

    65

    26

    —

    Wansdyke

    42

    20

    —

    Woodspring

    187

    44

    1

    Cornwall

    Caradon

    76

    26

    —

    Carrick

    57

    27

    —

    Kerrier

    51

    27

    —

    North Cornwall

    61

    22

    —

    Penwith

    46

    28

    —

    Restormel

    136

    51

    —

    Isles of Scilly

    1

    13

    —

    Devon

    East Devon

    86

    77

    —

    Exeter

    46

    10

    —

    Mid Devon

    49

    24

    —

    North Devon

    49

    21

    —

    Plymouth

    376

    36

    —

    South Hams

    28

    14

    —

    Teignbridge

    132

    55

    —

    Torbay

    132

    53

    —

    Torridge

    8

    7

    —

    West Devon

    44

    31

    —

    Dorset

    Bournemouth

    128

    31

    —

    Christchurch

    51

    53

    —

    North Dorset

    65

    38

    —

    Poole

    168

    48

    —

    Purbeck

    70

    50

    —

    West Dorset

    53

    20

    —

    Weymouth and Portland

    116

    59

    —

    East Dorset

    37

    29

    —

    Gloucestershire

    Cheltenham

    41

    12

    —

    Cotswold

    65

    46

    1

    Forest of Dean

    66

    26

    —

    Gloucester

    147

    40

    2

    Stroud

    145

    44

    —

    Tewkesbury

    71

    29

    —

    Somerset

    Mendip

    59

    21

    1

    Sedgemoor

    67

    20

    —

    South Somerset

    161

    34

    —

    Taunton Deane

    123

    31

    4

    West Somerset

    45

    36

    —

    Wiltshire

    Kennet

    106

    56

    3

    North Wiltshire

    144

    44

    —

    Salisbury

    117

    47

    —

    Thamesdown

    94

    11

    —

    West Wiltshire

    85

    27

    —

    Region West Midlands

    Hereford and Worcester

    Bromsgrove

    75

    33

    —

    Hereford

    98

    37

    —

    Leominster

    40

    39

    —

    Malvern Hills

    183

    55

    1

    Redditch

    157

    22

    —

    South Herefordshire

    29

    25

    —

    Worcester

    130

    30

    —

    Wychavon

    18

    6

    —

    Wyre Forest

    170

    38

    2

    Shropshire

    Bridgnorth

    22

    12

    —

    North Shropshire

    53

    30

    —

    Oswestry

    50

    34

    —

    Shrewsbury and Atcham

    45

    8

    —

    467

    Local Authority

    Dwellings let to new tenants (excluding mobility schemes)

    through mobility schemes

    number

    percentage

    number

    South Shropshire

    24

    24

    —

    The Wrekin

    140

    20

    —

    Staffordshire

    Cannock Chase

    80

    17

    —

    East Staffordshire

    76

    17

    —

    Lichfield

    165

    61

    —

    Newcastle-under-Lyme

    170

    22

    —

    South Staffordshire

    90

    31

    —

    Stafford

    124

    36

    —

    Staffordshire Moorlands

    56

    30

    —

    Stoke-on-Trent

    490

    31

    —

    Tamworth

    146

    21

    —

    Warwickshire

    North Warwickshire

    54

    22

    —

    Nuneaton and Bedworth

    79

    16

    —

    Rugby

    79

    18

    —

    Stratford-on-Avon

    82

    23

    —

    Warwick

    88

    25

    —

    West Midlands

    Birmingham

    4,855

    52

    —

    Coventry

    314

    15

    —

    Dudley

    127

    7

    —

    Sandwell

    360

    12

    —

    Solihull

    283

    29

    —

    Walsall

    472

    30

    —

    Wolverhampton

    391

    17

    —

    Region North West excluding Cumbria

    Cheshire

    Chester

    248

    43

    —

    Congleton

    50

    25

    —

    Crewe and Nantwich

    105

    21

    —

    Ellesmere Port and Neston

    9

    2

    —

    Halton

    201

    41

    —

    Macclesfield

    222

    42

    —

    Vale Royal

    189

    28

    —

    Warrington

    60

    9

    —

    Lancashire

    Blackburn

    236

    15

    —

    Blackpool

    93

    14

    —

    Burnley

    107

    14

    —

    Chorley

    125

    43

    —

    Fylde

    20

    15

    —

    Hyndburn

    115

    22

    —

    Lancaster

    44

    12

    —

    Pendle

    60

    10

    —

    Preston

    152

    19

    —

    Ribble Valley

    41

    28

    —

    Rossendale

    62

    12

    —

    South Ribble

    62

    18

    —

    West Lancashire

    208

    18

    —

    Wyre

    97

    40

    —

    Greater Manchester

    Bolton

    726

    36

    —

    Bury

    291

    29

    —

    Manchester

    2,195

    39

    —

    Oldham

    62

    3

    —

    Rochdale

    53

    2

    —

    Salford

    110

    6

    —

    Stockport

    200

    19

    —

    Tameside

    251

    14

    —

    Trafford

    237

    37

    —

    Wigan

    364

    14

    —

    Merseyside

    Knowsley

    251

    14

    —

    Liverpool

    276

    10

    —

    St. Helens

    257

    23

    —

    Sefton

    98

    9

    —

    Wirral

    271

    12

    —

    468
    Notes:

    1 Barking and Dagenham—number of lettings to homeless households on non-secure tenancies not reported.

    2 Greenwich—number of lettings on non-secure tenancies not reported.

    Longford Hall
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to respond to the request of the Longford park conservation area association for the listing of Longford hall in the borough of Telford.

    Mr. Moynihan
    I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 June with the news that Longford hall is to be listed grade II.

    Green Belt
    Mr. Adley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of his Department's proposed new planning circular, he will make a further statement on his commitment to the green belt and, in particular, on whether the Government remain opposed to any new development taking place in existing green belt, as designated in existing structure plans.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The planning policy guidance note on local plans, which my Department issued in draft for consultation on 15 June, would urge local authorities to define detailed green belt boundaries so that there is no uncertainty as to where green belt policies do and do not apply. Government policy on development in designated green belts remains as stated in PPG 2:"Inside the Green Belt approval should not be given except in very special circumstances for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing buildings for puposes other than agriculture and forestry, outdoor sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds or other uses appropriate to rural areas."

    Rents
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the latest available average level of fair rents registered for(a) private unfurnished tenancies and (b) private furnished tenancies in each London borough.

    Mrs. Roe
    The information is as follows:

    Mean rents registered by rent officers in Greater London during 1987

    (£ per annum)

    Regulated Unfurnished Tenancies

    Regulated Furnished Tenancies

    Rent registration area

    £

    £

    Barking and Dagenham

    1,028

    1,998

    Barnet

    1,491

    2,526

    Bexley

    977

    2,427

    Brent

    1,208

    1,686

    Bromley

    1,248

    2,319

    City of London

    1,352

    1,533

    Camden

    1,865

    2,083

    Croydon

    1,319

    2,592

    Ealing

    1,337

    2,531

    Enfield

    1,061

    1,898

    Greenwich

    1,019

    2,044

    Hackney

    1,226

    1,498

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    1,239

    2,010

    Haringey

    1,230

    1,989

    Harrow

    1,260

    2,356

    Havering

    1,125

    1,678

    469

    Regulated Unfurnished Tenancies

    Regulated Furnished Tenancies

    Rent registration area

    £

    £

    Hillingdon

    1,261

    1,994

    Hounslow

    1,299

    2,192

    Islington

    1,204

    2,018

    Kensington and Chelsea

    2,139

    2,038

    Kingston on Thames

    1,289

    1,872

    Lambeth

    1,194

    2,057

    Lewisham

    1,024

    1,505

    Merton

    1,280

    3,416

    Newham

    819

    1,663

    Redbridge

    1,029

    1,391

    Richmond

    1,250

    2,322

    Southwark

    1,044

    1,635

    Sutton

    1,220

    2,866

    Tower Hamlets

    922

    1,253

    Waltham Forest

    876

    1,942

    Wandsworth

    1,251

    2,097

    Westminster

    2,622

    2,091

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from(a) the European Commission and (b) elsewhere on the delay in implementing the European directive on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste.

    Mr. Moynihan
    We have received a number of representations about the difficulties and delay in implementing the EC directive on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste, from the European Commission, waste disposal authorities and others.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce enabling legislation or regulations to implement the European directive on the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste.

    Mr. Moynihan
    We intend to lay regulations to implement these directives before the summer recess.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions for misleading, wrong or incorrect descriptions of special waste on the consignment notes required by the 1980 regulations have been brought in each year since 1981; and how many for failure to provide consignment notes.

    Mr. Moynihan
    Responsibility for administering the special waste regulations rests with waste disposal authorities. Data provided to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which may be incomplete, give the following information on prosecutions for offences under section 17 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974:

    1985

    1986

    3

    5

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many major waste disposal sites have laboratory facilities for analysis of waste coming in.

    Mr. Moynihan
    Details of laboratory facilities are not held centrally. Few landfill sites have laboratory facilities, but Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution knows of testing facilities at some: for example; the L Field site in Bedfordshire; the Witton Flash site in Cheshire; the Colliers site at Rixton in Cheshire; the Himley Wood site 470
    in Staffordshire; the WeIlford site in Northamptonshire; and the Pitsea site in Essex. The presence of laboratory facilities does not necessarily imply that all loads are tested on arrival. All major treatment and incineration facilities have laboratories on site.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many European countries have implemented the European directive on the trans-frontier shipment of hazardous waste.

    Mr. Moynihan
    We understand that Belgium and Denmark have done so.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of waste coming into the United Kingdom is defined as hazardous or special(a) under British regulations, (b) under regulations of the country of origin and (c) under the EEC directive.

    Mr. Moynihan
    It is estimated that some 28 per cent. of imported wastes are defined as special waste under our regulations. The proportion defined as hazardous or special in the country of origin or under the EC transfrontier directives cannot be estimated until the directives are implemented by other member states.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what time after the arrival of the vessel the importer of special waste is required to notify the local authority of the port of arrival of the nature of the consignment.

    Mr. Moynihan
    Under the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, notification is linked to the removal of waste from the place where it is produced or held. Notification should take place not less than three days before the waste is moved. For imports of special waste, this means not less than three days before the waste is due to leave the port.

    Under regulations to be laid to implement the directive on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste, the Waste Disposal Authority will receive notification before the arrival of the shipment.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures for the import of(a) special waste and (b) general waste through Humberside in each year from 1980; and how much of it was deposited in Humberside.

    Mr. Moynihan
    Figures for the importation of special wastes via the port of Hull/Immingham for the years 1981 to 1986 are as follows:

    Tonnes

    1981

    2,886

    1982

    3,088

    1983

    2,444

    1984

    12,000

    1985

    881

    1986

    12,504

    1 Approximately.

    There is no requirement for other controlled waste to be: pre-notified and therefore figures for the importation of these wastes through Humberside are not available.

    Humberside county council is not aware of any imported wastes being deposited within the county.
    471
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what definition of hazardous waste has been used in other countries implementing the European directive on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste; what definition he intends to use in the United Kingdom; and what representations he has made to the Commission for a common definition.

    Mr. Moynihan
    The directives include a general definition of hazardous waste but the detailed interpretation of this definition by other member states will not be known until they have completed their implementation. It is our intention to apply the provisions of the directives to wastes defined as special wastes in the United Kingdom and to imports which are notified as hazardous by other member states. The question of a common definition has been raised with the Commission on a number of occasions in the past three years.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him from Humberside county council about proposals to import 15,000 tonne consignments of domestic waste for dumping in Humberside.

    1979

    1980

    1981

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    Control of Pollution Act, S3

    13

    24

    35

    48

    66

    67

    65

    93

    Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act

    385

    570

    648

    605

    584

    560

    436

    380

    Information is not collected separately on offences relating to special wastes.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will bring forward legislation to require consignment notes applying to imported toxic waste to be forwarded to the waste disposal authority responsible for its final disposal;

    (2) if he will take steps to ensure that consignment note descriptions of imported toxic waste contains accurate descriptions of the quality and content of each consignment;

    (3) if he will seek to amend the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Act 1980, in order to ensure that waste disposal authorities responsible for ports which import toxic waste are required to be notified of the quantity and content of such consignments before they arrive at the ports concerned.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: Regulations to implement the EC directives on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste will be laid before the House shortly. They will require the use of standard consignment notes to give advance notice to the waste disposal authority responsible for the waste disposal of an intended shipment. The consignment notes will be required to contain details of the source, quantity, composition and destination of the wastes.

    The regulations, which will replace existing controls on imported waste under the 1980 regulations, will also provide for the waste disposal authority at the port of entry to be notified in advance with full details of the intended shipment.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received
    472
    Mr. Moynihan
    None.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of increasing involvement of organised crime in the disposal of toxic waste.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: I have no evidence of the involvement of organised crime in the disposal of special waste in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of successful prosecutions for the illicit disposal of toxic waste for each year since 1979.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The unlicensed disposal of any controlled waste is an offence under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, section 3, and unauthorised dumping of any article is an offence under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. Information on convictions for these two offences, which may be incomplete, as reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is as follows:

    regarding the loss of significant quantities from consignments of imported toxic waste between their arrival in the United Kingdom and final disposal.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: I have had no such representations.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to ensure that, before completing consignment notes, importers of toxic waste are required to carry out a chemical analysis of each consignment to ensure that the information concerning its quantity and content supplied by either the waste producer or waste broker is accurate.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The Special Waste Regulations 1980 provide that the duties of a producer of special waste shall apply to the person who imports special waste. These duties include the completion of the consignment note on which details of the waste are required. The importer must declare that this description of quantities and chemical composition is correct. He is already therefore obliged to satisfy himself that the consignment note is complete and accurate. Failure to do so will render him liable to prosecution. There is no need for further legislation on this point.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that waste disposal authorities do not dispose of toxic waste until they are in receipt of the relevant consignment notes and are satisfied that they are fully aware of the quantity and contents of each consignment.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The disposal of special waste is primarily a private sector activity, licensed and monitored by waste disposal

    473
    authorities. The transfrontier shipment of waste regulations, to be implemented in the autumn, will prohibit disposal of imported special waste unless the waste is accompanied by a consignment note which records that the waste disposal authority has received full details of the quantity and contents of the consignment and is satisfied that the disposal will be in accordance with the licence conditions. A consultation paper will be issued later in the year to amend the special waste regulations which will include proposals to introduce similar requirements for movements of special waste within Great Britain.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many incidents of imported toxic waste being disposed of in the United Kingdom before the waste disposal authority were in receipt of the relevant consignment notes were recorded in the past year.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: This information is not held centrally.

    Ticket Touts
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about ticket touting at major sporting events in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Moynihan
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: I have received three letters on this subject. One concerning touting in general and two on touting at football matches and in particular the FA cup final.

    This is an issue which the Department and the Home Office have considered very carefully, especially in the context of the damage that black market ticket sales for major football matches can do to the efforts of the police and clubs to segregate rival fans effectively. However, it is not yet clear that a practicable and enforceable legal answer to this problem can be found. It may well be that a better solution to the problem rests with tighter controls by the organisers of sporting events over the distribution of tickets, and the imposition of sanctions against those found abusing the controls.

    Population Statistics
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the household and migration estimates contained in "Serplan: Land for Housing in South East England 1991–2001", include any fiscal migration effects arising from the introduction of the community charge.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: No. Any effects the community charge may have on migration are not sufficiently foreseeable to be incorporated into the population and household estimates.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate county populations within the Serplan area at 1986, 1991 and 2001, using the migration assumptions in the paper "Serplan: Land for Housing in South East England"; and if he will provide further estimates assuming the net in-migration levels of 1985–86 were to be(a) maintained, (b) reduced by 50 per cent. and (c) reduced by 75 per cent. in the years up to 2001.
    474
    Mr. Waldegrave
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The table sets out the population in counties in the south-east for the years 1986, 1991 and 2001 as projected by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Alternative population projections on the same basis, but using different assumptions about net migration levels. could only be made at disproportionate cost.

    Projected Populations for Counties in the South East of England: OPCS 1985-based Population Projections

    (Thousands)

    1986

    1991

    2001

    Bedfordshire

    520

    536

    560

    Berkshire

    733

    766

    814

    Buckinghamshire

    610

    648

    719

    East Sussex

    687

    704

    740

    Essex

    1,512

    1,546

    1,612

    Hampshire

    1,538

    1,609

    1,750

    Hertfordshire

    991

    1,013

    1,053

    Isle of Wight

    123

    124

    127

    Kent

    1,502

    1,533

    1,596

    Oxfordshire

    573

    595

    627

    Surrey

    1,015

    1,028

    1,072

    West Sussex

    692

    714

    757

    South East (excluding London)

    10,494

    10,816

    11,427

    Greater London

    6,778

    6,806

    6,916

    Total South East

    17,271

    17,622

    18,343

    Source: OPCS Monitor PP3 88/1

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate by country of origin and destination the migration flows to the south-east from outside England as in table 4 of his paper "Serplan: Land for Housing in South East England".

    Mr. Waldegrave
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The assumptions about future net migration between counties in the south-east and areas outside England are set by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Detailed assumptions about country of origin or destination of future migrants are not made as they are unnecessary for the purposes of projecting the population of counties.

    Housing
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide for each standard region, but distinguishing between London and the rest of the south-east, the net increase in dwelling stock for 1986 to 1991 on the same basis as in his paper "Serplan: Land for Housing in South East England", table 1, line E, but distinguishing between new build and conversion.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: Estimates of the possible net increase in dwelling stock over the period 1986 to 1991 on the basis referred to are set out in the following table. These have been obtained by taking recent annual averages of components of change and multiplying them by five. Averages for housebuilding completions relate to the three calendar years 1985 to 1987; averages for conversions and other gains, and for slum clearance and other losses relate to financial years 1984–85 to 1986–87.
    475

    Estimates for 1986 to 1991—Recent annual averages multiplied by 5, in thousands

    North

    Yorkshire and Humber-side

    East Midlands

    East Anglia

    Greater London

    1 South East (excl. Greater London)

    South West

    West Midlands

    North West

    England

    Housebuilding completions

    43

    71

    84

    59

    52

    259

    115

    82

    88

    854

    Net conversions and other gains

    1

    2

    4

    3

    28

    9

    7

    3

    4

    60

    Slum clearance and other losses

    10

    14

    7

    2

    10

    7

    3

    10

    35

    98

    Total net change

    33

    59

    82

    60

    70

    261

    119

    75

    58

    816

    1 Total net change of 261,000 compares with the implied estimate of 250,000 included in the paper "Land for Housing in South East England". The increase reflects upward revisions to estimates of housebuilding completions over the period 1985 to 1987 in the light of the most recent returns.

    Some figures do not sum to totals due to rounding.

    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the extra 669,000 one-person households predicted in the south-east by 2001 in his paper "Serplan: Land for Housing in South East England," will be provided for by owner-occupation, council, housing association or private landlords.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The tenure of one-person households will depend on incomes, house prices, the response of private investors to deregulation, and the way in which social landlords allocate their tenancies. It is likely that a higher proportion than now of older one-person households will be owner-occupiers.
    476
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the extra 184,000 lone-parent households predicted for the south-east by 2001 in his paper "Serplan: Land for Housing in the South East," will be provided for by owner-occupation, council housing, housing associations or private landlords.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    [holding answer 16 June 1988]: The tenure of lone-parent households will depend on incomes, house prices, the response of private investors to deregulation, and the way in which social landlords allocate their tenancies. It is likely that the proportion of lone-parent households that are owner-occupiers will continue to be somewhat lower than for all types of households taken together.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Gibraltar and Spanish Pensioners
2.35 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they propose from the beginning of 1989 to help Gibraltar to meet its contributions to Spanish pensioners, arising from Spain's accession to the European Economic Community.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, under the present arrangements, agreed in 1985, Her Majesty's Government contributed £16.5 million, representing some 80 per cent. of the estimated total up to the end of this year. No further assistance is planned.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, although the latter part of it does not seem to be very satisfactory. Can he give some report on the outcome of the ODA Gibraltar Joint Review to establish the extent of the pensions liability? Further, has agreement been reached as to the capacity of the Gibraltar economy to contribute to the commitment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the study to which my noble friend referred has now been completed. Indeed, the document has been received and is at present being studied. However, it remains the view of Her Majesty's Government that the Gibraltar Government can afford to meet those commitments.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Gibraltar Administration have made a request to Her Majesty's Government for assistance? Indeed, can the noble Lord go a step further and say what the British Government's legal liability is in this regard? Is it possible that in view of the fact that Spain is now a member of the European Community there is a special liability upon Her Majesty's Government which did not previously exist?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no; that is not the case. I think that the legal liability in the matter—the Government are in no doubt about this—rests with the Gibraltar Government. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, no formal request has been received.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, although the Minister suggested that the Gibraltar Government can meet the cost, they dispute that fact. Therefore is there no way in which the Government can make overtures to the Gibraltar Government so that they may consult together to try to achieve an amicable settlement?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the economy in Gibraltar is as flourishing as is that of this country. Therefore we see no reason why these sums should not be found from the funds generally available to the Gibraltar Government.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can my noble friend really justify such an increase in the expansion of the economy? Is he really satisfied, in his heart, that the national income warrants such a reduction of transfer of funds?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government will be studying the report to which my noble friend referred. However, as I said, we have no reason to believe that Gibraltar's economy will not continue to flourish as it has done recently, and therefore these sums should be readily found from within that Government's own resources.

Child Benefit Review
2.39 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the level of child benefit has yet been reviewed for 1988 and, if so, with what result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Heath and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, no decision has yet been made on the level of child benefit in the 1988 public expenditure round. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will announce his decision on uprating of social security benefits in the autumn, as usual.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the last stages of the Social Security Bill, which was recently before this Houses, an amendment was moved which required the Government to review the level of child benefit in April of each year? Has there not therefore been sufficient time for that review to take place?
Further, will the Minister be good enough to comment on references which have appeared in the press about the possibility that the Government may be considering targeting child benefit, in view of the commitment of all sides of the House that that should be a non-targeted benefit?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, Section 5 of the Social Security Act 1988, which is the one to which the noble Baroness referred, sits squarely within existing law. Therefore no practical purpose would be served by bringing the section into effect. That being so, the Government have no plans for laying a commencement order on Section 5 of the Act.
As regards the recent front-page story which appeared in the London Evening Standard, I am of course aware of this and, indeed, I have read the article. However, I can reassure the House that we have no plans to introduce any of the changes outlined in the article.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can explain, in words which I can understand, why the Government do not intend to carry through the decision taken in this House, which was not reversed in another place?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I can. The explanation is that there is already an obligation under Section 63 of the 1986 Act to review the level of child benefit each year, but not at any one specific date. In practice it is obviously sensible to conduct the review at the same time as the review of other benefits in the autumn. A review in April would be unhelpful as there would be a full year before the next uprating would take effect.
Further, to have two such reviews would be extremely costly. The last review in conjunction with the public expenditure round last year, and the changes associated with it, cost 2,300 man years in local offices. The net cost of that amounted to £23 million. Although I accept that the work would not exactly be duplicated, there would nonetheless he a considerable cost incurred which I do not think would be to anyone's benefit.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, no; it would not be duplicated. Is the Minister therefore saying that it is simply not convenient to carry out the legal obligation which has been written into the Act?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is more than not convenient; it is not logical, because child benefit affects other social security benefits. If we change one, we must change the others.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what kind of situation are we in if we decide whether or not it is convenient to carry out the law of the land? I simply do not understand.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord understands the point full well. I remind him that the laying of the commencement order is a matter for the Government. It always has been, and I suspect that it always will be.

National Health Service: Review
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish their review of the National Health Service.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are continuing to examine the options for improving the National Health Service, and will be bringing forward our proposals in due course.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the House be provided with an opportunity to examine the review when it is published? Will the review include not only nurses and doctors but hospital ancillary and support staff, who are important as has been acknowledged by COHSE, the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing? They firmly believe that ancillary and
494
support staff should feature in the review as their status at the moment does not encourage recruitment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not only has the role of support staff been appraised and recognised by the bodies to which the noble Lord refers; it has also been recognised by the Government. I say again today that the health service would not function without the loyal support of the support staff. As to what will happen when there is a resolution of the review, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made it clear that Parliament will be informed, but that he cannot say what supporting documentation will be around at that time.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, it is on that point that many of us are concerned and worried. I talk as someone who, like most in the House, strongly supports the National Health Service. Is the Minister aware that when the National Health Service first came into being there were no such things as heart transplants, or hip replacements and so on? Medicine has moved on. There has been a tremendous change, which is why I welcome the review. I find it bewildering that the Minister will not issue documentation showing what the changes are and why he will be doing whatever he is going to do.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord finds the matter bewildering. Incidentally, I agree totally with the premise upon which he based his question. However, as far as I know, no decisions on publication are ever made by any government anywhere in the world until after they have decided what is to go into such a presumed publication.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there has been a surfeit of National Health Service reviews under all governments and that some of them have not been satisfactory? Nevertheless, is my noble friend also aware, as I am sure he is, that great anxiety is felt among those currently working in the National Health Service, who wish to know what their situation is? The words "in due course" may be good parliamentary language, but they are not entirely satisfactory to all those who work in the health service.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I accept my noble friend's comments on that matter. That is why we intend to get on with the review. Equally, it is such an important subject that we do not intend to rush the review.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. Will the Minister explain why his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been giving nods and winks in advance about certain attitudes taken within the review body, such as his support for the proposal for tax relief for those who opt out of the National Health Service? Is it wise to start giving hostages to fortune in advance of the decisions being taken?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my right honourable friend has, to my knowledge, been extremely careful about what he has said. The fact that the press has read far more into what he said has obviously confused the noble Lord.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I heard what the Secretary of State said with my own ears. It was clear. Was it not plain that he was taking a clear position indicating what was happening within the review body? I put my question again: is that wise?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am interested to hear that the noble Lord heard my right honourable friend's speech. I must confess that I did not, but I read it. I have read all his speeches on this subject extremely carefully. I do not believe that he made the type of suggestions which the noble Lord has attributed to him.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not include in the review a careful consideration of what part the private health sector could play in the total national sector he would be defective in his review?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with my noble friend. One of the reasons why I agree is that if one compares the percentage of GDP spent on health in this country with that spent in the other industrialised nations, one will find that the extra health care finance provided is to a great extent made up by the private sector.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether or not his right honourable colleague referred to tax relief in private health insurance, it is still a good idea?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I did not say that he did not refer to it. He has been referring, as have I and my colleagues, to the various suggestions that are in the public domain, which often come from worthy individuals and public bodies. If there is a debate, clearly one must take notice of the points made in that debate.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as this will be the most important review since the National Health Service was established 40 years ago, will the Minister convey to his right honourable friend that in the view of most Members of this House all relevant information should be published so that the British public can come to their own conclusions?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, of course.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister convey to his right honourable friend the need for proper and exacting qualifications for chiropodists? There are many problems facing Britain's foot hospitals, such as the London Foot Hospital in Fitzroy Square. If these matters are not in the review, can the Minister help the chiropodists by seeing that they are put in the review?
496
Finally, the all-party Social Services Committee has an overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs, who have said over the past six years that the NHS has been underfunded. Will their views also be taken into full consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I have made clear on numerous occasions, the review is more general than the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, seems to think. It will have an effect, if it goes through as we all expect, on each individual branch and part of the health service. Nonetheless, it is difficult to see what effect it will have on chiropodists, general practitioners or others.
As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I shall do everything in my power to make that point of view widely known.

Disabled Riders: Central London Facilities
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals, if any, they have to provide riding for the disabled in central London.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there are a number of individual stables and clubs in central London which provide opportunities for disabled riders. The development of additional facilities is a matter for individual stables and clubs to pursue in liaison with the British Horse Society, the Sports Council and the Riding for Disabled Association.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his courteous and interesting reply. Is he aware that Miss Lilo Blum's stables currently provide riding for the disabled at Hyde Park Corner and the ponies are ridden round to Buckingham Palace, to the indoor riding school three times a week? The stables are due to be closed down in October when the Grosvenor Estate redevelops St. George's Hospital as a hotel. The stables, which I beleive are not part of the hotel complex, are due to close although they are in a listed building.
Perhaps I may also declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that my noble kinsman and kinswomen in the late '60s and early '70s occupied the grooms' quarters above Miss Lilo Blum's stables and were very fond of and devoted to many of the horses on which we sometimes rode in Hyde Park?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most interested to know of my noble friend's previous accommodation! The difficulty is that all disputes involving renewals of leases are viewed as contractual matters and must be settled between the landlord and the tenant.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before the war there were several stables around Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens offering horses for hire? There is now only one and that is to be closed down, as the noble Baroness said. Can the Government do more to encourage riding in the Row?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are at this moment considering proposals from the Rotten Row Tercentenary Committee for an equestrian centre to be funded by private subscriptions in the area of White Horse Gate in Hyde Park. We hope to make a decision on this shortly.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if, as I presume is so from the reply given by the Minister, the Government see merit in riding for the disabled—and I know many noble Lords certainly do—could they explore alternative prospects in view of the likely closure, including perhaps an approach to the Grosvenor Estate to finance such a scheme? I understand that that estate has the odd copper, and it might offer to assist.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we all agree on the need to provide opportunities for people with disabilities. My right honourable friend is currently conducting a review of the provision for sportsmen and sportswomen with disabilities. The review group expects to report early in 1989.
Lord Annan: My Lords, how on earth are poor town-bred children to learn to ride if these stables are closed down? Will the noble Lord make representations to the Grosvenor Estate suggesting that it would be in the best and the highest traditions of the British aristocracy to take this into account when the estate renews its leases?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that the disabled riders also currently ride from the Royal Mews, the Knightsbridge Barracks and the Ross Nye riding establishment.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the British Steel Bill may be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill will be continued.

Malicious Communications Bill
2.55 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lord, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway).
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the House wishes to express a word of appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for having steered this little Bill through the House. We have of course supported the Bill. I can only wish from these Benches that more publicity had been given to it and
498
that it were widely known that in future poison pen letters will be subject to our criminal law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, perhaps I may join wholeheartedly with the noble Lord on the opposite Benches in what he has said. I hope that when this Bill passes unamended through another place more publicity will be engendered.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for that wholly unexpected and undeserved compliment and thank the noble Baroness for her co-operation and assistance during the passage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendent.

British Steel Bill
2.57 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Vesting of property etc. of British Steel Corporation in a successor company]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("and whose Articles of Association have been laid before Parliament prior to the appointed day.").
The noble Lord said: In the Second Reading debate on this Bill I asked the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, who was winding up the debate, whether the articles of association of the successor company would be available to us. The noble Lord was kind enough to reply, and to write to me confirming his reply, that the Government would not be able to provide draft articles of association of the successor company to the Committee.
I am always grateful to the noble Lord for his attention to detail and I thank him for his letter. However, I am sure that he and Members of the Committee will realise that the question of how the articles of association of the successor company are to be framed is of paramount importance for three reasons. The first is that the articles of association of any public limited company are the guiding document of that company. Although they can be changed by shareholders as the law permits, nevertheless the articles will be ones with which the successor company will be starting, and any change thereafter would have to be approved in proper manner by a group of shareholders. Any change would take place after the company has been privatised and therefore would be open to the scrutiny which is normal in any shareholders' meeting. It is extremely important that the articles of association are right.
The second reason why the articles of association are extremely important is provided by a Written Answer given in another place on 17th May by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He announced that after privatisation the British Steel Corporation would have what is known as a special share—some of us call it a golden share—held by the Government and that this arrangement would ensure that the successor company could not be taken over without the agreement of the Government as special shareholder. Therefore, although there is nothing in the Bill to guarantee that the successor company once privatised cannot be taken over by a foreign competitor or a foreign conglomerate, there will be, we are told, provisions in the articles of association which have that effect. It seems to us that we should be aware of what exactly is spelt out in the articles of association which are to have that effect.
For instance, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in a press release which the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was kind enough to send me:
"It is the Government's intention that the articles of that successor company should contain a provision which would restrict individual shareholdings in the company to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the equity. This provision would be protected by a special share in the company to be held by the Government".
A number of serious questions arise from that statement. How can such shareholdings be restricted? Let us suppose that a company—with others or by itself—accumulated more than 15 per cent. in the privatised successor company. What would happen then? Would the articles provide for the triggering of the special share in the form of a voting share, which the Secretary of State of the day could then exercise? On the arrival of 15.1 per cent. of foreign shareholding what would happen to the other shareholders who suddenly saw that the Secretary of State had been able to trigger that right and gained de facto control of the company?
What would happen if there were what are known as concert parties? If Mr. A living in Zurich, Mr. B. living in New York and Mr. C. living in Jersey decided that they wished—possibly independently or possibly in an arrangement—to collect shares in the successor company, who would judge whether they were a concert party and whether they were acting together? Clearly it could not be the articles of association, because articles of association do not cover such a point. What would happen if Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C were hiding behind nominee shareholdings? What is an individual? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the press release that the provision would restrict individual shareholdings. What is an individual? Is an individual a corporation? Is an individual a unit trust, a succession of corporations or a stable of investment trusts? What exactly does that mean?
These are complicated issues which can be seriously debated by the Committee only if it has the draft text of the articles in front of it. The noble Lord has said that for one reason or another the Government are unable to produce the articles. I accept that the procedures of government may not be as fast as they might be. However, I point to the precedent of the Gas Bill. When the British Gas
500
Corporation was being privatised we had in front of us the draft articles of association of the successor company. Those were analogous to the articles of association that are proposed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster because they contained analogous provisions—not exactly the same provisions—to prevent a foreign takeover. It seems to me that the Committee is labouring under something of a disadvantage in not having this fundamental document which it can investigate and dissect.
Why are the articles taking such a long time to draft? Anybody who has had anything to do with a public limited company knows that producing the articles does not amount to reinventing the wheel. Many public limited companies have articles which City lawyers could have taken out of pigeon-holes, saying, "Those are the articles of your company". Why are they taking so long to draft?
My amendment does not press the Government very far. It asks simply that the articles of association should be laid before Parliament before the appointed day. I hope the Committee will agree that this is a modest request. I am asking for a statement from the Government of what they propose to put into the articles. I am asking that the articles should be laid before Parliament before the appointed day so that we in Parliament can have an opportunity at least to discuss them according to some procedure. At the very least the articles of association of the successor company should be referred to in the Bill. We should like to know what the Government intend to put into them and to have the timetable for publication which the Government intend to follow. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I should like briefly to support the amendment. I have felt for some time that our control over companies, and in particular the denationalised companies, is inadequate. It is almost entirely related to the question of competition. That is why it is always raised when takeover bids are suggested. The future of companies such as British Steel is of great social importance as there could be serious effects upon communities and upon the economy in general. I cannot see why we should not be allowed to see the articles of association which will bind the successor company.
In regard to the golden share, it became apparent in reply to a Question of mine some time ago that the noble Lord, Lord Young, was not aware that independent oil companies were subject in certain cases to a golden share. He kindly wrote to me, apologised and admitted that he was wrong. However, it raises the question of how the Government view the importance of the golden share. Under what circumstances do they expect to use that power, and for what purpose?
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked what would happen if more than a specified number of shares were to be held by one individual or one company. That matter has arisen and it is not at all clear to me what the Government's action would be in the case of the successor company to British Steel. I hope that we shall have answers to those points and that the Government are considering what

501
amendments are needed to broaden the general public control over situations which constantly arise in industry when takeovers are suggested or when serious social consequences may flow from industrial decisions.
Later in the day the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will raise that matter with regard to Scotland. I have always thought that Scotland's position is particularly important in terms of fundamental industries, of which, at one time, steel was one. I am not in the least opposed to the privatisation of British Steel with proper safeguards. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, perhaps I may say that we are not asking for very much. We are asking that what was done in the case of British Gas should be done again.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Grimond. It may be helpful to the Committee if I begin by explaining briefly the position with regard to the articles of association of the successor company and the ground that they will cover. I shall then turn to the subject of the Government's special share, which is the provision in the articles that is of some interest not only to the Committee but also to many outside this Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me at Second Reading whether we would be able to make available to the Committee the draft articles of association that British Steel plc will have at privatisation, as I understand has been done in certain other recent privatisations. In the case of British Steel we shall not be able to follow that precedent. Officials in my department and at British Steel have recently begun to discuss the form and content of the articles. However, they are still some way from being ready for publication. When they are completed, they will be available for inspection in the normal way.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said that the articles must be right. I agree that that is fundamental to the success of the privatisation and to the future of British Steel plc. However, it takes time. The wheels of government do not grind as fast as many of us would wish. We must live with that fact. It will take some little time to make absolutely sure that we get the articles right. For that reason, I am not able to put the articles before the Committee today.
However, I can explain now the general features that will be in the articles. I should point out to begin with that the articles to which this amendment relates—those that will apply to British Steel plc at vesting and while it remains wholly government-owned—will be very basic and simple. They will not contain the special share provisions. Those articles, which I shall call the interim articles, will be based in large measure on Table A scheduled to the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985, but with certain modifications—
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I am completely baffled. We were told that the Bill was to be brought in only as an enabling Bill. We are now being told that the articles of association will be very simple and based on Table A. We are told that the Government have only recently begun
502
discussing the articles of association. Could they not have put everything together before putting the Bill before Parliament?
Lord Beaverbrook: In an ideal world, I am sure that everything would be before us. As I have explained, I am not able to bring the articles before the Committee today. Before giving way to the noble Lord, I was—
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Can he give some indication of the basic problem? As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, there is nothing very unusual about articles of association, which are normally drawn up quite quickly, although these will be much more complicated. Many of us on all sides of the Chamber are bewildered as to what kind of problem is causing the delay.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: Before giving way to the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Morton of Shuna, I was coming to a point which has bearing on the matter. There will not be one set of simple articles but rather two sets of articles. I shall refer to the first set of articles as the interim articles. They will be based on the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985 but with certain modifications—for example, concerning borrowing powers—to reflect the Government's ownership.
The second set of articles will be drawn up—the final articles—which will be much more comprehensive and which will apply to British Steel plc after privatisation. Those articles, while being lengthy and detailed, will almost all be similar to those that apply to any large private sector company dealing, for example, with issues such as the conduct of general meetings. The articles will reflect best private sector practice. The major provision in the articles that will be unusual is the Government's special share and the related restriction on share ownership. I shall now turn to that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, reminded us earlier that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in another place on 17th May that it is the Government's intention that the articles of British Steel plc shall contain a provision which will restrict individual shareholdings in the company to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the equity. That provision will be protected by a special share in the company to be held by the Government. The arrangement will thus ensure that British Steel plc cannot be taken over without the agreement of the Government as special shareholder.
It is the Government's intention that those arrangements will last for five years from the date of privatisation and that the special share will confer no other rights on the Government in respect of other provisions in the articles or in respect of voting rights. Apart from the time limit, the detailed wording of the articles dealing with those provisions is likely to be similar to earlier such provisions—for example, in the articles of the British Airports Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked what would happen where a holding of 15 per cent. was built up

503
by a number of people, perhaps acting together but not declaring that they are part of the same camp. The precise terms of the article that will contain the 15 per cent. shareholding are currently being discussed with the corporation. The article will be based on precedents in previous privatisations and will take into account the issues which the noble Lord has raised this afternoon. It is of course our intention that the article should catch people acting in concert. The aim is simply to prevent takeovers during the first five years after privatisation without the consent of the Government.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Lord will clarify that. How can the articles catch people acting in concert? That is not the job of articles of association.
Lord Beaverbrook: First, the articles of association must set out the restrictions that we shall seek to apply to shareholdings over and above 15 per cent. Secondly, there are many procedures available to companies in the private sector to discover who is behind shareholdings. The City has developed many rules of that type in the last few years. There are procedures for discovering who is behind nominee shareholdings. At the end of the day, it may well be for the courts to decide whether a concert party exists. However, it is the Government's intention that the full procedures available to any other company in the private sector that wishes to find out who is behind shareholdings in its shareholders list will be available to British Steel. We expect the management of British Steel to be as diligent as any other management in any other private sector company in finding out who is behind shareholdings that are built up in the shareholders list and whether a number of shareholders are acting together.
Turning to the matter of the golden share, it is the case that in some privatisations more far-reaching limitations have been imposed, for example restricting foreign ownership or dealing with the nationality of directors. The Government's policy is to look at each case individually and on its own merits. It is important to start from the basis that it is in principle undesirable to place rules on the operation of privatised companies which do not in general apply to other companies operating in the private sector. Such rules may be justified, but they should not be imposed lightly. The purpose of privatisation is to put the privatised companies on all fours with other private sector companies.
The Government have concluded that restrictions on foreign ownership and on the nationality of directors cannot be justified in the case of British Steel. Clearly, it is the Government's wish, and indeed expectation, that the British Steel Corporation will remain a strong British company which can develop both in the UK and overseas. But we find the notion of restrictions on foreign ownership—especially where the question of takeover is not involved—to be more likely to be a hindrance than an advantage to the new company. The BSC has made it clear that it does not wish to see restrictions on overseas participation.
504
We cannot have it both ways. We should like the new company to expand its operations and be free to make appropriate acquisitions overseas. The UK undoubtedly benefits from a world trading situation in which such overseas investment is possible. But we cannot expect the BSC to be free to invest overseas if we ourselves have a closed market to overseas interests. Similarly if British Steel were to form a collaborative arrangement with an overseas manufacturer at some future point, or indeed was simply to expand its interests overseas, I am sure it would not wish to be prevented from considering the possibility of a board appointment from an overseas interest. The presence of a European or American director could be a considerable benefit to the company.
As far as concerns the five-year time limit, the Government consider that this is consistent with the desire to keep such provisions to the minimum necessary. The Government's general policy is that mergers and acquisitions are inevitable in a competitive economy and can certainly be a positive force. The possibility of takeover represents a necessary discipline on management to ensure that a company's resources are used to best effect. But we recognise that the transition of a nationalised industry to the private sector imposes heavy burdens on management, and that an early takeover bid, before the company had found its feet in the private sector, would be a major distraction. We do not, however, consider that there is any reason to afford British Steel indefinite protection from takeover and judge that five years is adequate.
I should like to refer to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the articles must be right. I hope that he understands that we are considering very carefully and deeply exactly what "right" means in this case. It is taking a little time and I apologise to the Committee that we have not finalised the articles of association. I hope that what I have said will go some way to convincing the Committee that the Government are taking the matter of the articles of association extremely seriously.
Lord Jay: It does not seem to me that the Minister has answered fully the points which have been made in earlier speeches. I noticed that the Minister said that there would be no restrictions on foreign ownership. I think that those were his words. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, quite rightly said that the steel industry has not merely commercial implications but also social implications. Beyond that it has very considerable defence implications. We could not have afforded the last war let alone have won it had we not had a steel industry in this country.
I should like the Minister to answer one question. Supposing in the second phase when the company is in private ownership, the shares of the company were bought not by individuals but by a foreign government or branch of a foreign government working through nominee shareholders in Zurich or where you like. If for example, the Ministry of Defence of the Soviet Union acquired a majority shareholding through those channels, it could be argued that the Ministry of Defence of the Soviet

505
Union was not an individual. It might perhaps be some branch of the Government of Libya—I do not know whether they have a ministry of defence but presumably they do. In those circumstances would the Government allow such a purchase to go ahead?
It rather sounded from what the Minister said that it would be left to the machinery of the City, which he admired, to hunt out the nominees behind the individual shareholders and that the Government would take no action. In the case of the Westland Company, which we all remember, no one in the City or anyone else discovered who were the real owners of the crucial shares.
Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister whether, supposing that not the Ministry of Defence of the Soviet Union but the Moscow Narodny Bank—which still has an office in the City and has plenty of money—acquired a large shareholding in what would then be the British steel industry, would the present Government allow such a purchase to go ahead and allow the bank to acquire a majority shareholding? If they would not allow it to go ahead can the Minister explain exactly by what means, by what machinery and by what legal right the Government would be able to prevent it in the later stages of privatisation?
Lord Beaverbrook: I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is referring to the period of time following the expiry of the five-year period.
Lord Jay: Certainly.
Lord Beaverbrook: He asks a number of questions concerning hypothetical situations. I said that the Government's intention is to put the privatised company on all fours with any other large private sector company. The noble Lord will be well aware of the Government's mergers and monopolies policy. Any such acquisition of shares in British Steel or any other company above a certain percentage has to be looked at by the OFT. Under the circumstances of whatever hypothetical situation the noble Lord likes to imagine of course that would be looked at. If there were a referral, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have to consider the public interest. If such a takeover by, say, a hostile or semi-hostile or even a friendly overseas power were to be judged against the public interest no doubt the MMC would say so. There is power to act. It is up to the MMC to judge the public interest and not the Government themselves.
Lord Jay: Is the Minister saying that if some branch of an unfriendly government such as I mentioned acquired a majority of these shares all the Government would do would be to refer it to the Monopolies Commission?
Lord Beaverbrook: The Monopolies Commission is the place in which the public interest can be considered in such an instance. It is the right place. If a reference were made the noble Lord is well aware that there could be no change in control of the company until the MMC had come to its conclusions.
Lord Marsh: The debate demonstrates the importance of the amendment. These are very big issues indeed. I declare my own position very clearly. I suspect that my interest in the articles of association would run diametrically opposed to that of many noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, but we cannot discuss the matter. I would very much regret it if the articles of association were so restrictive as to place additional impediments upon the corporation. People begin to express shock and horror at the prospect of foreign directors sitting on the board of the British Steel Corporation but I think that it would be highly beneficial in that international industry. I sit on the boards of companies in Hong Kong, Canada, the United States and France. I think that it is useful. It is the modern world. However, there is a "little Englander" view.
I should like to express the view to the Minister that the articles of association are extremely important from the point of view of both sides of the argument. As I say, many of us would find ourselves in agreement purely on the question of the need to see the articles of association. That would probably be the last point of agreement in the discussion.
Lord Beaverbrook: Of course I hear what has been said in the Committee today. I shall see what can be done to speed up the provision of any articles of association. I can make no promises today, but I shall bring the comments that have been made by the Committee to the attention of my noble friend the Secretary of State so that he is fully aware of the tide of opinion in the Chamber. I shall certainly take those views on board.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It seems to me that the Committee has begun rather badly. We have had what I regard as a wholly inadequate response from the Minister on what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial amendment. In view of the noble Lord's comments on Second Reading, I was not even asking that we should have the articles of association now. However, in the light of today's discussions, I do ask that we should have them now because, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out, although we may be on different sides of the argument, until we know what the argument is it is difficult to define our positions.
The noble Lord said that now there would be two sets of articles: interim articles and final articles. There is no problem at all with interim articles. It is all in the Companies Act. Any half-witted City lawyer can produce interim articles according to Tables A to F in about 30 seconds flat. There is no reason at all why they should not be produced. The final articles are the ones which interest the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and my noble friend Lord Jay and me. All that the noble Lord can do is to say to us that the articles are likely to be similar to previous ones. He says that they are likely to be similar, that they are currently being discussed, that the wheels of government grind slowly and that in the course of time—
Lord Beaverbrook: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I said that the wheels of government may not grind as fast as some noble Lords would wish.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In other words, slowly! In the course of time these final articles will be produced. They will have all sorts of interesting things in them about the items to which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lord Jay referred, such as foreign shareholders—and possibly foreign directors, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. It seems to me right that if Parliament is to agree (as it is being asked to do) to the disposal of a major nationalised company and a major public asset, we should at least know the grounds of the argument for disposing of that asset.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, it is no good saying that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, after five years, will be the body that decides in the national interest whether the Moscow Narodny Bank should turn up as the majority shareholder of British Steel plc. The Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has stated absolutely clearly that the one criterion for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to decide these matters is competition. He said that clearly on a number of occasions. If the Moscow Narodny Bank, as the majority shareholder of British Steel plc, can compete better than anyone else, presumably the Moscow Narodny Bank will be allowed through.
I started off with a relatively mild amendment, so it seems, but as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, the discussion in the Committee has indicated that this is a much more important amendment than even I had thought. In the light of the noble Lord's remarks, I ask him to give us a clear assurance that before we come to the Report stage of this Bill, we shall have the draft final articles of British Steel plc. If he cannot give that assurance, I shall press this amendment to a Division.
Lord Beaverbrook: I have already said to the noble Lord that I am not able to give that assurance today. I have said to him that I shall draw the comments of the Committee to the attention of my noble friend in order to see what can be done about this matter; but I cannot give the noble Lord an unequivocal assurance on this point.
3.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 73; Not Contents 102.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

David, B.

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Attlee, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ennals, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Galpern, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

508

Grimond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay, L.

Somers, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Soper, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thurlow, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Marsh, L.

Walston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mulley, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lovat, L.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Blyth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caccia, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Newall, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cathcart, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Dudley, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Effingham, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Sandford, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Shannon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hesketh, L.

Terrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wynford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, Line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Before the appointed day the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report giving quantitative estimates of the advantages and disadvantages to the Exchequer, to the Corporation, to the customers and the employees of the whole and of the several parts of the Corporation, of the disposal of the successor company and its subsidiaries as a single entity or as more than one entity.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is related to the earlier amendment. The purpose may be clearer because it is not concerned with the rules of the company. It is merely asking that before the full programme of privatisation goes ahead, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report giving an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to the employees, the nation and the Exchequer of privatising the company as a single entity or as more than one entity.
When this amendment was put forward at Report stage in another place, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for Trade and Industry claimed that the purpose was to preserve a steelmaking capacity in Scotland. I would not consider this a lowly purpose. I should think it an important purpose when one considers the importance of steel to Scotland in terms of jobs, infrastructure and the future supply to industry. For instance, the oil industry is now demanding more steel than it has for a number of years. There is also the very important potential benefit to industry of having a steel industry on the doorstep. It is therefore fair, reasonable and understandable that Scottish Members in particular should be anxious about the future of Ravenscraig and Dalzell. The suggestion in another place was that Ravenscraig, Shotton and Dalzell might be hived off independently with other combinations of works and plants at present within the British Steel Corporation. The Shotton-Ravenscraig-Dalzell proposal may not be the ideal solution to the problem. However, it is a good starting point to launch what to most people would be considered a reasonable way of looking at the privatisation of British Steel.
In the amendent we ask merely that a study be done so that we know whether it would be better to create a steel making monopoly in Britain or whether it would be better to have internal competiton. As the last debate clearly showed, we know nothing of the terms in which British Steel will be privatised. We know nothing of the safeguards against the creation of a monopoly. Perhaps most importantly from the view of our manufacturing industry, we know nothing about the future potential long-term capacity that the Government expect the British steel industry to have.
In the debate in another place it was quite seriously suggested that the defence against monopoly would be the importation of steel: that the British industry would have a base load and all our steel would be imported. I understand that present imports of steel are running at about 40 per cent. of our steel consumption. This seems to me to be a very high figure when one considers our balance of payments
510
deficiencies in terms of manufactured goods. In the modern world no one expects a situation where we have absolutely no imports, in particular of the very special steels and in order to meet severe fluctations in demand. But in such a basic industry, there should be some way for the Government to give parameters for the amount of steel that we should import. In a wider context, we accept that it is reasonable to have international links and agreements, as there are already. However, 40 per cent. seems a very high figure for a nation with our history and skills in this industry.
The matter has been very well researched. In Scotland we estimate that at least 10,000 jobs will be lost if Ravenscraig and Dalzell are closed. However, in Britain, as opposed to Scotland alone, we shall have lost a major viable industry. When we look at our balance of trade in manufactured goods, I believe that we can ill afford to lose it.
It has been suggested in another place that imports, even as high as 40 per cent., are the answer to the charge of creating a monopoly in steel products. The Member for Stockton South made this point specifically. I hope that the Government will not put forward as their sole argument that an internal monopoly in Britain will be controlled by the threat of imports and nothing more.
The Bill before us gives no guide. We know that the Government intend to privatise British Steel as a single entity. As we now know, there will be no method internally of controlling that monopoly. There will be no way in which the Government can say to the new private steel industry, "We want to improve our balance of payments in manufactured goods and would like you to reduce the figure from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent., or to 20 per cent."
As I mentioned at Second Reading, we had a long discussion on the nationalisation of airports. They fall into the strategic category which to some extent British Steel falls into, industrially, militarily and in other ways. I found the support we received from the Conservative Benches quite surprising when we managed to persuade the Government that a golden share was absolutely vital in the aviation industry, particulary on airports. I am surprised that the Government have not accepted that in this case and for much longer than five years, because five years in the life of a steel plant is not very long. With no mechanism to control the monopoly, the Government are playing for the best possible price they can for the industry. If there is no real competition, the industry will be tempted to be unadventurous in expanding its product range and in its research and development, and perhaps will leave too much of that to other industries.
It would be far better to keep our monopoly at home and to make up fluctuating demand by imports, however detrimental to our balance of payments. That is what I think would be the temptation of the steel industry if it were privatised as a monopoly. To produce a privatisation measure which would allow the British steel industry to be broken up would create an internal competitive market, which is what we are told the Government's policies are all about.
The Ravenscraig-Shotton-Dalzell suggestion is only one along these lines. There may be many other possibilities. We do not know, because the Government have not made a thorough investigation. Though we in Scotland are particularly concerned with our own fears, we have on behalf of the rest of the community put forward an amendment which I believe is the least the Government can do before they go ahead with this extremely important project which could potentially take a vital industry out of the control of the nation. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to speak in support of the amendment. At Second Reading I spoke of the fears of Scotland based on the previous statement of the management that only two strip mills were required and the lack of investment in the coke ovens at Ravenscraig and the storage capacity at Dalzell. However, I do not wish to go into that so much as to inquire what is the Government's attitude to the Arthur Young report. They give no answer and never have done except to say that Arthur Young did not receive information from the British Steel Corporation and therefore apparenty Arthur Young's management consultancy report must be regarded as rubbish.
Surely it deserves a better answer. We have not been told why the British Steel Corporation refused to give Arthur Young the information. It seemed reasonable that the members of his committee should have the information. As I see it, the difficulty of this approach of one company with two mills is that it is a minimalist approach. It is a non risk-taking approach. The BSC is taking the view that it will have two strip mills because that will give full capacity at the low point in a depression and therefore it can work on always being able to sell that and buy-in what will be needed in any upturn. The British Steel Corporation is a very big importer and stockholder. I am no economist, but this seems to me yet another example of the kind of short-term approach that the financial world in Britain has been criticised for over and over again. Perhaps from Scotland we can have the wonderful example to show us what went wrong at the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. There, for the sake of one year's electricity supply, because somebody did something wrong at Hunterston, an aluminium smelter was closed at Invergordon which now would have been a very profitable investment for the country as a whole as well as for Scottish employment.
It is surely necessary to take a long-term view rather than a short-term view especially in a cyclical industry such as the steel industry. It is the long-term view of the Arthur Young Report that it would be more profitable for Britain to have two companies. It will not do for the Government to say that this is rubbish because Arthur Young was prevented from getting information from British Steel Corporation and nobody else will get it either. This is the same kind of situation as we have had in the previous amendment which was concerned with articles of association. Parliament is being asked to approve government actions without the Government telling
512
us why they are taking the action or even what the action will be. It is an impossible situation.
The amendment at least gives the Government some opportunity to say why they are taking the action that they are taking. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): The amendment raises the question of the form of privatisation which is most appropriate for the British Steel Corporation. As the Committee would expect, when we started to consider how best to privatise British Steel, we had an open mind on the best way of doing so and in particular on the form—a single entity, or two or more smaller companies—in which we could best return its activities to the private sector. In examining the options, we considered not just the future of the British Steel Corporation as an organisation, but also the interests of its employees, its customers and the taxpayer.
We explained in another place that after carefully considering all the information, the Government decided that the corporation should be privatised as one entity in its present integrated form. That is how we intend to proceed. We also indicated some of the reasons why the Government took this decision, and I shall go into those reasons in a moment. We were not, however, at liberty to reveal detailed information on the advantages and disadvantages of privatising as a single entity, or any other configuration which might be suggested. To do so would breach the commercial confidentiality of the material involved. The position has not changed. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that BSC's competitors would like nothing more than to see precise figures of BSC's present and future strategy recorded in Hansard. It has long been the practice of governments from both sides of the Committee to protect commercially confidential information of this kind. I should also add that the Committee does not need access to sensitive information to discuss the merits of privatisation of the corporation in whole or in parts; the issue can be quite sensibly debated on a general level.
Those are the immediate reasons why we cannot accept the amendment. Let me deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Morton of Shuna. First, we do not accept that it is necessary to split up the corporation in order to create competition. BSC already faces considerable competition from imports which account for some 30 per cent. of BSC's products. The figure is nearer 30 per cent. than 40 per cent. I recognise that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mentioned 40 per cent., but the figure is nearer 30 per cent. of BSC's products which are coming into the country.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Can the noble Lord give me some figures to show how much of that 30 per cent. is imported by the British Steel Corporation?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: No, I have no figures. But I shall certainly endeavour to find out.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My information is that it is very substantial.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Furthermore, we do not see how creating two separate United Kingdom companies along the lines suggested for example in the Arthur Young Report would increase competition. That is an important point. The companies would probably be operating in different market sectors and not competing head on. Indeed the Arthur Young Report said that the proposed Ravenscraig-Shotton and Dalzell or RSD group would occupy a niche market. Indeed it is the special coated steel market in that particular grouping.
It is clear that BSC operates in a competitive international market. I accept that to an extent the European quota regime has reduced the competitive pressure in Europe as a whole. However, that quota regime is being phased out and the Government are committed to that phasing out in the shortest possible timescale. We shall be arguing that case strongly later this week at the Industry Council in Luxembourg.
I do not agree that BSC has the ability to exercise monopoly power over the United Kingdom consumers of steel, who are free to look elsewhere for supplies. The RSD proposal would involve splitting up a commercial organisation which has proved itself successful in the marketplace, particularly of late. Resulting parts would have a most uncertain future and we do not believe that to be a responsible way to proceed. Apart from the uncertainty, it will probably be difficult, if not impossible, to sell a company such as RSD which has no track record. I know that the noble Lords opposite will understand what I mean when faced with a City valuation of a company of that kind. The Government have received no expressions of interest in RSD from outside parties. Nor has anyone proposed an alternative plant configuration. Indeed, I understand that the unions at Shotton are hostile to the RSD proposal.
For many years the British steel industry has suffered the consequences of government interference based on considerations other than the economic health of the industry. Our view is that such interference, together with its artificial solutions which defy commercial logic, is the wrong way to run the industry. That is why we are returning BSC to the private sector, where it will best prosper. In our view it would be a terrible mistake if, in a last gesture of public ownership, we imposed upon the industry a politically-driven structure that makes no commercial sense for the company, its employers, its customers or the taxpayer. We shall return shortly to the issue of Ravenscraig and the assurances given by the British Steel Corporation last December.
We all want a strong Scottish steel industry. It is the Government's view that it is in the best interests of all parts of BSC that the corporation should be privatised as a single entity. I believe that a great majority of those who have an interest in the matter accept that assessment. As I have explained, for reasons of commercial confidentiality we cannot set out all the background associated with the decision to privatise BSC as a single entity. In any case, that conclusion clearly follows from the general argument upon which I touched today. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister's reply did not surprise me, although it disappointed me. As regards confidentiality, someone suggested that governments always have an excuse for not giving information. The commercial confidentiality need not be breached to give more information than is already known. I understand that the International Institute for Steel has enormous resources and that few figures are unable to be obtained. Those likely to be interested in purchasing shares in the new privatised British Steel will be able to find out a great deal about it.
My noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna mentioned the Arthur Young Report and the figures given in it. It has been suggested that those figures are not reliable. I need to check my facts, although I am fairly sure of them, but I read somewhere that Sir Ian MacGregor, who had an association with British Steel, dismissed the idea that those figures were not accurate. He said that anyone with any understanding of company law and company finance—particularly those with a great deal of experience in the accountancy side of the steel industry, as had those with Arthur Young—would be able to build an accurate picture of the industry.
There is another interesting facet to the Government's decision to privatise British Steel as a single entity. I remember that during discussions on nationalisation the Opposition fought tooth and nail the suggestion that it must be a monopoly and said that it had to be split up in some way. The Labour Government conceded that and allowed certain steel plants around Sheffield to be run independently. However, it is interesting to note that the Government, which opposed the suggestion so vehemently, have now learned many lessons from the nationalised industry and they believe that that is the correct way to run the industry. We believe that there are insufficient controls on the monopoly situation. There has been no suggestion other than the crude and brutal suggestion of foreign importation.
For the sake of the industry, and for the sake of the people of Scotland, I believe that we must test the Committee on this issue. I beg to move.
4.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 65; Not Contents 104.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Amherst, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Attlee, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Aylestone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Basnett, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blease, L.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Briginshaw, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Galpern, L.

515

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Peston, L.

Grimond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mulley, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allerton, L.

Joseph, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marsh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Caccia, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Newall, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Norrie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodney, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Sandford, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Somers, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hanworth, V.

Terrington, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Teviot, L.

Headfort, M.

Thorneycroft, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Ironside, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, leave out lines 22 and 23.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to elicit the meaning of Clause 1(3) of the Bill as drafted. The particular words that I seek to leave out in the amendment—although of course, as I say, it is not an amendment that I shall press—refer to the liabilities, properties and rights of the corporation which will be transferred,
"whether or not capable of being transferred or assigned by the Corporation".
In other words, the Bill as drafted gives power to the Government to transfer property rights and liabilities to the successor corporation even though contractually there may be problems in doing so.
What do I mean by the word "contractually"? I believe the corporation has a large number—I shall be looking to the noble Lord for information on this—of mortgages, liens or long leases. The one that was publicised in the corporation's annual report and which is perhaps one of the most important is the lease on the bulk iron-ore carrier "Iron Bridge". That is a lease which has been contracted by the corporation from lessors who rely on the credit of the corporation.
I assume—this is normal practice—that that lease is not assignable by the corporation without the leave of the lessors. I assume that there are a number of mortgage, lien or banking arrangements of a similar nature which the corporation has. Under this Bill as drafted, those contracts which are non-assignable without leave of whoever is granting the facility to the corporation become assignable. Therefore in the case of the "Iron Bridge", the interest of the lessor is overriden by the terms of this Bill. He thought he had been given a non-assignable lease. He thought that he enjoyed the full credit of a public corporation. He now finds, as a result of parliamentary action, that he does not enjoy that credit but he enjoys the credit of a public limited corporation which is defined in the context of shareholders' liability. In other words, his credit standing as a lessor is lowered.
It may be perfectly proper that that should happen, that by the stroke of a parliamentary pen lessors, bankers or those who hold mortgages or liens can have their credit diminished but it is a particularly serious proposition and I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could tell the Committee, first, whether I have the meaning of this Bill right, as I believe I have; and, secondly, how many leases or non-transferrable or non-assignable contracts of this nature will be affected by this clause. What exactly is the situation?
I understand that the noble Lord may not be able to answer that in the context of a ministerial answer in the Committee, but if he cannot do so I should be most grateful if he could make certain general comments about the status of the corporation's liabilities. Perhaps he will write to me with a fuller list of which contracts are assignable or not assignable, transferable or not transferable and hence are affected by this provision. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and should like to probe into a different matter. It seems to me that prima facie unless those words in lines 22 and 23 are limited there is a threat to rights and property rights of employees, particularly in a field about which I believe the Committee has heard me speak on one or two occasions; namely, in the field of intellectual property rights of employees.
The so-called intellectual property rights relate to a wide range of matters—patents, trade marks, copyright and design. However, they are not rights in the same sense as mortgage rights or contractual rights to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred. Can the Minister, who by now is a great expert at least on certain aspects of property rights, clarify the position regarding employees?
If the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, had not wound up on his amendment rather quickly I had intended to tell him that I supported one aspect of his amendment which related to the position of employees of the company. I could not understand the Minister's answer. The reason why I was rather slow in rising to my feet was that I was endeavouring to correlate what the Minister said with the amendment and the text of the Bill. I should have thought that it would be a great advantage for industrial relations if the Minister could have said something about the advantages to employees by proceeding as the Government are doing under the Bill. However, I suppose that is now past history.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the position of employees generally in relation to R&D activities and also in regard to any awards that may be given to these inventors. Will the scheme for giving awards to inventors go over to the privatised sector? What will happen to employees and their rights in the broadest sense?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Can the Minister define what the Bill means by saying:
"whether or not capable of being transferred or assigned by the Corporation."?
My noble friend Lord Williams seems to interpret this as not capable of being transferred by the corporation without consent of the other party or parties to the arrangement. It might be thought that that is implied in the wording or it might mean that this is just some form of inalienable right of the corporation that it could not transfer, whether or not anybody gave it the power to transfer. It is not entirely clear to me what are these property rights and liabilities. No doubt the Minister knows what they are and will tell the Committee.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for outlining why he would like an explanation of what we have in mind in this clause. I will endeavour to give the background. This amendment relates to subsection (3) of Clause 1. That subsection provides that references in this Bill to property, rights and liabilities of the corporation are references to all such property, rights and liabilities, whether or not capable of being transferred or assigned by the corporation.
518
It may be helpful if I explain briefly the principles that underlie Clause 1, to which the subsection is directly relevant, before dealing in detail with the amendment. Clause 1 is concerned with the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of BSC into a successor company nominated by the Secretary of State. It is the principal aim of the Bill that the corporation is, in effect, converted into a Companies Act company limited by shares and wholly owned by the Crown.
The provisions of Clause 1, supplemented by Schedule 1, seek primarily to ensure that the whole of the undertaking of the corporation is inherited by the successor company, without any discontinuity, and that as far as possible the successor company and BSC are regarded for all commercial and contractual purposes as one and the same. For example, the successor company will inherit all the liabilities of BSC and, as Schedule 1 makes clear, the general principle of continuity extends particularly to contracts of employment and pension rights. The wording of the clause is closely based on precedents in earlier privatisation Acts.
The words in subsection (3) which the amendment would delete are intended to make it clear that the reference to all the property, rights and liabilities of BSC includes everything, whether or not the corporation is contractually able to transfer or assign the asset or liability to another party. It is sometimes the case that commercial contracts contain conditions that prevent one of the parties to the contract transferring the rights under that contract to a third party. The provision in subsection (3) makes it clear that the vesting provided for in the Bill overrides any such contractual terms. This is consistent with our general aim of ensuring that the transition from corporation to plc is a smooth one. It would be very disruptive and damaging for British Steel's business if the vesting was not comprehensive in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether those affected by the vesting of their arrangements with the nationalised corporation to what would become a private sector limited company would suffer a loss of security where, for example, they have at present some form of contractual link with the corporation. The noble Lord gave the example of a contract for the lease of a ship. The vesting arrangements under Clause 1 and Schedule 1 are such that contractual arrangements and obligations of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord are not affected in any way except for the substitution of the successor company instead of the corporation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the Minister accept that in credit terms a plc is less creditworthy—and, if not, will he accept that from me as a banker—than a nationalised corporation?
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord anticipates me by a few moments. The noble Lord's knowledge and experience of credit rating is no doubt unsurpassable. The owners of the ship in the noble Lord's example will have the same contractual rights and obligations after vesting as before. The wording of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill makes it clear that that

519
continuity applies to any agreement made, transaction effected or other thing done by, to, or in relation to the corporation which is in force or effective immediately before the appointed day. It therefore covers any liabilities arising, for example, from leases, cancellation clauses or bonds. The Government are privatising British Steel in the expectation that it will have a profitable and successful future, and will ensure that it has a balance sheet strong enough to meet its needs and obligations.
To reply to the noble Lord, surely it is in the interests of all those who have contractual arrangements with British Steel that they should be dealing with a successful and profitable corporation. The fact that it is to be in the private sector rather than the public sector is, in my opinion, not the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that they are dealing with a commercial company that is profitable and successful, that is expanding and has a successful future ahead of it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We are dealing here with cases where a contract has been entered into between the British Steel Corporation and someone else on the basis that the corporation is, by contract, not permitted to assign, sell or do anything to the contract. Therefore, we have a contract between A and B. By choice, B has decided that A must remain the contracting party. Parliament merely says that for A read C, without giving B any opportunity to say, "I do not like this". That seems to fly totally in the face of all the private law of contract that I know.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord has a far greater knowledge of law than I do. However, it is a matter of logic, in the noble Lord's example, on the basis that A and C are, to all intents and purposes, essentially the same person. As I said, it is the Government's intention that there should be a transfer of the whole of the undertaking of the corporation without any discontinuity. I cannot see that the interests of any party which at the moment has a contract with British Steel should be diminished in any way.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I hope that what I have already said will convince him that on the rights of employees, particularly with regard to the intellectual property of employees who have produced interesting inventions, to any copyrights that may exist, or whatever it may be, there will be continuity of all such rights and of any agreement that may exist in writing. There shall be no diminishing of the rights of anyone who has a relationship with British Steel whether as employee, supplier or customer.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord; but in certain circumstances there is no right as such of an employee, particularly in relation to an award, for his or her invention. It is most important to encourage innovation wherever possible. The Government have said that on many occasions; it is a principle they adopt. There is an award system at the British Steel Corporation. But
520
how can one be satisfied, if an inventor with an invention has no right except to ask for a reward, that that right will be conferred on the successor company?
Lord Beaverbrook: Whatever system exists within British Steel in terms of arrangements to reward employees who come up with an idea, if a scheme exists it will continue. There is no intention to change such arrangements on the vesting of the British Steel business in the successor company.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe we have a difference of opinion to say the least. The noble Lord said that all the property rights and the liabilities of the corporation will be vested in the successor company. The successor company will be an extremely successful private sector company. And the credit of an extremely successful private sector company will be exactly what the credit of the corporation was before vesting.
That relies upon the premise that British Steel plc will continue to be a successful and flourishing private sector company. Neither I nor, with great respect, the noble Lord, have the first idea whether that will be the case over the next five to 10 years. A corporation with the credit standing of the Government behind it is quite a different business for a lender or a lessor that is a plc.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, there may be various kinds of awards within the British Steel Corporation which may be formal or informal. The formal ones may be vested in the procedure. But under the informal ones, in which there is no property right or liability, the employee in question may be disadvantaged by the process of vesting. It is on these points that I believe, in the first case, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the Minister, and in the second case, myself and the Minister, have serious differences of opinion.
I do not intend to press the amendment. I should be grateful however if the noble Lord would ask his officials to give both matters serious consideration, The last thing we want in this Committee is to have various people, sections and groups disadvantaged as a result of the Bill.
Lord Beaverbrook: Before the noble Lord sits down, I believe that when he reads Hansard he will see that the very act of vesting will have no diminishing effect whatever on the rights of employees. The noble Lord also asked how many contracts could be affected. I shall look into the matter. The noble Lord will perhaps forgive me if I do not answer now but write to him.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may put another point to the Minister that he may care to consider. This is a contractual situation. Let us suppose a contractor outside the British Steel Corporation has certain contractual arrangements with the BSC and, in the course of the contract, relies upon the technical skill of an employee of the BSC. It often happens between two parties that a contract is placed because a certain man or woman on one side has particular skills. If privatisation takes place, can

521
the Government or the British Steel Corporation ensure that the skill of the person upon whom the outside contractor relies will also go over? In other words, will there be compulsory powers to force the employee of the British Steel Corporation to remain as an employee of the other corporation? If that person leaves, then the customer-contractor will be very much disadvantaged being unable to rely upon the skill of that employee, or one-time employee, of the British Steel Corporation. That is a very practical matter with industrial concerns, particularly in research and development.
Lord Beaverbrook: The very act of vesting would have no impact that I can see on such a situation. Of course no one can give a guarantee that the particular employee would for any reason be carrying on in the same division. He might be due in any event for posting to another job; he might be run over by a bus; some other misfortune could occur. He might be retiring. Those are matters outside the control of BSC management and also of the Government. The act of vesting itself will have no effect whatever on any supplier, customer or any creditor of BSC.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but the act of vesting does have an effect on these matters. The act of vesting is a very simple one whereby all the assets and liabilities of a nationalised public corporation operating under a statute are vested in a public limited company which operates under the Companies Act 1985. That is the difference. The role of a board of directors under the Companies Act 1985 is quite different to the role of a board of directors of a public corporation set up under statute.
A public, limited corporation introduces the notion of limited liability of shareholders. However, in this current theoretical case, where the Government remain 100 per cent. shareholders the problem is there. There is a logical and, if you like, academic but major difference of how the board of directors has to comport itself because it has to pay attention to the Companies Act rather than to the statute under which the corporation is set up. I disagree with the Minister on that point.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I have already disagreed regarding the credit rating of the corporation. I believe that the most important matter is that the company is successful; and that is what will secure the rights of all concerned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not believe that we shall get much further if the noble Lord continues by saying the company has to be successful. Everyone agrees it has to be successful. We shall all read what has been said in this debate. I hope very much that the noble Lord asks his officials to read very carefully what I and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran said, because I believe we are getting into some very difficult areas in discussing these matters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The successor company shall not dispose of any property or plant whether by sale or long lease in Scotland without the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland.").
The noble Earl said: I am exceedingly anxious (perhaps I may say passionately anxious) that every possible step be taken to safeguard the steel industry in Scotland. My amendment aims to do just that. It stops the sale of the steel plant or property connected therewith in Scotland; that is to say, the Ravenscraig-Hunterston complex—I underline the name "Hunterston"—by the successor company without the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Recently, I was lunching with Sir Ian MacGregor—or perhaps I should say that he was lunching with me. We were discussing how best we could protect and ensure that the steel industry in Scotland continued. We both felt that it was essential so far as possible to safeguard the present set-up. It could provide a very valuable base for future development. We both agreed, and I am sure that many of your Lordships will agree, that the Scottish steel industry is of fundamental importance to Scotland. Any successor company should not be allowed to dispose of anything which could prejudice that situation.
I am haunted by the recollection of what happened some 10 or 15 years ago in relation to a company which, curiously enough, has exactly the same initials as the present British Steel Corporation. I refer to the British Sugar Corporation which was a private company. The British Sugar Corporation in its wisdom decided that it would make more profit if it closed the Scottish factory at Cupar in Fife and transferred the quotas to its English factories. What did it do? It closed down the plant in Scotland despite every effort made by the Scots, who were ready to buy it. However, the British Sugar Corporation was not ready to sell; rather it wanted to make profit. As a result the idea of growing beet in Scotland vanished for ever. We must avoid the same kind of thing happening again.
While the British Steel Corporation is a nationalised industry, this remains a political question and we can be pretty sure that such action would not be taken. However, once it becomes a private company, the situation is quite different. As I see it, we have no control at all unless something along the lines of what I have put in my amendment is accepted. It is for those reasons that I commend my amendment to your Lordships. I beg the Government to accept it; or, if they will not accept it, at the very least to say that they will give it the most serious consideration. I would prefer the former. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My noble friend has raised a point of far-reaching significance, at least to those of us who live in Scotland. My noble friend Lord Sanderson said that he wants Scotland to play a strong element in the steel industry. There is not a word about that in the Bill. All that we hear from the Minister is that we will be on all fours with companies overseas, and that of course applies to the whole of Great Britain.

523
As my noble friend has said, steel in many ways has been the backbone of Scotland, probably for 150 years and possibly for 200 years. That has been due to the natural resources of the country and the people who live there. Now we have had a far-reaching revolution which has made the situation very different. The natural resources to a great extent are exhausted. We have reached a stage where communication all over the world is equal and can be phased-up in any part of the world. Transport has entirely different significance from 100 years ago. Moreover, we have seen the introduction of computers and so on.
What is going to happen? There is not the slightest indication in this Bill that the industry which has been fundamental to Scotland for a long period will continue. What will be the rules which will govern this kind of thing? This is of far-reaching significance. We have not yet seen the articles of association. There might be something in that, but I know not. The one man who is concerned both with housing and employment in Scotland is the Secretary of State. Unless he is brought in at some point I find it very hard to see how the words which my noble friend himself has used about steel continuing to play an important element in the life of Scotland can in any way be fulfilled. Frankly, I hope that we will receive a rather more concrete answer from the Government on this point than we have received so far this afternoon.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: It seems to me that recent events have pointed very strongly to two great needs in our present situation. The first concerns the method by which legislation is drafted. It is apparent that there is far too much legislation and far too little thought given to its effects. When we are told that we cannot be given the articles of association of a successor company to British Steel, although these are vital to any public discussion of the whole matter, it seems that the Government should think again, particularly as they have been talking of privatising British Steel for a very long time.
Secondly, we require a debate upon what is meant by the public interest because that point arises whenever there is a change of ownership of our companies. On each occasion it boils down to competition. I do not deny that competition is important. Indeed, it is strange that in many of the denationalisation measures competition has not been much, if any, increased. Competition, although important, is not the only matter of public interest. These changes of ownership have great social effects upon communities, the economy at large and upon defence, as has been said earlier. Moreover, by moving a company's headquarters we affect the top talents in a country like Scotland and the relationship of that company with all the auxiliaries and subsidiaries with which it may be connected.
I wholly agree that the Scottish steel industry has been of immense importance to Scotland. But how long that can continue and how exactly the state of the industry is now to be viewed are different matters. There is no doubt that historically it has been of very
524
great importance. Secondly, the industry is of immense importance to certain communities. Thirdly, it is important to see how this industry is treated in relation to the whole argument about how Scottish affairs should be conducted.
It may be said as regards this amendment that it is not much good referring the matter to the Secretary of State for Scotland without giving him some indication of the criteria which he is to apply to the situation. Without any clearer definition of the public interest, presumably all that the Secretary of State would look at is competition. As I say, I think that is certainly inadequate. To my mind the amendment draws attention to the pressing need for some wider consideration of public interest with regard to the economic and social effects, and the effects on defence and so forth, when these changes of ownership take place. It raises very strongly the constant beheading of Scotland. I personally think that a Scottish Parliament is desirable and important but that the draining away of the lifeblood—the top lifeblood of Scotland, which has gone on for generations—is even more important.
Therefore, without necessarily entering into the question of whether or not steel should be privatised, the amendment deserves very serious consideration. If the Government can tell us that such consideration will be better supplied by other means, one might well take objection to the drafting of the amendment. They have said that certain assurances have been given about Ravenscraig and Dalzell. However, if they can point to anything in the Bill which will give Scotland the feeling that there is a real long-term consideration of its economy, the amendment may well be unnecessary. I emphasise that we need something in the Bill which looks to the longer term.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to express my support for the amendment, with this warning. It seems to me that it is a wrecking amendment. It seems to put the power to make alterations into the hands of the Secretary of State, and to take that power away from the company. In my view that is the opposite to what the Government are trying to do. I think it would be quite right to do that. However, I think that the Committee should realise that to put the matter back in to the hands of the Secretary of State—where I personally would much rather it were—is the exact opposite of privatisation.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I accept the principle of privatisation of the steel industry and I do not wish to see that principle substantially diluted, or obstacles created in the path of the Bill's application. However, I understand the anxieties of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, taking into account the precedents of which he has spoken, especially the British Sugar Corporation. That is a precedent which we should certainly consider.
I am not sure that the amendment will ensure the best interests of the British steel industry, especially in Scotland, and I should like to hear the Government's reaction to what has been said. I am not inclined or ready to vote on the matter today.
A short time ago we disposed of an earlier amendment moved by the Opposition Front Bench.

525
I must confess that I was left with some doubts as to whether in the case of a foreign purchase of an English or Scottish firm the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—considering the public interest— was competent to judge on a matter of national security. Again, I think that we shall have to consider that issue further. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook promised to consider the points made during the short debate, especially the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
My noble friend Lord Perth considers that the best judge in such cases would be the Secretary of State. On the whole, I am inclined to agree with him. However, I shall listen with care to what my noble friend on the Front Bench says in reply to the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that the Minister will have something encouraging to say as regards this amendment because he has certainly been pressed to do so from all sides of the Committee. The assurances we have so far received only concern the strip mill at Ravenscraig until next year and steel production—if my memory is right—for a further five years. That would follow sugar, the aluminium smelter at Invergordon and paper at Fort William. Indeed, it would not improve Scottish views of the Government—which perhaps showed their lack of encouragement last year—if yet another major industry disappeared after so many promises. Therefore I hope that public interest is recognised by the Government as being far wider than mere matters of competition law, which can go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Lord Marsh: I am sorry to inject a somewhat disharmonious note into the proceedings. Nonetheless, I should like to express the view that if the amendment were carried one would virtually have to give the industry away if one wanted anyone to underwrite it. Indeed, I think that a factory in the centre of the Sahara Desert selling central heating would be a far better bet than the Bill would be with this particular amendment in it.
Over the past 40 years every government have sought to persuade nationalised industries not to close massively uneconomic plants for one reason or another; the reasons being grouped together as social reasons. In almost every case the plant has finally closed. Further, in almost every case it has closed with a massive loss of public investment which has gone down the drain. Even worse, in virtually every case the job security of the workers in that industry was less when it was forced into closure than it would have been if it had been allowed to take part in the normal way.
One has only to look at the coal-mining industry, the railway industry and indeed every one of the nationalised industries to see that wherever they have had to divert their activities from commercial ones to seeking to apply social disciplines, the workers and the taxpayers have suffered. It does not work because one can either run a social service or a business. The two cannot be mixed together, especially in what is probably the most competitive industry in the world
526
today—or, at least, one of the most competitive. I say all that in regard to a nationalised industry.
However, I do not understand how one can take a company to the market and invite the public to subscribe for its equity with just a marginal problem and say this. No matter what happens, for example, in a factory, whatever the shareholders or the board may decide about a plant—be it in Wales, because the social arguments that can be applied to Scotland can be equally applied to Wales, such as unemployment and many other matters—and whatever is felt commercially, the factory must not be shut down; it must be kept open.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has considerable experience as a banker in such matters, and no doubt he will advise the underwriters on what a marvellous opportunity that will be for them. One would have a job to sell it to anyone—or indeed to give it away on that basis. If the Government wish to assist areas—all history shows that it does not work and governments have been trying for the past 100 years to stop areas declining, both in this country and abroad—then they should take the responsibility themselves. However, to think that one can have a private company run in the same incompetent fashion as both governments have run nationalised industries is a myth.
Lord Gray of Contin: I find myself largely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has said, although I feel emotionally attracted to what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said. Nevertheless, on this occasion I feel that the noble Lord has let his emotions get the better of his judgment. There can be little doubt that the Scottish steel industry has done very well in recent years. It is hoped that Ravenscraig will continue to do well, and that it will produce a product for which there will be a ready market and which will make it competitive, not just throughout the United Kingdom, but competitive with competitors throughout the world.
However, should that not be the case, then in my view it would be wholly irresponsible of the Committee to include in the legislation a provision that this company would not be allowed to sell anything in Scotland without the permission of the Secretary of State. I am certain that the advice of the present Secretary of State would be wholesome; but I can think of some individuals who could become Secretary of State who might not be able to provide the kind of advice of which any company, of whatever status, would be especially appreciative.
At present we have a confrontation within the Labour Party. Indeed, no one knows what the eventual outcome of that confrontation will be. We could be faced with a Labour Party led by Mr. Benn. I put it to Members of the Committee, "Who do you think the Secretary of State for Scotland might be in those circumstances?' Would it be someone whose advice would be acceptable to noble Lords opposite, let alone the directors of the company which might take over the British Steel Corporation? Therefore I say to my noble friend that I think he should —
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt, but as the noble Lord has referred to disagreements (or

527
whatever it was that he said was taking place within the Labour Party) can he say what would be the case should the Member of Parliament, Mr. George Younger, succeed Mrs. Thatcher as Prime Minister? In those circumstances, would there not be a rather different view on the matter?
5 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I do not think that there would necessarily be a different view. My right honourable friend, to whom the noble Lord referred, has been a loyal member of the Government since 1979. I have no reason to think that he would do other than voice his views within the conventional method, which is within the Cabinet, which is observed by the Conservative Party, and accept the will of the majority of people. In any case, I suggest to my noble friend that he takes careful note of what has been said; that he reads and deliberates upon the views which have been given, but that at the end of the day he do nothing, which would include an amendment such as this, that would so weaken the legislation he seeks to put forward.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Anyone who lives in Scotland will grasp the significance of the amendment. A great deal of emotion and political excitement is generated on the question of the survival of Ravenscraig. It is that which is at the root of the amendment. Naturally, in Scotland when people see the privatisation process taking place they think for a moment what the consequences may be. It is to protect Scotland from the undesirable features of the centralisation—the thrust of profit as the sole consideration, a philosophy that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, supports so eloquently—that we are apprehensive. In the amendment we are trying to build in some protection.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with whom for some time I shared an association in a nationalised industry, that he pushes his case too hard. That is always the trouble with the convert. He becomes far too extreme. The noble Lord said something about being unable to run a social service alongside a nationalised enterprise. We are not talking about a social service. However, I have noticed that the great commercial enterprises of this country which have survived and prospered have been enterprises which have taken social consequences and factors into consideration.
Lord Marsh: The noble Lord introduced me into his speech. Can he name me one company which has anything approaching this type of amendment in its articles of association? Of course companies, including nationalised industries, as good citizens have an obligation to behave responsibly and socially. I suggest that there are no companies, and that he has no evidence of any, which would take on board the commitment to maintain massive loss-making undertakings for social reasons. They could not survive if they did.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: That is not what the amendment says. The amendment does not say that Ravenscraig will inevitably remain open indefinitely.
528
All that the amendment says is that there should be a degree of protection, and that before one closes down that or any other part of the steel industry in Scotland—it is important to Scotland's industrial future—such a person would have to make a case to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, conjured up a bogeyman of Wedgy Benn or someone like that becoming Secretary of State for Scotland. That is not real life or real politics. Having such a reference, the Secretary of State for Scotland would examine the case. That is all that the amendment says. The proposal has symbolic importance for Scotland. I say seriously to this Chamber and to the Government, who in the last election got 10 seats out of 72, that they should occasionally be sensitive to the deep feelings on these matters that exist in Scotland.
I am not against the privatisation of British Steel. I am concerned about building in some protection, which is all the amendment seeks to do. The company would have to make a case for closing the plant. That is all the amendment says. As the Minister knows well, Ravenscraig has become a symbol of Scotland's industrial survival. We should not treat the matter lightly.
Lord Trafford: I do not wish to enter into the emotional content of the problems that have been outlined, but it seems to me that noble Lords opposite, and those noble Lords who have supported the amendment, have not answered two fundamental questions partly put by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The first is that if we pass an enabling Bill in preparation for privatisation the company cannot be taken to the market if we say that it is still to be partly nationalised because it will be subject to the diktat, decision or whatever of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We should then be taking a hybrid company to the market and saying, "This is not truly a private company; it will not truly have independence; it will not truly be run by its board of directors; it will have to be subject, in a large part of its undertakings, to the whim of government".
We do not need to invoke bogeymen or anything else. It could be any Secretary of State. Any different circumstances in Scotland or in the state of the English or Scottish economy might materially influence what a Secretary of State would feel. The important point is that in the company being taken it would be taken not as a private company, as has been talked about, but as a semi-public company, or at any rate a company with severe reservations.
Even if there were some way of getting over that problem, let us think of the disaster that could happen if there were a downturn in steel production or if the market and British Steel plc were not doing as well as everyone on both sides of the Committee wished. It then has not just a problem but a problem with both its feet shackled. Surely in many respects, in general terms, that has been one of the many problems that has faced much of British industry. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, here, and say that this does not apply only to nationalised industry, although a characteristic of some parts of it over time has been that it has been unable to adapt, accommodate or change. It would therefore be

529
reasonable to put in a similar amendment for protection for Wales, for the North-East, and so on.
No one who has read the newspapers, looked at the news or listened to speeches for any length of time could be unaware of the significance of the name Ravenscraig, especially in Scotland. I fully accept the emotional content of the argument, but if we pass the amendment we should, first, be defeating the object of the Bill and driving a coach and horses through the principles. Secondly, it would be extremely difficult to persuade an ordinary citizen to invest money in something for which there is a hidden difficulty; and, thirdly, it could be a disaster for the future success of British Steel as a whole.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may briefly draw the attention of the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Trafford, to the statutory framework under which BAA plc operates, because there are some severe restrictions. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, appealed to me as a banker. I am bound to say that as a banker I took the view that BAA would never be underwritten, but even given the statutory restraint it was underwritten and it was got away.
Lord Marsh: The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is that this only goes to show how careful one has to be in educating the public before people start investing.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for bringing this amendment forward. It has been a very wide-ranging debate we even got so far as a Scottish parliament at one stage. It may be appropriate if I started by reminding the Committee of what my noble friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the House on 3rd December last year. He said then that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been reviewing with the corporation the previous commitment given by the Government that all five integrated plants would continue to operate until August 1988. In the light of that review, the chairman of the corporation stated that subject to market conditions, it expects that there will continue to be a commercial requirement for steelmaking and continuous casting at the corporation's five integrated plants for at least the next seven years. Perhaps I may emphaise this to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna: seven years not five years.
My noble friend commented when reporting the chairman's statement that it constituted an assurance to Ravenscraig's iron and steel making facilities for a considerable period—indeed, for a period much longer than the three year commitment that the Government were able to give in their previous reviews in 1982 and 1985. I should like to emphasise that that statement is unprecedented. The corporation had the confidence to look seven years ahead and predict, given favourable market conditions, a stable outlook for the whole of its business.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Am I not correct that in the statement last December the commitment to Ravenscraig's hot mill was to next year only?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: If the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, will permit me to say so, I am coming to that point somewhat later. I should also emphasise that the statement came from the corporation, not the Government. It is a much stronger statement for that, because it has not been contrived for political reasons; it is based on a hard commercial assessment of the prospects for the steel market as the corporation think it will develop, not how politicians would like it to develop.
Some noble Lords have criticised the statement because it is not a guarantee, it is not legally binding, and it is subject to market conditions. I have to say that it would be utterly irresponsible for either the corporation or the Government to pretend that they can offer guarantees about the future of an industrial undertaking, regardless of market conditions that may arise. The history of the corporation and the world steel industry in the past decade has been one of facing up to realities and adjusting to a changing market. No company and no government could give an indefinite guarantee in respect of any enterprise, and no company in the corporation's position should be subject to a statutory obligation to retain indefinitely all its facilities.
The fact is that the corporation, of its own volition has stated that in its best judgment steelmaking will continue at all five sites for at least seven years. I do not think that we can ask for more, and it is certainly more than previous political commitments, which, I should remind the House, were also made subject to market conditions. The Secretary of State for Industry, Mr. Jenkin, said in another place on 20th December 1982 that the future of steelmaking on each site depended upon future demand and output as well as efficient performance.
I must outline briefly our objections to the amendment. One of the major objections of privatising British Steel is to give the successor company freedom to take its own business decisions without having to refer to government for approval. The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment which would place just such a restraint on the successor company. It is our intention that the privatised British Steel should be, so far as possible, placed in the same position as other private sector companies, subject to no greater degree of government regulation than those other companies.
Let me now deal with the subject of Ravenscraig. I fully understand as does anyone who lives in Scotland, the noble Earl's concern for the future of Ravenscraig. It goes wide of this House and right to every part of Scotland, to Ravenscraig and the other associated Scottish plants. I recognise the importance of the steel industry as a local employer in Lanarkshire. I particularly wish to make reference to the Scottish Development Agency's priority for the county of Lanarkshire and what it is doing there at this very moment. I should make it clear, however,

531
that the closure of Ravenscraig is not an inevitable result of privatisation. On the contrary, the corporation stated in December last year as I have already said, that, subject to market conditions, the corporation expected that there would continue to be a commercial requirement for steelmaking and continuous casting at all five integrated sites for at least a further seven years. It is the corporation's best assessment of the future for its major plants until the mid 1990s. Of course, any such assessment must be subject to market conditions, otherwise it would not be credible. However the statement was not made lightly. It is very good news for all British Steel's employees.
The question of employees was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, earlier this afternoon. I for one know that 5,575 people (I think it is) are employed in that complex. It demonstrates a confidence in the future which has not existed for the past 20 years. The fact remains that Ravenscraig and the other plants covered by that statement remain in business on their merits, through satisfying customers and for no other reason. The only way to assure the future for Ravenscraig is for it to remain competitive in the market place.
There has been criticism that this is not a guarantee. I have to say that to ask for a guarantee is pointless. No one can guarantee the future of a commercial organisation, and those noble Lords who have been involved in industry know that only too well. History demonstrates that governments cannot wave a magic wand and ignore the market. Twenty years of public ownership have not saved British Steel from undergoing a most radical restructuring over recent years. We argue that public ownership has led to that restructuring being more concentrated and more painful than it might have been,
With reference to the aluminium smelter at Invergordon and the pulp mill in Fort William, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, should forget that the problems of the 1970s and the rise in inflation had quite a lot to do with the problems of electricity prices and the problems of those factories which had to shut.
It is in the best interests of Ravenscraig, like the rest of British Steel, that privatisation should proceed as soon as practicable. The British Steel Corporation is now one of the most successful steel producers in the world. Both Ravenscraig and Dalzell have reached record levels of production in recent months, and demand remains buoyant.
I wish to comment on the position of British Steel in the European context. I mentioned earlier that on Friday of this week the Industry Council is due to discuss the lifting of quotas in certain categories of product. That has a bearing on what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said in regard to the hot strip mill. As he quite rightly pointed out, the assurance will not go further than 1989. It is most likely that quotas will be lifted in category la, which is the hot strip. It is our belief that the removal of quotas will be to the benefit of BSC who have been constrained by their quota levels. That is good news for the hot strip mill in Ravenscraig; but it would be
532
imprudent—to say the least—to predict with certainty what will happen to the market when quotas are removed. That is another reason why it is quite impractical to talk of guarantees and statutory obligations in respect of Scottish plants.
I ask Members of the Committee to consider the following point. What ought to be regarded surely as the best news for the steel industry, and for the people of Scotland for many years, is British Steel's commercial estimate of its future steel-making needs in Scotland. That is a much better assurance than industrial plants can usually be given, and it is a great reflection on the turnround of Ravenscraig and all who work there. I am afraid that I have to reject the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: I thank all those who have taken part in the debate and even those who have not supported the amendment. One or two noble Lords have not supported it on grounds which do not relate to the amendment at all. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that one cannot keep things open. There is nothing in the amendment to ask that anything be kept open. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, made the same point.
I recognise that one cannot ensure that something is kept open and working. I am not asking for that. In the amendment I ask that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be consulted and should approve a sale—not that something cannot go on but that he should approve the sale of a plant or whatever. That is quite different.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, quoted at great length the guarantees given by the existing British Steel Corporation.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: If the noble Earl will permit me, I said assurances, not guarantees.
The Earl of Perth: I accept the correction. However, what value do those assurances have in relation to the future company? So far as I know, none. Once the company is privatised what was said before will go out of the window, or it can do.
In the amendment we say that there should not be a sale or disposal without the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We may want to find some better wording, but the amendment does not refer to every small matter. The Secretary of State could quite easily give blanket approval for anything under £100,000 and say that anything below that could be disposed of without reference to him. One must recognise that he will act responsibly and reasonably.
We want to ensure that if the British Steel Corporation, for the same kind of reason as the sugar corporation, decided that it could make more money in the South it should be prevented from doing that without the approval of the Secretary of State. If the amendment does not achieve that, I am ready to listen to something else. However, to be told that the Government will not accept the amendment or think about it again is distressing and disappointing.
When I was talking to Sir Ian MacGregor he explained the great asset we have in Scotland, in Hunterston. Hunterston has a deep harbour. It can

533
bring in iron-ore and coal from all over the world. It can convert them nearby and compete in this respect with the whole world. I am afraid that this might not suit certain people in the steel corporation. They would rather keep the investment they have made in Wales or England.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Does the noble Earl recognise that if this protection were given to Scotland it would have to be given to Wales and perhaps to parts of England; or does he think it can be separated.
The Earl of Perth: I think that it should apply to Scotland. We know of the enormous investment made in Wales by the steel corporation recently and the limited investment made in Scotland. However, if somebody wanted to introduce a similar amendment for Wales, I would have no objection.
Perhaps the wording of the amendment as it stands is not satisfactory. In that respect I am ready to consider something else or to ask the Government to consider something else. However, to get a flat no is not good enough. I beg the Government to consider what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said. I ask them to think again, to consider what has been said today and see whether there is not some way in which we can achieve the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before the noble Earl decides what he wants to do with the amendment, perhaps I may say that he kindly wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently to inform him that he would be raising this matter in Committee. I should like to quote from the letter which he will be receiving and which has now been signed. In respect of the powers that he asks should be given to the Secretary of State, the letter says:
"This will be a very wide-ranging control and would call for a justification based on an overriding requirement which I find difficult to conceive".
I fully appreciate the sentiment behind the noble Earl's amendment, as does anyone who lives in Scotland. Where we differ is over the way forward. Having been involved in business I understand that the best place to decide these matters is in the market place. We need customers and we have customers. The British Steel Corporation is now in a much stronger position than it was in 1979. Ravenscraig and its satellites in that complex are important to Scotland. I am certain that the assurances given by the British Steel Corporation would be welcomed with open arms by many people in industry today.
Lord Hughes: What the Minister has just said raises an interesting point. He quoted a small part of a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which apparently the noble Earl has not yet received, as justification for the Secretary of State's position. Even the little part the Minister quoted said that this was a wide-ranging power which the Secretary of State did not feel was acceptable, or words to that effect. That could be interpreted as meaning that if the power was not as
534
wide as that a different view might be brought to the matter. We cannot form an opinion of what the Secretary of State said in this letter from one sentence extracted from it.
From past experience I can say that it would be totally unheard of for a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland to a Member of this Chamber to consist of only one sentence. One would be lucky if it were contained even in one page. I ask that after the noble Earl receives the letter the Secretary of State should publish it or that the noble Earl should be free to publish it. That might put a different complexion on what we would want to do at the next stage; although we may divide, as the Minister remains adamant that he will not accept the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I can conceive of where a one-sentence letter might be sent, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asks whether the letter will be available. I am happy to agree that it should be placed in the Library.
Lord Hughes: The Minister says that he can conceive of a one-sentence letter coming out of the Scottish Office. I suggest that that is on the same parallel as the possibility raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, of Mr. Benn being the next Prime Minister.
The Earl of Perth: I am very upset to learn that a letter written to me has been quoted in this debate before I received it. That is an extraordinary thing to happen. I do not understand it. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has not answered my question. Does the assurance given by the British Steel Corporation have any legal standing with the successor company? I suspect that the answer is "No". Therefore, we do not have to think about that matter.
I beg the noble Lord, having heard what has been said from many sides of the Chamber, to think again. He has not relieved my worries and the haunting dreams I have about what happened at Cupar with the British Sugar Corporation. Nothing has been said about that matter and yet the situation is almost exactly the same. I ask the noble Lord to think again. I deeply resent the fact that I have not had the letter which has been quoted.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I may deal with the matter of the letter. The noble Earl will receive the letter today. However, as regards the content, I wish to underpin the point I made regarding the serious implications which would lie behind the acceptance of the amendment by the Government. For that reason, I cannot accept it. So far as the statement of December is concerned and the terms which British Steel Coporation has published, it is absolutely clear to me and, I have no doubt, to everyone else, that the terms of that statement will, when the prospectus comes to be drawn up for the issue of shares, be made known to prospective shareholders.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Does the Minister accept that with previous privatisations, when there has been a commitment on the part of the official

535
opposition to renationalise, that has been contained in the prospectus which has been issued to shareholders? Does the Minister accept that that did not diminish the market response to the issue?
The Earl of Perth: I am greatly puzzled as to what I should do. I believe that I have been treated very discourteously. I say that advisedly. A letter has been quoted in this debate which I have not received. It is one of the major planks on which the refusal to consider the amendment is based. I protest about that matter.
Secondly, the noble Lord will not agree to take the issues which have been raised in our debate today and see whether something can be done to meet the worries expressed by so many in this Chamber. If he is unable to do either of those things, I shall have to divide the Committee.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 78; Not Contents 89.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Basnett, L.

Listowel, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyth, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Gallacher, L.

Scanlon, L.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Walston, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Allerton, L.

Beloff, L.

Arran, E.

Belstead, L.

536

Bessborough, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Luke, L.

Caccia, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marsh, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cathcart, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Elibank, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elles, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Prior, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Seebohm, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hood, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Trafford, L.

Ironside, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Joseph, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reduction and subsequent extinguishment of Corporation's public dividend capital]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 16, after ("direction") insert ("and shall be replaced by an equivalent amount in subordinated loan stock at the market rate of interest then prevailing").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 6 which is consequential. The purpose is to ensure that taxpayers' money which has been put into the corporation in hard times is returned to the taxpayer on a proper basis in good times. The write-down of public dividend capital has been presented as a book-keeping transaction. I do not accept that there is such a thing as a book-keeping transaction when it comes to writing off losses of any company or corporation. Book-keeping transactions relate to transactions which have no effect on cash. There is no doubt that the British Steel Corporation, in accumulating a deficit on its profit and loss account, has lost cash. The profit and loss account at the end of the day inevitably translates into a cash loss.
We have to pay attention to the way in which those cash losses have been funded over the years. If it were simply a question of turning public dividend capital into another form of capital—preference shares or whatever—I would accept that as a book-keeping transaction. I do not accept that writing off a cash injection which has been made over the years for the purpose of subvention of losses is a mere bookkeeping transaction. Somebody has paid cash for that subvention. It is of course the Exchequer; in other words the taxpayer. If the taxpayer had not done so the corporation would have been in a position certainly of technical insolvency and probably of total insolvency.
The amendment I propose does not in any way diminish the capital resources of the corporation or the successor company. As the Committee will be perfectly well aware, in normal analytical terms—and I talk about financial analysis—subordinated loan stock forms part of the capital of the company. To replace public dividend capital by a subordinated loan stock would not diminish the capital resources of the successor corporation in the terms of financial analysis.
Whether it is replaced by subordinated loan stock, a preferred share or some other form of subordinated capital is inconsequential. I think it has to be redeemable in some form or other. Unless there is a redemption the cash that has been put into the corporation to take it through the hard years and bring it to its present successful position will have been lost to the taxpayer.
The amendment gives me an opportunity to ask the Government to elucidate some of the figures that might be in play. It is difficult to interpret the British Steel Corporation accounts which are rather obscure. It appears from the accounts that a deficit of just over £1 billion accumulated in the profit and loss account. That is a negative profit and loss reserve. It is unclear how much of the public dividend capital subscribed to the corporation which appears in the accounts simply as capital has been the result of the Exchequer funding the BSC losses. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the matter.
The main aim of the amendments is that there should be a mechanism for repaying to the taxpayer the money that the taxpayer has put into the corporation, which has now become successful. The reason I specify in the amendment that the loan stock—if it is to be loan stock—should be at the market rate then prevailing is because I do not wish to fall foul of any Community regulation which says that we should not support any privatisation by subsidy. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: It may be of assistance to the Committee if I outline the purpose of Clause 2 before turning to the amendments themselves. Subsection (1) of the clause empowers the Secretary of State to reduce the capital of the corporation by an amount that he may direct, and Subsection (3) subsequently extinguishes the remaining capital immediately before the appointed day. The successor company will then issue securities to the Secretary of State under Clause 3.
538
An important point to bear in mind when discussing the corporation's capital is that it consists of public dividend capital. It is not a debt repayable to the Government. A dividend is payable on it in the same way that a dividend is payable on ordinary share capital. In practice, no dividend has been paid since 1975. As can be seen from the corporation's last report and accounts, at the end of March last year the corporation had assets of approximately £3 billion and capital of approximately £4 billion. The balance was represented by an accumulated deficit on the profit and loss account of approximately £1 billion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt. Can the Minister clarify whether he is talking of net assets when he refers to assets?
Lord Beaverbroook: Yes, I am talking about net assets which in a company in the private sector would be those assets attributable to the ordinary shareholders. The deficit of £1 billion represents past trading losses so far not written off by previous capital reductions. It is not a debt but a historical record.
It is not sensible to transfer a company to the private sector which has capital unrepresented by assets. The company would be prevented from paying dividends to its shareholders. A Companies Act company in such a situation could apply to the court under the Companies Act for a reduction in its capital in order to write off an equal amount of realised losses and so bring its capital back into line with the assets. That route is not open to the corporation as a nationalised company. We are therefore providing for it in the Bill.
As a consequence of the capital reduction, the accumulated deficit on the profit and loss account will be eliminated. That will allow the successor company to pay dividends and ensure that it can be registered as a public limited company. I should stress that the capital reduction exercise is an accounting and not a cash transaction and corresponds fully with the provisions of the Companies Act 1985. There is no question of debts being written off, because we are not talking about debts at any stage in the process. We are concerned with money that has been used to fund past losses and rationalisation. The taxpayer has injected some £5·2 billion into BSC since 1979. At present some £3·9 billion remains on the balance-sheet as public capital. It is simply a matter of readjusting the accounts to represent better the current situation.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have the effect of preventing the capital reduction by replacing the amount reduced with an equivalent amount of debt. It is sensible for the capital reduction to take place for the reasons that I have given. Moreover, it would not be appropriate to impose a liability on the successor company in the form of a debt where none had previously existed. It does not make sense to replace with a debt capital which is not represented by assets.
I fully recognise that the noble Lord is proposing that the public dividend capital that has been injected, but would not in future be represented by ordinary shares, should be represented by

539
subordinated long-term loan stock or preference stock or by some other instrument which is perhaps not repayable or not convertible for quite a number of years. Even so, the addition of such a liability to the balance sheet is likely to result in potential investors placing a lower value on the company than they otherwise would do. The taxpayer would therefore suffer from a reduction in the proceeds arising from privatisation. It is for such reasons that companies contemplating flotations or new issues seek not to have long-term liabilities of that kind on their balance sheets.
I should just like to emphasise that I feel that taxpayers' money is not being wasted. In the past money was given to BSC, either to help it meet trading losses or to meet the costs of restructuring. There was never any intention, or any hope, that all the money would be repaid. As I said, it was given not in the form of loans but of dividend bearing capital. Let us suppose that BSC remained in the public sector. The only return to the taxpayer would be in the form of the annual dividend. As I said, no such dividend has been paid since 1975, and even if a large and regular dividend were paid from now on, it would take many years to amount to as much as might be raised from the privatisation. Taxpayers are going to get a better return on their money from privatising British Steel than they could have expected had BSC remained in the public sector.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, with which on the whole I disagree. The idea that in some way funding losses is a "nothing" transaction—one puts in money and that is the end of it; nothing happens and one does not get it back—is not one that I believe would appeal to anybody who has ever operated in the commercial sector. If one funds a corporation's losses one expects to get back one's money, and with some return.
So far as concerns write-down, I fully accept that companies write down their capital. They are perfectly entitled to do so under the Companies Act. I am simply saying that instead of writing off the negative profit and loss reserve, at least part of whatever is required to balance the capital with the net assets on the other side of the balance—and I rely on the noble Lord for the figures he has given—should be reflected in some form of instrument which would allow the Exchequer or the taxpayer to regain the funds that he has put in to fund the losses over the years.
As regards the noble Lord's point that companies going to flotation try to rid themselves of long-term debt—I think that that was the expression he used or perhaps he said to avoid long-term debt—I have to say that that has simply not been my experience and I do not believe that it has been the experience of any Members of this Committee.
Lord Beaverbrook: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I think that I ought to explain further the point that I was making, which is that companies which are going for flotation tend to try to rid themselves of complicated possible future liabilities of that nature that might reflect an aspiration of a previous owner of the company. For instance, there
540
might be a private sector company which has changed hands and the new owner wishes to float it but finds a situation in which the previous owner may have retained some sort of complex instrument that gives him special rights after, say, performance criteria are met. Arrangements of that kind are very often extinguished before the company is floated, the intention being to try to simplify the capital structure so that anyone buying shares on the flotation can know what he is in fact receiving.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wholly accept the point about simplifying the capital structure but with great respect to the noble Lord that is not what he said. He said that companies would try to get rid of or eliminate long-term debt. I understand that anybody who goes to market will wish to get rid of complicated transactions in which a former owner has a residual liability. However, subordinated loan stock in the name of the Secretary of State, which is marketable and disposable, is not at all a complicated issue. It is understood and dealt with in the market every day of the week. One example of that was the £2.5 billion of debentures with which the Secretary of State loaded the British Gas Corporation when it was privatised out of the blue. That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I had a small quarrel with the Government on that issue earlier; nevertheless they did it. They simply placed £2.5 billion of debentures on the balance sheet. They are still there; they carry interest and no doubt the Government will have them redeemed. I do not see that that is a very serious argument.
I can conceive a capital structure for BSC, which at the moment—as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will tell us since I see that he is avidly reading the annual report—is very undergeared. The noble Lord will see that once the public dividend capital is written down there will be about £100 million of debt. I regard a company in the steel industry (like the British Steel Corporation) which has £3 billion of assets and £100 million of long-term debt as a very undergeared company. I can see no reason at all why there should not be a more proper gearing structure. I am using only the same arguments as the Government used in the case of British Gas.
I do not wish to press this matter because I believe that it is something on which the Government will wish to reflect. I do not think that the arguments deduced by the noble Lord, to which I have listened with care, have any logic. I believe that the taxpayer should have some serious return. I do not believe that the imposition of the type of security that I have mentioned will lower the market worth of BSC on flotation, because anybody who intends to buy a steel company, be it Hirsh or any other steel company in Europe or the United States, will know that these are highly geared operations. I do not believe that it will lower the value. Nevertheless, having made those observations and assuring the noble Lord that I shall read carefully what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Initial Government holding in the successor company]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("securities") and insert ("ordinary shares").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 9. These amendments are essentially probing amendments.
The wording of the Bill tracks the wording that appears in the British Gas Act. The object of my amendment is to find out from the Government exactly what is meant by "securities". A moment ago I referred to the fact that in the case of British Gas, at the last moment, indeed while the Bill was in this Chamber having passed through another place, the Government announced that there would be £2·5 billion of debentures (I think that that was the figure) on the British Gas balance sheet, which would be redeemed and which would provide further opportunities for revenue for the Exchequer from privatisation. The question which lies behind this amendment is: what securities have the Government in mind?
The amendment simply states in a very simple manner an initial reaction that securities should be ordinary shares. As the sole owners, the Government are perfectly entitled to award themselves as many ordinary shares as they like. It is a question of splitting a £10 share into £5, £1 or 50p shares. This does not seem to me to be a matter of consequence. Nevertheless, if there are other forms of securities that the Secretary of State feels he may wish to award himself the Committee has a right to know what those are. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 together.
Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State will create the initial government holding in the successor company by directing it to issue securities to him at such times and on such terms as he wishes. He will then sell those securities in a flotation of the successor company.
The term "securities" is defined under Clause 15(1) of the Bill. That definition follows the precedent of other privatisation Acts, and Members of the Committee will see that it goes wider than shares and includes, for example, debentures and bonds. It is most likely that, as in previous privatisations, the large majority of the securities issued to the Secretary of State will be in the form of ordinary shares. The Government, however, wish to retain the option of holding securities other than shares. The use of other types of security might assist in the process of selling a controlling stake in the company to the public and therefore might increase the return to the taxpayer. That is a matter that the Government naturally would not wish to rule out at this stage.
I must stress that no decisions have yet been taken on the types and relative amounts of securities to be
542
issued to the Secretary of State. That will be decided nearer the time of the flotation. While it is likely that ordinary shares will form the bulk of the securities, it is prudent at this stage not to foreclose any options. These amendments would impose a constraint on the Government's freedom of action.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of British Gas and whether the Government might wish to take cash out of British Steel prior to privatisation by using some form of debenture; for example, a short-term debenture. Decisions on changes to the capital structure of British Steel in preparation for privatisation have yet to be taken. It would be premature to give any indications as to what the outcome would be. We have not yet seen the corporation's audited accounts for its last financial year. Clearly those are of considerable importance to the capital structure decisions. I can, however, assure Members of the Committee that it is not our intention to take any steps that would damage the corporation's business or significantly impair its finances. That would not be in anyone's interests.
I hope that I have been able to explain to the noble Lord what we have in mind at this stage. No doubt he will let me know if I have not.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We seem to be in a very difficult situation on this Bill. We do not have the articles of association of the successor company. We do not know what golden share provisions there will be. We do not know what the powers of shareholders, or the conduct of directors, will be, subject to the Companies Act. We do not know what the capital structure will be. We do not know what the Government have in mind in regard to imposing financial burdens on the company except in so far as the noble Lord gives us—I mean no disrespect—slightly platitudinous remarks about not wishing to burden the company over much; and we all accept that. In Committee today, after this Bill has gone through another place, we find ourselves lacking the main elements on which to conduct a reasoned debate.
The position is quite different from our experience when the Gas Bill was before us. The articles of association were then available; the proposed capital structure of the successor company was available; and the Government made an announcement and we had a debate on what securities the Government would award to themselves in the course of privatisation. These factors were available to the Committee. Today we have none of them. I do not see how we can have a reasoned debate.
At this stage of the Bill I do not intend to pursue this matter except to say to the noble Lord that I hope very much that before we come to Report stage he will have further information that he can communicate to us so that we can have more of a debate on this very important Bill than we are able to have at the moment in default of information coming from the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Government investment in securities of the successor company]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("acquire") and insert ("subscribe to").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13.
This is, again, a series of rather minor amendments to try to probe the Government's intentions. As I understand it, Clause 4 as drafted will allow the Secretary of State to acquire securities of the successor company. Assuming that the acquisition is not in conflict with Clause 6, to which we shall come later, the Secretary of State may acquire either shares or loan stock, or whatever. I am seeking to ensure that if the Secretary of State does so acquire, he does it in a manner which will strengthen the finances of the company. In other words, he should subscribe rather than simply acquire.
We shall come to the underlying thrust of my arguments when we discuss the question that Clause 6 stand part. We have to be quite clear in the distinction between a Secretary of State or the Government simply awarding themselves securities at any point in time, and strengthening the finances of a company which may have got into some problem as a result of cyclical movements in the steel industry.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 in Clause 7 address themselves to a slightly different though related point. The statutory reserve of the successor company at the moment can be used—except for a purpose directed by the Secretary of State—only in paying up unissued shares. It seems to me that the insertion of partly paid bonus shares—which could make a rights issue to strengthen the capital of the company rather than simply a bonus issue which does nothing for the capital of the company—could make it attractive in the future. It seems to me a reasonable way of ensuring that if this reserve is to be capitalised those bonus shares should not simply be dished out to existing shareholders but could be used in part as a fund-raising exercise.
The series of amendments that I am moving is designed to ensure that what happens in the future strengthens the capital base of the company rather than shuffles it about between the Secretary of State and the public.
Lord Beaverbrook: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13.
The first two of these amendments relate to subsection (1) of Clause 4. That subsection empowers the Government to acquire securities, or rights to subscribe for securities, in the successor company whether or not it is wholly owned by the Government. This is in contrast to the provisions of Clause 3 that we have just discussed, which operate only while the successor company is wholly owned by the Crown.
The main purpose of Clause 4 is to enable the Government, if they retain a shareholding in the successor company after privatisation, to maintain the size of that shareholding as a proportion of the
544
total share capital of the company. If, for example, the Government had decided to retain a 25 per cent. shareholding in British Steel plc—I must stress that this is purely hypothetical—and the privatised company some time later issued further shares as a rights issue to existing shareholders, the provisions of Clause 4 would enable the Government to take up their rights under the issue to ensure that their aggregate shareholding remained at 25 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise for my interjection, but this is just the point that I was making. The Government are subscribing—this is the thrust of my amendment—rather than acquiring on the market. I am all in favour of the Government subscribing to rights issues if they wish, but acquiring on the market is a rather different matter.
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, I believe that under a rights issue the Government would be subscribing for shares and, as the noble Lord said, they would not just be acquiring them in the market place because in circumstances of (shall we say?) grey skies for the corporation, the Government buying shares in the market would be of no benefit to the corporation, though it might benefit some of the shareholders who wish to sell.
The amendments to subsection (1) would have the effect of limiting the Government to subscribing for securities (or acquiring rights) from the successor company. The Government would be unable to acquire securities in other ways—for example, by buying them from shareholders. The present wording follows the precedent of earlier privatisation Acts. While it is perhaps unlikely in practice that the Government will wish to acquire securities other than from the company, it seems unnecessary and undesirable to restrict the ambit of the subsection in the way proposed.
The second pair of amendments relate to Clause 7(2). That subsection states that the statutory reserve may be applied by the successor company in paying up unissued shares of the company to be allotted to its members as fully paid bonus shares. The amendments would extend that application to include partly paid bonus shares. The statutory reserve is in part akin to a share premium account. One of the uses to which a share premium account may be applied, as specified in Section 130 of the Companies Act 1985, is the paying up of unissued shares to be allotted to members as fully paid bonus shares.
A company can only issue bonus shares to its current shareholders. After privatization—to the extent (if any) that the Secretary of State may be a shareholder—he may obtain bonus shares on the same basis as the other shareholders. I must emphasise that the company cannot generate new funds from the issue of fully paid bonus shares. Companies do not generally issue bonus shares to raise money. Bonus shares are issued free to shareholders out of capital reserves that represent assets that are already owned by shareholders. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, well knows, they are a means of rearranging the balance between a company's capital reserves and it share capital. Nor

545
could a company give money to its shareholders by this route. The value of its issued shares is diminished since the company's total value remains the same while the number of its shares has increased.
During the period before privatisation it is very unlikely that bonus shares will be issued as the Government have powers under Clause 3 to direct that shares shall be issued and Clause 7(1) provides that the amount of the statutory reserve would reflect any such directions.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In his reply to my Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, in words much better constructed than those which I used, he explained exactly the reason for the amendment; namely, that when issues of a rights nature are made—and if the Government wished to maintain their shareholding—the Government should be able to subscribe, and that is the proposal in my amendment. He said that it was most unlikely that the Government would wish to acquire shares on the market because that would not benefit anybody other than the selling shareholder in, I think he said, "grey times".
Lord Beaverbrook: Grey skies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is exactly the point that I was going to make, so there is no difference of opinion between myself and the noble Lord. All I am saying is that I consider it much better to put in the Bill exactly what the Government want to do (in other words, subscribe to shares or acquire rights to subscribe to shares) rather than have the generalised word "acquire" securities in the market. It seems to me that the noble Lord and I have no disagreement about this. He might have been moving my amendment. He was saying more or less exactly the same as I was saying.
In Amendment No. 12 I was trying to give the successor company some flexibility. I understand everything the noble Lord said about bonus shares. I know exactly how bonus shares are used and I know exactly what the effect is on the value of companies. I make only one point: when a company is successful and makes a bonus issue the market generally takes that as being a sign of greater and even further success and so the existing shares are marked up. Therefore if there is a one-for-one bonus issue the share price is not necessarily divided by half. However, that is a market phenomenon which I believe we all understand.
I was trying to give the successor company some flexibility. It is possible to have partly paid bonus shares on a rights basis. Let us say that our share on a normal rights basis would be at 100. We offer the share at 50. In other words, it is a part bonus, part rights subscription. That is a known phenomenon which is sometimes appreciated. By limiting it to fully paid bonus shares the Government are preventing the successor company from gaining a certain flexiblility in its means of raising finance which I wanted to give. Nevertheless I am sure that the Minister and his officials will look at what I am saying.
Lord Beaverbrook: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said. I do not believe that there is very much between us. He is quite right. I shall study carefully what he has said and see what our reaction is to that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful. Perhaps I may put it this way: just because words were used in previous privatisation measures that does not mean that they should necessarily be used in this Bill. It is always good to have a conversational debate such as this so that we can tease out what could be improved in legislation of a privatisation nature. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding].
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 6 brings us to the target investment limit for Government shareholding. I fully understand that there is a question of dogma involved in the clause—that the Government wish to prevent renationalisation of the successor corporation when it is sold on the market by this or any future government. That means of prevention is to ensure that for that to take place there would have to be primary legislation. I regard that as being a piece of dogma which we have to accept because the Government have a majority and have decided that that is the way things will be. But on Second Reading I mentioned that things often go wrong.
This afternoon the noble Lord has repeated many times that the British Steel Corporation is a successful industry and by implication—he certainly did not make a profit forecast: I should hate to accuse him of that—he felt that the steel corporation when privatised would go from strength to strength and all would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
In the wicked vale of tears in which we have to conduct our economic affairs things sometimes go wrong. Especially in the steel industry things have gone wrong, not just in the United Kingdom but in the United States of America, in Germany and all over the world at various times in various parts of the economic cycle. Steel is one of the great cyclical industries. It is an industry which provides intermediate material for so many products that when there is a downturn or even a projected downturn in the economy generally, it has an immediate effect on steel production. When that happens the stock market is no support at all. It is the worst moment to opt for a rights issue. The market is turning down and all the analysts are saying, "The steel company will have a bad year next year because we detect a softening in the market for white goods" or "Motor car sales are not as good as they might be".

547
In discussing this issue we seek to persuade the Government that there is some merit in leaving open the possibility of raising the target investment limit should the company which is to be privatised run into trouble. It seems quite wrong for the Government to impose on themselves a decreasing limit, as in this clause, without paying due attention to the fact that at some point in time none—of us knows when—it may be necessary for any government to step in and give support in the form of an equity capital injection to the successor company when floated on the market.
The experience of BP has shown that it is perfectly possible for any government, Labour or Conservative, to live with a shareholding of an indeterminate nature. By the word "indeterminate" I mean that there is no fixed statutory limit of the percentage of voting rights to which the shareholding must conform. BP is a classic example of a Labour government selling a part, a Conservative government selling a little more and another Conservative government selling a little more again. Apart from the last one, none of the sales caused a disturbance in the share price. Therefore it is perfectly possible for a government and the market to live with a shareholding which may fluctuate from time to time. That applies so long as the intentions are clearly spelt out but not necessarily in a statute.
Secondly—again BP is a good example—what happens when a government, by their target investment limit, decide that they must divest themselves of shares in, for example, British Steel plc, or whatever it is to be called, and between then and the time the Secretary of State fixes it by order, the market goes wrong? For example, the Secretary of State who may hold 25 per cent. of the shares makes an order stating that the holding will be 15 per cent. The order is taken on board by the market and then the Secretary of State says that within X months he will sell 10 per cent. of the company. What happens if there is a similar situation to the BP issue and that 10 per cent. lands in the hands of the quote investment office on underwriting supported at the last resort by the Bank of England? Everybody looks extremely silly. As always, we are trying to avoid the Government looking extremely silly.
I ask the noble Lord to look at the matter again to see whether, in the context of the market conditions which I have described, in the context of what has happened at BP apart from the last fiasco, and in the context of the steel industry that we have at the moment, this is a desirable clause.
Lord Beaverbrook: Clause 6 is well precedented in previous privatisation Acts, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is well aware. The clause provides investors with a necessary degree of assurance about the future status of the successor company. It prevents the Government from increasing their stake in the company, beyond the level they hold immediately after the flotation, without the express consent of Parliament. That is a necessary, if not an absolute, comfort to potential shareholders in the company.
We do not believe that it is necessary for the Government to retain the option of acquiring further
548
shares without constraint in the successor company. That would leave the company under a perpetual threat of renationalisation and would have a disruptive effect. It would also set the successor company apart from other private sector companies in that the Government would have a statutory power to purchase shares in it without the consent of the company. We wish to place the company on the same footing as other private sector companies with respect to its relations with government.
In that regard it would stand on all fours with any other company whereby a large or small shareholder is placing shares in the market. If the market conditions are such that the problems are posed, the company and its shareholders are in the same position as any other publicly quoted company.
I point out to the noble Lord that should the situation ever arise where BSC wanted the Government to buy its shares, the Government have the power to do so under the Industrial Development Act 1982, if they so wish. I imagine the noble Lord has in mind a situation where the company wished or needed to raise money in the market from its shareholders. If market conditions do not permit that to be possible the directors of the company must look elsewhere —
Lord Williams of Elvel: What would happen to the target investment limit at that point?
Lord Beaverbrook: Under Clause 6 the Industrial Development Act would override the target investment limit. It applies only in respect of the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Will the noble Lord explain how an Act of 1982 will override an Act of 1988? It appears to me unreal and contrary to constitutional theory.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am not sure that that is the case. There is no reason why the Industrial Development Act 1982 should not continue to apply in this instance. It applies to every other company in the private sector. Why should it not apply to this company?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Surely the Minister must accept that if an Act is passed in 1988 preventing British Steel plc, or whatever it is called, from doing certain things, it does not matter what an Act of 1982 or 1882 states can be done by any other company. If British Steel plc cannot do it and the Government cannot do it under this Act, it does not matter whether BP or anyone else can do it.
Lord Beaverbrook: I understand that the important point is that powers under the Industrial Development Act can be exercised only with the consent of the company. Therefore the Government could not—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene. Clause 6 spells out a target investment limit. I am glad to see that the carrier pigeon has arrived. If, through the Industrial Development Act, the Government break the target investment limit and are in violation of Clause 6, what happens then?
Lord Beaverbrook: Clause 6(1) makes it clear that the target limit applies only to provisions in this Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In other words, the Industrial Development Act overrides this Act.
Lord Beaverbrook: I believe that what I have said should make matters clear to the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the light of the new constitutional theory that a 1982 Act overrides a 1988 Act, perhaps the Minister will explain matters in a little more detail. I should like to know more.
Lord Beaverbrook: I shall be delighted to explain the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Morton. Perhaps he will agree that I should do so in writing.
Clause 6 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 7 [Financial structure of the successor company]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved].
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("shares") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15, which is consequential. Amendment No. 14 is a probing amendment. It is designed to find out exactly how this proposed application in writing off the unrealised losses of a company arising from the revaluation of any fixed assets will actually work and to ask for the Government's comments on Section 263 (1) of the Companies Act 1985, which, as I understand it, is hardly consistent with the way in which this subsection is phrased.
I take it, though I may be wrong, that revaluation means upwards or downwards. Therefore I suppose, subject to correction by the noble Lord, that this revaluation which we are discussing in Clause 7(2)(a) could result in losses. However, I do not quite see on revaluation, when one has a new value in the balance sheet, how those are unrealised losses. After all, a revaluation which is brought into the account throws up a paper loss or a paper gain. If paper loss or paper gain is the definition of "unrealised" I understand it though it seems an odd expression. Therefore the amendment is designed to elicit an explanation from the noble Lord on the meaning of that rather than an attempt to change the clause itself.
Lord Beaverbrook: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain the statutory reserve briefly in general terms before dealing with those provisions of Clause 7 that these amendments would delete. It is normal for a private sector company's balance sheet to contain a mix of capital and reserves. Clause 7 provides for the creation of a statutory reserve that will be the balancing item between the nominal value of the securities issued to the Secretary of State under Clause 3 and the amount of the public dividend capital extinguished under subsection (3) of Clause 2.
550
The nominal value of the securities will necessarily be less than the capital extinguished. This is because a company cannot issue shares at a discount, and therefore in order to have the ability to raise new capital at any future time the market price of its shares needs to exceed their nominal value. It is common practice in these circumstances for the sale price of shares to be set at a level significantly higher than their nominal value. The reserve partly reflects this difference, therefore being similar in part to a share premium account. But it is essentially required in order to ensure that the balance sheet balances.
The amendments would delete the provisions in Clause 7 that allow the Secretary of State to direct that the statutory reserve may be applied to some extent in writing off unrealised losses arising from a revaluation of the successor company's fixed assets, and as a revenue reserve.
It has not yet been decided whether any revaluation will be undertaken. But if it is, as the Government explained when this clause was debated in another place, it is not expected that there will be any material change to the basis on which British Steel's fixed assets are recorded, and it is therefore unlikely that the revaluation would have any material effect on its total asset values. Any revaluation will have to be conducted by professional valuers and assess the value of all the company's fixed assets, to conform with Section 275 of the Companies Act 1985, if it is to lead to an unrealised loss that can subsequently be written off against the statutory reserve. I can assure the Committee that it is not the Government's intention to make large and unjustified write-offs under this provision, as has been alleged. Any reduction in asset values is likely to be relatively small and will be fully in accordance with normal accounting procedures.
It is normal for private sector companies to have both distributable (revenue) and undistributable (capital) reserves. Any revenue reserve authorised under this clause will do no more than reflect the profits the corporation has earned in recent years, with the result that the successor company's balance sheet is a more accurate depiction of the present position of the business. I must stress that the creation of reserves has no effect on the cash position of the company; the company receives no money from the Government. It is simply a matter of bringing the historical financial position, as shown in the balance sheet, up to date.
British Steel is now profitable and would have been able to credit its profit to a revenue reserve had it been able to apply to the court before now—as a private sector company certainly would have done—to reduce its capital, thereby eliminating its accumulated realised losses. BSC has not been able to do this because of its status as a public corporation. Its recent profits have therefore been set off against its accumulated realised losses.
It is important to understand that a revenue reserve is not cash. The successor company will only be able to make a distribution—that is, pay a dividend—out of cash arising from realised retained profits. There can be no question of the company in some way paying dividends out of capital; that would be illegal.

551
I must also state that these provisions lead to no loss of taxpayers' money. It is wrong to assume that BSC can be valued solely in relation to the numbers shown in its balance sheet. A company's worth is a matter not of balance sheet arithmetic but of investors' perception of its performance and prospects.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In saying that I am not going to move Amendment No. 16, which comes next, I am in effect saying that I should like to read what the noble Lord said about Clause 7, whch is complex and which I believe deserves further study. I shall do that before the next stage. I am not entirely happy on first hearing with the explanation of the noble Lord but I shall reserve my position and Clause 7 will be the object of attention on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved].
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Consequential amendments, repeals and transitional provisions]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved].
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions supplementary to s.1.]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first schedule to the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Schedule 1 deals with the transitional provisions as to the vesting of property rights and liabilities of the corporation. Clearly I am not going to oppose the Question that Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill. The object of my giving notice of wishing to speak to Schedule 1 concerns the pension fund of the British Steel Corporation and the rights of employees under that pension fund.
I have tabled Amendment No. 18, which will deal with the rights of the employees, but I want to be quite satisfied that Schedule 1 covers the possibility of what I call pension fund stripping. Perhaps I may enlighten Members of the Committee who do not understand the expression "pension fund stripping"
What happens when a company acquires another company, when a company goes public or changes status, or when a company finds that its pension fund is in some way in surplus on an actuarial valuation of the pension fund is that either it suspends payments into the pension fund or else, in some extreme circumstances, although the tax benefits of this have now been stopped, it can strip the pension fund of its cash. I hope that the Minister can give the Committee sufficient assurance that this will not happen under the company when privatised and when the rights and obligations of pensioners and employees are transferred in the vesting process to the corporation.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord speaks specifically about pensions and other arrangements
552
that may affect the workforce of the corporation. Indeed, the noble Lord has a separate amendment tabled which we will be discussing soon on the subject of pensions. I thought that he would bring up the matter of pension fund stripping, as he described it, on that amendment. However, perhaps I may deal with it now.
I can assure the Committee that the clear intention of Schedule 1 is that as far as possible nothing is changed as a result of vesting. As paragraph 1 of the schedule makes clear, the Government's intention is that all present agreements are taken on unchanged by the successor company. Paragraph 3 of the schedule sets out, for the avoidance of doubt, that general approach as it applies to contracts of employment and the payment of pensions.
I can make clear that there is no cause for concern for the pension fund at present. Independent actuaries have surveyed the scheme's finances and they are satisfied that there is no need to recommend change. Clearly, no indefinite guarantee can be given about any pension scheme, whether in the private or the public sector, as all such schemes depend in part on the success of their investments. However, there is no case for change at present. I understand that there is no vast surplus in the pension fund.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for making that important statement.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be the second schedule to the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: This schedule deals with repeals and I take the opportunity of raising the matter of the Iron and Steel Act 1982. I am advised that that Act contains certain provisions for consultation with employees on a regular basis. The trade unions involved in the industry are anxious that with the repeal of the appropriate section of the Iron and Steel Act the process of consultation should not be diminished. I very much hope to have from the Minister a statement similar to the one he has given on pension fund stripping that the successor corporation intends—obviously there can be no guarantees, and I understand that—to continue the same active consultation with employees as the British Steel Corporation.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am not sure that I am able to give the noble Lord quite the guarantee that he seeks but I can say that we do not wish to have the privatised British Steel Corporation dictated to by powers such as those under the Iron and Steel Act. As I have said, we wish the corporation to be on the same basis as other private sector companies.
We are privatising the corporation in order to move it from the sphere of government control. We do not accept that there will be occasions when the national interest requires the Government to direct the successor company in its activities. The national interest will be best served by British Steel being successful in the private sector. I believe it is more

553
likely to be successful if left alone to take its own commercial decisions. I also believe that British Steel's industrial relations will be the key to its success in the private sector.
I hope and expect that the management of British Steel will carry on the excellent relations that it has now with the workforce. It would be extremely unfortunate if those relations were tampered with. I am sure that the management of British Steel will have no plans to tamper with such arrangements and the excellent relationship that it has.
However, it would not be right for British Steel to have its industrial relations policy dictated by statute; so it is necessary, we believe, to repeal that part of the Iron and Steel Act. I repeat: I am sure that the mangement is fully aware of what is necessary for good industrial relations. I am sure that British Steel plc, will, under Clause 1 and Schedule 1, inherit all the existing agreements and arrangements that the corporation has with its workforce. I am sure it will continue to consult the workforce on such issues as would any other good employer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The last part of his reply was considerably more encouraging than was the first part. I will therefore take the last part as being the true version of the Government's commission, and we are grateful for that.
Of course, in speaking to Schedule 2 stand part I had no intention of voting against the schedule. I felt that this was an opportunity to discuss the question of consultation within the successor corporation. I am glad that we have received some assurance on that point.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 40, after ("scheme") insert ("with undiminished benefits").
The noble Lord said: As the Minister pointed out, this schedule deals with pensions and compensation payments. There is a pension scheme in place and the trade unions involved in the industry have expressed an understanding that there can be no guarantee of future pension levels. However, I felt it worth having a discussion with a view to ensuring that, though there cannot be an absolute guarantee, nevertheless it was understood that there might be some sort of undertaking that pensions would not be diminished after privatisation. Indeed, I very much hope that pensions will be improved.
There was an exchange in the other place on this matter and the Under-Secretary of State for Industry said that the unions with whom the matter had been discussed do not necessarily believe that an absolute guarantee is needed. That is partially true, but it is perhaps somewhat misleading. The unions would welcome a guarantee that there will be no diminution in the pension entitlements, though they would not
554
wish necessarily for a guarantee that pensions could be improved. I ask the Minister to respond to that. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this amendment. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3, in conjunction with the vesting provisions of Clause 1 and Schedule 1, ensures continuity in respect of the corporation's pension scheme. That scheme, in common with the corporation's other property, rights and liabilities will vest unchanged in the successor company.
As the noble Lord knows, in debates in another place the Government stated that the corporation was reviewing its pension scheme. It has now completed that review and I can tell the Committee that the review has made clear that there is no reason why the pension scheme should not continue as at present. It has therefore been decided that it will remain unchanged when British Steel joins the private sector. Pensions will continue to be provided on exactly the same terms as at present, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the existing trust deed. I think that this decision meets the concern of the noble Lord that the benefits of the scheme would not be diminished.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that very satisfactory response. I will read carefully what he said and take advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill
6.50 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: 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 Nugent of Guildford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS Cox in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Compulsory wearing of rear seat belts by children]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) "Reasonable excuse" shall be defined to include the fact that—

(a) the child was in a recumbent position for the purposes of sleep; or

(b) the child had disconnected its own seat belt; or

(c) the child was being held in the arms of an adult.").

The noble Lord said: We have heard a fair amount about the arrangements which it is proposed will be made by way of regulations if this Bill is carried into law. To some of us the scope of these regulations

555
seems very wide if not absolutely and totally open-ended. It seems to some Members of the Committee that there may be a desirable purpose in trying to insert into the Bill some definitions of the phrase "reasonable excuse" in subsection (1) of this clause. In conjunction with the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Cobbold, I have tabled a trio of possible definitions of "reasonable excuse" which might be inserted in the Bill to make it a little more clearly defined than as the Bill now stands. They are to be regarded as the extenuating reasons why children travelling in the back of a car might not at any given moment be wearing seat belts.
In due course we shall come to a later amendment of a more philosophical nature. These propositions are essentially practical suggestions of ways in which it might be reasonable to define what is represented by a "reasonable excuse". The first is that a child is asleep in the back of a car. Noble Lords who have travelled with small children over the years when they are young will agree that it is often a matter of great relief when the children are asleep in the back of a car. I remember extremely well when my own children were small—the older two in particular—that the moment they dropped off to sleep was a moment of enormous relief because they spent most of the rest of the time in the car in furious dispute with each other.
In practice, I submit to the Committee that it is likely to prove very difficult for parents who have to cope with exhausted children in the back of a car, to ensure that they go to sleep with seat belts attached. The children may be lying prone on the seat. In any case it must be questionable how much value the attachment of a seat belt would be to children in that position. Here again, we are talking essentially about practicalities. It is not an unreasonable practical proposition to suggest that the parent of a child who is apparently asleep cannot be held under those circumstances to be responsible within the law if a seat belt is not attached.
The second issue is one which I believe has been touched upon in another place. Children are restless and they are disinclined to take kindly to restraint, in particular physical restraint. I believe it is only common sense to ensure that where a parent, guardian or driver of a car can establish that the child had disconnected its own seat belt, that must be a reasonable excuse for the fact that the seat belt was not attached and in operation. If the driver of a car is to be under an obligation to turn around every minute or two in order to make sure that a child has not detached its own seat belt, I suggest that the hazards to the driver and passengers alike would be very much greater than the hazard that would arise when the child does not have a seat belt attached.
The third proposition is perhaps more debatable; namely, that the child is being held in the arms of an adult. I understand, and I have read the evidence which has been produced, about the hazard which may arise to the child in an accident where it is being held in the arms of an adult. We must have some regard to practicalities. An extremely restless, small child may be very upset and may require the comfort and reassurance of the mother's arms. It does not seem to be either practical or reasonable to suggest
556
that if the mother is holding the child in her arms for what may appear to the parents to be good and sufficient reasons, this in itself shall lay the parent open to the allegation that an offence had been committed.
Throughout the discussions on this measure one feels—if I may venture to say so to my noble friend—a certain lack of reality in the understanding of the nature of the responsibilities of parents in a car and the way in which they fulfill those responsibilities in the real world. This is a modest amendment which might make greater sense than what my noble friend is seeking to do with the clause as it stands at present. I beg to move.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 7:
Line 5, at end insert ("; or
(d) the child was—

(i) under four feet in height; and

(ii) being driven in circumstances where no suitable purpose-designed child restraining device was available.")

The noble Lord said: It goes without saying that I support Amendment No. 6 to which I have added my name. However, I prefer to provide the additional safeguards contained in my Amendment No. 7. In 1980 the Department of Transport produced a draft document which said:
"People under five feet in height, including children, may be unable to wear a seat belt without discomfort because the diagonal strap lies too high on the body".
Precisely the same point was made in a Second Reading speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, from the SLD Benches. When one considers human beings who are substantially shorter than five feet, one is talking not merely about discomfort; one is talking literally about danger to life and limb.
As long ago as 1967, a medical journal described at least two cases of decapitation by seat belts; undoubtedly, the numbers must have risen over the last 21 years. I have the medical journal in question with me. If any Member of the Committee does not believe me, I hasten to say that the photographs are happily in black and white and not in colour.
The Rutherford Report for the DHSS in 1967 showed a considerable rise in injuries to the heart and to the sternum in consequence of seat-belt wearing, although admittedly injuries overall were reduced. Where purpose-built child restraints are available the danger of injuries is very much less than if ordinary seat belts are used. However, there are many occasions—one of the children being met from school or a party, or who may be ill and has to be run to the doctor or dentist—when purpose designed child retraints cannot be used.
I am no expert on unarmed combat, but I have always understood that one of the most dangerous karate blows is a blow to the throat which can paralyse or even kill by virtue of its impact upon the major arteries and the central nervous system. The danger to a child's throat does not only arise in the circumstances of a collision. Even a sudden stop caused by hard braking when a cat or a dog runs into the road could be dangerous to the neck or throat of a child. As a most distinguished member of the Conservative Party in another place pointed out on

557
13th May: "to leave matters as they are in this Bill would be manifestly a danger for small children". The height that I propose of 4 feet may not be exactly right. Perhaps 3 feet 9 inches or 4 feet 3 inches would be preferable. It is the principle that requires to be established. I beg to move.
Lord Sherfield: I rise to oppose these amendments. They seem to me extremely complicated and very difficult to administer. This is the sort of thing which ought to be left to the good sense of the police and the magistracy. Having said that, I align myself with what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said last week in Committee; namely, that I fully support the Bill but that I do not propose to spend time intervening in the argument.
Lord Cobbold: I support the amendment. It is clear from the debates we have had on the Bill that there is genuine confusion in the minds of its supporters as to how it will operate in practice. We are left with a difference of opinion between, on the one hand, those who favour rushing the primary legislation through and sorting out the manifest difficulties of its implementations by subsequent and as yet unspecified regulations, and, on the other, those who believe that clearer directions as to its implementation should be written on to the face of the Bill.
I believe that Amendment No. 6 is a genuine and helpful attempt to bridge the gap by adding to the Bill a non-exclusive definition of the phrase, "reasonable excuse". Parents and other law-abiding citizens will be given a clear indication of what is considered reasonable in dealing with the practical situations that are part of everyday life. Giving some definition to the phrase "reasonable excuse" will not undermine the principal purpose of the Bill. It will not stand in the way of those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, by his submission to us last week, feel the need to use the threat of the law to reinforce their parental authority. I must say that I question whether the reinforcement of parental authority should be a primary purpose of law-making.
Incidentally, the spectre of the fierce policeman who will come and get you if you are naughty is in sharp contrast to the efforts of the Minister's colleagues who are trying to promote a softer image of the police, particularly in the eyes of children. I have here a colouring document for children issued by the constabulary in my county under which is written in large letters, "A policeman is your friend".
Amendment No. 6 has, as has been pointed out, three paragraphs to which others could be added covering the most common of the circumstances which would cause genuine problems to parents. Paragraph (a) deals with a point I raised on Second Reading of children lying down to sleep on the back seat or on the flat surface created by folding forward the rear seat of an estate car or a hatchback. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has said, when children go to sleep, there is obvious evident relief, and the journey may proceed in relative peace.
Paragraph (b) deals with the difficult circumstances of a child that undoes its own seat belt
558
while the car is in motion. Clearly, it is vitally important that children's seat belts should be easy to undo to enable them to be quickly extricated in the event of accident. It is therefore inevitable that children themselves will undo them. If the driver is then forced to stop or, worse still, to look over his or her shoulder, the consequences could be very dire indeed, as has already been pointed out.
Paragraph (c) deals with the circumstances of restless children who might be better contained by being held in the arms of a parent; but it also deals with the circumstances of young babies held in their mothers' arms, either for the purpose of comfort or sleep, or, on long journeys, for breast or bottle feeding. The paragraph also covers perhaps the most ridiculous of all the anomalies raised by the Bill; namely, the circumstances of parents with two young children who want to take the grandparents for a Sunday afternoon outing in the family car. The inference of the Bill, as I see it, is that this would only be legal if the grandparents were to sit on the laps of the strapped-in children. I ask your Lordships to consider the Giles cartoon family and the risks to which Grandma in those circumstances would be exposed.
I believe that the amendment bridges the gap between the two points of view that have been expressed and that it warrants the support of the proposers of the Bill and of the Government. It will improve the Bill and will be welcomed by all law-abiding parents and guardians.
Lord Kilbracken: I generally welcome the thinking behind the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne. However, I should like to make one or two remarks about the wording. First, in paragraph (a) I do not know why we have to say that,
"the child was in a recumbent position for the purposes of sleep".
It reminds me of the line from Oscar Wilde, "Arise, sir, from that semi-recumbent position". I do not know why we cannot just say that the child was asleep. Paragraph (b) seems to raise some rather unfortunate possibilities.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I am sure that the amendments are deeply defective in wording and everything else, but I should point out that the child might be asleep sitting up in which case it might logically be wearing a seat belt. The problem arises when the child is lying down. That is the reason for the insertion of the words, "in a recumbent position".
Lord Kilbracken: I quite see the point raised by the noble Lord. Perhaps the details could be given further thought. The wording refers to the child who has disconnected its own seat belt. Incidentally, I think it should be "his" seat belt because the child is not neuter. The usual well-worn cliché is that the male embraces the female and that the word "he" includes the word "she" whatever the feminists may have to say about it. However, if that wording goes into the Act it will mean that when little Tommy says, "Oh, Daddy, I don't want to wear my seat belt", Daddy can say, "Oh, that's all right darling, I will

559
attach it and as soon as I am sitting in my seat you can detach it and then we will be perfectly inside the law".
Paragraph (c) seems to be completely essential. If a mother is sitting for safety in the back seat with a young baby of nine months, three months or even a week old, as I understand it the law will be broken if the mother has the baby in her arms or indeed if she is breastfeeding the baby. So far as I am aware, you cannot put a baby under six months old into a seat belt. Indeed, I certainly would not like to do so.
However, I should like to refer briefly to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. In the amendment it states that a seat belt need not be used if a child is,
"under four feet in height".
I wonder just how practical that is. I also wonder how many parents know how tall their children are. I know that my little boy, who is 6½ years of age, reached the height of one metre some six months ago. I dare say that he has now reached a height of 125 centimetres; but of course I have not measured him since that time and therefore I cannot say. Perhaps the amendment should be worded in centimetres. Nevertheless, I feel it would be advisable, even though the height of each person varies, to put an age rather than a height in the legislation.
Lord Underhill: I am most surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, while moving the amendment should say that we must have regard to practicalities and that there is a lack of reality to the real world in this connection. The noble Lord should realise that although we may be in our seventies, we have all had children. Indeed, most of us have young grandchildren with whom we travel in cars. All of them would be covered by what is proposed. Therefore we have some knowledge of the practical world and about driving cars with children in them.
If one looks at the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, one sees that there are five separate points. Every point could occasion a fairly long debate. I am pleased that we have provision in the Bill for "reasonable excuse", because that gives the opportunity for such matters to be publicly discussed. Indeed, on Second Reading we noted the large number of organisations which were supporting the general aims and principles of the Bill, including the motoring organisations and medical organisations.
As regards these two amendments I believe, as I have said on previous amendments, that so long as we have the provision for reasonable excuse under Clause 1(1), and so long as we have all the possibilities of exceptions, then the fullest possible consultations with the bodies who support the Bill will endeavour to get over the points mentioned in the two amendments.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his customary solid support. It is interesting to note, especially in regard to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson—which I shall address first—that that point was debated for over an hour in another place on Report. I suspect there was another motive for the
560
length of the debate but, nevertheless, there was a debate on the subject.
Many points were covered in the debate, at the end of which the Members of another place reached the conclusion which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is commending to the Committee; namely, that such points are best left to regulations, after extensive consultation with the many interested motoring and other organisations which have already declared their support for the Bill. Let me assure my noble friend, who seems anxious about our state of mind, that such organisations will take a practical view of what we are trying to do.
Let me further assure the noble Lord that the main motive behind the Bill is the most practical one of all; that is, to try to save lives and prevent serious injuries. That is the stake. We are now losing every year about 60 children who are killed because they were not wearing rear seat belts; and something in the order of 7,000 injuries occur in similar circumstances. Therefore the point is an important and practical one if we can save a substantial number of those serious losses.
While I recognise the points made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, they are practical points and must be dealt with by consultation upon the regulations. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that it is not possible to write such provisions into the Bill without putting in rigidities which then become serious problems when an attempt is made to put the law into effect. It is most important that such regulations are preceded—my noble friend has already assured us that they will be—by the most intense consultations with all interested parties. Indeed, that is precisely what it is intended to do.
I now turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. This was the amendment which was debated in another place. The debate, which took over an hour, was on the point that children under three years of age should be excluded from the effect of the legislation; that is, from the necessity to wear a restraint. After hearing the Minister's reply, the other place decided that the right action to take was to leave it to regulations as the only effective way to deal with the matter.
Of course the 4-ft. child can be protected by a seat belt. He would almost certainly be better if he were seated on a booster cushion; but he certainly can be protected. It is interesting to note that that is the law today for children sitting in the front seat. Indeed, it has been so since 1982. I do not think that there have been any cases of children who have received the appalling injuries that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, described. Therefore the adult seat belt does give protection to the small child, though probably not to a child as small as a one year-old. It would obviously be better if very small children were either lying in a carrycot strapped to the rear seat or perhaps in a rear-facing carrier which again would be a perfectly safe and secure place for a child to be.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but is he satisfied that the parent or driver of a car in which a child was so placed—that

561
is, strapped in a carrycot or a rear-facing device—would be fulfilling his legal obligations under the terms of the Bill?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I think the answer is that he probably would be. My noble friend is somewhat impatient. We are not making the regulations this evening. The Bill says that if a child is in the back of a car where there is a seat belt, then the child should be strapped in. What exemptions there will be is a matter which must be put into the regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I hope that my noble friend will give way for a moment. If my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne turns to page 2 of the Bill and looks at subsection (6), he will see that the term "seat belt" includes,
"any description of restraining device for a child and any reference to wearing a seat belt shall be construed accordingly".
Therefore it would cover the type of device just mentioned by my noble friend.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I hope that what the Minister has said reassures my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. Such practical problems are in the minds of the legislators, and in mine; indeed, they will be covered by regulations. There is of course the problem that naturally the legislators do not wish, nor do I, to put additional expense on the parents. On the other hand, we wish to ensure that children have the maximum safety that can be given to them. Therefore it is quite a nice balance to try to get the matter right.
As regards strapping in a carrycot crossways on the rear seat, I suppose that almost certainly would not cause any extra expense because pretty well every mother would have a carrycot. Therefore that would be a safe answer.
The broad point for the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is this. This is the law at present, as stated in the 1982 order, for children aged one year or more sitting in the front seat of a car. We are not introducing anything revolutionary by putting that requirement, in principle, into the Bill, and leaving it to regulations to define more precisely how the smallest children should be safely dealt with.
I come now to the other exemptions which my noble friend commended to the Committee. The one to which I do not doubt my noble friend the Minister will be able to agree is where the child has disconnected itself. That is bound to happen from time to time. It would obviously have to be accepted as a reasonable excuse.
I take note of the danger which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned: that exemption might provide an incentive to disconnect which parents would go along with. Our belief is that in the main parents believe in the value of seat belts for their children in the back of a car. Members of the Committee may have noted that there was a public opinion poll last year which showed that 91 per cent. of adults approved of having seat belts for children in the back of motor cars. Although only about 30 per cent. were using them, nearly all felt that it would be
562
a jolly good thing to have them. I think we can expect that if the seat belts are there and we make the wearing of them law, there will be a good level of observance. Reasonable excuse should be provided for in the regulations. I notice that my honourable friend the Minister stated so in another place in the various debates that they had there. I leave the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and, as we are debating them together, I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. His amendment says:
"the child was in a recumbent position for the purposes of sleep".
In other words, the child was lying in the back of. say an estate car. I doubt whether that will be regarded as a safe solution, because in an accident the child's body would undoubtedly fly forward and be exposed to great danger.
Of course to start with children may find it difficult to be comfortable in a seat belt. They may feel restless and may find it difficult to go to sleep, but the evidence shows that they accept seat belts and go to sleep while wearing them. They are safe, and their parents need have no anxiety about them. That is a practical point, and, as my noble friend rightly says, when the children have gone to sleep lying in the back of a car, how happy the parents are and what a nuisance it will be if they have to have the children sitting up with seat belts on. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister will confirm that the regulations are unlikely to be flexible on that point.
Finally, there is the question of a child being held in the arms of an adult. Here again, we are up against a difficult problem. A small child is sometimes frightened and upset and a mother's arms are the only place where he will be comforted. We have to accept that that is not a safe place for a child. The American experiments have made that point clear. A certain amount of experimental work has also been done by the TRRL. I shall give an account of what happens in the event of a 30 mile-an-hour frontal crash when there is a 15 lb. baby lying in its mother's arms. When the crash takes place that little body is projected forward at 30 times its own weight. The little baby shoots forward into the windscreen and the motor car in front. The American experiments with dummies have established that point. There is no way the mother or anyone else can do anything about that when an accident happens. There is a sense of false security.
I do not envy my noble friend the Minister's task in hammering out that regulation, because the case put to him and to me by my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne is a cogent one. No place seems safer or more comforable for a baby than its mother's arms; but it is a fact that when sitting in a motor car going at 30 miles an hour a baby is in real danger. If there is a crash the baby will be seriously injured. My noble friend must somehow work that point out in the regulations.
I took note that in another place my honourable friend the Minister, Mr. Peter Bottomley, felt that he had to resist that solution. I commend to my noble friend the Minister the points which have been so lucidly put this evening as important, practical points which must be catered for in regulations. They should not be written into the Bill because that would give a

563
rigidity which would be entirely impractical. They should be carefully considered for the regulations, and should be accommodated as far as is humanly possible.
I hope that after this useful debate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne will feel able to withdraw their amendments and with some confidence leave those important points to be catered for in the regulations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may briefly repeat what I said the other day, which is that consultations on regulations will include what has been said in Committee last week and today. I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who spoke so well on the amendments, that we do not want to see them written into the Bill for the reasons that my noble friend has given. They will either be much better dealt with in regulations, which will need to be carefully drafted after careful consultations, or they are matters which are best left under the "reasonable excuse" clause; for instance, where the child might undo his own restraint. That point would be much better left to the courts do decide on the merit of each case, as it is with the front seat belt legislation.
I entirely endorse what my noble friend said about the carriage of children in an adult's arms. It might not necessarily only be the mother. There are great dangers in that. Anyone who has seen the film produced by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety will be well aware of that danger. As for a child being unrestrained while horizontally asleep, it is much better that children should be encouraged to sleep upright and in a restraint. My children are perfectly happy sleeping in that way. With regard to children under four feet tall, restraints are available to suit all shapes and sizes of children. Perhaps I may quote my own case. My five year-old wears a conventional seat belt with a booster cushion which brings him up to the right height to wear a conventional seat belt. That is a matter which will have to be carefully looked into in the drafting of the amendments where, for example, people do not have a booster cushion available.
With regard to the other part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, relating to the availability of suitable restraints, the Bill provides for the making of regulations prescribing for the purposes of that subsection the description of seat belts to be worn by children of any prescribed description and the manner in which they are to be used. I think that a great deal of what has been said today will need to be carefully looked at when we are drawing up the regulations. I can assure noble Lords that it will be carefully looked at, but some of it is best left to the "reasonable excuse" clause. So I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Nugent said.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I pointed out last week that the supporters of this Bill, for all their good intentions, do not seem to understand the ordinary day-to-day problems which are faced by parents. It is all very well saying, as my noble and learned friend did that
564
matters should be left to the good sense of the police and magistrates. But in reality, busy mothers do not have the time to go to court and argue their case. If it came to that point, they would simply pay the fixed penalty fine, even though they might have been entirely in the right, simply because they cannot spare the time to do anything else.
All responsible parents want to protect their children. Nearly all would be happy to strap them into properly-designed child restraints, where those are available. However, there are emergencies; people will ask, "Can you run so-and-so home from school? His mother is ill", or whatever it might be. Booster cushions and special restraints may not be available. So unless some exemption is made, parents will face quite incredible difficulties. Children have nightmares; children have ear-aches, very often they have toothache, they have painful cuts, sprains or bruises or they are frightened for a number of reasons. On all these occasions they long to be held. Alternatively their mothers may want them to be able to stretch out and fall asleep on the back seat or in the rear of an estate car, if the children have been up all night with teething problems, for example.
I can think of a very recent occasion when this happened with my own grandchildren. My son and daughter-in-law are extremely careful about the safety of their children; but the fact is that maternal instincts prevail at such times. Mothers feel that they simply must take their child in their arms when the child is screaming or crying. It is far better that this should happen despite the minuscule additional statistical risk than that the driver—whether it be the mother or the father—should become distracted or agitated by children screaming at the top of their lungs, thereby possibly precipitating a collision.
As regards paragraph (b), which concerns a child undoing its own belt, perhaps I may draw attention to the mistaken assumption made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Of course, today he is preoccupied with far more important and exciting business overseas. He suggested on Second Reading that:
"if these provisions become law, some parents may well feel grateful to have them on the statute hook because at least they can say to their children, 'You jolly well stay there—because the law says you must stay there and not just because I say so!'".—[Official Report, 6/6/88; col. 1177.]
That may very well work with younger children, especially those aged 10 or 11—a delightful age on the whole for children—but it is likely to have precisely the opposite effect when children reach the bolshie age of adolescence: nowadays that age starts as early as 12. I cannot think of anything more gratifying to an aggressive adolescent than being able to blackmail his parents by threatening, "If you don't stop and buy me a jumbo hamburger and an ice-cream, then you will be arrested". That is why I think that provision is so necessary. If it is self-evident that it would be an excuse in practice, I do not see why it cannot be written into the Bill.
As for my Amendment No. 7, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I do not believe that the European Commission has as yet outlawed imperial measurements, although no doubt such a diktat will not be long in coming. I am shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, should suggest that his

565
erstwhile colleagues in another place should have had not entirely worthy motives for debating this point for one hour last month. I accept that Amendment No. 7 needs further examination because it is not perfect, for a number of reasons. As regards Amendment No. 6, I have no hesitation; I feel that it is very important. Whereas I certainly intend to withdraw Amendment No. 7, I shall reserve my position on Amendment No. 6 until I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has to say.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Perhaps I may first of all say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that of course I am not remotely suggesting that Members of the Committee here tonight are not practical people with experience of dealing with children and grandchildren. I suppose very few of us here tonight do not have such experience. Certainly nothing I was intending to say was designed to imply otherwise.
What I do say is that the drafting of the Bill as it stands indicates to my mind a certain lack of practical awareness of the realities of transporting children by car. First perhaps I may say what I feel I should have said earlier to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I am aware that he himself is in considerable pain and discomfort tonight and I am sure that he will not take it amiss if I say to him that he probably ought to be somewhere else. However, his devotion to duty on this occasion, under circumstances of considerable discomfort, is wholly admirable. I should like to felicitate him upon it.
I am bound to say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made a powerful point. In all the discussions that we have had on this Bill, in another place and here, the consequences of restraining children in a seat belt, on the behaviour of the children and the effect that that might have on the driver of a vehicle, are simply ignored. The truth is that if children are artificially restrained, particularly young children, and they get emotional, excited and they start screaming, the attention of the driver is distracted from the road. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is entirely right. That can be far more dangerous to the children than the fact that they do not have a seat belt attached. To my mind, this is an example where we are trying to impose legal rigidities in a situation where the discretion and good sense of parents is a much better guiding line.
I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Nugent said in refutation of these amendments. I was particularly struck by what he said in response to my Amendment No. 6(b), where the child has disconnected its own seat belt. I hope I am not misquoting the noble Lord, he said that parents believe in the value of seat belts. Indeed they do, I am sure that that is absolutely correct.
What do we add by putting legislation on the statute book which, as my noble friend himself recognised this evening, would force us to accept as being a reasonable excuse that the child has disconnected its own seat belt. Just consider the consequences of that. I entirely agree with my noble friend that, left to their own devices, where the seat belt is available in the back seat, parents will want their children to have the seat belt attached. But if,
566
for whatever reason, the seat belt is not attached, if they have not attached the seat belt for what seemed to them to be good and sufficient reasons, and they are stopped by the police, what do they say? "The child disconnected the seat belt itself". Who can prove whether or not that is true?
I must honestly say, it seems to me that my noble friend is right; the argument must be recognised. But for that recognition to come within the terms of a reasonable excuse makes a nonsense of trying to legislate in this way. Surely to goodness that is the explanation which would be given by anybody who was stopped by a policeman who complained that a child in the back seat was not wearing a seatbelt.
Therefore I submit that that in itself demonstrates the unenforceability of this legislation. I have always believed that we would not want to carry into law legislation which carries within it the nature of its own unenforceability. If ever a Bill met that criterion, I submit it is this one.
I accept what my noble friend the Minister said about how these matters will be taken into consideration. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said. While I cannot speak for the noble Lords, Lord Monson or Lord Cobbold, I am not minded to press this group of amendments. However, I submit that what we have heard from my noble friend the promoter of the Bill demonstrates the basic fallacy which it contains.
The Earl of Halsbury: The passion with which my noble friend Lord Monson and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, have addressed the Committee is the passion of men who have been caught with their insularities down, to borrow a phrase from another context.
They ask me to believe that what I have lived with in Canada cannot be practised in Britain. It does not make sense. Grandparents, parents and grandchildren—myself and my wife, my daughter and my son-in-law, who was on a NATO posting in Ottawa, and my three grandchildren, travelled all around Canada. We drove from Canada to Florida with all the problems that that entailed. Seat belt wearing was de rigeur. When the children came back to this country I took them for a drive in my car. They said to me, "Why have we no seat belts?"
Children will become used to wearing seat belts if their parents tell them that they must wear them because the parents have to wear them. Nearly all the difficulties raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and by my noble friend are in their imagination. Mothers, housewives and grandparents sort these things out for themselves as they go along. I telephoned my daughter last night for confirmation and asked whether she had gone on a school run in Canada. She said that she had. I asked how she managed the children and the seat belts. She could not remember but said that it managed itself. It managed itself in such a way that they came home conditioned to seat belt wearing.
There is a passage in Pilgrim's Progress where pilgrim has to go up a difficult path at the top of which there are two lions. He is scared stiff. However, he pulls himself together, goes up the path and finds

567
at the top that the lions are chained. They are tame lions and are chained down as ornaments or something of that kind. "The lions are chained" should be a good motto for people who are trying to initiate something new. The dangers one imagines do not materialise. The side effects that one has not thought of very often do. They are best dealt with by regulations and not on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like briefly to say a word about what happened to me today. At the previous meeting of the Committee I spoke about two-door cars. I still believe that they are a danger because children strapped in the back cannot get out. However, when driving today I saw a four-door car in which a young mother was being taught by an instructor from a well known driving school. Between the two seats of the car—the mother in the front on the right hand side and the tutor on the left—was standing a little child who could not have been more than two years old. The mother braked suddenly and the child hurtled into the front of the car. I saw that today.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne for his kind words of sympathy for my physical disability. Let me assure him that my physical pains are nothing compared with my emotional pains from the sharpness of his dialectic. I shall bear them both with fortitude and carry on the job. I am not completely clear whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment or to test the opinion of the Committee. For myself, I am content to accept it either way.
Lord Monson: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I made it clear that I proposed to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("(2B) "Reasonable excuse" shall be defined to include the fact that the driver of the vehicle was the legal parent or guardian of the child and had signed a declaration that he regarded the application of compulsion to the wearing of a rear seat belt by his children as incompatible with the fulfilment of his duties as a parent or guardian.").
The noble Lord said: As I said briefly on an earlier amendment, this is more in the nature of a philosophical amendment. Throughout the discussions on this Bill, in another place and in this Chamber, there has been a tendency to treat the child as the principal in the Bill. Of course the child is nothing of the kind. Under the law the child cannot be the principal. At the previous meeting of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whose absence tonight we entirely understand, challenged me to say whether I was questioning the concept that the parent had legal liability for the child up to the
568
age of 14. That seemed to be going a little wide of the amendment we were discussing at that moment but the concept is certainly relevant to this amendment.
I replied at once that I accepted the concept of the legal responsibility of the parent for the child and the young adolescent. There was no argument about that. However, this amendment is designed to attend to the way in which we believe the law should intervene within the duties and responsibilities of the parent. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has just told us about his grandchildren in Canada. He asked his daughter how they coped with the school run. They coped very well and I have no doubt that his daughter undertook her parental responsibilities sensibly and with essential awareness of the need to safeguard the wellbeing of her children. I submit that in practice one does not enhance the sense of responsibility and awareness of parents by inserting the law between them and their obligations to their children in the way in which this Bill is designed to do.
In recent years we have had so many extensions of the nanny state into the arena of personal responsibility. I do not believe that that has led to a greater sense of duty among parents towards their children; but rather the reverse. I believe that the Bill as presently constituted is designed to carry that damage one stage further. What I propose in this modest amendment is that:
"'reasonable excuse shall be defined to include the fact that the driver of the vehicle was the legal parent or guardian of the child and had signed a declaration that he regarded the application of compulsion to the wearing of a rear seat belt by his children as incompatible with the fulfilment of his duties as a parent or guardian"—
that is to say, is incompatible with the fulfilment of his personal responsibilities to his children as opposed to the responsibilities imposed on him by law.
If there were such a provision as that, I submit to the Committee that very few of our fellow citizens would take advantage of it. However, those who did take advantage of it would do so because they conscientiously and reasonably believed that they would pay more attention to their responsibilities for their children and the safety of those children (including the wearing of seat belts by children in the car) if they did not have the letter of the law coming between them and those responsibilities. That is the essential philosophical purpose behind the amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Monson: Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, I do not think, given the public opinion polls cited by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that there would be a large number of parents going to the trouble of signing the declaration stipulated by the amendment. Those few who chose to do so would almost invariably have sincere and valid reasons for doing so. For example, their children might suffer from chronic or recurring conditions, or even temporary conditions not serious enough to be covered by the exemption provided under the new Section 33C(4) of the Act, which necessitated children lying prone on the back seat or in the back of an estate car or being held in the arms of a parent. Alternatively, a parent might well find that he instinctively drives more slowly and cautiously

569
knowing that there is an unbelted passenger in the back of the car, as most of us do almost without realising it.
Also, parents may have watched helplessly while people who were trapped by seat belts burnt to death in blazing cars. That happened on 30th December last year when three people were killed, and on 28th January this year when two people were burnt to death. There may have been other examples since which have not been brought to my attention. There are a number of valid and genuinely serious reasons for the amendment. That is why I have put my name to it.
Lord Underhill: I believe that both noble Lords proposing the amendment are sincere in their views of what should be regarded as freedom. However, we have been here before. Those were the arguments used against the amendment requiring the wearing of seat belts in front seats.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Yes.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, agrees. On that occasion, the House decided that seat belts should be required and the other place accepted the amendment.
It is my view that a parent who signed such a declaration would be acting irresponsibly as a parent or guardian. It would be the complete opposite of acting responsibly. Members of the Committee who were present when we debated the amendment which referred to seat belts in front seats will recognise the arguments put forward tonight as regards the freedom to decide for oneself. The House completely rejected those arguments. At the time of that debate the Automobile Association was completely in favour of a compulsory requirement for the wearing of seat belts in front seats, and the RAC was in favour of the use of seat belts in front seats but was opposed to compulsion. The RAC now supports the mandatory requirement. As was said at Second Reading, 91 per cent. of motorists believe that seat belts for children should be compulsory. The amendment which we are asked to support tonight may be philosophical. However, I believe that the Committee should pay no attention to it.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he agrees that the parents at Cleveland who first objected to their children being intimately and painfully examined were initially regarded as wholly mistaken? However, they have since been vindicated by events. That is what might happen in this case.
Lord Underhill: I do not regard an argument on one particular matter as being an argument for another matter. We are dealing with the mandatory wearing of rear seat belts for children. That is the issue. All the research and monitoring on the subject suggests that the danger of being trapped by fire and flood is infinitesimal. To suggest that we should pass the amendment is to suggest that we should take a completely different view from that which was taken
570
when we passed the amendment as regards the wearing of front seat belts, which also covered children.
The Earl of Halsbury: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Going around in circles on what has already been discussed is as close to a filibuster as anything that I can imagine. This is the second day that we have considered the matter and we have spent an hour on this quite short Bill. We have only managed to deal with the amendments up to Amendment No. 7, and we must deal with a number of other amendments. I appeal to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, Lord Monson and Lord Cobbold, to withdraw the amendment so that we can move on.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I know that the amendment has been moved with great sincerity by my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. Having been in the other place, I well understand that men such as my noble friend go there because they believe that to take part in the business of Parliament and to fight for the liberty of the subject is the most important thing in life. My noble friend played a distinguished and admirable part in doing just that. I understand his feelings.
However, we must look at the practical arguments. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, argue that parents are likely to be put off by having the law step in and reduce parental responsibility. However, that is not human experience. It is not what has happened in other countries, including Australia and the United States. Seat belts are compulsory for children in every state in the United States. The compulsory wearing of seat belts by adults is only true in a few states. The law is the same in Australia. When compulsion in the matter was introduced both in Australia and the United States, the rate of wearing of seat belts went up from something like 30 per cent. to over 60 per cent. That is a fact of life. People may believe that something is a good idea. However, they do not always do it until a law is passed and they are told to do so. My noble friend, in supporting the great principle of the liberty of the subject, which he does so admirably, is wrong on this particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, quoted alarming instances of children being burnt because they were wearing seat belts—
Lord Monson: I did not say "children"; I said "people".
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Very well. I know that the noble Lord reads the proceedings of another place. However, he did not quote them with complete accuracy last time. My honourable friend Mr. Bottomley dealt with two specific instances in which members of Parliament thought that children had been burnt in motor cars because they were trapped by wearing seat belts. In neither case was the child wearing a seat belt. It is easy to become upset when a child is burnt in a car and one may immediately think that the child was trapped by a seat belt. However, that was not true in either case. One must

571
recognise the fact that seat belts will save lives and prevent serious injury. That is the simple theme on which we are proceeding. We propose that the law should be introduced with the most meticulous consultation and in that way we shall cover all the practical problems.
This amendment does not deal with a practical point; it is a major point of principle which my noble friend has raised. I appreciate his feelings but I ask him to recognise that in practice that principle is not a practical one. In practice it is only when it becomes compulsory that there is a great increase in the wearing of seat belts. I hope that in the light of those points he will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that to my mind the fact that another place and your Lordships' House saw fit to carry into law the front seat belt legislation —as he fairly said; and I agree with him —in defiance of the kind of argument which is encapsulated in the amendment now before the Committee is no reason whatsoever why we should follow that had example.
I should like to make a further point to the noble Lord, and I speak with deep personal feeling. I know how that legislation was carried in another place because I was a Minister at the time. Although it was a Private Member's Bill, as a Minister of the Crown I was required to be present in the Lobby against all my inclinations. I am bound to admit that since the Government Chief Whip at the time happened to be an opponent of seat belt legislation we were allowed to depart unvoted, rather like priests unshriven. It was one of the more humiliating experiences of my life.
Lord Underhill: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that the Committee will recall why the seat belt legislation was carried in this Chamber. I spoke from this Front Bench and made it quite clear that I was speaking in a personal capacity. There was no Whip and the legislation was carried in this Chamber on the basis of the common sense of the amendment.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: What I was saying to the noble Lord was that I confidently believe that if it had not been for what in another place is known as the payroll vote and there had been a genuine free vote, that legislation would not have been carried in another place. I am unimpressed by the argument that we should reject the amendment because it is inconsistent with the principles written into the front seat belt legislation.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that I do not take altogether happily to the proposition that we are going round and round the same subject. This is a new amendment which has not been discussed. So far as I am aware, the principle behind it has not been debated throughout the Committee stage of the Bill. I have to tell the noble Earl that some of us have serious worries about the legislation and the efforts to drive it through within a given timetable, regardless of the serious reservations that we may have. I shall give way to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Halsbury: I merely want to observe that the state, the parent and the child stand in a complex relationship to one another. For example, there are laws requiring children to be educated at the age of five. Perhaps parents do not like it but the state says yes.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: That is a broader issue. I agree with the noble Earl that the relationship between the state and the individual is a complex one.
Turning to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Nugent, I entirely agree that in this instance we are discussing a basic philosophical principle. I think that those of us who put our names to the amendment feel that there is something undesirable about legislation which seeks to intervene between the parent and the child in the area of family responsibilty. So I think that on this matter it would be appropriate that we should seek the opinion of the Committee. Therefore I propose to insist upon the amendment.
8.5 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 8 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
8.9 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". The Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 29, leave out ("child holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner") and insert ("person holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner in respect of a child").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. It covers a simple point which I think my noble friend might be prepared to accept. As it stands, the clause reads:
'Regulations under this section shall include an exemption for any child holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for him to wear a seat belt"
Surely it is not the child but the parent who would hold the valid certificate. This part of the subsection would read more appropriately:
"Regulations under this section shall include an exemption for any person holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner in respect of a child".
I beg to move.
Lord Monson: The merits of Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 12 are obvious and require little or no explanation. A small child of under school-age cannot hold a certificate, whether in a literal or any other sense. A child between the ages of 10 and 13 might be able to do so, but might equally well, and indeed very probably would lose the certificate. It is the parent who is legally at risk under subsection (5) and that is patently ridiculous. For that reason I hope that the Committee will accept this group of amendments.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I am afraid that I cannot advise the Committee to accept this amendment. The fact is that the exemption, if it is to be made, will depend on the physical or mental condition of the child, which the doctor is satisfied is such that the child should be exempted from wearing a seat belt. Although of course the parent is responsible for the child and for deciding to take the child to a doctor so that he or she can be examined and considered for exemption, at the end of the day the certificate must be for the child.
Therefore although I accept my noble friend's point that the parental responsibility is an important one, the certificate itself must refer to the child. I hope that he will recognise the cogency of that point and accept that the Bill should stay as it is.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I accept that the certificate must relate to the child. There is no argument about that. I should have thought that the wording of the amendment was logically to be preferred to the wording in the Bill as it stands. However, if my noble friend is convinced that the present wording of the Bill is appropriate, I bow to his superior wisdom in the matter and am happy to withdraw the amendmnt.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 31, leave out ("him") and insert ("it").
The noble Lord said: This amendment too is simply a drafting amendment for which clearly I shall not have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I was brought up to believe that a child was properly referred to as "it" rather than "him". However, again I am prepared to defer to the superior wisdom of my noble friend if he thinks that the wording in the Bill as it stands is the correct one. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: This is precisely the matter to which I drew attention when speaking to Amendment No. 6. Certainly I cannot agree with this proposal. The English langauge does not have a great many shortcomings but one deficiency is that there is no pronoun that can refer to a person whether male or female. The only possible course is to use "he or she" or "him or her" every time, or else, as is the convention, simply to use the masculine form and say "him". It is not very popular with some of our feminist friends, but it is the general practice. As I said earlier, it is always understood that the male embraces the female, and the use of the male pronoun includes the female. Therefore I oppose the proposal of the noble Lord.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is right and that is the normal convention. I think that there is something slightly derogatory about calling a child "it". Certainly many children would not take very kindly to that and neither would their parents. I believe that the Bill would be better left as it is, and I hope that my noble friend will accept that argument.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I have always understood that when referring to a child the correct pronoun was "it". I remain of that opinion, but I should not dream of pressing this amendment, if my noble friend prefers the grammatical usage in the Bill as it stands. I shall bow to his wisdom and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 31, at end insert —
("( ) No regulation made under this section shall come into force unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather more substantive amendment—and in fact a very substantive one. There have been numerous references in the discussions here and in another place to the fact that the regulations which—let us face it—will embody the nitty-gritty of this legislation when they are formulated and following amendment in another place will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Before the Committee stage this evening I searched the Bill as it stands, and I see no indication that that is the case. It seems to me to be entirely right and proper that it should he the case and that it should be clearly understood that the regulations which fall to be made under subsection (3) of this clause must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. I must confess that I have no exaggerated illusions about the effectiveness of the affirmative resolution procedure as a means of scrutinising the very widely drawn delegated powers to define the regulations that are entrusted to the Minister under subsection (3).
As we all know, under the affirmative resolution procedure we can debate a regulation and reject it if we wish, but it is open to the Government to bring it back in precisely the same form the very next day. We cannot amend it in any shape or form; we can only accept or reject it. Therefore the affirmative resolution procedure frankly is not a great safeguard for those of us who feel that the discretion that is left to the Minister under subsection (3) in the matter of introducing regulations is extremely widely drawn in this Bill. Nevertheless, the affirmative resolution procedure is at least a good deal better than the alternative—the negative resolution procedure—where it is effectively for the Government to determine whether the regulation should ever be discussed in another place and in this Chamber. At least by writing the affirmative resolution procedure into this Bill we can ensure that when the regulations have been drawn up we shall have an opportunity to debate them. That seems to me to be a matter of considerable importance.
So far as I can see, that assurance is not carried in the Bill as it stands. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I am very happy to say that I am able to agree with my noble friend on this point. I sympathise with his difficulty in not being able to understand that the Bill as drafted fulfils that obligation. This little Bill suffers from defects of which all of us have experience. It proceeds by reference. The master Act is the 1972 Act which was

575
amended by the 1982 Act. It is therefore extremely difficult to understand what this small Bill says in Clause 1(2). In fact, in another place the point raised by my noble friend was taken. An amendment was moved into the Bill, and the Bill as now drafted requires an affirmative resolution. Therefore my noble friend's very proper point will be granted.
It is interesting that last week my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor informed us that this vast mass of complex road traffic law has been consolidated. It may be possible therefore in future to understand it. In the meantime I can assure my noble friend that his point has been granted.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. That was certainly the message conveyed when I read the debates in another place. However, I confess that I am still quite unable to see precisely where in the Bill as it stands the stipulation appears. That is why I should have thought it desirable, if only for the avoidance of doubt, to write in the amendment we are now discussing. That would leave the issue beyond peradventure of a doubt.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne will have to get hold of a copy of the 1972 Act. If he looks at Section 199 he will find that subsection (3) after 33A is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Subsection (2) of this clause adds this Bill to that, so the point will be covered.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I suppose that I must accept that assurance. I find it bizarre that it was apparently necessary to amend the Bill in another place to ensure that the affirmative resolution procedure applied, and yet my noble friend refers back to the substantive Act. However, on the assurance of my noble friend that the affirmative resolution procedure will assuredly apply to the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("to a child").
The noble Lord said: I tabled Amendment No. 12 on the assumption that Amendment No. 9 —which I believe is well drafted and makes extremely good sense —would be agreed to. However, Amendment No. 9 has not been agreed to. Therefore I do not propose to move Amendment No. 12.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
("(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not come into force until such time as the Secretary of State is in a position to advise Parliament that seat belts are compulsorily fitted in the rear seats of motor cars as a condition of their utilisation upon the highway.").
The noble Lord said: I regard this as an amendment of some importance. What we are doing in this legislation —and it is as well that we are clear about it —is to impose upon those who are conveying young children on the back seat of a car an obligation to ensure that the children in question are wearing
576
seat belts when the law does not require cars to be fitted with seat belts. To my mind this is a fundamental contradiction. It complicates immensely the difficulties of law enforcement.
I cannot imagine how a police officer on the beat, or a traffic officer, could stop a car on the grounds that he believed that children in the back seat were not wearing belts when he had no means of knowing whether the car was fitted with seat belts or not. I remind my noble friend of what the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then Minister for Transport, said in another place in January 1980. It is quoted at col. 594 of Hansard, on 13th May 1988, during the debates on the earlier front-seat belt legislation:
"'As things stand—and I cannot conceive that any government will move from this position"'—
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench is listening to this with care —
"'the intention is not to require compulsory wearing where there is not compulsory fitting. I cannot believe that if any Minister of Transport brought forward regulations on any other basis, the House would give its approval to them'."
As we know, this legislation has not been brought forward by the Minister for Transport in another place or by my noble friend in this place. However, I find it surprising that we are being asked tonight to carry into law legislation that flies directly in the face of that principle.
I submit to Members of the Committee that it is not a wholly unreasonable principle. There is something profoundly perverse about introducing legislation to oblige the wearing of seat belts when there is no legislation to oblige that seat belts be fitted in the first place. I make no bones about the fact that I would not be in favour of compulsory fitting of seat belts in the rear of cars as a precondition for their roadworthiness. Nevertheless, the fact is that this Bill is designed to impose a legal liability which —in the case of cars which do not have rear seat belts fitted—is entirely incapable of coming into effect.
All that I am proposing in this amendment is that we should defer the application of this legislation until,
"the Secretary of State is in a position to advise Parliament that seat belts are compulsorily fitted in the rear seats of motor cars as a condition of their utilisation upon the highway".
I am not saying that it is the right way but I believe that a proposition of this kind is only common sense and logic. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: The purpose of this amendment is to resolve both an extraordinary anomaly and an evident clash of opinion within the Government over this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has already quoted the quite unequivocal words uttered on 23rd January 1980 of the right honourable gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and was then the Minister for Transport. Yet the Bill is presently drafted in such a way that people who voluntarily, in a public-spirited way, have fitted belts at their own expense might be heavily fined if their children did not wear the belts on

577
every single occasion, whatever the difficulties, whereas those who had not fitted belts would be totally in the clear. I cannot think of any precedent for a law drafted in that way. That is why I support the amendment so strongly.
Lord Underhill: I believe this is one case where the Bill is showing some common sense and flexibility. If the amendment were carried, it would mean that every single car on the road which was 20 or 30 years old, would have to have seat belts fixed or the Bill would not come into effect. That is what the amendment means. The amendment reads that the Secretary of State must:
"advise Parliament that scat belts are compulsorily fitted in the rear seats of motor cars as a condition of their utilisation upon the highway".
Therefore, one of two things can happen: either every person who has a car, however old it may be, if it is registered to be used on the highway must fix a seat belt even though that may be costly in certain cars because of the type of manufacture of the car, or the Bill shall not come into effect. The Bill shows common sense and flexibility.
I return to what I said on Second Reading, that the Association of Chief Police Officers traffic committee is in favour of the Bill and has said that it sees no problems at all in enforcing the provisions contained in the Bill.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, once again for his valuable support. He makes an important point that all the chiefs of police regard the problem of enforcement as nonexistent, and self-enforcing like front seat belts. The police will not set out to try to trap people whose children are not wearing seat belts, but when a car is pulled up for some other reason and if children were not wearing existing seat belts, that would be an offence. The police see no problem whatsoever.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has a point that where seat belts have been voluntarily fitted and exist in a car when the Bill becomes law, then it will be compulsory to use them. In the terms of my noble friend's amendment, we should have to wait for years and years. I suppose that the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is possible, and the Government of the day might require all motor cars running on the roads today to fit seat belts as a condition of licensing; but that would be an impossible piece of legislation which no government would attempt. Therefore the approach is as in the Bill: that as from last year it is now a legal requirement for all motor cars to be fitted with rear seat belts so that gradually year by year their numbers will increase and in 10 to 20 years' time there will be very few cars left without seat belts. It is also probable that those people whose cars have not had them fitted compulsorily will have fitted them voluntarily to protect their children.
If we were to accept the amendment it would knock the bottom out of the Bill because it would be years and years before enough cars were fitted with seat belts that would qualify for the conditions that the noble Lord has laid down. The Bill is just a start. That
578
is what it provides. It is to be applied where seat belts exist in a car and knowing that, year by year, there will be more which will give better and better protection for our children. With all the education and publicity that goes with it, it is probable that many parents whose cars do not have seat belts fitted will fit them because they will feel that it is a sensible protection for their children.
I recognise the purity of my noble friend's logic, but I hope he will accept that this is the more practical approach and that he will not feel inclined to press his amendment.
Lord Monson: I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that the amendment as drafted goes wider than we intended. I should not wish to press it myself. But can the noble Lord indicate whether he might be able to accept at the next stage of the Bill a more tightly drawn amendment so that lines 7 to 10 inclusive on page 1 will read as follows:
"Except as provided by regulations, a person shall not, without reasonable excuse, drive a motor vehicle to which seat belts in the rear of the car have been compulsorily fitted on a road where there is in the rear of the vehicle" —
and so on and so forth? That narrows the provisions tremendously and would meet most of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I appreciate that the noble Lord could not possibly commit himself at this stage; but I wonder whether he will indicate his general feelings about such an amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord for his gallant attempt to draft off the cuff. I have always found parliamentary drafting to be completely incomprehensible and anything that I have ever drafted has always been ruled out as incorrect. I am quite certain that the piece of drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would come into the same category. What is in the Bill is what the draftsmen thought would stand up in practice and therefore I feel that we should stick to it.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I must confess that I am surprised that my noble friend on the Front Bench has not intervened on the amendment, because as I pointed out, it was a Minister in this Government who himself said that he could not imagine that we should be facing the legal obligation of the compulsory wearing of seat belts where there was no compulsory fitting. It seems to me somewhat surprising that we should have a shift of position without an explanation of the ministerial thinking behind it. As I said, to my mind, there was logic in what was said in 1980 which still applies today.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that something perhaps more narrowly drawn might be considered at a later stage and might meet the case. The present arrangements which propose a mixture of compulsion on persons where no compulsion on manufacturers exists is unsatisfactory. However, in the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and to the Government, that there appears to be an error in line 5, page 2 of the Bill, in so far as line 5 refers to "subsection (3) (a) above." There is no subsection (3) (a) above. There is a subsection (4), so perhaps this is something that the Minister may like to consider and perhaps table an amendment to rectify it at the next stage.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The noble Lord is quite correct. There is a printers' error. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell us whether that has been dealt with.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall clearly have to look into this matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. If it is necessary to bring forward an amendment at the next stage I shall of course do so.
Lord Kilbracken: Before we leave Clause I, and despite the entry into the Chamber of the two Chief Whips, I should like to draw attention to two matters that have arisen in the course of the debate. The first is that considerable doubt has been cast by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and others, upon allegations by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, among others, that seat belts can be a great danger to people who are trapped in cars and are burnt to death or drowned.
I should like to intervene to say that I am one of those people who escaped by a miracle, despite being incarcerated in the cockpit of an aircraft which sank in 1940. I was strapped into it and I had to make a forced landing in the Firth of Forth. I do not know how I got out of the cockpit. When I ditched the aircraft I was travelling a great deal more slowly than most cars travel along the motorway today. That accounts for the fact that I havē a phobia about wearing seat belts. It made me feel inclined to vote in favour of Amendment No. 8.
Secondly, I should like to draw attention to the situation when there are more children in the back of a car than there are seat belts. It has been said again and again that in that circumstance the legal position will be that if there are two seat belts and three children the law will not be contravened provided that the two seat belts are being used. That situation frequently occurs.
I have read the relevant passage again and again and I cannot see that in those circumstances the driver is not at fault. The Bill states:
"Except as provided by regulations a person shall not … drive a motor vehicle to which is fitted any seat belt".
If I am driving a car with three children and two seat belts in the back, I am driving a car that is fitted with a seat belt. The Bill continues:
"when there is in the rear of the vehicle a child … who is not wearing a seat belt".
If there are three children in the back one of them is not wearing a seat belt and it appears that in those circumstances the law is being broken.
It may be said that regulations will be made to provide that in those circumstances no offence will be committed. I do not like regulations. I believe that matters should be debated on the Floor of the Chamber, certainly important matters; otherwise
580
none of those conditions need be in the Bill. We need not have in the Bill the words "under the age of 14 years" because that could be made the subject of a regulation. Surely we cannot put into regulations something that contradicts what is at present provided for in Clause 1(1).
I believe that this matter should be included in the Bill. It must be stated in the Bill that if there are two seat belts in the back of the car they must both be used. If there are three, four, five or six children in the back who are not using seat belts, that is perfectly all right. That is what we have been told by the noble Lords, Lord Brabazon and Lord Lucas, but it is not in the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should like to make a correction to my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The numbering is purely a printing error. The Public Bill Office know of it and it can be put right without an amendment.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has raised an extremely important point. On Second Reading the noble Lords, Lord Brabazon and Lord Nugent, made two contradictory statements. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said:
"it would not be practicable to use rear seat restraints if there were four or five children squeezed onto the rear seat". —[Official Report, 6/6/88; col. 1180.]
In other words, none of the four or five children would have to use seat belts. However, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said:
"where there are more children than seat belts the law would not require children for whom there are no seat belts to wear them. They will be worn only in so far as there are seat belts provided". —[col. 1182.]
Those two statements are contradictory. Either the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is right, or the noble Lord. Lord Nugent, is right. They cannot both be right. I believe that at this stage we should be told who is right.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, foresaw the possibility of there being more children than seat belts. He was asked what would happen if more children were in his own car than there were seat belts. From memory he replied that whoever gets into the car first would wear the seat belts.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I believe that this argument has been covered over and over again, mainly on Second Reading and again when dealing with Amendment No. 1 which was debated last week. There is no contradiction in what has been said. If possible the regulations must specify, and I have said that a great deal of care will be taken in respect of them. If four or five children are in the back of a car, not all, or possibly any, can be made to wear seat belts. However, if there are two or three children and two or three seat belts, those children should wear seat belts.
Clause 1 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Annual statistics.
. The Secretary of State shall publish annual statistics indicating the number of children —

(a) saved from death and injury, and

(b) suffering death and injury, in consequence of the provisions of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I cannot imagine that the Government will have any objection to this amendment, still less the passionate supporters of seat belt compulsion. They not only constantly extol the benefits of compulsion but invariably dismiss any notion of "disbenefits", to use an ugly technical term.
Annual road casualty statistics are already published. I am asking that they be fleshed out to include the additional statistics listed in my amendment. So much the better if, at the same time, we can have a breakdown of so-called serious injuries. As at present classified, serious injuries embrace many injuries which are not at all serious, thereby distorting the true picture.
At an earlier stage the Minister said that injuries to children will be reduced by two-thirds if the Bill is passed. The reduction in injuries and deaths resulting from front seat compulsion is only 24 per cent., even on the most optimistic estimates which have already been challenged. If that percentage is applied to children in rear seats it suggests a net decrease of 15 deaths per annum.
If one reduces that figure further to take into account, first, the inevitable wider exemptions necessary for rear seat belts as opposed to front seat belts, and, secondly, the increase in voluntary wearing resulting from the existing propaganda campaign, it suggests a maximum saving of 10 lives per annum out of 10 million children carried as passengers annually. Of course, even one child's life in a million is worth saving, but can this not best be achieved by exhortation rather than heavy-handed bureaucractic legislation?
I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The existing annual publication of road accidents for Great Britain gives a great deal of detail of accidents and casualties, including a tabulation of child car-occupant casualties by age, seating position and restraint use. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has studied that. During 1986, the last year for which final figures are available, 8,560 children sustained injuries while travelling in the rear seats of cars.
Monitoring of restraints used by children and the performance of restraints in accidents has been part of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's research programme for a number of years. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, will be relieved to know that the laboratory's research has shown that child restraints can reduce the risk of death and injury by up to 70 per cent. It cannot recollect a single case where restraint use has made matters worse and I am sure the noble Lord will be happy to hear that.
582
I am inclined to think that the research might go a little further and I should put this point to the Minister. If Parliament proceeds to approve this Bill and it goes on the statute book, further in-depth research (especially as more new vehicles come on the road equipped with rear restraints) would be helpful, would assure and reassure the public and also Members of the Committee who are doubtful about the value of rear seat belts, of the value they have in reducing injury. I put that point to my noble friend. However, I hope with the assurance from my noble friend that this research is already being undertaken, that the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I could reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that as my noble friend has said, a good deal of statistics and data are collected at the moment published in the road accidents of Great Britain casualty report, which gives data on road traffic accidents, casualties including tabulations of child car occupants and casualties by age, seating position and restraint use. Through that, we shall monitor the effects of the legislation.
Furthermore, the monitoring of restraint use by children and the performance of restraints in accidents has been part of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's programme for a number of years. That research will continue and if this Bill becomes an Act it will be all the more important that the research should be continued.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, tells us that the road research laboratory cannot remember a single case where the use of belts has made matters worse. Given the laboratory's passionate commitment to compulsion, one can only wonder whether it was looking very hard. However, it is growing late. I am not entirely satisfied, but I believe at this stage I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 14:
Insert the following new clause:
("Compensation.
. The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for compensation to be paid to children who can be shown to have suffered injury in consequence of the provisions of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: The Committee will have noticed that unlike the previous amendment this amendment is permissive rather than mandatory so as to avoid infringing Commons privilege.
It has always been conceded by supporters of compulsory seat belt legislation—not least the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, himself —that from time to time people will be killed or injured as a direct consequence of compulsion, though of course there remains considerable argument about the precise numbers killed or injured thereby. If passed, this Bill is bound to have the same effect, which will be accentuated if Amendment No. 7 (whether in an existing or new form) continues to be rejected.
Seat belt legislation, together with crash helmet legislation, is unique in that it compels people to put themselves at risk in peacetime, albeit a statistically small risk. Not only is it unique but it is anomalous. Vaccination against whooping cough is overwhelmingly beneficial for children and yet parents are permitted to refuse to have their children vaccinated, against all the urgings, promptings and protestations of the Government and medical profession, on the ground that vaccination, very occasionally, has harmful side effects.
If this Bill goes through, we shall have inevitable double standards in the matter of parental choice as between seat belt wearing and vaccination. To add injury to insult, vaccine-damaged children will be compensated despite the voluntary nature of vaccination, whereas seat belt damaged children will not be compensated despite compulsion applying, unless this amendment is agreed to. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: These are arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has used before. The aim or the direction of the amendment is exactly the reverse to that of the Bill. The Bill aims to bring in these compulsory seat belts in order to save life and injury. There is not the evidence —and the noble Lord does not have any to justify bringing in such a clause. I have already mentioned that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (which has in latter years done a good deal of study on this matter) has no case whereby it can show that anybody wearing a seat belt suffered additional injury because he was wearing it. People wearing seat belts sometimes are injured when the car collapses or a piece of metal drives through them but that would have happened anyway and it is not the fault of the seat belt.
The courts nowadays, when a claim for injury comes before them, take note of whether or not the claimant was wearing a seat belt. If he was not, the damages are accordingly reduced by 25 per cent. or more. All that is a very fair indication of what we are talking about; namely, that seat belts are worn because they will save lives and injuries. It would be a complete mistake for the noble Lord to ask to put this new clause into the Bill, which goes in exactly the opposite direction. I hope that he will see that he really does not have any evidence to support him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Government cannot support the amendment. I have no doubt that very similar arguments were put forward when compulsory front seat belt wearing came before the House. Indeed, as my noble friend said, there is no doubt at all that compulsory use saves lives and that there is no evidence from the monitoring programme that there is need for such a measure. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment.
Lord Monson: Both the noble Lords, Lord Nugent, and Lord Brabazon, normally argue extremely logically; but this evening their logic has deserted them. If it is the case that nobody has ever been harmed through wearing a seat belt then what on earth is there to worry about if this amendment is agreed to, because if no one is ever going to be
584
harmed or killed then the amendment will have no effect at all. There will be no call upon the public purse.
It seems to me that the only reason for being uneasy or worried about this amendment is the suspicion that I might be right, and that some money may have to be paid out sooner or later. This amendment is not acting against the Bill but is reinforcing it. It is asking the promoters of the Bill to have the courage of their convictions, which I believe they do. If the Bill is wholly beneficial, then there can be no possible disadvantage in accepting this amendment. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, nor the Government have refuted my contention about the double standards that apply to whooping cough vaccination and to seat belt wearing respectively. They have not refuted it because no refutations are possible. However, it is becoming late and I do not want to push this at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Northern Ireland (corresponding provision)]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: My purpose in objecting to Clause 2 is not to deny the people of Northern Ireland the extremely dubious benefits of this Bill if it becomes law. Apart from anything else, I believe in welding the United Kingdom together by harmonising as much as possible the laws in the different parts of the Kingdom. However, I protest once again about the way in which the people of the Province are treated like the inhabitants of a colony.
If this important legislation, which will be extremely significant and burdensome for so many families in Northern Ireland, is to be extended to that Province, then for Heaven's sake let it be done by the affirmative resolution procedure rather than by the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I find the argument by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, entirely persuasive. It was agreed in another place that it was appropriate for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply. We have been assured that that has been enacted, though for the life of me I cannot see exactly how. Why on earth should not the affirmative resolution apply to legislation in Northern Ireland? It seems wholly illogical.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may briefly explain the position. Northern Ireland road traffic legislation is separate from that in Great Britain. While new proposals in Britain are usually adopted, there is often a time delay of 18 months to two years because of the need to promote an Order in Council. However, in those cases where it would be inappropriate for Northern Ireland to be out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom, the negative resolution clause approach is adopted. That enables the Northern Ireland Order in Council to be treated as a negative resolution statutory instrument rather

585
than an affirmative resolution statutory instrument; thereby considerably speeding up the process and enabling Northern Ireland to implement on the same day as Great Britain.
I should perhaps say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne that this clause was specifically introduced into the Commons Standing Committee following representations by Northern Ireland Members.
Lord Monson: I have great difficulty in accepting that argument. Is it really the case that introducing the affirmative resolution procedure would delay matters to any considerable extent?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, by 18 months to two years.
Lord Monson: I find the suggestion that the log jam of legislation is such that it would take up to two
586
years very surprising. However, I accept what the noble Lord says and will say no more.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Harwich Harbour Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past nine o'clock.

  CHILD ABUSE IN CLEVELAND: REPORT
  CHILD ABUSE IN CLEVELAND: REPORT
  EC INWARD INVESTMENT: JOB CREATION EFFECTS
  EC INWARD INVESTMENT: JOB CREATION EFFECTS
  GIROBANK: LOCATION OF HEAD OFFICE
  GIROBANK: LOCATION OF HEAD OFFICE
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 16th JUNE
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 16th JUNE
  FISH COUNTER: NORTH ESK
  FISH COUNTER: NORTH ESK
  FISH COUNTERS: SITING
  FISH COUNTERS: SITING
  EDUCATION REFORM: ACADEMIC AWARDS
  EDUCATION REFORM: ACADEMIC AWARDS
  PRISONS: INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOPS
  PRISONS: INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOPS
  PRISONERS: STATISTICS
  PRISONERS: STATISTICS
  BOARDS OF VISITORS
  BOARDS OF VISITORS
  "EUROPEAN PRISON RULES"
  "EUROPEAN PRISON RULES"
  FIREARMS ACT 1968: PROSECUTIONS
  FIREARMS ACT 1968: PROSECUTIONS
  POLICE OFFICERS: STATISTICS
  POLICE OFFICERS: STATISTICS
  SINGLE INTERNAL MARKET
  SINGLE INTERNAL MARKET
  LLOYD'S INQUIRY: IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  LLOYD'S INQUIRY: IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS