Sitting of 21 March 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    AIDS
    Sir Raymond Gower: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of persons in Wales now diagnosed as having AIDS; what has been the increase during the past 12 months; and what estimate has been made of the probable increase over the next 12 months.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): At the end of February 1988, 19 cases of AIDS in Wales had been reported to the communicable diseases surveillance centre, of whom 15 died. Comparable figures for the end of February 1987 were 11 and nine. It is extremely difficult to make a reliable estimate for Wales.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of recent studies, including one in the United States of America, suggest that the ultimate number of people suffering from the disease will be far greater than anticipated'? I do not wish to be alarmist, but will there be an upgrading of current plans to meet that possibility?
    Mr. Grist: I have noted the various interesting results of studies into mortality rates for men aged between 15
    2
    and 64. My hon. Friend may be pleased to know that I have every confidence in the existing voluntary system of reporting AIDS deaths, although I am aware that not all are recorded. There may be HIV-related deaths that do not fall within the clinical definition of AIDS.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Do not the World Health Organisation and all medical authorities recognise AIDS as the greatest threat to human health this century? Are not the number of AIDS cases doubling every 12 months? Projected over 10 years, does that not pose a serious threat to a large number, perhaps even the majority, of the world's population?
    In view of that enormous threat, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his voice in the Cabinet to plead for a massive increase in research funding so that a cure can be found for AIDS? Should not the Government introduce a major public education programme to prevent the spread of AIDS through promiscuity?
    Mr. Grist: To begin at the end, a massive public education campaign has been launched through the Health Education Council and, indeed, the Welsh Health Promotion Authority, which has been active in schools, local authorities and elsewhere. I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's point about international research. Indeed, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will read his comments.

    Labour Statistics
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the combined total of persons employed in Wales in the coal and steel industries in 1979; what it is in 1988; and what are the equivalent figures for the electronic and information technology industries.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Employment in the steel industry and on the colliery books of British Coal amounted to 86,000 in 1979 and to 32,100 in 1987. Employment in the electronic and information technology industries in the same years was 17,500 and 23,100 respectively. I am pleased to tell the House that

    3
    Race Electronics of Talbot Green, Mid Glamorgan, today announced a major additional investment of £11 million that will, over the next few years, produce 1,100 new jobs.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure will be greeted with enormous pleasure in south Wales. Does that trend show the advantages that will come to Wales from modernising the approach to the older, more traditional industries and, more important, the introduction of the new science-based industries?
    Mr. Walker: Indeed, and I hope that the trend will continue.
    Mr. Barry Jones: When the right hon. Gentleman meets tha Alyn and Deeside council later this week to discuss modern industries and electronics, will he bear in mind that the council has good plans for the now redundant site of Connah's Quay power station, which could accommodate modern industry? However, the plan has hit a snag. Will the right hon. Gentleman listen carefully and sympathetically to the problems of the district council, so that Alyn and Deeside has the benefit of that site?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot comment on the specific scheme, but I shall certainly listen to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Dr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we warmly welcome any announcements of job creation in Wales? Does he agree that for the future of the Welsh economy, it is essential that design, development and research development are carried out within Wales? Would that not amount to a more genuine science-based economy than would intermediate or low technology?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, which is why I am hopeful that developments in the Welsh universities, through new grants to encourage research as joint ventures between industrial companies and universities, will have a considerable impact in Wales.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we welcome all new jobs in electronic and information technology, even though, as his figures show, they fall far short of the number of jobs that are needed? Does he recognise that many of the predominantly women production workers in the new industries earn little more than half the average national wage? The new industries are not replacing the lost, high-paid, male jobs.
    As 120,000 fewer people in Wales are now either employed or self-employed than when the Government took office, is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned about the latest unemployment figures, which show that Wales is eighth worst of the 11 regions in the decline in unemployment since February 1987?
    Mr. Walker: I am gald to say that, in fact in terms of the rate of reduction on the normal basis that has been used by all Governments—[Interruption.]—Wales is in the top three of the league. So far as the figures are concerned, I note, as always, the deep depression of the right hon. Gentleman. In the past year unemployment in Wales has come down by more than 25,000. The people of Wales find the right hon. Gentleman totally out of touch with the mood of the country.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unemployment figures for (i) Wales, (ii) West Glamorgan and (iii) Neath and what were the comparable figures for the same period in 1979.
    Mr. Peter Walker: On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in Wales, West Glamorgan, and Neath districts were 145,458, 19,461 and 3,456 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.
    Mr. Coleman: What would the right hon. Gentleman's reaction be to those figures if they occurred in his own constituency? As for the quality of the jobs to which he has referred this afternoon, do they carry the same earning power as those that have been lost? What assurances can he give to places that are suffering colliery closures, such as my own area with the Abernant colliery, that new jobs will replace the jobs that have been lost?
    Mr. Walker: I deplore unemployment anywhere. In the recent recession, there was a substantial increase in unemployment in my constituency. Indeed, it reached the kind of figures that is now the average for Wales as a whole. In terms of the jobs coming into Wales, since the last Question Time we have had announcements from major American, German, Japanese and Welsh firms, which are all putting in a great deal of investment and providing many new jobs. It is time that the hon. Gentleman, and others, cheered up about it.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local economy in north-east Wales is recovering extremely strongly, as can be seen by the fact that unemployment has fallen faster there than in any other parts of Wales during the past year—in Delyn by 24·1 per cent., in Alyn and Deeside by 22·9 per cent. and in Wrexham by 22·5 per cent.?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I am pleased that the latest figures for advertisements for vacancies show an enormous increase. For example, the latest figures for the Liverpool Daily Post show an increase of 33 per cent. and the Western Mail and South Wales Echo show an increase of 47 per cent. over the same time last year.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Secretary of State agree that the cuts in home improvement grants in the Budget will create more unemployment in Wales, especially as we have the poorest housing stock in Britain? Does he not think that we should retain those grants?
    Mr. Walker: I was amused to see the great outcry about that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put this matter into perspective. On the average loan for house improvements the result of the Budget change will be a detriment of £1·32 per week, but for the same person the tax savings from the Budget will be £4·58 per week. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Budget is bad is totally wrong.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Do those figures not reveal that yet again in terms of unemployment south Wales is the blackspot of Europe? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), that in the past 12 months—February to February—our decline in employment is the eighth worst of 11 regions? Would this

    5
    not be a good time to launch a housing drive, especially when one considers that Scotland, with double our population, spends four times the amount that we spend on housing? Perhaps the Secretary of State is perfectly content to see homelessness rise and Rachmanism take over.
    Mr. Walker: The one thing that the hon. Gentleman is always guaranteed to do is to depict south Wales as a blackspot, but he does great harm to it every time he does so. I am glad to say that this year the local authorities alone in the valleys of south Wales will spend £48 million on housing improvements. The success of this Government in improving the housing of Wales compared with the failure of the Labour Government is remarkable.

    Wales Tourist Board
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Wales tourist board; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend last met the chairman on 13 January and discussed a range of issues. I met the chairman and the board on 19 February.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State has discussed with the chairman of the Wales tourist board the effects of the arson campaign on second homes in Wales, which we all deprecate and condemn entirely? Has he had any response from the tourist board of the effect on the tourist industry, in view of the 130 houses which have now been burnt and the many people who are now having difficulty in getting insurance on holiday homes? What initiatives has his right hon. Friend taken to bring this campaign to an end?
    Mr. Roberts: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman condemn the arson campaign, and this morning I was glad to read in the Liverpool Daily Post the condemnation of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). Naturally, my right hon. Friend and I join in that condemnation. We wholly deplore the arson campaign. The matter was not specifically discussed with the Wales tourst board, which is not the responsible body. It is a matter for the police and the Home Office.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As Welsh lamb is a delicacy much enjoyed by tourists, was the Minister able to assure the chairman of the Wales tourist board that no radioactive lamb contaminated above the official safety levels was sold in Wales, as it undoubtedly was in England due to official bungling?
    Mr. Roberts: I beg to doubt the hon. Lady's statement. Naturally we have taken every possible precaution to ensure that lamb that contains radiation above the accepted levels has not been sold. We have taken every possible step to prevent that, and I am glad to say that the outlook for the future is improving.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not singularly inappropriate at this time that there should be this campaign of burning down holiday homes, in view of the fact that numerous people in many countries, including Wales, are now buying second homes in other countries, such as Spain, Italy and France? Is that not incongruous?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think that the entire House deplores the arson campaign
    6
    that has been going on, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) described. We wholly deplore it. It is needless, cowardly and thoroughly condemned by the people of Wales as a whole. It does irreparable harm to tourism and our reputation as a hospitable nation.

    Opera
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage the development of opera in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Government's substantial support for the arts is channelled through the Arts Council of Great Britain in the first instance. Opera in Wales has been a major beneficiary of Arts Council grants, which have done much to encourage its development. I hope that that development will continue.
    Mr. Livsey: We in Wales have an outstanding reputation for opera. Will the Minister say when there may he a decision on the future of Craig-y-nos castle in my constituency, the home of the late Adelina Patti, where prominent opera lovers in Wales, including Sir Geraint Evans, are keen to establish a music centre to train young opera singers?
    Mr. Roberts: Many people would like to see the former home of Adelina Patti become the centre for opera and other kinds of music. There have been several other suggestions for the possible uses for Craig-y-nos, including the theatre. Tenders for the freehold of the property are being carefully considered and we shall take all relevant factors into account in reaching a decision. My right hon. Friend has already taken action to increase the protection of the theatre at Craig-y-nos by announcing its listing to grade 1.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend know of the proposal by a private developer, in co-operation with Rhuddlan borough council, to build a theatre adjacent to the Sun centre, which would provide a home for the Welsh National Opera when it visits north Wales? Will he take a benevolent interest in the project?
    Mr. Roberts: We take a benevolent interest in all proposals to increase the number of venues available for the Welsh National Opera company. My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposal that he mentioned is not the only one. We are proud of the Welsh National Opera company and are anxious to see it succeed still further.
    Mr. Coleman: I recognise the Welsh National Opera company's contribution to opera. Is the Minister aware that Craig-y-nos is not dependent on the Welsh National Opera for operatic performances? What help will he give to sustain possible future productions and the continuation of productions at Craig-y-nos over the years?
    Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has sung there with the Neath operatic society. Perhaps the theatre should be kept in his honour as well as that of Adelina Patti. Of course, whatever assistance is given to any future performance is basically a matter for the Arts Council.

    Welsh Craft Industry
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to implement the recommendations

    7
    of Mr. Tony Ball's Welsh craft industry study for a coordinated marketing policy for Wales and Welsh products, to be implemented by the Welsh Development Agency, Mid Wales Development, the Welsh tourist board and other Welsh agencies.
    Mr. Peter Walker: There has been strong endorsement of Mr. Tony Ball's Welsh craft industry study and of his ideas for developing a more co-ordinated strategy for promoting Wales and its products. I shall be considering with the main bodies concerned how best to implement the recommendations.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a co-ordinated all-Wales marketing effort is to be achieved the Welsh Office must take the initiative? Does he also agree that such an integrated marketing approach could only increase the impact of each Welsh agency's marketing, without undermining their independence?
    Mr. Walker: The report showed many weaknesses and duplications in the existing systems. As I said, I shall have further discussion with the bodies involved, and then we will come to our conclusions.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: When the right hon. Gentleman reaches his conclusions, will he bear in mind that many small craft producers in Wales consider that the WDA and Mid-Wales Development are rather remote? Will he take steps to ensure that the distance between them is reduced as far as possible?
    Mr. Walker: Part of Mr. Ball's recommendation was that, in the manner in which the system operated at the moment, many smaller craft users were unable to identify exactly where they should go and from whom they should obtain advice. The recommendations pointing out that they should have freely available to them a point at which they can seek any advice or help are important.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Welsh craft industry would be sadly neglected if the Department of Employment were to close the workshop for the blind in Pontypridd? Is he aware also that proposals have been under discussion for the past two years? Only a matter of weeks ago an Employment Minister decided that he would cancel any financial arrangements for the new workshop in Pontypridd. Will the Secretary of State carry out an investigation and ensure that the application for a workshop for the blind people of mid-Glamorgan is renewed and that a new building is provided?
    Mr. Walker: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I gather that he or one of his Ministers will have talks with at least one Welsh Member in the near future.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest information he has on the number of people waiting for in-patient treatment as (a) urgent and (b) non-urgent cases in (i) Clwyd and (ii) Wales.
    Mr. Grist: The number of people waiting for urgent inpatient treatment in Clwyd at 30 September 1987 was 383, and in Wales 3,596. The numbers waiting for non-urgent in-patient treatment were 4,491 and 36,262 respectively.
    Dr. Marek: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the promise that he made last August? He pledged that by the spring
    8
    of 1988 no patient waiting for an urgent operation should have to wait more than one month, and no patient waiting for a non-urgent operation should have to wait for more than one year. Today is the first day of spring. Every person in Wales knows that the waiting list is as bad as it ever was. Patients in the main specialties, such as general surgery, orthopaedics, ENT, and urology are dying before they get to the top of the waiting list. Did the Minister make his pledge last August out of simple political bravado, to build up the hopes of Welsh people, only to dash them cruelly today? If he did not, what has gone wrong?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is spreading alarm rather unnecessarily. He mentioned particular sectors, which he also brought up in the last Welsh Grand Committee—general surgery, ophthalmology, urology and orthopaedics. I am pleased to say that in Clwyd the authority has reported that the urgent in-patient list in these specifications will meet targets. In addition, urology and ophthalmology non-urgent in-patient lists will meet targets in the same county.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I naturally urge my hon. Friend to increase further spending on the National Health Service at the earliest opportunity. However, his campaign to improve waiting-list performance figures in Wales has already shown itself to be a remarkably effective way of achieving value for money and, at the same time, a worthwhile improvement in health performances.
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is right. Increased expenditure on the Health Service under this Government has led to a greatly increased provision of treatment for patients — for example, 24 per cent. more in-patients were treated than under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Did the Under-Secretary of State notice that, just a week ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave away over £4,000 million, much of it to people who did not need it, when it could have been used to help our health and social services? Does the hon. Gentleman recollect a claim made by the Secretary of State for Wales in The Observer that when he went to the Cabinet, he received every penny for which he asked? In view of the appalling waiting lists to which the hon. Gentleman has just confessed, which are even worse than the temporary peak of the winter of discontent, does he think that the Secretary of State asked for enough? How does he explain to the people of Wales why the Secretary of State did not ask for more?
    Mr. Grist: It is worth pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Budget is not to do with expenditure. He is trying to beguile the general public, who may not appreciate that point. In the expenditure figures in the autumn, spending on the Health Service rose by £700 million more than the expenditure of a year before, which the right hon. Gentleman's party held out to be an electoral bribe.

    Wales Tourist Board
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount allocated for (i) publicity and (ii) marketing, within the annual budget for the Wales tourist board in 1980–81 and 1987–88.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Wales tourist board's gross expenditure on marketing — including publicity which

    9
    cannot be separately distinguished — increased from £1·55 million in 1980–81 to an estimated £3·493 million in 1987–88.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the concern that is felt in many parts of Wales that the board's publicity and marketing budget is still less than 50 per cent. of total expenditure? As that ought to be the major part of its work, will he ask the board to increase the proportion that it spends on these vital sectors?
    Mr. Roberts: The board spends a substantial proportion of its total budget on marketing, which is a very important part of its work, but it also has certain other costs, including expenditure on section 4 grants.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister suggest to the chairman of the Wales tourist board that he arranges a meeting with the chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has had a marked success in its publicity and marketing, and has developed a tourist initiative which works in harmony with the local community and benefits the local economy?
    Mr. Roberts: I am sure that all these non-governmental bodies have a great deal to learn from each other, but no one should underestimate the achievements of the Wales tourist board or the money that the Government have made available to it. The allocation for the current year is some £8·7 million and for next year it will be £9·2 million —an increase of 9 per cent. There has been an increase since 1983–84 of some 90 per cent. in the funds made available to the board, and it is making good use of those funds.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Should not my hon. Friend reconsider those figures in the light of the fact that the Wales tourist board will have to make substantial additional expenditure as it embarks upon an important programme of grading of hotels?
    Mr. Roberts: An increase of 9 per cent. in the board's resources for next year is very substantial, and this year we are making available additional funds of about £250,000 to promote marketing. As for hotel registration, the board already operates a voluntary system.

    General Certificate of Secondary Education
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation of the GCSE examination in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from an interim report published on 8 March that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools found that the GCSE is being successfully introduced. It is leading to better teaching and has succeeded in raising the motivation of pupils.
    Mr. Howells: The Minister will be aware that many leading educationists in Wales are worried about the plight of 16-year-old students. They say that many are under a great deal of stress and that they are overworked. If so, what plans does the Minister have to remedy the problem?
    Mr. Roberts: I, too, have read the article from which the hon. Gentleman appears to be quoting, but in Wales there are others who welcome this development, and the HMI report is very favourable. We have spent more money on the introduction of this examination than on any previous examination.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that we endorse what he has said about the performance of the examination? Will he ensure that the proposals in the Education Reform Bill, which will be the subject of scrutiny this week, will not undermine the positive gains made in the assessment used for GCSE, and that the testing which the Secretary of State for Education and Science has in mind will not revert to more traditional roles but will retain the gains made by the GCSE?
    Mr. Roberts: We very much hope that the Education Reform Bill will enhance the performance of pupils. After all, the GCSE is intended to stretch children's ability. As for assessment, I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that in the coming year we shall spend about £855,000 in Wales on in-service assessment training for teachers.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister join me in praising the efforts of teachers who have been working in extremely difficult conditions successfully to introduce the GCSE in Wales? Will he assure me that his Department will monitor the examination carefully, because early evidence suggests that pupils of average and below-average ability are having more than a little difficulty with the examination and that its purpose may be somewhat undermined?
    Mr. Roberts: As the inspectorate acknowledged, there are some teething troubles, but that is due simply to the introduction of the new examination. On the whole, it is progressing favourably. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the teachers, who have done extremely well in introducing the examination, amd I am happy to say that in the current year we have spent about £859,000 on training teachers in respect of the GCSE.

    Hospital and Health Plans
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to ensure full public availability of financial information on hospital and other health plans in South Glamorgan and in Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Grist: It is already my right hon. Friend's policy that the strategic health service plans submitted to him for his approval by health authorities should contain a reconciliation of the district's service objectives and priorities with the resource assumptions provided by the Department.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that reply, and I am sure he will share my concern that a letter that I received this weekend from the chairman of the health authority seems to suggest that two promises will be broken. The first was that full financial information would be made available, although delayed from the date in December that was originally promised. The second was that the consultation period would be extended for the financial appraisal to be taken into account. Obviously, if the information was not made available, the extension will not make much sense.
    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter is of grave concern, and that it is impossible for us in the South Glamorgan area to take a sensible part in discussion about the plans? Will he draw to the attention of the chairman of the health authority the very sensible reply that he gave to my first question?
    Mr. Grist: I am unable to comment on any promise that may or may not have been made to the hon. Gentleman.

    11
    On the other hand, I think he will understand that, in the initial stages of consultation, it is not normal for the financial implications to be spelt out. Normally, that comes later. As far as I can see, the procedure is following its ordinary course and the guidelines laid down by the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister tell the House how much it would cost to reopen the high dependency unit in St. Tydfil hospital in Merthyr Tydfil? Can he give no fresh hope that extra resources will be provided to reopen the unit, which has £120,000 of equipment lying idle?
    Mr. Grist: I see that the Mid-Glamorgan health authority has stated its intention to operate the unit in the long-term and that there is no question of closing it. It also claims that it is making a saving, with only three places operative up to this date, of some £30,000.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend consider seriously the representations that he is receiving from the Pembrokeshire health authority concerning the roof of Withybush hospital, which has been seriously damaged in recent years because of its construction? The health authority is expected to find the £500,000 to repair it when, in the first place, it was built under Welsh Office construction supervision. Moreover, its quality was seriously reduced because of the cuts under the last Government.
    Mr. Grist: We are in negotiation with the Pembrokeshire health authority, to which we have made an offer.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister also give an undertaking to reveal the financial and health costs of introducing charges for eye tests? Are such charges not likely to hinder detection of illness and lead to a further deterioration in the health of the people of Wales? By supporting the charges—as he is on record as doing—in conjunction with the massive tax handouts which will largely benefit the south-east of England, is the Minister not proving himself yet again to be a defender of the indefensible?
    Mr. Grist: I shall ignore the second half of that question. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the argument very well. We do not expect that those who pay for the eye tests—and many, as he knows, will not—will pay £10, the figure that has been put around. They may not be charged at all, because of competition. Opticians will still be under an obligation to report any disease or injury to the general practitioners of their patients, so there should be no spread of disease —despite what has, unfortunately and rather irresponsibly, been put around.

    Rates
    Mr Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for rates in Wales following the House of Lords judgment on 11 February in the case of Clement v. Addis Ltd.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made on 9 March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Wardell: May I put on record my appreciation to the Secretary of State for any assistance that he gave in his discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    12
    State for the Environment preceding that statement? May I ask him specifically whether there is any opportunity whatever for the Welsh Office to make any additional financial help available to Swansea city council and West Glamorgan county council, which have suffered as a result of this decision of 11 February?
    Mr. Walker: Provision is made so that the effects of an event such as this can be dealt with under section 67 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. We are having discussions to see whether that applies in this case.

    Health Service Staff
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on staffing levels in the Health Service in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Operational and managerial responsibility for the determination of staffing levels rests with individual health authorities. Since the Government took office there has been an overall increase of 16 per cent. in front-line staff and of 11 per cent. overall.
    Mr. Carlile: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent British Medical Association report which revealed that there was a 50 per cent. shortage of medical record staff in Wales, with the result that treatment is being delayed, and carried out less efficiently in some cases, and that there are great problems of marrying laboratory results to medical records?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that the arrangements to be made for manpower surveillance over the whole of the Health Service will help to make sure that manpower resources are available where they are most needed.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    City of Leicester
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit those parts of the city of Leicester which are Duchy property.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I hope to visit the Duchy interests in Leicester as soon as the opportunity to do so arises.
    Mr. Janner: Since the lamentable defeat of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, in 1261, is it not right that the Minister and his Duchy acquired responsibility for the honour and county of Leicester? As he has now very wisely given up his responsibility for fiddling the unemployment figures and instead is turning his attention to covering up the adverse trade balance of the nation, may I offer him the opportunity to take advantage of Leicester as soon as possible by applying for admission to either the Trinity hospital or the Wyggeston hospital, both of which I understand he still owns?
    Mr. Clarke: The penalties of political defeat were rather severe in 1265, so it is the case that the Duchy of Lancaster acquired entirely the honour and county of Leicester in the 13th century. We now own one property in the high street and have an interest in the Wyggeston and Trinity hospitals. I trust that the way in which the Duchy administers them gives rise to no complaints. The economy of Leicester is thriving rather well. Unemployment is falling and employment is rising. The

    13
    Highfields task force, for which I am responsible in Leicester, is achieving great success in getting projects moving in that difficult part of the town.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Education Reform
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, answering for the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners have received on the implications for the area of the commissioners' responsibility of the Education Reform Bill.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners' involvement in the educational field is restricted to providing grants towards the stipends of chaplains in universities and polytechnics. They have received no representations on this matter.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the popularity of denominational schools underlines the desire of parents for religious education based upon the scriptures? Does he also agree that religious education should be taught by those with a sense of conviction, and is he happy with the role of religious education, in the Education Reform Bill?
    Mr. Alison: I am delighted that the Education Reform Bill retains the compulsory provision of the 1944 Act for religious education and introduces a new complaints procedure in relation to the supervision of that instructuon. I agree with my hon. Friend that, almost universally, parents want religious education and they want it to be predominantly Christian and scriptural. I note that there will be an opportunity to debate these matters in the course of the next two or three days.

    VAT (Religious Books)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, answering for the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received from the clergy regarding the implications for their standard of living of taxation on religious books.
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners have received no such representations. Parochial church councils are encouraged to reimburse a clergyman for the cost of books considered necessary to assist him in his ministry. Failing this, the Inland Revenue allows tax relief on certain categories of books. The imposition of VAT on books would have a significant effect on clergy, who, by the nature of their work, spend quite a lot on books.
    Mr. Allen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware that the European Community is still determined to impose VAT on books, and that this will not only be a tax on learning but in this instance a tax on religion as well? That will affect not only the members of the Church of England for whom the right hon. Gentleman answers, but Catholics, Muslims, Hindus and all the other religious denominations which he does not represent. Will he make representations to his hon. Friends to ensure that VAT is not imposed on religious books?
    Mr. Alison: I note that a Treasury Minister in a written answer on 18 January stated that my right hon. Friend the
    14
    Prime Minister has already made it clear that the United Kingdom will not accept proposals which restrict our right to apply zero rating.
    Mr. Gow: Is not my right hon. Friend vigorous in his defence of the rights of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of this House to determine taxation? Is not his reluctance to allow Lord Cockfield to impose taxation upon religious books just as robust as that of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Alison: I am not quite sure that I can reach Lord Cockfield with quite as ready accessibility as I can reach my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Public Accounts Committee
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will give details of the occasions since 1986 when the Public Accounts Commission has received advice from the Public Accounts Committee under section 4(2) and (3) of the National Audit Act 1983.
    Sir Peter Hordern (on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission): The Public Accounts Commission considered and approved the National Audit Office's proposed Estimates for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89 at its meetings on 3 February 1987 and 15 December 1987 respectively. Before approving the Estimates the Commission had regard to the advice of the Public Accounts Committee as it is obliged to do.
    Mr. Allen: Has the Public Accounts Committee advised the Commission on the number of National Audit Office reports issued to Parliament? Will the hon. Gentleman also give us his own view on whether enough time is allowed on the Floor of the House for these very important reports to be debated for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Yes, Sir. We understand from the Public Accounts Committee that the National Audit Office is expecting to produce 50 reports a year by 1992–93, which is a significant increase.
    As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, much as I should like to give my personal view, I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a member of the Commission and no doubt heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the matters on which the PAC has given such advice— he was involved in this — was the need for a decent salary for the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland? In view of the serious staffing difficulties in that regard, is he pressing Ministers to ensure that the matter is soon resolved?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I can tell my hon. Friend that one of the matters that the PAC is considering at present is the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.

  WALES

    Health Authorities (Financial Deficits)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to help Welsh health authorities overcome their financial deficits.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): This year supplementary revenue funding amounting to £23·3 million has been provided to district health authorities in Wales to help them meet financial pressures. This brings the cash increase in DHA revenue funding to £60·5 million, or 9·1 per cent., over the 1986–87 provision. Loans of £2·3 million have also been provided to the two authorities with cash flow problems.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that the situation for all health authorities in Wales is extremely serious? Is he aware that, as we approach the new financial year, Mid-Glamorgan area health authority already knows that, unless the Government fund in full the nurses' pay award, it will be £5 million short in the coming year? Does the Minister agree that most of the deficit finance problems of the Health Service in Wales are due to the Government's previous failure to fund properly the pay awards to the nurses?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will remember that last year some 97 per cent. of the cost of the review body awards were funded by central Government and were, therefore, not met from health authority budgets. If Mid-Glamorgan area health authority had put into operation cost savings and tendering programmes, as it was urged to do, it would not be in this position.
    Mr. Raffan: How much less would be spent on the NHS in Wales if expenditure had remained at the 1979 percentage of gross domestic product, namely, 4·7 per cent. and not risen to today's level of 5·4 per cent. of GDP? The expenditure on the NHS in England and Wales is £2·9 billion. Will my hon. Friend tell us what the figure is for Wales alone?
    Mr. Grist: Since the rise is about 35 per cent. in real terms I shall leave my hon. Friend to work out the mathematics of that one.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were out of work in May 1979 and on the latest available date in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales; and what increases these are in percentage terms.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): On II February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in Clwyd was 19,024. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.
    The seasonally adjusted numbers of unemployed claimants in Wales in May 1979 and February 1988 were 73,100 and 136,700 respectively. I am pleased to say the latest figure shows a decrease of 23 per cent. over the past months.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that later this week he will meet Clwyd county council? Will he give sympathetic consideration to the case that the council will make to build a new crossing of the
    16
    River Dee? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if he gives such sympathetic consideration many new jobs will be developed in an area where there is still mass unemployment?
    Mr. Walker: I gather that it is a local authority scheme and I shall, of course, listen with interest to what the authority has to say.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Annunciators
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on announcements about Government business on the House of Commons annunciators.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): On Mondays to Thursdays the House of Commons annunciators display continuously, from fpm until the House convenes, any private notice questions and statements that are due to be taken at the commencement of public business. On Fridays any such announcement is usually shown first at 10 am and then at regular 15-minute intervals for a two-minute period until the statement is made.
    Mr. Thurnham: I would be pleased if consideration could be given to keeping information about statements on the annunciators after 2.30 pm. Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects us to see that?
    Mr. Wakeham: I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that there are physical limits to what can be done. However, it may be possible to accommodate the words, "Statement at 3.30 pm" or "Private notice question at 3.30 pm" on the top of the screen. In view of my hon. Friend's request I have referred this matter to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee for further consideration.
    Mr. Tony Banks: While I would not necessarily want to hear every speech made in this Chamber if I were not present, is it not now technically possible to use the annunciator system to take a sound feed so that Members in their offices can listen to debates? When the Select Committee considers the televising of Parliament, could it consider the possibility of having pictures as well as sound on the annunciators?
    Mr. Wakeham: I imagine that both those things would be possible, but they would require further consideration and decision by the House. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind.
    Mr. Sims: I appreciate that there are time restrictions with regard to private notice questions, but it is often the case that the Government know that a statement will be made, possibly even a day or so beforehand, yet no notice appears until 1 o'clock. Therefore, those hon. Members with lunch engagements go to those engagements without being aware that a statement is to be made. Is there any reason why, for example, the fact that there was to be a statement made today could not have been on the annunciator during the course of the morning?
    Mr. Wakeham: First, there are questions regarding seeking Mr. Speaker's permission to make a statement and

    17
    so on, but I will bear what my hon. Friend has said in mind. However, I believe that the present arrangements are the most satisfactory.

    Still and Carbonated Waters
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what quantity of still and carbonated waters were sold in the House of Commons Refreshment Department in the last year; from what countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Charles Irving (Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee): I have been asked to reply.
    In the year ending February 1988, 34,000 bottles of still and carbonated spring and mineral waters were sold by the Refreshment Department. Of those, 10,300 pints were British and 13,700 pints were French. The Catering Sub-Committee has recently decided to promote the sale of British waters by selecting waters from England, Scotland and Wales that will bear the House of Commons own label. It is hoped that those waters will be available for sale after the Easter recess, and we shall also be selling them in the Kiosk, thereby doubling the amount that we sell each year and making an increased profit.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I remind him that he, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds South (M r. Rees) and I were members of the Sub-Committee that chose the excellent English, Scottish and Welsh waters that the House has so enjoyed? Has the time not come to eliminate French waters from this House?
    Mr. Irving: We do not intend to eliminate Perrier water. That would be totally undemocratic and it would be very much more difficult to obtain.
    Mr. Haynes: I am ashamed and disgusted that we carry foreign waters in this place. What about fighting for Britain? What about the British waters? It is high time that the policy was changed.
    Mr. Irving: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I can state that that is exactly what we are doing, and I am grateful to him for the compliment.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the cost of using simultaneous translation facilities in the Welsh Grand Committee so as to allow for the use of Welsh in its proceedings.
    Mr. Wakeham: None, Sir. It is a rule of the House that all proceedings should be conducted in English.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the divisiveness that the Welsh language can and does cause in the Principality. Would this not be an inexpensive investment in confirming the unity of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Wakeham: That is a matter for the House, not for me. However, I very much doubt whether it would he approved by the House.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Bearing in mind that this year we are celebrating the 400th anniversary of the translation
    18
    of the Bible into Welsh and the fact that more than one-third of hon. Members from Wales now speak Welsh, does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that this year would be the appropriate time to introduce Welsh into the proceedings of the House?
    Mr. Wakeham: No. The proceedings of the House have been conducted in English for many hundreds of years and I believe that that policy should continue.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In view of the large number of English Members who signed the early-day motion on this subject, will my right hon. Friend arrange for them to have Welsh lessons?
    Mr. Wakeham: That is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Coleman: Will the Lord President of the Council resist this proposition? Is he aware that the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee are broadcast? Therefore, many of our countrymen who do not speak the language would be deprived of hearing the speeches made by Welsh Members if those speeches were made in Welsh.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience. The rule regarding the use of the English language extends to the Committees of the House. I understand that on two occasions, once in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and once in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, a language other than English was used by a witness giving evidence. However, an interpreter was present and the records of the meetings were produced only in English.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the four-fifths of people in Wales who do not speak Welsh will be grateful to him for his sensible decision? Does he also accept that if he were to give way to this unreasonable request, groups speaking many other languages in the United Kingdom—and some groups may be as large as the Welsh-speaking group — would want to make a similar claim on the House?
    Mr. Wakeham: As usual, my hon. Friend has widened the subject very well. He has made a very good point and I will take note of it.

    Aerosols
    Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Lord President of the Council if there are any plans to ban the use of aerosols in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. I am not aware of any such plans.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister not realise that Prince Charles has already banned the use of dangerous aerosols——
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, but we must not bring in the private opinions of members of the royal family to support arguments.
    Mr. Roberts: It is a stated public opinion of the royal family that the aerosols are dangerous and the royal family are not using them in their homes. Prince Charles made his statement as an environmentalist who is concerned about the environment. In the light of recent reports that there has been a 3 per cent. depletion of the protective ozone layer over Britain, and that every 1 per cent. by which that

    19
    ozone layer is depleted causes the incidence of skin cancer to increase between 5 and 7 per cent., should not the Government take the issue seriously, set an example and ban the use of CFC-bearing aerosol cans in the Palace of Westminster and in all Government Departments, especially the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that not all aerosols are subject to this restriction. The restriction applies only to those aerosols which contain chlorofluorocarbons. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that by signing the Montreal protocol the Government are committed to reducing the use of those chemicals in this country by 50 per cent. before the end of the century. We are looking to all users in refrigeration, insulation and dry cleaning—as well as aerosols—to contribute towards that reduction. To that
    20
    end the Government are adopting a more far-reaching and co-ordinated policy that will produce greater environmental benefits.
    Mr. Dickens: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that if aerosol sprays are banned from the Palace of Westminister hon. Members run the risk of becoming extinct? A lot of hot air is spoken here late at night.
    Mr. Wakeham: Any such ban would ultimately be for the House to decide. While I would not discourage any decision by individual Members or Officers of the House not to use aerosols containing chlorofluorocarbons, it would not be appropriate to ban their use. Voluntary action is likely to be more effective, and the British aerosol industry, which has already made a significant contribution to reducing emissions, expects virtually to phase out the use of CFCs within the next few years.

Terrorist Murders in Northern Ireland
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the recent killings in Northern Ireland, and especially on the murders of two soldiers in Belfast on Saturday 19 March.
I must remind the House of the background and sequence of events during the last week in Northern Ireland. On Wednesday the funerals were held of the three IRA terrorists killed in Gibraltar. In spite of the very large crowds and the extremely tense situation in West Belfast, the funerals had proceeded in an orderly manner, without violence and without any paramilitary display.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This may be a point of disagreement. I shall call the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Mr. King: This was the position when a vicious attack took place at Milltown cemetery by a Loyalist gunman. In that attack three people attending the funeral were killed and a large number injured, of whom one remains in intensive care.
On Thursday there was the funeral of the IRA gunman shot by the Army on Monday. He was acknowledged by the IRA as one of its members. His funeral took place without disturbance and without paramilitary display.
On Friday the funeral took place of Charles McCrillen, a Catholic with no paramilitary connections, shot by the UFF; and of Thomas McErlean, one of the three killed at Milltown cemetery. These again took place peacefully and without any breach of the law.
On Saturday the funerals of the other two killed at Milltown cemetery took place, first that of John Murray, and secondly that of Kevin Brady, who was acknowledged by the PIRA to be one of its members. It was at this funeral that the quite horrific events took place that have so shocked the world.
I would like to tell the House the facts as far as they can be established about these events. Just after midday on Saturday, following the funeral service at St. Agnes church, the cortege moved off along Andersonstown road towards the Milltown cemetery. At that point, a civilian car attempted to reverse away from the cortege. Despite the television coverage of the subsequent events, which many hon. Members will have seen, it remains unclear how the car came to be in that position and for how long it had been on that road. What is quite clear, however, is that as it reversed away from the cortege its way was blocked, both forward and backward, by taxis accompanying the funeral.
What immediately followed is a matter of sickening visual record. A number of those in the funeral cortege immediately set upon the car with the obvious intention of pulling out the two occupants. Photographs indicate that at this point the driver of the car leaned out of his window and fired one shot in the air—the only shot which both occupants tired in the course of the attack upon them. After only a moment's pause the crown resumed the onslaught on the car, some of them smashing at it with iron bars, and eventually succeeded in hauling
22
out both occupants. Both men were then dragged by the crowd into an adjacent stadium, the gates were closed, and it appears that a smaller group of attackers continued to assault them, stripped them and searched their clothing, subsequently threw them over a wall, and then bundled them into a black taxi which took them to a nearby piece of wasteland, where they were shot.
It subsequently emerged that the two victims were corporals in the Royal Corps of Signals— Corporal Wood and Corporal Howes. Shortly beforehand they had left the joint police and Army base in North Howard street mill, after completing a routine maintenance task, in order to return to their unit at Lisburn. They had no reason to be in the vicinity of the funeral. This is not an approved route for soldiers who are not on operational duty at the time, and there is absolutely no question of their being involved in any way with surveillance or any other duties connected with the funeral. I am therefore unable to tell the House with any certainty why they were there. If the most likely explanation is that they decided to take the shortest route back to their base, without appreciating the presence of the funeral, this can only be conjecture, and it will probably never be known why they were there.
Whatever the reason, however, nothing can conceivably justify the utterly appalling outrage that then occurred and which resulted in their deaths. The whole House will join me in extending the utmost sympathy to their families, and even more so in view of the awful television pictures of the occasion. Nor has it gone unnoticed, and rightly so, that, although they both had loaded personal protection pistols, they showed incredible restraint in using them only to fire a warning shot in the air.
In the face of this outrage, and the others in the week, the first and immediate objective is to bring to justice those responsible. In respect of the Milltown cemetery attack, a man will shortly be charged with these murders, and also a number of other serious offences. In respect of the killing of the soldiers, two men are already in custody. In addition, a massive murder investigation is under way, in which all possible resources are involved to identify all those responsible.
The next issue that I wish to address is that of the approach of the RUC to the conduct of these funerals. Large funerals and processions are arguably the most difficult events from a public order and a terrorist threat situation that the security forces face. They have been used quite unscrupulously by paramilitaries for propaganda purposes.
The Chief Constable, in determining the most appropriate method of policing any funeral, takes account of all the relevant circumstances in reaching his decision. Clearly a prime consideration has been that they should be conducted within the law and without paramilitary display. He would also have regard to the degree to which other elements would seek deliberately to exploit the presence of the police to provoke violence and disorder.
There have been suggestions that the arrangements for the funerals were the consequence of a political directive and that there had been some interference with the independent operational responsibility of the Chief Constable. This is quite false. The Chief Constable has asked me to make it quite clear that he takes full responsibility for the arrangements for the funerals, and that these were policing decisions, taken after the most careful assessment of all the relevant circumstances. I

23
would emphasise that I fully support the decisions that he took in these matters, and in which the initial outcome had clearly been successful. However, the two incidents that subsequently occurred are clearly wholly unacceptable and require immediate review in regard to policing to be followed at any future funeral. The Chief Constable has informed me this morning that he is carrying this through as a matter of urgency. I can tell the House that he will carry through this work with great professionalism and sensitivity, but the House knows well how difficult it is to ensure that funerals can proceed in good order and within the law when there are elements who have absolutely no scruples or respect for family feelings in the way in which they seek to exploit them.
Faced with the appalling violence of the last weeks—not only in Belfast, but the vicious murders of Jillian Johnston in Fermanagh and Constable Graham in the Creggan in Londonderry only this morning—the House may remember the words that I spoke last Thursday about the desperate need to break the awful cycle of violence and retaliation and end the suffering and heartache that is achieving nothing but more misery for all. This is now urgent, and it is the time when every person with a spark of human decency must determine to give his full support to the fight against terrorism, from whichever quarter it may come. The security forces will take the lead, as they have done so bravely over the years, but they must have the whole-hearted co-operation of everybody in the Province, in the island of Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, in their task. I saw this morning Archbishop Eames, Cardinal O'Fiaich, the Moderator and Secretary of the Presbyterian Church and the President of the Methodist Church, on the need for all in the Province to take their share of responsibility and to condemn violence in all its forms.
It is vital that we also help the community, in any way, to support the fight against terrorism, and in that connection we are improving significantly the confidential telephone system. Very shortly indeed we shall be supplementing the present system with a single and easily memorable freephone number usable right across the Province. I have asked the broadcasting authorities to publicise the number, and they have readily agreed. That will be a valuable strengthening of the present facility, which is, in fact, being used by a considerable number of people in their horror at the events of Saturday.
The fight against Republican terrorism must be waged also beyond the confines of Northern Ireland, and it particularly raises major challenges for the Government of the Republic of Ireland. A significant number of steps have been taken to help improve cross-border cooperation, and we particularly appreciate the amount of weapons and explosives that have already been recovered by the Garda. We have to keep working to improve that co-operation in our common interest to defeat terrorism. I have this morning agreed with Mr. Lenihan that there will be a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference this week, at which we shall be discussing cross-border security co-operation, and which will be attended by Mr. Lenihan and myself, as co-chairmen, by Mr. Collins, the Irish Minister of Justice, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and by the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda.
24
The common phrase this weekend is that the troubles of Northern Ireland have plumbed new depths of horror. That was the phrase at Enniskillen, that was the phrase at Milltown cemetery, and it is now the phrase in the Andersontown road following the events of Saturday. The truth is that there will be new depths again so long as this awful and violent campaign of terrorism and revenge continues. It has got to stop, in the name of humanity, if there is to be any decent future for the people of Northern Ireland and for all those living in the island of Ireland, and if the evil shroud of terrorism is to be lifted from the United Kingdom as a whole.
We all have our part to play, whether in actively combating terrorism through the security forces, whether working to build bridges across communities or whether in deciding we do nothing in our words or actions that can increase the tensions. We all have our part, and the duty that we owe to all the tragic victims of these outrages is to play that part to the full.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is my unhappy duty once again to have to pass on the condolences of Opposition Members to the families of those who have been so tragically killed in Northern Ireland. Our sympathies today are with the families of Corporals David Howes and Derek Wood, but we must not forget Jillian Johnston, and we hope that her fiance will have a speedy recovery. Our condolences must go also to the family of Constable Graham, who was killed in the Creggan.
In the past four days the Secretary of State has twice had the melancholy task of coming to the Dispatch Box as the bearer of bad news. Five tragic deaths have occurred at funerals, three at the hands of a maverick gunman, and two after being cornered by a bestial pack that had trapped its quarry.
However, the important thing is that in this House we maintain cool heads. Our justified and righteous anger should not be allowed to overcome a reasoned judgment, for if it does the men of violence will have won.
On Thursday Opposition Members supported the decision of the Chief Constable in the attitude that was taken to the policing of Wednesday's funerals. He took a similar decision on Saturday, and in the successful funerals that occurred earlier last week, which we tend to forget. We thought that he was right then; we think that he is right now. He must decide how best to police events in emotionally charged atmospheres. That is sensitive policing, not soft policing. He must take each case as it comes, on its merits. We welcome his review, but we welcome also the knowledge of his integrity and of the fact that he will do what is best for the rule of law and for the feelings of the families of the dead in Northern Ireland when he comes to his decision.
None the less, questions need to be asked and observations need to be made. First, is the Secretary of State in a position to tell the House if, and when, the Army was informed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary of the type of policing practices that were to be used at the funeral on Saturday, and indeed at previous ones? What general procedures for liaison between Army personnel and the RUC exist on these matters?
Secondly, can the Secretary of State confirm that instructions were given to the two corporals about the route to be followed and that they had been briefed about the funerals?

25
Thirdly, we welcome the statement that a man is to be charged for what happened at Milltown and that two people have been arrested in connection with what happened on Saturday, but many more people were involved in the soldiers' murders. Can the Secretary of State say whether it has been decided to bring charges against the two who have been arrested and if he expects further arrests to follow?
Fourthly, it has been alleged that the security forces in the area were prevented by orders from seeking to protect the soldiers, the mere suggestion of which I find completely reprehensible. Will the Secretary of State confirm to hon. Members, who may have heard other hon. Members making that statement, that such was not the case?
Finally, in terms of questions, can the Secretary of State say what role the helicopter that was in the vicinity played in seeking to summon assistance to the cornered soldiers?
We welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the Intergovernmental Conference to be held later this week. Obviously, Opposition Members welcome the continuance of that development. We prefer it to suggestions in some quarters that there should be an early meeting between the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. Our general view is that, while we welcome the support and statements that are coming from the Republic in the wake of recent incidents, gesture politics of a summit nature would not be proper at the present time. Perhaps there should be a summit meeting, but it should take place only after a period of careful planning, with an agreed agenda, and when each of the Governments know what they want to achieve. At present, the mechanics exist in the Intergovernmental Conference for other matters to be discussed.
We believe that the Prime Minister should start once again to play a more active part in Irish affairs. In the past six months horrific events and political misunderstandings have increased. As a signatory to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, many of us believe that the Prime Minister should resume that keen interest which helped to lead to the signing of the agreement. This will be essential in the period leading up to the re-examination of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
There is a responsibility on the elected leaders of the communities in Northern Ireland, who have seen enormous tragic changes taking place in their communities. They must come together. They must sit together, with good will and no preconditions, to attempt to find a peaceful way forward. The vacuum in constitutional politics has for the moment been replaced with a surfeit of violence—the gunman, the bomber, the lynch mob. It is time for the political leaders from both communities in Northern Ireland to find an antidote to this poison in the midst of the communities.
All that the British Government can do, and all that we as an Opposition can help them to do, is to maintain the position in which the political leaders can come together to talk. The Secretary of State has a crucial role to play in this process. We are talking about British subjects directly ruled from this House. If that is his course of action, I am sure that he will be given the full support of all men and women of good will in both these islands. He will have our support in upholding the rule of law against the law of the jungle.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his closing comments and for the way in which he has
26
approached this appalling and difficult issue. He said that he supported the decision as being right at the time, but clearly in the light of subsequent events it requires close review. That will he done. There is close liaison between the Army and the police. In all their activities they work in close co-operation.
In terms of what the soldiers knew, I understand that there was a general briefing at the beginning of the week about the problems posed by the tensions arising from the funerals. As I said in my statement, the route that the soldiers were on is not an approved route at any time for soldiers who are not on operational duties in the area.
I cannot add to what I said about charges, but obviously the House will await further information with close attention.
There is absolutely no truth whatever in the suggestion that the security forces were in some way prevented from intervening. That is a gross calumny on the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the integrity of the senior officers at the time. There is no justification whatever for that claim and I am sorry that certain people have chosen to raise that point.
At the time, the police were obviously assisted by the helicopter. It is no secret that it can provide helpful information of events on the ground, although sometimes it takes time to interpret exactly what is happening. The police did not have access to the sort of television film inside the cameras which subsequently we have all been able to see and with hindsight form other views. In the initial stages it took time to clarify what was taking place. The police knew that there were certainly no security forces or soldiers in the area. As far as their intelligence went, nobody was there. It is no secret that the first impression was of a further attempted bomb attack on a funeral. That was one possibility. As soon as it was clear that the matter was indeed serious, the police acted with considerable determination.
Mr. James Molyneaux: In fairness to the two young corporals, will the Secretary of State accept that he seemed to say by implication that the route they chose was the direct route to Army headquarters in Lisburn? Will he confirm that the alternative route, which is an extension of the M1 motorway, has been a no-go area to all Army personnel for years? Were the two corporals informed that the motorway extension was out of bounds to them? Were they directed to use a route which had not previously been authorised for military personnel?
Can the Secretary of State now answer the question that I put to him in the House last Thursday, when I asked him to explain precisely how the stand-off decision was taken and what wider considerations and discussions preceded the Chief Constable's directive? Does he agree that dual control of the security forces, the Army and the RUC, as required by article 7 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is proving to be utterly disastrous?
Mr. King: I note that the right hon. Gentleman does not choose to repeat in the House the allegations that he made outside about some political interference. I am glad that he did not, because they happen to be absolutely untrue.
Mr. Molyneaux rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have interventions in the middle of answers.
Mr. King: If the right hon. Gentleman intends to quote from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, it would be more candid

27
with the House to recognise that the Anglo-Irish Agreement specifically reserves the operational independence of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable has made his position clear. What has happened is deeply regrettable. The right hon. Gentleman opened his question out of deference to the two corporals concerned. We feel that deference throughout the House. The right hon. Gentleman does no good to misrepresent the position about the sad circumstances that surrounded their deaths.
In my statement I made clear the position about the road. It is not a no-go area. There are no no-go areas in Northern Ireland. There is a difference between routes that soldiers or security forces use when on operational duty, and those that they use when they are not on operational duty.
Sir Bernard Braine: Whatever our private feelings about the atrocious happening on Saturday, I am sure that all of us welcome my right hon. Friend's frank, moving and firm statement. With regard to the future, will he take it from me that hon. Members and the country cannot accept any suggestion of no-go areas in any part of the United Kingdom? I hope that he will make that absolutely clear. Although we expect the Government to continue to seek reconciliation between two sorely tried communities by every reasonable means, they must not flinch from the task of eradicating men of violence, wherever they may be found.
Mr. King: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments. This has been a tragic and most awful occurrence. Whatever the circumstances in which it arose, it is simply intolerable that this could happen, not just in the United Kingdom, but anywhere in the civilised world. I do not think that I was the only person who sensed the utter barbarity that happened on Saturday. Against that background, I assure my right hon. Friend that there are no no-go areas. The writ runs throughout Northern Ireland, as it does throughout the United Kingdom, but I draw the distinction, which right hon. and hon. Members will recognise, between routes where there are no no-go areas and routes that are more sensible, or less sensible, to use when not on operational duty.
Mr. John Hume: I join the Secretary of State and right hon. and hon. Members in expressing the deepest sympathy to the families of those who have been murdered in the past week in Northern Ireland and in sending a particular word of sympathy to the families of the soldiers who were murdered in such barbaric circumstances. The dictionary is no longer full enough of words to express proper condemnation and the revulsion that people feel about what happened. I agree with the Secretary of State. There is no shortage of those who, in hindsight, would tell us what we should have done.
I tell the House with conviction that the feeling in west Belfast last week after the Gibraltar incident was such that had the security forces mounted normal operations at these funerals the violence would have been serious and there would have been many more deaths. Unfortunately, political leaders, policemen and soldiers in Northern Ireland are faced, not with the normal choice between what is right and what is wrong—not with black and white—but often with the choice between the roads of lesser risk and lesser evil. In the circumstances, the police
28
and the Army took the proper and correct decision, and I support them. These events have underlined for everybody across the board in Northern Ireland the desperate and terrible futility of killing human beings in order to unite a people.
What that deep feeling, right across our community, cries out to everybody in this House, and particularly to me and the hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me, is that there is a desperate need for dialogue, not to conquer one another, but to accommodate our differences. —[Interruption.] I also say to those who criticise and say that because of these horrific events the Government should be deflected from the road on which they have chosen to go, together with the Irish Government, that they are saying that both Governments should be blackmailed by the people who committed these horrific crimes, and that is unthinkable. —[Interruption.] Strength must be shown, and there is no better way to show that to the people of Northern Ireland than by the two Governments, with all their resources, working as closely as possible to face down and tackle all these problems.
Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening comments, which drew attention to the appallingly difficult decisions that the Chief Constable, who has the responsibility, has to take. It is easy enough to shout abuse, and the House heard an illustration of that during the hon. Gentleman's contribution, with the shouting and the heckling that will always come from one side or the other. There is plenty of abuse that can be shouted. The problem is how to take decisions in the best interests of the people.
I was particularly concerned about the contribution of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), because he has a part to play in leading. He is looked to for leadership, and I hope that he will be able, as I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will, to show total support, in the fight against the violence, for the efforts of the security forces, and in the total commitment of both the Unionist and Nationalist constitutional parties to realise that they owe it to their people to encourage dialogue and discussion and not to leave a vacuum in which violence breeds.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I join the Secretary of State, not only in his condemnation of the killings that he had to report to the House, but in his expression of sympathy to the families of those involved.
Is it the Secretary of State's view that some contribution to the fact that the two soldiers were killed was that they restrained themselves and did not open fire? Is any part of that due to the fact that soldiers, and the security forces in general, are concerned at the repercussions should they attempt to defend their lives or those of other people in the community, because there may be calls for inquiries, disciplinary charges and even court cases? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he will stand behind any member of the security forces who has to defend his life in such circumstances?
What contribution does the hon. Gentleman feel that the decision of the Chief Constable to abdicate policing of west Belfast played in the events of Saturday? Will he be pressing the Chief Constable, in his review of policing funeral arrangements, to ensure that if those circumstances should recur there will be taken into consideration

29
the fact that the IRA takes over the policing of an area if the RUC abdicates that role? It is not simply a case of there being no policing in the area.
Does the Secretary of State feel that the vacuum into which undoubtedly violence and terrorism go can be taken up by political movement in Northern Ireland to get a replacement for a system that has failed not only politicians but the people of Northern Ireland? Can we not move towards a system of government that can produce peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and does he not think that with that stable structure of government we might have a firm and resolute security initiative to defeat terrorism in our Province?
Mr. King: It is right that the soldiers concerned had an absolute right to defend themselves. The terms of engagement are to save their own or other people's lives. At the same time, we must. recognise the appallingly difficult situation that they were in and the incredible restraint that they showed in the circumstances, to their tragic cost. They would have been entitled to defend themselves.
In no sense do I accept the phrase that the Chief Constable "abdicated policing" in west Belfast. I do not know why we assume that funerals ought to be policed. Should we not expect funerals to be one occasion when there is no need for policing? The appalling and unscrupulous intentions of those who exploit the grief of funerals has in the past made the policing of funerals necessary. There is no question of abdicating policing. Moreover, there is no question of tolerating any suggestion that the IRA, Sinn Fein or anybody else will set up some alternative police force.
Whereas the first funeral was clearly conducted in good order and without display, there were discouraging signs by the time of the funeral on Saturday. Although, as far as we know, there was no firing party, there were signs of some attempts to push the boundary back towards paramilitary displays, and I know that the Chief Constable is concerned about that.
If I read the hon. Gentleman right, I welcome the last part of his contribution, which was in line with other contributions that have been made. It is by dialogue, discussion and a constitutional approach, and not by violence, that we shall find the right way forward.
Mr. David Alton: In associating myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the condolences that the Secretary of State has expressed, I assure him of our full support for him personally in circumstances which have required great fortitude, courage and resilience. We strongly believe that the ritualistic calls for his resignation and that of the Chief Constable are gratuitously offensive, and should be treated as such. We reiterate our support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement as the best tool for defeating the lynch mobs. We welcome the announcement of the Intergovernmental Conference, and we hope that there will be an early summit at which the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will meet. We hope that on the agenda on that occasion will be the question of a joint security commission.
Will the Secretary of State review the policy of letting soldiers on duty drive through the Province in unmarked cars while wearing civilian clothing and armed only with pistols? Is it not the case that the only crumbs of comfort
30
to be drawn from a week of funerals, with yet more to come, is that the IRA has been exposed at its most bestial, ruthless and violent, and that no Irishman or Briton who calls himself civilised or Christian can give succour, hiding place or even acquiescence to the IRA or other paramilitary organisations?
Mr. King: I apologise for the fact that I have not yet replied to the question about a summit, which was raised also by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). As I announced, I and the Tanaiste, the Deputy Prime Minister, are to have a meeting this week. Any question of a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be a matter for later consideration, but there are no present proposals.
As to the question of the rules about soldiers travelling around the Province in unmarked cars while wearing civilian clothes, where there are major troop movements there is no question of that happening. However, in terms of administration and maintenance tasks — I see the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) nodding in agreement—the best way to safeguard the lives of soldiers, without massive organisation, is a degree of anonymity. Provided that the normal arrangements are adhered to, and sensible precautions are taken, it has worked extremely well in the past.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about me. I agree about the bestiality of what took place. I hope that everybody knows that what they saw are the people who, with the Armalite and the ballot box, have used the phrase, "Who shall object if we take power in Ireland?" Not just north of the border, but throughout the island of Ireland, through the medium of television, people saw the sorts of people who want to take power over them. It was no coincidence or impulse that made those people rush towards the cameras to try to obliterate the shots. Whatever the tragedy and awfulness of this, it has revealed the IRA in its real, unspeakable nastiness. Those pictures will not be forgotten in the island of Ireland.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: In expressing the full support of Conservative Members and the House as a whole for my right hon. Friend in his enormously difficult task, may I put it to him that, although it is almost impossible to find adequate words to describe the ghastly tragedies of last week, one thing that stands out is the heroic restraint of the murdered soldiers in not using their weapons to defend themselves against their brutal attackers? We should all pay tribute to them for that and remember them with honour. It should be a memorial and an example to everyone in Ireland.
Mr. King: We all feel deeply humbled at the way in which those soldiers reacted with discipline and restraint in the circumstances. It may interest the House to know that the GOC told me last night that the Army has never received as many messages of sympathy, concern and respect from members of the public across the Province as have been flooding into Army headquarters in Lisburn, where the two soldiers were based.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: First, I join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing my sympathy and the sympathy of my constituents to the families of the two young soldiers. My constituents know from bitter experience how the families and comrades of those two soldiers feel. Only the evening

31
before the death of the two soldiers, which was seen so vividly on television, an unsuspecting young girl of 21 was gunned down, by 47 shots from high-powered weapons, in the yard of her own home. She was the 196th victim of terrorism in my constituency, and the 111th victim since a date exactly 12 years ago. Of those 111 people, 110 were victims of the IRA.
We have heard people talk, because they saw it on their television screens, about the unbelievable savagery of what happened on Saturday. I and those whom I represent live with that same unbelievable savagery day in and day out. That is why we are so bitter and feel so helpless when a decision is taken to remove the police and the security forces from west Belfast, giving the freedom of the streets to those who, equipped with radios and mobile in their black taxis, can take complete control on behalf of the Provisional IRA.
It is not true to say that there was no paramilitary display and no disturbance in Belfast as a result of withdrawing the police and the Army. No shots may have been fired over the coffins, but the deceit is that the terrorists go round the corner into the next street, set up a shrine and there, before the media invited for the occasion, display the same paramilitary activity as they used to display over the coffins.
We must not be fooled by the platitudes that we hear from those who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the paramilitaries who supervise the funerals. I refer to the SDLP. I refer to the Irish Catholic Church and to those priests who can describe a terrorist who died in Gibraltar as someone who died like Jesus Christ. Neither I nor those of my co-religionists who heard those words can accept such blasphemy.
I ask the Secretary of State to try to listen to the voices of those, Protestant and Catholic, who want nothing to do with any paramilitary organisation and who would condemn the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters as they would condemn the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein. Will the right hon. Gentleman now listen to the voice of the people and those who try to be responsible elected representatives on their behalf, and not give way to something that may appear to have short-term advantage, but which will provide nothing but long-term disadvantage, suffering and tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. King: The whole House understands the depth of feeling with which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) speaks. The name of his constituency says it all to anyone who knows anything about recent events in Northern Ireland.
In my statement last Thursday I made clear my concern about some of the comments that are made in addresses at funerals. I include such people in the categories of those who have a part to play in trying to ease tension and build bridges. It is incumbent on everyone to have great regard to the phrases that they use, whatever the emotion of the moment.
In that connection, although I obviously do not approve of paramilitary displays in which people slide down side alleys and set up little stunts for the television cameras, that is markedly preferable to their appearing at the graveside as they have in the past. Having said that, it is obvously against the law and should not happen.
32
Although we prize highly freedom of speech and publication, the broadcasting authorities for which those stunts are arranged, and without which they would have no purpose, should consider their responsibilities in such matters.
In all the horror of the murder of the young girl in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, what revolted me as much as anything was the expression of regret from Mr. Adams, who said that he thought it was a mistake.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully understand the importance of the matter, especially to those who represent Ulster constituencies, but I remind the House that there is an important debate to follow this. I hope that questions will be brief so that answers may also be relatively brief.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I join in the expression of sympathy. Is not the photograph of the naked young soldier poignantly relevant to this season leading up to Good Friday, and does it not remind us that we must never give way to despair?
The Secretary of State said that IRA funerals pose a serious problem. When he spoke to Cardinal O'Fiaich this morning, did he point out that the IRA uses its funerals for the glorification and justification of terrorism, and did he ask the Cardinal whether the Church will excommunicate the terrorists? Did he ask him to ensure that IRA funerals will be reduced to private funerals, with minimum rites and only a small number of people? That would save the security forces from danger.
Finally, did the Secretary of State raise at the Anglo-Irish Conference the question of allowing the coffins from Gibraltar to be landed at Dublin, thereby prolonging the funeral and inciting people to violence?
Mr. King: I do not think that it was any wish of the Irish Government for the coffins to arrive in Dublin. That was the choice of the families, and of others who may have been seeking to influence them. It posed significant problems for the Irish Government in policing the funeral as well.
I commend to hon. Members the editorial in the Irish News today. I am struck by some of the phrases in it. It states:
"The participants in the brutal orgy may well have formed part of the congregation that had just celebrated the ritual of the sacred liturgy."
It goes on to say:
"The barbaric murders of Corporal Wood and Howes were a satanic rejection of the Christian faith."
I think that the leading Nationalist Catholic newspaper in Northern Ireland brings across very forcefully the strength of decent Catholic feeling about those matters.
Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State told us at the beginning of his statement that the soldiers who were killed had been briefed earlier in the week. Is he aware that the individual whose funeral took place on Saturday was still alive at the beginning of the week, and would he care to comment on that?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Official Unionist party, made it clear that the Royal Ulster Constabulary could not have moved to the rescue because of a directive from the Chief Constable. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that the people of Northern Ireland expect more from him than a new telephone number if we are to deal with IRA terrorism?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's contribution falls somewhat short of the level that I would have looked for on this occasion.
First, let me say to him that the warning and guidance given to soldiers concerned funerals in west Belfast during the course of the week. He will be aware from my recitation that, sadly, there was a funeral every day from Wednesday through the whole of the week in west Belfast. As I have made clear, the route that the soldiers were on was never approved for non-operational use, whether for funerals or other matters.
As for the directions that were given, it was a police decision when to intervene. Allowing for the uncertainty at the start about just what was happening, and the difficulty of identifying events, the police arrived on the scene fairly soon, and in some numbers, but, sadly and tragically, not soon enough to prevent the deaths of the corporals.
Rev. William McCrea: My constituents and I join Members of the House, who, genuinely and sincerely, send their sympathy to the families who have been so sadly and tragically bereaved.
On Saturday, shortly after the two corporals were murdered, I stood at the bedside of my constituent, young Stanley Liggett, whose girl friend was being prepared for her coffin. As I stood at the bedside, that young man did not know that his young partner was dead. He was hoping, as he spoke to me, that soon he would be joining her in happiness, for the love that was in their hearts the one for the other.
I assure the Secretary of State that the people of my constituency do not feel happy about the security decision. Whether hon. Members accept it or not, it is different for those who live with this problem day after day. It is different for those who watch coffin after coffin going down the road. It is different for those looking into the faces of their loved ones—their kith and kin—who have been murdered.
People are lecturing us on how we are supposed to feel at the time of our sorrow and grief. We do not take very kindly to lectures at present. For 20 years our hearts have been cut asunder and our homes have been butchered. I know, because that happened to my family. I know what it is to carry the coffins of two young people down the road together.
There are Members of the House who have played along with the terrorists, and with a terrorist organisation, inviting its members to this country and sitting down with them. Indeed, in recent days, the leader of the SDLP has been in consultation and negotiation with the head of Sinn Fein. It was a Conservative Member who said on Northern Ireland radio this morning that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was an apologist for the terrorists. That was not my statement. It was made by a member of the Secretary of State's own party, who was trying to get out of the present tragedy of condemnation of the awful, brutal, savage murder of our people.
We want to live, and, whether or not it is accepted by hon. Members, we want to live in peace, but we can never live in peace with murderers. We cannot live in peace with men who have the weapons to kill our people. I ask the Secretary of State, genuinely and sincerely, to tell the House when he will fulfil the promise that he made at that Dispatch Box that he would bring peace to Northern
34
Ireland with the eradication—that is the word used both by him and by the Prime Minister—of terrorism. I beg of him: let it be soon, for that is what my people cry out for.
Mr. King: The whole House understands the reasons, and the most recent reminders, that have prompted the emotion with which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, and I know that every right hon. and hon. Member will respect them. The hon. Gentleman., too, will respect the fact that he is not the only Member of the House who feels deeply and tragically about the extent of the suffering and sorrow. I have taken certain responsibilities as Secretary of State. I hope that I do not lack feeling, and I share the concern that the hon. Member feels so acutely, with even more personal knowledge of the people concerned.
Against that background, however, we all have a duty to work for the future, to try to make it better for people, and to find a way through the problems and tragedies. That is why I say that it must be through co-operation. We should not try to find people whom we can criticise or make into scapegoats. We should try to find people with whom we can build and improve a life for all those in the Province.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: While expressing my horror and revulsion at the horrible killings of the recent past, and the 2,600 killings that have already taken place over a number of years, let me say that the understanding and sensitivity shown by the Secretary of State over a very difficult recent past have been recognised and much appreciated.
As one who publicly urged the Chief Constable of the RUC not to allow a confrontation to develop at the funerals, I feel that it would be absolutely wrong to allow the Chief Constable to be ultimately responsible for that decision, which I believed then was right, and I still believe was right. Having said that, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that the essence of the problem has not been changed by the terrible events of recent days? The essence of the problem remains the same, and therefore the essence of the solution must necessarily remain the same.
I strongly urge the two Governments, through the structures that they have developed for themselves, to approach a solution to the problem in terms of creating, not just peace, but the type of political stability that is so essential. If that were done, there would be a response, believe it or not, from the political community in the North of Ireland. Without that, every other effort is to no avail.
Mr. King: The challenge for political dialogue and progress is now within the Province, and that must now be addressed. To those who believe that there might be some solution through violence, the events of recent months, and above all the horror of Saturday, have shown where violence leads and shows the evil of the people who seek to perpetrate it.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the Chief Constable. He made a comment about the Chief Constable not having to take the responsibility. The Chief Constable does not shirk responsibility, and I have the greatest admiration for him in that respect. I hope that the House recognises that I will not shirk my responsibilities either. In making my statement I did not wish to cause confusion and suggest that responsibilities are different from what

35
they are. I have no hesitation in making it clear that I stand fully behind the Chief Constable in the decisions that he took.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House again that I must have regard for subsequent business. Many hon. Members who are rising have already spoken in the Budget debate, and there is a long list of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate today. I shall allow a further five minutes of questions on the statement, and then we must move on.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, like all my constituents in Carshalton, I and all hon. Members were deeply shocked and appalled by these tragic murders at the weekend? Our hearts go out to the parents and family of Corporal Derek Wood, who lived in my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that we were gratified by his words of sensitivity and sympathy for the families and that these will be of great comfort to them in their time of trial? Will he see to it that the results of the review that he has set in hand about the policing of funerals are speedily considered and acted upon?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he said, Corporal Wood was one of his constituents, and we understand very well my hon. Friend's feelings on the matter. I hope that he will draw to the attention of the family the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who has just returned to the Chamber. The House will have noticed that he spoke most movingly, and my hon. Friend will draw attention to the strong approbation of my right hon. Friend's admiration for two very brave young men.
Mr. Clive Soley: There is considerable sympathy for the Secretary of State in what must have been the most difficult week of his political career in the most difficult job in British politics. We must also recognise the special courage that enables two NCOs not to use their weapons when they could have done so in the closing minutes of their lives. Have we not seen a chain reaction of events that can be dealt with only by the very closest co-operation between London and Dublin?
Bearing in mind the events, not only of the last week, but of the last few months, will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly that the British Government's response to paramilitary organisations, whether Unionist or Republican, will always put first the British national interest of protecting the democratic forms within which we operate, and the rule of law? If we are ever seen to operate, or are believed to be operating, outside those, we shall undermine our own position. If we can reiterate that and operate within it, we will not only carry Dublin with us, but will triumph in the end, because democracy can triumph only when we operate on that basis.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the close interest that he takes in this subject. He will excuse me if I do not reply in detail, but, broadly, I agree very much with what he said.
Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while this is a tragic occasion, it is none the less an occasion on which we can all
36
appropriately unite to commend the work of the heroic forces of law and order in the Province—the UDR, the RUC and our own armed forces? Does he agree also that probably no armed forces in the world but ours could have sustained the burdens that they have had to sustain over a prolonged period? I hope that he will join me in hoping that before very long there will be condemnation of the violence direct from the Vatican.
Mr. King: My service in Northern Ireland forcefully brings home to me the debt that we owe to the security forces, not only for the effectiveness of their operations, but for the restraint and good humour with which they are conducted. In all the annals of their activities and service in Northern Ireland there has been no greater illustration of that restraint than the courage of those two young men.
Mr. Roy Beggs: On behalf of my constituents and myself, I, too, wish to place on record my sympathy for the relatives of the two young soldiers, for the family of Jillian Johnston and for the family of the constable who was murdered in Londonderry, Constable Clive Graham. Many hon. Members have spoken about the courage and bravery of those two young soldiers. I hope that the message will go to their colleagues who are still serving in Northern Ireland that we do not want any more of them to sacrifice their lives unduly. I can tell the Secretary of State that my constituents see that there are still no-go areas. As long as our people perceive that there are such areas, the Secretary of State must take note and with the Chief Constable take steps to ensure that there is proper policing throughout the Province.
May I also convey to the Secretary of State our very grave concern that in the absence of proper security and policing at IRA demonstrations those who are there already tooled up for murder and violence will use any excuse to perpetrate that violence? It is fine to suggest that the problem has to be solved within the Province. We as Unionists accept that, but we will play our part only when the conditions are right. The conditions can be made right by the Government of the Irish Republic and our own Government—with the agreement of the SDLP, if it is genuine—setting aside the obstacles to progress and the disgraceful so-called Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has produced nothing of success. It is being bolstered up. We must admit that we shall never have progress until the conditions and the opportunity are made available so that all the people in Northern Ireland can suggest a way forward that can be accepted and supported by both Governments.
Mr. King: I should like the hon. Gentleman to give me any details of any no-go area of which he is aware. I would appreciate it if he could give me those details. The determination and courage of the security forces ensures that such areas do not exist. The hon. Gentleman sought to widen this into other political issues. I should be happy to debate those with him at any time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called on this statement when we return to this subject again.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I shall take points of order in a moment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Minors' Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Northern Ireland Statements
4.38 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that I make absolutely no criticism of your position. This is a genuinely serious matter. Over the past 12 months I have sat through almost every statement on Ireland and have attended almost all the debates that have taken place. I want to draw your attention to a matter that worries me. It is one that is often discussed privately by my hon. Friends and is about the whole arrangement for calling hon. Members to ask questions about matters relating to Northern Ireland. We had a good example today.
We understand your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, because you feel that you have to call Northern Ireland Members. Today no Labour Back Benchers were called. I say again that we understand your dilemma, Mr. Speaker, but this matter is one for the whole of the United Kingdom. If, by any chance, you can hear us speaking among ourselves, you will know that we are commenting on the fact that we do not believe that the problems of Northern Ireland will be resolved by Northern Ireland Members coming to the House periodically to complain about what has happened during the course of these violent days. That is not the way forward. The time has come for other hon. Members, particularly on the Labour Benches, where there are many differing views, to be given the right to make their case. I regret that, once again, that has not been possible today.
Mr. Anthony Nelson rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is one of those wishing to speak later, if he is lucky.
The Northern Ireland Members who have spoken today and told us that they live daily and nightly with this tragedy have a right to express their strong feelings. I fully understand that this is a United Kingdom matter, but I hope that the House agrees that those who are most directly affected and those who have lost constituents in such tragedies should take precedence.
I hope also that the House will realise that, if we were to have an extended question time on such matters., we would put in jeopardy those hon. Members who rightly believe that they should be called during the subsequent debate. It is question of balance and I do my best to ensure that.
Mr. Nelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While supporting everything that you have just said, I ask you to bear in mind that the comments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) apply equally to those Back Benchers on the Government side of the House, who represent other parts of the United Kingdom, feel equally strongly about the matter and have not had an opportunity to participate in the questioning.
I wish to ask for your ruling on two points. I believe that you were right to call those hon. Members who have spoken, but those of us who believe that a much tougher policy needs to be instituted immediately did not have an opportunity to put that point to you. You, Mr. Speaker, are uniquely sensitive to the mood of the House. You know the mood of the country after such events. If this were a unique occasion and you felt that you could and

39
should do so, you would extend question time on this matter. I ask you to bear that point in mind. I know that you have not done so before, but, such is the mood of the House, that I urge you to give other hon. Members an opportunity to express their heartfelt view that we need to get tougher.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough. The hon. Gentleman is one of a number of hon. Members who have in the past written to me to express their distress at not being called in debates. It is difficult for the Chair to balance the rights of those hon. Members who wish to make speeches in a debate and those who wish to ask questions after statements.
Mr. William Ross rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am highly sensitive to the interests of the whole House in this matter, but I must balance the rare opportunities that hon. Members have to make speeches in this place. There are opportunities to raise points during questions on Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman comes in for Northern Ireland questions, but I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called today when we next have Northern Ireland questions.
Mr. Ray Whitney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). This problem is quite different from those we have faced in the past. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the matter. We are now in our fourth day of debate on the Budget, in which I have had an opportunity to participate, but the horrors of Saturday put in context the issues of the Budget and suggest that all hon. Members, not only those directly concerned with Northern Ireland, should have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Speaker: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman has already been called in the Budget debate. He must have regard to his right hon. and hon. Friends who have not yet had that opportunity.
Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We on the Official Unionist Bench fully understand the frustrations of hon. Members on both sides of the House who, because of pressure of time, cannot be called. In an effort to be helpful, I suggest that, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House are both present and can hear what I say, they might take the opportunity now to arrange a debate on this matter before the House rises for Easter, so that we may explore the differences between us.
Mr. Speaker: I think that that was a helpful suggestion.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I appreciate the great difficulties that you face at present, may I suggest that, when dealing with matters of great emotion, the normal rules of procedure should be adhered to even more strictly? Many of the points raised were not in the interrogative, but in the form of long statements. That makes it much more difficult for the Chair and limits the opportunity of other hon. Members to speak. The House should support you, Mr. Speaker, in trying to ensure that the interrogative and the proper aspects of procedure are used at such times.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but I hope that the House will note that very few Northern Ireland Members have been called in the first 15 questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Thursdays. We are not objecting to that. That is the way the House works and those of us who have come regularly to try to participate in the debate know how difficult it is to do so. That is the price of the House's democracy.
Mr. Speaker: I fully understand the concern of the House about such matters. I hope that hon. Members understand the difficult position in which the Chair is placed in seeking to be fair to everyone.

Orders of the Day

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15 March].
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Employment, I remind the House that 26 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to participate in today's debate of whom nine are Privy Councillors. Not all Privy Councillors will he called as early as they would perhaps wish, but I beg the House to make short speeches so that as many Back Benchers as possible may be called.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to press you again, but I raised this matter on a previous occasion when we had a listing of this nature. Will you please ignore the status of Privy Councillors when calling hon. Members to speak in the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I ought to ignore their status, but I have already said that Privy Councillors may not be called as early as they would normally hope to be.

  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

    (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

    (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

    (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.—(Mr. Lawson.)

    Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 9561/87, Annual Economic Report 1987–88 and the unnumbered document, Annual Economic Report 1987–88 (final version as adopted by the Council).]
4.48 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I shall seek to follow your advice, Mr. Speaker, on the length of speeches. This is the last day of the Budget debate and I wish to concentrate on the Government's economic policy and the part that the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will play in carrying forward that policy.
The Budget has many strengths. It reduces taxation to the benefit of both individuals and companies. It reforms taxation by removing the long-standing unfairness of the system regarding married women. It recognises that the primary function of taxation is to raise revenue, not to punish success.
I believe that those individual changes will be welcomed throughout the country and will add to the reputation of my right hon. Friend. But the Budget is far more than a
42
series of individual measures. It is a further step in a strategy that is summed up in the very first sentence of the Budget Red Book:
"the objective of the Government's economic policy is to defeat inflation and to maintain a vigorous and enterprising economy with sustained growth of output and employment".
Now that, doubtless, is a general statement of policy that would probably attract widespread support. It would probably have the support of some Labour Members—certainly, I suspect, the support of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who is replying to this debate and leads the revisionist faction of the Labour party. Indeed, over the past four days of the Budget debate, right hon. Gentlemen who have led for the Opposition have set out their interpretation of a "vigorous and enterprising economy" and their hopes for
"sustained growth of output and employment".
But on one point there has been a deafening silence from the Opposition Front Bench—that is on policies to "defeat inflation". If one reads the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Secretary of State for Social Services one will search in vain for any serious mention of inflation. It is not just that they have no major passage on it —the word hardly crosses their lips. Yet the whole point of the Opposition's attack on the Budget has been their claim that there is a conflict between the Government's economic policy and the demands of social justice. I find it inexplicable that in a case that majors on social justice the need to control inflation does not even rate a passing comment. Surely the most significant feature of life in Britain today compared with 10 or 15 years ago—the most important social advance — is that we do not suffer from the evil of inflation.
The most important change in the lives of people in this country is that we now live with an inflation rate of just over 3 per cent. Even that is too high, but compare it with what went before and one sees the contrast. Between 1974 and 1979, inflation averaged over 15 per cent. For 13 months in 1975 and 1976 inflation never fell below 20 per cent. At its peak, Labour's inflation rate reached the banana republic heights of almost 27 per cent. We have heard a great deal from the Opposition about social justice, but the truth is that there is nothing more socially divisive than inflation. Nothing is more likely to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Inflation strikes at the weak, and the victims of inflation were literally millions of people in this country who no longer had the power to look after their own interests. The victims of inflation were the elderly living on fixed incomes and it is to the shame of the previous Labour Government that they knocked the heart out of a whole generation of elderly people in this country.
I am not prepared to take lectures from the Opposition on social justice. There was no social justice in old people being brought to their knees by the financial incompetence of the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Fowler: I shall give way in a moment.
There was no social justice in a Government who were prisoners of the worst prejudices of the most outdated trade unions in the western world. Above all, there was no social justice in the inflation that Labour inflicted on this country. What the Opposition have never understood is

43
that the basis of any social policy worthy of that name must be a sound economic policy. Above all, it is that sound economic policy that the Government have achieved.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Secretary of State has talked about social justice for pensioners. Where is that justice when, from April, as a result of Government policy, 700,000 pensioners will no longer be able to claim housing benefit?
Mr. Fowler: I will come to that and a whole series of other points regarding social security, inflation and concern for the elderly.
Low inflation, steady growth and a balanced budget have made possible improving productivity, rising levels of investment, falling unemployment and real and sustainable increases in spending on social programmes. It was precisely the failure of the previous Labour Government's economic policy that forced them into social policy "U" turn after social policy "U" turn.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has spoken of social security, but the cut made by Mrs. Barbara Castle in 1976, by fiddling the method of uprating, cost pensioners more than £1 billion — the biggest cut in the social security budget made by any Government since the war. That cut was made by the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Fowler: In a moment.
The Opposition now talk of health, but the cut of 30 per cent. in hospital building made by the previous Labour Government was the biggest cut in the Health Service made by any Government since the war.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to his Government's specific record in 1978. Let us consider what was said in 1978 about the Health Service and Labour policies. The Sunday Times commemorated the success of Labour policies with a three-part series entitled "Crisis in the NHS". The chairman of the British Medical Association was calling for an injection of £1 billion into the Health Service and said that the National Health Service in Britain was sick, inadequate and impersonal. Some months previously the general secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the late Albert Spanswick, said the National Health Service was more in danger and more in fear for its very existence than ever before. That was the state of affairs in 1978 and that is what the shadow Chancellor specifically put before the House as an example of what happened under the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Max Madden: The Secretary of State appears to have reversed Ministers' custom of giving the history lesson at the end of speeches—we have had it at the beginning. Will he address himself to a statement that has been made by an independent research body that states that the social security changes to be introduced in April will put the lives of those most vulnerable in our society at unacceptable risk? That body refers specifically to many pensioners and the families of the unemployed. Will he explain why the Budget did not recognise the great hardship and financial problems that are faced by many
44
pensioners, many low-paid families and unemployed families? We do not want a history lesson. We want to know what the Government will do for those people. They have failed miserably in the Budget to help those people.
Mr. Fowler: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want a history lesson. However, when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends seek to lecture the Government on their social conscience and in particular about their social record we have a right to point out precisely the social policy record of the previous Labour Government. In terms of social security and health they have a deplorable record. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about social security changes, but family credit is one of those changes and that will provide more money and £200 million of additional resources for low-income couples. The whole purpose of that change is to target and direct resources to low-income people.
Let me try to reach a point of agreement with Labour Members. At the beginning of the Budget debate the shadow Chancellor—he was here a moment ago, but perhaps he does not like being contradicted on what he has previously said—stated:
"one of our top priorities should be to see how to build a strong, competitive industrial economy that can sustain growth, not in episodic spurts or election-oriented booms, but powerfully, continually and steadily"—[Official Report, 16 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1123.]
Let us test that statement.
We are now about to enter the eighth successive year of economic growth at an average of 3 per cent. a year. Last year the British economy grew faster than that of any other major industrial country. If that is "episodic" growth, it is the kind of episode for which Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s would have given their eye-teeth.
Mr. Doug Henderson rose——
Mr. Kevin Barron rose——
Mr. Fowler: I will not give way at this time.
Let us take another indicator—employment. At the time of the election Labour Members appeared on platform after platform around the country to say that if the Government won the election the improvement in employment would quickly disappear and unemployment would rise. What has happened? Since June last year, unemployment has come down by almost 400,000. More than that, it has come down every month for the past 19 months. It has now fallen by 680,000 and that is the biggest sustained fall in unemployment since the war. Within those figures, there are further encouraging features. It is encouraging that the biggest falls in the rate of unemployment have occurred in some of the areas where the problem has been worst—for example, in the west midlands, the north-west, the north, and in Wales. It is encouraging——
Mr. Bryan Gould: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Fowler: I will give way in a moment.
It is encouraging that there have been record falls in school-leaver unemployment and that there has been a record fall in long-term unemployment after unemployment rose continuously from the early 1970s.
Mr. Gould: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not make predictions about the future trend of

45
unemployment because that is the position that he and his right hon. Friends have taken consistently. If he will not make a prediction, would he be prepared to make a calculation? If unemployment continues to fall at the current rate, how long will it take before it reaches the level which the Government inherited?
Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman said, this Government are following the practice adopted by the previous Labour Government by not making predictions of that kind. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) must take some credit for the position that existed in 1979. He knows as well as I that the recession hit our economy then just as it hit every other western European country. The significant difference is that the reduction in unemployment and the growth in jobs in this country are now far greater than the reduction in unemployment and growth in jobs in not just one or two countries in Europe, but in all Europe.
The challenge now is to ensure that the improvement continues and spreads. The Budget helps in that. It improves incentives, increases disposable income and reduces the burden of taxation on business, particularly on small business.
We should always remember that one of the outstanding features of the past nine years has been the development of small businesses. In the years to 1979, the number of self-employed people fell by 100,000. Since 1979, the number of self-employed people has increased by 1 million. The outlook for jobs is better than it has been for more than a decade. If we can continue to strengthen the economy and create employment through growth, we shall have the opportunity to keep unemployment on its present downward trend.
Mr. Barron: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fowler: I will not give way at the moment.
We know that there are 700,000 unfilled job vacancies in the economy. Our duty is to ensure that unemployed people are given the chance to acquire the skills that they need to fill those jobs. That is the purpose of the new employment training programme.
I want to emphasise that further improvement in the employment position is not automatic. Barriers stand in the way of job creation and the continuing fall in the level of unemployment. One of those barriers is excessive pay settlements. They threaten our progress in generating the many thousands of new jobs that we need and will continue to need. They have that effect because they discourage employers from taking on more staff, they reduce opportunities for increasing profitable output, and they hold back investment in the future. At the same time, excessive pay settlements reduce our competitiveness in world markets and that, again, can only restrict the growth of output and jobs.
There is another barrier to jobs — strikes and bad industrial relations. The simple truth is that strikes destroy jobs. The industrial anarchy of the late 1970s reduced industrial output in this country and exported British job after British job overseas. It did more damage to our reputation overseas than any other single factor.
There has been a remarkable improvement since 1979. The number of working days lost on account of industrial disputes has fallen dramatically. There have been fewer
46
strikes in each of the past three years than in any year since 1940. That record has made a very substantial contribution to Britain's economic recovery.
In the past few days we have seen an absolutely clear demonstration of the connection between jobs and industrial relations in the dispute at Dundee over which union should represent the workers at the proposed Ford plant. More than 1,000 jobs are at stake. The responsibility will be heavy if the plant does not go ahead and the new jobs are destroyed. The only hope now is that union objections to the agreement that has already been reached will be withdrawn. I hope that the hon. Member for Dagenham will confirm that that is also the Opposition's view.
The dispute at Dundee has illustrated with the utmost clarity the importance of inward investment to this country. In the past five years non-oil inward investment has grown from £1·1 billion a year to £4·1 billion a year. Such investment brings jobs and it has brought jobs to some of the areas most in need of employment as the people of Sunderland, south Wales, Plymouth and, indeed, Scotland know well enough.
It is no coincidence that those jobs have increased steadily over the past nine years. Companies from the United States, Japan and Europe have seen that investing in Britain makes sense because of what Britain has to offer, because of our good work force and because those companies have confidence in this Government and above all in the Government's economic policies.
Mr. Barron: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Fowler: I will not give way at the moment.
Does anyone seriously believe that companies overseas are delaying their inward investment plans in the hope that in, say, the early 1990s there could be a Labour Government? Does anyone seriously believe that companies overseas really want a return to the Labour policies of the 1970s?
Mr. Barron: Give way.
Mr. Fowler: I will not.
That is a self-evidently ludicrous proposition. Yet it is the acid test. Companies will not invest here unless they believe that we have a strong economy and sound economic policies. The most significant change over the past nine years has been in the view that the world takes of Britain. Today Britain is seen as productive, competitive and profitable.
Mr. Henderson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Fowler: No.
Today Britain is seen as enterprising and efficient. Above all, Britain is seen riot as a nation in decline, but as a strong and powerful economy. This Budget will reinforce the policies that have made our economy strong. It is a Budget for economic growth and it deserves the support not only of the House, but of the nation.
5.7 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: We are debating a Budget today that has been received rapturously by the rich. The rich and the powerful have showered all the plaudits on the Budget that one would expect from those who are the great beneficiaries of the Chancellor's largesse. However, behind the deafening applause from that small, privileged group we can hear the cries of despair and pain

47
from those who have been left by the Government, and by the measures that the Government are yet to introduce in the social security changes and changes in housing benefit, with no benefits and very little hope.
There are also cries of protest from those who are perhaps not directly affected by the unfairness at the heart of the Budget, but who nevertheless recognise that unfairness and want to express their feelings. Those people have puny voices. They do not control the media. They do not hold the great offices in the land. They will not take home thousands of pounds in extra pay and be prepared to use it to express their thanks. Such people have a weak voice, but it is echoed and repeated by the Opposition. We accept the responsibility of speaking for them and for pointing out the fundamental immorality of what the Budget represents. Although those voices may be heard only pitifully weakly, they will, in the end, come to stir the conscience of the nation. They will even disturb the sleep of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
However, I want to address the Budget on a different point. I shall set aside, as the Chancellor manifestly has done, all considerations of morality, social justice and fairness. I shall take on the Chancellor's argument on its own ground. Let us assume that such considerations do not matter—it is difficult to make such an assumption about any self-respecting Chancellor—and that the sole test is whether the things that the right hon. Gentleman has done in his Budget will be in the national interest and for the good of the country's economy. As I understand the Chancellor's argument, there need be no limit to inequality — it should be celebrated and gloried in. Inequality and incentives that give more to those who already have the most will benefit the national economy most, as I understand his argument. Ultimately, it has a further sophistication : even those left out and wholly ignored will derive some minuscule benefit—the crumbs from the rich man's table argument.
This is a convenient theory, which just happens most to serve the interests of those who advance it. That is immediately a reason for great suspicion in deciding whether to take the theory at face or any other value. It is immediately suspect because it is so selective. It applies, so it seems, only to the economic interests of the richest 5 per cent. of society. If the argument is that by giving people more they will work harder and create greater wealth, why does it apply only to the richest 5 per cent. and not to the rest of us? Why is it right to reduce the marginal rates of tax for the richest but to pile the burdens on the rest of us?
Mr. Neil Hamilton rose——
Mr. Gould: Why do the rich, who are already taking the lion's share of the rewards, need their mouths stuffed yet more full of money before they can produce the wealth on which it is said the rest of us depend?
Mr. Hamilton rose——
Mr. Gould: I have hardly begun and I have things of greater substance to say, but I shall give way in a moment.
Why is it right to release the rich, already swimming in their money, and at the same time to entrap the poor in the poverty trap and offer them no way of escape? Why is that so beneficial to the economy, when most of us are denied the incentives that the Chancellor proclaims are the heart and origin of economic success?
48
How does the Chancellor know that the great rewards he is offering the richest 5 per cent. will go to the productive people in our economy? Does he not understand that many of the richest 5 per cent. have little to do with productive capacity or activity? Most hold assets and derive income from them, push bits of paper around, go in for speculative deals in the City, invest speculatively in property and sail close to the wind when they become involved in insider dealings and similar enterprises. So how can we and the Chancellor be sure that, even if his theory is right, he is directing incentives at the right people? What assurances does he have that the money will not be snapped up gratefully by those who are already rich but idle, and who will be confirmed in their idleness and ask why they should work any harder or do more when they can sit back and wait for a munificent Tory Chancellor to come forward with more goodies? How will this stimulate greater economic activity or wealth?
Mr. David Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that everyone in his former country — New Zealand — is rich because that country now has a maximum top rate of 34 per cent?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Fortunately, as a British citizen and long-standing hon. Member, I no longer have the slightest interest in or responsibility for the policies of Governments in my native country.
It is hardly flattering that the Chancellor should so demean even the rich in his expectations that he believes that Sir Ralph Halpern and all those others will be so ready to respond, like Pavlov's dogs, to the sign of yet more money bags being floated in front of them and will work harder as a result. That is not true, and the Chancellor is wrong if he believes it.
If this theory is correct, what evidence to support it comes from our experience and that of similar countries? We have relatively recent experience of what cutting the top rate of tax means; the Chancellor's predecessor cut it in 1979. What an economic miracle we had then. We had the worst recession that any advanced industrial country has ever experienced, together with the worst fall in output and investment and the worst rise in unemployment. That was the earlier consequence of the strategy upon which such faith is now pinned. So there is little in our experience to sustain the Chancellor in his view.
What of the experience of other countries? There is one country about which Opposition Members have made rather generous and flattering comments in recent years, but whose economic performance has been severely criticised by Conservative Members. I refer to the United States and the wicked policies it has been pursuing. Yet the United States happens to be near the bottom of the international league of top rates of tax. Of the other countries that deserve even more praise for their economic performance, Japan, for example, is near the top of the league for marginal rates on top income earners. And of all the countries of western Europe perhaps the one that has been the most successful economically in recent years has been Sweden. What is Sweden's rate of tax for the top income earner? It is 77 per cent. I express no view on whether that is the right figure, but I ask the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain how the Swedes have done so much better than we have on

49
almost every count over the past few years while appearing to contradict the fundamental tenets of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget. I see that we have no answer.
If the Chancellor has no evidence to offer it is not because none is available. The evidence is there because the Chancellor asked for it. He asked his Treasury officials to commission a great study from Professor C.V. Brown of Stirling university, asking him to investigate incentives so that—one assumes—the whole ludicrous notion could be substantiated. The report has now been available for a long time. Of course, we rarely hear it mentioned or have our attention directed to it. When the Chancellor brings himself to mention it, he denigrates it with all the power at his command.
Mr. Gordon Brown: The report cost us £500,000.
Mr. Gould: As my hon. Friend says, the report involved a great deal of public expenditure to produce the answer, which was that there was no evidence for the Chancellor's basic theory that cutting taxes increases incentives and induces people to work even harder.
There is an American study. Maybe the Chancellor or the Secretary of State will say, "What about the study done by Professor Lindsey in the United States?" He made a valiant effort to disentangle the various factors which may be at work here, but he concluded that if there was any detectable consequences—he was doubtful about it—of reducing the marginal tax rates of the top earners, any such reduction would have to be offset by removing tax shelters which they had previously enjoyed. What a pity it is, if the Chancellor aheres to that view—there is no evidence of it — that he did not follow it through. Instead of removing tax shelters, he has created new and much more offensive ones.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that tax revenue from the top 5 per cent. has risen since 1979 despite the fact that tax rates have gone down substantially?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the fact that the Government have not waited to manipulate the tax system to benefit their friends at the top of the income scale—they have already widely increased inequalities and substantially increased the salaries of people at the top. To pray that in aid as justification for yet further tax cuts is ludicrous and offensive.
If the Chancellor is left with nothing by way of evidence or experience to justify his theory—we are told it underlies his Budget strategy—what is he left with? I suggest that what he is left with is political prejudice, and an unattractive one at that. It is the prejudice which says simply, "It is right for the best off to have yet more. Greed is in itself a good thing." We remember Ivan Boesky travelling the world delivering highly paid lectures to adoring audiences, telling them, "Feel good about greed." We know what happened to Ivan Boesky. We know what the Chancellor has said in his Budget. He has said to the British people, or at least to that minority who benefited so enormously, "Feel good about greed." What we have sitting on the Government Front Bench is the Boesky of the Budget. Just as Boesky came to a grim end, and just as justice caught up with him, so will it catch up with the Chancellor.
The view that inequality is somehow the key to economic success is denied by anybody with eyes to see.
50
If we look around the country, we see alienation, bitterness, division and apathy. Nobody in his right mind could conceivably argue that widening social divisions and increasing inequalities could be anything other than utterly harmful to our social cohesion and our economic prospects. Inequality is inefficient. Any strategy which is designed to increase inequalities is doomed to failure. That is the conclusion that anybody with wit and eyes to see must reach.
The Chancellor is completely wrong if he believes that, by widening inequalities, he will usher in an economic miracle for Britain. We shall see, but I believe that we shall all have a rude awakening on this central question.
I shall now change the focus slightly, away from the Chancellor's dealings as between one taxpayer and another. The richest 5 per cent. are the only people who have enjoyed tax cuts until this Budget—everyone else has paid more in tax. The Chancellor's dealings with the top 5 per cent. are a monument to immorality and unfairness. I shall consider whether the Chancellor's use of the money is in the national interest and in the interests of the economy as a whole. What should he have done with the money at his disposal?
We know exactly what the answer is. The demand was made and endorsed time and again—by the public, by doctors, nurses and others who serve in the Health Service and by patients. They all agreed that if the Chancellor had money available, the Health Service was where it should go as a first priority. They did not say that they never wanted tax cuts in any circumstances, just that the first priority should not be tax cuts but the NHS. The demand was made repeatedly by those who are best placed to know.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould: No. I do not intend to linger on this point. The money could be put to a range of purposes. Britain today has been characterised by Professor J. K. Galbraith as private affluence combined with public squalor. Anyone who travels abroad and compares what they see in other more prosperous countries with what is increasingly apparent on our streets must see the public squalor over which the Government have presided. That is another priority to which the Chancellor could have directed resources. Instead, he chose to make his tax cuts.
The Opposition contend that that was a sin of both omission and commission. By cutting taxes for people who are already consuming at a frenetic rate, the Chancellor has ensured that a further powerful stimulus is given to a consumer-led boom which is already running the country into deep trouble. The Chancellor has no idea how to control the explosion in private credit. His only response is to make the consumer boom forest fire yet worse. We cannot afford it—even the Chancellor predicts a balance of payments deficit for the coming year of £4 billion.
In itself, that deficit is not too serious. It is reasonably easily financed if that is where it stays, but the real cause for worry is the trend — the rapid, terrifying and dizzying descent into a balance of payments deficit, even with the enormous benefits of North sea oil. That is what should be worrying the Chancellor. While one ought not to attach too much importance to one month's figures, we can hardly say that January's figures were the most auspicious beginning to this calendar year's trading results.

51
The true awfulness of our position can be appreciated only if we divert attention for a moment from the overall balance of payments to the manufactured trade deficit, because it is there where we chalked up a deficit of £6 billion last year. Even the Chancellor's prediction is of an £8·5 billion deficit this year. That is evidence of an economy that is increasingly unable to pay its way and increasingly dependent on North sea oil, which is running out. That is why we should be worried — it is not a matter of whether a static debt is financable. We should be worried about what that state of affairs tells us about our loss of competitiveness, output, productivity and performance, bearing in mind the fact that our economy depends on its ability to sell to international markets. The problem is a trend which is running us into a deficit which speaks of a failure of economic policy and of productive capacity.
Last Thursday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that of course Britain is running into a rather worrying balance of payments deficit, but it ought not really to be a source of worry because we are growing so fast and it is natural that we should suck in a lot of imports. That is an astonishing assertion. Has he never considered the example of the really strong and successful economies which have consistently maintained high levels of growth, and where the corollary of growth has been a substantial balance of payments surplus?
Why are we told that if our country is to grow we must increase our already famous propensity to import? An explanation was offered, in part, by one of the Chancellor's hon. Friends on Thursday, who said that Britian was running into a balance of payments deficit because it had to import a great deal of machinery, capital equipment and all the other goods needed to build a strong economy. Why do we not produce those goods in this country? It is because the Government's economic policies have decimated our industrial base. That is the dilemma. It is not an excuse or an explanation; it is a definition of our problem. That is why imports and the balance of payments deficit are so worrying.
Despite all the Government's propaganda and the constant statements by Ministers that Britain is much more competitive now than it has ever been before, the truth is that, measured by virtually every index of competitiveness, Britain is less competitive now than it was in 1979. That is why we are in difficulties, and that is why our balance of payments deficit is so worrying.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: If that is true, why is it that Ford's head of manufacturing in Europe came to us last week and explained graphically how rapidly Ford is beginning to close the gap between itself and its competitors? Indeed, he said that it was by no means a unique phenomenon.
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman prefaced his question with the words, "If that is true". I assure him that it is true, and he can establish that quite clearly simply by reading the official statistics produced by the Government. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of doing exactly that, as I am sure that he will then confirm that on all the indices of export competitiveness Britain is less competitive today than it was in 1979.
The problems to which I am trying to direct the rather reluctant attention of the Chancellor and his colleagues
52
have been made very much worse by another aspect of the Budget. It has little to do with the right hon. Gentleman's tax policy, but it excited a great deal of interest. I am, of course, referring to the much-publicised disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister about their policy on exchange and interest rates. Some commentators listened to the Chancellor's rather elliptical words—brave in their own way, but brief and unclear—and noted that wonderful 0·5 per cent. cut in base rates, and said, "What a magnificently strong Chancellor. We will award him a win on points, even over such a formidable Prime Minister." If the right hon. Gentleman is to be reckoned the winner in the battle—and it is a continuing battle—we shall demand of him a great deal more than a 0.5 per cent. cut in interest rates and the odd phrase tossed away in a Budget speech.
We want an explanation of and real action to deal with interest rates that are twice as high in real terms as those in Germany. Can the Chancellor or anyone else explain that? Can we be given one simple, intelligible reason? Can we have one comprehensible answer? Is there an answer? —[Interruption.] Surely this is an important matter. The Confederation of British Industry and everyone else agrees that high interest rates are a great burden on industry, yet not a single explanation for them has been given. Is that not rather peculiar?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gould: I am seeking an answer from the Government Front Bench. I have no doubt that Back-Bench Members wish to do their best, but until the Prime Minister's eye falls upon them they are not entitled to speak for the Government. I want an explanation from the Government of such a remarkable state of affairs.
The Prime Minister stands on the proposition that we must not buck the markets. I do not know whether that is the Chancellor's view—it may well have changed. The Prime Minister's statement is quite remarkable. Is she unaware that the market is very much influenced by interest rates at twice the level of most other countries? Is that not bucking the market? If the Prime Minister is serious about the effect on the market, why does she not get interest rates down? Is not that the obvious remedy?
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I find it a little difficult to reconcile what the hon. Gentleman is saying now with what he said earlier about the greatest problem being excessive growth of credit. He now asks that interest rates be reduced even further. How does he reconcile those propositions?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps unwittingly, gives the game away. As a hangover from the last trappings of monetarism—[HON MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' I am about to do so. The Chancellor has tried so hard to divest himself of the last trappings of monetarism, yet he still has to use interest rates to choke the explosion of credit. High interest rates are ineffective — indeed, they are often counter-productive, as is immediately discerned by anyone who bothers to study the evidence from the unavailing attempts to use interest rates in that way during the past eight or nine years. Apparently, however, that does not faze this Chancellor. He continues to force high interest rates, oblivious to the fact that they have little impact on credit but are very damaging to British industry and the exchange rate.
The key to the issue is the level of interest rates. A Government who pursue high interest rates show that they

53
are unwilling to forgo immediate consumption for the sake of future investment. Yet the role of interest rates is to make just that division and allocation of resources. High interest rates show a Government who want to encourage immediate consumption; low interest rates show a Government whose policy is to encourage future investment.
Interest rates have another function — to allocate income between those who hold assets and derive income from lending them, and those who want to use the national wealth productively to create new wealth. Interest rates inevitably and diametrically establish the priority of those who hold assets over those who want to increase our productive capacity. High interest rates are clearly a further and most damaging expression of that very disease about which the Chancellor has spoken from time to time, short-termism. A country that pursues a policy of high interest rates shows that it is not concerned about the need to invest in the long term or about those whose true vocation is to create national wealth; it wants to give priority to immediate consumption and to the holders of assets.
The effect of the exchange rate is exactly the same. By forcing up the exchange rate, every over-valued pound will buy more goods, usually foreign, than would otherwise be the case. Of course, it is attractive to Governments to offer a higher standard of living in the short term, but that cannot be sustained in the long term. We shall have to pay a severe price for that short-term gain.
Ricardo, an economist with whom I do not always agree, said many decades ago:
"If we sell our goods at a high money price and buy foreign ones at a low money price, it may well be doubted whether this advantage will not be purchased at many times its value, for to obtain it we must be content with the diminished production of home commodities."
That is an exact summary of what the Government's policies will produce. We will buy in cheaper foreign goods and derive a short-term advantage, but with the consequence of shutting British factories and throwing British workers out of work. That is the hallmark of a policy that pays no attention to the future, but is instead solely concerned with the immediate gratification of those who want to consume to the highest limit that the Chancellor can make possible.
This Budget is not just immoral or offensive, or one that fails the NHS or that fails to invest; it is an anti-productive Budget that takes its place in the context of an anti-productive strategy. It reinforces the divisions that prevent all our people from making their proper contribution to the creation of our national wealth. It encourages ostentatious and short-term consumption at the expense of investment. It encourages the very short-termism that the Chancellor has criticised. It shows a lack of care for the future which is the very antithesis of what a prudent Chancellor would be expected to show.
It is a Budget for the rich, but also for the irresponsible —and not the least irresponsible is the Chancellor who introduced it last week. The Prime Minister proclaimed that the Budget would be the epitaph for socialism—we shall see. It is certainly a celebration of greed and selfishness. If that is the ground on which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor wish to fight, we are ready to trust that matter to the common sense, better instincts and good conscience of the British people.
5.40 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: After the Budget the Chancellor has every right to look satisfied with his reputation as a great reformer of the structure of our taxation system. He has every right to look satisfied, and he never hides it. I commend him for the changes that he has made in the structure, because they continue the process of himself and his predecessor, and for that matter his predecessor in 1974, whom he helped to prepare his plans. His Budget has done an immense amount to improve the structure of our tax system.
I suppose that one aspect that will last longest and will always reclaim his fame is the change for married couples. It is not an aspect of which I have any personal experience, but I am told that it will give great satisfaction, and my right hon. Friend has been absolutely right to make that change. My right hon. Friend is quite right to have made various changes to block up the loopholes and escape exits in the tax system, and I fully endorse them.
I fully agree with writing off the system of capital gains until 1982. However, I do not know whether I am quite so sure about combining capital gains with income tax. I must reveal my doubts on that. It seems that in capitalist economies we are always differentiating between capital and income, and we are now combining the two. I cannot see that that simplifies the administration very much. The problems of checking on capital gains will still remain. I have grave doubts whether it is right in principle to combine income and capital gains in that way. Perhaps in replying to the debate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be able to convince me of that.
Those are all excellent measures in the reform of the structure of taxation. The controversy arises not so much about the structure — there was little criticism of the structure from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—as from the level of the taxes that have been achieved inside the structure.
I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who opened the debate, that he would do more to help me and our supporters in the country if he were to concentrate on the raison d'etre for the specific rates of change, rather than spend his time abusing the Opposition of long ago. I must confess that I find it very difficult now to concentrate on what Mrs. Barbara Castle did or did not say, let alone what she did or did not do decades ago.
I have always objected to what Lloyd George did in the coalition directly after 1919, but I have never held it against the present leader of the Liberal party. I have always believed that one of the most foolish decisions ever taken was by Mr. Churchill to go back on the gold standard at a rate of $4.85, which he could not sustain, in 1925, but I have never blamed my own party particularly for that foolish action. It would help all of us if we had rather more weighty arguments on the exact nature of the change of taxation inside the Chancellor's structure.
I must make one thing plain—I am not opposed to reductions in taxation. I refer to an article in The Economist this week, which displays that bigoted ignorance that is now so characteristic of The Economist and the reason why it has become purely a table magazine for would-be intellectual hostesses in the United States. It states:
"Mr. Edward Heath, who, as Prime Minister, presided over top tax rates of over 90 per cent., sourly dismissed the changes as 'way over the top'."

55
That displays the most remarkable ignorance by those who write for what was once a great and distinguished paper. In fact, the first Budget in the Government of 1970–74 immediately cut tax rates—
Mr. Neil Hamilton: That was a long time ago.
Mr. Heath: It is nothing like as long ago as Mrs. Barbara Castle — [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend wishes to support the ignorance of The Economist, he should kindly do so—it would not in the least surprise me.
What I want to point out is that we reduced taxation in that Budget. If my hon. Friend wants to come up to date, what is even more relevant is that in 1973—the end of our period of office— the proportion of GDP taken by tax was 32·4 per cent. If my hon. Friend wishes to supply the figure for today, he will know that it is 37·5 per cent. This shows that at that time a substantially smaller proportion of the gross domestic product was being taken for taxation than is taken today. I hope that my hon. Friend will now acknowledge that, but not by intervening.
Therefore, the Chancellor will recognise that there is still considerable progress to be made, even though he himself may not be prepared to make it.
When we come to the relationship between the rates, one asks whether it is right to have gone to 25 per cent. and, so drastically, to 40 per cent. That is rightly a debatable question.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind his hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that under the last Labour Government the effective tax rate was 34 per cent.?—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is history."]
Mr. Heath: It may all be history, but at least it bears relevance to what is being said today and to my right hon. Friend's speech, although if it is part of history I am surprised that he did not use it in his speech.
When we come to the debate on the rates, we must recognise that today there are still 2·5 million people unemployed. How can they look at the Budget for any benefit? According to the European Economic Community, 7 million people in this country live below the level that is described by the Community as the "decency threshold" for people living in Europe as a whole. If we have more than 7 million people below the threshold of decency, and 2·5 million people unemployed, that raises the question whether measures could have been taken in the Budget to help those people. I believe that measures could have been taken in a variety of ways, by way of allowances, and that that need not have prevented the Chancellor from lowering the rate to, say, 45 per cent. However, I shall not vote against the Government because of that, because it is a matter of personal judgment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who is not in his place at the moment, explained that he would vote against the Government because he did not believe that the rate should have been reduced from 27p to 25p I find that argument difficult to understand. My right hon. Friend said quite frankly that he had never understood economics, which is a fact that some of us recognised many years ago. If he had said that
56
the dangers of cutting the higher tax rate from 60p to 40p were too great so he had decided to vote against the Government, it would not be up to me to complain.
I want to consider the general problems facing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is facing a dilemma which many of his predecessors faced and it is necessary realistically to recognise the dilemma if we are to deal with it properly. The fact is that we now have great consumer demand and as a result we have increased both production and productivity. The Chancellor himself asked how long it could continue. We must ask that, because, although we have 2·5 million unemployed, we lack skilled labour, and the labour available is not in the right place for employment. Unfortunately, those two problems have characterised this country for many years and we have still not come near to solving them.
If there is a responsibility on the Government, it is to take urgent action to train far more people in the skills that are necessary for them to fill the vacancies available. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hear some helpful hon. Friends saying, "Rubbish", but the core of the problem is that we lack skilled people and the unemployed are where the demand does not exist. Why? Because the housing is not available where demand exists. This problem has faced us before. The dilemma now is that all too many steps are being taken to ruin the environment by providing more housing, rather than to deal with the problem by placing industry where labour and trained people can be.
Naturally, my right hon. Friends are right to emphasise the trade union problem that we have seen in Dundee. I hope that that can be speedily settled, and I understand that there are possibilities of that.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations about industry and housing, but is he in favour of some form of direction so that industry is forced to go to areas where there is labour?
Mr. Heath: I do not know why my hon. Friend, who has known me for many years, should ask such a stupid question. Never in my life have I been in favour of direction. I was the Minister in the 1959 Government who abolished conscription.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about the Housing Finance Act 1972?
Mr. Heath: The last thing that I want to see is any form of direction of labour. But—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
Mr. Heath: I want to raise the basic question of what will face us in future as a result of the Chancellor's policies. There will undoubtedly be increased consumer demand.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): indicated dissent.
Mr. Heath: The Chancellor shakes his head. I do not see how he can say that that will not be the case, even with a reduction of 2p in income tax. Even if all those who will get a reduction in income tax from 60p to 40p invest every penny of it, I do not see how that will prevent an increase in consumption.
We have an undeniable tendency to import more and more when there is more money available. Even now we

57
are faced with the problem that if we did not import our industry could not meet the demand because we do not have the skilled labour, or the labour in the right place, to meet the increased production necessary for the increased consumer demand. That problem will face the Chancellor, if not this coming year, then his successor next year or the year thereafter.
How do we deal with that? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised the need to deal with inflation and said that 3 per cent. is far too high. The way to deal with inflation is to allow sterling to rise. That view may be being expressed privately in the Government—these things leak out. The more that sterling rises, the more difficult it is for our exports to be maintained. Let us never forget what happened in 1980–81, when sterling rose to $2.20 or more. That destroyed much of the industry which today could otherwise meet the consumer demand that will result from this Budget.
Let us never forget what happens when sterling reaches that level. It is a way of keeping down inflation, because when we import and allow sterling to rise the price of the goods remains about the same, but it now damages our export industry. At present, sterling is 51·85 on average, and that is too high for our exporters. Moreover, according to reports from firms, it is reducing their profitability because of what they receive in the transfer of dollars to sterling. Some of our great firms are reporting reductions in profits purely because of the movements on the exchanges of the dollar-sterling rate.
The Chancellor faces a dilemma. He can let sterling continue to rise, in which case it may help him to control inflation but will put more British businesses out of operation and damage our exports, or he can keep sterling stable, in which case it will remain too high, or he can reduce sterling by reducing our interest rates, in which case there is the risk of increasing inflation, which will affect selling. The Chancellor wants to maintain stability, and I strongly support him in that. He must get sterling down further and join the European monetary system. We know that the Bank of England and the Treasury want that, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wants it. That is the test. He should take sterling into the EMS. That would help our stability, by preventing sterling from rising too high and, if the balance of payments continues to deteriorate, from beginning to fall against his wishes. These are genuine dilemmas in handling the economy. It is not right to allow sterling to keep on rising. It should come down in order to help our exporters.
We are now in an international system in which it is impossible to prevent an inflow of money into the country. That makes nonsense of monetary figures, targets and limitations, if any remain. This, again, can be handled only by interest rates. If the Chancellor does not want the money to come into the country, he must reduce interest rates to reduce the effects of monetary expansion on the system. At the same time, he runs the risk of inflationary rises in prices because of imports, whether of raw materials or of manufactured goods, entering at higher prices. That is another dilemma. This is all a question of the management of the economy.
What is left to the Chancellor to manage the economy is only the interest rate. He has discarded taxation as a means of dealing with the demand that is created among consumers. He has nothing left except the interest rate. That is why it is crucial, and why it is tied to our membership of the EMS.
Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another weapon in the hands of the Chancellor is to diminish public borrowing or to repay debt? Could he bring himself to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for having been the first Chancellor for many years, not only to repay debt of about £4 billion this year, but to budget for a £3 million repayment of debt in the coming year?
Mr. Heath: I am strongly in favour of that, but the consequence can be damaging. Unless the money is reinvested, or paid abroad, it becomes consumer money. If the Chancellor repays debt in the ordinary sense, the money is going into some system. The question is whether it will be used for consumption or reinvested. If we assume that it is reinvested, he is right to repay debt.
I shall make two suggestions to the next reforming Chancellor. First, having reached the stage at which great earnings can be made in this country —my right hon. Friend said that we have one of the lowest rates of taxation in the industrial world — the Chancellor has a responsibility to deal with family trusts. This is the system—it does not exist in the United States, Japan or some other Western industrial countries — whereby great estates can be handed on from generation to generation, with no taxation, or minimal taxation. With a system in which, in contemporary ways, one can create great wealth, there is no justification for maintaining a system in which, having made that wealth, one can hand it on from generation to generation without any generation doing anything about it. That will not appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me, but it will become a basic tax structure issue. That is the first matter that a radical reforming Chancellor should tackle. Of course, it will bring in considerable revenue.
Secondly, the Chancellor should opt for the tax credit system. It will be beneficial to us. It means combining allowances and taxes and operating under one system. It was always calculated that computerisation would save 20,000 personnel. I still believe that that is desirable, and I hope that the next reforming Chancellor will devote his attention to it. It will need further simplification of the system. It will enable the Chancellor to focus on what is required to help poorer sections of the community and to deal with them through the tax credit system. He will then be fully justified in saying that he reduced the overall maximum tax level to something that is reasonable in modern times, that he changed a great deal of the tax structure, and that his successor is carrying on with the reform of the system of family trusts. If he prides himself on having stopped some tax loopholes — family trusts are by far the biggest of all tax loopholes — he will introduce a tax credit system.
I hope that the next Chancellor will do those things. In the meantime, I hope that the risks inherent in the Budget—encouraging though the structure is—will prove to have been taken rightly, that we shall not find inflation increasing, that we shall not find a great consumer boom, and that we shall find our industry and skilled labour force rapidly expanding. Unless that happens, there are grave risks of being forced into other activities.
6.2 pm
Mr. David Steel: I have undertaken to keep my remarks extremely brief. Therefore, I am grateful to the former Prime Minister, the

59
right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), for not expecting me to defend the decision of Mr. David Lloyd George or anybody else of similar vintage. As I shall mainly be critical of the Budget judgment, I shall begin my remarks by making two statement of appreciation of Budget decisions.
First, I refer to the decision regarding taxation of married couples. The Liberal and Social Democratic parties fought not only the last election but the one before it on that issue. We welcome that long-overdue change.
Secondly, I refer to forestry. I speak not only on behalf of a party that is concerned about the environment, but, obviously, with extensive constituency interests. The change from dependence on tax avoidance measures to planting grants is extremely welcome. We look forward to the details of the planting grants being announced, and, in particular, the hint contained in the Chancellor's speech about the way in which planting grants will be used to encourage the development of broadleaf as well as conifer planting.
With those two exceptions, the Budget judgment is sadly deficient.
In her speech to the Conservative party at the weekend, the Prime Minister said:
"Most people don't manufacture their own morality. They take it from the culture in which they live."
She went on to talk of the responsibility of leaders. Our young people live in a culture whose values are being warped by the kind of judgments in last week's Budget. The Prime Minister herself said:
"No one would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well."
In an unscripted answer to a television interview question, the Prime Minister said:
"Society. There is no such thing as society, only the individuals who comprise it."
I give the House a more up-to-date word on the same lines from a junior Minister in the Scottish Grand Committee debate this morning in Edinburgh. Talking about private sector education, he said:
"Parents exercise choice with their cheque books."
I suspect that much of the thinking behind the Budget is that more and more people shall be able to exercise choice with their cheque books and that more and more people should be enabled to buy their way out of the inadequacies of the Health Service and the education system. Because of that basic judgment and the basic purpose behind it, we are strongly opposed to the Budget. Indeed, one wonders why, when community care provisions are sorely stretched, the Government should choose this year to abolish the dependant relative's allowance. I should have thought that we would want to give every encouragement to people to look after their relatives in their own homes whenever possible. We want choice for all, not just for those who can afford it. That is why the Government should have concentrated on maintaining public services at a level of which we could all be proud.
The Budget is severely redistributive in an upward direction. It is always better to give specific examples than to talk in generalities. Today, a married man on a low income of £100 a week with two children takes home £96 a week. But, after the tax changes in the Budget and the social security benefit changes that have already been announced, that man's take-home pay will be down to £87
60
a week. That reinforces the call of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for a tax credit system, to which my party is committed. It will not only be more efficient and cheaper to administer, as he rightly said, but more just for individuals who are still caught in the poverty trap.
Of course, the Chancellor's Budget is only half the story. Much of the downside of finances for the less well-off was announced before the Budget. I refer to eye test charges, dental care charges, and the prescription charge increases that were separately announced. Of course, many of the changes that affect individuals form no part of the Budget. So it was that, in my constituency surgery this weekend, a lady came to me and showed me her pension book. She showed me how the calculated increase in pension to which she and her husband were looking forward was already swallowed up by the circular letter that she held in her other hand. It was a rent increase demand from the Scottish Special Housing Association, which, again, is under financial pressure from the Government. That is an example of someone, even with the promise of a pension increase, whose standard of living will be reduced.
We can now perceive that, in the warped culture in which we live, the number of rich individuals will increase—I do not dispute that—but they will live in an impoverished society, in which the crime wave will continue at its present level, squalor will not be eliminated, and in which there will be an increase in drug addiction. Such things are consistent with those parts of the country in which chronic long-term unemployment still exists.
My party supports an enterprise culture. The great majority of British people not all—support an enterprise culture. But it is an insult to suggest that, because they support an enterprise culture, they do not also support a culture that is fair and just. The emphasis that is placed by the Budget and by much of the Government's philosophy on acquiring more money is one of the reasons why we have seen an enormous leap in the scale of personal borrowing in recent years. Last year alone, personal credit was up 18 per cent. As has been rightly said, that results in the sucking-in of more imports.
The Government are guilty of creating a society in which it is thought to be easier to make money than it is to earn it in manufacturing. In the Budget, the Government should have done four things to encourage British manufacturing. The first concerns exchange rate fluctuations—in fact, almost deliberately increasing the pound rate. It remains a mystery why the Prime Minister has some sort of personal veto over our entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. The Chancellor now at least appears to be a convert to this, but I do not understand how the Government can be committed in principle to the completion of the internal market by 1992, and yet not take the step, which is in our interest, of joining fully in the exchange rate mechanism. It is high time that that was done, in the interests of our manufacturing industry.
Second, and here I agree again with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, we have among our 16 to 25-year-olds a greater proportion of the unskilled than is the case in any of our competitor countries. That has been acknowledged in some of the speeches made by the Secretary of State for Employment, and I am glad to see him nodding. Are we doing enough to bring training and education together, and to invest more in making sure that that age group has more access to all forms of higher

61
education? It is a constant complaint of modern manufacturers that they are finding skill shortages, even now, when there is a large pool of unemployed.
Third, the Government have been grossly neglectful in failing to take any measures to deal with the regional imbalances and disproportions in unemployment. Why is it not possible to reduce the national insurance contribution on a regionally varying basis in areas of high unemployment, to encourage people to take on more workers in the areas that are suffering most? Why is it not possible to do the same with corporation tax, to place more total investment at a regional level? I have some doubts about the changes in the regional development grants which the Government have announced, but I can accept that there is some logic in them, provided that the total resources available for regional development are to be kept going. We suspect that they are not.
The House has been greatly entertained by the exchange of public correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Environment and his predecessor the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as to which of them is the more responsible for the destruction of the environment of the south-east of England. Underlying all the correspondence is an assumption that I do not accept, which is that the economy of the south-east has to be overheated anyway, and nothing can be done about it. Without going into the absurd propositions about the direction of industry, I can say that something can be done about it. If more investment were steered towards the north, Scotland and Wales, a great cheer would go up from many of the communities in south-east England, which find that they are suffering from the pressure of people and resources and new developments in this one corner of England.
Fourth and last, the Government should do much more to encourage profit-sharing and industrial partnerships than they have done in this Budget. It is significant that we had a great success in the Nissan plant in Sunderland, where there is a single union, single status and a cooperative system of production. That is the industrial relations for the future. It was lamentable that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), speaking for the Labour party, had nothing to say about the 1,000 jobs lost in Scotland through the failure to introduce precisely the system which exists in Sunderland, where trade unionism is alive and well, and people are enjoying prosperity. That is the pattern of the future, and the Government should have done more to encourage it.
We shall vote against the resolution on income tax rates because, in the truest sense of the word, this is an antisocial Budget, produced by an anti-social Government, and they should not be surprised if it continues to have anti-social consequences.
6.13 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I shall begin by taking up two of the points that have been raised by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. It was noticeable that, in their remarks about income tax, they tended to concentrate on the reduction in the top rate of tax from 60 to 40 per cent. and skilfully ignored the reduction in the standard rate, and the fact that the threshold has been raised twice as much as would have been required merely by indexation to account for the cost of living. I tried to recall in how many Budgets introduced by the previous Labour Government any such reduction in taxation at the
62
bottom of the income tax scale took place. It is a fact that by those standards this Budget, even if one takes that tiny segment of the concessions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given to standard rate income tax payers, is a success.
The other point that it is important to stress is that there is undoubtedly a flaw in our system of considering economic matters with a division between the raising of taxation and the expenditure of it. The public at large do not understand that the Budget presented by the Chancellor is concerned only with the raising of taxation and not with the spending of the money that has been raised. It is tremendously important, since the Opposition have put so much stress on the National Health Service, that this Budget should be seen in the context of the public expenditure White Paper, published a few weeks ago. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out, that involves an increase of £1 billion this year, £1 billion next year and £1 billion the year after.
I do not recall any Labour Government making such an increase in funds for the NHS. Furthermore, I hope that when the nurses' pay claim is decided, which should be before the end of April, the Government will fund whatever settlement is agreed in full. That will involve a further charge on the contingency fund, which itself will be a substantial increase in the expenditure on the Health Service.
This division between expenditure and taxation presents many problems, although I note with interest that Mr. Sam Brittan took up this point today. It was made many years ago by the Armstrong committee, and the Procedure Committee (Finance), which I chaired, examined it closely. In future, we should consider bringing together more closely the two sides of the measures.
I greatly welcome other measures in the Budget, not least the removal of discrimination against marriage which I know, from experience in my constituency, many groups, not least those involved with the Church and so on, have been advocating for many years. At last, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has managed to do something about it, albeit with some delay in some of the proposals.
There are so many aspects of the Budget that it is difficult to know on which to concentrate, but I shall concentrate on two. One which has been neglected because it is so traditional is the increase in indirect taxes, notably that on tobacco. This puts into context the Government's attitude to the proposals coming from the EEC with regard to the approximation of indirect tax rates. I am passionately in favour of the single market and I believe that 1992 and the move towards it will give this country many opportunities, which I hope we will be sensible enough to take.
That being so, it is important, if one is enthusiastic for that opportunity, as I am, to disagree with proposals that seem unnecessary or perhaps even damaging. I am struck by the evidence given recently by Lord Cockfield with regard to the proposals for harmonisation of indirect taxation within the EEC. It was significant that he seemed far more preoccupied with the removal of customs barriers and transit between one country and another—when clearly, because of the Channel, the United Kingdom is in a somewhat unusual position — than with getting a system of indirect taxation which was the best that could be devised. He admitted as much when he said that we wanted the easiest way to get agreement, when the right

63
approach should be to argue that we should decide what is the most appropriate system of indirect taxation and then seek to achieve it.
The report of the Select Committee on the Treasury andCivil Service, which was published a few days ago, stressed that there is a danger that the moves towards the approximation of indirect taxation run across the use of a tax system that may be designed for social or health reasons. From that point of view, there may be a case for not going along the route of approximation with regard, in particular, to excise duties. Therefore, I noted with great interest that in his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor put up the effective cost of a packet of cigarettes by some 3p, whereas the proposals by the EEC would involve reducing the cost of a packet of cigarettes by 12p. This can be taken as a clear sign of the way in which the minds of my right hon. Friend and the Government are moving. But other important aspects of the move towards 1992 present opportunities without such disadvantages.
The move towards approximation of indirect taxes in the EEC without regard to whether the structure of those taxes could reasonably be regarded as good would cause serious problems, because once the rates are approximated and finalised by agreement there is no mechanism in the EEC for adjusting their level. That is a great deficiency, because it will mean that the rates are set in concrete. It will also have considerable implications for the management of Britain's economy, not least because a much greater weight will be thrown on direct taxation, over which we shall still have some control. We shall need to be able to take necessary fiscal measures now and probably for many years to come because of continuing differences between member states. The EEC proposals for harmonising corporation tax would give us even less scope for more fiscal adjustments. It is important to retain flexibility in that respect if a uniform system of taxation is not to be imposed, which will cause problems for some countries.
The other aspect on which I wish to concentrate is the Government's policy on economic management. I noted with interest my right hon. Friend's proposals for a balanced Budget, but one must take into account the large margin of error in estimating the public sector borrowing requirement. It was a significant change from last year, when he suggested that the PSBR should be 1 per cent. of GDP. I hope that that point will be clarified. I urge my right hon. Friend not to be afraid to say that policy has been changed. He has a slight tendency to say, as though it was a virtue, that there has been no change in policy. From time to time, changes in policy may be appropriate, and I welcome some of the changes that have been made.
In the run-up to the Budget, the exchange rate policy seemed to create much anguish in the press. The matter was grossly exaggerated on the basis of two answers to supplementary questions on the Floor of the House. There is no difficulty reconciling the answers given by the Chancellor and by the Prime Minister, but we must consider some important issues of exchange rate policy. The item that caught the headlines was the Prime Minister's remark that we cannot buck the market, but we should realise that the answer that she gave before that was entirely consistent with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
64
Of course, there is a market price for sterling at any given time and one cannot buck the laws of supply and demand, if that is what is meant by the market. But, as any student of economics knows, the laws of supply and demand are very different in macroeconomic policy from those in microeconomic policy. The famous diagrams associated with them are very different. The supply, price of and demand for potatoes is not the same as the supply, price of and demand for sterling or the dollar.
Although we cannot buck the market, by using the laws of supply and demand we can significantly influence the market and the price at which the dollar or sterling may operate. But we can do that in various ways. It can be done be currency intervention— throwing money at the sterling exchange rate or the dollar exchange rate. That is likely to be expensive, and it is difficult to buck the market in that sense. But that does not mean that we cannot seek—indeed, there may be strong arguments for it—some stability in exchange rates by co-ordinating interest rate and fiscal policy. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been active in that respect.
My right hon. Friend seemed to change his mind on the first form of intervention—going out into the market and buying or selling a foreign currency. It is clear from the outcome of the Louvre agreement that relying on intervention without sufficient co-ordination on interest rates and fiscal policies is dangerous. In that sense, too, it is difficult to buck the market. None the less, the measures that the Chancellor has taken in that respect are important and I hope that he will press on. I am sure that the Prime Minister wishes him to do so, as it was clear from her answer at Question Time that she wants to achieve more international co-ordination and stability in such matters. But it will involve co-ordination of all the points that I have just mentioned.
The Budget should be memorable because of the measures contained within it, but I fear that it will also be memorable for the events of Budget day itself. I was appalled by what happened. The House is often rowdy and noisy. There are often points of order and occasions when hon. Members react passionately and the noise reflects it. That is vastly different from mindless chanting clearly intended to prevent freedom of speech. It was greatly to be deplored, not least because it succeeded in its objective: the sitting had to be suspended and my right hon. Friend was prevented from making his speech. I hope profoundly that, on reflection, those who participated in the incident will realise that democracy is a fragile thing and that it is not easy to defend freedom of speech in this place. But it is incumbent on us all to make sure that we do.
6.27 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I agree with what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said about bringing together debates on spending and the raising of revenue. We have had something similar, but we do not have the factual basis or the proper background to enable us to discuss expenditure and revenue at the same time.
Despite all that has been said about this reforming Chancellor, I expected more from him. As he has given so much of his effort to such matters, I thought that this time we would see something exceptional. I am not talking about our expectation of fairness, which we did not see in this Budget, or the complete disregard for anything other than a reduction of taxation on the rich and the almost

65
humorous justification for such discrimination. I had in mind a Chancellor who had had years of preparation for a Budget in which he could have achieved what so many of us wanted and what he must have wanted a year or two ago—to introduce the real reforms in taxation that would have marked him out for special distinction in matters that he used to consider important. They include mortgage interest relief, which is nonsense and a shameful blot on our financial timetable, the enormous reliefs that are available on personal pensions, the nonsense of stamp duties, and inheritance tax. I thought that he would have wished to turn his attention to those matters at this stage of his Chancellorship.
Of course, it could be said that a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has created such social upheaval in the redistribution of wealth to the rich has done more than enough in tax changes. But tax change is not tax reform, and the one does not inhibit the other. Those who believed that the light-burning in No. 11 which traditionally takes place before the Budget was the light of the tax reformer have been greatly disillusioned. As the Financial Times put it, the Budget was intellectually unexciting. But a proper analysis of these tax changes — and how much more could have been done — really ought to await the Finance Bill and the debates on it.
The political aspects of the Budget have been dominated by two matters: money for the rich, and the argument between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister about the exchange rate. That argument really is important. It lies at the very heart of our economic management, and it is the critical test of the right hon. Gentleman's Chancellorship. Getting it right will determine the balance of payments, the promotion of exports, the discouragement of imports and the relationship of our economy to the world at large. In a word, it will determine the outcome more than anything else that the Chancellor is able to do. It represents the maximum of his power or influence. It is more than an economic indicator. It represents in itself almost an entire economic strategy. It is the one economic signal that can claim the privilege of keeping the Chancellor awake at night. The exchange rate is the precursor of trade patterns. It determines the order books of our most important industries, affects the level of unemployment and anticipates the real level of industrial prosperity.
As a lesson, we need only remind ourselves of what happened in the exchange rate madness of 1980–81, when so much industry was damaged and destroyed. As an example of what a disastrous exchange rate policy can do, I have only to turn to my constituency, where, in those two years, we lost one third of our manufacturing industry. This was not low-tech industry; it was not cotton, for instance. It was medium-tech. It involved skilled engineers and skilled engineering firms, producing articles that the whole world makes. They are made in Japan, Germany and the United States. Those firms were destroyed by the high exchange and interest rates. They could not sell on the home market or the overseas market, and they went to the wall. They will never recover or restart.
That was not unimportant, not just in Ashton, but everywhere. We saw a community with higher than average pay and lower than average unemployment—in the country as a whole, not just the north-west—suddenly turned to an area of high unemployment, low pay and all the problems of dereliction that compound those disadvantages.
66
When there is an argument about exchange rate policy between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, we are not talking about a bit more money for this, or a little less for that; a bit more on this tax, or a bit less on that tax. We are talking about the central economic issue of our country. On that, the Prime Minister has one view and the Chancellor has another. When the Prime Minister says, "You cannot buck the market", she is offering too simple a view, as the right hon. Member for Worthing pointed out. It is true that Governments must listen to markets, but it is also true that markets must listen to Governments. They interact, and a wise Chancellor uses the relationship to the benefit of our economy as a whole. In that respect, I believe the Chancellor to be right and the Prime Minister to be wrong. I think that they both started off with the same view, but the Chancellor has learnt and the Prime Minister has not.
At one time the Chancellor was even more extreme than the Prime Minister. He wanted to enable the Bank of England, through legislative powers, to decide these matters independently of the House of Commons. He held that view in 1977, and, although he may wince at the recollection, we can at least congratulate him on changing. The Financial Times says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has jettisoned his "ideological baggage", and we as a House commend him at least in that particular.
Let me demonstrate the complacency of the present Government. Last week, when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about the economic miracle—perhaps he will regret mentioning that again; we have had too many such false dawns—he joined the long list of those who, since the war, have awaited its coming with more hope than good sense. I must say that I find the exultations rather cloying, as well as the self-satisfaction that I see oozing from every statement. It seems that it is exceeded only by the Government's amnesia about the cause of the present economic position. That, as we all know, is North sea oil.
It is not the revenue aspects that are of such importance. It is the balance of payments aspect. From 1945 until 1980, what stopped the economy from growing was balance of payments difficulties. Stop-go was an illustration of those difficulties. Every now and again they brought to a halt all our expansionist hopes, whichever Government were in power, and, at a stroke, the balance of payments ceased to be the dominant economic factor in 1980.
What has happened since then'? We have had the disaster of the high exchange rate. More recently, we have had the boom in the high streets—a retailing windfall. Credit has never been so freely available, and our savings ratio puts us near the bottom of the table of major industrial countries. We now have a consumption-led boom, but we have been through this sort of thing before. We had it in 1955 and again in 1960, and—as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) pointed out in a speech of great distinction—there are close similarities between now and the period between 1971 and 1973. The right hon. Gentleman could have added to his detailed list of similarities the property boom that is so disfiguring the housing market today.
This consumption-led boom could, of course, have taken place at any time since 1980. It did not have to wait for a year or two ago. The early factor that brought a halt to such policies in the past was the balance of payments. It is North sea oil which, uniquely in the present import

67
boom, has protected the balance of payments. In past surges of consumer expenditure there was at any rate some intellectual justification for it. Expand demand, the argument went, and our factories would produce more, unit costs would fall and exports would increase. The philosopher's stone for which we have been seeking would be to hand, and we would have export-led growth. But the present consumption-led boom has no hope of being transmuted into export-led growth.
With the internationalisation of trade in manufactured goods, as well as the exchange rate—which, on any likely reckoning, will not discourage such imports—all we shall achieve is more imports and an artificial feeling of well-being. If that happens, the so-called economic miracle, like all previous hopes, will have collapsed. The economic miracle—or, rather, our misuse of North sea oil—will have been shown to be nothing but profligacy, and as such will take its place at the forefront of a long list of missed opportunities.
That, I believe, is the likely outcome of this Budget. Far from its effects being limited, if the Prime Minister were to succeed with her high exchange rate policy, the problems later this year, or early next year, would be magnified.
This is supposed to be the Budget for initiative. It is the umpteenth Budget for that elusive virtue. It is strange that tax reductions for the rich are supposed to stimulate the creators of wealth. I thought that we had tested that theory almost to destruction in our post-war history. The wealth creators were expected to be stimulated by Selwyn Lloyd when he made his large reductions in surtax in 1962. The economic halt, as we know, came two years later. Anthony Barber tried again in 1971, with his unified tax, which was the largest tax concession to the wealthy that had been seen since the war. That, too, collapsed in ignominy two years later.
In view of the economic consequences of stimulating the rich, it might be concluded that disaster would invariably follow. What would certainly be perverse would be to assume that any economic benefits flow from such changes—let alone that the benefits will be remotely comparable to the social consequences of divisiveness, unfairness and a decline in our provision of essential services.
Of course, the benefits of this Budget for the rich do not go just to the creators of wealth; they go also to the inheritors of wealth. With the emasculation of the so-called inheritance tax, great advantages now go to those who are left large fortunes. I have no idea how this is supposed to stir the entrepreneurial instincts of those waiting for their relatives who are well off to pass on.
The difficulty for the Government lies in their inability to provide an intellectual basis for the relief of taxation of the well off. The assumption must be that, despite all the trumpets and fancy speeches, and all the posturing, they are just handing out the prizes. It is in their expenditure that the Government show themselves to be equally unfair. They talk about giving more money to the National Health Service. Many hon. Members know something about the relative price effect. It costs more to keep the National Health Service than increases at the level of inflation can provide.
Tameside general hospital, which is in my local authority area, had 5,800 admissions two years ago and
68
5,000 last year, but it will come down to 4,000 this year. That sounds bad, but it is even worse when one takes into account the fact that 3,000 of those admissions are emergencies. All that we had were 2,000 above the level for emergencies last year and 1,000 above the level this year. That is the scale of the deterioration of the Health Service of which I have personal experience.
The failure to increase child benefit is also distressing. Just over 10 years ago, in 1977, a compact was reached between Iain Macleod and the Treasury. The deal was that child benefit would not be treated as public expenditure subject to the disciplines of the public expenditure exercise. We were going from tax allowances to child benefit. Tax allowances were always raised. The agreement reached with Iain Macleod was that child benefit would not be included in the public expenditure exercise, but would continue to be dealt with in the way that tax allowances are dealt with. We have seen a quite shameful withdrawal from that agreement that could have continued at least to play an important part in limiting the problems of families on low incomes.
This is an unfair Budget. It is not a Budget that a future Tory party will be able to look at with pride. It will be an embarrassment to the Tories and will shame their successors. Sooner or later the British people will turn to more equitable ways of running the economy, and I hope that they will do that before too long.
6.42 pm
Sir Ian Lloyd: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on three counts. First, he has produced a splendid Budget, which will be the envy not only of his predecessors but, I suspect, of his successors. To have balanced the Budget, balanced our payments, repaid debt, reduced taxation dramatically, held inflation in check and created the general economic conditions favourable to growth and falling unemployment is a prodigious achievement.
Secondly, he has gone a long way to ensuring that the lessons for our economy, set out in such vivid illustration in Correlli Barnett's powerful book "The Audit of War", are learned and applied. Few would have predicted with any real confidence as recently as five years ago such a remarkable transformation. It has not been without pain or uncertainty and, as always, the faint-hearted would have given up when the going was tough. It is very much to my right hon. Friend's credit that he did not do so.
Thirdly, in a most decisive and convincing manner, my right hon. Friend has broken the mould of a high-tax, low-incentive, low-productivity economy from which successive Governments of all parties tried so hard to escape, sometimes with very much less success than they had hoped. He has done so because he is the Houdini, if I may put it that way, who has mastered the complex art of unlocking each of those massive locks that bound our economy in the iron bands of constraint, despair and interlocking prohibitions. He has broken out of this by seizing on the most promising and important segments of policy, and by defining the fundamentals and sticking to them. I salute him and recognise in him, as Napoleon once recognised in his generals, the truth that good generals are those whose skill is rewarded with luck. I suggest that the Chancellor's skill is quite exceptional this side of the second world war.
My main purpose is to concentrate on one argument, that the Budget has reduced taxation rather than increased

69
expenditure on the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has come under considerable attack on this score, not least in today's debate and not only from the Opposition. He is right and his logic is equalled only by his courage. It is most uncongenial to be accused of lacking sympathy or compassion for the sick. As I understand it, the argument is that the National Health Service can demonstrate a shortage of staff, equipment and space. It is that hospital queues are lengthening, that there is a perceived shortage of most skills—especially of the most scarce medical skills—and that decisions are being made not on health but on financial grounds. Therefore, the argument runs that there should be no reduction in tax on anyone until a significant proportion of these needs have been met and the future of the Health Service secured. On the face of it, that is a plausible and in some ways a powerful argument.
I find particularly disturbing the suggestion that has been made over and over again in the past few weeks that this problem is unique to our Health Service and to the United Kingdom. The suggestion is that it reflects a unique lack of generosity on the part of the Government, and that there is a unique indifference to the plight of our hospitals and our medical profession. Those things are attributed by our critics uniquely to the Government. All that is unsustainable because the mass of description and anecdotal evidence, of which we have had a great deal, has failed both in detail and in terms of the general picture that has been conveyed to make a case.
What is the evidence that the problem is not unique? There are three principal organisations which in my experience have concentrated immense effort in recent years on the problem of world health in the developed and the undeveloped world. The first is the World Health Organisation. It has published a series of reports pointing out in the most dramatic terms that by the end of the century all the developed countries of the western world, whatever their present position, are likely to run into massive problems about financing their health services. No one has mentioned that.
Secondly, that superb body, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has published a series of reports, specifically on health but more generally on social problems. In a moment I shall come to some of the conclusions in one of those reports.
Thirdly, the Office of Technology Assessment, which advises the United States Congress, has produced a series of reports on health that are of immense significance and value. The OTA has looked at a series of major health problems in the United States in relation to the Medicare system of payment and has concluded that there are no easy solutions and that such solutions have not been applied there or anywhere else. The problem of health is immensely complex and has not yet been solved.
All these reports have a series of common conclusions. I have touched on the first one, the immense complexity of the problem. The second is that there is general evidence throughout the western world of failure and concern, and that this applies in countries such as the United States, Sweden and Switzerland which apply the highest percentage of GDP, just as much as it does to countries at the other end of the scale. Thirdly, there is general evidence from the OECD and in the developed world of massive health cost overruns. It is not a problem unique to the United Kingdom or to our National Health Service, nor is it one that the present Government or any other
70
British Government have uniquely failed to solve. It is a general problem and I suggest that we have much to learn by looking at the experience of others and seeing what lessons we can derive from them.
There is no correlation — this is a significant conclusion — between the system of payment and the general success of a health service. The system is obviously one of immense variety, varying from our own, which is virtually a totally publicly funded service, to the United States, which has the highest percentage of GDP spent on health, but, in fact, spends only 4·4 per cent. in the public sector and 6·3 per cent. in the private sector. In France, where the figures are 6·5 in the public sector and 2·6 in the private sector, the OECD analysis again discloses many unsolved problems, particularly in the distribution of health skills throughout metropolitan France.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there may well be a great body of opinion that simply wants to spend more as a percentage of GDP and that those people are not concerned with his arguments? They simply want the state to spend more, to raise standards and to increase the availability of services. Can the hon. Gentleman absorb that proposition?
Sir Ian Lloyd: There is always a vast body of public opinion which, over almost every segment of the public expenditure spectrum, wishes the state to spend more. I have never yet received large numbers of letters from constituents, especially those employed in the public sector, asking the state to spend less.
That brings me to my next point. There is no exclusive right of a national health service or the health sector in any country to absorb, as of right, increased resources which the growth of the economy is making available. It certainly has every right to put in a claim and to have the claim considered in conjuction with others. However, the argument being deployed here is that under the Health Service there is an absolute right, as soon as a surplus is created elsewhere which matches or exceeds its deficit, for that deficit to be met. That argument cannot be sustained. Health Service expenditure must compete against expenditure on defence, education and the environment, a total of £130 billion in public expenditure.
Health care may often be better achieved through other forms of expenditure. Some calculations have been made by the Office of Technology Assessment, which show that expenditure on safety, as a result of the high medical costs of accidents, could well improve the general efficiency of health services much more directly and effectively than direct expenditure in hospitals on the consequences of accidents. The same applies to expenditure on reducing pollution. Some precise calculations have been made in respect of the effects of reduced pollution on bronchitis and the consequent reduction in bronchitis costs. Those calculations were made in the United States, where the reduction in expenditure was calculated to be about $10 billion. That is a cost-effective way of going about things. I need hardly mention the effect of decreasing expenditure on alcohol and tobacco. The consequences of the consumption of alcohol and tobacco account for about 40 per cent. of all health expenditure in this country. There is no automatic entitlement of the NHS to funds. The NHS must compete. It may be justified in its approach in some cases, but not in others.
I should like to refer to a number of points made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He said that

71
economic judgments were much better if they were not so confused with morality. He appeared to be saying that economic judgments were generally much better made if they were judged in some sort of moral-immoral spectrum. That is a fallacious way of considering such matters. We are considering two essential problems—social acceptability and economic growth. They are certainly interconnected. It is a fine and often difficult judgment as to which policy will optimise the U-curve between the two in a most complex and difficult manner.
However, in my judgment, it is not a question of morality. It can never be a question of morality or immorality. If it were a question of immorality, one must ask oneself, if it is immoral to lower tax rates, at what point does the immorality become acceptable? We can consider that equally from the other side of the political spectrum. At what point does it become immoral to raise tax rates to the draconian levels that have existed in this country and others? We know that those draconian rates have had what could be described as immoral consequences, but I prefer to describe them as poor economic judgments with poor economic consequences. Let us forget about bringing morality and immorality into the issue. There is no ethical criterion, but economic judgments about consequences should be made a proper ground for political disagreement between the parties and a proper ground for debate.
The hon. Member for Dagenham then suggested, in an attempt to elaborate his argument, that the rich are idle. He said that the rich would benefit from the Budget, particularly the idle.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: He did not say that.
Sir Ian Lloyd: I wrote it down at the time. He said that many of those who would benefit from a reduction in tax rates were not merely the rich, but the idle rich.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is different.
Sir Ian Lloyd: It may be different, but if the hon. Gentleman considers some of the so-called rich — for example, Ford, Nuffield, Carnegie, Morris, Hammer, Leverhulme, Hanson, Rothschild, Morita, Wolfson and Sainsbury—he will see that not one of them could ever be said to be idle. They may have made great wealth, but they made it by the sweat of their brow and the efficiency of their judgments. Let us forget about the question of benefiting the idle.
The hon. Member for Dagenham then said that inequality is inefficient. That argument may be valid in a limited way in certain circumstances, but, if one is generalising the argument, why has the Soviet Union staged a massive retreat at great political cost from the egalitarian state that it sought to create and implement? The hon. Gentleman should take such judgments into account before he makes statements of that degree of generality.
The hon. Member for Dagenham then referred to Professor Kenneth Galbraith whom I remember being quoted in support of a former Prime Minister, now Lord Rievaulx, and his Government. If one considers that in a limited sense, Professor Galbraith had a point, but, when one widens the analysis and area of judgment, one finds such examples as that which I found two or three years
72
ago. I went to the Rhondda valley with the Select Committee on Energy to look at coal mines. One of the things that impressed me was the relative poverty of the private housing. The area was poverty-stricken and in many ways depressing. Suddenly, we came over the hill and there was a splendid, vast glass structure. I asked, "What's that? Is it some new factory?" I was told that it was the Rhondda council building. There is, therefore, another kind of contrast, that between public affluence and private squalor, but there is not necessarily any argument for or against the Budget from that quarter.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman must have the wrong valley. I can assure him that the Rhondda valley council headquarters are in a building equal in antiquity to that of the majority of houses in the valley—in other words, about 120 years old.
Sir Ian Lloyd: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have the wrong valley. There was certainly a dramatically large and expensive building some 20 miles further up the valley that I visited. I withdraw any aspersions that I may have accidentally cast on the Rhondda.
I wish to deal finally with the question of high interest rates. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham argue that high interest rates encourage consumption. When my overdraft rate goes up, I endeavour to reduce my consumption. When the building society rate on mortgages goes up, the net effect on a fixed income is to reduce the available income and, therefore, to reduce consumption. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that that discourages the type of investment that we most want to see. Again, as most major industrial investments involve elaborate discounted cash flow analyses, in which the rate of interest is a crucial factor, one of the significant effects of high interest rates is to encourage more discriminating investment.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Oh!
Sir Ian Lloyd: If money is cheap and free, anyone can borrow and get hold of it. If money is expensive and scarce, obviously it is much more difficult to borrow and those who do borrow must consider much more carefully their approach and how they will spend that money.
I repeat that I heartily approve of what my right hon. Friend has done and I hope that he will be here next year to do it again.
6.59 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: I am extremely pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the previous speaker from the Opposition Benches, because he referred to the damage that the high interest rates policy of earlier years had done to his constituency and to mine. We have not yet recovered from that damage. I wish to concentrate my remarks upon that policy. It is a relatively narrow policy, but it is an important aspect of Government thinking and it is one to which the Chancellor should have addressed himself in the Budget.
I can state categorically that last Tuesday was not "Super Tuesday" for my constituents. At the weekend, the Prime Minister used just that expression a few miles along the road from my constituency and how she had the nerve to do so I will never know. It is just as well for her that security was drawn tight at Buxton. Clearly the hand

73
picked audience were beneficiaries of the Chancellor's lopsided, rich man's Budget. She certainly would not have got away with saying such things further along the road in Tameside. The Budget has done nothing for the vast majority of people and it has certainly done little for the people of Tameside.
The much-vaunted inner city policies of the Government have hindered the development of trade and industry in my constituency and that failure is repeated in many similar areas. My local council, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne would testify, is a well-run council. It is doing a great deal in line with what the Prime Minister has urged councils to do in her introduction to that glossy piece of fiction "Action for Cities" which was launched only two weeks ago. The Prime Minister wrote—perhaps it was Bernard Ingham or perhaps they worked together—in that document:
"The Government is resolved, in partnership with the people, to generate that hope and help to create a new, lively environment in which to live, work and prosper … the Government has created a climate which supports enterprise and has set about removing obstacles in the way of inner city recovery."
That is nonsense to Tameside, whose situation does not square with the Prime Minister's words. By any yardstick Tameside is recognised as a deprived area. Indeed, its problems are recognised by all the political parties in the borough. I should like to draw special attention— I am sure my right hon. Friend would join me—to the leader of the Conservatives on the council, Councillor Bell. The Conservatives on the council, with one exception—an unsuccessful business man and failed parliamentary candidate—are at one with the majority party and with the business community in pressing the Government for help for the varied problems of the borough.
The three Members of Parliament with constituencies within the boundaries of Tameside have worked hard to bring Ministers to the area and have sent deputations to Ministers in Whitehall to present the problems of Tameside.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) was the latest Minister to visit the area. The leaders of the majority and minority parties made it clear to him that there was a true partnership scheme—not one of the glossies—in operation. It was a true coming together of the private and public sectors of the borough with the aim of generating the local economy. Those involved in the scheme believe that Tameside has many of the problems of the inner city — decay, dereliction, eyesores, empty factories, crime and run-down housing. The Minister must have been convinced by the determination that exists to tackle and resolve the problems. I am sure that he was especially convinced by the senior representatives of nationally-known companies who told him that they were as united and determined as anyone else to make the partnership work. However, when the Minister returned to Whitehall, he and, therefore, the Government turned their backs.
Tameside does not fall within the boundaries for urban aid that were drawn up a decade ago, so the borough is deprived of the assistance that it needs and it is ignored. Why did the Budget not address the problems faced by Tameside? Why are Tameside and similar areas considered irrelevant to Government philosophy?
Local business men, many of whom the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment met, are baffled about why their ideas for expansion have been
74
stopped by Whitehall's red tape. Projects that are attractive to private investors and that would benefit urban regeneration are coming up against a Government brick wall. The Government are letting the spirit of enterprise flounder. Instead, they are producing glossy brochures and an abundance of new logos.
One glaring example of Whitehall red tape was witnessed by the Under-Secretary. A pharmaceutical factory in my right hon. Friend's constituency straddles the boundary between Tameside and Oldham. It was pointed out to the Minister that, if that company moved its postal address from one building to another —situated on the Oldham shde— it would be eligible for inner city status. The company was baffled by that. It asked the Minister about it, but nothing was done. I defy any hon. Member to go round Oldham and Tameside and say that there are any differences in the problems that they face. They are both worthy of Government support. Indeed, Tameside has a worse unemployment record than Oldham. My purpose is not to diminish the claims of Oldham or any other area for Government help but to highlight my council's case.
On the Department of the Environment's own figures for social stress, Tameside scores higher than at least five of the north-west boroughs that enjoy urban area status. In the past four years unemployment in Tameside has increased at a faster rate than in nine boroughs that receive support. Financial resources are also tighter in Tameside because of its low rateable valuation in comparison with neighbouring boroughs and that is a clear reflection of the poor status of the area.
One point that is often overlooked is that Tameside not only has the economic problems of the scale of the city of Manchester, but has them in population terms as well. Tameside contains several overspill estates and, in the main, people have been rehoused there from Manchester's inner city. The estates of Hattersley, Carrbrook and Haughton Green in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) contain a population of about 13,700. Many of those people still work in the city of Manchester and if they lived a mile along the road they would qualify for help.
I want the Government to recognise that my local authority is playing its part on partnership and regeneration. It has done so without Government help. However, that authority needs help if it is to fulfil its wishes and if it is to achieve what the Government claim they want such authorities to achieve.
The authority has provided houses for sale and vigorously tried to improve older housing stock; land has been sold to private developers at subsidised cost; efforts have been made to improve the infrastructure, especially the shopping precincts, and it has introduced many other schemes.
On top of its economic problems, the deprived constituency of Tameside faces further cuts in health care. In the two Black reports Tameside was described as being in the top 10 most deprived areas of the country in terms of health provision. Tameside general hospital — my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has said somthing of this already—is to cut 90 acute beds and 16 children's orthopaedic beds. A hospital has effectively closed without the Secretary of State's permission to date. Twenty-five general surgical beds are to be kept open for three months only.

75
I accept that I have made a constituency speech, but I do not apologise for that. Tameside is typical of many areas and the Budget has not addressed the problems in those areas. I state candidly to the Minister that he must respond to the points made by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about our area. Our constituents look to the Government to help them with their difficulties. If this Government will not help, our constituents will look forward to the day when we have a Government who recognise the problems and are prepared to do something about them.
7.10 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I want to be brief and I hope that the House will forgive me if I pick up the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) at the end of his speech.
I begin by referring to the events on Tuesday when our debate began. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the organised tribal chanting was a disgraceful exhibition. The lack of action from the shadow Leader of the House or the Opposition Chief Whip to restrain those who were responsible for that disgraceful breach of order says much about the ability of those people. Perhaps the House would benefit if they would make way for others. If they will not make way, would they at least please stop obstructing the establishment of the Select Committee on Procedure which could consider these matters which must be examined?
There is an aspect of the disorder in which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) succeeded in getting himself suspended which preceded the chanting which should not pass without remark. As you were in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might be interested in the names in the Division list on the motion to suspend the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Most of the names will not have caused you surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the presence of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) on the list might have surprised you.
I gave notice to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South that I intended to raise this point and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. I believe that the hon. Member is a member of the Chairmen's Panel. Members of that panel have a duty to support the Chair. It is entirely reprehensible that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South chose not to support the Chair and he should be brought to account for that. I have no wish to go further into that matter as I have made my point.
I agree with the compliments paid quite rightly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his Budget. I want to focus closely on a point that has been referred to off and on from the beginning of the debate, which is the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has prudently made provision for what may be expected to happen in the next few years.
Too much of the debate has been harking back. We could hark back a long way if we wanted to. As I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and his Front Bench colleagues, I was reminded irresistibly of a colourful card that I was given by a constituent during the 1970 general election campaign. That card dated from the 1920s and was headed "The Socialist Creed". The card read along the lines,
76
"Brothers" — it may have been "Comrades" — "let us combine among us and when I have spent my share we will do that again." The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East presented himself in the typical guise of one of Socialism's big spenders. All his answers to the problems confronting our society were, "Spend, spend, spend."
I do not believe that we can hope to compete in the world if we adopt that philosophy or if we ignore the effects of the years that the locusts have eaten or if we decide to squander in one great round of national self-indulgence the achievements that have been built up since 1979. If we do that—and that appears to be what the Socialists want us to do — we will be in the worst position to face the future.
My next point concerns another matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. I want to consider what happens between now and 1992 and the advent of the single European market. Apart from the Budget, the most important economic event last week was the launch on Friday by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the campaign to familiarise more people in British business with what will happen in 1992. In the covering letter, which I hope has reached all hon. Members, my right hon. and noble Friend states:
"Over the next five years we shall see the dismantling of the remaining barriers to a single unified market of over 320 million people in Europe. All Member States are committed to achieving this by the end of 1992. I want to ensure that companies throughout the UK are given every chance to make a success of the new opportunities of the Single Market and to meet the challenges it brings — before our competitors beat us to it."
No one interested in the affairs of the European Community can deny that the next four or five years are absolutely crucial to the future of this country and its people. That is why it is so important and such a matter for commendation that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget puts this country's economy in the best possible shape to enter those years and make the most of the advantages before us.
There may be many obstacles and difficulties to overcome. However, we start with some advantages. We have the advantage of a sound economy which is enterprising and efficient in which the world has confidence. Thanks to the fiscal changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the best business men and managers in those businesses will continue to be motivated in our economy and have the incentives to produce the goods for us all.
I do not believe that we can have anything less than the highest dedication if we are to beat our competitors. The French and the Germans in particular—our two greatest rivals—suffer from disadvantages that we do not have. We have political certainty, but the French do not and the Germans seem to be in some danger of losing their certainty. The years between now and 1992 must be used for the sake of everyone in this country—for those in work and those out of work and for the sake of those working and those in retirement.
They must be used to maximise our advantages and to acquire business if we cannot export into those markets —to buy businesses in France and Germany—and to use the period between now and 1992 to move forward to be ready to meet and beat our competitors. The best

77
memory of this Budget for historians in future will be that it was the Budget that prepared to take this country into Europe and to make us the leader in Europe.
7.18 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for a while in this Budget debate. I want to deal with two aspects in which I feel I have a duty to put forward the fight for my constituents in Birmingham, Small Heath. The first aspect relates to the abject poverty that we face in my constituency, about which this Budget says nothing, and the other relates to the serious and continuing decline of manufacturing industry in the west midlands.
Before I deal with those two points, I want to comment on the Health Service and the questions of morality that have been raised today. It is fascinating that the Secretary of State for Employment, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, spent all his extremely short and very unsatisfactory speech deploring the fact that anyone should raise questions of social justice in relation to the Budget.
I do not think Conservative Members can object to considering the Budget from the point of view of morality. I do not like scenes such as those we saw the other day, but if ever we needed an increase of moral indignation it is now, because of the poverty about which the Budget had nothing to say—the Budget that handed out largesse to the richest people in the country. That was bound to create a sense of moral indignation, and it is the job of the Labour party—and other opposition parties—to foster such a sense if we are to have any hope of tackling these problems.
I want to talk about the Health Service. In Birmingham, many of the worst features of the lack of resources for the Health Service have been manifested in the children's hospital and other hospitals at which, at one stage, doctors were being instructed by administrators not to admit or operate on children with hole-in-the-heart conditions, not for medical reasons but for administrative and financial convenience. If ever there was immorality, that was it.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) told us that he hoped the nurses' pay award would be funded in full, and I share that hope. I know that it will be. The Chief Secretary has already told us that the award is expected in mid-April, when an immediate judgment will be made on it and a decision will be announced by the end of April. The local elections take place in the first week of May. In view of the overwhelming case for the nurses, it is disgraceful that no interim award was made to them in the winter months. The funding of the Health Service should have had a place in the Budget. I know all about the extra £1 billion, but allocations now being suggested for district hospitals for the next financial year do not approach meeting the demand on those hospitals. It is important that Opposition Members should say that in the House.
If I may return to the issue of morality in the Budget, there is a biblical parable that applies to it—that of the Good Samaritan. The Chancellor and the Government have passed by on the other side in the face of the atrocious conditions in which some people, particularly in my constituency, live. The Chancellor gave an interview to Brian Redhead the other day. Mr. Redhead asked him what was in the Budget for the poorest of the land.
78
Unfortunately, these days television and radio interviewers ask a question and then fail to follow it up because they have clipboards in front of them and they have to get on to the next question. They do not listen to the answer to one question before asking another. However, the Chancellor answered that everyone would gain from tax relief. If everyone got tax relief that would be true, but the poorest of the poor get none. There was nothing in the Budget for them, so the Chancellor's answer in that respect was wholly dishonest.
The Secretary of State for Employment, who opened the debate, represents Sutton Coldfield in Birmingham, but I represent Birmingham, Small Heath — the city centre—which has the highest rate of infant mortality in Europe. That is why it is my duty to make this speech today and to ask the Government what on earth they are doing when, in Nechells, in my constituency, we have an infant mortality rate of 23 per thousand of the population. That is a scandal that those of us who have been in politics for a long time thought we had eradicated years ago. It is a shocking state of affairs. The reason for it is that my constituency has the highest percentage of single-parent families in the area and the average age of mothers in Nechells who lose their children in the first year is lower than anywhere else. Who can come to the help of these unfortunate children and mothers, when there are no tax reductions for them, no proper increase in child benefit, their rents are to be forced up and their one-off social security payments are to be denied them under the new social security legislation? To whom can they turn for help? They must look to their local authority, but next year that local authority—one of the most responsible in the country — faces a £300,000 cut in its partnership programme, which offers the only relief in our part of the city.
To add to all this, the unemployment rate in my constituency is more than 30 per cent., and more than 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. among young people. Those are disgraceful figures. The effect of all this social deprivation was seen on the streets of my constituency a year or so ago in Handsworth and Lozells. One cannot divorce this abject poverty and social deprivation from the good order that we need. Some of us spend much of our time working for racial harmony in our constituencies, but whatever we do, the effects of the policies that bring about this despair in the lives of thousands of ordinary people are being exacerbated by the Budget.
Sometimes it is necessary to explain to the House the living conditions of people in our industrial communities. I am not against reducing taxation whenever we can, and my party needs to be careful not to be always the party that is against lowering taxation But anyone with a moral foundation to his being must ensure that, before he benefits the better off, or Members of Parliament or even the industrial classes, he remembers his overwhelming Christian priority to provide for people living in absolute destitution and despair. Birmingham is doing its best, with all-party agreement in large measure. Just this week the city council is calling for a symposium of architects, decision-makers, landowners and others to help to advise us on how to begin the regeneration that the city needs, and how to use our land properly.
I want now to deal with trade and industry in the west midlands. I agree with the right hon. Members for Worthing and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about the importance of Europe. I declare a prejudice, or

79
an interest — I am chairman of the Labour committee for Europe. I am pleased to tell the House that we in Birmingham, faced with the decline of our manufacturing industry, understand that we have to accept what will happen in 1992. The trade union movement is now coming overwhelmingly to understand the importance of our full involvement in the European Community. My union—the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff—recently passed a resolution proposing that we immediately join the European monetary system. I am glad to say that I proposed the resolution and that it was carried overwhelmingly. I offer that information to the House as one sign of the fact that the trade union movement understands where its future interests lie. I hope that colleagues will note that.
We have lost 30 per cent. of our jobs in the west midlands during the lifetime of the Conservative Government. We have lost 1 million jobs because of the decline in manufacturing industry. The losses continue. The total number of jobs has gone up a bit because we have gained some in service industries, banking and insurance, but the number of jobs in manufacturing is still going down.
I am an old-fashioned Socialist. I believe that all wealth is created by the application of labour to the raw material or the land, but I can see that when banking and insurance attract investment from overseas, they have contributed to the growth of wealth. Nevertheless, Britain's interests must lie with the manufacturing sector and the decline of manufacturing should worry us all.
Productivity in the west midlands is now what it was in 1979. It is quite appalling that we have just got back to where we were when the Conservatives took over. Germany and Japan, however, have moved 25 per cent. ahead of us. I agree that exchange rates are critical, but I do not want to say anything about them except that I am on the side of the Chancellor rather than the Prime Minister.
The worst feature of the Budget is its complete failure—my friends in the Birmingham chamber of commerce, the Engineering Employers Federation, the West Midlands Trades Union Congress and the West Midlands Economic Development Council agree with me — to provide for research and development, training and retraining. The lack of skills in industry is growing upon us because for years Birmingham's industry has not taken on apprentices or trained skilled people. That failure will catch up with us and if we have anything like the improvement in the manufacturing base in Birmingham which the Government see in other sectors of the economy, we shall not be able to deal with it because employers do not have sufficient incentives to provide training, retraining or research and development. Capital allowances have gone and there is nothing for apprenticeships.
There is one other matter which I wish to raise. I am not sure whether my language will be parliamentary, but I am sure that you will be the first to draw my attention to the fact if it is not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dominated by the bottom line. I am getting fed up with it. Whenever we discuss anything, we are always told that we must look to the bottom line as though it should determine all our values and needs. I am forming a new society,
80
which I am calling Bugger The Bottom Line. I hope that you are tolerant enough to allow me to say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I think that Mr. Speaker would want me to say that he does not regard that as parliamentary language—indeed, that it is vulgar and coarse.
Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but I fully understand your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I expected. It underlines the point that I wanted to make.
I am advised by industrial friends that when industry in Birmingham wants to expand, it is dominated by insurance companies and pension funds who want to invest but that, to a great extent, the institutions demand such high returns on their investment that the process is self-defeating, so no manufacturing jobs are created.
The worst feature of the appalling unemployment in Birmingham is its effect on individuals who will never have a job. People get a feeling of pride and self-respect when they pick up a wage packet which they have earned, rather than take a handout. Never having that opportunity has an appalling effect on generations of young people.
I spent a lot of time in industry before coming here, and it seems to me that the absence of the discipline of the work place in the lives of so many people is a serious matter for any community. We all know that it is fellow workers who knock the corners and edges off to produce a round person. They impose a discipline which is often not imposed anywhere else. I would create work for its own sake because everyone ought to have a right to a job, but in any civilised society every person should demand that everybody works so that they make a contribution to the community. We thus enhance individual personality.
My greatest criticism of the Budget is that it does not enhance the personality of the individual when there is such severe unemployment in Birmingham and the rest of the industrial west midlands. As a football referee, I can only say that the score on this Budget is: The Greedy 5, The Needy 0.
7.37 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his magnificent display of fiscal pyrotechnics. As always, Opposition Members have tried to dampen them down and ruin the display.
It was intriguing to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) trying to suggest that the tremendous success which my right hon. Friend has pulled off is due entirely to the presence of North sea oil. If we read the Red Book forecast carefully, we see that it is quite clear that oil has been a problem for us this year, and will be next, and not a great opportunity. There has been a dramatic decline in Government revenues from oil to only £3 billion next year and, in the forecast for the balance of payments, an adjustment has been put in which shows that exports will do much better without oil next year than they will with it. That is a perfectly sensible forecast.
The simple fact is that the £3 billion from oil just equals the amount of debt that the Government are repaying, and that the bulk of the revenue to pay for all the public spending quite clearly comes from the success of the economy, rising incomes and rising purchases in shops.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I did not want to intervene, but it must be said quite clearly that 15 years ago we bought oil, whereas now we sell it. That is the effect on our balance of payments.
Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, but what matters is the change over the years. It will he less helpful next year than in previous years, and it has declined this year. To put the matter in perspective, the contribution to the balance of payments from oil revenues is forecast as £2·5 billion, while the contribution from the service sector—which which has been a great success in our economic strategy in recent years—is forecast as £8·5 billion.
The next strange doctrine of the hon. Member for Dagenham was his assertion that interest rates would prevent investment and encourage consumption. Has he not seen the figures for recent years, which show a surge in both commercial and industrial investment at a time of relatively high interest rates? Does he not understand that, for industrialists and those in commerce, what matters is the gap between real interest rates and the return on capital? Again, one of the great successes of our economic strategy has been the surge in the return on capital, which has made investment more worth while and has brought forward new investment projects. For the past 19 months it has also created new jobs, which is exactly what the strategy was designed to deliver. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that.
If we try to divine what the Opposition want, we can only conclude that, first, they want the rich to pay more tax—although they do not tell us how much; secondly, that they want tax to take a larger proportion of our national income—but again they will not tell us how much. [Interruption.] I must have misunderstood: they want higher taxes for the rich, but the same amount of overall taxation. Thirdly, they want a substantial increase in public spending across the board, on a variety of programmes, but within that they especially want an increase in the proportion spent on health.
Is it not strange, therefore, that those are the three priorities that the Government have adopted since they took office in 1979? The tax paid by the top 5 per cent. has risen by 5 percentage points in the total tax take. Opposition Members say that that is because they have had large pay rises, but everyone else has also had a pay rise. There has been a large increase in the number of people locating in this country and in the risks that they are prepared to take. That proves my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's point that to lower tax rates at the margin for the better off will generate more wealth and more jobs, and that those then percolate through to help everyone in the community. That is a welcome change.
The proportion of income taken in tax since 1979 has, I regret, actually risen. It is a sign that, at the beginning, the Government put public services and fiscal prudence above making a dramatic cut in the tax rates. I welcome the fact that the Government are now in a strong enough position to cut the overall tax burden, not just the high tax rates on income. As the economy grows, I am sure that that process will increase and strengthen, to the consternation of Opposition Members, but to increasing the strength of the economy.
Mr. Nigel. Griffiths: When will the burden of taxation imposed by this Conservative Government be reduced to its levels under the previous Labour Administration?
Mr. Redwood: I hope that, as a proportion of gross national product, that will happen before the end of this Parliament. If not, it will certainly happen before the end of the subsequent Conservative Administration, during which the Government will continue their policy of tax reduction to below a 20 per cent. standard rate. A rate of 20 per cent. is a feasible objective for this Parliament.
The Opposition's desire for an increase in spending on health has also been met. As a proportion of total public spending, health spending will rise from 11·9 per cent. in 1979 to a projected 14·1 per cent. in the early 1990s, and the increase already stands at more than 13 per cent. Spending on health has increased as a proportion of a total which, in itself, is rising, thanks to the increase in real expenditure made possible by the large amount of tax revenue generated by our economic success. I hope that Opposition Members welcome those moves.
On the issue of fiscal balance, I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision to run the economy with a £3 billion surplus in the ensuing year. Opposition Members find problems with that, too. I remember debating with some of them, outside the House, what would be an appropriate level of deficit or surplus for the coming year. I have always said that it would be right to run it at about a nil balance — no borrowing —because that would help the economy to grow strongly. Opposition Members and media figures told me that there would be a recession, which had to be taken into account. Indeed, if there were to be a major international recession this year, a borrowing level of about 1 per cent. of GDP would be appropriate. However, I stressed that that would be extremely unlikely and that, instead, we would witness another year of good growth. I very much welcome the fact that Britain will have another year of satisfactory growth, which will be even better than expected, so that we can make a welcome repayment of debt from the public sector and so reduce the crippling interest burden that this Government inherited from the Labour Administration.
I welcome the joint decision of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to allow interest rates to fall. In the circumstances of the past couple of weeks, they rightly decided that the sterling exchange rate had to move upwards. It makes little sense to spend cheap pounds buying dear deutschmarks simply to nurse a loss on the foreign exchanges. It is quite clear that our currency is very much more attractive than many other currencies because of the robust health of the British economy and the level of real interest rates in the United Kingdom compared with Germany and elsewhere. However, it was also right to allow interest rates to be nudged downwards, and they may have to come down further if the flow of hot money into this country continues and puts further pressure on exchange rates. I do not believe that that will result in a major inflation problem, because the money figures have been greatly distorted in recent months by that very intervention itself. Not all of it has been properly funded because it occurred on such a large scale.
If we move towards a policy of little or no intervention in exchange markets, and if we produce a prudent balance between the levels of exchange rates and interest rates, there can be both a low or nil inflation policy and a further attractive reduction in interest rates for house buyers, industry and other investors. That can be accommodated quite easily, because there remains in our economy a substantial surplus capacity—for example, derelict land, the unemployed and other factors of production—all of

83
which can be applied as we spread prosperity ever more widely across the country. We can now bid those factors into use without running many, or even any, inflationary risks.
I very much approve of the moves to deal with some of the tax dodges that have been a feature of recent years, partly due to the high tax structure. It is better to have a simple, two-band system, because that will reduce the number of dodges that the rich can take to protect their wealth and their incomes if they want to keep them in this country. The changes on forestry, covenants and company cars go in the right direction, and are entirely at one with the strategy of lower tax rates, but more tax income because of the enterprise effect.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is perhaps being unduly cautious in estimating £2 billion as the cost of cuts in the higher tax rates. As people of enterprise, the risk takers, come into this country, the benefits will be so great that the cost of the tax cuts will not amount to anything like £2 billion. I am sure that before the end of this Parliament the rich will be paying yet more as a proportion of the total. I do not understand why Opposition Members are looking so concerned; surely that is exactly what they want. Perhaps it is merely jealousy on their part. They cannot bear to think that more well-off people will come to this country, bringing with them their investments and their incomes to spend on creating jobs in Opposition Members' constituencies. I, for one, would greatly welcome that.
I have only one minor criticism of the Budget, which is that I am a little concerned about mortgage relief for first-time buyers in high-cost housing areas. I understand the need to produce equality of treatment, at least between married and unmarried people, but I am also well aware that in many parts of the south-east house prices are such that it is extremely difficult for people to get started on the home ownership ladder with only a £30,000 mortgage. I hope that there will be second thoughts about that.
It is a splendid Budget. It is a Budget for more jobs, more prosperity, lower tax rates and better public services. I look forward to the conclusions of the health review and the health pay award, because I think that there will be more surprises in store for Opposition Members. I am sure that by the end of the next financial year my right hon. and hon. Friends will have produced a system for health management and improved services of which we can also be proud.
7.50 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I was reading in a satirical magazine over the weekend that the Government have set up groups of WOMBATS — working ministerial breakfast action teams—to justify the Budget in the face of the stinging criticism that it has received.
Being a reasonable person, I begin by complimenting the Chancellor. I believe that it required courage to introduce this Budget and that he needed nerves of steel and extraordinary moral and spiritual resources to do so much for so few in return for so little. The Chancellor has come through his ordeal, pleased and smiling, and worshipped and revered by the gawping, grasping, privileged, avaricious, salivating super-rich. Moaning minnies, puritans, the poor and those whose bootstraps
84
have let them down did not like the Budget, but they must realise that the Chancellor's world has passed them by and that their pathetic cries, "Stop the globe, I want to get of", will no longer be heard.
For the few, the Budget was much more than a spring tonic. For those of us who like to live vicariously, it was one for fantasies and dreams. For all of us, it has presaged a world in which we can get rid of that wretched quality of empathy—the idea that it is possible for a human being to put himself in the position of another. After this Budget, other people simply do not count.
In the real world of the City — next door to the forgotten wastes of Hackney—they like the Budget, and why not? I ask my hon. Friends to stop cavilling about it. All right, there may be a balance of payments crisis and the forecast deficit of £4 billion may turn out to be £8 billion, but let us look on the bright side.
Yes, when the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that Britain was becoming a filthy, squalid and rundown country with a crumbling infrastructure because of lack of investment, that might have been true, but we should have a sense of proportion. In a super-binge society the comforts of the day are bound to be far more important than the problems of tomorrow. I dare say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was right when he said that a few babies may die because of want of treatment in the National Health Service as a result of the Budget.
However, I am bound to ask my hon. Friends to attempt to comprehend the sheer exquisite delight that the Budget has given to a few very important people. For them, I agree that the Budget has been messianic. It will change people's lives. I give my hon. Friends three examples——
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Sir Ralph.
Mr. Sedgemore: Well. I shall come to Sir Ralph in a moment.
At 6 o'clock on 14 March, just after the Chancellor had sat down, having delivered his Budget speech, a helicopter took off from docklands. A few minutes later it landed on an airstrip at Northolt. Two men in flak jackets were transferring £5 million in used notes into a light aircraft, which was destined for one of the great financial centres of the world — Liechtenstein. Just as the light aircraft was about to take off, air traffic control received a cryptic message over the teleprinter from the City godfather who had organised the mission. It stated,
"Abort mission. Just heard the Budget. £5 million now to go into property via the Business Expansion Scheme. Rachmanism legalised at last. God bless Nigel. Stuff Liechtenstein."
Meanwhile, over at Cazenove, the stockbrokers to the Queen, they were taking a little bit of time off from their worries about the fraud squad investigation into Guinness as it closed in on them. Of course, as we would expect, their celebration in favour of the Budget was quite dignified. They were drinking bubbly from cut crystal glasses, poured from bottles matured in the finest wine cellars in all Europe. The toast was, of course, "vivat, vivat cancellarius" — may the Chancellor live for ever and ever.
More extraordinary than that, yesterday I went to a celebration party for the Budget at the Dorchester in Mayfair. It was organised by a merchant bank for the hundred richest people in England. Everyone who was

85
anyone was there. I felt privileged to be a fly on the wall. Of course, I shall tell hon. Members who was there, what they thought of the Budget, and how they will spend the lorryloads of money that the Chancellor has given them.
I shall talk first about the atmosphere, which told one more about the way in which this Budget has been appreciated than anything else. It was straight out of "The Great Gatsby" except that I knew that it was a celebration party for Budget-88 by the beautiful LaCroix dresses that the more fashionable women were wearing. It really was a spectacular scene:
"Men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings, and the champagne and the stars …
At 7 o'clock, the orchestra arrived. This was no thin five-piece affair, but a whole pitful of oboes, trombones, saxophones, violas, cornets, piccolos, and low and high drums."
The bar was in full swing. Floating rounds of cocktails were picked out by the glittering diamonds in the chandeliers. Laughter — at first light, then raucous —spilled with prodigality.
At first, the attention was concentrated on somebody called Sir Ralph. I did not catch his surname, but I understand that he is a man like Mr. Speaker — a bespoke tailor who runs a chain of shops. He was telling the assembled multitude that he earned £1,300,000 per year, and that he stood to gain £750 per day by the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) keeps telling me that it is £750 per night, but I am blessed if I know what he is talking about. Sir Ralph was telling the assembled multitude that he was going to buy a lavender-coloured Rolls-Royce with the first month's tranche from the Chancellor—£20,000—and that he was going to use his lavender-coloured Rolls-Royce as an omnibus to ferry around those starlets, without which I understand that Burton cannot carry out a business deal these days.
Then the cameras and the attention homed in on a big man. He was gross and ugly. No, I am not talking about the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—they kept referring to him—[Interruption.]—yes, my hon. Friends have got it—as Cap'n Bob. He said that he would make so much money out of the Budget that he would be able to buy out all 49 bookshops owned by Blackwell's which were selling unflattering biographies about him, and that he would still have money over to put in a bid for each and every one of the 22 first division clubs in the Football League, which he would rename the "Maxwell championship". Yes, it is a good Budget, isn't it?
Then there was that super-league butcher, who owns £1 billion—a man called Vestey. He has spent a lifetime writing in books that he has never paid any tax. So naturally he was highly miffed because, not paying any tax, he did not get any benefits from the Budget. He was telling his friends that as an act of revenge he was going to put together a consortium to buy out the Treasury when the Chancellor says that he will privatise it.
The first supper of the evening for the magnificent Budget was a sumptuous affair—with oysters, black and red caviar, smoked salmon, escargots and lobster. At one table was a Stanley from Dixons, who earned £659,000 per year. He was commiserating with Maurice from Saatchis, a much poorer man, who takes home only £500,000 per year. Everyone felt sorry for Maurice.
At the next table were one or two people who had had a hit too much to drink—the rich are apt to do that. One of them was saying to the other, "What kind of idiot
86
of a Chancellor thinks my pretty little wife can fill in her own tax return? Who is this Lawson fellow anyway? Some kind of damned Socialist, I suppose?" The other replied, "It's not the wife, but the mistresses I worry about. Surely it's time they were made deductible. That's the only tax break I want to give me an incentive."
Then came the final supper at midnight—the most fabulous that I have ever witnessed. It had hardly begun when "He" appeared. As he appeared there was a wave of sentiment, as if a war had been won and a new civilisation was about to dawn. This was not Blake's Agony and Ecstasy, but ecstasy and more and more and more. As the guests waved, cheered, clapped, jumped on the tables and wept for joy, he stood there like an icon — the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). He did not make a speech. Upright, magnificent and imperious, a surreptitious leer on his face, his eyes alighted on one of the servants who had just dropped a tray of oysters. Suddenly the guests understood and took their cue from the Chancellor. In no time they were all leaping up and down and in a sweaty frenzy looked at the servant and screamed, "Shame, shame, shame". Then they gave a Churchillian V-sign and shouted "Up yours, up yours."
Some of the guests then passed out, others were sick into their bibs and a few made it home, their thingumajigs unable to rise to the occasion. Who was left but the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing alone. He knew that his Budget had not been in vain and that as an outsider he had arrived. Yet, in his moment of triumph, even he felt uneasy and sick. I knew how he felt because I wanted to vomit when I first heard this Budget. The Chancellor said to himself, "Could anything in this whole world be worth this?" Suddenly he realised a Budget too far had been followed by a party too far and that the decline and fall of Thatcherism had begun.
8.1 pm
Mr. Leon Brittan: I do not know whether the contrived salivation of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and the imaginary antics of the rich at this fictitious party shed much light on the Budget, its effect and implications, but I cannot help thinking that they do not. However, so long as the hon. Gentleman has enjoyed himself burning the midnight oil to that effect, I dare say some purpose is served.
I warmly welcome the Budget proposals. They have been made possible only by the success of the Government's economic policy generally over the past nine years. Its proposals amount to a fiscal watershed and will undoubtedly contribute to ensuring further economic progress over the coming period. What is particularly important, especially in view of the anxieties and reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), is that the apparent largesse of the Chancellor has not been achieved by borrowing more money. The fiscal stance has been rightly tight. To have a negative PSBR of £3 billion this year, and to repeat a substantive negative PSBR for next year, is, by any standards, the clearest sign of the Government's commitment to the battle against inflation, which the market would ignore at its peril. Those who do not take the message are likely to get their fingers badly burnt.

87
I was sorry to learn from the press, if it be true, that the Chancellor considers that the process of reforming personal taxation is now at an end. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. The principles underlying the Budget have a long way to go before they are fully implemented. The central principle is the abandonment of penal taxation at the upper level in return for the abandonment of myriad perks and tax concessions. The history of the past few years on both sides of the Atlantic shows that if one does that the Treasury will not be any the poorer and the economy will be much richer. The Budget goes a long way to give effect to these principles, but there is still a long way further to go.
Whatever one's view of the economic effect of mortgage interest tax relief, it is embedded in the personal financial arrangements of millions of people and it would be impossible to remove it. What would be possible would be to limit mortgage relief to the basic rate of income tax. That would be entirely in accordance with the general philosophy that I have just described. Those who pay the new higher rate of 40 per cent. do not now need any further incentives to encourage any house purchase of the sort reflected in the continuation of mortgage interest relief at the higher rate. The same applies to tax relief at the higher rate on pension contributions.
There is also clearly unfinished business on national insurance contributions. I can understand why my right hon. Friend did not simply remove the upper earnings limit this year. That would have placed an extra burden on 2 million middle-income taxpayers, but it remains an extraordinary quirk of our tax system that if income tax and national insurance contributions are taken together the percentage paid at a certain point falls when the upper earnings limit is reached, and rises again when the higher rate of income tax becomes payable. The Government will have to return to that, particularly if they contemplate, as I hope they will, moving to a system of financing the NHS from national insurance contributions. If they do that, it will almost certainly be desirable to extend the base of national insurance contributions.
That leads me on to the one statement in the Budget speech about which I have considerable reservations, and that is the express aspiration to reduce the basic rate further to 20 per cent. It is only an aspiration, and not a commitment, but I hope that its fulfilment will be deferred indefinitely. At 25 per cent. no one could possibly say that the basic rate is unacceptably high. Indeed, it has been a triumph of the Government and taken nine years to get to that figure. If any further money is available for the reduction of taxes, the top priority should surely now be to help people at the lowest end of the income scale, preferably by taking them out of the tax net altogether, and at last by reducing the tax burden on them.
The Budget has gone some way towards doing that. Allowances have been increased by twice the rate of inflation, and that has had the effect of taking 750,000 people out of tax altogether, but substantially further progress in that direction is immensely desirable for two reasons. First, taxation is obviously a real burden on the lower end to a greater extent than on the upper end. Secondly, by removing the tax burden, it increases the attractions of working rather then staying on the dole. Indeed, for some people it makes it worth working when previously it was not. Therefore, it makes it possible to
88
take more people on at pay rates which employers can afford. That would be the biggest single contribution that the Government could make towards reducing unemployment. That is why the Government should not set a fresh target for reducing the basic rate further, but should set a target of the number of people to be taken out of paying income tax altogether who at present pay it.
I know that the target has a tendency to move as people earn more and come into the tax bracket again. None the less, a clear target concentrates the mind wonderfully. If it had not been espoused in 1979, that 25 per cent. target would not have been reached today. Therefore, the time has come to set an imaginative but realistic target for taking people at the lower end out of tax altogether and thereby making the biggest contribution that the Government could make towards solving the problem of unemployment. Let it be our aim that, by end of this Parliament, 3 million fewer people will pay tax. That target is attainable. Of course, to achieve it means forgoing a great deal of revenue. It is expensive to increase allowances and thresholds, as the Red Book so clearly shows, but we should clearly establish that priority, and the sooner we do so the better.
If we are to make international comparisons to justify the cut in higher rates, we must be prepared to look at comparisons at the other end, too. As Irwin Stelzer clearly pointed out in yesterday's edition of the Sunday Times, a married couple paying tax at 25 per cent. when their income is just over £4,000 represents the highest rate applied at that level of income by almost any country today. In addition to using any money available in future to cut taxes to take people out of paying tax altogether, serious consideration should be given to having a reduced rate band of, say, 15 per cent., as in the United States, for those earning just about the level of the allowance.
Incentives are just as important for poor people as they are for rich people, and the introduction of a reduced rate band would have a powerful incentive effect. The cost of introducing such a rate would be much reduced if, as happened in the United States, it applies only to the first tranche of income, in the case of low earners, and tapers out as one goes up the income scale. Whether we take people out of tax or reduce the rate at the lower end, or both, the objective is the same. It is to make the maximum contribution that the Government can to reduce unemployment. Unemployment is the greatest remaining economic and social ill in many parts of the country, and it should be our top priority to take fiscal and other action further to reduce it. That proposition cannot seriously be denied. In the Budget, some progress has been made towards achieving it.
Apart from general ideological objections to reducing top rates, the main criticism that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has faced—I have been referring to future aspirations and not to the Budget—is that the Budget should have been used to put more money into the National Health Service. On that point, I agree totally with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). Those who make that criticism must look at public expenditure and taxation decisions as a whole. Such decisions are taken at different times, but they come into effect for the same year, that is, 1988–89. It is perfectly natural for public expenditure decisions to be taken earlier. Those who must plan their expenditure through the year need to know what the figure is to be well in advance, while taxation can be reduced or increased much

89
more quickly. Therefore, it is entirely fair to point out that, in the same year as taxes are coming down, spending on the National Health Service is going up by £1,100 million.
What is more, that is not the end of the story. We know perfectly well that it is highly likely that the review body will shortly recommend a substantial increase in nurses' pay. No Government can unequivocably tic themselves down in advance to saying how that will be handled, when they do not know precisely what will be involved. I am totally convinced that the Government will fully implement whatever is recommended. If the cost of doing so exceeds what they are currently allowing in the National Health Service provision for the Department of Health and Social Security, that extra sum will be met out of the substantial public expenditure reserve. The Government will be absolutely right to handle the issue in that way, and I am sure that they will do so. If that happens, the net effect for 1988–89 will be a major total increase in National Health Service provision — the £1,100 million and whatever extra is needed to meet the review body's recommendations That will be totally justified, but, until the current review of the pattern of health care is concluded — I hope that it comes to some radical conclusions—it would be quite wrong to go any further with the injection of extra sums of public money.
The Chancellor's speech and the Red Book are lapidary and opaque. Instead, the Chancellor tells us to look at actions rather than words. Last week we saw a cut in interest rates. It is not quite satisfactory to leave it at that. There are decided advantages in exchange rate stability and in not having too high a rate for the pound against the deutschmark. But stability does not mean that the rate never changes. It certainly does within the EMS exchange rate mechanism. Indeed, many people think that a realignment is likely soon.
There may be occasions on which upward pressures on a currency are too great to he resisted by any feasible amount of intervention, and on which inflationary pressures are too great for it to be desirable to reduce interest rates. In some circumstances, an upward movement in the exchange rate may be fully justified. It makes perfect sense to have a policy of stable exchange rates with, at least, an implied right to revise them if circumstances materially alter. Anything further than that would be an unrealistic straitjacket, which never existed in the past, and would not be required by membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. If that is the policy, it would be highly desirable for it to be clearly stated.
Monetary aggregates are not robust enough to provide a credible monetary policy. Our only lodestar is the exchange rate, and interest rates are the major instrument. Whether we are inside or outside the EMS, there is no reason why the current broad target for the pound should not be publicly stated. If, for anti-inflationary reasons, it must be set a shade higher than some in industry would like, so be it. With an explicit exchange rate target range we will give industry and markets the inestimable advantage of that degree of certainty and credibility in monetary policy which, over the years, has proved to be beneficial in fiscal policy. I hope that that, too, can soon be achieved.
8.17 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) was like the parson's egg;
90
it was good in parts. Among the parts that I welcomed were his statements to the effect that the emphasis should fall on lower-rate taxpayers or people on low incomes and, particularly, his comment about the value of introducing a reduced band. I disagree with his general judgment that the essential principle of the Budget is the abandonment of penal taxation. It is far more just to describe it as the abandonment of progressive taxation. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor believe that they have achieved that.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made an important point. He pointed out to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Employment that, in spite of the rather startling reduction in this year's Budget, taxation accounts for a much higher percentage of gross domestic product in 1988 that it did in 1970. It is about 37·5 per cent. now, compared with 32 per cent. in 1970. How do we explain the difference? Why do the Government need to levy so much more taxation in 1988 than they did in 1970? The answer lies in the sphere of responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment. The real difference—the reason for the great increase in the burden of taxation between 1970, when we had unemployment of some 600,000 and 1988, when we have unemployment of some 2·6 million—is the cost to the country of the enormous sums both in direct payments in benefits through the social security system and, even more, indirectly in the forgone income in the form of income tax contributed, national insurance raised, and the rest.
That brings me to the first point that I want to make to the Secretary of State for Employment. He rightly pointed out that during the past year there has been a welcome fall in the rate of unemployment, but he will know that the fall has taken place only during the past year. That is to say, it happened during a year in which gross domestic product has grown by about 4·5 per cent. In earlier years—the right hon. Gentleman emphasised this point—when GDP grew at the rate of 2·75 or 3 per cent., there was no fall in the overall rate of unemployment.
What worries me, and must worry other hon. Members when we look at the growth rate predicted for this year, is that after the first few months we shall not see a continued fall in the rate of unemployment. It will bottom out and we shall be left with about 2·3 million or 2·4 million unemployed. That is on the assumption that the rate of growth does not exceed 3 per cent. Our increase in productive potential is precisely 3 per cent., so if we do not do better in terms of growth achievement we shall not get the fall in the level of unemployment that all serious and sensible people want.
Two themes have dominated the Budget debate, and they are the two criteria against which the Budget should be judged. They are how it affects the distribution of wealth and its relevance to the problems of the real economy. There is no room for doubt about the central objective of this Budget. It is to make Britain a more unequal society. It is a Budget not for one nation but for three—the rich, who are to be enriched beyond their wildest expectations, the poor, who have been excluded, and those in the middle-class, middle-income group, who are to be modestly rewarded.
This is a historic Budget. On no occasion since the 1930s has a Chancellor of the Exchequer openly and consciously sought to make Britain a more unequal society. Over the past 50 years, Britain has seen a gradual movement towards greater equality of post-tax income

91
and in that movement fiscal policy has played a major part. During the past eight years, that process has been slowed down and virtually halted. Now it is to be sharply reversed. On what basis did the Chancellor decide on this radical shift of policy? It was on the old, unproven assertion — as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made plain in his excellent speech — that the creation of wealth is directly linked to the extent of inequality. The Chancellor believes that the greater the inequality of rewards, the faster will be the growth of national wealth. He believes that man is economic man in the old classical economic sense and can be galvanised into extra effort only by the prospect of greater rewards.
Most of the evidence that we have does not sustain that contention. Japan, the most successful post-war economy, has a top rate of tax of over 70 per cent. and Germany and France, which have done much better than we have, have respective top tax rates of 56 and 58 per cent. Consider Britain's growth rate. In the 20 years or so before Lloyd George's Budget of 1910, progressive taxation barely existed, but Britain's industry and economy declined year by year. By far the fastest rate of growth that we have enjoyed over any substantial period of years occurred in the 30-year period from 1945 to 1974, when progressive taxation was at its highest rate. The case for inequality is, on the evidence, quite unconvincing.
No doubt, that accounts for the subsidiary argument which, I am sure, has surprised other hon. Members as much as it has surprised me. It is the Prime Minister's claim that Britain's top talent no longer flows abroad. I should like to see the evidence for that. Only last year, we were warned that the brain drain among Britain's top scientists and academics was steadily increasing, and that this was primarily due not to the poor level of reward in the United Kingdom but to the lack of opportunity to pursue research and development in Britain's underfunded universities.
Then we have the astounding claim that the lower the rate of taxation on the rich, the greater the yield of that tax will be. According to this myth—we have heard it repeated in the House today — the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers paid 24 per cent. of total income tax in 1978–79. Following the reduction of the top rate to 60 per cent. that category paid some 29 per cent. of total income tax in the year 1987–88. That assertion simply ignores the fact that in the past eight years there has been an explosion in pretax top incomes. The rich are paying more tax not because they have abandoned tax relief and avoidance devices, but because the incomes on which they are taxed are so much bigger. The growth in top salaries will no doubt continue, but the Budget's arithmetic allows for a loss of tax revenue in 1989–90 of £2,000 million as a result of the Chancellor's abolition of the higher tax rate.
The Chancellor and the Government do not seem to understand the importance of income redistribution. The latest available figures — I am afraid that they are for 1985 and I have taken them from the latest issue of Social Trends—show that the bottom 20 per cent. of households in Britain had only 0·3 per cent. of total pre-tax income, compared with the no less than 49·2 per cent. of total national income that went to the top 20 per cent. As a result of tax redistribution, the share of the bottom 20 per cent. grew from 0·3 to 6·5 per cent., while the share of the
92
top 20 per cent. fell from 49·2 per cent. to 40·2 per cent. Without tax redistribution of income, at least 20 per cent. of Britain's households will be living far below the poverty line. In his Budget, the Chancellor is saying that redistribution from the most prosperous to the least prosperous has to be brought to an end. If the poorest are to maintain, let alone increase, their standard of living, it is not the rich but the middle-income earners who must bear the brunt of the tax burden.
Against the background of the 1988 Budget, we can see more clearly why the poll tax—the community charge—excites such enthusiasm from Government spokesmen. Basically, it is their ideal tax, because it has no redistributive function whatsoever.
The Budget is not designed to meet needs, whether they are personal or community needs. Nor is it designed to assist the real economy. An end to the fall in unemployment and the slow-down in the rate of economic growth will be very evident before the end of this financial year. Moreover, it is difficult to see what additional stimulus the Chancellor will then be able to give to the British economy. As the Chancellor admits, imports will grow much faster than exports this year and a balance of payments deficit of some £4,000 million is anticipated. This is all part of the continuing and destructive trend in our balance of visible trade which will steadily diminish prospects for growth in the economy.
Looking back over the past four years, it is depressingly clear that the only engine of growth in the British economy has been the upsurge in consumer expenditure. Between 1984 and 1987, it has increased in constant prices by £23 billion. For the same period, the savings ratio has fallen dramatically from more than 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. and consumer credit has grown from £11·5 billion to £21·9 billion. Consumer expenditure will continue to grow this year, as will indebtedness and our import bill.
The argument between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister which enlivened our pre-Budget discussions is about the priority to be given to growth and counter-inflation. The Chancellor knows that our balance of trade needs an exchange rate that will enable Britain's exporters to compete successfully against their continental competitors. The Prime Minister, who puts the conquest of inflation before all other considerations, is ready to accept the diminished growth and higher unemployment that would result from a further appreciation of the exchange rate. But both are wrong. We need a continuation of national growth, but both deny the role of public expenditure in achieving it. The Chancellor can increase growth only by making the balance of payments worse. The Prime Minister can conquer inflation only by increasing unemployment and decreasing growth. Both are too doctrinaire even to consider the imposition of restraints on credit creation and consumer expenditure.
The Chancellor has claimed that this is a balanced Budget — the first since 1970. That is true. But a balanced Budget is beneficial only when we have a balanced economy, and that goal will recede even further as a result of the Budget. We have a growing imbalance between public and private expenditure, a growing imbalance between north and south and growing inequality between rich and poor.
The greatest mistake that the Chancellor and the Government have made is to misread majority opinion. There remains a strong sense of social justice. British people are committed ideologically neither to egalitarian

93
policies nor to inequality, but they have a strong sense of fair play, and that sense has been outraged by the Budget, as was reflected in the two national polls that were published yesterday.
In her Buxton speech, the Prime Minister said that the Budget would be the epitaph of Socialism. She is wrong. It will be the epitaph of this Chancellor and this Government.
8.32 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other Labour Members have called this a socially divisive Budget, but they have misinterpreted the thrust of the Budget. If the effect of lower taxation is to increase the gross national product and the volume of public expenditure, their objections cannot be valid.
We should reflect upon the fact that when the Labour Government were in power and there was high personal taxation, public expenditure was cut—not least on the National Health Service. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will remember that capital expenditure on hospital building was cut by about 30 per cent. But I go along with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney in this respect: the test will be whether growth will be stimulated by the tax cuts and whether, as a result, an increase in public expenditure will allow further expenditure on the NHS.
The House will be familiar with the public expenditure programme and the fact that in each of the next three years more than £1 billion will be spent on the Health Service. But I draw hon. Members' attention to something else in the public expenditure White Paper that is not immediatelly obvious: the size of the contingency allowance. This year, it will be £3·5 billion, next year it will be £7 billion and the year after it will be £10·5 billion. Of course, all the Departments will be competing for that contingency allowance, but there will be considerable scope for increased public spending on programmes which commend themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, first, on his plan to have balanced Budgets in the future. For a long time, the idea has prevailed that demand management matters most, that the Chancellor of the day should set his course for the coming year according to the way in which the economy should grow, and that the public sector borrowing requirement should be made the handmaiden of Budget judgment. I have always thought that that was wrong. I have always thought that it would be right to have a balanced Budget and for there to be no public sector borrowing requirement. It is most significant that my right hon. Friend has achieved that and intends to continue it in the coming years.
Not only will there be certainty in such matters—or as much certainty as can be achieved—but the fact that there will be almost no borrowing will create a definition and a sharpness in the operations of the gilt-edged market which would otherwise not have existed. In the long term, provided that there are no shenanigans in supporting the exchange rate at the wrong price — that is a big condition—the certainty that will result will mean that the private sector can enjoy lower interest rates.
A great deal of fuss has been made about the reductions in personal tax rates, but we should consider the increased revenue that has been raised during the past two or three
94
years, especially from corporation tax. The Red Book shows that the revenue from corporation tax has increased by £4,200 million. I remind the House that that follows a reduction in corporation tax from 52 per cent. to 35 per cent., although we must not forget the removal of allowances. That is the right course. In exchange for a reduction in personal taxation, those loopholes should be closed, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should make more efforts in that direction in subsequent Budgets.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said that the standard rate of 25 per cent. was all right and that the Government should concentrate on increasing personal allowances. The Chancellor has increased personal allowances—indeed, he has doubled them. I have some sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion that there should be an intermediate rate between the two, but if it is valid to reduce the top rate of tax to 40 per cent. as a tax incentive, it is just as valid to do it for lower wage earners. I am glad to hear that my right hon. and learned Friend wants to work towards a target of 20 per cent. Even that is too high, certainly when compared with the American rate. The days of tax-cutting have not yet ended, and I look forward to more progress at the lower end of the scale, where incentives are just as relevant as they are at the top.
The Budget is not just about creating wealth. It is about curbing inflation, and in that connection we must consider the exchange rate controversy and the importance of interest rates and exchange rates in the economy. The evidence about the economy is confusing—at least to me. It looks as though lending to the private sector is at record levels, although recently there has been a small decline. Bank lending to the private sector was as much in the first three quarters of last year as it was in the whole of the previous year. I have also noticed that the savings ratio has come down to below 6 per cent. Historically, that figure is very low indeed. It suggests not only that consumer spending is buoyant, but that earnings are expected to increase to allow for that consumer expenditure to continue. I do not think that the reduction in tax rates will do anything to discourage such personal consumption in the future. Interest and exchange rates are very important points for us to consider.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, the exchange rate provides the Government's objective, and the interest rate is the only weapon available to the Chancellor. It is important to distinguish if possible between the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Both of them cannot be right, although it would be very convenient for someone such as me to be able to argue that they were.
Obviously, there are occasions when the pressure on the exchange rate is too much for it, and it is unwise to try to keep it fixed, especially at a level at which it cannot be sustained. It is impossible to conduct a proper monetary policy otherwise. The difficulty about the present dispute is that it has prevented my right hon. Friend the Chancellor from providing the advantages that seem to result from keeping sterling in line with the deutschmark. Of course, it is necessary to choose the right level at which to pitch sterling to the deutschmark, but I feel that this is about the right level. I am sorry that such a controversy has taken place, because there is much to be said for keeping sterling aligned with the deutschmark, as for all

95
practical purposes we have abandoned monetary policies by the old monetary targets—much to my regret, I may add.
It is by no means easy to adopt a monetary policy nowadays by monetary targets, because of the inflow of foreign funds and the easy extension of credit. West Germany is an example that I should have thought we could follow. Subject to that, I see nothing wrong in subcontracting our monetary policy to West Germany—which, in effect, is what we do if we align sterling to the deutschmark.
People think that that may be rather a soft option, and that we can go on printing money and allow the consumption boom to continue. I do not agree. If we align our currency closely with the deutschmark, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would like to do, we must recognise that, in West Germany, earnings are rising by 3 per cent., there is virtually no price inflation, and the public sector borrowing requirement scarcely exists—as, indeed, is the case in this country. It would be wise to spell out that message, and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend may have been inhibited from doing so.
If there is one thing that is annoying at the moment, it is that business and industry do not know where they are; they do not know the Government's policy. If they knew for certain that the Chancellor's and the Government's policy was to keep sterling aligned with the deutschmark, they could plan their production and their future much more easily.
I was very put out last Thursday when I learned that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) had said that he would vote against the Budget. Reading his speech, I discovered that the reason was that he felt that too much consumption was going on, and that therefore inflation might be stoked up. My right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Bruce-Gardyne and I were the principal opponents of the economic policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I do not like being outflanked.
I must look very closely at these matters. I am uncertain of the answer. I shall merely observe to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who drew our attention to certain similarities between the present circumstances and what happened in the 1970s, that the difference is that there was then a very large public sector borrowing requirement. In 1974, it had risen to £6·4 billion out of a gross domestic product of £73 billion, about 8 per cent. compared with the present rate of nil. Furthermore, there was a cheap money policy. The minimum lending rate was 5 per cent. in 1971, 6 per cent. in 1972 and 7·5 per cent. in 1973. No one will find that our minimum lending rate has ever gone below 8·5 per cent. since the present Government came to power, and it has even been as high as 14·5 per cent.
On this occasion, I shall not go into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, but I shall certainly watch the indicators as closely as he does.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) talked about the importance of working towards 1992 and the single European market. That is another reason to stress the importance of aligning sterling with the deutschmark. Let us compare our country's economic performance with that of West Germany. Enormous
96
possibilities are open to us, if we can seize them. I mean by that the opportunities demonstrated in an article that appeared in the Dresdener Bank Review, which mentioned that in mid-1987 — taking 100 as the index — hourly labour costs are 100 in West Germany, and 54 in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the value added per working hour was only 54, the lowest in any of the countries in the European Community.
West Germany is now going through a rather stagnant period, while we are experiencing rapid economic growth. If we can possibly improve our productivity, labour relations and value added, there is significant scope for further advance. That is why I think it important that we should align our exchange rate to the deutschmark, and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend may feel inhibited from pointing out the prospects that are available.
Whether those prospects may be seized is another matter. If we have many more cases like that of Dundee, foreign investment may well be discouraged. But if we can have more instances of what encouraged Nissan to invest in this country—single union agreements—and if we can do away with the restrictive practices that have bedevilled business and industry for so many years, there may be a prospect of bright times ahead.
8.47 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Earlier in the debate the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), spoke of the Budget reflecting a warped society. That is very much my feeling as well. It was interesting to read in The Times this morning of a leading industrialist referring to the cut in the top rate of income tax from 60 to 40 per cent. as obscene. That is a comment that comes to mind now.
That is not to say that the Budget does not contain a number of detailed changes that most hon. Members welcome. We certainly welcome the change in the marriage allowance—as far as it goes—the leaded petrol change, the change in company car perks, the forestry changes, and, indeed, the increase in tax thresholds over and above what is necessary to deal with inflation. Those changes, however, although important in themselves, are relatively trivial in comparison with the strategic error which I believe has been made in the Budget and the social insensitivity that it reflects.
The Secretary of State for Employment tonight made what must have been one of his shortest speeches at the Dispatch Box, even allowing for interventions. I well understand that, given that the references to employment in the Budget were so sparse. Indeed, I could point to only two such references in the whole of the Chancellor's speech. It is from that viewpoint that I want to make my contribution to the debate, because, more than any other, that is the viewpoint from Wales.
We suffer continuing high unemployment. The official figure is now 140,000 compared to about 90,000 when the Government took office in 1979. That is in spite of changed definitions and the effect of part-time work and all the other things. Pwllheli, which has one of the two employment exchange areas in my constituency, has an unemployment rate of 24 per cent. That is what we have to live with, and we looked to the Budget for a solution to the problem, but we sought in vain.
The Chancellor said that the reduction in unemployment as a result of the Budget would be at a reduced rate

97
compared with what had been happening to unemployment figures in the past year. That hardly gives us confidence, faced as we are with such a level of unemployment. In spite of the pleasant perspective from which the Budget is viewed in Tory constituencies in south-east England, it is looked at quite differently in areas such as Gwynedd and in the old industrial valleys of south Wales.
That brings me to the heart of the Budget strategy. The Chancellor mentioned unemployment only twice, and clearly the Budget has nothing to do with jobs. It seems to be geared to the top 5 per cent. of earners. It is revealing to look at what the Chancellor said about the public sector borrowing requirement when introducing his 1987 Budget:
"We have now reached what I judge to be its appropriate destination—a PSBR of 1 per cent. of GDP. My aim will be to keep it there over the years ahead. This will maintain a degree of fiscal prudence that, until this year, had been achieved on only two occasions since 1950.
Accordingly, I have decided to provide for a PSBR in 1987–88 of £4 billion."—[Official Report, 17 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 818.]
If that strategy to have a £4 billion PSBR was right 12 months ago, by what token is it now not appropriate? If it was a valid, stable and sustainable position 12 months ago, why has it now been abandoned? Why have the Government carried out a considerable U-turn on this matter? The Chancellor is deliberately going down a path which he describes as one of prudence and caution, and is going for a Budget surplus of £3 billion compared with a £4 billion PSBR last year. That is a difference in strategy of £7 billion.
The Budget surplus gave the Government a choice between attacking unemployment and lining the pockets of rich people. If the Chancellor had stuck to last year's strategy of a deficit Budget of about £4 billion, instead of aiming at a surplus of £3 billion, he could have triggered a public investment capital programme of about £7 billion. That would have been worth at least about £350 million to Wales in the form of hospitals, schools, roads and housing investment. It would have created at least 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs in each of the counties of Wales and brought an end to our jobless nightmare. Instead, he has given the money away in tax relief to his richer cronies at the expense of deprived people, not only in Wales, but in other places where the standard of living is low and unemployment is high.
That sort of investment programme could have been achieved within the parameters of the 1987 Budget review and economic assessment. If it is too risky in 1988 to go down that sort of road, he could have forgone some of the tax relief given to those on top incomes. If the money had been used for capital investment, that would have avoided sucking in imports in the way that that is likely to happen because of the tax cuts. It could have been the basis of a direct investment regional policy, but a regional policy appears to have been abandoned by the Government.
If the cost of capital had been brought down by interest rate cuts of a more substantial and significant nature than we have seen, that would have triggered industrial investment and induced ventures which at the moment are regarded as marginal to go ahead. If lower interest rates were to lead to a lower rate for the pound, that would be of benefit to exporters and would lead to increased demands from manufacturers. What I have suggested
98
would create a coherent whole and could have been an alternative strategy for the Chancellor. All logic points to interest rates that are lower than those that currently exist.
From the point of view of my area, a third element in the Budget is open to criticism. It is the priority given to indirect taxation policy. The increase in petrol prices will be a further blow to rural areas in Wales, Scotland and England. The increase in petrol duty contrasts with the policy of retaining the current level of duty on spirits. The balance struck by the Chancellor is not acceptable.
Another major problem in Wales, which also exists in some other older industrial areas, is substandard housing. The Budget does nothing to help there. Indeed, it takes away the possibility of some tax relief for modernisation. It still allows tax relief to those on the top rate, because at the top rate of income tax a mortgage of £30,000 can qualify for relief. This year of all years, and bearing in mind the giveaway to those on top rates, there is surely a case for restricting mortgage tax relief to those on standard rate, because the resources thereby made available could be used for other purposes, such as spending on those who have greater housing needs.
I have spoken about my constituency problems and about unemployment in Wales, but we also have a major Health Service crisis. In Gwynedd, five cottage hospitals are lined up for closure because the Government have not made available to the health authority adequate resources to keep them open. Towns such as Portmadoc, in my constituency, will not have a hospital at all as a result of the Government's policies. The money being given away by the reduction of the top rate of income tax from 60 to 40 per cent.—about £2,000 million when indexed—is almost exactly what the NHS needs but is not getting. It is immoral of the Government to give away such amounts of money to top earners when people who need vital services cannot get them.
Those who benefit from the reduction in their income tax should remember that the cut has been delivered at the expense of their neighbour's hospital bed. The price of their handout may be that a friend fails to get kidney dialysis. It may mean that when the son or daughter of one of these high earners has an accident no ambulance will be available. There is no such thing as a free handout, and the handouts in the Chancellor's Budget will be paid for by a reduced Health Service and, sadly, human lives. That epitaph on the period of office of the Chancellor is at one with the Thatcherite priority of private greed over public need.
We have to wait to see what will happen to the Health Service, whether additional resources will be made available next month and the month after. It is tonally unfair for the Health Service, which has to run a coherent budget, to have to wait until the new financial year opens before it knows where it stands. Budget day was loudly advertised as NHS day, and rightly so. The issue of the Health Service was rightly the centre of focus. The National Health Service does not need one day of attention, but ought to be given priority all year.
If this battle is to go on, as it should, in what way can the Government have the message brought home to them that their policy is not acceptable? The running down and closure of hospitals was not part of their election manifesto, nor was the reduction of the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent. The Government have no mandate for such priorities, and it is up to the Opposition parties to make life so intolerable for the Government that they

99
cannot and will not go ahead with such policies. That is a challenge to all Opposition parties. On this issue our message to the Leader of the Opposition is, "For goodness sake, do not go gentle".
This is a Budget for the south-east of England, or at least for some parts of the south-east, because there are pockets there which suffer from deprivation. The Budget does little for those facing unemployment or for those whose homes are not in good repair, but for those who have no unemployment problems, who have good quality housing and can afford private health care, and whose income levels are twice those in Wales, it is a good Budget. Few people in rural Wales or the industrial valleys of Wales receive £0·25 million a year and will be £800 a week better off at a time when we cannot afford to increase and index child benefit.
This Budget takes a massive double backward step towards a second Victorian era. A rich elite is growing fatter, while poor people are getting poorer. The richer regions will prosper, while the depressed regions will decay and disintegrate. This is the most class-based Budget of a generation and must surely trigger a political reaction among all decent-minded people.
8.59 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: In the few remaining minutes, I cannot follow the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) by putting the Budget in a Welsh context. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to do that shortly in the Welsh Grand Committee.
The measure of the Chancellor's success, of his ingenuity and of the radical nature of his tax reform is the near unanimity of Members on the Government side in applauding his Budget. Any reservations must be of a minor nature. The key to a strong economy must be to increase incentive and to encourage enterprise. A low-tax economy is a high-incentive economy.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to introduce independent taxation of husband and wife, to give married women a fair tax deal. Raising the tax thresholds by double the rate of inflation and reducing the basic rate will help the lower paid and will be of particular value to the self-employed. The abolition of all the higher tax rates above 40 per cent. will also improve incentives, just as a reduction from 83 per cent. to 60 per cent. did. Lower tax rates can yield greater tax revenues, not less.
Ten years ago, Labour's top rate of tax on investment income was a punitive 98 per cent. Its top rate on earned income was 83 per cent. Since the top rate for both was reduced to 60 per cent., the yield from higher tax rates has more than doubled in real terms. It is equally true that surtax and higher tax revenues fell steadily throughout the 40 years when the top rates exceeded 90 per cent. Tax cuts can raise revenues. When rates are higher, as everybody knows, people avoid taxes or choose to be rewarded by perks rather than by cash. At worst, they move abroad.
As Hamish McRae said in The Guardian,
"No one likes paying tax but there comes a level at which it really is not worth the bother of avoiding it."
That is the level which we have now reached. When rates come down, people start paying the tax. Even The Guardian accepts that a persuasive case can be made
"for tax revenues having increased as a result of tax rates having been cut."
100
It is those increased tax revenues which have allowed us to go ahead with the biggest ever increase in National Health Service spending in 1988–89—£1·1 billion in the United Kingdom as a whole and £78 million in Wales.
In a debate on the NHS, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said:
"This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the money to ensure that we get a National Health Service that can deliver to its patients."—[Official Report, 19 July 1987; Vol. 125, c. 833.]
When could he have said that about a Labour Chancellor? Labour Members were never in a position to say to their last Chancellor of the Exchequer, "We want you to spend more on the Health Service," because he was too busy paying off the Labour Government's loan from the International Monetary Fund.
Yes, the Government face pressures on the NHS, but they are the pressures of an expanding service which is building new hospitals and undertaking operations unheard of 20 years ago. Those pressures are very different from those that we inherited from Labour — pressures arising from slashing the capital programme by 30 per cent. and from allowing nurses' pay to fall in real terms by 21 per cent.
Under Labour, spending on the NHS fell from 5 per cent. to 4·7 per cent. of GDP. If it had remained at that percentage, we would now be spending £2·9 billion less on the NHS in England and Wales.
Luckily, the Government changed, and spending on the NHS increased from 4·7 to 5·4 per cent. of GDP. Labour want more to be spent on the NHS, more than the increases already provided and more than those promised for the future, yet what Labour Members ask of us they singularly failed to deliver when in office.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), in characteristic form — perhaps because he was a reporter and is one of the few Opposition Members who still has a leaning towards the truth—got it right in the latest edition of The Political Quarterly, which concentrated on the future of the Left—a rather thin issue. He wrote:
"The first and most indispensable requirement of the better society is growth. It is also Labour's, our greatest failure."
Labour's greatest failure is the Government's greatest success, a success which has brought us unprecedented economic strength, a strength which has enabled us to increase spending substantially in priority areas, such as health and education.
9.3 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said during this debate, indeed as many Conservative Members have said, the final effect of the Budget will be to transfer £2,000 million to the 5 per cent. at the top who are already extremely rich. It will award £200 million more in inheritance tax reliefs to the 35,000 people who pay that tax. It will provide an additional £40 million for the small number who benefit from the business expansion scheme. It will offer £290 million more to those institutions and individuals who benefit from relief from capital gains tax liabilities. Yet 95 per cent. of the population will make no cash gain from the changes.
It is common ground that the tax cuts are taking place against the background of social security changes and the introduction, next month, of the social fund. Today, 5

101
million people claim supplementary benefit and from April they will be on income support—8 million people depend on those benefits. There are 16 million low-income families in this country, including 4 million children. In April, child benefit for 7 million mothers and 12 million children will be frozen, 1 million men and women will lose housing benefit and 4 million of our poorest households will have to pay rates at 20 per cent. for the first time, no matter how poor they are. The result will be that, in my constituency and in the constituencies of most hon. Members, low-paid workers and their families on earnings of less than £80 per week will lose between £1 and £2, even with the introduction of family credit and given the tax cuts in the Budget. Unemployed families with two children with an income of less than £80 per week will lose between £2 and £3 because of the withdrawal of single payments as a result of the introduction of the social fund. Those pensioners on income support who will receive £44·05 will automatically see whatever cash gain they make from the uprating of social security wiped out instantly as a result of the price rises in electricity, gas and other household necessities.
I estimate that 9 million people will be worse off as a combined result of the tax and social security changes over which the Chancellor and his Ministers have presided. The only conclusion that we can draw is that the tax cuts that have gone to the few at the very top are to be paid for by the withdrawal of benefits and the misery that that will cause to the poorest of our country.
Our argument is that the Budget will do nothing for justice, fairness and the social cohesion of this country. We also believe that the Budget will make absolutely no contribution to the efficiency and competitiveness of our economy. Conservative Members may argue that tax cuts, the ideology of incentives and social inequality are essential for the running of the modern economy and prerequisites for economic efficiency. However, if we are to be capable of achieving long-term, sustained economic and industrial success, the policies that would do most for social justice are investment in training and education, investment to effect the use of the resources of our regions and inner cities, investment in personal security and investment in the Health Service. Such policies are the most likely to help bring about a long-term, sustainable, secure growth in living standards and an improvement in the quality of life.
The first question that Conservative Members should have asked themselves about the Budget was, why is it, with all the tax cuts that have been achieved at the top since 1979, with all the supply-side incentives that have been available, with all the much-vaunted new opportunities from investment that have come from the £13,000 million of tax cuts at the top and even with the projected increases in the private sector capital investment in the Red Book this year, that Britain will still be investing less as a share of national income in the oil-rich 1980s than it did in the 1960s and 1970s?
Why will we still be investing less of a share of our national income on ourselves than any other industralised country with the exception of Belgium? Even after the Budget's tax cuts and after taking into account the Chancellor's predictions for rising private sector investment, why is Britain—the country that the Chancellor claims has the fastest growth rate in Europe—also the country in which investment as a share of national income is lower than in Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey?
102
With regard to our productive industries and especially our manufacturing industry, why, even after all the tax cuts since 1979 is the level of investment in our manufacturing industry 10 per cent. below what it was when the Government came to power? Why has no other country in Europe had such a low level of manufacturing investment or seen such a fall in investment since 1979?
The least that might have been expected from the tax cuts at the top end in 1979, was that they would have increased the level of manufacturing investment in our economy. In 1988, with manufacturing investment still 10 per cent. below what it was in 1979, the best that can be said for a new round of supply side tax cuts at the very top is that they might just return our investment levels in manufacturing to the 1979 level.
Is it not the case that those countries with higher tax rates than ours, such as Japan, have been investing more and that those countries with lower tax rates than ours —at least until last week—such as America, have been investing the same as us?
As tax cuts at the top end have not produced the level of investment that we need in our economy, why did the Chancellor not use the Budget to bridge the investment gap to make up the investment shortfall? There should be investment in training and education, where we are now falling behind not just Germany and Japan, but Korea and Taiwan. There should be investment in research and development on which we spend half as much as Germany and Japan. There should be investment in our regions and cities, where manufacturing investment levels in real terms in the north, Yorkshire, the north-west, Scotland and Wales are still 20 per cent. and in some cases 35 per cent. below the 1979 level. It makes absolutely no sense to have high and persistent unemployment, forced emigration, depopulation from the north, Scotland and Wales when at the same time, as Conservative Members have noticed, there is over-heating, congestion, skill shortages, pressure on the green belt and escalating house prices in so many parts of the south-east.
Is it not therefore perverse for the Chancellor to announce that he has balanced his Budget while at the same time he states in the Red Book that public sector capital investment actually fell last year—and this in a year in which he claimed that he had 5 per cent. growth?
The only investment that the Chancellor has apparently stimulated as a result of his Budget measures last Tuesday is investment in the business expansion scheme for property development. With subsidies for purchase, subsidies as a result of rent de-control and release from capital gains tax when properties are sold, the housing problems of the many are becoming the tax havens for the few. Small wonder that one firm of accountants said last week:
"Rachman, one suspects, would not have been slow to take advantage of the scheme had it been around in the sixties."
The problem is that under the proposals Rachman will riot only be alive and well, but he and his colleagues will be subsidised to the tune of £40 million by the state.
What about the Chancellor's aims for a balanced Budget? In 1980 the test of success was to be M3; in 1982 it was the aggregate levels of monetary targets; in 1984 it was the total level of public expenditure; in 1986 the Budget was to have been judged by PSBR as a proportion of GDP. The Chancellor might have liked to have come to the House last Tuesday to claim that the proper criterion by which the Budget should be judged was the

103
exchange rate stability that he had achieved, but he was prevented from doing that by the Prime Minister. Instead he told us that we must judge the Budget and its success because he has balanced his books. I looked at what the Chancellor said last Tuesday:
"At one time, it was regarded as the hallmark of good government to maintain a balanced budget; to ensure that, in time of peace, Government spending was fully financed by revenues from taxation, with no need for Government borrowing."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]
So, on the Chancellor's own definition, current taxation revenues should exceed current spending. His problem is that, even on his own definition—that is that current taxation revenues without privatisation receipts should exceed current expenditure — he did not balance the Budget last year or this year, and, he will not balance it in years to come. It would have been better if he had come to the House with modesty, and, rather than triumphantly proclaiming that he had balanced the Budget, referred us to an article some years ago, when he——
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): When was it written?
Mr. Brown: I shall come to that. In the article, he attacked what he called that
"school of economic commentators, who see mystical significance in an overall budget balance since this is a muddled amalgam of Gladstone and Keynes without the logical consistency of either".
The Chancellor rightly asked me when he wrote the article. I am happy to concede that he wrote it in 1962. I would not have mentioned it but for the fact that he has repeated the same views in the years since then. Did he say to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1984 that his objective was a balanced Budget or that it was the crucial test of the health of the economy?
"There is no particular magic about a balanced budget. It may trip off the tongue rather well"—
indeed, it did, four or five times last Tuesday—
"but I do not think it necessary to have a balanced budget in order to achieve the objective of stable prices."
Our objection to the Chancellor's statement is that, although he may claim to have balanced the Budget, just about everything else in the economy and society was left unbalanced. There is an imbalance between investment and consumption, between the regions and the centre, between the rich and the poor and between private affluence and public squalor.
At the heart of the unbalanced Budget was the balance of payments problem, to which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) referred. The balance of payments is bad and worsening, and it will be accentuated by the tax cuts, which will fuel imports. The problem will be made even more serious by the Prime Minister's determination to run high interest and exchange rates. The current account deficit is £1·5 billion this year and will be £4 billion next year. The manufacturing deficit is £6·5 billion this year and next year will be the worst in our 200-year history as an industrial nation — £8·5 billion. The Chancellor may think—
Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why we should believe his forecasts now when, in October 1986, he was reported in The Guardian as saying that Government policies had no chance of bringing down unemployment? If everything is so awful, why is
104
unemployment falling more quickly here than anywhere else in western Europe, and why do we have the fastest growth rate?
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman would read my articles and repeat them accurately, I might be prepared to answer. The Chancellor said that a balance of payments deficit—a manufacturing deficit — of £6·5 billion was perfectly manageable, and that a manufacturing deficit of £8·5 billion, which is what it would be, would be neither here nor there.
Does the Prime Minister agree with him about this? I know that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not see eye to eye on everything, except for the fact that this might be the Chancellor's last Budget, but do they see eye to eye on the manufacturing trade deficit? I must ask the Chancellor, who thinks that the manufacturing trade deficit is neither here nor there, to consider the words of the Prime Minister. When she was aspiring to become Prime Minister, the right hon. Lady said:
"It is often said we must export or die. I would add: we must manufacture or die even more quickly."
That was not a Tory wet, a Labour Back Bencher or a member of a Select Committee in another place, but the then Leader of the Opposition. Does she and the Chancellor now say, with 30 per cent. of our manufacturing jobs lost, 50 per cent. of our cars, 50 per cent. of our washing machines, 50 per cent. of our fridges, 60 per cent. of many items of our furniture, 90 per cent. of our videos and 100 per cent. of our radios imported, with trade deficits in new industries far bigger than trade deficits ever were in the old ones, that we must manufacture or die even more quickly? Never, until this Government came to power, did we import more manufactured goods than we exported and never did we send more money abroad than we invested in manufacturing in many of our regions. Never before have we had whole areas of the country where people are without regular work because they are unemployed, in part-time work or in training schemes and who outnumber those employed in manufacturing industry, whether new or old.
Mr. Steel: Will the hon. Member support the Amalgamated Engineering Union to get 1,000 jobs for Scotland?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well our determination to get those jobs for Scotland. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members would stop trying to make party political points out of this issue and started to fight for the contract for Britain, we would be far better off.
The Budget is not just a missed opportunity for investment in our future, exports and jobs. It gave to the very few what could have provided a lifeline for the National Health Service. The British Medical Association report, which was published only a few days ago, said that 31 per cent. of consultants have had to cancel operations because of financial restrictions, that 3,000 hospital beds have been lost this year, and that the problems next year will be worse than the problems this year. What was the Government's response? Ruthlessly to exclude from expenditure in the Budget the one item on which the vast majority of the people agreed, and then to tell us that the Budget was about taxation and nothing to do with expenditure.

105
If that was the case, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1982 announce an extra £100 million for housing as a direct response to public pressure? Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1983 have to announce an extra £100 million to £200 million for industrial innovation? Why in 1985 did this Chancellor have to tell the House that an extra £75 million would have to be spent on the community programme, saying that it was not an unprecedented gesture that would never be repeated but that the prospects for expenditure revenue and borrowing are reviewed annually in the Budget?
If that could be done when there was less money to be spent, why could it not he done when the right hon. Gentleman had £4 billion to spend? The truth is not that the Government cannot spend on the Health Service but that they will not spend on the Health Service. Each health authority and each patient who is waiting for an operation should know that the money given to one top earner as a tax bonus—£500.000—would have paid for almost 1,000 operations.
The money given to the top 100 taxpayers could have paid for the cardiologists needed in our hospitals to treat heart diseases. The money given to the top 20,000 taxpayers, most of them millionaires, could have entirely eliminated the waiting lists for tonsils and hernia operations, and most of the list for hip joint operations. That is the scale of the redistribution in the Budget. The £2 billion given to the top 5 per cent. could have returned the National Health Service to the stability and security for which doctors and nurses have been calling. Why did the Chancellor opt for the unproven, unprovable, untested and untestable calls for tax cuts for the few, when that money could have been invested in the NHS to provide a lifeline for the benefit of all? This Budget cannot unite the nation because the one area for which the majority of people have been demanding help has been denied any money. It cannot unite the nation because, through his decision to opt for tax cuts, the right hon. Gentleman has chosen unfairness where he could have chosen to be fair.
The new state social fund will come into operation next month. I ask the Chancellor whether there is anything in need, in merit, in contribution to the community or in his insensate ideology that could ever justify someone on £50,000 a year receiving an additional £75 a week, someone on £70,000 receiving £150, and someone on £100,000 receiving £268, while the Government implement a policy of withdrawal of help from pensioners for their heating, from the disabled for laundry, clothing and baths, and from families for basic housing and household necessities?
A number of rulings by adjudication officers have already been made in advance of the social fund, and they will dominate its operation. While tax handouts go to the rich, what will happen to the destitute family looking for beds and bedding who were refused help, not because there was not sufficient money in any social fund but, as the Government adjudication officer told them, because the lack of bedding could be overcome by the family sleeping in their clothes? That happened in 1988, in advance of the social fund.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Who said so?
Mr. Brown: The adjudication officer.
What about the family with school-age children, who——
Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give a reference for his remarks?
Mr. Brown: The reference is the decisions of adjudication officers, which were reported in Hansard in a debate on 24 January.
While the rich become richer, a family with school-age children were told that, for people in good health, there was no medical necessity for cooked food. The adjudication officer turned down their request for a cooker on the ground that there was no necessity for cooked food. Parents who had applied for help to buy shoes for their young child were told that the child could get by with three pairs of socks. That is happening in 1988, in a civilised, decent society. Families must go without cookers because the Government say that they can get by without cooked food, and children must go to school without shoes because the Government say that socks are sufficient.
The £2 billion that the Government have given to the very rich could have provided a safety net for the maintenance of single payments. The £200 million lost in tax relief on inheritance tax could have provided for a rise in child benefit or prevented the cut in heating payments to the elderly. The £2 billion that will go the very rich could have rescued the NHS.
One considerable statistic should be left in the minds of Conservative Members. The top 100,000 people in this country—a small fraction of people—get far more in the tax cuts than has been given by the Chancellor to the majority of families, to 15 million people throughout the country. When we understand that fact, we understand clearly that this Budget was born out of greed, founded on indifference to the poor, built on selectivity towards the rich, skewed unashamedly towards the top 5 per cent. and dressed up in hypocrisy about tax cuts and the incentive effect that they will have. It is now revealed in its true colours—not as an epitaph for socialism in this country but, as long as this Government are in power, as an epitaph for social justice and an obituary for the fairness and decency that should lie at the centre of our social arrangements.
The motto of this Government is not, as they say. "God helps those who help themselves"; it is "God helps those whom He has already helped" and they do not worry about the rest of the people in this country.
The Government claim that they are the party of the family. Is there anything more harmful to family life than this Budget's failure to provide for decent hospitals, a decent Health Service, decent homes, decent schools a decent level of child benefit, and a decent opportunity for people to work?
No Budget this century has given so much to so few people. No Budget this century has seen such a huge redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. No Budget this century has so offended the decent instincts of the majority of people who are far more altruistic and far less selfish than the faction that now rules over us. This Budget——
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose——
Mr. Brown: This Budget—[interruption.]
Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it a point of order, or is it just because the hon. Gentleman did not get in?
Mr. Bennett: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) quoted a statement from 24 January. We have checked, and that was a Sunday.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not seem to me to be a point of order.
Mr. Brown: We now know who the rowdy elements in this House are — a rowdy element in defence not of fairness, but of injustice, unfairness and inequality throughout the country.
No Budget has so offended the decent instincts of the majority of British people. The Budget cannot unite the people of this country because it deliberately set out to divide the people of this country.
This is the Government who, even when they have the cash, even when they know the need, and even when they made promises about what they would do for the Health Service, cannot bring themselves to afford the poor, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed in our society. The truth is that this country can no longer afford the price that it is paying for this Government.
9.33 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I shall just say this about what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been saying. It is an impertinence for him to say that the Government are doing nothing for the poor, the sick, the disabled and the needy, when public expenditure on social security is already running at far higher levels under this Government than it ever did under that of the Labour party, and the increase—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lawson: The increase in social security spending that is planned for this coming year, despite falling unemployment, is £2,000 million.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the rowdy element in the House. During the debate there has been a considerable amount of disquiet, expressed notably by my right hon. Friends the Members for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and for Woking (Mr. Onslow), about the appalling and unprecedented scenes which we witnessed in the Chamber during the Budget debate. During one of those interruptions I recalled the motto uttered on one memorable and turbulent occasion in the House of Commons by our former colleague, Admiral Morgan-Giles, for many years the Member of Parliament for Winchester. He drew himself to his full height and said:
"Pro bono publico: no bloody panico."
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Lawson: I have only just started. That is the principle on which I have based economic policy throughout my time as Chancellor of the Exchequer and it has served this country fairly well.
The House of Commons will deliver its verdict on the Budget in the Division Lobbies tonight. But the Budget has already attracted unprecedented comment from around the world, where it has been seen as reinforcing the high standing which Britain, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, now has in the Western world. It is a far cry indeed from the tones of
108
sorrow and pity which we received from the rest of the world during the period of the Labour Government's desperate attempts to shore up a declining economy.
In Japan, for example, one of the main papers gives prominence to what it calls "the Thatcher miracle", and another to,
"a Budget too bold for the Japanese Government",
while the Japanese equivalent to the Financial Times refers to the changing image of Britain as now being a country of individual enterprise.
Mr. Morgan rose—
Mr. Lawson: In the United States, The Wall Street Journal in an editorial observed that
"Britain has returned to the lead in the global swing towards free economies and pro-growth policies based on individual initiative."
In France, Liberation called the Budget
"the most fundamental and most daring Budget since Margaret Thatcher came to power",
set against the background of
"the exceptional dynamism of the British economy."
In Germany, Handelsblatt declared that
"the once sick man of Europe has become the most dynamic economic nation in Europe."
So much for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the economy and the Budget alike.
Mr. Morgan: Will the Chancellor tell the House whether the Japanese newspaper went on to explain whether it was proposing that the Japanese Government follow his lead of reducing top tax rates from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent., when Japan has a top tax rate of 78 per cent. and a higher growth rate than the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lawson: Not only do the Japanese plan to reduce the top tax rate, but all the Japanese newspapers stated that in forming their tax reform proposals the Japanese Government would do well to study carefully what has been done in this Budget in Britain.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to the Chancellor, because I realise that he is generous to give way. Did any of those newspaper comments refer to the fact that the wealth that the Chancellor is boasting about has been gained at the expense of an expectant mother from Reading who was hawked round 25 hospitals before she was finally admitted and that one of the children to whom she gave birth died? Did any of the newspapers mention that fact?
Mr. Lawson: I clearly should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well that the increase that I announced in November for spending on the Health Service was the biggest increase that has ever been announced in any year.
But important though this Budget is, it is even more important that it is not seen in isolation. For this Budget represents a continuation of the policies which we have pursued consistently for nearly nine years, and which we will continue to pursue—a continuation of the steps that we have taken in nine previous Budgets, and of the major reforms that we have introduced in other fields, too, all of them designed to encourage and reward enterprise and so to liberate the energies of the British people.
The tax changes in this Budget consolidate Britain's move from a high-tax country to a low-tax country, at all levels. Since 1979, the top rate of income tax has been cut from 83 per cent. to 40 per cent. The basic rate has been

109
cut from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent. The corporation tax rate has been cut from 52 per cent. to 35 per cent. The small companies' rate has been cut from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent., arid the 15 per cent. additional tax on savings income has been abolished altogether.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will there be any change in the share of GDP that is taken in taxation?
Mr. Lawson: Yes, I hope that over a period of years we shall indeed get it down.
But these dramatic changes in taxation need to be seen not as a reward, but as a challenge — a challenge to British businessmen. The reductions in tax rates, coupled with the reform of trade union law, provide an unparalleled opportunity for British firms to compete with the best in the world, and to succeed.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn rose——
Mr. Lawson: The nation now looks to them not merely to do better than they have ever done before, but to outpace those overseas, for there is still a great deal to be done to make good the ground lost in the 1960s and the 1970s.
Mr. Fairbairn rose— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Chancellor does not give way, the hon. and learned Member must not persist.
Mr. Lawson: And the British people look to them, too, to play their full part in the social field—in the inner cities and in other areas where they can often be far more effective than bureaucratic agencies. I am confident that British business will live up to this challenge. I am confident that, just as it responded so well to the challenge of adversity during a world recession, so it will respond to the challenge of opportunity. For it is already clear that the policies that we have been pursuing have brought about a profound cultural change in this country. That, indeed, is what it is all about. For that cultural change is the only route to the economic success that we all wish to see, and which is no longer promise but reality.
No longer do people accept that economic policy should be about regulating everyone's lives and imposing penal tax rates, in the illusion that that will benefit those on lower incomes. Instead, it is now widely recognised except on the Opposition Benches that one cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor and that there are enormous benefits in getting the state off people's backs, in transferring decision-making from the state to the people. And it is now abundantly clear that giving greater freedom and greater incentives has removed the shackles that have held back Britain for so many years and has liberated a great surge in enterprise.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: The right hon. Gentleman says that the tax cuts will lead to his friends in the City and industrialists investing more and thereby helping to make the economy better and to bring unemployment down. Supposing it does not lead to the investment and they use that money for more holidays abroad and so on. What will the Chancellor do then?
Mr. Lawson: The policy that we have been pursuing has already brought economic success. This country is now experiencing an economic miracle, comparable in significance to that previously enjoyed by West Germany and still enjoyed by Japan. As for Japan, which the hon.
110
Member for Dagenham mentioned, the Socialist party has been in uninterrupted opposition there for the past 33 years—arguably the most important single ingredient of economic success.
Mr. Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the miracle of which he speaks and the prosperity and freedom that we have has been destroyed in Scotland by the bigotry of the Labour party and the unions that they support which has denied to Dundee, to Perthshire and the rest of Scotland the Ford development of the future?
Mr. Lawson: I agree entirely with what my hon. and learned Friend says about the criminal shortsightedness of the Transport and General Workers Union in Dundee. We are still waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to make his position clear, but he is not prepared to say anything.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Lawson: No, I shall give way only to the Leader of the Opposition.
In his speech last Wednesday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was reduced to referring disparagingly to a "short-term boom". The Leader of the Opposition, in an article in The Sun, called it a "boomlet". Seven years of steady growth at an average of 3 per cent. a year and it is callecl a "boomlet". The Labour Government did not achieve :3 per cent. growth in a single year—not once.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be good enough to explain, first, why is that in the years of Conservative rule the amount of domestic debt has gone up from £80 billion to £280 billion and whether he thinks that that might have had something to do with what he describes as a recovery? Secondly, when does he expect to get the tax burden down by the £16 billion necessary to get it back to the level that the Conservative Government inherited in 1979? Thirdly, on the basis of present policies, when does he expect to turn the £8 billion balance of trade deficit into the £5 billion surplus that they inherited in 1979?
Mr. Lawson: I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman so that he could make his position about the scandal of Dundee absolutely plain. He totally failed to answer that point.
As for inflation, which the Labour party never mentions, while we are determined to get inflation down further, what we are now talking about is getting it down from something between 3 and 4 per cent. That can be contrasted with a Labour Government under whom the lowest rate of inflation ever achieved was more than 8 per cent., with an average of more than 15. When Labour Members claim that this Budget is unfair, I say this to them. They can argue till the cows come home about whether it is fair to take 60, 50, or 40 per cent. of a man's salary away from him in taxation. But what is beyond dispute is the crowning unfairness of 15 per cent. inflation to every person in the land.
The benefits of sound and consistent policies are now being felt throughout the economy—in every region, in every country and in every industry. Unemployment has fallen by half a million over the last year, faster than in any other major country, and our unemployment rate is now lower than that in any other major European country, min h the exception of Germany.

111
This success has been achieved by rejecting the idea that the state is the engine of growth, and that the only way to stimulate the economy is by running ever-larger fiscal deficits. We saw what that led to in the 1970s. It led to inflation spiralling out of control and to the currency crashing, until there was no choice but to slam the engines into reverse, with deep cuts in public expenditure and savage tax increases. What we have done is to adopt a policy of steadily reducing Government borrowing, and we have now reached the logical conclusion of a balanced Budget.
Our legacy to future generations will not be an increasing burden of debt interest, but one which falls as a proportion of national income. This is already allowing us to spend more on priority services—including health — while keeping to our overall objective of reducing public expenditure as a share of national income.
What has brought us to this position is the virtuous circle of lower borrowing and lower tax rates. Lower borrowing gets the state out of the way while lower tax rates give every incentive for the private sector to expand. That in turn generates the higher revenues which have again allowed us to achieve the hat-trick of lower tax rates, higher public spending and lower borrowing — indeed, the elimination of borrowing altogether.
It is nonsense for the Labour party to make fanciful suggestions about what it would have done with the revenues if it had been in government. For the plain fact is that had it been in government the revenues would never have been there in the first place. They were not in the 1960s, they were not in the 1970s, and they would not be now, either.
A crucial part of achieving this virtuous circle is the pursuit of tax reforms that reward and encourage enterprise, something which is completely alien to Labour's philosophy. We do not have to theorise about the benefits of tax reform. They are vividly illustrated by the reforms to corporation tax which I introduced in 1984. The principles of lowering tax rates and of reducing or abolishing unwarranted tax breaks have been applied consistently since 1979. They have served the economy well.
On capital gains tax, the system that we inherited bit harshly on inflationary gains made in the 1970s. My predecessor was able to make a start on rectifying this in his Budget in 1982. I extended the indexation provisions in 1985, and in this year's Budget I was able to announce the logical conclusion that gains made before 1982 should be exempt from tax altogether. This will benefit the economy by unlocking assets bought before 1982, which people have been sitting on simply to avoid a penal tax charge on purely paper gains. But at the same time the alignment of the rates of tax on income and capital gains, which was made possible by the simplification of the income tax rates, reduces both the distortion of investment decisions and the scope for higher rate tax payers in particular to convert income into gains to minimise their tax liability.
In this Budget, it was right to concentrate on personal taxation — and on income tax in particular. We had made some substantial progress in previous Budgets, but it was clear that this was an area ripe for reform.
I believe that the whole House, and indeed the whole country, has welcomed the reform that I announced in the
112
tax treatment of married women. The existing system, with the wife's income treated for tax purposes as belonging to her husband, had lasted for 180 years. It had become wholly indefensible. I decided that the time had come to act. My proposals will for the first time ensure complete privacy and independence for married women in their tax affairs. Of those married women who will gain financially from the introduction of independent taxation — the majority of whom, incidentally, will be elderly—nearly three quarters have incomes of less than £5,000 a year.
Mr. Dick Douglas: How does the Chancellor reconcile his division of man and wife here with the provision in the poll tax legislation for husband and wife to be jointly and severally responsible for the payment of that tax?
Mr. Lawson: It is still independent taxation in that context, too.
At the same time, it was clearly right to eliminate the so-called tax penalties on marriage and that I have also done.
It is, I must say, the height of effrontery for Opposition spokesmen to complain that those below the tax threshold cannot benefit from a Budget that reduces income tax. Are they arguing that we should have reduced thresholds in real terms, instead of raising them? That is what they did when they were in office, when the single person's tax threshold was reduced by 20 per cent. in real terms.
We have now done something which has never been done before : we have cut income tax in seven successive Budgets — which, under this Government, means seven successive years. Compare Budget day now with the sense of apprehension and dread with which, under the last Government, the British people waited to find out what fate would befall them in March, and again in July and again in November.
This year, we were able to achieve our declared goal of reducing the basic rate to 25 per cent. — from a third under the last Labour Government to a quarter now—and I have pledged that we will reduce it further to 20 per cent. as soon as it is prudent and sensible to do so.
The cut in the basic rate, together with the double indexation of personal allowances, accounted for three quarters of the cost of the income tax package in the Budget in the coming year. So much for the claim that 95 per cent. of the population would not benefit from the Budget. That is poppycock.
It was clearly right—I know that the Opposition are concerned about this—to reduce the higher rates, too. All the experience, in this country and overseas, has demonstrated the futility of levying high tax rates in some misguided search for social justice. It is clear that all that does is encourage distortions and discourage enterprise.
With high tax rates, far too much wasted effort is put into finding ever more complicated ways of avoiding tax and, indeed, into emigration. No one benefits except tax accountants and tax lawyers. It is far better both to cut higher rates of tax and to sweep away as many as possible of the shelters and tax breaks which were an inescapable part of a high tax regime. And that it what I have done in this Budget. The changes in the tax regime for forestry, for covenants, for company cars, for golden handshakes, and indeed for capital gains, all sweep away tax breaks which have no place when tax rates are lower.
Our experience since 1979 clearly demonstrates the results. In 1978–79, the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers

113
contributed 24 per cent. of income tax revenues. This year, the top 5 per cent. will contribute 29 per cent. of income tax revenues.
All around the world, top tax rates are coming down. Even the Labour Governments in Australia and New Zealand have embarked on that road, particularly New Zealand—let me tell the hon. Member for Dagenham— where they have already brought the top rate down from 60 per cent. to 48 per cent., and now plan to bring it down to 33 per cent. this October. Only the Labour party here claims that high tax rates are a good thing. Labour completely fail to understand the basic points. They said in their election manifesto that they would reverse the tax cuts for the top 5 per cent. to help pay for their programme. They do not realise that the top 5 per cent. are paying more, not less. In real terms they are paying £3 billion more. That is how the programmes are being paid for.
All that motivates the Opposition is envy and spite. They still cannot say where they would set the top rate. Reducing income tax gives people more freedom and more effective choice.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly and agreed to

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

  1. AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further
  114
  provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.

  Mr. Speaker: I am now required under Standing Order No. 50(3) to put successively, without further debate, the Question on each of the Ways and Means motions Nos. 2 to 49 and on the Motions for procedure and the Finance (No. 2) Bill [Money], on all of which the Bill is to be brought in. Instead of reading out each motion, I propose to follow the procedure used in recent years, that is to say, I shall read first the title of the motion and then simply put the Question that the motion be agreed to.

  2. BEER
  Resolved,
  That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 15th March 1988, the rates of duty specified in section 36 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased—

  (a) from £25·80 for each hectolitre to £27·00 for each hectolitre; and

  (b) from £0·86 for each additional degree of original gravity exceeding 1030 degrees to £0·90 for each such additional degree.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  3. WINE AND MADE-WINE
  Resolved,
  That as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 15th March 1988, the rates of duty under sections 54 and 55 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be as follows—

  Description of wine or made-wine

  Rates of duty per hectolitre

  £

  (1) Wine or made-wine of a strength not exceeding 15 per cent. and not being sparkling … … … …

  102·40

  (2) Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength not exceeding 15 per cent.… … … …

  169·10

  (3) Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent. but not exceeding 18 per cent. … … …

  176·60

  (4) Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 18 per cent. but not exceeding 22 per cent. … … …

  203·70

  (5) Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 22 per cent. … … … … … … … … … … …

  203·70 plus

  £15·77 for every 1 per cent. or part of 1 per cent. in excess of 22 per cent.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  4. CIDER
  Resolved,
  That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 15th March 1988, the rates of duty specified in section 62(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 shall be increased from £15·80 per hectolitre to £17·33 per hectolitre.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  5. TOBACCO PRODUCTS
  Resolved,
  That, as from 18th March 1988, the rates of duty on cigarettes, cigars and hand-rolling tobacco specified in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 shall be increased—

  (a) in the case of cigarettes, to an amount equal to 21 per cent. of the retail price plus £31·74 per thousand cigarettes;

  (b) in the case of cigars, to £48·79 per kilogram; and

  (c) in the case of hand-rolling tobacco, to £51·48 per kilogram.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  6. HYDROCARBON OIL
  Question put,
  That, as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 15th March 1988—

  (1) The rates of duty specified in section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 shall be increased—

  (a) in the case of light oil, from £0·1938 to £0·2044 a litre; and

  (b) in the case of heavy oil, from £0·1639 to £0·1729 a litre.

  (2) The rate of rebate of duty specified in section 13A of that Act (rebate on unleaded petrol) shall be increased from £0·0096 to £0·0202 a litre.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 33.

  Division No. 217]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowis, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Amos, Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Baldry, Tony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Burns, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burt, Alistair

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butcher, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butler, Chris

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butterfill, John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Benyon, W.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Cartwright, John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cash, William

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bottomley, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  117

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Holt, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cope, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irvine, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Irving, Charles

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W}

  Eggar, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evennett, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Fallon, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Favell, Tony

  Knowles, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lang, Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forth, Eric

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Franks, Cecil

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  French, Douglas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fry, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Gale, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  Gardiner, George

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gill, Christopher

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gow, Ian

  Maclean, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Madel, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Malins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mans, Keith

  Grist, Ian

  Maples, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Marland, Paul

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hannam, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mellor, David

  Harris, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Miller, Hal

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mills, Iain

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hayward, Robert

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moate, Roger

  Heddle, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  118

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Keith

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Speller, Tony

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Squire, Robin

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Needham, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stokes, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Portillo, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Price, Sir David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Raffan, Keith

  Tracey, Richard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Redwood, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walden, George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Waller, Gary

  Rost, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ward, John

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Watts, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wheeler, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitney, Ray

  Scott, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Livsey, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  McGrady, Eddie

  Beith, A. J.

  Maginnis, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Canavan, Dennis

  Nellist, Dave

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Howells, Geraint

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Kennedy, Charles

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Kilfedder, James

  Wall, Pat

  119

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley and

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: May I have the leave of the House to put motions 7 to 10 together? There does not appear to be any objection to that being done.

  7. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY
  Resolved,
  That the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act") and the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 ("the 1972 Act") shall have effect, in relation to licences taken out after 15th March 1988, with the amendments set out below.
  But this Resolution shall not authorise the making of amendments which would result in different provisions being in force in different parts of Great Britain.
  120
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  (1) In Part I of Schedule 1 to each Act (annual rate of duty on motor bicycles etc.), in paragraph 2 (concession for certain bicycles first licensed before 1933, or, in Northern Ireland, 1935)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words "for which a licence was taken out before the beginning of the year" there shall be substituted the words "constructed before"; and

  (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for the words "224 pounds" there shall be substituted the words "101.6 kilograms".

  (2) In Part II of Schedule 4 to the 1971 Act (annual rates of duty on goods vehicles), for Tables A, A(1) and A(2) (rates for rigid goods vehicles having plated gross weight exceeding 12 tonnes) there shall be substituted the Tables set out below:

  TABLE A

  RATES OF DUTY ON RIGID GOODS VEHICLES EXCEEDING 12 TONNES PLATED GROSS WEIGHT GENERAL RATES

  Plated gross weight of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Exceeding

  Not exceeding

  Two axle vehicle

  Three axle vehicle

  Four or more axle vehicle

  tonnes

  tonnes

  £

  £

  £

  12

  13

  410

  320

  320

  13

  14

  570

  340

  340

  14

  15

  740

  340

  340

  15

  17

  1,130

  340

  340

  17

  19

  —

  540

  340

  19

  21

  —

  730

  340

  21

  23

  —

  1,000

  490

  23

  25

  —

  1,780

  690

  25

  27

  —

  —

  1,110

  27

  29

  —

  —

  1,630

  29

  30.49

  —

  —

  2,680

  TABLE A(1)

  RATES OF DUTY ON RIGID GOODS VEHICLES EXCEEDING 12 TONNES PLATED GROSS WEIGHT RATES FOR FARMERS' GOODS VEHICLES

  Plated gross weight of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Exceeding

  Not exceeding

  Two axle vehicle

  Three axle vehicle

  Four or more axle vehicle

  tonnes

  tonnes

  £

  £

  £

  12

  13

  245

  190

  190

  13

  14

  340

  205

  205

  14

  15

  445

  205

  205

  15

  17

  680

  205

  205

  17

  19

  —

  325

  205

  19

  21

  —

  440

  205

  21

  23

  —

  600

  295

  23

  25

  —

  1,070

  415

  25

  27

  —

  —

  665

  27

  29

  —

  —

  980

  29

  30.49

  —

  —

  1,610

  TABLE A(2)

  RATES OF DUTY ON RIGID GOODS VEHICLES EXCEEDING 12 TONNES PLATED GROSS WEIGHT RATES FOR SHOWMEN'S GOODS VEHICLES

  Plated gross weight of vehicle

  Rate of duty

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  Exceeding

  Not exceeding

  Two axle vehicle

  Three axle vehicle

  Four or more axle vehicle

  tonnes

  tonnes

  £

  £

  £

  12

  13

  105

  90

  90

  13

  14

  145

  90

  90

  14

  15

  185

  90

  90

  15

  17

  285

  90

  90

  17

  19

  —

  135

  90

  19

  21

  —

  185

  90

  21

  23

  —

  250

  125

  23

  25

  —

  445

  175

  25

  27

  —

  —

  280

  27

  29

  —

  —

  410

  29

  30.49

  —

  —

  670

  (3) The Tables set out above shall also be substituted for Tables A, A(1) and A(2) in Part II of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act, but modified for that purpose by the substitution for any reference to a plated gross weight of a reference to a relevant maximum weight.
  (4) In Part II of Schedule 5 to each Act (annual rates of duty on motor cars etc.), in column 1, for paragraph 1 (vehicles first registered before 1947) there shall be substituted.—
  "1. Vehicles constructed before 1947."—[Mr. Lawson.]

  8. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (EXCEPTIONAL LOADS, ETC.)
  Resolved,
  That the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act") and the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 ("the 1972 Act") shall have effect, as from 1st June 1988, with the amendments set out below.
  But this Resolution shall not authorise the making of amendments which would result in different provisions being in force in different parts of Great Britain.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  (1) In section 1(2) of each Act (charge of duty), for the words "the first five Schedules" there shall be substituted the words "Schedules 1 to 5".
  (2) In Part I of Schedule 3 to each Act (annual rates of duty on tractors etc.), in paragraph 6 (definition of "haulage vehicle"), after the words "other than one" there shall be inserted the words "to which Schedule 4A to this Act applies or which is".
  (3) In Part I of Schedule 4 to each Act (annual rates of duty on goods vehicles), in paragraph 15—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), in the definition of "goods vehicle", after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words "subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below"; and

  (b) after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted—

  "(1A) In this Schedule 'goods vehicle' does not include a vehicle to which Schedule 4A to this Act applies."
  (4) After Schedule 4 to the 1971 Act there shall be inserted—

  8. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (EXCEPTIONAL LOADS, ETC.)

    SCHEDULE 4A ANNUAL RATES OF DUTY ON VEHICLES USED FOR CARRYING OR DRAWING EXCEPTIONAL LOADS
    1. This Schedule applies to a vehicle—
    124

    (a)which is a heavy motor car used for the carriage of exceptional loads; or

    (b) which is a heavy locomotive, light locomotive or motor tractor used to draw trailers carrying such loads,

    and which, when so used, is authorised for use on roads by virtue of an order under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.
    2. The annual rate of duty applicable to a vehicle to which this Schedule applies shall be £1,600.
    3. Where a vehicle—

    (a) to which this Schedule applies; and

    (b) which would, but for paragraphs 5 and 15(1A) of Schedule 4 to this Act, be a goods vehicle of a description to which a higher rate of duty is applicable under this Act,

    is at any time used on roads otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph 1 above, section 18 of this Act shall apply as if that vehicle were then being used in a manner or for a purpose which brings it within that description of vehicle.
    4. In this Schedule—
    'exceptional load' means a load which—

    (a) by reason of its dimensions, cannot be carried by a heavy motor car or trailer, or a combination of a heavy motor car and trailer, which (in either case) complies in all respects with requirements of regulations under section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1972; or

    (b) by reason of its weight, cannot be carried by a heavy motor car or trailer, or a combination of a heavy motor car and trailer, which (in either case) has a total laden weight of not more than the specified amount and complies in all respects with such requirements;

    'specified amount' means—

    (a) in relation to any time before 1st October 1989, 32,520 kilograms;

    (b) in relation to any time on or after that date, 38,000 kilograms;

    and other expressions which are also used in the Road Traffic Act 1972 have the same meanings as in that Act."
    (5) The provisions set out in paragraph (4) above shall also be inserted after Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act, but modified for that purpose by the substitution for any reference to the Road Traffic Act 1972, or to section 40 or 42 of that Act, of a reference to the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, or to Article 28 or 29(3) of that Order.

    125
    (6) Section 2(1)(c) of the 1971 Act and section 2(1)(c) and (d) of the 1972 Act (seven day licences) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    9. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (RECOVERY VEHICLES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending paragraph 8 of Part 1 of Schedule 3 to each of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 and the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    10. VALUE ADDED TAX (REGISTRATION)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made as to registration and the cancellation of registrations under the Value Added Tax Act 1983.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    11. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1988–89)
    Question put,
    That—

    (1) Income tax shall be charged for the year 1988–89—

    (a) at the basic rate of 25 per cent, and

    (b) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as exceeds £19,300, at the rate of 40 per cent.

    (2) The additional rate income tax for the year 1988–89 shall be 10 per cent.

    (3) Section 1(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (indexation) shall not apply for the year 1988–89.

    (4) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Act (pay as you earn) before 15th June 1988.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]
    The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 223.

    Division No. 218]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Aitken, Jonathan

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

    Alexander, Richard

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Allason, Rupert

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Amess, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Amos, Alan

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Arbuthnot, James

    Burns, Simon

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Burt, Alistair

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Butcher, John

    Ashby, David

    Butler, Chris

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Butterfill, John

    Atkins, Robert

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Baldry, Tony

    Carttiss, Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Cash, William

    Batiste, Spencer

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bellingham, Henry

    Chope, Christopher

    Bendall, Vivian

    Churchill, Mr

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

    Benyon, W.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Colvin, Michael

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Conway, Derek

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Cope, John

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Cran, James

    Bowis, John

    Critchley, Julian

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Brazier, Julian

    Day, Stephen

    Bright, Graham

    Devlin, Tim

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    126

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Janman, Tim

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jessel, Toby

    Dover, Den

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dunn, Bob

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Durant, Tony

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Eggar, Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Evennett, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Knapman, Roger

    Fallon, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Farr, Sir John

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Favell, Tony

    Knowles, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knox, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lang, Ian

    Forman, Nigel

    Latham, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Forth, Eric

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Franks, Cecil

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Freeman, Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    French, Douglas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fry, Peter

    Lightbown, David

    Gale, Roger

    Lilley, Peter

    Gardiner, George

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Gill, Christopher

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Lord, Michael

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Goodlad, Alastair

    McCrindle, Robert

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, John

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gow, Ian

    Maclean, David

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Madel, David

    Gregory, Conal

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Malins, Humfrey

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mans, Keith

    Grist, Ian

    Maples, John

    Ground, Patrick

    Marland, Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mates, Michael

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hannam, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Mellor, David

    Harris, David

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Miller, Hal

    Hayes, Jerry

    Mills, Iain

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hayward, Robert

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Moate, Roger

    Heddle, John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Holt, Richard

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Howard, Michael

    Needham, Richard

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

    Nelson, Anthony

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Neubert, Michael

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hunter, Andrew

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Page, Richard

    Irvine, Michael

    Paice, James

    Irving, Charles

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Jack, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Jackson, Robert

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    127

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Pawsey, James

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Stokes, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Sumberg, David

    Portillo, Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Price, Sir David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Raffan, Keith

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rathbone, Tim

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Redwood, John

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Renton, Tim

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Thorne, Neil

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Riddick, Graham

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Tracey, Richard

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tredinnick, David

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Trippier, David

    Rost, Peter

    Trotter, Neville

    Rowe, Andrew

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Ryder, Richard

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Walden, George

    Scott, Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waller, Gary

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walters, Dennis

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Ward, John

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Watts, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Wheeler, John

    Sims, Roger

    Whitney, Ray

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wilkinson, John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wilshire, David

    Speed, Keith

    Wolfson, Mark

    Speller, Tony

    Wood, Timothy

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Woodcock, Mike

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Yeo, Tim

    Squire, Robin

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Steen, Anthony

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stern, Michael

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Buchan, Norman

    Allen, Graham

    Caborn, Richard

    Alton, David

    Callaghan, Jim

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ashton, Joe

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cartwright, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clay, Bob

    Battle, John

    Clelland, David

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beith, A. J.

    Cohen, Harry

    Bell, Stuart

    Coleman, Donald

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cousins, Jim

    Blair, Tony

    Cox, Tom

    Boyes, Roland

    Crowther, Stan

    Bradley, Keith

    Cryer, Bob

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cummings, John

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    128

    Dalyell, Tam

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Darling, Alistair

    McCartney, Ian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McFall, John

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

    McGrady, Eddie

    Dewar, Donald

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Dixon, Don

    McKelvey, William

    Dobson, Frank

    McLeish, Henry

    Doran, Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Douglas, Dick

    McTaggart, Bob

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McWilliam, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Madden, Max

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Eadie, Alexander

    Marek, Dr John

    Eastham, Ken

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Maxton, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Meacher, Michael

    Faulds, Andrew

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fisher, Mark

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Flannery, Martin

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flynn, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Foster, Derek

    Mullin, Chris

    Foulkes, George

    Murphy, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Nellist, Dave

    Galbraith, Sam

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Galloway, George

    O'Neill, Martin

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    George, Bruce

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Parry, Robert

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Patchett, Terry

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Pendry, Tom

    Gordon, Mildred

    Pike, Peter L.

    Gould, Bryan

    Prescort, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Randall, Stuart

    Grocott, Bruce

    Redmond, Martin

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Reid, Dr John

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Richardson, Jo

    Henderson, Doug

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Robertson, George

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Holland, Stuart

    Rogers, Allan

    Home Robertson, John

    Rooker, Jeff

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Howells, Geraint

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hoyle, Doug

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Short, Clare

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hume, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Illsley, Eric

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

    Ingram, Adam

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Janner, Greville

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

    John, Brynmor

    Snape, Peter

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Soley, Clive

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Stott, Roger

    Kennedy, Charles

    Strang, Gavin

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Straw, Jack

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Leighton, Ron

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Turner, Dennis

    Lewis, Terry

    Vaz, Keith

    Livingstone, Ken

    Wall, Pat

    Livsey, Richard

    Walley, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wareing, Robert N.

    McAllion, John

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    129

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Worthington, Tony

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wilson, Brian

    Mr. Ray Powell and

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    12. INCOME TAX (PERSONAL RELIEFS)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) In section 257 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (personal reliefs)—

    (a) in subsection (1)(a) (married allowance) for "£3,795" there shall be substituted "£4,095";

    (b) in subsections (1)(b) (single allowance) and (6) (wife's earned income relief) for "£2,425" there shall be substituted "£2,605";

    (c) in subsection (2)(a) (married allowance: age 65 to 79), for "£4,675" there shall be substituted "£5,035";

    (d) in subsection (2)(b) (single allowance: age 65 to 79), for "£2,960" there shall be substituted "£3,180";

    (e) in subsection (3)(a) (married allowance: age 80 and over), for "£4,845" there shall be substituted "£5,205";

    (f) in subsection (3)(b) (single allowance: age 80 and over), for "£3,070" there shall be substituted "£3,310";

    (g) in subsection (5) (income limit for age allowance), for "£9,800" there shall be substituted "£10,600".

    (2) Section 257(9) of that Act (indexation) shall not apply for the year 1988–89.

    (3) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of that Act (pay as you earn) before 15th June 1988.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    13. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1988)
    Resolved,
    That corporation tax shall he charged for the financial year 1988 at the rate of 35 per cent.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    14. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (a) the small companies rate for the financial year 1988 shall be 25 per cent.; and

    (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and in section 95(2) of the Finance Act 1972, shall be one fortieth.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    15. INCOME TAX (MINOR PERSONAL ALLOWANCES)
    Question put,
    That—

    (1) Sections 258, 263 and 264 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (housekeeper allowance, dependent relative allowance and son's or daughter's allowance) shall not have effect for the year 1988–89 or any subsequent year of assessment.

    (2) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of that Act (pay as you earn) before 15th June 1988.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]
    The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 228.

    Division No. 219]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alexander, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Allason, Rupert

    Durant, Tony

    Amess, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Amos, Alan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evennett, David

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Farr, Sir John

    Atkins, Robert

    Favell, Tony

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Baldry, Tony

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Forman, Nigel

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Forth, Eric

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bendall, Vivian

    Franks, Cecil

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Freeman, Roger

    Benyon, W.

    French, Douglas

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fry, Peter

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Gardiner, George

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gill, Christopher

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bottomley, Peter

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bowis, John

    Gorst, John

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Gow, Ian

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bright, Graham

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Gregory, Conal

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

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

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Grist, Ian

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Ground, Patrick

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Grylls, Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butcher, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butler, Chris

    Hannam, John

    Butterfill, John

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

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harris, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cash, William

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayward, Robert

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Chope, Christopher

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Heddle, John

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

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Colvin, Michael

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Conway, Derek

    Holt, Richard

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howard, Michael

    Cope, John

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

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cran, James

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Devlin, Tim

    Irvine, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Irving, Charles

    131

    Jack, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Jackson, Robert

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Janman, Tim

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jessel, Toby

    Pawsey, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Powell, William (Corby)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Price, Sir David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Raffan, Keith

    Knapman, Roger

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Redwood, John

    Knowles, Michael

    Renton, Tim

    Knox, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Lang, Ian

    Riddick, Graham

    Latham, Michael

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rost, Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lightbown, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lilley, Peter

    Ryder, Richard

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Lord, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Maclean, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Shersby, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Sims, Roger

    Madel, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Mans, Keith

    Speed, Keith

    Maples, John

    Speller, Tony

    Marland, Paul

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Squire, Robin

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mates, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stern, Michael

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mellor, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Miller, Hal

    Stokes, John

    Mills, Iain

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moate, Roger

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thorne, Neil

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Neale, Gerrard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Needham, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Neubert, Michael

    Tracey, Richard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tredinnick, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Trippier, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Trotter, Neville

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Page, Richard

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Paice, James

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    132

    Walden, George

    Wilkinson, John

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Wilshire, David

    Waller, Gary

    Wolfson, Mark

    Walters, Dennis

    Wood, Timothy

    Ward, John

    Woodcock, Mike

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Yeo, Tim

    Warren, Kenneth

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Watts, John

    Wheeler, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitney, Ray

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Eastham, Ken

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Allen, Graham

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Alton, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Fatchett, Derek

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Faulds, Andrew

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Fearn, Ronald

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Ashton, Joe

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

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Fisher, Mark

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Flannery, Martin

    Barron, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    Battle, John

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Beckett, Margaret

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Beggs, Roy

    Foster, Derek

    Beith, A. J.

    Foulkes, George

    Bell, Stuart

    Fraser, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Galbraith, Sam

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

    Galloway, George

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    George, Bruce

    Blair, Tony

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Boyes, Roland

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Bradley, Keith

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gordon, Mildred

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Gould, Bryan

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Buchan, Norman

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caborn, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Henderson, Doug

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hinchliffe, David

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Holland, Stuart

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clay, Bob

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clelland, David

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Howells, Geraint

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoyle, Doug

    Coleman, Donald

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cox, Tom

    Hume, John

    Crowther, Stan

    Illsley, Eric

    Cryer, Bob

    Ingram, Adam

    Cummings, John

    Janner, Greville

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    John, Brynmor

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Darling, Alistair

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kilfedder, James

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

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Dewar, Donald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dixon, Don

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Dobson, Frank

    Leighton, Ron

    Doran, Frank

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Douglas, Dick

    Lewis, Terry

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Livsey, Richard

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    133

    McAllion, John

    Robertson, George

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    McCartney, Ian

    Rogers, Allan

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Rooker, Jeff

    McFall, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McGrady, Eddie

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Rowlands, Ted

    McKelvey, William

    Ruddock, Joan

    McLeish, Henry

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheerman, Barry

    McTaggart, Bob

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McWilliam, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Madden, Max

    Short, Clare

    Maginnis, Ken

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marek, Dr John

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

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Maxton, John

    Snape, Peter

    Meacher, Michael

    Soley, Clive

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Stott, Roger

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Strang, Gavin

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Straw, Jack

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Turner, Dennis

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Vaz, Keith

    Mullin, Chris

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wall, Pat

    Nellist, Dave

    Walley, Joan

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Parry, Robert

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Patchett, Terry

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Pendry, Tom

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Pike, Peter L.

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Prescott, John

    Wilson, Brian

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Winnick, David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Randall, Stuart

    Worthington, Tony

    Redmond, Martin

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Reid, Dr John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Richardson, Jo

    Mr. Ray Powell and

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    16. COVENANTS AND MAINTENANCE, ETC.
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) The following sections shall be inserted at the beginning of Part IX of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—
    "General rule
    347A.—(1) A payment to which this section applies shall not be a charge on the income of the person liable to make it, and accordingly—

    (a) his income shall he computed without any deduction being made on account of the payment, and

    (b) the payment shall not form part of the income of the person to whom it is made or of any other person.

    (2) This section applies to any annual payment made by an individual which would otherwise be within the charge to tax under Case III of Schedule D except—

    (a) a payment of interest;

    (b) a covenanted payment to charity (within the meaning given by section 660(3));

    (c) a payment made for bona fide commercial reasons in connection with the individual's trade, profession or vocation; and

    (d) a payment to which section 125(1) applies.

    (3) This section applies to a payment made by personal representatives (within the meaning given in section 701(4)) where—

    (a) the deceased would have been liable to make the payment if he had not died, and

    (b) this section would have applied to the payment if he had made it.

    (4) A maintenance payment arising outside the United Kingdom shall not be within the charge to tax under Case V of Schedule D if, because of this section, it would not have been within the charge to tax under Case III if it had arisen in the United Kingdom; and for this purpose "maintenance payment" means a periodical payment (not being an instalment of a lump sum) which satisfies the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 347B(5).
    (5) No deduction shall be made under section 65(1)(b) on account of an annuity or other annual payment which would not have been within the charge to tax under Case III of Schedule D if it had arisen in the United Kingdom.
    Qualifying maintenance payments
    347B. — (1) In this section "qualifying maintenance payment" means a periodical payment which—

    (a) is made under an order by a court in the United Kingdom, or under a written agreement the proper law of which is the law of a part of the United Kingdom,

    (b) is made by one of the parties to a marriage (including a marriage which has been dissolved or annulled) either—

    (i) to or for the benefit of the other party and for the maintenance of the other party, or

    (ii) to the other party for the maintenance by the other party of any child of the family,

    (c) is due at a time when—

    (i) the two parties are not a married couple living together, and

    (ii) the party to whom or for whose benefit the payment is made has not remarried, and

    (d) is not a payment in respect of which relief from tax is available to the person making the payment under any provision of the Income Tax Acts other than this section.

    (2) Notwithstanding section 347A(1)(a) but subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, a person making a claim for the purpose shall be entitled, in computing his total income for a year of assessment, to deduct an amount equal to the aggregate amount of any qualifying maintenance payments made by him which fall due in that year.
    (3) The amount which may be deducted under this section by a person in computing his total income for a year of assessment shall not exceed the amount of the difference between the higher (married person's) relief and the lower (single person's) relief under subsection (1) of section 257 as it applies for the year to a person not falling within subsection (2) or (3) of that section.
    (4) Where qualifying maintenance payments falling due in a year of assessment are made by a person who also makes other maintenance payments attracting relief for that year, subsection (3) above shall apply as if the limit imposed by it were reduced by an amount equal to the aggregate amount of those other payments.
    (5) The reference in subsection (4) above to other maintenance payments attracting relief for a year is a reference to periodical payments which—

    (a) are made under an order made by a court (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) or under a written or oral agreement, and

    (b) are made by a person—

    (i) as one of the parties to a marriage (including a marriage which has been dissolved or annulled) to or for the benefit of the other party to the marriage and for the maintenance of the other party, or

    (ii) to any person under 21 years of age for his own benefit, maintenance or education, or

    (iii) to any person for the benefit, maintenance or education of a person under 21 years of age,

    135
    and in respect of which the person making them is entitled otherwise than under this section to make a deduction in computing his income for the year.

    (6) The reference in subsection (1) above to a married couple living together shall be construed in accordance with section 282(1), but section 282(2) shall not apply for the purposes of this section.
    (7) In this section—

    (a) "child of the family", in relation to the parties to a marriage, means a person under 21 years of age—

    (i) who is a child of both those parties, or

    (ii) who (not being a person who has been boarded out with them by a public authority or voluntary organisation) has been treated by both of them as a child of their family; and

    (b) "periodical payment" does not include an instalment of a lump sum."

    (2) The following sections shall be inserted at the beginning of Part II of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970—
    "General rule.
    51(A). —(1) A payment to which this section applies shall not be a charge on the income of the person liable to make it, and accordingly—

    (a) his income shall be computed without any deduction being made on account of the payment, and

    (b) the payment shall not form part of the income of the person to whom it is made or of any other person.

    (2) This section applies to any annual payment made by an individual which would otherwise be within the charge to tax under Case III of Schedule D except—

    (a) a payment of interest;

    (b) a covenanted payment to charity (within the meaning given by section 434(2) below);

    (c) a payment made for bona fide commercial reasons in connection with the individual's trade, profession or vocation; and

    (d) a payment to which section 48(1) of the Finance Act 1977 applies.

    (3) This section applies to a payment made by personal representatives (within the meaning given in section 432(4) below) where—

    (a) the deceased would have been liable to make the payment if he had not died, and

    (b) this section would have applied to the payment if he had made it.

    (4) A maintenance payment arising outside the United Kingdom shall not be within the charge to tax under Case V of Schedule D if, because of this section, it would not have been within the charge to tax under Case III if it had arisen in the United Kingdom; and for this purpose "maintenance payment" means a periodical payment (not being an instalment of a lump sum) which satisfies the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 51 B(5) below.
    (5) No deduction shall be made under section 122(1)(b) below on account of an annuity or other annual payment which would not have been within the charge to tax under Case III of Schedule D if it had arisen in the United Kingdom.
    Qualifying maintenance payments
    51B. — (1) In this section "qualifying maintenance payment" means a periodical payment which—

    (a) is made under an order made by a court in the United Kingdom, or under a written agreement the proper law of which is the law of a part of the United Kingdom,

    (b) is made by one of the parties to a marriage (including a marriage which has been dissolved or annulled) either—

    (i) to or for the benefit of the other party and for the maintenance of the other party, or

    (ii) to the other party for the maintenance by the other party of any child of the family,

    (c) is due at at time when—

    (i) the two parties are not a married couple living together, and

    (ii) the party to whom or for whose benefit the payment is made has not remarried, and

    136

    (d) is not a payment in respect of which relief from tax is available to the person making the payment under any provision of the Income Tax Acts other than this section.

    (2) Notwithstanding section 51A(1)(a) above but subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, a person making a claim for the purpose shall be entitled, in computing his total income for the year 1987–88, to deduct an amount equal to the aggregate amount of any qualifying maintenance payments made by him which fall due in that year.
    (3) The amount which may be deducted under this section by a person in computing his total income for the year 1987–88 shall not exceed £1,370.
    (4) Where qualifying maintenance payments falling due in the year 1987–88 are made by a person who also makes other maintenance payments attracting relief for that year, subsection (3) above shall apply as if the limit imposed by it were reduced by an amount equal to the aggregate amount of those other payments.
    (5) The reference in subsection (4) above to other maintenance payments attracting relief for the year 1987–88 is a reference to periodical payments which—

    (a) are made under an order made by a court (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) or under a written or oral agreement, and

    (b) are made by a person—

    (i) as one of the parties to a marriage (including a marriage which has been disolved or annulled) to or for the benefit of the other party to the marriage and for the maintenance of the other party, or

    (ii) to any person under 21 years of age for his own benefit, maintenance or education, or

    (iii) to any person for the benefit, maintenance or education of a person under 21 years of age,

    and in respect of which the person making them is entitled otherwise than under this section to make a deduction in computing his income for the year.

    (6) The reference in subsection (1) above to a married couple living together shall be construed in accordance with section 42(1) above, but section 42(2) above shall not apply for the purposes of this section.
    (7) In this section—

    (a) "child of the family", in relation to the parties to a marriage, means a person under 21 years of age—

    (i) who is a child of both those parties, or

    (ii) who (not being a person who has been hoarded out with them by a public authority or voluntary organisation) has been treated by both of them as a child of their family, and

    (b) "periodical payment" does not include an instalment of a lump sum."

    (3) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to any payment falling due on or after 15th March 1988 unless it is made in pursuance of an existing obligation.
    (4) In paragraph (3) above "existing obligation" means a binding obligation—

    (a) under an order made by a court (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) before 15th March 1988, or before the end of June 1988 on an application made on or before 15th March 1988;

    (b) under a deed executed or written agreement made before 15th March 1988 and received by an inspector before the end of June 1988;

    (c) under an oral agreement made before 15th March 1988, written particulars of which have been received by an inspector before the end of June 1988; or

    (d) under an order made by a court (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) on or after 15th March 1988, or under a written agreement made on or after that date, where the order or agreement replaces, varies or supplements an order or agreement within this subsection;

    but subject to paragraph (5) below.
    (5) An obligation within paragraph (4)(d) above is an existing obligation only if—

    (a) it is an obligation to make periodical payments (not being instalments of a lump sum) which arc made by a person—

    137

    (i) as one of the parties to a marriage (including a marriage which has been dissolved or annulled) to or for the benefit of the other party to the marriage and for the maintenance of the other party, or

    (ii) to any person under 21 years of age for his own benefit, maintenance or education, or

    (iii) to any person for the benefit, maintenance or education of a person under 21 years of age, and

    (b) the order or agreement replaced, varied or supplemented provided for such payments to be made for the benefit, maintenance or, as the case may be, education of the same person.

    (6) Section 351 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and section 65 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 shall not apply to any payment in relation to which this Resolution has effect.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    17. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (LIMIT FOR 1988–89)
    Resolved,
    That, for the year 1988–89, the qualifying maximum referred to in sections 357 and 365(3) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (limit on relief for interest on certain loans) shall be £30,000.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1986.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    18. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (HOME LOANS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about relief for interest paid in relation to any land, caravan or house-boat used or to be used as an only or main residence.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    19. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (HOME IMPROVEMENTS)
    Question put,
    That—
    (1) In relation to payments of interest made on or after 6th April 1988 section 355 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (limitations on relief for loans for purchase or improvement of land etc.) shall have effect with the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (2)—
    "(2A) Section 354 shall not apply by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above where the interest is paid on a home improvement loan unless the loan was made before 6th April 1988.
    (2B) In subsection (2A) above "home improvement loan" means—

    (a) a loan to defray money applied in improving or developing land or buildings on land, otherwise than by the erection of a new building (which is not part of an existing residence) on land which immediately before the improvement or development began had no building on it, or

    (b) a loan replacing (whether directly or indirectly) a loan within paragraph (a) above.

    (2C) Where it is proved by written evidence that a loan made on or after 6th April 1988 was made in pursuance of an offer made by the lender before that date and that the offer either was in writing or was evidenced by a note or memorandum made by the lender before that date, the loan shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (2A) above to have been made before that date."
    (2) In relation to payments of interest made on or after 6th April 1988 section 356 of that Act (job-related accommodation) shall have effect with the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1)—
    "(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the interest is paid on a home improvement loan (as defined in section 355 (2B)) unless the loan was made before 6th April 1988; and section 355 (2C) shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as for those of section 355 (2A)."
    (3) Interest paid by a housing association on a home improvement loan made on or after 6th April 1988 shall not be relevant loan interest for the purposes of Part IX of that Act; and for the purposes of this paragraph—

    (a) "housing association" means a housing association for the time being approved for the purposes of section 488 of that Act or a self-build society for the time being approved for the purposes of section 489,

    (b) "home improvement loan" has the same meaning as in subsection (2B) of section 355 of that Act, and

    (c) subsection (2C) of that section shall have effect as it does for the purposes of subsection (2A) of that section.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]
    The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 218.

    Division No. 220]

    [10.42 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baldry, Tony

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Allason, Rupert

    Batiste, Spencer

    Amess, David

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Amos, Alan

    Bellingham, Henry

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Benyon, W.

    Ashby, David

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Atkins, Robert

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    140

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bottomley, Peter

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Gorst, John

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gow, Ian

    Bowis, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brazier, Julian

    Gregory, Conal

    Bright, Graham

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Grist, Ian

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

    Ground, Patrick

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Grylls, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Burns, Simon

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burt, Alistair

    Hannam, John

    Butcher, John

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

    Butler, Chris

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Butterfill, John

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hayward, Robert

    Cash, William

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heddle, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Churchill, Mr

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

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

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Holt, Richard

    Colvin, Michael

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Conway, Derek

    Howard, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Cran, James

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Critchley, Julian

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Day, Stephen

    Irvine, Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Irving, Charles

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jack, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Janman, Tim

    Dover, Den

    Jessel, Toby

    Dunn, Bob

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Durant, Tony

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Eggar, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Evennett, David

    Kilfedder, James

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Fallon, Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Farr, Sir John

    Knapman, Roger

    Favell, Tony

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knowles, Michael

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Knox, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lang, Ian

    Forth, Eric

    Latham, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Franks, Cecil

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Freeman, Roger

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    French, Douglas

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fry, Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gale, Roger

    Lightbown, David

    Gardiner, George

    Lilley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Gill, Christopher

    Lord, Michael

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    141

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    McCrindle, Robert

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Scott, Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Madel, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Mans, Keith

    Shersby, Michael

    Maples, John

    Sims, Roger

    Marland, Paul

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Speed, Keith

    Mates, Michael

    Speller, Tony

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Squire, Robin

    Mellor, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Steen, Anthony

    Miller, Hal

    Stern, Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Stevens, Lewis

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Moate, Roger

    Stokes, John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Sumberg, David

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Needham, Richard

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Neubert, Michael

    Thorne, Neil

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Paice, James

    Trippier, David

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Trotter, Neville

    Patnick, Irvine

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Pawsey, James

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Walden, George

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Portillo, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Walters, Dennis

    Price, Sir David

    Ward, John

    Raffan, Keith

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rathbone, Tim

    Watts, John

    Redwood, John

    Wheeler, John

    Renton, Tim

    Whitney, Ray

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wilkinson, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Wilshire, David

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wolfson, Mark

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Wood, Timothy

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Woodcock, Mike

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Yeo, Tim

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Rost, Peter

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

    Ryder, Richard

    Mr. Peter Lloyd.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Alton, David

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Allen, Graham

    Armstrong, Hilary

    142

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Gordon, Mildred

    Ashton, Joe

    Gould, Bryan

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Barron, Kevin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Battle, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Beckett, Margaret

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Beith, A. J.

    Haynes, Frank

    Bell, Stuart

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Heffer, Eric S.

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

    Henderson, Doug

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Blair, Tony

    Holland, Stuart

    Boyes, Roland

    Home Robertson, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Howells, Geraint

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hume, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Illsley, Eric

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ingram, Adam

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Janner, Greville

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    John, Brynmor

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Clay, Bob

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Clelland, David

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Kennedy, Charles

    Cohen, Harry

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Coleman, Donald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Leighton, Ron

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cousins, Jim

    Lewis, Terry

    Cox, Tom

    Livingstone, Ken

    Crowther, Stan

    Livsey, Richard

    Cryer, Bob

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cummings, John

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cunlirfe, Lawrence

    McAllion, John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dalyell, Tarn

    McCartney, Ian

    Darling, Alistair

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McFall, John

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

    McGrady, Eddie

    Dewar, Donald

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Dixon, Don

    McKelvey, William

    Dobson, Frank

    McLeish, Henry

    Doran, Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Douglas, Dick

    McTaggart, Bob

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McWilliam, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Madden, Max

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Eadie, Alexander

    Marek, Dr John

    Eastham, Ken

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Maxton, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Meacher, Michael

    Faulds, Andrew

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fisher, Mark

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Flannery, Martin

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flynn, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Foster, Derek

    Mullin, Chris

    Foulkes, George

    Murphy, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Nellist, Dave

    Galbraith, Sam

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Galloway, George

    O'Neill, Martin

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    George, Bruce

    Parry, Robert

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Patchett, Terry

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Pendry, Tom

    143

    Pike, Peter L.

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Stott, Roger

    Prescott, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Straw, Jack

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Randall, Stuart

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Redmond, Martin

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Turner, Dennis

    Reid, Dr John

    Vaz, Keith

    Richardson, Jo

    Wall, Pat

    Robertson, George

    Walley, Joan

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rogers, Allan

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Rooker, Jeff

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wilson, Brian

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Winnick, David

    Short, Clare

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Skinner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Tellers for the Noes:

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

    Mrs. Ray Michie and

    Snape, Peter

    Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

    Soley, Clive

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: May I have the leave of the House to put motions 20, 21 and 22 together? There does not appear to be any objection to that being done.

    20. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (DEPENDENT RELATIVE'S RESIDENCE)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) In sections 355(1)(a) and 357(2)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 the words "or of a dependent relative or former or separated spouse of his." shall not have effect in relation to payments of interest made on or after 6th April 1988.

    (2) Paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the interest is paid on a loan made before 6th April 1988 if interest paid on it at a relevant time was eligible for relief under section 353 of that Act only because the land, caravan or house-boat concerned was used as the only or main residence of the same dependent relative or former or separated spouse.

    144

    (3) In paragraph (2) above "relevant time" means—

    (a) the last time when interest was paid on the loan before 6th April 1988, or

    (b) if no interest was paid on it before that date, any time within the period of 12 months (or any longer period substituted in relation to the case under section 355(2) of that Act) after the date on which the loan was made;

    but sub-paragraph (b) above shall not apply if at any time after the date on which the loan was made and before the date on which the land, caravan or house-boat was first used as mentioned in paragraph (2) above, the land, caravan or house-boat was used for any other purpose.

    (4) In section 358(4)(a) of that Act (relief where borrower deceased) the words "or of any dependent relative of the deceased" shall not have effect in relation to payments of interest made on or after 6th April 1988 unless—

    (a) the deceased died before that date, and

    (b) the land, caravan or house-boat was used as the only or main residence of the dependent relative before that date.

    (5) Where it is proved by written evidence that a loan made on or after 6th April 1988 was made in pursuance of an offer made by the lender before that date and that the offer either was in writing or was evidenced by a note or memorandum made by the lender before that date, the loan shall be deemed for the purposes of this Resolution to have been made before that date.

    (6) Interest paid by a housing association shall not be relevant loan interest for the purposes of Part IX of that Act where by virtue of this Resolution it would not be relevant loan interest if paid by a member of the association; and in this paragraph "housing association" means a housing association for the time being approved for the purposes of section 488 of that Act or a self-build society for the time being approved for the purposes of section 489.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    21. BENEFITS IN KIND (CARS)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) For the year 1988–89 and subsequent years of assessment, Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (taxation of directors and others in respect of cars) shall have effect with the substitution for Part I (tables of flat rate cash equivalents) of the following—

    PART I

    TABLES OF FLAT RATE CASH EQUIVALENTS

    TABLE A

    Cars with an original market value up to £19,250 and having a cylinder capacity

    Cylinder capacity of car in cubic centimetres

    Age of car at end of relevant year of assessment

    Under 4 years

    4 years or more

    1400 or less… … … … … … … … … … …

    £1,050

    £700

    More than 1400 but not more than 2000… … … …

    £1,400

    £940

    More than 2000… … … … … … … … … …

    £2,200

    £1,450

    TABLE B

    Cars with an original market value up to £19,250 and not having a cylinder capacity

    Original market value of car

    Age of car at end of relevant year of assessment

    Under 4 years

    4 years or more

    Less than £6,000 … … … … … … … … … …

    £1,050

    £700

    £6,000 or more but less than £8,500… … … … … …

    £1,400

    £940

    £8,500 or more but not more than £19,250… … … … …

    £2,200

    £1,450

    TABLE C

    Cars with an original market value of more than £19,250

    Original market value of car

    Age of car at end of relevant year of assessment

    Under 4 years

    4 years or more

    More than £19,250 but not more than £29,000

    £2,900

    £1,940

    More than £29,000… … … … … … … … …

    £4,600

    £3,060

    (2) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (pay as you earn) before 15th June 1988.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    22. WOODLANDS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the commercial occupation of woodlands.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    23. BUSINESS EXPANSION SCHEME
    Question put,
    That provision may be made amending Chapter III of Part VII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the corresponding enactments repealed by that Act. —[Mr. Lawson.]
    The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 218.

    Division No. 221]

    [10.54 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Batiste, Spencer

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Alexander, Richard

    Bellingham, Henry

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Allason, Rupert

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Amess, David

    Benyon, W.

    Amos, Alan

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Arbuthnot, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Ashby, David

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Atkins, Robert

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Baldry, Tony

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    146

    Bowis, John

    Cope, John

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Cormack, Patrick

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Cran, James

    Brazier, Julian

    Critchley, Julian

    Bright, Graham

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

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

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

    Day, Stephen

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Dover, Den

    Burns, Simon

    Dunn, Bob

    Burt, Alistair

    Durant, Tony

    Butcher, John

    Eggar, Tim

    Butler, Chris

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Butterfill, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Evennett, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Carrington, Matthew

    Fallon, Michael

    Carttiss, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Cash, William

    Favell, Tony

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Chope, Christopher

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Churchill, Mr

    Forman, Nigel

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

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Forth, Eric

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Franks, Cecil

    Colvin, Michael

    Freeman, Roger

    Conway, Derek

    French, Douglas

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Fry, Peter

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Gale, Roger

    147

    Gardiner, George

    Lilley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Gill, Christopher

    Lord, Michael

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    McCrindle, Robert

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gorst, John

    Maclean, David

    Gow, Ian

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Madel, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gregory, Conal

    Malins, Humfrey

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Mans, Keith

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Maples, John

    Grist, Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Ground, Patrick

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Grylls, Michael

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mates, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Hannam, John

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

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

    Mellor, David

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Harris, David

    Miller, Hal

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Mills, Iain

    Hayes, Jerry

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hayward, Robert

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Moate, Roger

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Heddle, John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Hind, Kenneth

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Holt, Richard

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Needham, Richard

    Howard, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

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

    Neubert, Michael

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hunter, Andrew

    Page, Richard

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Paice, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Irving, Charles

    Patnick, Irvine

    Jack, Michael

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Jackson, Robert

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Janman, Tim

    Pawsey, James

    Jessel, Toby

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Portillo, Michael

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Price, Sir David

    Kilfedder, James

    Raffan, Keith

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rathbone, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Redwood, John

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Renton, Tim

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Knowles, Michael

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Knox, David

    Riddick, Graham

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Ian

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Latham, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Rost, Peter

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lightbown, David

    Ryder, Richard

    148

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Thorne, Neil

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Scott, Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Tracey, Richard

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Trippier, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Trotter, Neville

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shersby, Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sims, Roger

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Speed, Keith

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Speller, Tony

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Walters, Dennis

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Ward, John

    Squire, Robin

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Warren, Kenneth

    Steen, Anthony

    Watts, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wheeler, John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Whitney, Ray

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Wilshire, David

    Stokes, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Woodcock, Mike

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Mr. Peter Lloyd.

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cohen, Harry

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Coleman, Donald

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Alton, David

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cousins, Jim

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Cox, Tom

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Crowther, Stan

    Ashton, Joe

    Cryer, Bob

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cummings, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Battle, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beckett, Margaret

    Darling, Alistair

    Beith, A. J.

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bell, Stuart

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dewar, Donald

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

    Dixon, Don

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dobson, Frank

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Doran, Frank

    Blair, Tony

    Douglas, Dick

    Boyes, Roland

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bradley, Keith

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Buchan, Norman

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Caborn, Richard

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Canavan, Dennis

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

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Fisher, Mark

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Flannery, Martin

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Flynn, Paul

    Clay, Bob

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Clelland, David

    Foster, Derek

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Foulkes, George

    149

    Fraser, John

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Galloway, George

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    George, Bruce

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mullin, Chris

    Gordon, Mildred

    Murphy, Paul

    Gould, Bryan

    Nellist, Dave

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Grocott, Bruce

    Parry, Robert

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Patchett, Terry

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Pendry, Tom

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Henderson, Doug

    Prescott, John

    Hinchliffe, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Holland, Stuart

    Randall, Stuart

    Home Robertson, John

    Redmond, Martin

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Reid, Dr John

    Howells, Geraint

    Richardson, Jo

    Hoyle, Doug

    Robertson, George

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rogers, Allan

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hume, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    Illsley, Eric

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ingram, Adam

    Sheerman, Barry

    Janner, Greville

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    John, Brynmor

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Short, Clare

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Kennedy, Charles

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

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Kirkwood, Archy

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

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Snape, Peter

    Leighton, Ron

    Soley, Clive

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Lewis, Terry

    Stott, Roger

    Livingstone, Ken

    Strang, Gavin

    Livsey, Richard

    Straw, Jack

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McAllion, John

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Turner, Dennis

    McCartney, Ian

    Vaz, Keith

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wall, Pat

    McFall, John

    Walley, Joan

    McGrady, Eddie

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    McKelvey, William

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McLeish, Henry

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McTaggart, Bob

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    McWilliam, John

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Madden, Max

    Wilson, Brian

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Winnick, David

    Marek, Dr John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Worthington, Tony

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Maxton, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Meacher, Michael

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Mr. Ray Powell.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Sneaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 24 to 34.

    24. PAYMENTS ON TERMINA'rION OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC.
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made abolishing relief under paragraphs 4 to 7 of Schedule 11 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    25. OIL LICENCES
    Resolved,
    That provision may he made with respect to the application of—

    (a) the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and any enactment which falls to be construed as one with that Act,

    (b) certain provisions of the Capital Allowances Act 1968, and

    (c) section 55 of and Schedules 13 and 14 to the Finance Act 1986 (capital allowances in respect of mineral extraction),

    in relation to certain disposals (including part disposals) of licences under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 and the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, being disposals occurring before as well as after the passing of this Resolution.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    26. COMPANY RESIDENCE AND MIGRATION
    Resolved,
    That charges to corporation tax may be imposed by provisions for determining whet her or not a company is to be regarded as resident in the United Kingdom, and provisions relating to companies ceasing to be resident there.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    27. CHARITIES
    Resolved,
    That, for the year 1988–89 and subsequent years of assessment, section 202(7) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (which limits to £120 the deductions attracting relief) shall have effect with the substitution of "£240" for "£120".
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    28. ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made repealing section 577(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. —[Mr. Lawson.]

    29. PREMIUMS FOR LEASES, ETC.
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made abolishing relief under Schedule 2 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. —[Mr. Lawson.]

    30. UNDERWRITERS
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision for the years of assessment 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88) may be made about underwriters.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    31. FOREIGN PUBLIC REVENUE DIVIDENDS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about dividends payable out of any public revenue, within the meaning of Part III of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, other than the public revenue of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    32. EMPLOYEE SHARE ACQUISITIONS
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the acquisition of shares or interests in shares by directors or employees (or prospective or former directors or employees).—[Mr. Lawson.]

    33. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made with respect to allowances under the Capital Allowances Act 1968 or Chapter I of Part III of the Finance Act 1971.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    34. CAPITAL GAINS TAX (RATES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the rates at which capital gains tax is chargeable and for related purposes.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    35. CAPITAL GAINS (ASSETS HELD ON 31ST MARCH 1982)
    Question put,
    That provision may be made as to the taxation of capital gains and losses on the disposal of assets acquired on or before 31st March 1982, and as to related matters.—[Mr. Lawson.]
    The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 191.

    Division No. 222]

    [11.06 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Alexander, Richard

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Allason, Rupert

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Alton, David

    Burns, Simon

    Amess, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Amos, Alan

    Butcher, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butler, Chris

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ashby, David

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Atkins, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Cash, William

    Baldry, Tony

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Batiste, Spencer

    Chope, Christopher

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Churchill, Mr

    Beggs, Roy

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

    Beith, A. J.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Colvin, Michael

    Benyon, W.

    Conway, Derek

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Cope, John

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cran, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Critchley, Julian

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bottomley, Peter

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

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Day, Stephen

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brazier, Julian

    Dover, Den

    Bright, Graham

    Dunn, Bob

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Durant, Tony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Eggar, Tim

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

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    152

    Evennett, David

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Fallon, Michael

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Favell, Tony

    Kennedy, Charles

    Fearn, Ronald

    Kilfedder, James

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Forman, Nigel

    Knapman, Roger

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Forth, Eric

    Knowles, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Knox, David

    Franks, Cecil

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Freeman, Roger

    Lang, Ian

    French, Douglas

    Latham, Michael

    Fry, Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Gale, Roger

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Gardiner, George

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Gill, Christopher

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Lightbown, David

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Lilley, Peter

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Livsey, Richard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Lord, Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Gorst, John

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Gow, Ian

    McCrindle, Robert

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Maclean, David

    Gregory, Conal

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Grist, Ian

    Madel, David

    Ground, Patrick

    Maginnis, Ken

    Grylls, Michael

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mans, Keith

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Maples, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Marland, Paul

    Hannam, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Harris, David

    Mates, Michael

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hayes, Jerry

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hayward, Robert

    Mellor, David

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Heddle, John

    Miller, Hal

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Moate, Roger

    Holt, Richard

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Howard, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Howells, Geraint

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Needham, Richard

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hunter, Andrew

    Neubert, Michael

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Irvine, Michael

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Irving, Charles

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Jack, Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Jackson, Robert

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Janman, Tim

    Page, Richard

    Jessel, Toby

    Paice, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    153

    Patnick, Irvine

    Stern, Michael

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Pawsey, James

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Stokes, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Portillo, Michael

    Sumberg, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Raffan, Keith

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Redwood, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Renton, Tim

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Thorne, Neil

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thurnham, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Tracey, Richard

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Tredinnick, David

    Rost, Peter

    Trippier, David

    Rowe, Andrew

    Trotter, Neville

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ryder, Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Scott, Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Waller, Gary

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Walters, Dennis

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Ward, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Shersby, Michael

    Watts, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wheeler, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Whitney, Ray

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wilkinson, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Wilshire, David

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wolfson, Mark

    Speed, Keith

    Wood, Timothy

    Speller, Tony

    Woodcock, Mike

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Yeo, Tim

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Squire, Robin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

    Steen, Anthony

    Mr. Peter Lloyd.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Caborn, Richard

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Ashton, Joe

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clay, Bob

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Clelland, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Battle, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Beckett, Margaret

    Coleman, Donald

    Bell, Stuart

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

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

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cousins, Jim

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cox, Tom

    Blair, Tony

    Crowther, Stan

    Boyes, Roland

    Cryer, Bob

    Bradley, Keith

    Cummings, John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Buchan, Norman

    Darling, Alistair

    154

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McTaggart, Bob

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

    McWilliam, John

    Dewar, Donald

    Madden, Max

    Dixon, Don

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dobson, Frank

    Marek, Dr John

    Doran, Frank

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Douglas, Dick

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Maxton, John

    Eadie, Alexander

    Meacher, Michael

    Eastham, Ken

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fisher, Mark

    Mullin, Chris

    Flannery, Martin

    Murphy, Paul

    Flynn, Paul

    Nellist, Dave

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Foster, Derek

    O'Neill, Martin

    Foulkes, George

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Fraser, John

    Parry, Robert

    Galbraith, Sam

    Patchett, Terry

    Galloway, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Pike, Peter L.

    George, Bruce

    Prescott, John

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Randall, Stuart

    Gordon, Mildred

    Redmond, Martin

    Gould, Bryan

    Flees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Reid, Dr John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Richardson, Jo

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Robertson, George

    Grocott, Bruce

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Rogers, Allan

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rooker, Jeff

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Henderson, Doug

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Holland, Stuart

    Sheerman, Barry

    Home Robertson, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Short, Clare

    Hoyle, Doug

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Snape, Peter

    Illsley, Eric

    Soley, Clive

    Ingram, Adam

    Stott, Roger

    Janner, Greville

    Strang, Gavin

    John, Brynmor

    Straw, Jack

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Turner, Dennis

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Wall, Pat

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Walley, Joan

    Leighton, Ron

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Lewis, Terry

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wilson, Brian

    McAllion, John

    Winnick, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McCartney, Ian

    Worthington, Tony

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    McFall, John

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McKelvey, William

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    McLeish, Henry

    Mr. Ray Powell.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 36 to 49 together.

    36. CAPITAL GAINS (MARRIED COUPLES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about chargeable gains of husbands and wives.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    37. CAPITAL GAINS (ANNUAL EXEMPT AMOUNT)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made as to the operation of section 5 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 for the year 1988–89.[Mr. Lawson.]

    38. CAPITAL GAINS (DEPENDENT RELATIVE'S RESIDENCE)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made removing the relief given by section 105 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979. —[Mr. Lawson.]

    39. CAPITAL GAINS (INDEXATION)
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made removing indexation allowance in the case of shares in building societies and industrial and provident societies and of certain disposals by companies of shares or debts.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    40. TRANSFERS WITHIN A GROUP
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made excluding certain cases from the operation of section 273 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    41. PERSONAL EQUITY PLANS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made enabling regulations under section 149D of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 to secure, in relation to disposals on or after 18th January 1988, that losses are in certain circumstances disregarded for the purposes of capital gains tax.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    42. INVESTMENT TRUSTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending the definition of "investment trust" in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and treating section 93(6) of the Finance Act 1972 as not having been repealed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    43. ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about assessments relating to income arising in the year for which the assessments are made. —[Mr. Lawson.]

    44. OIL ALLOWANCE
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made reducing the oil allowance under section 8 of the Oil Taxation Act 1975 in respect of certain oil fields.[Mr. Lawson.]

    45. STAMP DUTY (ABOLITION OF CAPITAL DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning with 22nd March 1988 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
    (1) The stamp duties chargeable by virtue of section 47 of the Finance Act 1973 and Article 8 of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (stamp duties on documents relating to chargeable transactions of capital companies) are abolished; and accordingly—
    156

    (a) that section, section 48 of that Act and Schedule 19 to that Act; and

    (b) that Article, Article 9 of that Order and Schedule 2 to that Order,

    shall cease to have effect.
    (2) Paragraph (1) above shall have effect in relation to—

    (a) any transaction occurring on or after 22nd March 1988;

    (b) any transaction occurring on or after 16th March 1988 in respect of which the relevant document is not stamped before 22nd March 1988;

    (c) any exempt transaction occurring before 22nd March 1988 in respect of which a relevant event occurs on or after 22nd March 1988; and

    (d) any exempt transaction occurring before 16th March 1988 in respect of which a relevant event occurs on or after 16th March 1988 and the relevant duty is not paid before 22nd March 1988.

    (3) For the purposes of section 14(4) of the Stamp Act 1891 (instruments not to be given in evidence etc. unless stamped in accordance with the law in force at the time of execution), the law in force—

    (a) in a case falling within paragraph (2)(b) above, at the time of execution of the relevant document; or

    (b) in a case falling within paragraph (2)(d) above, on the date on which the relevant event occurs,

    shall be deemed to be that as varied in accordance with this Resolution.
    (4) In this Resolution—
    "exempt transaction" means a transaction which is exempt by virtue of paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 19 to the Finance Act 1973.
    "relevant document" has the meaning given by section 47 of that Act;
    "relevant duty" means the duty payable under paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 19 to that Act;
    "relevant event" means such an event as is mentioned in paragraph 10(3)(a) or (b) of Schedule 19 to that Act;
    and any reference in this paragraph to section 47 of or Schedule 19 to that Act includes a reference to Article 8 of or Schedule 2 to the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973. —[Mr. Lawson.]

    46. STAMP DUTY (ABOLITION OF UNIT TRUST INSTRUMENT DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning with 22nd March 1988 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
    (1) The stamp duty chargeable by virtue of the heading in Schedule 1 to the Stamp Act 1891 "Unit Trust Instrument" is abolished; and accordingly that heading and the following enactments, namely—

    (a) section 53 of the Finance Act 1946;

    (b) section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 1946;

    (c) section 30 of the Finance Act 1962; and

    (d) section 3 of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 1962,

    shall cease to have effect.
    (2) Paragraph (1) above shall have effect in relation to—

    (a) any trust instrument executed on or after 22nd March 1988;

    (b) any trust instrument executed on or after 16th March 1988 which is not stamped before 22nd March 1988;

    (c) any property becoming trust property on or after 22nd March 1988; and

    (d) any property becoming trust property on or after 16th March 1988 in respect of which the trust instrument is not stamped before 22nd March 1988.

    (3) For the purposes of section 14(4) of the Stamp Act 1891 (instruments not to be given in evidence etc. unless stamped in accordance with the law in force at the time of execution), the law in force—

    (a) at the time of execution of a trust instrument falling within paragraph (2)(b) above; or

    (b) on the day on which property falling within

    paragraph (2)(d) above becomes trust property, shall be deemed to be that as varied in accordance with this Resolution.
    (4) In this Resolution "trust instrument" and "trust property" have the meanings given by section 57 of the Finance Act 1946 or section 28 of the Finance (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 1946.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    47. STAMP DUTY (PAIRED SHARES)
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made with respect to stamp duty in cases where shares in a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and shares in a company not so incorporated may not be transferred except in units each comprising one share in each company.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    48. STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX
    Resolved,
    That charges to stamp duty reserve tax may be imposed by provisions (including provisions having retrospective effect) relating to that tax.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    49. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES
    Resolved,
    That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from tax. — [Mr. Lawson.]

    PROCEDURE (FURTHER TAXATION)
    Resolved,
    That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

    (a) provisions about the taxation of persons who are or have been married,

    158

    (b)provisions about the application of Chapter I of Part VII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to individuals not resident in the United Kingdom,

    (c)provisions about relief under section 259 of that Act,

    (d)provisions reducing the percentages specified in sections 266(5)(a) and 274(3)(a) of, and paragraph 3(3)(a) of Schedule 14 to, that Act, and

    (e)provisions amending the Taxes Management Act 1970.—[Mr. Lawson.]

    FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL [MONEY]:
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of .any Act resulting from the Finance (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making out of money provided by Parliament of payments to General Commissioners acting for divisions in Northern Ireland and payments to or in respect of clerks and assistant clerks to such Commissioners.—[Mr. Lawson.]
    Ordered,
    That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, 14r. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Secretary Parkinson, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley do prepare and bring it in.

    FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL
    Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance : And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
    11.20 pm
    Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not have noticed that just before you called the 10 o'clock Division there was without a shadow of a doubt physical violence inflicted by the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have not seen such violence in the House since the night on which the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) ran about with the Mace, threatening to batter everyone over the head. Surely you have some obligation to control these Tory hooligans — [interruption.]—once and for all.
    Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy with the Patronage Secretary for what he had to do.

Education Reform [Money] (No. 3)
Queen's Recommendation have been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to promote learning or research or in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for educational purposes. —[Mrs. Rumbold.]
11.21 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: That was a very strange way to move an important money resolution. The Minister only just managed to get to the Dispatch Box.
The House is owed some explanation of why the money resolution is before us. This is the third money resolution for the Education Reform Bill. We had one in December to coincide with the Bill's Second Reading. We had another when the Government decided to abolish the Inner London education authority, and we have a third today. None of the resolutions has bought one additional penny to be spent on the education service. There seems to be an inverse relationship—more money resolutions, less money to be spent by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
One gets the impression that the Bill grows and grows and it is probably appropriate that we should have a third money resolution simply because of that. When the Bill was read a Second time, it contained 147 clauses. There are an additional 39 clauses with the promise of further Government new clauses on Report over the next few days.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very diligent. Has he looked at the notices of amendments tabled for tomorrow? I am sure that he has. He will have noted that the Government new clause 41 is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. New clause 42 is in the name of Mr. Stanley Baker. Is it in order for dead film stars to table Government new clauses?
Mr. Fatchett: I cannot say whether that is valid. However, I fear that we may well have a dead Education Secretary if all the recent divisions between Downing street and Elizabeth house are anything to go by.
One gains the impression that the Secretary of State is trying to ensure that even if he does not produce the most significant education Bill of all time, he at least produces the longest. He is also trying to ensure that he gets everything down on paper before he moves on to some other office or out of office altogether.
It would have been appropriate for the Minister of State to give us some explanation of the money resolution.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Because the hon. Gentleman's speech would have been easier.
Mr. Fatchett: Certainly, but clearly the Government have abrogated all responsibility in these matters. It is a mistake to pretend that this is a clever tactic. The Minister had a full and attentive House, waiting to find out the reason for the resolution.
There are two possible explanations. The first, I suspect, was in the Minister's brief, as we would have heard if she had had the audacity to present it to the House. The second reason, I suggest, was the real agenda
160
behind the resolution. The first possible explanation is that new clauses 44 to 47, tabled for tomorrow, involve grants and expenditure. They would not be anything other than ultra vires if the money resolution had not been agreed tonight. So the official explanation is that the new clauses needed the resolution to be passed.
The wording of the resolution offers another explanation. It is a catch-all resolution. Having failed to get it right on two previous occasions, the Government have decided that an open resolution will not involve their returning later with yet another failed attempt to get it right. The Minister could not give us that explanation, so she will probably talk about new clauses 44 to 47.
Perhaps the Minister will have the courtesy to reply to one or two questions. New clause 44 increases to 100 per cent. the amount of grant to go to local authorities to cover student awards. What is the reason for that change? Some of my hon. Friends say that this is a paving measure to enable the Government to move to student loans some time in the next 12 or 18 months—if the Secretary of State ever finds more time for legislation. What is the purpose behind new clause 44?
New clause 44 is typical of the Bill and of the way in which the Secretary of State has managed it through its parliamentary proceedings. Yet again, the resolution involves no financial costings and does not give detailed figures of what the Bill will cost. It does not explain how it will be implemented, what it will mean for teachers, or how the national curriculum will be delivered.
Why are there no costings for the national curriculum? Why has the Secretary of State given no figures? In reply to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) last Tuesday, the Secretary of State said that it would be later this year, and possibly up to 12 months, before there would be any signs of the cost and delivery of the national curriculum. What a state for the Government to be in, 12 months after they told the country that they had a national curriculum ready to be delivered to our children and schools. In the election, the Secretary of State sold a false prospectus, and has still given us no sign of how he will deliver the national curriculum.
We also know of certain local difficulties between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State over testing. The Secretary of State believes we should have the differentiated diagnostic approach set out in the Black committee report, whereas the Prime Minister believes in simple pass-fail tests. She is also concerned that the Black report will be costly to implement. I do not know how she comes to that conclusion, because the Secretary of State —in character—has never provided any figures of how much he expects assessment to cost.
If we are to be able to make a judgment between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, it might be useful—it might have happened in the resolution—if the Secretary of State could provide some figures showing the cost of assessment. We are keen to support the Secretary of State as, on this issue, we believe that he is right in his support for the Black report.
It would be helpful to us if the Secretary of State could tell us how much he will make available for assessment and testing in the manner advocated by the Black report. How can he find friends if he does not provide that information? I know that he is desperately seeking friends, but if he wants to win the argument and show the Conservative party and the electorate that he has the courage to stand up to the Prime Minister, he should give us the figures so

161
that we can base our arguments and support on some concrete evidence. All we can do at the moment is recognise that the Secretary of State's intuition, the learning of the Black report and all good education practice point in one direction and that the Prime Minister, yet again, points in another.
City technology colleges may also be covered by this catch-all resolution. Two years ago, the Secretary of State told the Conservative party conference that there would be a network of CTCs by the autumn of 1989. Each of the new model Baker schools—all 20 of them—were to be supported by private money. Private enterprise would put up a substantial part of the capital. That was the policy. It was to be a new partnership between British industry and the Secretary of State.
There are rumours that the Secretary of State has gone from firm to firm looking for sponsors, but all he has found is the door, because every industrialist has said that the state education system is preferable to the Baker model schools. With great desperation, he is now going around trying to tempt more and more industrialists, but with less and less success. It is yet another scheme from the man who brought the poll tax to the country. He has failed with CTCs but, in desperation, he is changing their nature. They were to be private enterprise schools. They were supported and cheered at the Conservative party conference because of it. They were a breakthrough. No longer are they private enterprise or even privatised schools. They are now nationalised schools. They are to be a new type of Secretary of State-controlled school, with the money coming from the Treasury.
In Nottingham, 80 per cent, of the capital cost is being met by the Treasury. That figure, on account of the money resolution, could increase to 100 per cent., because there is no control over how much will be spent or how it will be spent. The Government have failed with CTCs and are now looking for a way in which to introduce their nationalised schools.
Mr. Graham Allen: Conservative Members appear to have been struck dumb in defence of the resolution. Although 80 per cent. of the capital cost was apparently to be provided for CTCs, in Nottingham, where a CTC is being imposed, the Government are prepared to put three times as much money into one CTC as into the capital programme for 556 schools in the whole of Nottinghamshire. That sum has proved not to be enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that 85 per cent. of the capital cost will be met by the Treasury? Does he expect that figure to go even higher because private interest in CTCs is even less than the Secretary of State projected?
Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He was right to say that the Government are prepared to spend much more capital on the CTCs than on the whole of the Nottinghamshire education system. He was also right to say that the Government are desperately looking for sponsors to get the CTCs off the ground.
This is a catch-all money resolution which will allow the Government to spend as they wish, although they do not know how they will spend because they have failed to do their homework on the Bill. The House is owed an explanation of the money resolution from the Minister of State. She has treated the House with contempt by not offering one.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: She has chickened out.
Mr. Fatchett: Yes, and I shall come to that point in a moment.
It is without precedent to have three money resolutions for one Bill. It must also be without precedent for the Minister, on the third occasion, not to have the courtesy to explain why the Government have had to bring to the House another money resolution. There were times in Committee when the Minister's performance was an embarrassment to the Secretary of State, but it is taking that too far for the Secretary o r State to silence her tonight. She owes us the courtesy of replying to the points raised——
Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend may recall that in Committee I said that the assisted places scheme was running wild. One school with 1,200 pupils has 459 with grants of at least £2,000 each. That school is receiving almost: £1 million of public money for private education. With 126 more schools joining the gravy train, the figures involved are enormous. The Government have not fully understood the money that they will have to pay out on that and other schemes. [Interruption.]
Mr. Fatchett: The Under-Secretary makes his usual sedentary comments, to which we became accustomed in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) made a valid point about the assisted places scheme. It was only last Tuesday, during Question Time, that I said that £4,000 per year would be paid for some places on the scheme, yet just over £2,000 a year is considered to be overspending on our children who are educated in ILEA schools. That sort of double standard and hypocrisy is typical of this Government.
To conclude——
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Good.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman makes all sorts of noises. I am trying to explain to him what the Minister has singularly failed to explain. I should be sorely disappointed if I allowed the usually vacuous head of the hon. Gentleman to remain such on this occasion. I have attempted to provide him with some information, and I hope that the Minister will reinforce what I have said.
We shall divide the House on the money resolution because it gives the Government absolute power with no accountability and no responsibility, and because there has been no preparation for how the money will be spent.
11.39 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief at this late hour, but I cannot begin my speech without first rejecting absolutely the remarks made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman when he tried to say that the Secretary of State has sold the country a false prospectus. That is most unfair and wrong and, what is more, it will be seen as a typical statement from the Opposition, when they do not understand how much the Bill will be welcomed by parents and by those who want I o see the level of education raised in this country.
Secondly, it is worth pointing out that this money resolution, about which the Opposition are making so much fuss, has been introduced because they wanted it. It is to meet what they had requested.

163
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will see that the money resolution authorises the payment of sums
"for making grants to promote learning or research".
I am concerned that the amount of space research that has been taking place at an academic level has declined, is declining and must be reversed. As a great deal more research into space is carried out in Europe, will my hon. Friend ensure that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in dealing with money under this resolution, will look again at the areas in which research can be dealt with, in the hope that we might be able to reverse the loss of money into research that we have seen from the Department of Trade and Industry, and that we might be able to have further increases from the academic side? Will she request her right hon. Friend to consider that matter when the Bill has passed into an Act?
11.42 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) told us that the Bill was popular. I wish that he would allow his prejudice to be embellished by a few facts. All the evidence that is available to us, both in the latest opinion polls and in individual soundings of parents up and down the country, shows quite the contrary. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has gone on to explain his Bill in more detail, the weight of opinion against it has increased and strengthened. The latest opinion polls, which I read over the past weekend, showed that a mere 29 per cent. of the people of Britain would now be inclined to vote Conservative because of the Bill, rather than 45 per cent. who would be less inclined——
Sir Peter Emery: It is 46 per cent.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: It is 46 per cent.
Mr. Ashdown: —rather than the 46 per cent. who would be less inclined to vote for the Conservative party because of the Bill. Under those circumstances it is absolute nonsense for the hon. Member for Honiton to decide that that means that the public support the Bill.
Sir Peter Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman like me to reply?
Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to on this point.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The recent public opinion polls show complete support for the Government. There is no decline in support for the Government. The only decline seems to be for some Opposition party which seems to have the support of only 6 per cent. of the public at the moment.
Mr. Ashdown: Time will tell—[Interruption.]—just as it has told on the Government, as their proposals have become more broadly known. As there has been more discussion, public opinion in support of the so-called Education Reform Bill has got less and less.
If one opposes a Bill as strenously as we oppose this, there are always very good reasons for opposing the money resolution also. If one opposes the ends, one must oppose the means. So it is not surprising that we oppose the money resolution.
But there are stronger reasons than for the average case. This resolution is not only bad, but dangerous in two
164
areas. First as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, it gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque. Having come twice to the House previously with amendments to this ill-thought-out, hastily constructed Bill, asking for approval to spend more money, on this third occasion the Government come, not with a specific proposal, but seeking an open-ended commitment that will allow them to raise more money for whatever changes they may have to make. Once again, the Secretary of State's powers have been increased in general and in particular.
The Government have not thought the Bill out. Certainly, those of us who have sat through the Committee proceedings from beginning to end realise that time and again, even the Secretary of State has not been aware of the detailed implications of individual provisions, let alone thought them through, so powerful is the rule of dogma over practicalities.
Secondly, we understand the special circumstances in which the Secretary of State finds himself. Not only must he change the Bill today and, as the resolution shows, in future, because he has not thought it through, but, under the resolution, he will be forced to make changes because of pressures from the Prime Minister and the Conservative Right wing. That has happened in the past and the request for this blank cheque is a clear sign that that is what the Secretary of State expects to happen in future.
I oppose the wording of the resolution because it gives that power to the Secretary of State and points up his inefficiency in sorting out the details of the Bill. It is a sign that he will have to give in to the lobbying forces which are already working on him.
There is an even more worrying reason to oppose the money resolution. I suspect that the Government want to introduce a resolution now because of new clause 47. Today I rang the Department and others to discover why that new clause was being introduced. It alters section 100 of the Education Act 1944. It allows the Secretary of State to grant
"persons other than local education authorities…grants in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of educational services provided by them."
It subtly but importantly changes that wording so that the Secretary of State may provide grants under new clause 47 on the basis of this money resolution, not just in respect of educational services which are provided by non-LEA authorities, but "for the purposes of" or "in connection with" that service. Those new words are added.
The reason is undoubtedly that with those grants the Government are seeking to fund not just the bodies providing education, but those providing research, monitoring or other services to education providers—in other words, the bodies which the Prime Minister has told us she would like to see established to advise opting-out schools; anybody whom the Secretary of State may wish to provide a public grant for; anybody to monitor the operation of those providing education services; or anybody to advise and provide research. New clause 47 provides the Secretary of State with the mechanism to fund the Government's friends to do what the Government want. For instance, under the provision, there is no reason why it should not be possible to grant-aid to Mr. Stewart Sexton's nursery school for technology.
I caution the Government. Conservative Members should seriously consider whether this is the way in which they would like to go. The provisions in new clause 47, which will be enabled by the money resolution, will allow

165
a future Government or the present Government to do right across the country what the GLC has done for London schools. The GLC has funded racial monitoring organisations. New clause 47 will allow a future Labour Government to do that not only for a confined area but right across Britain.
Once again, the Secretary of State is taking an extension of powers that he says that he will not use in such a way. But the House should be under no misunderstanding. Such powers will exist and will be used in that fashion in future. That cannot be a wise extension of the Secretary of State's powers. That cannot be a sensible way in which to legislate. That cannot be a reasonable way to provide money for the Government to distort and damage our future education system. Those two reasons are related to handing to the Secretary of State power that he should not have, that a Labour Secretary of State should not have, and, indeed, that a Democrat Secretary of State should not have. They are unconstitutional and undemocratic powers. For that reason, we shall vote against them.
11.51 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), having exhausted the possibility of obtaining money from the Manpower Services Commission for diving, now appears to be examining the powers of the public purse in space. At least it is part of the enterprise culture.
It was extraordinary that the Minister did not deign to give the House any explanation. That is typical of the elective and arrogant dictatorship that the Government have become. Ministers negligently relax on the Government Front Bench and hardly open their mouths to give the House an explanation of a resolution that, as has been pointed out on several occasions, gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. The House of Commons is owed an explanation. The House of Commons is supposed to be the body that conducts an examination of expenditure. It is supposed to be the body to which the Government are accountable. But the Under-Secretary of State can hardly stifle his yawns at the thought of some sort of democratic accountability. That is why we are here today.
The Opposition, having looked at it, know what the money resolution is about. That is the Opposition's duty. I expect that Conservative Members are a little alarmed that the Secretary of State is taking such wide powers to grant money for virtually any purpose that has even a vague connection with education.
For example, will it be possible for the Secretary of State to use the resolution to provide money for the urgent purpose of extending the Queensbury middle school in my constituency? There is not enough playground area. The local authority is supposed to provide 400 places in a school that is designed for 200 children. There are about four temporary classrooms.
Is that the sort of standard that the Education Secretary wants to maintain? Will he use some of the money that is authorised by the resolution for the relief of that sort of thing, or will he squander it on the foolish notions that he has encompassed in the Education Reform Bill? As he knows, the Bill will increase divisions in our society and, time after time, lead to a repetition of the Dewsbury situation, when money will be lavished on an opting-out scheme.
166
Will the right hon. Gentleman do something sensible, such as spend money on schools in Bradford? As he knows, unlike schools in most major cities, Bradford schools are in a predicament because there is expanding school roll. Many schools are hardly wind and watertight. The local education authority is hard-pressed to spend sufficient money to keep them wind and watertight.
In Wibsey, in my constituency, there is another school in which most of the playing areas are taken up by temporary classroom accommodation. When I, as the Member of Parliament, have raised this matter, I have been told by the local education authority that it does not have the money to build the new wing that is so much needed. Is this resolution to be used to provide money for such purposes, or is it to be squandered on this GERBIL?
Because the resolution is so widely cast, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. She no doubt has a copy of the booklet produced by the Department of Employment and the MSC on the Settle-to-Carlisle corridor. The railway is an important asset that many of us want to see retained and developed, and the booklet covers recreational, environmental, heritage, arts and crafts purposes.
All those could be considered as educational purposes. This may sound strange, but the resolution is so widely cast that it could be argued that it could empower the Secretary of State to spend money on the Settle to Carlisle railway. I want to see money spent on the railway, but it should come from the Department of Transport or from the Department of Employment. The terms of the resolution are so wide that there is no impediment to the Secretary of State for Education spending money on this.
The House of Commons should express a severe criticism of a resolution that is cast in such wide terms. I understand that a number of amendments have been tabled in Committee, but this is not a Committee of the whole House. The Bill is being examined in a Committee upstairs, so the Minister has a duty to give an explanation to the whole House.
The members of the Committee may understand why the Secretary of State has been so ham-fisted. He is fighting his way through to being a hard Right-winger, when he had so many years as a Heathite, and he used to criticise the Prime Minister, saying that the Tory party was like a bird—it had a Right wing and a Left wing, but the intelligence was in the centre. For many years, people thought that he was not going to make it to a Tory Cabinet, but he is in there now, and he is having to confront his conscience in carrying out all these Right-wing, extremist measures. He may be a bit confused, and, as a result of his confusion in Committee, he has to keep on producing money resolutions. The GERBIL is being changed week after week because from the start it has been carried out in a ham-fisted way.
We are owed an explanation. The debate can go on for another 10 minutes, and in that time, the Minister should give us an explanation of what all this is about. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I frequently talk about money resolutions, so it is pleasing that the Secretary of State seems to be getting into a habit—
Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cryer: No, I will not. I want to give the Minister time to give the explanation that should have been given at the beginning, and which, had it been given, would have short-circuited the debate.
11.58 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am sorry that so many hon. Gentlemen seem to have read so many interesting books over the weekend, because they have managed to interpret in a strange way these four new clauses, which provide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with grant-making powers, to be amended where necessary to take account of changed circumstances and need.
There is no great sinister motive in this. The resolution is required to enable these four helpful clauses to carry funding with them. I hope that when I go on to explain the meaning of each of these clauses, hon. Gentlemen will want the funding to go with them. We would have regarded it as a great shame if the money resolution had not been moved. Such is the excitement that has been engendered by this proposal that I was nervous that I might not be able to rise to explain it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), whose remarks were the most sensible that we heard this evening, for what he said. The research grants, which total about £30 million of Government money, are used for the purposes of which he spoke. When I deal with the point about grant-making for educational purposes, he will understand that his suggestion would not lie happily in the new clauses.
Mr. Fatchett: It might be helpful if the Minister would explain to us, alongside the four new clauses, why the money resolution includes the words,
"expenditure incurred or to be incurred for educational purposes."
That goes way beyond the four new clauses.
Mrs. Rumbold: If I am allowed to speak, I shall try to explain exactly what it is about.
New clause 44 deals with grants for local education authorities to cover the costs of mandatory grants and awards. Local education authorities in England and Wales have a duty under section 1(1) of the Education Act 1962 to provide awards to students on designated courses of higher education. Awards are paid under regulations which prescribe the detailed arrangements, including eligibility for awards and award rates. Authorities have very limited discretion. That has always been recognised in the reimbursement of 90 per cent. of their expenditure on awards through a grant from central Government. In addition, 10 per cent. of expenditure met by authorities is recognised in the assessment of their needs for rate support grant.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will be aware that a new system of local government finance will be introduced from 1990. The 90 per cent. grant on awards expenditure and allowance in the needs assessment for the residue will be equivalent to a 100 per cent. rate of grant on mandatory awards. We propose to simplify the arrangements by increasing the rate of grant on mandatory awards to 100 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in Exchequer support to authorities through general grant. The intention is that the change should come into effect on 1 April 1990, and I commend that to the House.
New clause 45 deals with the problem of grants for the education of travellers and displaced persons. It empowers my right hon. Friend to make regulations providing for grant to be paid to local education authorities to help to
168
meet the costs of educating travellers and refugees. Considerable effort is needed on the part of a local education authority to provide education for traveller and refugee children and to secure their regular attendance at school. The costs cannot adequately be reflected in block grant arrangements, and at present they are met through a pooling system among local authorities.
However, pooling will not be appropriate in the new system of local government finance set out in the Local Government Finance Bill. It is necessary to provide a specific grant. Detailed arrangements for the grant will be prescribed in the regulations. The costs falling on the Exchequer under the new arrangements are expected to be substantially the same as now, and again I commend this to the House.
Mr. Ian Gow: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of travellers, can she tell the House whether she has received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) a message of support for this money resolution?
Mrs. Rumbold: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), but, sadly, I must say that I have received no such message. No doubt it awaits us.
New clause 46 deals with aided or special agreement schools. It will enable my right hon. Friend to pay grant to the governors of an existing voluntary aided school, or to the promoters of a new one, in respect of their expenditure on preliminary planning and design work on building projects. Building work at aided schools is eligible for 85 per cent. grant from the Department, but the resources available to my right hon. Friend for such expenditure, as for capital work generally, are limited. It is often the case that the proposals put to him for such work are based on inadequate estimates of cost, and at present he has no power to pay grant in respect of design work.
The idea of this grant is to enable the governing bodies of such schools to have better and more informed decisions to put to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, he proposes to provide grants for design work so that those plans will not prove abortive in the future.
Clause 47 redefines and clarifies the powers of the Secretary of State to pay grants to persons and bodies other than local education authorities whose activities or objects are in the fields of education, learning or research. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) rightly said, the clause amends and adds to the existing provision in section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944. That provision is restricted to the payment of grants for expenditure for the purposes of educational services provided by the body receiving grant, or on its behalf, or under its management.
There are two elements in the new clause. Subsections (1) and (2) enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to bodies whose main purpose is the promotion of learning or research. That applies to bodies such as the British Academy and the Royal Society, and clarifies the Secretary of State's power to pay grant towards their general running expenses as well as their more specifically educational activities.
Subsection (3) redefines the group of bodies other than local education authorities that can be grant-aided and the activities for which grants can be paid—
It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 158.

Division No. 223]

[12.06 am

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Eggar, Tim

Alexander, Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Allason, Rupert

Evennett, David

Amess, David

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Amos, Alan

Fallon, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Farr, Sir John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Favell, Tony

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ashby, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Aspinwall, Jack

Forman, Nigel

Atkins, Robert

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Forth, Eric

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Baldry, Tony

Franks, Cecil

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Freeman, Roger

Batiste, Spencer

French, Douglas

Bellingham, Henry

Fry, Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Gale, Roger

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gardiner, George

Bevan, David Gilroy

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Goodlad, Alastair

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Peter

Gow, Ian

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gower, Sir Raymond

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowis, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gregory, Conal

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Brazier, Julian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bright, Graham

Grist, Ian

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Ground, Patrick

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

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

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Hanley, Jeremy

Budgen, Nicholas

Hannam, John

Burns, Simon

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

Burt, Alistair

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Butcher, John

Harris, David

Butler, Chris

Hawkins, Christopher

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carrington, Matthew

Hayward, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cash, William

Heddle, John

Chapman, Sydney

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Churchill, Mr

Hind, Kenneth

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

Holt, Richard

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howard, Michael

Colvin, Michael

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

Conway, Derek

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cope, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cran, James

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunter, Andrew

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

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Janman, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dover, Den

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

170

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Renton, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rhodes James, Robert

Kirkhope, Timothy

Riddick, Graham

Knapman, Roger

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knowles, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knox, David

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rost, Peter

Lang, Ian

Rowe, Andrew

Latham, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lawrence, Ivan

Ryder, Richard

Lee, John (Pendle)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Scott, Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lightbown, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lilley, Peter

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lord, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Sims, Roger

McCrindle, Robert

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maclean, David

Speed, Keith

McLoughlin, Patrick

Speller, Tony

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Madel, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Major, Rt Hon John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Malins, Humfrey

Steen, Anthony

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Maples, John

Stevens, Lewis

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood}

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mates, Michael

Sumberg, David

Maude, Hon Francis

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mellor, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Miller, Hal

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mills, Iain

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Thorne, Neil

Moate, Roger

Thornton, Malcolm

Monro, Sir Hector

Thurnham, Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Tracey, Richard

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Tredinnick, David

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Trippier, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trotter, Neville

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Needham, Richard

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Nelson, Anthony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Neubert, Michael

Walden, George

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waller, Gary

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Ward, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Warren, Kenneth

Oppenheim, Phillip

Watts, John

Page, Richard

Wheeler, John

Paice, James

Whitney, Ray

Patnick, Irvine

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Wilkinson, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilshire, David

Pawsey, James

Wolfson, Mark

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wood, Timothy

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Woodcock, Mike

Porter, David (Waveney)

Yeo, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Price, Sir David

Raffan, Keith

Tellers for the Ayes:

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. Tony Durant.

171

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

George, Bruce

Allen, Graham

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

Armstrong, Hilary

Gordon, Mildred

Ashdown, Paddy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Ashton, Joe

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Henderson, Doug

Barron, Kevin

Hinchliffe, David

Battle, John

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Beith, A. J.

Holland, Stuart

Bell, Stuart

Home Robertson, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

Howells, Geraint

Boyes, Roland

Hoyle, Doug

Bradley, Keith

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Illsley, Eric

Caborn, Richard

Ingram, Adam

Callaghan, Jim

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Kirkwood, Archy

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Leadbitter, Ted

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Lewis, Terry

Clay, Bob

Livsey, Richard

Clelland, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McAllion, John

Cohen, Harry

McAvoy, Thomas

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McCartney, Ian

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Corbyn, Jeremy

McFall, John

Cousins, Jim

McGrady, Eddie

Cox, Tom

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Crowther, Stan

McKelvey, William

Cryer, Bob

McLeish, Henry

Cummings, John

McWilliam, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Madden, Max

Dalyell, Tarn

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Darling, Alistair

Marek, Dr John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Dixon, Don

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Doran, Frank

Maxton, John

Douglas, Dick

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Eadie, Alexander

Morgan, Rhodri

Eastham, Ken

Mowlam, Marjorie

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mullin, Chris

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Murphy, Paul

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Nellist, Dave

Fatchett, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Fearn, Ronald

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

Parry, Robert

Fisher, Mark

Patchett, Terry

Flannery, Martin

Pike, Peter L.

Foster, Derek

Prescott, John

Fyfe, Maria

Primarolo, Dawn

Galloway, George

Quin, Ms Joyce

172

Redmond, Martin

Straw, Jack

Reid, Dr John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Robertson, George

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Turner, Dennis

Rogers, Allan

Wall, Pat

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Walley, Joan

Rowlands, Ted

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Ruddock, Joan

Wareing, Robert N.

Sedgemore, Brian

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Sheerman, Barry

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Short, Clare

Wigley, Dafydd

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

Soley, Clive

Tellers for the Noes:

Stott, Roger

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Strang, Gavin

Mr. Ray Powell.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to promote learning or research or in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for educational purposes.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (PASSENGER BOARDING CARDS)
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) (Application to non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988 be approved.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SUPERSTRUCTURES AND BULKHEADS)
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Enclosed Superstructures and in Bulkheads above the Bulkhead Deck) (Application to Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988 be approved.
  SOCIAL SECURITY (PAYMENTS)
  That the draft Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988 be approved.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (PREMIUMS)
  That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Acturial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1988 be approved.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  Question agreed to.

Acute Beds (Fife)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
12.17 am
Mr. Dick Douglas: It is an sign of how important my colleagues and I believe this issue to be that all Fife Members of Parliament are present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on health. We certainly outnumber the Scottish Conservative Members present.
The issue of acute bed provision in Fife, and the way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has behaved towards the people of Fife and the members of the Fife health hoard, illustrates the Government's scant regard for the opinions of people outside the House which differ from their own. It is a matter of common knowledge. I wish to quote from a letter to the Minister dated 4 March, from a large group practice in Dunfermline. Perhaps the Minister will give us some indication tonight
of how he will reply to the letter, which stated:
"For twenty years and more, the integration of hospital medical services serving West Fife has been debated and in the meantime our patients have had to put up with a service, which, because of its lack of inter-specialty co-ordination, has left a lot to be desired."
The health board's current attempt—I use that word advisedly—to solve the problem goes back to at least 1983, when the board embarked upon a course of action that should have led to a relatively speedy decision by the Scottish Home and Health Department as to the best direction to be followed in Fife.
To obtain an approval in principle to its scheme or schemes the health board was obliged to conduct what has become known as an option appraisal exercise or study. It was the first such study to be undertaken in Scotland and was carried out by the health economics research unit of the university of Aberdeen. It was completed in May 1984.
I shall briefly enlighten the House on the concept of option appraisal. The first report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs 1986–87 on hospital provision states in paragraph 24:
"The Board is required to undertake an Option Appraisal …examining the alternative ways of meeting the identified need in order to find the best solution."
The present so-called Minister for Health in Scotland was a member of that Committee and indeed was a signatory to that report. The Government reply to the Select Committee on 13 May, states in paragraph 11:
"The systematic approach of option appraisal should reduce, rather than increase, the time taken in the planning stage."
There can be no argument that, in the case of the Fife health board, the need was not clearly defined and that the option appraisal exercise was not completed in a highly professional manner.
I shall not detain the House by going over all the health options that were put before the health board at that time. Realistically, those options came down to two that have become known as option C and option D. In shorthand terms, option C was based on the "equal" distribution of facilities and option D was based on what one might loosely call the "balance" of population in Fife. Suffice to say that, in June 1984, the Fife health board decided to proceed with option C.
174
I shall not weary the House with all the details of the meetings that have taken place between colleagues, myself and the various Tory so-called Ministers of Health. The House should be aware that the issue that we are discussing in the early hours of Tuesday morning was debated on 30 October 1986. In a letter to colleagues and myself on 3 December 1986, Lord Glenarthur, then Minister of State, Scottish Office, with responsibility for health, said:
"I can confirm that it now very much up to the Board to decide whether they wish to proceed with Option C or Option D. They are not obliged to follow any recommendation made by the Buildings Division, and I assure you that neither I nor the Scottish Home and Health Department are seeking to influence the Board one way or other." Given that the board thought that the Minister was a man of his word it is not surprising that it confirmed its decision for option C in February 1987 and again in October 1987. In view of what has transpired since the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) became Minister one would have thought that he has been faced with a politically hostile Fife health board.
I estimate that in 1979, out of 19 members of the Fife health board, 10 were Labour party members, or sympathetic to the aims of the Labour party. In 1988, only four of the 21 members can be considered to be either Labour party members or to have broad sympathy with the aims of the Labour party, despite the fact that there is not one Tory Member in the whole of Fife. That is really manipulating. I claim that the Minister and his predecessors tried to manipulate the membership of the Fife health board along their own political lines. So much for playing by the rules of the game. It is to the credit of the board members that they have maintained and sustained their views.
I now want to consider the crucial period during which the Minister has had the approval in principle scheme before him. I have been told that the Scottish Home and Health Department had placed the approval in principle on the Minister's desk in early December 1987 and that the Minister was to give his decision in January 1988.
The Minister wrote to Fife health board on 24 February 1988 stating:
"I have considered carefully the Board's submission and have decided Option D is preferable to Option C."
The House should know that at no time was the Fife health board or its officials aware that the Minister had misgivings. At no time was a hint given that the Fife health board's preferred option was to be cast aside.
When he was wearing his education hat this morning, the Minister had the temerity to quote from a teacher who wrote in the Glasgow Herala. I want to quote again from the group practice to which I have already referred and from which the Minister has received a letter. That letter puts the point to the Minister. In fact, if he would pay attention, he may understand. The letter is dated 4 March —[Interruption.] The Minister has not received the letter. Still, I will quote from it. It states:
"It seems to us that it would have saved a lot of time and money, if you"—
that refers to the Minister, not you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
"had simply considered the different options yourself without asking for the Health Board's recommendations, which you appear to have totally disregarded. The purpose of this letter is purely to record our disquiet and disgust at a decision which we believe is totally wrong. It would be naive of us to think that any opinions of ours would even be considered by a representative of a Government which has a reputation, growing by the minute, of paying no heed to local and informed ideas and carrying out its policies by diktat."

175
The Minister may snigger at that, but that is the view of politically active people. I have a copy of the letter and I am willing to give it to him. It is from the Netherton surgery in Dunfermline and is signed by everyone in the practice — Dr. Yellerly, Dr. Alexander, Dr. Orris, Dr. Alexander and Dr. White. To the best of my knowledge, they are not members of the Labour party. However, that is an expression of local opinion.
Regardless of the merits of the decision, the concern lies in the method of approach adopted by the Government. What is the effect of Government by diktat on the people of Fife? First there will be more delays and suffering. It will take another three or four months to prepare a new submission. Even if things go smoothly, phase 2 in Dunfermline will not be completed until at best 1994.
Secondly, I do not wish to pronounce judgment on Kirkcaldy, but given that little or nothing can be done there until Dunfermline phase 2 is completed, we shall be into the 21st century before anything is achieved. I am willing to give way to the Minister if he disagrees with that.
The Fife health board stated:
"In view of the delay, the Board will have to commit capital resources to maintaining the existing facilities in Kirkcaldy. Already it has been identified that major work will have to be carried out in upgrading operating theatres and replacing the boiler-plant. Attention is now being given to these matters. The re-location of existing beds throughout Fife in view of changing medical practice and technology is also an ongoing exercise."
The board is saying that Dunfermline phase 2 will take nearly six years—until 1994—and the Minister is on record as saying that he will not consider approval in principle for Kirkcaldy until Dunfermline is completed. I am willing to listen to differences of view on this.
Thirdly, we are not even agreed on the number of beds we are talking about. The Fife health board says:
"In his letter of 23 February, the Minister used for the first time a total of 855 existing acute beds and this figure was reached by including the 62 acute mixed beds in Adamson Hospital, Cupar, and St. Andrew's Memorial Hospital. The Minister said that the additional 59 acute beds in Dunfermline when added to the existing 855 beds will bring the total number of beds in Fife very close to the planning target of 918. From the time the acute bed option appraisal was started in 1982 the number of existing acute beds in Fife was calculated as 793 by both the Board and the Department. This number is reached by adding up all the acute beds in D. & W.F., Milesmark, Victoria, Cameron, and Randolph Wemyss Hospitals. The number did not include the 62 acute mixed beds in Adamson Hospital, Cupar, and St. Andrew's Memorial Hospital."
Let us have some clarification of this, if possible. One of the Minister's opinions is that it would be difficult for a health board to anticipate carrying on two capital projects of this nature simultaneously. A few of my colleagues went the other week to Faslane and Coulport. Those two schemes amount to roughly £500 million. So when the Goverment want something done, it can be done. The necessary sources can be deployed. However, I warn my colleagues that, given the Minister's known views, if there is no change in the Government of Scotland there will be little hope of a solution to the problem of acute beds in Fife within the private sector. The Minister is looking for a delay that will force people in Fife to adopt the private sector option.
Having listened to the Minister today, first in his guise as a Minister with responsibility for education and then for health, I might be forgiven for using the term "Pooh Bah"
176
to describe him. He is a Lord High Everything. He does not quantify his approach. He gave an interview to the Dunfermline press in which not a single financial figure was mentioned. Behind that lies penny-pinching by the Treasury and the Government. If the Government wanted to alleviate the suffering for lack of acute beds in Fife that has gone on for a long time, the money could be supplied.
Pooh Bah is a wrong description. My knowledge of Gilbert and Sullivan leads me to suggest—I apologise to those who are not so knowledgeable—that the Minister is really King Gama from "Princess Ida". [Interruption.] You will not laugh when you hear it, brother. Taking a little liberty with the lyric, he might be summed up thus:
He has an irritating chuckle,
He has a celebrated sneer,
He has a most annoying snigger,
He has a despicable leer.
To everybody's prejudice he knows a thing or two.
If you want your poll tax estimated in half a minute, then he can,
And although he feigns to make himself the economic man, To everybody else he is such a disagreeable man.
That is the person we in Scotland have to suffer as the so-called Minister for Health and the so-called Minister of Education.
12.36 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for raising this matter for debate—if not, perhaps, for the way in which he chose to do it. In the time that he has left me—having taken so much time to indulge in personal abuse—I shall try to answer some of the points that he has made.
The hon. Member seems somewhat aggrieved about what he sees as a decision to force the Fife health board to accept an option that it does not want. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be glad that I had made a decision. Indeed, when he came to see me, he urged me to take a decision quickly. We did. We have made a decision which will bring considerable improvements to hospital facilities in Dunfermline.
The problem of acute hospital bed provision in Fife has been discussed for almost a decade, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is high time that the debate ended and we got the hospitals built. That can only be of benefit to the people of Fife as a whole, and especially to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Throughout the period of discussion, Fife health board has attempted to meet the needs of all the people in Fife, but its task has not been helped by the polarisation of views between east and west Fife, and the heat generated by that debate. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) present. That debate has led some people to lose a sense of proportion about what is proposed. I was recently asked by the local paper why I was perpetuating a
"cottage-hospital level of acute-bed provision for Dunfermline".
I am not aware of any cottage hospital in Scotland with 572 beds, but that will be the size of the hospital that will be completed under option D. It will compare favourably with other district general hospitals now being planned and built elsewhere.
There has also been talk about downgrading Dunfermline, but option D brings a new expansion of acute beds. We should be quite clear: we are proposing the

177
replacement of the acute and maternity beds in three aging hospitals, with a net increase of 59 beds in brand-new facilities.
The hon. Member should not look a gift horse in the mouth. He has said that my decision will further delay the development of new acute beds in Fife. That need not be so. The board has accepted my decision and is making every effort to expedite a new approval in principle submission for the reduced scale of provision at Dunfermline. I would expect the work to be completed within three months, and it is possible that the hospital, being smaller, will be open sooner than under option C. Further delays will, however, occur if the wrangling, which the lion. Gentleman seems intent on continuing, about opinions and options in Fife, continues indefinitely.
The hon. Member asked why I chose option D. It may be helpful to recall the background to the option appraisal exercise carried out in 1983, which considered in detail the five strategic options. Option A involved closing most of the acute beds in Dunfermline, with a substantial increase in patients treated in Edinburgh. Because of the inconvenience that that would bring to patients, the hoard rejected that option. Option B involved upgrading the existing hospitals in Dunfermline, but the board concluded that they were unsuitable for upgrading. Option E concentrated on all acute beds in the east of Fife at Kirkcaldy. That was considered unacceptable because of the inconvenience for residents in west Fife.
Mr. Douglas: Oh, come on, we know all that.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may know all that, but his constituents may not. He asked me to justify the decisions taken by the SCottish Office, and I am attempting to do so.
The real choice lay between options C and D. Both options involved building a new hospital at Dunfermline and an extension to he Victoria hospital, Kirkcaldy and only the size of the two resultant hospitals varied beween options C and D. Option C provided an equal distribution of beds in west and East Fife so that when complete, the two hospitals at Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy would be the same size. To achieve that, two specialties—urology and ophthalmology — would transfer from Kirkcaldy to Dunfermline. Option D proposed to limit the increase in beds at Dunfermline, and to have proportionately more beds at Kirkcaldy to reflect the balance of population between east and west Fife.
The choice was by no means clear-cut; indeed, the health board had great difficulty in reaching its choice of option C. A substantial proportion of board members favoured option D, as did the board's own officers, two local health councils, a community council and the North-East Fife district council.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Forsyth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman after the way that he has behaved during the debate.
In deciding on option D, I took a view of what was best for patients throughout Fife, taking account of the location of population and the need for patients to travel. Costs and the demands on the Scottish hospital building programme were other factors that I had to take into account. I firmly believe that option D gives fairer access to health care for all of Fife's residents.
178
The hon. Gentleman suggested that my noble Friend had been engaged in some sort of breach of faith, and that the letter sent to him gave undertakings that have now been broken.
Mr. Douglas: I will stand many things in this House, but I will not allow the Minister to assert that I said something that I did not say. I said that Lord Glenarthur had said certain things in good faith, and I quoted him in good faith. I ask the Minister to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Forsyth: No doubt Hansard will make it clear that the hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the undertaking given by my noble Friend in his letter had not been fulfilled by the Scottish Office. That is not correct. The hoard was told that the preferred choice of options was a matter for it, on the basis that the costs and benefits of the two options were broadly similar. It was never possible to give any assurance that the resultant submissions would necessarily be endorsed. That would be to offer the hoard a blank cheque.
When I had the submission before me, with the full details of both options, it was clear that there were advantages in both cost and patient care from option D. The choice was not so evenly balanced as was first thought, and I could not, in all conscience, go along with the board's preference when it did not give the best deal for the majority of Fife patients and, moreover, had higher costs. We are, after all, talking about a multi-million pound investment that will serve the people of Fife for many years to come. The Government have a proper and legitimate interest in ensuring that the right decision is made, and I reject any suggestion that there has been a breach of faith.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the motivation for our decision has been cost and not concern about patient care——
Mr. Douglas: The Minister has admitted that.
Mr. Forsyth: No, I have not admitted anything of the sort—
Mr. Douglas: Hansard will show it.
Mr. Forsyth: I have not said anything of the sort. I have made it clear that a major factor in my decision was patient care. It seems to me beyond argument that the size of a hospital should match its catchment population, otherwise more people will have to travel further. That view is based on an analysis of the population spread in Fife carried out by the board's officers as part of the option appraisal. They concluded that a substantial proportion of the west Fife population is located to the east of Dunfermline in the Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly areas. For them, the distance and the public transport services to Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy are not dissimilar.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Forsyth: No.
A substantial proportion of the east Fife population is located to the north and east of Kirkcaldy — that is Glenrothes, Levenmouth, East Neuk and Cupar. For them, the distances to Dunfermline are much greater than to Kirkcaldy and the public transfer less convenient. Option D offers a better match between the size of the two hospitals and their catchment populations.
Mr. Henry McLeish: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Forsyth: No.
It is equally beyond argument that we must get the best value from scarce resources and, happily, in this case the option that offered the best deal for patients was also the best in cash terms. Option D is marginally cheaper in absolute terms, and also made more even, and therefore more manageable, demands on central capital. Equally important, it is less demanding in revenue in the early years, so giving the board opportunity to continue its work for the mentally handicapped and elderly.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West has said that he is concerned that the requirement for Dunfermline to proceed first will cause long delays to the works at Kirkcaldy. That need not be so. The board has recognised, since before my time, that it makes sense to complete the
180
building at Dunfermline before starting work at Kirkcaldy. That point has been made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) in a local newspaper——
Dr. Lewis Moonie: No, for Kirkcaldy.
Mr. Forsyth: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman: I meant the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
The board has recognised since before my time that it makes sense to complete the building at Dunfermline before starting work at Kirkcaldy.
Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Forsyth: No, I have little time.
If the board proceeds——
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Home Insulation (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of people in Stoke-on-Trent, North who have ceased to be eligible for grants under the home insulation scheme which came into force on 1 February; and what percentage of those are on low incomes.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information is not available. For householders with adequate means, loft insulation is a very cost-effective measure which pays for itself very quickly. The new scheme provides a 90 per cent. grant, up to an increased ceiling of £137, to eligible householders on low incomes, that is, those in receipt of supplementary benefit, housing benefit or family income supplement.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which areas in England and Wales the maximum nitrate level in drinking water of 50 mg of nitrates per litre, set by the European Community, is exceeded; and how many people are affected.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 13 January to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) at column 279.

  Local Authorities (Bartering Agreements)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has anything to add to his statement on 9 March, with particular reference to bartering agreements between local authorities and property developers.

  Mr. Chope
  It is my right hon. Friend's intention to table amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill to secure that where a local authority acquires properly, or where works or improvements are carried out to local authority property, in return for valuable consideration, prescribed expenditure will be scored regardless of whether the consideration is or is not in money.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals his Department has to revise or update planning guidance on gipsy sites, including specifying the varying responses which local authorities should make to applications for(a) individual plots of land for use by a gipsy and (b) sites for gipsy encampments.

  Mrs. Roe
  My Department has no immediate plans to revise or update planning guidance on gipsy sites, though the matter is kept under review. In his statement to the House of 6 February last year my right hon. Friend the 2
  Secretary of State said that the need for gipsy sites would continue to be a material consideration in planning decisions.

  92 Ormside Street, SE15 (Sale)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to when the London residuary body will complete the sale of 92 Ormside street, SE15.

  Mr. Chope
  This is a matter for the London residuary body.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing starts were made in each of the last 10 years in(a) the public sector, (b) the private sector, and (c) the housing association sector.

  Mrs. Roe
  In 1987, it is provisionally estimated that there were 197,300 dwellings started in England for the private sector and 24,600 for the public sector including 9,500 for housing associations. Figures for the earlier years appear in table 6.1(a) of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1976–1986" which is available in the Library.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give estimates for the total number of adults expected to register for community charge in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  I estimate that there are 38·3 million adults in England and Wales. About half a million of these are expected to be exempt from the community charge. As I said in my reply of 16 March to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) at column 82, I do not believe that evasion will be a serious problem.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will reconsider joint and several liability of spouses in respect of the proposed community charge, in the light of the planned changes to the income tax status of married women from 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. The changes to which the hon. Member refers will affect married women with incomes. Joint and several liability for the community charge is designed to ensure that the charge is paid where a person (man or woman) has no income of his or her own and is married to or living with a person who has an income.

  G-Mex Exhibition Centre, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the total financial contribution made by his Department to the G-Mex exhibition centre in greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail his involvement with the G-Mex centre in Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My involvement with the G-Mex Centre in Manchester has been to provide urban programme funding of £8·9 million towards an estimated main project
  3
  cost of £23·7 million and a further UP contribution of £0·9 million towards the cost of landscaping and other works on the site. I retain a continuing interest as there is a provision for grant to be paid back if sufficient income is generated.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the results of the English house condition survey will be available.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on Wednesday 3 February 1988 at column 650.

  Grant-related Expenditure
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the studies into alternative or improved methods of calculating grant-related expenditure which have been funded by his Department since January 1980; and if for each study listed he will give(a) the name of the body or bodies undertaking the study, (b) the terms of reference of the study, (c) the names of other bodies tendering for the study, (d) the criteria by which the successful applicants were selected, (e) the cost of the study and (f) the outcome of the study.

  Mr. Ridley
  The following studies into grant-related expenditure assessment have been funded by my Department since January 1980:

  1. (i) 'Grant Related Expenditure Assessment: A Review of the System and Potential Development In It'.

  (ii) Conducted by the School for Advanced Urban Studies at the University of Bristol.

  (iii) A comprehensive general review of the system seeking to clarify the objectives and underlying principles of GRE, and to evaluate how far the system developed in practice measured up to these objectives and principles. Followed by in depth case studies examining the case for, feasibility and implications of alternative methods of GRE assessment in relation to particular components of local authority expenditure. The four case studies dealt with recreation, adult education, capital finance and public transport.

  (iv) Cost: £38,300.

  (v) Outcome: Published Reports (1983–84) of the overall review of the GRE system and of each of the four case studies.

  2. (i) The 'Measurement of Inter Authority Cost Differences'.

  (ii) Conducted by Cambridge Economic Consultants.

  (iii) The objective of the project was to investigate whether and how to extend and improve the existing system for unit cost adjustments such that it covered authorities outside the London Weighting area and inputs other than labour.

  (iv) Cost: £16,000.

  (v) Outcome: Unpublished Report (1983).

  3. (i) Development of the Grant Related Expenditure Assessment for Personal Social Services for the Elderly.

  (ii) Conducted by the Centre for Health Economics, York University.

  (iii) The objectives of the research arc to assess the feasibility of the main options for improving the method of calculating PSS GRE for the elderly; to then develop a more simple and comprehensible method of assessment whilst taking full account of the requirement to adequately reflect variations in needs between authorities; and to consider and report on the future stability of the new methodology as well as its effective presentation.

  (iv) Cost: £36,566.

  4

  (v) Outcome: The research is still in progress.

  4. (i) `Review of Statistical Methods Used to Construct Indicators of Social Disadvantage'.

  (ii) Conducted by Professor Bartholomew, London School of Economics.

  (iii) The objectives of the research are to review the methods of constructing composite measures of disadvantage at present used in GREs; to examine the applicability of new developments in the construction of such indexes; and to recommend the most appropriate of these statistical techniques.

  (iv) Cost: £3,000.

  (v) Outcome: The research is still in progress.

  Four organisations tendered for the second of these projects; the measurement of inter-authority cost differences. These were Cambridge Economic Consultants, Coopers and Lybrand and Associates Ltd, Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co. and the Public Sector Economics Research Centre at the University of Leicester. The contract was placed on the basis of price and of quality of tender proposal. The other three research contracts were placed on a single tender basis.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for(a) each county council, (b) each metropolitan district, (c) each London borough and (d) each non-metropolitan district those services on which authorities spend below the national average; and by how much.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 15 March 1988]: I have today placed this information in the House of Commons Library.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the disposal of potassium waste by France and Belgium in the English channel; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malaysia (Waterworks)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department took to ensure the technical soundness of Biwater's project to equip 174 Malaysian villages with waterworks before allocating funds from his 1986 water sector budget to support it.

  Mr. Eggar
  Assistance for the rural water supply project in Malaysia was provided from the aid and trade provision in association with export credit finance. As in all such cases, approval of ATP assistance was subject to satisfactory appraisal of the economic, financial and technical viability of the project. In this particular case, assistance was approved in the light of the findings of an ODA appraisal mission to Malaysia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why his Department
  5
  approved a grant of nearly £60 million towards Biwater's Malaysia contract which was not subject to domestic competitive tendering.

  Mr. Eggar
  Within the aid programme, we seek to secure value for money for the taxpayer and for the recipient country. This is generally best achieved by competitive tendering. In the absence of competition, the ODA carries out value-for-money checks. In this case, the Malaysian Government wished to proceed with the project by negotiating a contract with a single contractor (Biwater). An independent check established value for money.

  Cameroun, Chile and Thailand (Waterworks)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will submit to domestic competitive tender proposals which it is currently considering for water supply or sewerage projects in Cameroun, Chile and Thailand.

  Mr. Eggar
  Before deciding whether or not to provide aid and trade provision support for these projects, we shall consider how best to secure value for money for the aid programme in the circumstances of each particular case.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Polytechnics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which polytechnics in England and Wales provide specialist non-advanced further education on a nationwide basis; what subjects are covered by such provision; and how he intends that such provision should be funded following the establishment of the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  There is no settled definition of specialist non-advanced further education. The Government have said that it will be open to local education authorities, as part of their duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education in their areas, to contract for the continued provision of non-advanced further education courses in polytechnics and colleges which, under the provisions of the Education Reform Bill now before Parliament, will transfer to the new polytechnics and colleges funding council (PCFC) sector. Local education authorities' will receive credit for such provision in that grant-related expenditure. The Government are also ready to consider, in consultation with the local authority associations, whether it would be desirable to put the PCFC in funds to support a tightly defined category of further education courses whose provision in PCFC institutions is essentially national in character.

  Consultative Document
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy that responses received to consultative documents issued by his Department be made publicly available in his Department's library, except where the respondent has specifically asked that this be not done; and if he will arrange for this procedure to be made clear when future consultative documents are issued.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The treatment of responses to consultation documents will depend on the purpose and 6
  nature of the consultative process. In the case of the recent consultation carried out by the Department of Education and Science preceding the introduction of the Education Reform Bill, copies of all responses, other than those from individuals, were placed in the House Library.

  Religious Instruction
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of primary schools and secondary schools in each local education authority are not adhering to the locally agreed syllabus of religious instruction for that authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Education Reform Bill
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to amend the pupil register regulations for the power of holding ballots in relation to the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend intends to amend the pupils' registration regulations to ensure that all parents will be given the opportunity to have their names recorded in schools' admission registers.

  Local Financial Management
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to discuss with head teachers the implementation of local financial management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  Both Ministers and officials of my Department have had a number of meetings with representatives of the head teacher associations and with groups of head teachers about local financial management. My right hon. Friend will shortly be consulting LEAs, head teachers and others on preliminary guidance.

DEFENCE

  Prisoners of War (Experiments)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about progress in investigating allegations of experiments on prisoners of war held by the Japanese at Mukden and elsewhere during world war 2; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 April 1987 at column 586. Since that date, the Ministry has received a further 16 inquiries. Of these two had been addressed to the Prime Minister and 14 to Ministers. During this period our inquiries have continued. But despite further and lengthy investigation we still have no proof that the Japanese experimented on Allied prisoners of war held at Mukden.

  Low Flying (Wales)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning low-flying military aircraft over Wales.
  7
  Mr. Freeman
  Between 1 January 1988 and 14 March 1988, the Ministry of Defence received some 70 inquiries or complaints from Wales about low-flying military aircraft.

  Consultative Documents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that responses received to consultative documents issued by his Department be made publicly available in his Department's library, except where the respondent has specifically asked that this be not done; and if he will arrange for this procedure to be made clear when future consultative documents are issued.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes, arrangements will be made for responses to formal consultative documents, such as Green Papers, to be available, provided that the respondent has not asked that his response should be kept confidential.

  RAF Molesworth
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on future uses of RAF Molesworth.

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

  RAF Wethersfield
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any limitations are planned on activities at RAF Wethersfield in the light of proposals for expansion of Stansted airport.

  Mr. Freeman
  RAF Wethersfield is a standby deployment base at which no regular flying activity currently takes place, aside from weekend gliding by air cadets. Therefore any question of the expansion of Stansted airport affecting base activities does not arise.

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the rôle and function of the proposed satellite receiver dishes and ancilliary equipment at RAF Feltwell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to the appropriate planning approvals, the United States Air Force proposes to site a deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell. This will be a passive facility for tracking man-made objects in deep space.

  Montebello Decision
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to SACEUR's 1985 proposals to implement the Montebello decision.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As part of the continuing process of reviewing NATO's nuclear force requirements, NATO Defence Ministers at the 1983 nuclear planning group meeting in Montebello examined the question of the future size and composition of NATO's theatre nuclear stockpile and agreed both to a reduction of 1,400 warheads from NATO's land-based nuclear stockpile in Europe and on 8
  the need for improvements to ensure the continuing effectiveness, responsiveness and survivability of remaining systems. SACEUR was asked to come forward with proposals for implementing this decision and his recommendations were presented to the nuclear planning group Minister at their meeting in Luxembourg in March 1985.

  The reduction in warheads has been completed. Recommendations for improvements are being pursued by SACEUR with the nations concerned, and progress with implementation is being kept under review by the nuclear planning group. The details of the recommendations as they affect individual countries are classified, but in broad terms they include the deployment of a tactical air-to-surface missile, the deployment of a follow on to Lance, the introduction of improved nuclear artillery shells, and the continued modernisation of NATO's dual-capable aircraft. No decisions on the specific modernisation measures addressed by SACEUR to the United Kingdom have yet been taken.

  Other measures called for by SACEUR involve the correction of some maldeployments of nuclear forces and improvements in their effectiveness, survivability and command and control. In this context the United Kingdom is withdrawing completely from the 8 in nuclear artillery role in order to concentrate resources on the 155 mm dual-capable gun now in service, as explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 July 1987 at column 390.

  NATO Heads of Government at the summit on 2–3 March reaffirmed the long-standing policy of the Alliance, that it should continue to maintain
  "an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary".

  The United Kingdom will play its full part in this process.

  Armed Forces (Alcohol Abuse)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on measures to control alcohol abuse in the armed forces; whether non-alcoholic beers are stored in service bars; what is the ratio of alcoholic to nonalcoholic drinks stocked in service bars; and what is the price differential.

  Mr. Freeman
  Drunkenness is a specific offence under the service discipline Acts. If service personnel, whilst not committing actual drink related offences, become by regular heavy drinking a risk or burden to their service that is also regarded seriously.

  A series of alcohol education programmes, making use of pamphlets, films and lectures has been produced to alert all personnel to the dangers of abuse. Where abuse occurs, the aim is to rehabilitate abusers where this is possible. Adequate facilities for medical treatment are available. A range of deterrent administrative and disciplinary actions are also available and persistent offenders may be discharged.

  Stocking of service bars and the pricing of drinks are matters for mess committees or NAAFI managers and are not centrally directed by the Ministry of Defence, but nonalcoholic or low-alcohol beers and soft drinks would normally be available. The ratio of alcoholic to nonalcoholic drinks would depend on demand.

  Exercises
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Royal Air Force participation in Maple Flag exercises in Canada since 1979, giving the number and type of Royal Air Force aircraft involved and dates of the exercise on each occasion.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 4 December 1987]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Date

  Aircraft involved

  19791

  28 April—12 May

  8 × Buccaneer

  2 × Jaguar

  19801

  14 April— 7 May

  8 × Harrier

  19811

  14 April—16 May

  8 × Buccaneer

  19821

  14 April—17 May

  8 × Harrier

  19831

  12 May—27 May

  8 × Buccaneer

  2 × Hercules

  1984

  28 April—26 May

  8 × Harrier

  1985

  27 April—25 May

  8 × Tornado

  1986

  27 April—24 May

  8 × Harrier

  1987

  27 April—25 May

  8 × Jaguar

  1 Precise central records are not available for the period before 1984 although the details given above are thought to be broadly accurate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table depicting the percentage change in violent crimes, by category, in all regions of the United Kingdom from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. John Patten
  Statistics of notifiable offences recorded by the police, by type of offence and police force area, are published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1979" (Cmnd 8098, table 32), and in the "Criminal Statistics Supplementary Tables Volume 3" (table S.3.1.) for each year from 1980 to 1986. Copies of these volumes are available in the Library. Recorded numbers of some types of violent offences are small and subject to appreciable year-to-year fluctuation so percentage changes calculated from them might be misleading.

  Safe City Scheme
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which urban areas are to be initially targeted by the safe city schemes; and when they will commence.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is our intention over the next three years to establish some 20 "safer city" projects in areas selected from those which are currently urban programme areas. The participating areas will be chosen and announced after consultation with local interests in the areas concerned.

  Seaside Promenades
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to approve new byelaws regulating the use of seaside promenades; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Last month, Thanet district council submitted five draft schemes of byelaws for provisional 10
  approval. We will reply to the council as soon as possible, but there are a considerable number of other applications awaiting attention.

  Firearms
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms certificates are at present held by owners in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest available information relates to 31 December 1986 and is published in table 2 of the Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 2/88, "Statistics On The Operation Of The Firearms Act 1968", a copy of which is in the Library. Figures for the end of 1987 will be published in a similar bulletin later this year.

  Dogs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Horne Department if he will give figures for the number of stray dogs reported to the police in England and Wales during 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No central record is kept of the number of stray dogs reported to the police. The information requested could, therefore, be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs were destroyed, annually, in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Dogs are destroyed by owners and by a wide variety of organisations and individuals. We have no information on the total numbers destroyed.

  Hounds (Organised Packs)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to allow an organised pack of hounds To attack cats or dogs, with a range of fines and imprisonment available against the master of such hounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned about any unnecessary suffering which is caused to domestic animals. However, existing legislation — in particular the Dogs Act 1871, the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. the Metropolitan Police Act 1839—provides for the control of dangerous dogs. We have no plan to introduce further measures.

  Immigration (Entry Clearance)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secrertary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex on 22 February,Official Report, column 4, whether the 130 outstanding entry clearance applications included applications which had been referred to his Department by entry clearance officers but had not yet been allocated to an immigration office.

  Mr. Renton
  The total of 130 outstanding entry clearance applications given in my previous answer referred to those cases which had been received from entry clearance officers abroad and had been passed to the immigration service to arrange interview. The number of
  11
  applications made abroad which had not reached that stage is not recorded centrally under the location of the sponsors, and information in respect of the Birmingham area is therefore not readily obtainable.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criticism the United Kingdom's representative at the 44th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva made about the human rights record of the Government of Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My hon. Friend the Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State drew attention in his statement at the Commission on 18 February to the particular problem of long-term prisoners in Ethiopia. In a subsequent statement under the agenda item dealing with human rights violations in any part of the world, the United Kingdom representative again expressed our concern about the continued detention of long-term prisoners in Ethiopia, some of whom have been held without trial since 1974.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government made no attempt to have Ethiopia included on the agenda of the 44th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission recently convened in Geneva; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chalker
  In 1986 the United Kingdom supported a draft resolution on Ethiopia tabled at the Commission by the United States which would formally have put the situation in Ethiopia on the Commission's agenda for its 1987 session. This resolution was defeated on a procedural motion. We have continued to raise the matter of long-term prisoners in Ethiopia in our statements at the Commission.

  CND (Representations)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since the Washington summit of December 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 March 1988, c. 589]: I should have said that we have received one direct representation from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since the Washington summit of December 1987.

EMPLOYMENT

  Deaf People (Training Schemes)
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average number of hours of communication support required by a YTS trainee under the communication service for the deaf.

  Mr. Cope
  Information on the average number of communication support required by YTS trainees is not available. Communication support is provided for a12
  maximum of 500 hours per trainee over a two-year scheme. Trainees' use of this resource varies according to their individual needs.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a regional breakdown of the number of people receiving payment under the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The number of people receiving the enterprise allowance at the end of February 1988 is shown below, by region.

  Region

  Recipients

  South East

  11,951

  London

  10,085

  South West

  10,006

  West Midlands

  9,402

  East Midlands

  10,194

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9,102

  North West

  14,330

  North

  5,118

  Wales

  5,863

  Scotland

  8,739

  Total

  94,790

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to increase the size of the payment under the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  No. Demand is buoyant and £40 per week remains sufficient compensation for the loss of unemployment or supplementary benefit that occurs when an unemployed person starts up in business.

  Children
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to bring the pay of working children within the ambit of wages council legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Youth Training
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current provision made for young people to undertake part-time study whilst they are on a YTS programme.

  Mr. Cope
  All YTS training programmes must include a minimum period of planned and directed learning away from the normal workplace and outside the day-to-day pressures of a job. Any study which is of direct relevance to a training programme may therefore be considered for inclusion as part of such "off-the-job" training. Trainees are also free to pursue additional studies outside YTS, and managing agents are encouraged to offer support by allowing time off to study and sit for examinations which would contribute to the training programme.

  Midland Professional Cleaning Services Ltd., Wolverhampton
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if any applications for payments in lieu of
  13
  wages from the insolvency fund have been accepted by former employees of Midland Professional Cleaning Services Ltd. of Stewart Street, Wolverhampton.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No applications are at present being considered. I understand the company is not formally insolvent.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to make changes in the prices charged by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service for its commercial services.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have instructed ADAS that the prices it charges for its commercial services should be adjusted from time to time taking account of changes in costs, the competitive position in the market place as well, of course, as the legal requirement that such charges must be reasonable. The first adjustments will be made from the beginning of the 1988–89 financial year.

  The most familiar ADAS charges are perhaps those for advice. For these the hourly charge will remain at £28 (plus VAT) for up to two hours of advice which will help protect smaller farmers. However, if a contract necessitates over two hours of advisers' time, charges for the excess period over two hours will, from 1 April 1988, be levied at a rate of £30 (plus VAT) per hour.

  Drainage Authorities
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to issue revised guidelines to drainage authorities on discharging their environmental and conservation responsibilities.

  Mr. Gummer
  The revised guidelines, issued jointly by the Minister and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, are being distributed to land drainage bodies and conservation organisations today. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The guidelines have been completely revised in the light of a thoroughgoing review of the experience of the past five years and I should like to put on record our gratitude to the many organisations both in the fields of conservation and of land drainage whose assistance has been of such value in the drawing up of the new guidelines. My colleagues and I are confident that the strengthened and consolidated guidance that we are publishing today will serve to enable drainage authorities to proceed with their necessary work in ways that will further the conservation interest and enhance environmental features affected by these operations. Much progress has been made in this direction in recent years and we must see to it that we build on what has been achieved. The new guidelines are central to this. I commend them to drainage and conservation organisations alike.

  Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards the European Economic Community accepting a bass quota.
  14
  Mr. Gummer
  There are no proposals for establishing an EC bass quota. The European Commission has been informed of the Government's proposals for the management of the bass fishery and if these are confirmed in the light of our consultations with the industry, we shall be asking the Commission to propose an increase in the Community minimum landing size for bass to 36 cm.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to ensure that the proposed bass regulations prevent the French from fishing the adult spawning stock in mid-channel.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no plans to prevent fishing for adult bass.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the disposal of potassium waste by France and Belgium in the English channel; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: From our contacts with the relevant authorities in France and Belgium and with the secretariat to the Oslo convention on sea disposal, it has been established that up to 750 tonnes of salt wastes from the potassium mining industry were disposed of at sea by France last month on an experimental basis, at a point five miles north of Dunkirk, and some 28 miles from the nearest United Kingdom coast. This disposal will be discussed at next week's meeting of the Oslo commission's standing committee for scientific advice when more detailed information on its likely environmental impact, and on any plans for future disposals of this nature, will be sought from the French authorities.

  J. R. Perkes and Son, Brixham
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now reply to the hon. Member for South Hams' letter of 9 February asking him to deal, as a matter of urgency, with the matter of J. R. Perkes and Son, Brixham fishermen, and requesting a meeting.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: I have been giving very careful consideration to the matter of J. R. Perkes and Son about which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams wrote to me on 9 February, and I hope to be able to reply to my hon. Friend very shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will amend his recent regulations in relation to the community charge to give individuals who appear on the community charge register the option as to whether or not they would like their name and address to be sold;

  (2) if he will amend his recent regulations in relation to the community charge so that individuals who appear on the community charge register will be told of the fact that their name and address may be sold without their knowledge or consent.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the answers I gave on 3 November 1987 at columns 550–51, on 28 January 1988 at column 325

  15
  and on 6 July at column 35. My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering these matters. Pending that consideration, I do not consider that formal notification to individuals of the present position is required.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to account for the problems of adult literacy, dyslexia or English as a second language when producing the regulations in relation to the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  The notification and inquiry forms prescribed in the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 have been made as simple and straightforward as possible in the light of comments made on the draft regulations.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will give the latest unemployment figures for Motherwell.

  Mr. Lang
  On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in Motherwell district was 10,314.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest unemployment figures for Motherwell, North.

  Mr. Lang
  On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Motherwell, North parliamentary constituency was 5,689.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give his latest estimate of the number of males and females in Scotland who suffer from incontinence; if he will express this figure in percentage terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on Friday 8 March,Official Report, column 135, he will break down the figure for

  Penalties imposed

  Year to

  Number of cases heard

  Struck off

  Suspended

  Fined

  Practising certificate restricted

  Case dismissed (no finding)

  31 October 1986

  38

  1

  2

  18

  7

  7

  31 October 1987

  31

  1

  2

  14

  6

  3

  The number of cases heard does not necessarily correspond to the total number of penalties imposed. More than one case may be dealt with by a single penalty.

  Grant Thornton
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 384, what information he has as to when Messrs Grant Thornton were appointed.
  16
  Scottish Development Agency expenditure of £8·75 million on the Inverclyde initiative, showing on what it has been spent.

  Mr. Lang
  The expenditure of £8·75 million by the Scottish Development Agency on the Inverclyde initiative is detailed in the table:

  £ million

  Pre-project development studies and development grants

  2·20

  Factory Building

  0·50

  Environmental Improvements

  2·55

  Land acquisition

  3·50

  Solicitors (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Legal Services in relation to a legally binding code of ethics and practice for solicitors in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. I understand that the Law Society of Scotland is committed to the preparation and early publication of guidance on professional standards and ethics.

  Lay Observer
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases were referred to the Lay Observer in 1987; in how many of these she found some justifiable complaint against the Law Society in its dealing with complaints; and what were the comparable figures in 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Lay Observer for Scotland handled 248 cases in 1987 and in 62 of these she criticised aspects of the handling of the complaint by the Law Society of Scotland. The comparable figures in 1986 were 232 and 43 respectively.

  Solicitors Discipline Tribunal
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases were heard by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal in 1987; what were the results of the cases heard; and what were the comparable figures in 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that Grant Thornton were engaged in December 1987 by health board general managers acting jointly.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 384, how much money from public funds has been paid to Grant Thornton; and in respect of what services.
  17
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Grant Thornton were engaged by health board general managers acting jointly to provide assistance to boards in the preparation of tender documents and in the financial and technical vetting of major firms of contractors. The fee for these services is a matter covered by commercial confidentiality.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the non-nuclear industrial sites in Scotland making authorised discharges of radioactive substances into the atmosphere.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 March 1988]: The following are authorised by the Scottish Development Department to discharge low level gaseous waste to the atmosphere:
  National Semiconductors (UK) Ltd., Larkfield Industrial Estate, Greenock.
  Crowther Arts Display Ltd., 5 Hawbank Road, College Milton North, East Kilbride.
  Ferranti Ltd., Dunsinane Avenue, Dundee.
  Organon Laboratories Ltd., Newhouse Industrial Estate, Newhouse, Lanarkshire.
  ICI plc in respect of the Brae B platform in the North Sea.

  In addition the South of Scotland Electricity Board is authorised to burn, at its power stations at Longannet and Inverkip, waste oil contaminated with trace amounts of radioactivity; authorisations are held also by Aberdeen and Dundee district councils permitting them to burn combustible low-level radioactive wastes in their waste disposal incinerators.

  In all the cases, the limits of discharge permitted by the authorisations are very low and the quantities of radioactivity being released to atmosphere are entirely negligible in radiological terms.

  Population (1986)1

  Non-industrial Civil Service (1 April 1987)

  Region

  Number ('000s)

  Percentage

  Number2

  Percentage

  Scotland

  5,121

  9·3

  50,214

  10·1

  Northern

  3,080

  5·6

  31,359

  6·3

  North West

  6,374

  11·5

  50,902

  10·2

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  4,899

  8·9

  31,055

  6·2

  East Midlands

  3,920

  7·1

  20,123

  4·1

  West Midlands

  5,181

  9·4

  29,876

  6–0

  East Anglia

  1,992

  3·6

  13,390

  2·7

  South East

  17,264

  31,3

  195,826

  39·4

  South West

  4,543

  8·2

  47,031

  9·5

  Wales

  2,821

  5·1

  27,336

  5·5

  Great Britain

  55,196

  100·0

  497,112

  100·0

  Source:

  1. Population Estimates, Scotland, 1986; Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys Monitor PM 87/1

  2. Full time equivalents.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the starting rates and top rates of income tax and the level of gross income at which those rates become payable in(a)

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest comparative figures for levels of gross domestic product per capita in each of the United Kingdom regions, taking the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole to be 100.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the November 1987 edition of Economic Trends. The latest figures are available on page 86 of that document.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures for levels of gross domestic product per capita in each of the United Kingdom regions, including the continental shelf.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer, 18 March 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the November 1987 edition of Economic Trends which presents the latest available data. As the November edition of Economic Trends states, it is not possible to include the continental shelf in the calculation of regional GDP per capita figures.

  Civil Service Redeployment
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update table 1(4) in annex A of the Hardman report, Cmnd. 5322, on Civil Service redeployment.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 18 March 1988]: Information on the division between headquarters and non-headquarters staff is no longer held centrally. The latest available figures for population by region and for non-industrial Civil Servants are as follows:

  Canada, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Japan and (f) the United States of America, for a married couple with no children.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 March 1988, c. 566–68]: I regret that the figure for the level of gross income at which the top rate of tax becomes payable in the United Kingdom was wrongly given as £19,301. The figure is £23,396. The revised table is as follows:
  19

  Country

  Starting rate Per cent.

  Starting rate threshold (£)

  Top rate

  Top rate threshold (£)

  Canada

  25·5

  5,003

  43·5

  25,000

  France

  12·8

  6,698

  56·8

  53,463

  Germany

  22·0

  3,439

  56·0

  65,670

  Italy

  22·0

  3,358

  62·0

  253,924

  Japan

  17·5

  4,286

  78·0

  152,607

  United States of America

  15·0

  5,086

  34·7

  22,086

  United Kingdom

  25·0

  4,096

  40·0

  23,396

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Judges
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Attorney-General how many judges in England and Wales are(a) from ethnic minorities and (b) women; and what is the total number of judges in England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  No records are kept of the ethnic origin of members of the judiciary. As at 16 March 1988, there were 20 women judges, comprising one Lord Justice of Appeal, two High Court Judges and 17 circuit judges. The total number of Court of Appeal, High Court and circuit judges in England and Wales is at present 500.

  Magistrates
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the total number of magistrates in England and Wales; and how many are(a) members of ethnic minorities and (b) women.

  The Attorney-General
  At January 1988 there were 27,846 active lay magistrates, of whom 11,934 were women. There are currently 48 metropolitan stipendiary magistrates of whom eight are women and 14 provincial stipendiary magistrates, of whom none are women.

  No records are kept of the racial origins of magistrates, but surveys conducted last year revealed that 528 lay magistrates were members of an ethnic minority.

  Hunts (Trespass)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his prosecution policy in respect of alleged offences of criminal trespass by hunts on British Rail land.

  The Attorney-General
  The prosecution policy of the Crown prosecution service, in respect of all offences prosecuted by that service, is contained in the code for Crown prosecutors, which is issued pursuant to section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985.

PRIME MINISTER

  Education Testing (Leak of Letter)
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her answer of 14 March, she will set up an inquiry to discover the source of the leak of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey on educational testing.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 14 March, at column 425.

  Biwater
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister on what assessment of Biwater's previous record in the supply of 20
  waterworks to Nigeria she gave Biwater her personal backing in the negotiations for a contract to supply Malaysia with similar equipment.

  The Prime Minister
  One of the main purposes of my visits abroad is to support the efforts of reputable British companies to secure contracts. The Biwater contract was therefore raised in discussion with Ministers on my visit to Malaysia in 1985.

ENERGY

  South Normanton Depot
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will issue a direction to British Coal to name the consortium and the cost involved in the purchase of south Normanton depot and other transport undertakings including the mobile plants in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No; these are management matters for the British Coal Corporation.

  "Bribes, Brothels and Nuclear Waste"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek to obtain a copy of the transcript of the Thames Television programme "This Week" entitled "Bribes, Brothels and Nuclear Waste" broadcast on 10 March for his departmental library.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No.

  Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his plans for the Berkeley nuclear laboratories following plans for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for discussion with the industry.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board about withdrawal of funds from research into the decommissioning of nuclear power stations; and if he will take steps to prevent any delay in the Sellafield research project.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB's decision to withdraw its contribution towards the cost of UKAEA research into decommissioning of the Windscale advanced gas cooled reactor is a management matter for the board. The Department will be discussing with UKAEA the implications of the CEGB's decision in the course of negotiations on the authority's R and D programme.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether Dounreay has been in receipt of any consignments of nuclear waste(a) before May 1979 and (b) since May 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 14 March 1988]: Since 1986, some 423 cu m of wastes arising from the development of fast reactor fuels at Sellafield have been moved to Dounreay. Prior to 1986 very small quantities of waste totalling less than 7 cu m and arising mainly from work undertaken in support of the Dounreay programme were transferred from other UK AEA sites to Dounreay. Small quantities of waste are transferred regularly to Dounreay from the adjacent Vulcan naval reactor test establishment.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards proposals by the Central Electricity Generating Board to build new nuclear generating capacity, in the context of the overall development of national electricity supplies.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [pursuant to his reply 17 December 1987, c. 639–640]: It appears to me, on the information so far available to me, that the following economic, safety, environmental and planning matters are likely to be relevant to my consideration of the CEGB's application to construct a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point:

  (1) the applicant's requirement for the power station (particularly in the light of Government policy as set out in the answer given on 17 December 1987 and in the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" (Cm. 322), in particular paragraphs 44–49);

  (2) the safety feature of the design, construction and operation of the station, taking into account the conclusions on the safety of the Sizewell B PWR contained in the report of Sir Frank Layfield QC and the views of the nuclear installations inspectorate, as representing the Health and Safety Executive (the licensing authority);

  (3) the on-site management of radioactive waste arising from the station and radioactive discharges from the station to the environment in the light of the views of the authorising Departments; and

  (4) the implications of the proposed development (including construction, operation and decommissioning) for: (a) agriculture and fisheries; (b) the local economy including employment; (c) water supply and disposal; (d) transport requirements; (e) coast protection and sea defences; (f) housing and public services generally; (g) local amenities and in particular areas of special landscape value or nature conservation interest; (h) emergency arrangements.

  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Mr. Michael Barnes, QC, to act as inspector at the public inquiry. The inspector will hold a first pre-inquiry meeting, starting on 1 June 1988, at the Somerset college of agriculture and horticulture at Cannington near Hinkley Point and it is expected that a second pre-inquiry meeting will be held in the period 12–14 July 1988.

  I consider it impracticable to open a major inquiry of this kind in a busy holiday area during the season. The inquiry is therefore expected to open on 4 October 1988,
  22
  the earliest date I consider practicable. Further details about the second pre-inquiry meeting and the inquiry itself, including details of the times and places, will be announced at a later date.

  The inquiry will also consider the CEGB's separate application for my consent to realign the final span of each of the Hinkley Point-Melksham and Hinkley Point-Taunton double circut of 400 kV overhead transmission lines.

  The electricity generating stations and overhead lines (inquiries procedure) rules 1987 will apply to the inquiry. The code of practice "Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines — Preparing for Major Inquiries in England and Wales" will also apply. I have placed a copy of the code of practice in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Support for Design Scheme (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to replace the support for design scheme in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I am discussing the implications of the termination of the support for design scheme with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. An announcement will he made in due course.

  Consultative Documents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy that responses received to consultative documents issued by his Department be made publicly available in his Department's library, except where the respondent has specifically asked that this not be done; and if he will arrange for this procedure to be made clear when future consultative documents are issued.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. Frank expression of views could be inhibited if there were a presumption in favour of publication. But I continue to be ready to do so in appropriate cases and when the respondent has explicitly agreed to publication.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the turnover of the British film industry in 1986–87, exclusive of overseas earnings.

  Mr. Maude
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Company Registrations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new company registrations there have been in Yorkshire and Humberside to the nearest convenient date since 1983.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of companies which presently have their registered offices in Yorkshire and Humberside and which were incorporated in the period 1983 to 1986 is 15,096. To date 2,499 companies formed during 1987 have registered offices in Yorkshire and Humberside. This figure may change appreciably over the next few months
  23
  as many companies are bought off-the-shelf from registration agents and their address in this early period is therefore the address of these agents.

  Country of Origin Labelling
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he proposes to introduce any changes regarding country of origin requirements in the labelling of manufactured goods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Provision is made in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for the repeal of the Trade Description Act 1972 which is concerned with the origin marking of imported goods generally. I propose to introduce successor requirements, by means of an order under section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 at the same time as effect is given to the repeal of the 1972 Act and to this end my Department is currently considering paper and draft order issued on 18 December last.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the accommodation costs per square metre of his Department's buildings in London at(a) 1–19 Victoria street, (b) Allington towers, (c) Ashdown house and (d) Kingsgate house; and how many civil servants are employed in each location.

  Year and sponsoring organisation

  Other countries visited

  1982

  London Chamber of Commerce

  —

  North of England Development Council

  —

  Engineering Industries Association

  —

  Cardiff Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  —

  City of Westminster Chamber of Commerce

  —

  Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  —

  Association of British Offshore Industry

  —

  Export-IT (British Information Technology Export Organisation)

  —

  Federation of Sussex Industries and Chamber of Commerce

  —

  1983

  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce

  —

  Defence Manufacturers Association

  Dubai, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE

  London Chamber of Commerce

  —

  Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Engineering Industries Association

  —

  Export-IT (British Information Technology Export Organisation)

  —

  Engineerng Industries Association

  —

  British Food Export Council

  Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Yemen

  Federation of Sussex Industries and Chamber of Commerce

  —

  1984

  British Water Industries Group

  —

  London Chamber of Commerce

  —

  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce

  —

  British Food Export Council

  Gulf States

  Glasgow Chamber of Commerce

  —

  1985

  London Chamber of Commerce

  —

  Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  —

  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce

  —

  Engineering Industries Association

  Bahrain

  Export-IT (British Information Technology Export Organisation)

  Glasgow Chamber of Commerce

  —

  British Health-Care Export Council

  —

  1986

  British Food Export Council

  Middle East scatter, Gulf States scatter

  Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  —

  1987

  Glasgow Chamber of Commerce

  —

  The Middle East Association

  —

  24
  Mr. Butcher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer, given on 2 March at column 584 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Details of accommodation costs on leasehold buildings are treated by the Property Services Agency as commercially confidential. The numbers currently employed in the buildings referred to are:

  Location

  Number

  1–19 Victoria Street

  1,101

  Allington Towers

  259

  Ashdown House

  783

  Kingsgate House

  672

  Saudi Arabia (Trade Missions)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report the trade missions from the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia since 1 January 1982, indicating (a) which received financial assistance from his Department, (b) the main organising bodies, (c) the purposes, and (d) the precise destination of each.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The following trade missions have visited Saudi Arabia with DTI assistance since 1 January 1982:
  25

  Year and sponsoring organisation

  Other countries visited

  Federation of Sussex Industries

  —

  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce

  —

  British Health-Care Export Council

  —

  Croydon Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Oman

  1988

  BEAMA (Federation of British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association)

  Dubai, Kuwait

  London Chamber of Commerce

  —

  Glasgow Chamber of Commerce

  —

  The purpose of each mission was the promotion of British exports.

  Information about missions since 1982 receiving no DTI financial assistance is not readily available.

  Airbus
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many aircraft have been firmly ordered and how many options have been secured since his Department announced official support for the A330 and A340 aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As at 15 March 1988, the total number of commitments for the Airbus A330–340 was 145 aircraft. As the programme is still in its early stages, figures broken down between the A330 and the A340, and between firm orders and options, are not available.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many aircraft have been firmly ordered and how many options have been secured since his Department announced official support for the A320 aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As at 15 March 1988, 294 firm orders and 189 options had been placed for the Airbus A320 aircraft.

  Departmental Logos
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy that in redesigning logos, and so on for his Department, he will continue to use the historical emblem of the Board of Trade of which the Secretary of State is President.

  Mr. Butcher
  The historical emblem of the Board of Trade will continue to be used in selected areas where it is particularly appropriate, but in the majority of cases the new DTI logo will be employed. This logo covers all the activities of the Department of Trade and Industry rather than those of just one of the predecessor Departments. It has been introduced to support the major restructuring of DTI policies set out in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" which was presented to Parliament on 12 January 1988.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will now make it his practice to answer questions concerning the Export Credits Guarantee Department's involvement in(a) particular transactions and (b) particular countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to make public the terms under which guarantees issued by the Export Credits Guarantee 26
  Department (ECGD) are made available for particular markets nor to disclose details of the support provided by ECGD for individual transactions. Such disclosure of commercially confidential information could prejudice the negotiating position of the United Kingdom exporters. Disclosure of the ECGD's assessment of other countries' creditworthiness could damage relationships between Her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned.

  Animal Skins
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) dog pelts and (b) cat skins were exported in each of the last five years and to which main countries; what checks are made on the sources of such skins, with particular regard to their legality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: Statistics on the export of dog pelts and cat skins, other than wild feline skins, are not available. No checks are made on the sources of such skins.

WALES

  Neonatal Facilities
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of neonatal facilities in hospitals in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I am pleased that improvements in services for newly born babies and their mothers have been accompanied by a dramatic reduction in the perinatal mortality rate in Wales, which has fallen from 15·6 per 1,000 births in 1979 to 10·3 in 1986.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a county by county break-down of inward investment in Wales for the last year for which full figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The total recorded number of inward investment projects secured for Wales during 1987 was 113, involving investment of £244 million. I have arranged for a breakdown by county to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Health Disadvantage
  Mr. Ted Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he plans to take to compensate for the relative disadvantages in health experienced by residents of(a) Mid-Glamorgan and (b) other parts of Wales.
  27
  Mr. Grist
  Relative health needs are taken account of in the formulae used in determining the allocation of resources to district health authorities.

  Tourism and Leisure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to support or initiate measures to increase jobs in the tourist and leisure industries in(a) Gwent and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The increase in resources we have made available for the Wales tourist board and assistance announced under the Enterprise Wales package will help the tourist industry create jobs in all parts of Wales.

  A55 (Chester-Bangor)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further schemes are required to complete the dualling of the A55 between Chester and Bangor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Five schemes are under construction. Four further schemes—the Traveller's Inn, Pen-Y-Clip, Aber and Rhaullt Hill improvements—are planned. Dualling is expected to be completed in the early 1990s.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were(a) unemployed and (b) employed in Wales in May 1979; and what are the latest figures.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On a seaonally adjusted basis, there were 73,100 and 136,700 unemployed claimants in Wales 28
  in May 1979 and February 1988 respectively. At September 1979, there were 1,160,000 in employment in Wales. The comparable details for September 1987, the latest available, are 1,021,000.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most closely comparable basis.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 11 February 1988, the number of unemployed claimants in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 7,841, 22,923 and 145,458 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

  Council House Building
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council homes were started in 1987 in Wales; and how many were completed.

  Mr. Grist
  A total of 908 dwellings were started by local authorities in Wales in 1987 and 795 were completed.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to promote the use of Welsh in official business.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This is one of several issues which the working group, established by my right hon. Friend under my chairmanship, is considering.

  Lamb (Radioactivity)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up an inquiry into the alleged sale to the public of radioactive lamb above the official safety levels.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. I am satisfied that controls on the movement and slaughter of sheep have ensured that there has been no threat to public safety.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to expand kidney dialysis treatment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Kidney dialysis treatment in Wales has expanded rapidly under this Government, and the acceptance rate for new patients is now well above the average for the United Kingdom. Further progress will be made this year with the construction of two more subsidiary renal units in south-east Wales and an expansion of the Morriston hospital unit.

  Consultative Documents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that responses received to consultative documents issued by his Department be made publicly available in his Department's library, except where the respondent has specifically asked that this not be done; and if he will arrange for this procedure to be made clear when future consultative documents are issued.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is already the policy of my Department to make responses to consultative documents available to the public on request except where a respondent has specifically asked for this not to be done. These arrangements are made clear when consultative documents are issued.

  AIDS
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what special arrangements have been made for the treatment of persons suffering from AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  In December 1985 all district health authorities were encouraged to establish AIDS coordinating teams to ensure the proper management of the response to AIDS in their areas, and to ensure that treatment and care facilities were available for those who needed them. In May 1987 district health authorities were asked to prepare district operational plans on AIDS. Planning guidelines were published which contained advice on the arrangements for the treatment of AIDS sufferers including the need to consider the provision of facilities for treatment in hospital and in the community. The Welsh Office has responded to draft plans received from all authorities. Final plans are due to be submitted by 1 April 1988.

  School-Industry Links
  Sir Raymond Cower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to strengthen 30
  contacts and co-operation between senior classes in Welsh comprehensive schools and local industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A Welsh Office survey conducted last year indicated that there was a generally high incidence of school-industry interaction in Wales. This is an encouraging base on which to bring in new initiatives on top of existing ones, such as general work experience currently provided through schools, local authorities, TVEI and link bodies. On 13 January I announced the Enterprise Wales package, a significant and important element of which is the business and education initiative. An aim of the initiative is that, within two or three years, every young person in Wales should be given personal experience of the world of work during their last year in school.

  I am also exploring the possibilities of establishing one or more compacts in Wales, which would considerably strengthen links between schools and local industrial and commercial concerns. Finally "Working Together for a Better Future", the careers initiative launched last year in England and Wales, affirms the key place of careers education in the school curriculum, to inform school leavers in their choice of occupation, including careers in industry.

  Repair Grants
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve the position of elderly householders whose dwellings are in need of repair and whose grant applications have not yet been met.

  Mr. Grist
  We are aware of the particular problems elderly home owners face and have made available substantial financial support to establish care and repair home improvement services to assist them in repairing and improving their homes. A number of the changes we have suggested to the home improvement grant arrangements could be of particular help to the elderly.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from representatives of sufferers from myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  In the past year we have received two representations from hon. Members, and an application from the national chairman of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association for grant-aid under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. We shall be making our decision on this application shortly.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give his latest estimate of the number of males and females in Wales who suffer from incontinence; if he will express this figure in percentage terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available centrally.

  Home Insulation Grants
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any representations concerning the change in regulations affecting home insulation grants in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Before the new arrangements for the homes insulation scheme were introduced our Department consulted the Association of District Councils in Wales. Two district councils have written to the Welsh Office since the introduction of the new scheme.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Social Security Regulations
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any estimate of the number of gainers and losers in Wales when the new social security regulations come into force in April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that statistically reliable estimates for Wales only cannot be provided.

  Cohabitation Rule
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women have been cut off from social security benefit as a result of the cohabitation rule in the following categories(a) women receiving widow's allowance, 60 plus years, (b) women receiving widow's allowance, under 60 years, (c) women receiving supplementary pension, 60 plus years and (d) women receiving supplementary allowance, under 60 years; and how many men have been cut off benefits, pensions and allowances as a result of the cohabitation rule.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information available is as follows, given for the latest possible date. Records of disqualification do not show the age and sex of the beneficiaries.

  Widow's benefit: 1,722 disqualifications in year ended December 1987.

  Supplementary benefit: 8,152 disqualifications in year ended November 1987.

  (i) Widow's benefit records include recipients of war widows' benefit but exclude industrial widows' benefit for which records are not kept centrally and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (ii) Widow's benefit recipients over age 60 have concurrent title to retirement pension which does not carry a similar disqualification.

  Medical Treatment (Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which countries have reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom for free medical treatment of their nationals.

  Mrs. Currie
  Normally, arrangements for reciprocal health care between countries do not provide for free treatment but for treatment to be provided to visitors to the host country on the same basis as to residents of that country. The Department's information leaflet SA41 "The Traveller's Guide to Health: Before You Go" lists those countries and territories with which we have reciprocal agreements on pages 18 to 19 and 24 to 27. Copies of this leaflet, and its companion SA40 "While You're Away",32
  have been placed in the Library and are available from DHSS local offices, and travel agents and a number of other outlets.

  Computer Purchases
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to introduce greater accountability for computer purchasing by the health regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Decisions relating to the purchase of computer equipment and any other goods and services are for local health authority management to take, having regard to value for money. Such decisions are subject to normal audit scrutiny.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to introduce compulsory tendering for all National Health Service computer equipment costing over £10,000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The decision on what equipment to purchase and how to purchase it is a matter for individual health authorities, having regard to their standing financial instructions and value for money. The Department has, however, recently issued guidance which draws attention to current public purchasing policy, which recommends the use of competitive tendering.

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham (Radiology System)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which companies tendered for the supply of a computerised radiology system for the Queens medical centre, Nottingham; which system was requested by the medical staff at the centre; on what basis the contract was awarded to Datamed; what operational experience the Datamed system had; what assessment was made of the ability of HM Systems to provide the service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The following companies tendered for the supply of the Queens medical centre radiology system:

  Datamed

  AJR Systems (now HM Systems)

  Guardian

  SIFO

  I understand that the medical staff at the centre were fully consulted during the procurement process and were satisfied with the decision to proceed with the successful company. The Datamed system was selected on the basis that, while a new development, the operating system it employed was compatible with other computing developments within the region and the company offered comprehensive support arrangements. The solution proposed by HM Systems was considered against the same criteria as those for Datamed.

  I further understand that a number of districts within the Trent region are now using the Datamed system, and several others are considering its use.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to revise upwards the official figures for deaths from AIDS in the light of the evidence
  33
  given to a recent conference on AIDS by Dr. Anna McCormick, senior medical statistician at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are aware of Dr. McCormick's interesting study and we understand that a full report will be published shortly. The current system of voluntary reporting of cases of AIDS that meet the internationally accepted definition of AIDS is working well. If this system were extended to include other HIV-related deaths, the United Kingdom's system would then not be consistent with that used in other countries. The reporting arrangements for AIDS and other HIV-related deaths are being kept under review.

  London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now announce details of the appointment and reappointment of chairmen of district health authorities and of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals from 1 April.

  Mr. Newton
  I am placing in the Library a list of the appointments made with effect from 1 April.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his latest estimate of the number of males and females in England who suffer from incontinence; if he will express this figure in percentage terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 25 February 1988 at column 294–5.

  The epidemiological survey conducted by the Medical Research Council's epidemiology and medical care unit, which is the latest source of information available, was completed in 1978 and was part of a 10-year survey on incontinence. I regret that there are no figures to show the prevalence of incontinence in England alone, nor is it possible to give details in the form requested.

  However, the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys is currently carrying out a major survey of the numbers, circumstances and needs of disabled people. The results, which will include statistics on incontinence, will be published in a series of reports starting later this year.

  Medicines (Raw Materials)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are taken to verify sources of raw materials following approval by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the issue of generic licences by his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  An applicant for a product licence must state the source of all active ingredients and specify the tests and limits he will apply to them. If products are to be imported in a finished state, the applicant must detail the checks which are to be carried out on importation. In all cases, the finished products must conform with the agreed specification. Lack of compliance can result in action being considered to suspend or revoke the relevant licence.

  The applicant for a product licence must state the source of all active ingredients and specify the tests and
  34
  limits he will apply to them. If products are to be imported in a finished state, the applicant must detail the checks which are to be carried out on importation. In all cases, the finished products must conform with the agreed specification. Lack of compliance can result in action being considered to suspend or revoke the relevant licence.

  The medicines inspectorate has power to check the origin of raw material in the course of its visits to pharmaceutical manufacturers and for biological raw materials checks extend back to the primary manufacturer.

  Samples are also taken from the market for independent analysis on behalf of the licensing authority.

  East Anglian RHA (Holidaymakers)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce a pilot National Health Service internal market experiment into the East Anglian regional health authority with due weight given to the annual population increase in the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district health authority caused by the influx of visitors and holidaymakers.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that there is a good deal of interest, within the East Anglian region, in the possibility of mounting an experiment.

  I will ask the regional health authority chairman to ensure, if the experiment goes ahead, that account is taken of any particular local factors within the region.

  My hon. Friend may like to approach the regional chairman for further details.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on allocating funds to East Anglian regional health authority to take account of the increased use of family practitioner and hospital facilities by the influx of summer holidaymakers every year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Our policy is to bring allocations to regional health authorities into line, over time, with targets calculated using the Resource Allocation Working Party formula to reflect each region's relative need for health care. These targets include an adjustment to take account of the past pattern of hospital treatment provided to patients from outside the region's own boundaries.

  Family practitioner services in the East Anglian regional health authority are provided under arrangements made by family practitioner committees. Payments are made to general medical practitioners for treating temporary residents—including holidaymakers—and for providing treatment in an emergency to people not on their list. Fees paid to general medical practitioners in the East Anglian regional health authority area in 1986–87 for treating temporary residents amounted to £525,383 and for emergency treatments to £90,896. This exlcudes the cost of drugs. Information on the proportion of these payments made in respect of holidaymakers is not separately available.

  Medicines Commission (Appeals)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many appeals to the Medicines Commission against recommendations from the Committee on Safety of Medicines were heard in each of the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; in how many of these cases the Medicines
  35
  Commission allowed the appeal; and in each of these cases where the advice from the Commission differed from that of the Commission on Safety of Medicines, what decision the licensing authority took and on what basis.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  1

  2

  3

  4

  1984

  9

  5

  4

  1

  1985

  7

  5

  4

  1

  1986

  3

  2

  2

  —

  1987

  12

  2

  2

  —

  Key:

  Column 1: Hearings before the Medicines Commission and written representations considered by the Medicines Commission against advice by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).

  Column 2: Advice by Medicines Commission to determine application other than as advised by CSM.

  Column 3: Determined by the licensing authority in accordance with Medicines Commission advice.

  Column 4: Determined otherwise.

  Notes:

  1. The case determined otherwise in 1984 would have required amendment of the Prescription Only Order to make a substance legally available without prescription.

  2. In the 1985 case determined otherwise than on the Commission's advice, it was ascertained after the Medicines Commission proceedings that information relevant to the safety of the medicine had not been made available to them by the company concerned. Current Medicines Commission practice requires companies to make available all relevant information for these proceedings.

  3. In other cases, the licensing authority's own judgment on the information available to it gave it no reason to differ from the advice of the Medicines Commission.

  4. In most cases, new evidence unavailable to the CSM was submitted to the Medicines Commission; or the proposed licensing conditions were altered by the company; or both.

  Acute Medicine
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a breakdown of the additional £20 million for 1988–89 for alleviating pressures on the acute sector between the various regional health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  Allocations to regional health authorities did not identify any specific sum for this purpose.

  CHCs (Birmingham)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will reply to the letter of 20 November 1987 from Central Birmingham community health council on behalf of the joint committee of community health councils in Birmingham.

  Mr. Newton
  I replied to the community health council on 17 March.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for single payments were outstanding at the local social security offices at Kingsbury road and St. Margaret's road in Birmingham on 18 March.

  Mr. Portillo
  The office at Kingsbury road (Erdington ILO) had 363 single payment claims outstanding on 18 March. The office at St. Margaret's road (Washwood Heath ILO) had 900 single payment claims outstanding on 18 March.

  Income Support
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what deadline has been established for the conversion of benefit payments to income support; what additional resources have been made available for this work at the local social security offices at Kingsbury road and St. Margaret's road in Birmingham; and whether he is satisfied that the deadline will be met.

  Mr. Portillo
  The deadline for the conversion of supplementary benefit payments to income support is 11 April 1988. The offices each have nine posts in addition to their normal staffing for the conversion exercise. They have also been helped by a special team from the regional office. This team stayed at Kingsbury road office for three weeks and at St. Margaret's road for four weeks. Both offices are confident that they will complete the conversion by 11 April 1988.

  Ms. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether an expectant mother who suspends a full-time course of study during her pregnancy will be entitled to income support.

  Mr. Portillo
  If an expectant mother ceased to be a student, she would be eligible for income support. If she remained a student she would be eligible for income support during the summer vacation only and should look to an education grant for support at other times.

  Place of Safety Orders
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the number of place of safety orders taken out in respect of children and young persons during 1987, showing which authority took them out.

  Mr. Newton
  Statistics on children and young persons removed to a place of safety during the year ending 31 March 1987 are given for 87 local authorities in the provisional feedback "Children Removed to a Place of Safety, England, 1987", copies of which are available in the Library. Information subsequently received from a further 18 local authorities is shown in the table.

  These figures relate to cases where the local authority was responsible for the removal to a place of safety or where the local authority made provision for a child removed by the authority of some other person or body.

  Children and young persons removed to a place of safety during the year ending 31 March 19871

  Authority

  Number

  Cleveland

  285

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  13

  Barnsley

  33

  Doncaster

  53

  Kirklees

  30

  Bury

  20

  Manchester

  300

  Warwickshire

  63

  Buckinghamshire

  32

  Camden

  26

  Greenwich

  69

  Hackney

  44

  Lewisham

  57

  Barking

  22

  Enfield

  18

  Devon

  130

  Gloucestershire

  35

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  37

  1 Figures are provisional

  Handicapped Children (Kent)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of children in each district health authority in Kent, in each of the last 10 years, has been born with physical and mental handicaps.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the exact information requested is not available centrally. However, the hon. Member may be interested in the table, which shows readily available information from the registration of live and still births, and from the notification of congenital malformations. These notifications are based on a voluntary system of reporting malformations noticed at birth, or within seven days of birth, and may therefore exclude certain anomalies.

  Number of total live and still births, and number of notifications of congenital malformations to mothers resident in District Health Authorities (DHA) in Kent

  1983 to 1986

  Area of usual residence DHA

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total live and stillbirths

  South East Kent

  2,981

  2,968

  3,190

  3,319

  Canterbury and Thanet

  3,235

  3,225

  3,390

  3,555

  Dartford and Gravesham

  2,810

  2,839

  3,037

  3,013

  Infant mortality rate1 for health areas in Kent 1977–1986

  Year

  Area of usual residence

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  South East Kent

  8·8

  12·5

  15·3

  10·3

  10·4

  11·4

  7·8

  9·5

  8·5

  8·2

  Canterbury and Thanet

  13·7

  13·5

  10·6

  9·9

  10·1

  12·7

  10·9

  11·5

  9·2

  8·2

  Dartford and Gravesham

  10·2

  13·0

  9·6

  13·6

  10·2

  10·3

  25·7

  7·8

  10·0

  8·7

  Maidstone

  11·0

  11·4

  12·1

  11·5

  11·5

  27·5

  10·5

  27·6

  8·8

  11·1

  Medway

  12·6

  13·1

  12·8

  11·5

  13·5

  9·3

  13·0

  8·7

  8·8

  7·9

  Tunbridge Wells

  10·6

  9·9

  8·8

  14·2

  12·9

  29·3

  26·6

  28·4

  28·2

  26·0

  1 Deaths under one year per 1,000 live births. Figures for 1977·80 are for health districts, rather than district health authorities.

  2 Rates calculated from less than 20 events which may affect their reliability.

  HIV Infection
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the additional costs, apart from the running of an anonymised screening programme for pregnant women, of establishing a full counselling service for women found to have an HIV infection, assuming a full take-up of the scheme.

  Mr. Newton
  The cost of such counselling would depend on the number of women found to be infected, and the amount of counselling each needed. We do not have information on which to make estimates on either factor.

  Crewe District Health Authority
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the numbers of(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) other technical personnel employed by the Crewe district health authority (i) in the latest year for which figures are available and (ii) 10 years previously.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 30 November 1987]: Such information as is available is shown in the table. I regret that information to this level of detail is not centrally available for 1976. Figures for medical and dental staff
  38

  Area of usual residence DHA

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Maidstone

  2,217

  2,388

  2,387

  2,443

  Medway

  4,815

  4,845

  5,016

  4,964

  Tunbridge Wells

  2,130

  2,033

  2,210

  2,165

  Notifications of congenital malformations

  South East Kent

  49

  39

  37

  65

  Canterbury and Thanet

  35

  37

  33

  24

  Dartford and Gravesham

  64

  92

  75

  116

  Maidstone

  23

  33

  46

  26

  Medway

  86

  79

  65

  60

  Tunbridge Wells

  29

  36

  35

  29

  Infant Mortality (Kent)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the infant mortality rate in each of the district health authorities in Kent for each of the last ten years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.

  exclude senior registrars and consultants whose contracts are held by the regional health authority, and not by the individual district.

  National Health Service directly employed staff in post Crewe district health authority at 30 September

  Staff

  1Whole-time equivalents 1986

  Medical and dental2

  90

  Nursing and midwifery3

  1,790

  Professional and technical (excluding works)

  260

  Source: DHSS annual censuses of National Health Service medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes all permanent paid, honourary and locum staff in the hospital and community health services.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  Pontefract District Health Authority
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the numbers of(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) other technical personnel employed

  39
  by the Pontefract district health authority (i) in the last year for which figures are available and (ii) 10 years previously.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 30 November 1987]: Such information as is available is shown in the table. I regret that information to this level of detail is not centrally available for 1976. Figures for medical and dental staff exclude senior registrars and consultants whose contracts are held by the regional health authority, and not by the individual district.

  National Health Service staff in post Pontefract district health authority at 30 September

  1Whole-time equivalents 1986

  Medical and dental2

  70

  Nursing and midwifery3

  1,100

  Professional and technical (excluding works)

  190

  Source: DHSS annual censuses of National Health Service medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes all permanent paid, honorary and locum staff in the hospital and community health services.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  Central Nottinghamshire Health Authority
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the levels of staff, by National

  NHS Medical and Nursing Staff in Post Central Nottinghamshire District Health Authority

  Whole-Time Equivalent1 at 30 September Each Year

  Area of Work

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Geriatric: Total:

  288

  281

  288

  304

  299

  Nursing Staff2

  282

  274

  280

  296

  291

  Medical Staff3

  6

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Mental Handicap: Total:

  344

  347

  345

  361

  388

  Nursing Staff2

  343

  345

  344

  359

  386

  Medical Staff3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Mental Illness: Total4

  77

  76

  88

  90

  97

  Nursing Staff2

  71

  71

  86

  89

  95

  Medical Staff3

  6

  5

  2

  1

  1

  Source: DHSS Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  2 Includes Nursing Learners where recorded. Excludes Agency Staff.

  3 Includes permanent paid and honorary medical staff. Excludes Senior Registrars and Consultants where contracts are held by the Regional Health Authority. Excludes Locum Staff.

  4 Includes staff working with Elderly Severely Mentally Infirm patients.

  Administration-Beds Ratio
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present ratio of administration to beds in(a) the Northern regional health authority and (b) the Sunderland district health authority; and what percentage change has taken place in these two health authorities over the past eight years.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: Such information as is available is shown in the tables. Because of the 1982 NHS reorganisation, figures for district health authorities on a consistent basis are not held centrally for
  40
  Health Service category, working with psychogeriatric patients in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  (2) if he will give the levels of staff, by National Health Service category, working with geriatric patients in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  (3) if he will give the levels of staff, by National Health Service category, working with mentally handicapped patients in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  (4) if he will give the levels of staff, by National Health Service category, working with mentally ill patients in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]The table shows medical and nursing staff employed in the Central Nottinghamshire district health authority, who were recorded as working in the geriatric, mental handicap and mental illness areas of work. Staff working with pschogeriatric patients are included within the total figures for mental illness. Staff within other NHS staff groups cannot be identified as working with specific types of patient.

  The table gives staff employed for each year from 1982 to 1986 inclusive. Figures for 1987 are not yet available to this level of detail. Figures prior to 1982 are not available on a comparable basis with those given in the table, due to the effects of the 1982 NHS reorganisation.

  the years prior to 1982. For comparison purposes, figures for the Northern regional health authority are given for the same years as for Sunderland district health authority.

  Administrative and clerical staff cover a wide range of health services activity, not just those related to hospital bed provision. Staff in post figures are a "snapshot" on 30 September, whereas average daily available beds are a daily count averaged over a full calendar year. For these reasons any staff in-post/beds ratio would be crude and might be misleading.
  41

  National Health Service administrative and clerical staff1 in post at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Year

  Northern RHA

  Sunderland DHA

  1982

  6,090

  570

  1986

  6,260

  630

  Percentage change3 1982 to 1986

  +2·8

  +9·9

  Source: DHSS annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes general managers.

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

  3 Percentage calculated on un-rounded figures.

  Average daily available beds in National Health Service hospitals

  1982

  1986

  Percentage change

  Northern RHA

  24,679

  23,239

  -5·8

  Sunderland DHA

  2,338

  2,273

  -2·8

  Over this period the number of patients treated has increased, as follows:

  Total in-patients treated

  1982

  1986

  Percentage change

  Northern RHA

  376,067

  441,095

  +17·3

  Sunderland DHA

  45,559

  48,820

  +7·2

  In-patients
  Dr. David Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list for each year since 1979 the average length of in-patient stay in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;

  (2) what was the average length of stay in acute hospitals for each year since 1979 in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 4 March 1988, c. 747]: I regret that, although a table was mentioned in my previous reply, it had been omitted in error. The table is as follows:

  Average length of stay, by sector, National Health Service hospitals in England

  Year

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Maternity

  1979

  9·3

  77·5

  6·0

  1980

  8·8

  70·1

  5·7

  1981

  8·6

  66·1

  5·5

  1982

  8·6

  62·3

  5·3

  1983

  8·1

  57·1

  5·1

  1984

  7·8

  52·6

  4·8

  1985

  7·6

  47·8

  4·6

  1986

  7·3

  44·8

  4·4

TRANSPORT

  Bus Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proportion of bus services registered in England(a) operating on Sundays and (b) operating after 6 pm on weekdays; and how regularly his Department proposes to produce figures on these matters.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Information is not available precisely in the form requested. Twenty-two per cent, of 42
  bus services registered in England and Wales operate on Sundays; and 17 per cent. operate between 8 pm and 10 pm on weekdays. We do not intend to produce regular figures.

  Dual Carriageways (Crash Barriers)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport where in the north-west crash barriers have been installed on dual carriageway central reservations since January 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On the A74 between Carlisle and the Scottish border, the A66 near Skirsgill roundabout, and the A590 and A5092 at Greenodd junction (all in Cumbria) and on the A54 Kelsall bypass in Cheshire.

  Faulty Seat Belts
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is taking steps to monitor the progress of checking faulty seat belts recently called in by Ford (UK) Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. The Department is monitoring this recall under i he recalls code of practice.

  Private Cars (Registration)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many private cars are at present registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As at December 1987, 17,421,236 car body-type vehicles were currently licensed and registered at the driver and vehicle licensing centre; 15,251,312 of these were registered in the names of individuals, as distinct from companies.

  Energy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of energy dedicated to transport is used by(a) railways and (b) road transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The data requested are published in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1976–1986", table 1·24 (HMSO), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  HM Coastguard
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement about the work of Her Majesty's Coastguard.

  Mr. Channon
  Over the past 10 years, the operations of HM Coastguard have been progressively adapted to reflect rapidly advancing technology in radio and telecommunications, together with the greatly strengthened search and rescue helicopter services which are now available. Visual watch from the coast is now generally confined to places and times which present a higher than average risk of an accident, but a radio listening watch is maintained throughout the year covering all waters around the coasts of the United Kingdom out to 40 miles to seaward. The VHF radio sites are being progressively fitted with direction finding equipment which enables the location of a vessel in distress to be determined quickly. In addition, coastguard stations are being equipped with the MF digital selective calling system
  43
  to operate with the equipment to be carried on vessels under the International Maritime Organisation's global maritime distress and safety system. The Coastguard also has links with the world wide satellite maritime communication system, and the international satellite beacon detection system.

  When the coastguard modernisation plan was started in 1978, the radio listening watch was managed from 28 operations centres which between them controlled about 70 sites. With greater experience of the new system of operations, it has proved possible to control a larger number of aerials from a smaller number of operations centres, and there are at present 24 such centres with aerials at 84 sites. I have now decided that, in the light of technical developments, these operations can be further refined with no detriment to safety, and that it will be possible to control the same number of aerials from 21 centres. I have therefore decided that the maritime rescue sub-centres at Hartland Point, Moray (Peterhead), and at Ramsey on the Isle of Man should be closed in March of next year, after which the responsibility for the aerials which they presently use will be transferred to neighbouring centres. At Peterhead and Hartland Point, a coastguard presence will be maintained by the sector officer and the management of the local auxiliary companies will be unaffected.

  In the case of the Isle of Man, the Government have also proposed that responsibility for search and rescue on the coast of the Island should be transferred to the Manx authorities, but radio listening watch and responsibility for search and rescue co-ordination in the waters around the island will be maintained by coastguard stations on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. The special fishermen's open line currently operated from the Moray sub-centre will be transferred to the co-ordination centre nearby at Aberdeen.

  I am consulting the National Union of Civil and Public Servants about the staffing implications of these changes: I do not anticipate that redundancies among regular coastguard staff will arise.

  I am satisfied that changes will in no way impede the ability of Her Majesty's Coastguard to respond to calls from vessels in distress and to co-ordinate search and rescue operations if they are required.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the regional transport authorities which operate a concessionary fares scheme for retirement pensioners; and in each case if he will state the age of eligibility for the scheme for(a) men and (b) women.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  According to information supplied on a voluntary basis to the Department of Transport in 1986–87, the local authorities in England listed in the table provided concessions, either individually or jointly with other authorities, to women on reaching the age of 60 and to men on reaching the age of 65, subject in some cases to other restrictions as to income and state pension status. Two other local authorities, Bristol city and Tendring district councils made concessions available to both men and women from the age of 65.

  Passenger Transport Authorities

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside

  South Yorkshire

  Tyne & Wear

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  44
  County Councils

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Derbyshire

  Durham

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Nottingham

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  District Councils

  Adur

  Allerdale

  Alnwick

  Amber Valley

  Arun

  Ashfield

  Aylesbury Vale

  Babergh

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Bath (City)

  Basildon

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bassetlaw

  Berwick Upon Tweed

  Beverley

  Blaby

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Blyth Valley

  Bolsover

  Booth Ferry

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell

  Braintree

  Breckland

  Brentwood

  Bridgnorth

  Brighton

  Broadland

  Broomsgrove

  Broxbourne

  Broxtowe

  Burnley

  Cambridge (City)

  Cannock Chase

  Canterbury (City)

  Carlisle City

  Castle Morpeth

  Castle Point

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Cherwell

  Chester (City)

  Chesterfield

  Chester-Le-Street

  Chichester

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Christchurch

  Cleethorpes

  Colchester

  Congleton

  Copeland

  Cotswold

  Craven

  Crawley

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Dacorum

  Darlington

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Derby (City)

  Derwentside

  Dover

  Durham (City)

  Easington

  Eastbourne

  East Hampshire

  East Hertfordshire

  Eastleigh

  East Lindsey

  East Northants

  East Staffordshire

  East Yorkshire

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Elmbridge

  Epping Forest

  Epsom and Ewell

  Erewash

  Exeter (City)

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean

  Fylde

  Gedling

  Gillingham

  Glanford

  Gloucestershire

  Gosport

  Gravesham

  Great Grimsby

  Great Yarmouth

  Guildford

  Halton

  Harborough

  Harlow

  Hart

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Havant

  Hereford (City)

  Hertsmere

  High Peak

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Holderness

  Horsham

  Hove

  Hyndburn

  Ipswich

  Kettering

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kingswood

  Lancaster (City)

  Langbaurgh

  Leicester (City)

  Leominster

  Lewes

  Lichfield

  Lincoln (City)

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Maidstone

  Maldon

  Malvern Hills

  Mansfield

  Melton

  Mendip

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Middlesbrough

  Mid Suffolk

  Mid Sussex

  Milton Keynes

  Newark and Sherwood

  45

  Newbury

  Newcastle-Under-Lyne

  New Forest

  Northampton

  Northavon

  North Bedfordshire

  North Devon

  North Dorset

  North East Derbyshire

  North Hertfordshire

  North Kesteven

  North Norfolk

  North Shropshire

  North Warwickshire

  North West Leicestershire

  Norwich (City)

  Nottingham (City)

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Oadby and Wigston

  Oswestry

  Oxford (City)

  Pendle

  Peterborough (City)

  Plymouth (City)

  Poole

  Portsmouth (City)

  Preston

  Purbeck

  Reading

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Restormel

  Ribble Valley

  Rochester Upon Medway (City)

  Rochford

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Rugby

  Runneymede

  Rushcliffe

  Rushmoor

  Rutland

  Ryedale

  St. Albans (City)

  St. Edmundsbury

  Scunthorpe

  Sedgefield

  Sedgemoor

  Selby

  Sevenoaks

  Shepway

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Slough

  Southampton (City)

  South Bedfordshire

  South Buckinghamshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Derbyshire

  Southend-on-Sea

  South Herefordshire

  South Kesteven

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk

  South Northamptonshire

  South Oxfordshire

  South Ribble

  South Somerset

  South Staffordshire

  Spelthorne

  Stafford

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stevenage

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stoke-on-Trent (City)

  Stroud

  Suffolk Coastal

  Swale

  Tamworth

  Tonbridge

  Teesdale

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Thamesdown

  Thanet

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Torbay

  Torridge

  Tunbridge Wells

  Tyndale

  Littlesford

  Vale of White Horse

  Vale Royal

  Wansbeck

  Wansdyke

  Warrington

  Warrick

  Watford

  Waveney

  Waverley

  Wealdon

  Wear Valley

  Wellingborough

  Welwyn and Hatfield

  West Derbyshire

  West Lancashire

  West Oxfordshire

  Weymouth and Portland

  Wirnbourne

  Winchester (City)

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Woking

  Workingham

  Worcester (City)

  Worthing

  Wrekin (The)

  Wychavon

  Wycombe

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest

  York (City)

  Departmental Offices (Access)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions his Department has made to improve its offices in Marsham street to make them accessible for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have been at pains to make these fully accessible to wheelchair users and other people with disabilities.
  46
  Facilities in the building include wheelchair-accessible toilets, all lift buttons at wheelchair height and fitted with braille symbols and several conference rooms equipped with induction loops for people with impaired hearing.

  The edges of all steps leading up to the building are colour-contrasted to help partially sighted people.

  Ramped access to the building from Marsham street has been available for some years. An additional ramp has been installed within the past few weeks to improve access further.

  All these facilities are regularly used by both visitors and staff.

  Dartford Crossings (Delays)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will give estimates for the likely delays, in minutes, for heavy goods vehicles carrying hazardous goods travelling north and south through the Dartford tunnel for each of the years 1988, 1989, 1990 1991 and 1992 at currently projected traffic levels;

  (2) if he will give estimates for the likely delays, in minutes, for heavy goods vehicles carrying hazardous goods travelling north and south following completion of a new Thames bridge at Dartford.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Vehicles carrying a defined range of hazardous goods — about 3 per cent. of all commercial vehicles—are escorted in convoys through the Dartford tunnels, minirnising the danger to the vehicles, to other traffic and to the structures. It is intended to continue this system if Parliament passes the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, which would transfer the tunnels from Essex and Kent county councils to the Secretary of State.

  The new bridge, which the Bill would authorise, is intended to be open early in 1991. It will take all southbound traffic and vehicles carrying hazardous goods in that direction will not then be escorted. Northbound traffic of that kind will continue to be escorted.

  Vehicles carrying hazardous goods now wait for five to 10 minutes for an escort. When the bridge opens, the flexibility offered by two northbound tunnels may make it possible to provide more frequent escorts.

  At present, vehicles suffer varying delays at certain times when the tunnels cannot cope with the volume of traffic. It is not possible to calculate an average delay clue to this cause.

  Hunts (Trespass)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the disruption of services, staff and passengers caused by hunts trespassing on British Rail land.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  One from the hon. Member, none from the public.

  Ferries
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the number of inspections performed by marine inspectors on ferries in port and on board ferries whilst at sea(a) in the two years and two months period prior to the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise and (b) since that date to 29 February.
  47
  Mr. David Mitchell
  Separate statistics were not kept for inspections of ferries by marine surveyors prior to the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise. From 6 March 1987 to 29 February 1988, 259 ferries were inspected in port and 114 whilst at sea.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received since 29 July 1987 from ferry owners and others about modifications to ferries built under the 1960 convention and the 1965 (PSC) rules;

  (2) what representations he has received since 29 July 1987 from ferry owners and others about competition from non-British companies in the event of changes to the design of ferry hulls under the 1960 convention and the 1965 (PSC) rules.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department received a number of representations from shipowners, in response to consultative document No. 3 and at meetings with the General Council of British Shipping, about the recommendations in the report of the court of formal investigation into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise relating to ferries built under the 1965 rules. In addition, I received a letter from the president of the general council and will place a copy of that letter and of my reply in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his plans to adopt the recommendation of the formal investigation into the Herald of Free Enterprise of section 49 concerning ferries built under the 1960 convention and the 1965 (PSC) rules.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  On 31 July, my Department called for full data on all roll-on/roll-off ferries built before 1980 to be submitted to the Department by 1 April, to enable assessments to be made of how these ships measure up to the current requirements for survivability following collision damage. The Government intend to analyse this information fully, and to reach conclusions upon the recommendations in the report of the court, by the end of September.

  Railways
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to maximise the environmental benefits to be gained from the railways as compared to other forms of transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Government offer grants under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 to facilitate the transfer of freight from road to rail where that would lead to significant environmental gain.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Students (Rating Reform)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent Northern Ireland students attending universities in Great Britain whose parents are already paying rates in Northern Ireland will be required to pay poll tax; and to what extent student grants will be increased accordingly.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Devolved Government
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the views recently expressed by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on devolved government for Northern Ireland have been officially conveyed to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I was provided with a copy of the Taoiseach's remarks as a courtesy and I have noted the comments that he made.

  Diplock Courts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on the adoption of Viscount Colville's recommendation that cases of robbery and aggravated burglary should not be tried in Diplock courts.

  Mr. Stanley
  During the debate, on 25 February, on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts (Continuance) Order at column 475, my right hon. Friend said that we certainly want to see as many jury trials as we can and that we shall be considering Lord Colville's suggestion of removing robbery and aggravated burglary from the scheduled list. That consideration is continuing.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give his latest estimate of the number of males and females in Northern Ireland who suffer from incontinence; if he will express this figure in percentage terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  No reliable estimates are currently available.

  Dogs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many registrations have been recorded since the implementation of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of registrations, which deal only with breeding establishments and guard dog kennels, made since the provisions of the Dog Order (Northern Ireland) 1983 became operative on 19 December 1983 are:

  Breeding Establishments

  Guard Dog Kennels

  19 December 1983—31 December 1984

  519

  121

  1 January 1985—31 December 1985

  420

  101

  1 January 1986—31 December 1986

  336

  101

  1 January 1987—31 December 1987

  351

  6

  Brendan Burns (Warrants)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Londonderry of 10 March,Official Report, column 304, if he will indicate in what way the original warrants for Brendan Burns were held to be defective.
  49
  Mr. Stanley
  I understand that the original warrants were held to be defective because they were issued by a different justice of the peace from the one before whom the "complaint" had been sworn.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Mr. Colin Wallace was ever personally interviewed by an official inquiry or by other 50
  official persons in connection with (a) psychological operations, (b) an alleged shoot-to-kill policy, (c) alleged political disinformation activity and (d) any alleged use of forged documentations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: Not as far as I am aware.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Inner London Youth Services: Funding
Lord Newall Lord Newall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision they intend to make for funding of the inner London voluntary youth service for 8 to 18 year-olds after 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, under the proposals announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 4th February, each of the inner London councils will become the local education authority for its area and will therefore be responsible for provision and funding of its local youth services.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Perhaps I may ask whether she is aware that there are 713 voluntary youth organisations in London and that when the boroughs take over responsibility for the running of these youth clubs they are bound to give them a low priority. That will mean thousands of young people being allowed to go on the streets and turning to crime.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his supplementary question. I am not sure that I agree with the suggestion that this service will be given a low priority. The voluntary sector provides a very valuable and highly regarded service in this area. The Government believe that a continuing statutory—voluntary partnership in the delivery of the youth service within the boroughs will lead to good value for money. This partnership is well established
2
and there is every reason to believe that it will be maintained in inner London as in other parts of the country.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in many of the boroughs where the need for youth service is at its very greatest—for example, Brixton, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets—the financing of it will be an almost impossible burden for those boroughs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in asking the boroughs of inner London to produce development plans for the whole of the education services, consideration will be given to the provision that they are suggesting in the youth service area. I am setting up arrangements for meetings with representatives of voluntary organisations to hear their ideas. It is still early days; but there will be full consultation and dialogue. The best possible arrangements will be made which may well include co-operation between two or more boroughs.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, while trying to understand the reasons for the Government abolishing ILEA, is the Minister aware that the average teacher in London, especially in the inner cities, is absolutely appalled at the thought that the administration of education is to be handed over to certain boroughs? The boroughs are not competent to run the disposal of rubbish. The Government cannot continue to talk in the way that they are at the moment. There will have to be some unitary authorities responsible for running the schools. It is madness to think that the boroughs can undertake the tasks that ILEA has been doing.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, to reassure the noble Lord, I would point out that the Secretary of State is going through a series of meetings with representatives of local boroughs as well as with representatives of ILEA. Guidance will be issued after Royal Assent. Development plans will have to be submitted by each local borough and vetted by the department. There is a special unit in the department to help and advise

3
boroughs that lack experience. These moves, together with the general reforms planned in the Education Reform Bill shortly to come before your Lordships, will lead, I believe, to finding a satisfactory solution.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, in the light of what my noble friend has said, can she give an assurance that there will not be a gap between the time that ILEA gives up and the local authorities take over when there is no money for the youth clubs and youth leaders? I regret to have to say that youth leaders are already leaving the London youth service because of the lack of security. Bearing in mind that a number of the clubs have children from different boroughs, will there be disagreement among the boroughs as to who should pay for the clubs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government will be asking for development plans for each borough to be presented before the end of February of next year in relation to the provision for April 1990. We believe that in this way there will be plenty of time to cover any "gap period" to which my noble friend refers.
Lord Molloy: Is the noble Baroness aware that the voluntary service with which many of us have been concerned over the years has played a vital part in character-building among the young folk of Greater London? Because the Government wish to destroy ILEA, why should they wish equally to destroy something which is noted for character-building in this great city? Will the Minister be gracious enough to give the House the assurance that she will convey that information to the Secretary of State?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not only is the Secretary of State aware; we believe also that local councils are aware of the youth service machinery already in place in their areas. We believe that the voluntary sector, working with local councils, will be closer to the needs of communities and that there will be appreciation of the effective work undertaken by voluntary organisations in those communities. Furthermore, local communities will be able to bring pressure to bear on their local councils to sustain the work of voluntary organisations serving their needs which, as I have already said, perform an extremely valuable role.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us a little more about how it is expected that this service will be funded in 1990? At the moment the DoE has set GREA at £13·5 million for youth provision while ILEA has budgeted for £36·5 million, a great deal of which goes in grants to just those voluntary bodies that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, asked about, such as the London federation of youth clubs and the London adventure playground association. These could well collapse if that same grant is to be kept up. How will the funding be done?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the boroughs will need to review the organisation and cost of the youth service and the other services that they will be undertaking. The voluntary sector of the youth
4
service believes that it provides a good, cost-effective service to young people. We agree that individual organisations must ensure that all the facts about their achievements are well known to the boroughs. I believe that in many cases they are. They will be considering, as will the special unit within the department, how the department can best assist in ensuring that dialogue takes place and adequate provision results.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister has not replied to my question. Will there be a commitment from the Government that funds will be available for these extremely good clubs in 1990?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government will provide funding for the whole of the education service. We are taking every possible step to ensure that the youth service is included within the general arrangements and that it is not forgotten or left aside.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is it not true that a vast majority of the boroughs in this country have never been under the control of ILEA or anything like that, but that they have always conducted their education and youth services extremely well?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Viscount has raised an important point. We wish to emphasise the fact that we believe that the youth service in particular can be better handled at a more local level.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the abolition of ILEA is very much involved in this Question? Is she further aware that I have recently received a letter from a former Conservative opponent asking me to do my best to assist the House of Lords to stop the Government going ahead?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that question is wide of the original Question, but I shall bear in mind the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been helpful to the House—and perhaps the Government Chief Whip will be patient for a moment— in answering important questions about the service. However, a degree of confusion arises as a result of the exchanges and clarification is needed. The voluntary youth services are immensely important in the development of the life of London over the next few years. Will she ask her right honourable friend to consider publishing a White Paper as soon as possible giving details of the plans that the Government have in mind, and relating especially to funding?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in view of the time limits which are likely to be put upon us, and in view of the need to provide for the "gap period", to which my noble friend Lady Faithful referred, we believe that at this stage it is best to get on with matters. The consultation and dialogue will certainly continue and I believe that the noble Lord's point will be met by the issue of guidance, which it is intended to publish after Royal Assent.

Roman Londinium Amphitheatre
2.46 p.m.
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to preserve and ensure public access to the recently discovered remains of the Roman Londinium Amphitheatre.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's interest in the recent discovery. We understand that the City Corporation, together with English Heritage and the Museum of London, are considering options and we are monitoring the situation.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. Can he expand on it a little and assure the House that the Government will monitor the proceedings and encourage the City Fathers as much as possible to open the site to the public?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that this is a recent discovery. Applications for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent for the extension of the Guildhall and the demolition of one unlisted building are currently before my right honourable friend. I cannot at this stage comment on the merits of the case. However, English Heritage has advised that applications should be considered at a public inquiry and we are considering that recommendation.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in response to strong representations from the Royal Fine Art Commission the City of London has promised to take the necessary measures to preserve these important remains temporarily? However, is not the present problem that of permanently preserving this unique piece of architecture for future generations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware of the point raised by my noble friend. However, I should like to remind him that had it not been for the fact that the Guildhall Library was partially demolished by a German bomb this reconstruction would not have been anticipated and the matter brought to light.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, following on what has already been said, I believe that an early agreement must be reached between the City of London and archaeologists that the remains, which are acknowledged by all sides to be of immense importance, will be preserved. Will the Government ensure that there is wide and open discussion to forestall the building over of the three sites involved, even though recording may have taken place? There is a difference between obtaining the records and having the sites preserved so that people can see them in an interpretative centre.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is still early days. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to my earlier remarks about the recommendation made by English Heritage, which we are now considering.
Lord Marley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are already two important Roman sites, which are at Billingsgate and on the embankment near Blackfriars and which have been closed in? I believe it to be essential that that does not happen to the amphitheatre.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, so far no irrevocable decisions have been taken.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am not speaking from the Cross-Benches. Is the Minister aware that there have been several examples—and if the noble Lord wants to know the examples I can send him the information—of at least three sites which have been closed in by the City of London Fathers? Therefore, at this stage it is essential that we should ensure that that does not happen in this ease.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the City is well aware of the public interest in this issue and its potential. I should remind noble Lords that only part of the amphitheatre has been uncovered and that the whole could not be preserved without the destruction of other important buildings in the City.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the very successful Jorvik Viking Centre in York was set up four years ago with a loan of £2½million, and that that loan has almost been paid off as nearly 900,000 visitors visit the centre each year? Therefore, will the Government lend support to the leading archaeologists who are pressing for the Roman amphitheatre discovered underneath the London Guildhall to be preserved in a national heritage centre on the scale of the Jorvik Centre in York? Perhaps discussions between the two cities would be of use.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware of the Jorvik Centre and am extremely pleased that the noble Baroness pointed out that there are 900,000 visitors each year. My brief gave a figure of 800,000, which is most encouraging. The Jorvik Centre is a great example where public and private investment have resulted in a very satisfactory conclusion. I am sure that the City is well aware of the success of the Jorvik Centre and will keep it in mind when considering the future of the Londinium amphitheatre.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that beneath St. Peter's in Rome and beneath York Minster\ancient history has been preserved and can still be viewed through not having allowed modern buildings to be erected immediately above?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am.

National Picture Collections: Safeguards
2.52 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in seeking to confer statutory powers on the trustees of the three English national galleries to sell pictures from their collections they will impose a condition that such power shall not be exercised in the case of particular pictures given and accepted on the understanding that they were gifts to the nation to be kept on public display.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the National Gallery, Tate Gallery and National Portrait Gallery are at present unable to dispose of any unwanted items from their collections, whether by sale, gift or exchange. The provisions which the Government intend to introduce would remove what we believe to be an unnecessary obstacle to sensible collections management. The existence of an enabling power would not, however, invalidate individual agreements between donors and trustees about the conditions under which particular pictures were accepted into the collections.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. Are we not under the difficulty that boards of trustees cannot bind their successors and, without the authority of Parliament behind them, trustees will not be able to give the absolute assurance, which a prospective donor may demand, that a picture will never be sold? In consequence, we might find that some gifts which the trustees would dearly love to have will not be forthcoming.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that in a way I answered that supplementary question in my Answer. The existence of an enabling power would not invalidate agreements between donors and trustees about the conditions under which particular pictures were accepted into the collection. That would also apply to trustees accepting new gifts into collections for the future, if they felt that they were in a position to provide such an undertaking.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said about management, will the Government confirm that the trustees will not be required by the Treasury to dispose of works of art in order to pay for essential building repairs and special acquisitions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the funds received from the sale of any unwanted items are to be ploughed back specifically into the collection and will not be available for spending on running costs of the building, maintenance and so on.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said about incorporating a general principle into the law on this matter binding trustees. Is it not a case, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham might put it, of quis custodiet ipsos custodies—in other words, can you trust the trustees?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with me that over a very great length of time trustees' record of public service in many of the great national institutions and collections has been a very fine one.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I understand that the pictures given by donors will probably be excluded in the legislation. Will the Government also exclude all those pictures now in the three galleries to which members of the public, including children, have contributed with donations ranging from large to very small; for example, the two paintings by Stubbs "The Haymakers" and "The Reapers" and also Constable's "The Opening of Waterloo Bridge"? If the Government intend to exclude those, which they should, what is the point of bringing forward this very bad legislation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the disposal provision we have in mind is very carefully constrained. One of the criteria in the National Heritage Act 1983, on which we shall base the legislation, is that the item in question should be judged unsuitable for the collection and can be disposed of without detriment to students or other members of the public. I am sure that all the pictures to which the noble Baroness referred will be covered by that description.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that acceptance by a gallery of a gift has an implied condition that it will be retained and shown to the public?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of any great work of art that has been disposed of from a public collection in this country to the detriment of the national collection.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, have the Government had any success in persuading galleries to lend to other institutions those pictures and so on which they cannot show? Do they not agree that it is almost as bad to imprison pictures unseen in cellars indefinitely as it is to sell them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should be very happy to answer a Question on that subject if the noble Lord would like to table such a Question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that anybody who is as fortunate as I was some years ago to visit the Hermitage Museum in Leningrad will see there a substantial collection of very valuable paintings by artists such as Rembrandt that were sold to Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Is it not a tragedy that on that occasion those paintings were sold? Should we not be talking about preserving all of our heritage and not disposing of any of it on a commercial basis?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am slightly mystified by the noble Lord's question. I was unaware that Rembrandt was an English artist.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was not referring to Rembrandt as being an English artist.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the dangers is that artistic tastes change? Is he aware that in the 1920s paintings by Gainsborough were extremely expensive in real terms compared to the present time? Is there not a danger that paintings will go out of fashion and be sold and then come hack into fashion and we shall regret their sale?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the last time the subject was raised, my noble friend Lord St. John brought up the example of the pre-Raphaelite pictures which were considered very unfashionable 30 or 40 years ago. Of course in that case the trustees, when discussing the matter as a whole, decided quite rightly—which is why one has a board of trustees—to preserve the paintings.

Eye Tests: Proposed Charges
2.58 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will drop their proposal to charge for eye tests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government have proposed that, while sight tests provided under the National Health Service should remain free, patients who can afford to do so should obtain their tests privately. Clause 10 of the Health and Medicines Bill, which will shortly come before the House, will give effect to this proposal. The resources released by this change will enable us to develop preventive measures in other priority areas of primary care.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government are putting financial ability in front of and above the word "compassion"? Is he not also aware that after certain operations and certain afflictions routine eye-testing in order to effect detection of a disease—for example, diabetes—is vital? Is the noble Lord really saying that if a person is a border case after an operation and the ophthalmic surgeon feels there is a need for continual eye tests, or if a person suffering from a disease such as diabetes needs regular eye tests, and is deemed to be able to afford it but cannot, he will just have to suffer? Is that the Government's policy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has slightly misunderstood the position. National Health Service sight tests are carried out under the National Health Service Act 1977 either as part of the general ophthalmic service arrangements which family practitioner committees make with ophthalmic opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners or as part of the hospital eye service. In the cases cited by him the tests will continue to be done under the National Health Service.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, further to the noble Lord's replies, can he give a guarantee that the Government will not introduce compulsory charges for eye tests
10
under the NHS? Is he aware that roughly 1 million people are referred to opticians for treatment as a result of such sight tests? Is he further aware that a recent MORI poll showed that 80 per cent. of the public are opposed to the introduction of charges? Can he give some assurance that that will not be done the next time round?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government's policy in this area, like many other parts of their policy, is that those people who can afford to pay and who fall outside the exempt categories should do so. There is not much difference between that position and, for example, the prescription service, which the noble Lord knows well.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the professional bodies covering ophthalmic surgeons and opticians are totally united in their view that the present system should not be interfered with? A person's eyesight is too valuable to be subject to any financial test. Would he be gracious enough to convey those views to the Secretary of State? Will the Government consider abolishing their peculiar attitude of adopting this odd animus to the professional bodies within our National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not need to convey those thoughts to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services because the professionals have already made him well aware of them. However, I should like to make the point that patients will still need to obtain a prescription for their glasses and therefore will still have their eyes checked regularly. There are no plans to change the existing type of test, which of course is all-important where the detection of glaucoma, cancers and other diseases of the eye might be thrown up.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lyell will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the terrorist murders in Northern Ireland.
It may he for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill will be taken.

Saint Bennet Fink Burial Ground (City of London) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Newall.)
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it falls to me on this occasion to compliment my noble friend Lord Newall on steering his Bill thus far. I am grateful to him for withdrawing at Report stage his proposed amendment that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should be empowered by order further to vary the amount which the operators of greyhound tracks may charge bookmakers. The Bill is itself now confined, as introduced, to varying that amount. On Second Reading and in Committee I explained that we are not opposed in principle to such a measure. For completeness I had to add that we understand that the Bill does not enjoy the agreement of the bookmakers, which may be thought to be a necessary ingredient. But it does address a real issue. Whether the solution it proposes is the right one is a question for Parliament to judge. We will watch its progress in another place with interest.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We have had some interesting and useful exchanges and I am grateful to him and to the Opposition for their support.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Immigration Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): 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.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Termination of saving in respect of Commonwealth citizens settled before 1973]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("repealed") and insert ("amended by substituting for the word "wives" the word "spouses" ").
The noble and learned Lord said: We now embark upon the Committee stage of a Bill of great importance and a good deal of complexity, certainly so far as my attempt to understand it is concerned. The amendment proposes to amend the first section of the Immigration Act 1971. Clause 1 of the Bill repeals Section 1 of that Act and thereby removes the only absolute right to family unity in British law. The Bill's proposal to remove that right breaks the promise which was given to people settled here for
12
over 14 years and which has been repeated by previous Conservative governments.
Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act provides:
"The rules"—
that is, the immigration rules—
"shall be so framed that Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom at the coming into force of this Act and their wives and children are not, by virtue of anything in the rules, any less free to come into and go from the United Kingdom than if this Act had not been passed".
In that section the language and the use of the words "citizens and their wives" envisages that the settlement here of male Commonwealth citizens is the essential right but that freedom of settlement of their wives and children is a derivative and a secondary right. That language contrasts with that of the law of the EC, which of course applies to us and which operates in this as in other EC countries. It acknowledges the rights of spouses of either sex to come and go freely under EC law. That means that "spouses" embraces wives—if that is not too unhappy an expression, and I do not think it is—as well as husbands.
That is not the language used in subsection (5), and therefore we propose not to repeal the provision but to amend it by substituting for the word "wives" the word "spouses". That will repair the defect which exists in the language of Section 1(5), which ousts the presumption of the interpretation Acts of 1889 and 1978 that the female form of words includes the male.
The amendment is obviously technical. Nevertheless, it has considerable potential importance. The purpose of the amendment is to achieve parity as regards husbands and wives between our law and EC law. It will ensure that immigration rules are so framed that men shall be no less free than women to enter and remain in the United Kingdom in accordance with the immigration rules in force at the passing of the Bill. This is essentially an egalitarian measure as between men and women, husbands and wives. For that reason I feel sure that it will achieve the support of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Bonham-Carter: It is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who has explained the nature of the amendment. I support it. Clause 1 repeals Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act which has been found to be sexually discriminatory. That is why an amendment to the 1971 Act is thought to be necessary. I argue that the only amendment required is the very simple one that the noble and learned Lord has proposed.
I do not know why this Bill has been introduced. There has been no widespread cry against a flood of 25 polygamous wives every year. Primary immigration is dropping; secondary immigration is dropping. The Bill was precipitated by an election letter. I can see no other reason for it. As the noble and learned Lord has said, it is a breach of an undertaking written into the 1971 Act—written into an Act of Parliament. Some argue that governments cannot bind their successors. At the best of times this has always seemed to me a somewhat tenuous argument. It is particularly tenuous if the

13
government in question are of the same political complexion as the predecessor whose undertaking they propose not to honour. If that technical doctrine were taken seriously it would mean that no undertaking by any government would be worth the Hansard upon which it is printed.
That is one reason why the Bill seems to me a somewhat serious one. It calls into question the whole reliability of pledges given by governments. As a consequence of this unreliability—this question of the honour of governments—we are asking in subsequent amendments for affirmative resolutions of both Houses to be introduced under the Bill. No honourable person would behave as this Government have behaved in respect of a pledge given to a whole group of people. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is an honourable man; we all know that. He would not behave in such a manner in his personal or business life. It seems strange that the rules, the norms, the values and the propriety which apparently bind individuals in their private and business lives are not relevant to the behaviour of governments.
We wish to amend the clause in order to conform with the ruling of the European Court. The method the Government have chosen is characteristically restrictive. The restrictiveness is characteristic of the whole Bill. The Bill, it can be argued, deprives husbands of rights and places them in the inferior position in which their wives found themselves. It is somewhat ironic after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed financial discrimination against married women by levelling them up to the position of unmarried couples that the Committee should be asked today to deal with a similar anomaly by levelling down. That is the central argument I put forward about this Bill and this particular clause.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, argued at Second Reading that it is wrong and anomalous to distinguish between those born before 1973 and those born after that date. That distinction was deliberately and carefully written into the 1971 Act. It was an anomaly which the Act inscribed in the law. When did this anomaly become intolerable? All laws of this nature create arbitrary distinctions. The noble Earl may remember the British Nationality Act 1981 which distinguishes between a child horn abroad of a British woman after 1st January 1983 and that child's brother or sister born before 1983. Is that anomaly intolerable? Will we now have an amendment to that Act to abolish the anomaly? I believe that the noble Earl will need to answer that very simple question if he really asks the Committee to take seriously the position on anomalies.
This Bill introduces elsewhere huge anomalies to which we shall be drawing the attention of the Committee. In particular I refer to the distinction between EC citizens and citizens of this country. Here is an anomaly to which the noble Earl referred at Second Reading. I hope he will explain why what he found tolerable in 1971 is intolerable in 1988. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain why an anomaly introduced in 1981 is tolerable while an anomaly introduced earlier is not.
14
The virtue of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is that it is simple. That is a great virtue in the law and a rare one. It maintains an undertaking which the Government solemnly wrote into the law. It is non-discriminatory. And it levels up, not down.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: When the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggests that there is an anomaly in our law between the admission of citizens of the EC and citizens of the Commonwealth, I wonder if he is really suggesting that Commonwealth citizens should all be given the right of entry which, under the Treaty, we have granted to EC citizens? If so, it would seem to be inconsistent with what he said at Second Reading. He made it clear then that he and his party were opposed to mass immigration. If we were to repeal the control of Commonwealth immigration, that is what we would have.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The proposal that I support is written into the amendment to which my name is committed.
Lord Renton: That I understand. It puzzled me somewhat when the noble Lord went a good deal wider than the amendment. He has drawn attention to what he considers to be an anomaly but which most of us do not consider to be so. Most of us do not believe there is an unjustifiable anomaly between the treatment of Commonwealth citizens and those of the EC.
Let us see where we are agreed, because in a controversial matter which arouses strong feelings it is best to find agreement if we can. In Amendment No. 1 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is assuming, just as the Government are assuming, that subsection (5) of Section 1 of the Immigration Act 1971 shall be either repealed or replaced. Therefore it is a question of how this is done. Perhaps it would help the Committee if I were to remind it of the terms of subsection (5). It is not very long and I think it would be helpful to put it on record so that Members of the Committee can have it in their minds. It reads:
"The rules shall be so framed"—
the rules mentioned in the previous subsection, to be made by the Secretary of State—
"that Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom"—
I stress the words "settled in the United Kingdom"—
"at the coming into force of this Act and their wives and children are not, by virtue of anything in the rules, any less free to come into and go from the United Kingdom than if this Act had not been passed".
Therefore we are talking about how the rules shall he framed.
Subsection (5), as has been correctly, accurately and appropriately mentioned, is discriminatory. The European Court found that it was discriminatory. It benefits the wives of male Commonwealth citizens and not the husbands of female Commonwealth citizens. In the case of Abdulaziz the European Court of Human Rights held that our Parliament was guilty of sex discrimination. That is what the Government are trying to correct. I find that the indignation

15
expressed in the speeches today and at Second Reading was somewhat misplaced. I hope that I am not being unfair.
The Government are now asking Parliament to put this right. One should mention in passing that in the 15 years in which we have tried to operate it—since 1973 when it came into force—it has been found difficult to administer and has had some rather strange results. For example, at col. 365 of the Official Report at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned a case where the Court of Apppeal found that a woman liable to deportation can render herself wholly immune from deportation by marrying a Commonwealth citizen man who was settled here on 1st January 1973. That is only one example (but I understand that there have been others) of the strange and, if I may borrow a phrase, anomalous results of the operation of the subsection. After 15 years' experience it is right for us to consider a change in the law.
Without repeating the arguments given by my noble friend and without labouring what I have already said, I believe the simple thing to do is to repeal subsection (5) of Section 1 of the 1971 Act. Obviously we have to be careful how we do it so as not to cause injustice or hardship. But, there again, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ferrers made it perfectly clear that it does not mean that those who settled here before 1973 would be unable to bring their wives and children to join them. It means that they will have to satisfy the same requirements in the immigration rules as those who do not at present benefit from this subsection. I must confess that I find that perfectly reasonable and I hope that my noble friend will not advise the Committee to accept Amendment No 1.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for introducing the amendment and for commenting that it is a complex Bill. It is reassuring for one who is not a lawyer to learn that. As I try to find my way around its complexities I am glad to know that others also do not find it entirely straightforward.
I am flattered to find that Amendment No. 1 to which I have put my name arose in part from a comment I made at Second Reading. I listened with great care to the arguments put forward at Second Reading by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It seemed to me that their major argument in favour of the Bill was about numbers. We heard a good deal about numbers. We heard about the tens of thousands who were still coming into this country. We were also assured by the noble Earl that the numbers affected by the Bill before us would be very small. In other words, it is as if we are screwing a tap which is dripping only very slightly in order to try to cut down the drips. We have to ask whether the small numbers involved justify the cost of squeezing people in that way. Some of us argued at Second Reading that the cost would be so great that it could not be justified by the fact that small numbers might be excluded.
At Second Reading there were two arguments against Clause 1. The first has already been
16
underlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It is that Clause 1 is a breach of the undertaking already given by a previous government. The second reason for disquiet about Clause 1 concerns family life. It will make it that much more difficult for certain families to be united. This is the thrust of the argument from the Churches in relation to a number of clauses in the Bill. It is yet another threat—involving perhaps only a small number of families but nevertheless a threat—to the family life of a number of people settled in this country.
I listened carefully just now to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said quite rightly that what was at stake was how the immigration rules were to be framed in order to do justice to the decision of the European Court. He commented that to pass this amendment would introduce an anomaly in that it was possible under present legislation for a woman affected by a deportation order to overcome that order by marrying a Commonwealth citizen settled here before 1973. That is how I understood him and he will correct me if I am wrong. What is at stake here is the question of whether the immigration rules affect those who were settled before 1973. Those rules include the business of not being a liability to public funds.
It is perfectly possible that a Commonwealth citizen settled here before 1973 would satisfy those conditions and that therefore the marriage to such a person of somebody who was due to be deported would still overcome that order. It seems to me that however we frame this legislation there will be anomalies. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has already pointed that out. To overcome all the anomalies in the legislation will be extremely difficult. Therefore to bring up the example of one anomaly as an argument against an amendment is simply to leave out of account all kinds of other anomalies which will continue.
This is a simple and straightforward way of bringing about what the European Court wished to occur; namely, the overcoming of the discrimination in the 1971 legislation. It is simple and straightforward and does so by an extension rather than a reduction of rights. That is the thrust of our case.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that this Bill was a matter of some complexity. If such a distinguished noble and learned Lord who is qualified in these matters finds it complex, I still have hope. It is a complicated matter; anything that concerns immigration is complicated. The noble and learned Lord said that the clause was discriminatory and that by introducing the amendment, which he has put down with a number of his colleagues from different parts of the Committee, the discriminatory nature of the Bill as it stands would be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he could not understand how people who were honourable in themselves could not be honourable in government. If I may say so, I find that rather a

17
curious argument—not that there is any dishonour between the Government and private individuals—because when an Act is passed it does not mean that it is passed for all time and that there can never he any alteration to it, or that Parliament is sacrosanct. In this clause we are saying that it is now 15 years since the 1971 Act was enacted and those whom Section 1(5) was intended to apply to have had all that time in which to bring their families to this country to join them without any question being raised as to their ability to support or accommodate themselves.
I differ from what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said in respect of the breaking up of families. The provision does not mean the breaking up of families; all that will happen now is that people will have to show that they have the ability to support and maintain those people without recourse to public funds, merely because it is now 15 years after the provision was put into effect. The reason it was introduced into the Bill, as I understand it, was because there was some justifiable concern at that time that those who were already resident in this country might be worried about their future. When the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asks, "Why was it acceptable to the Government of the day and yet is not acceptable to the Government now?" I should remind him that it was not the Government's wording; it was part of a wording introduced by Members of this Chamber in an amendment to the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that the whole purpose of the amendment was to try to get the equality of the sexes right. He referred to the 1891 Act.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It was 1981!
Earl Ferrers: Yes, indeed; it was the 1981 Act. I remember once being told by a civil servant: "The male embraces the female in the Civil Service". I replied that I did not think you had to join the Civil Service for that. It is of course true to say that in the normal course of events the two sexes go together.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the purpose of the amendment was to make the Bill non-discriminatory. I am bound to tell him that it would not have that effect. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that very few people were going to be affected by this provision. However, I should remind him that it was the judgment of the European Court that stipulated that our law as it is at present is discriminatory. The noble Lord has tabled his amendment to try to make it nondiscriminatory. However, the fact is that, although it would no longer discriminate in its application as between men and women, there would remain discrimination between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens and between those who settled in this country before 1st January 1973 and those who settled here afterwards.
It is already the case that, within a family containing two sons one of whom was born in 1972 and one born a year later, Section 1(5) provides that, should they in future marry foreign girls, the elder of the two would be able to bring his wife here without
18
meeting the normal tests and immigration rules, while the younger brother would be subject to them. The lack of sense in the present position is further exacerbated by the fact that if those two children were girls, and not boys, they would both now be subject to the requirements of the rules should they wish to bring their husbands to settle here at some time in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that this is where their amendment would make things better. However, it would in fact put a further twist of illogicality into the situation. For example, in the case of the two girls to which I have already referred, if that provision were to apply, it would be the elder sister, and not the younger, who would be in the favourable position of not having to satisfy any particular tests before bringing a husband to this country. Therefore, if the Committee were to accept the amendment which has been moved—for reasons which I entirely understand—the Act would in fact continue to be discriminatory and it would be discriminatory within families. We think the right way to deal with this is to remove the clause altogether and thereby remove the discrimination.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I wish the Government would try to face the issue. We must recognise what is at stake here. When the Immigration Bill was going through Parliament in 1971, there was tremendous concern in the black community that their rights were being taken away from them. The Home Secretary of the day gave an undertaking that that would not be so. This Chamber went further than that and tabled an amendment to the Bill—which the Government finally accepted—to safeguard that position. Therefore the black community felt satisfied. It is still satisfied but, when the Government repeal Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, it will once again be upset. If a pledge made in that connection can be taken back, that means that any other pledge that has been made can be taken hack. That is why it is unwise to go down that road.
It is recognised that the Government are in difficulty with the European Court of Justice, because the court has ruled that the section is sexist. The amendment would remove that aspect and it would no longer be sexist. Therefore the Government should accept it rather than proceeding to repeal the section. It is no use talking about the fact that it is discriminatory between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens. Why should it not be? After all, when all is said and done, of course it is discriminatory; any law relating to immigration would be discriminatory as regards the citizens of a country. Therefore, that argument is a bit of a nonsense, if I may say so. It is bound to be discriminatory between the people who were in this country before 1973 and those who came afterwards. That is an understandable situation; the law introduced in 1971 was intended to control the people who came afterwards. All the law provided was that those who were here at the time had their rights safeguarded. Why then can we not recognise and respect our pledge and continue to honour it?

19
The fact that the provision was introduced 15 years ago is also a serious blot; it is a blot on the Administration. I say that because what has happened over the years is that people have experienced the maximum amount of difficulty in bringing their wives and children to this country, as all manner of obstacles have been placed in their way; for example, about the children not being their children and so on.
We have advanced. We now have DNS to prove whose children they are. There will no longer be any difficulty about that. There has been an argument about public funds. If someone has been living here for 15 years they have been contributing to public funds tremendously. If at the same time they had no children here, they were paying for the education of others' children while theirs were elsewhere. They were not receiving child benefit; they were paying it for other people. It is nonsense to talk about such people living on public funds.
I wish that the Government would think through these matters. We are talking about people who have been here for 15 years. During those 15 years they have been contributing to the state through taxes, rates, their work and their contributions to society. In 1971 the Government gave them a pledge. I ask them for Christ's sake to keep it. The amendment merely asks the Government, since they are worried about the court's ruling—obviously they must be worried about the ruling of the European Court—to remove the sexist element. That is what the amendment will do. I hope that if the Government do not understand that, the Committee will. I plead with the Committee to see that parliamentary pledges are regarded as pledges that will always be observed.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to say why I feel that I should support the amendment. I am sure that all sides of the Committee appreciate that we are dealing with real people. Although the numbers affected by the proposed legislation are comparatively small, these people form a significant group in the life of our country. The point about family life and the strengthening of family life is important whether it applies to many or to few.
Some years ago I spent a day with the Bangladeshi Divided Families' Association in my diocese in Oldham where many Bangladeshi people came to work in the mills when we were glad to have them come to this country. The Committee will remember that the studies carried out by all-party committees working with the Bangladeshi community in particular indicated that it is one that for a variety of reasons faces more difficulties than any other ethnic minority in our country.
I vividly remember the day that I spent with the Bangladeshi community. I heard about the difficulties that the men had in being reunited with their wives and families. I admit that this is a complex matter. It was difficult in Bangladesh to determine the truth of certain family relationships, and yet one by one many families have been allowed to come here while with others there are great delays.
20
In preparation for the debate I thought that I would ask one of my staff in the diocese to interview Bangladeshis again to see whether the situation was continuing. I am afraid that I was unable to do it myself. I shall give two examples of the kind of people who will be affected by the legislation. One is a male whom I shall call Abdullah for the sake of the debate. He was originally from Bangladesh. He came here before 1968. Section 1(5) applies to him. His wife will be interviewed at some point but well after the legislation is likely to go through. As is relatively normal, she could be refused right of entry due to insufficient proof of relationship. Any further application would then come under the new rules. As he is working for a low income, below the subsistence threshold for DHSS purposes, Abdullah feels that she will never get here because he will never prove that he can support her and the children without recourse to public funds. He feels that she has fallen foul of an informal quota system which is not supposed to exist.
The second example, whom I shall also call Abdullah, has been here since 1959. He is now in his middle fillies. He has taken early retirement from the buses. He has a house, but he will not work again. If he does not put in an application before the repeal of Section 1(5), he feels that he will be permanently separated, because, although he has paid his taxes and so on for 25 years, under the likely rules which he feels would apply to him, he could not prove that he could support his wife without recourse to public funds.
Although these people are a small group in our communities, many of them come from the more vulnerable sections of ethnic minorities, and the legislation may affect them. The point made by my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon about the need to consider the effects on family life is valid.
I find it difficult to understand why, in response to the decision of the European Court, the Government did not decide to implement the change the other way and give wives permission to bring in their husbands.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, with his customary modesty, said that this was a complex Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has that quality in common with my noble and learned friend, assented. That does not mean that this is a complicated amendment. The issues are transparently clear, in my submission. They cover two points. First, is Parliament prepared, and is this place prepared, to enter into a breach of faith? Secondly, is Parliament prepared, and is this place prepared, as at this moment if the amendment is defeated, to dictate a matter of social policy in our country which I believe to be highly undesirable?
First, on the issue of good faith, the noble Earl said that Parliament can always repeal something which Parliament has previously enacted in the light of experience. I wonder whether he would assent to this proposition: one does not do that unless there are exceptional new reasons for doing so, especially when a previous Home Secretary, of the same political

21
complexion as the present Government, dealing with arguments that were advanced in this place and in the other place, said that, if the 1971 Act were passed and it did not deal fairly with people who were settled in this country, it would be a wrong parliamentary enactment.
This place, with people of all political persuasions contributing, and with the leader in that matter being the noble Lord, Lord Wade, sitting on the then Liberal Benches, passed an amendment. That amendment said, and meant, that it was wrong for that Act to be passed without in the future protecting the dependants of the people who were settled here, as defined in that Act.
Mr. Maudling, the Home Secretary at that time, solemnly, and without talking in terms of inconsistencies—whether they be of someone born a year later, or whatever—used words which I ventured to quote on Second Reading, I quote them again. Mr. Maudling said:
"I said on Second Reading—and I was very anxious that this should be made known—that Commonwealth citizens already here free of conditions, which means, broadly speaking, all working immigrants, will not be affected. There will be a right to work where they wish, as at present, and a right of automatic citizenship, as at present. There will be no new papers to be carried, and they will be allowed to bring in dependants. That WAS the undertaking I gave, and I have not departed from it in any way".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/71; col. 551.]
In order to hind that undertaking into solemn legislation he concluded by saying at col. 552:
"By these Amendments we are giving statutory form to the undertaking I gave on Second Reading that people already accepted for settlement in this country would not be prejudiced by the Bill."
It is no answer to say, "Well, we have had experience for so many years". The noble Earl did not talk about bad experience, difficult experience, exceptional circumstances for breaching that undertaking and that statutory provision. People trusted the Government when that provision was passed. I solemnly ask whether, if the present provision is not amended in this way, the Committee is worthy of that trust. It is a weak argument to talk in terms of the European Court of Human Rights and its decision. The decision was: "British Government, you have not gone far enough. You must not do this in regard to husbands if you do not do it for wives and vice versa". It is like saying to those judges dealing with human rights: "Do you know what the British Government are going to do because of your judgment? Because of your judgment they are going to say, 'it was wrong, was it, to do it for husbands and not for wives? Well, we will not do it for either. This is our conception of human rights. Thank you so much, European Court of Human Rights, for having got us out of all our difficulties'".
I ventured to give an example at Second Reading; I shall somewhat alter it. Is it not the same as if there is a storm and noble Lords, in their mercy, open the door and admit a wife? Somebody says, "Is not that a little wrong? The husband is on the doorstep too". You say, "Oh, really? Then in those circumstances I think I shall push the wife out". Is this the way in which we deal with immigration and with promises?
I turn shortly to the second issue. It is a social issue and, as I said, we shall he deciding it in the course of
22
the debate. We on these Benches understand completely that we have to control new immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was quite right when he said that it has to be controlled. Most of us regret it, but our island areas are limited, our employment is limited and our housing is limited. On both sides we agree that there has to be limitation. This is the time, is it not, to consolidate? This is the time to reaffirm a fair immigration policy. This is the time when we want social conditions which are just and which are harmonious with good family life because good family life breeds good citizenship. The numbers have been going down; as has been said, they went down to 40,000 in 1986. I asked the Minister whether he would kindly give me the figures for 1987 and, with his usual courtesy, he gave them so far as he could. They were approximately 35,000 for the first nine months of 1987. So there were no exceptional circumstances in regard to mounting immigration, primary or secondary.
In these circumstances, quite apart from the pledge and the decency argument, as a matter of policy do we not wish to ensure that those who are here, and properly here, who have been settled here for years, can bring over their families, including their children up to the age of 18, so that both spouses can be reunited, in the hope that we shall cement instead of divide and unite instead of separate? In those circumstances, we can say with good consciences that we have done our best to produce good citizenship among our immigrant community. If we do not pass this amendment, we may have much on our consciences.
Earl Ferrers: One of the great pleasures of being in this House is being able to hear good advocacy, and we have heard the remarkable advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I say in all seriousness that it is a pleasure to hear it, even if one may not agree with the conclusions or with the point which he is trying to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a distinguished lawyer. He is also a distinguished parliamentarian and politician. For those reasons I find it quite astonishing that he fell into the elementary trap of making a clause stand part debate speech and did not address himself to the particular amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, fell into the same trap. All the arguments of both noble Lords were that the clause should not stand part. What we are addressing ourselves to is Amendment No. 1.
Lord Mishcon: I know that the noble Earl will forgive me, as he always does, and allow me to intervene, because he is very courteous. However, if we were debating whether the clause should stand part, the noble Earl knows as well as I do—and he is always fair—that the argument which he would address to the Committee would be that the clause cannot stand part because we should be in breach of the European Court of Human Rights. If the clause is to remain, we should be in breach of that judgment. That is exactly why I am trying to say to the Committee that we should be upholding that judgment and altering the word "wives" to "spouses". We cannot do anything else.
Earl Ferrers: That is all very fine, but the noble Lord did slightly sweep away the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights because he said "Oh, the Government would say 'here comes the European Court of Human Rights to solve all our problems' ". The fact of the matter is that the noble Lord is suggesting that we add certain words. I tried to explain to the Committee that if we added those words we should not be eliminating discrimination but adding to it. I made it perfectly clear why and gave the example of a person who was here in 1972 and one who was born later. At the moment there is discrimination between the two. If these words were to be added to the Bill, there would be discrimination between girls who were born before and after that time. It really is not an answer to say that if we pass this amendment we shall all be in the clear, that we would satisfy the European Court of Human Rights and that there would be no discrimination. There will be.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to intervene. I am not sure that I quite follow his argument. Is he saying that if we pass this clause as amended there will be sexual discrimination? We have never argued that there will be no discrimination if this amendment is passed. All we have said is that if the amendment is passed, the sexual discrimination to which the court objected would be eliminated. Is he saying that that is incorrect?
Earl Ferrers: No. Of course sexual discrimination will be eliminated if we pass the amendment. However, this amendment will have other effects which will make it discriminatory.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The Committee has heard distinguished speeches and I shall now be brief. What is in issue here is whether we are going to perpetrate the further breaking up of families, which would be one of the consequences of the government proposal. The maintenance of family unity, especially in the immigrant communities, is absolutely crucial at this time of so much law being infringed and so much disorder. I venture to invite the Committee to weigh very carefully the guidance we have received from the two right reverend Prelates and from other parts of the Committee. I invite the Committee to express a view on this very important issue as regards the future of social harmony in our country.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95, Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Blackstone, B.

Ardwick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Attlee, E.

Boston of Faversham, L

Aylestone, L.

Bottomley, L.

Basnett, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Birk, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

24

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Mais, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Mulley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Northfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkender, B.

Oram, L.

Falkland, V.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Peston, L.

Fletcher, L.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponson by of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Grey, E.

Porritt, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hayter, L.

Reilly, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hunt, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hylton, L.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shackleton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jacques, L.

Stallard, L.

Jay, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kennet, L.

Tordoff, L.

Killearn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Longford, E.

Whaddon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Arran, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bauer, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Beloff, L.

Gainford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bessborough, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Blake, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blatch, B.

Harvington, L.

Blyth, L.

Havers, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Caldecote, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jessel, L.

Carnock, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kimball, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Layton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lovat, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lurgan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Derwent, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Donegall, M.

Mancroft, L.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

25

Merrivale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mersey, V.

Shannon, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Stockton, E.

Nelson, E.

Strange, B.

Newall, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Strathspey, L.

Onslow, E.

Sudeley, L.

Orkney, E.

Suffield, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Swansea, L.

Ponder, L.

Swinfen, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Terrington, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Teviot, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Polwarth, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trafford, L.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodney, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Romney, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

St. Davids, V.

Wolfson, L.

Salisbury, M.

Young, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Killings
4.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I shall repeat a Statement that is currently being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the recent killings in Northern Ireland, and especially on the murders of two soldiers in Belfast on Saturday 19th March.
"I must remind the House of the background and sequence of events during the past week in Northern Ireland. On Wednesday the funerals were held of the three IRA terrorists killed in Gibraltar. In spite of the very large crowds and the extremely tense situation in West Belfast, the funerals had proceeded in an orderly manner, without violence and without any paramilitary display. This was the position when a vicious attack took place at Milltown Cemetery by a loyalist gunman. In that attack three people attending the funeral were killed and a large number injured, of whom one remains in intensive care.
"On Thursday there was the funeral of the IRA gunman shot by the army on Monday. He was acknowledged by the IRA as one of its members. His funeral took place without disturbance and without paramilitary display.
"On Friday the funeral took place of Charles McCrillen, a Catholic with no paramilitary
26
connections, shot by the UFF; and of Thomas McErlean, one of the three killed at Milltown Cemetery. These again took place peacefully and without any breach of the law. On Saturday the funerals of the other two killed at Milltown Cemetery took place; first that of John Murray, and second that of Kevin Brady, who was acknowledged by the Provisional IRA to be one of their members. It was at this funeral that the quite horrific events took place that have so shocked the world.
"I should like to tell the House the facts as far as they can be established about these events. Just after midday on Saturday, following the funeral service at St. Agnes' Church, the cortege moved off along Andersonstown Road towards Milltown Cemetery. At that point a civilian car attempted to reverse away from the cortège. Despite the television coverage of the subsequent events which many honourable Members will have seen, it remains unclear how the car came to be in that position and for how long it had been on that road. What is quite clear, however, is that as it reversed away from the cortège, its way was blocked, both forward and backward, by taxis accompanying the funeral. What immediately followed is a matter of sickening visual record. A number of those in the funeral cortege immediately set upon the car with the obvious intention of pulling out the two occupants. Photographs indicate that at this point the driver of the car leaned out of his window and fired one shot in the air— the only shot which both occupants fired in the course of the attack upon them. After only a moment's pause the crowd resumed the onslaught on the car, some of them smashing at it with iron bars, and eventually succeeded in hauling out both occupants. Both men were then dragged by the crowd into an adjacent stadium, the gates were closed and it appears that a smaller group of attackers continued to assault them, stripped them and searched their clothing, subsequently threw them over a wall, and then bundled them into a black taxi which took them to a nearby piece of wasteland, where they were shot.
"It subsequently emerged that the two victims were corporals in the Royal Corps of Signals. Shortly beforehand they had left a joint police and army base in North Howard Street Mill after completing a routine maintenance task, in order to return to their unit at Lisburn. They had no reason to be in the vicinity of the funeral. This is not an approved route for soldiers who are not on operational duty at the time, and there is absolutely no question of their being involved in any way with surveillance or any other duties connected with the funeral. I am therefore unable to tell the House with any certainty why they were there. If the most likely explanation is that they decided to take the shortest route back to their base, without appreciating the presence of the funeral, this can only be conjecture, and it will be probably never be known why they were there.
"Whatever the reason, however, nothing can conceivably justify the utterly appalling outrage that then occurred and which resulted in their

27
deaths. The whole House will join me in extending the utmost sympathy to their families, and even more so in view of the awful television pictures of the occasion. Nor has it gone unnoticed that although they both had loaded personal protection pistols, they showed incredible restraint in using them only to fire a warning shot in the air.
"In the face of this outrage and the others in the week, the first and immediate objective is to bring to justice those responsible. In respect of the Milltown cemetery attack, a man will shortly be charged with these murders, and also a number of other serious offences. In respect of the killing of the soldiers, two men are already in custody. In addition, a massive murder investigation is under way, in which all possible resources are involved, to identify all those responsible.
"The next issue that I wish to address is that of the approach of the RUC to the conduct of these funerals. Large funerals and processions arc arguably the most difficult events from a public order and terrorist threat point of view that the security forces face. They have been used quite unscrupulously by paramilitaries for propaganda purposes.
"The chief constable, in determining the most appropriate method of policing any funeral, takes account of all the relevant circumstances in reaching his decision. Clearly a prime consideration has been that they should be conducted within the law and without paramilitary display. He also would have regard to the degree to which other elements would seek deliberately to exploit the presence of the police to provoke violence and disorder.
"There have been suggestions made that the arrangements for the funerals were the consequence of a political directive and that there had been some interference with the operational independent responsibility of the chief constable. This is quite false. The chief constable has asked me to make quite clear that he takes full responsibility for the arrangements for the funerals, and that these were policing decisions, taken after the most careful assessment of all the relevant circumstances. I emphasise that I fully support the decisions that he took in these matters, and in which the initial outcome had clearly been successful. However, clearly the two incidents that subsequently occurred are wholly unacceptable and require immediate review in regard to policing to be followed at any future funeral. The chief constable has informed me this morning that he is carrying this through as a matter of urgency.
"This task I know that he will carry through with great integrity. But the House knows well how difficult it is to ensure that funerals can proceed in good order and within the law when there are elements who have absolutely no scruples or respect for family feelings in the way in which they will exploit them.
"Faced with the appalling violence of the last weeks, not only in Belfast, but with the vicious murders of Jillian Johnston in Fermanagh and
28
Constable Graham in the Creggan only this morning, the House may remember the words I spoke last Thursday about the desperate need to break the awful cycle of violence and retaliation and end the suffering and heartache that is achieving nothing but more misery for all. This is now urgent, and it is the time when every person with a spark of human decency must determine to give their full support to the fight against terrorism from whichever quarter it may come. The security forces will take the lead as they have done so bravely over the years, but they must have the whole hearted co-operation of everybody in the Province, in the island of Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom, in their task. I saw this morning Archbishop Eames, Cardinal O'Fiaich, the Moderator and Secretary of the Presbyterian Church and the President of the Methodist Church, on the need for all in the Province to take their share of responsibility and to condemn violence in all its forms.
"It is vital that we help the community in any way to support the fight against terrorism, and in this connection we arc improving significantly the confidential telephone system. Very shortly indeed we shall be supplementing the present system with a single and easily memorable free phone number usable right across the Province. I have asked the broadcasting authorities to publicise this number and they have agreed. This will be a valuable strengthening of the present facility, which is in fact being used by a considerable number of people in their horror at the events of Saturday.
"The fight against republican terrorism must be waged also beyond the confines of Northern Ireland and particularly raises major challenges for the Government of the Republic of Ireland. A significant number of steps have been taken to help improve our cross-border co-operation, and we particularly appreciate the amount of weapons and explosives that have already been recovered by the Garda. We have to keep working to improve this co-operation in our common interest in defeating terrorism, and I have this morning agreed with Mr. Lenihan that there will be a further meeting of the inter-governmental conference this week, in which we shall be discussing cross-border security cooperation, and which will be attended by Mr. Lenihan and myself, as co-chairmen, by Mr. Collins, the Irish Minister of Justice, by my right honourable friend the Minister of State and by the chief constable and the commissioner of the Garda.
"Mr. Speaker, the common phrase this weekend is that the troubles of Northern Ireland had plumbed new depths of horror. That was the phrase at Enniskillen, at Milltown Cemetery and in the Andersonstown Road on Saturday. And the truth is that there will be new depths again so long as this awful and violent campaign of terrorism and revenge continues. It has got to stop in the name of humanity and if there is to be any decent future for the people of Northern Ireland and all those living in the island of Ireland and if the evil

29
shroud of terrorism is to be lifted from the United Kingdom as a whole.
"We all have our part to play, whether in actively combating terrorism, whether working to build bridges across communities, whether in deciding we do nothing in our words or actions that can increase the tensions. We all have our part, and the duty we owe to all the tragic victims of these outrages is to play that part to the full."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I come to the Dispatch Box for the second time in four days to condemn atrocity in Northern Ireland, Obviously we on these Benches join unreservedly in the condemnation of the horrific murders of the two young soldiers in West Belfast last Saturday and we express our utmost sympathy with the bereaved relatives. We also condemn the murder of yet another policeman in Londonderry earlier today and extend our sympathy to his family.
On Saturday the television camera captured the depth of bitterness and hatred that accompanied the murderous attack on the soldiers. We were all shocked, alarmed and sickened at the savagery which was unleashed before our eyes. We associate ourselves with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the action of the police in keeping their distance during the funerals last week. It was inevitably a complicated decision for the chief constable. We are told that the chief constable is now studying urgently whether that decision was correct or whether it needs to be modified. We suggest that in evaluating that decision the police will also have to consider whether the violence would have been even greater if they had not kept their distance during the funerals.
We note from the Statement that the Secretary of State is absolutely satisfied that the two soldiers had no reason to be in the vicinity of the funeral. They were not on the route of the funeral as part of any undercover operation or to spy on the funeral. We regret deeply that somehow the young soldiers drove into the funeral route and became entangled with it, in breach of their instructions. We agree with the Secretary of State that, whatever the reason, nothing can conceivably justify the outrage which occurred.
I have only one question for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Can the Minister tell the House whether the helicopter personnel promptly summoned assistance from the security forces or police and, supplemental to that question, was the help dispatched without avoidable delay? That is a matter which is not referred to in the Statement.
We realise that on Saturday emotion and tension were particularly heightened and that some people may possibly have feared a repeat of the savage attack in Milltown Cemetery. But the fury, violence and depth of hatred which we saw in Northern Ireland last Saturday is an indication of the magnitude of the problem which faces the people of Northern Ireland and the two Prime Ministers.
30
In conclusion, we urge as strongly as we can that the Inter-Governmental Conference, with the active involvement of the two Prime Ministers, should come up with measures that will at least prevent a worsening of the position in Northern Ireland. Is that too much to hope for?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for the Statement, perhaps I may associate my noble friends and colleagues on these Benches with the shock which he has expressed at the horrific events which the Statement describes and with his sympathy with the families of the two fine young men who were so savagely lynched by the crowd. A lynching mob is one of the most disagreeable manifestations that society can reveal. To see it on one's own television, as many of us did, is something that we all hoped would never happen in our lifetimes.
I should like to express our relief that the statement from Gerry Adams, which was reported in the newspapers and may not have been correct, that the two soldiers were members of the SAS was an ordinary untruth based on no facts and that the facts arc quite different; that they were members of the Signal Corps on reasonable business which need not have taken them to the area and that nobody knows why they were there. The Secretary of State's unswerving denial that they were in any way engaged in surveillance of the funeral seems to me obviously correct. I hope that everybody will accept it, including Mr. Gerry Adams.
I have only one question for the Minister. Am I right in having gathered from the newspapers that the IRA claims responsibility for that disgusting scene? I think I saw that they were. If they are, I think that we ought to know.
I accept the chief constable's view as to what is the right thing to do over the surveillance or non-surveillance of funerals. I do not think that opinions from Whitehall are of the slightest interest. There is a very experienced group of security people—both army and RUC. They cannot always be right in a situation which leads inevitably to clashes, but I shall be very happy to continue to accept without further criticism their views as to the right way to deal with this situation.
We were appalled to hear of yet another constable—Constable Graham—being shot this morning. Will it never end? I do not think it ever will. I believe one thing is absolutely certain—that the situation will get worse before it gets better.
The Minister referred to the Churches. I am very glad that the Secretary of State has been talking to them. They have not been blameless always but certainly in situations of this kind I think that they are behaving as they should. They are one of the sources which can provide some help.
The other development which is very encouraging—and which was always effective right back in the 1970s when I was in Northern Ireland—is that of the freephone system. I am very glad that that will be used, because it gives people who suddenly can stand the situation no longer an opportunity to ring up and give information.

31
The last point I wish to make is that I believe things will get worse. I believe that the Secretary of State will have very difficult decisions to make. I think that he has the best advice possible, and we shall back him in any decision that he makes in trying to control the situation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly reply to the very helpful comments and sympathy that have been expressed by the two noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, proffered sympathy and stressed the words of the Statement. I am sure that we are all particularly grateful for his comments about the duties of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and how they carry them out in this very difficult area of the policing of funerals. The policing of such processions and funerals is entirely an operational matter for the chief constable. With the full support of my right honourable friend, he considers each funeral according to its particular circumstances, having regard both to the wish for peace and dignity and to upholding the law.
As to the question why the two soldiers were in that particular location, that is something we shall never know. As I have stressed, the two soldiers were not on surveillance duty. They were returning to their headquarters at Lisburn and the route that they took was one of many possible routes. We shall never know why they happened to be in that particular location at that particular time.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked me about the helicopter seen on television overflying the events on Saturday morning. I should like to stress first that the situation on the ground was very unclear and, as I understand it, the helicopter was at some height and distance away at the onset of these events. Secondly, the helicopter was not able to give assistance to forces on the ground who could not have moved sooner without possibly being accused of some aspect of recklessness. It would appear that preliminary surveillance gave no reason to indicate involvement of soldiers nor, indeed, of the nature of this appalling disturbance.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked about the Provisional IRA. Whatever the IRA may have had to say in the media, I am sure that all noble Lords—indeed everyone—will treat those comments with the contempt that such remarks and justifications deserve. The facts are that those two soldiers, as I have described in the Statement, were brutally beaten and shot. I stress again that the soldiers did not have anything to do with the SAS. We shall never know why they were in that particular location.
Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his comments on policing and also for his helpful remarks about the freephone, which we believe will be of assistance. It seems that it has been of some assistance since the ghastly events of Saturday. We hope that the measures I have announced today will be of help.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am sure that we all abhor the bestiality of the West Belfast terrorists as witnessed on our screens over the weekend. I believe that it was pressure from Sinn Fein, the Roman Catholic Church and the Government of the Republic that determined the change in security policy at Provisional IRA funerals. It was a mistake, I believe. Had the policy not been changed, those two young men might have been saved and alive today. Indeed, they might not even have strayed into the danger area. Moreover, at the previous funeral that madman might not have got through the security ring to hurl his bombs. It was a mistake.
I hope the House appreciates that the Provisional IRA fixes its own propaganda settings and scenes. When it appeared that it was going to be denied the opportunity to fire a salute over the coffins of the three Gibraltar bombers, its men, who were in uniform and armed, went secretly before the funeral into a quiet side street and fired shots over the photographs of the three Gibraltar bombers. That was done in cahoots with the British television media who did not inform the security forces. The terrorists got their propaganda before the funeral took place. Therefore, Parliament in the first place, and then the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, should ask the chiefs of television whose side they are on.
Further, if no security forces are present at the funerals of terrorists, who takes charge? It is the terrorists. They organise the programme. They oversee the funeral march. All the young men of West Belfast look upon them as possessing the authority of the state; they do not look to the authority of the Government. That gives credence to the terrorist leadership.
I appeal to Her Majesty's Government for the policy to be changed. There should be no "no go" areas in any part of the United Kingdom and especially not in Northern Ireland. Secondly, at some time the Government must consider whether they will allow the media, and television in particular, to make secret arrangements with terrorist leaders and take secret photographs of them, inferring that the terrorists are operating widely in the Province, and then to display them on national and international television while the authorities stand by and freely allow it.
The Republic does not allow it; it has not done so for years. It has passed legislation. No member of any terrorist group may appear on television or radio in the Republic. Terrorist propaganda has been cut off. If we are to beat the terrorists, then we must consider doing the same.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be very grateful for the forthright comments of the noble Lord who has considerable experience of activities in Northern Ireland. With that in mind we should all respect his views.
The noble Lord mentioned pressure from three separate quarters as regards the policing of funerals. I should like once again to stress that the chief

33
constable considers each funeral according to its particular circumstances. It is a decision for the chief constable which, as I stressed in the Statement, is fully supported by my right honourable friend. That is a matter of known policy.
Secondly, at the time of the funerals in the past week, and especially the funerals on Saturday—at least the second one which gave rise to these appalling events—the chief constable took account of appeals for a low security presence from clergy and local community leaders, not all of whom are terrorist leaders, as the noble Lord will know. The chief constable considers each case individually. It was his decision that low security was justified in those cases.
Thirdly, had there been a heavier security presence on Wednesday or Saturday it could easily have had other penalties given the Provisional IRA's wish to provoke disorder and the constant danger to the security forces when they are at close quarters with terrorists. I want to stress to the House and to the noble Lord that there is no question of "no go" areas. With his knowledge of Northern Ireland I hope that he will accept that statement. The security forces continued to operate in the areas around both funeral processions on Saturday. That was the policy, and it will continue.
As regards the noble Lord's comments about television coverage and the media, that is not a matter for the Government. Certainly, we are aware of the noble Lord's experience in Northern Ireland. We note everything that he says, as I am sure, also, will the House.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I do not want to say anything that may make matters more difficult for the Government in a very sensitive and dangerous situation. However, I should like to put one question to the Minister which may have a bearing on the nature and magnitude of the problem. Would he care to comment on an assertion made during an interview this morning on the BBC seven o'clock news when the interviewee, speaking in general terms, claimed that the crowds at Catholic funerals are there under duress and pressure from the IRA? Would he care to comment on that assertion?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in one word, no. However, out of courtesy to the House and above all to the noble Lord, perhaps I may say that we would have no means of knowing why crowds turn out at these events, processions, funerals or whatever. Certainly it has been the case that at all the funerals during the past week there have been fairly large crowds. But they varied in size and location. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know that crowds tend to vary in composition on these occasions which sometimes give offence, although sometimes they do not.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the remarks made by Pearse after the 1916 uprising: "But the fools, the fools, the fools, they have left us our Fenian dead"? Would it not have been possible not to have given the bodies back in Gibraltar but to have buried them with decent Christian burial there as opposed to unchristian burials, when the lady was compared to Christ? We
34
would not then have had the funeral processions or the provocation. We would not then have allowed the IRA political propaganda and the general mayhem that has resulted in Belfast.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend's suggestion might possibly have its attractions, but I am afraid that I am not sure of the legal procedures in Gibraltar, let alone in the United Kingdom, over the state of bodies and to whom they belong. Perhaps I might make inquiries and write briefly, and I hope expeditiously, to him. As far as his first point is concerned, I am aware of what he says but I am afraid that I have not read all the words.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, reference has been made during this Statement and questions to the Minister to the role of the Churches. I am sure that we all recognise that they have a part to play. One thing for which we can be profoundly grateful is the increasingly good relationships between Christian leaders in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, although the bitter divisions between the communities are still all too apparent. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the struggle against terrorism, which has to go on constantly, is in any way going to impede the search for political solutions, because we realise that this is fundamental to the whole tragic situation in Northern Ireland.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his support and above all for everything that the Church leaders in Northern Ireland are doing today. As my right honourable friend pointed out in the Statement, he met the various Church leaders this morning. I understand that there will be a further announcement later on this afternoon.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether political steps were being taken. This is the case, and we proceed in this way in Northern Ireland and the whole of Ireland. Discussions between the Government of the Republic and the United Kingdom Government in tandem cover both political attitudes and the problems of terrorism and security. However, we are very grateful for the thoughts that have been suggested by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have known the fury of the IRA mobs in Northern Ireland over many years. They invaded my home and had it not been for certain circumstances, I should not be here to address your Lordships' House. I express my deepest sympathy over those who have died, particularly the two young soldiers who met such a savage death at the hands of my former constituents. As I and my wife watched those terrible scenes on television we were vividly reminded of a mob with exactly the same motivation which attacked my home many years ago, in 1976.
Perhaps the Minister will accept that I find it deeply offensive to see the IRA paraded on television, firing shots either over shrines or anywhere else and wearing the cowardly Balaclava helmet to prevent identification. Will he make representations to the

35
broadcasting authorities that in no circumstances should the people in these islands be allowed to witness this terrible and provocative scene of the IRA firing shots in furtherance of their cause? We find it deeply offensive. As one who has spent his political and personal life in Northern Ireland under the threat of the IRA, I no later than this morning would have given an undertaking to the House to prevent those scenes being shown on television.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, all of us in your Lordships' House admire the continuing courage of the noble Lord, not just for the courage that he showed in his duties in West Belfast 10, 15 or 20 years ago. He knows West Belfast better than anybody in the House. He can stress the horror and outrage that is felt about these appalling scenes, above all of hooded gunmen firing salutes.
Certainly I cannot of my own volition stop these scenes appearing on television or elsewhere in the madia. However, I shall certainly make the noble Lord's views and the views of several of your Lordships who have spoken this afternoon, known to my right honourable friend. I hope that we might be able to make progress. I hope that he will accept that it is not in my power, nor indeed in the power of the Government yet, to take the action that he so much desires.
The Marquess bf Salisbury: My Lords, I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister to give some indication of what further steps he proposes to take to curtail the existing spate of violence. We had expressions of regret and appeals last week from the noble Lord and his Minister to the IRA not to continue with the violence. They have clearly not worked. Surely, we are in grave danger at the moment of both sides escalating the violence. It seems to me that the feeling is running very much higher. Surely there are steps which should be taken to try to ensure that the rule of law is carried out all over the Province.
There are steps that can be taken. Having had three sons who have done more than one tour each in the Province, I understand that the security forces could do more if they were allowed to. I wonder whether the Minister could give any indication as to what steps the Government propose to take in this respect.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I can certainly indicate to my noble friend that my right honourable friend, in conjunction with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable of the RUC, continually take steps to try to reduce this appalling level of violence that has been endemic in Northern Ireland for 20 years.
There is a danger that murders and retaliation will continue. I have nothing further to add, especially today, to the Statement that I have made this afternoon. I stress to my noble friend that the RUC carries out its duties all over the Province. We admire each and every one of its members for carrying out policing duties in situations which all of us have seen on television over the weekend. This is the climate. I
36
should like to pay my personal tribute, and I believe the tribute of all of your Lordships, to each and every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to their families, who share this appalling burden of policing Northern Ireland. Certainly they carry these duties out everywhere. The main security role is carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and that is the way it will stay under this Government.

Immigration Bill
4.48 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("but the immigration rules shall be so framed that children of parents with the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be no less free to enter and remain in the United Kingdom than if section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 had not been repealed").
The noble Lord said: I almost feel as though I am about to deliver a sermon, hoping that the congregation will duly assemble.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the course of his remarks on the last amendment said that there were various ways of dealing with the problem of Section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The first way was to try to keep it, possibly adding to it. That was the purpose of the first amendment which my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones moved. That amendment was defeated, but it was by such a small majority, comparatively speaking, that I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give attention to the views that were expressed through the Lobbies from all sides of the Committee.
We now move on to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said was the alternative: that is, whether without repealing it we can look at the provision and see whether there is something which ought to be saved. That is the purpose of the following amendments that I propose with my noble friends to put before the Committee. We are delighted also to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, as I understand it, and of the right reverend Prelate The Bishop of Ripon, whose speech we listened to with such respect. I am sure that goes for the Government Benches as well.
The purpose of the amendment is a "save the children fund" if I may so put it. It is to ensure, whatever the arguments about spouses and dependents, that the children of those who were settled here and who were made this promise under the 1971 Act—and, by children, we are referring only to those under 18—who are in fact still within the purview of Section 1(5).
The Committee may have in mind in that context the statement that was made by the noble Earl. As usual, when he makes a statement it is completely accurate. He said that the children and the others will not be stopped from coming here and the only condition will be that they will have to satisfy certain tests. Quite apart from the question of means of support, one of those tests is the ability to house. On Second Reading I ventured to say to your Lordships that there was here a circle which was indeed a very

37
vicious circle. Anyone connected with housing and local authorities and the methods that they have to adopt will know perfectly well that they will not deal with the possibility of a family which is not here or numbers which are not here. They have to deal with applications on the basis of those children who are here and the size of the family as it is at present within their local authority boundaries. So there will be housing accommodation which may he sufficient for the existing members of the family but not for the children that they want to bring over. I repeat that these are people who have been settled here for many years who will be claiming the right to have their children with them. The answer will be: "You have got the accommodation for the present family. You do not have the accommodation for the one or two children you are seekng to get over here. Therefore, as Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act has gone, the answer must be that you cannot have permission to do it.".
The one principle that I wish to emphasise—as do all those on the Benches which I have the privilege to represent in this amendment, and, I believe joined by Members of your Lordships' House wherever they may he sitting—is the need to have families united. Distant vistas are conjured up from time to time: that Clause 2 covers polygamous marriages, and we must stop polygamous wives coming here even though only 25 of them were applied for last year. The one thing there is no doubt about, especially in view of recent tests which are supposed to be absolutely foolproof, is that there is no reason why we cannot know who is a child of the family.
The question before your Lordships now is whether we should repeal the whole of Section 1(5) or whether we should ensure that those to whom we made this promise can at least get their children in for the sake of family unity and, as I say, for the sake of good citizenship. If the decision of your Lordships in Committee stands that that Section 1(5) be repealed, can we at least save something for the children?
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can explain the following. His Amendment No. 2 reads:
"but the immigration rules shall be so framed that children of parents with the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be no less free to enter and remain".
It would clarify the position if he were contemplating that even when the parents are not here and have not exercised their right of abode nevertheless the children shall be let in under his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Renton is making a very valid point, as is not unusual. I am taking it for granted in the wording that it is not only a right but a right which is exercised. I think the noble Lord has in mind a rather peculiar position. That the parents have the right of abode and they make the application is one case. If the parents have the right of abode and so not make the application but the children claim the right even though the claim has not been made, that would be a very odd situation. Perhaps I may have to alter this at Report stage to make the principle quite clear. Where there is the right of abode and the parents endeavour to use that right to get the children over here is the case I have in mind.
Lord Renton: First, may I say it really is a joy to listen to the noble Lord. He is so lucid, clear and fair and never seems to refer to a note or an authority. He has the advantage over most of us in that respect. I particularly appreciated what he so kindly said about me when replying to the Government statement on the previous amendment.
Having said that, perhaps I may make this rather silly point. This amendment and each of the next three all start with the word "but". From the point of view of the noble Lords opposite, no doubt they would like all four of those amendments to be added to the Bill to be carried. We should then have four amendments starting with the word "but". That is a matter which could be adjusted.
Now may I use the word "but" and ask, "But what about Amendment No. 2?" Even if one has sympathy with the intention underlying it—and I do not see how one can avoid having some sympathy with it—I wonder whether it is really necessary. If we look at subsection (4) of the 1971 Act, which is not being repealed, it provides for rules regulating the entry of people not having the right of abode and says that those rules shall make provision for admitting,
"dependants of persons lawfully in or entering the United Kingdom".
Therefore, to the extent that Amendment No. 2 applies to the dependants of people already lawfully here, it would not seem to be necessary.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord sits down, in reading subsection (4) he left out, though certainly not on purpose, the following words, which occur in brackets in subection (4):
"(in such cases and subject to such restrictions as may be provided by the rules, and subject or not to conditions as to length of stay or otherwise)".
Quite obviously, the intention of subsection (4) was that these dependants will be subject to conditions which can be laid down. Subsection 1(5) of the 1971 Immigration Act made this right unconditional. That was what I was pleading for. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has a valid point. However, my answer is that the words in brackets provide for exceptions to be made in unusual cases where perhaps there has not been a proper clearance from the consulate—as the case used to be, and I think in some instances still is—at the point at which the immigrants, or would-be immigrants, left their own country. To the extent that the children to be admitted are going to join people lawfully already here, and subject to the exceptions covered by the words in brackets—which I think would be rare—a great part of the noble Lord's amendment is already covered in a law not being repealed.
In this Bill do we wish to go the stage further that the noble Lord has elucidated in answer to the question that I put before he sat down? Do we wish to have arrangements for those cases where the parents have a right of abode, and the children want to come here whether the parents wish them to or not? We are talking of young people under the age of 18. Is this country to be regarded as a sanctuary for children under 18 who have not got on with their

39
families and who think that a good way of getting away from their families is to exploit the parent's right of abode by exercising a right of entry into this country? That is the situation into which this amendment might lead us.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described the purpose of this amendment as a save-the-children fund. I appreciate the reason that he has put down the amendment. It puts us in difficulty because the amendment permits the repeal of Section 1(5) but it then adds extra conditions. This would create a new category of people who would be entitled to come here freely. The concept of right of abode—and these are the words used in the amendment—means that someone who has this right is free to come and go as he pleases.
All British citizens have the right of abode, and no conditions can be placed upon their entitlement to come here. Anyone who was not born a British citizen, but who has subsequently become one through naturalisation, at the same time automatically acquires the right of abode. Any children born to that person after he becomes a British citizen will themselves be British citizens and will have the right of abode. However, this right of abode does not extend to children who were born before that parent himself acquired the citizenship. If the parent also wants these children to become British citizens and to have the right of abode, he has to take a conscious decision to make the necessary application on their behalf.
The amendment proposes that the children of anyone with right of abode, who do not themselves have the right of abode—perhaps because their parent chose not to register them as British citizens, or for some other reason—should nevertheless be entirely free to come and go to and from this country. The effect would be to create a new category of people who are theoretically subject to immigration control but who, in effect, enjoy many of the benefits deriving from possession of right of abode.
As the amendment is drafted, those affected would continue to enjoy this favourable position throughout their lives. We could be faced with so-called "children", aged 20, 30, 40 or older, who claim a right of entry to this country many years in the future simply because some years earlier one or both of their parents had had that right of abode. It is by no means a compelling argument to say that such people, who have either not been registered by their parents or who have been left abroad for many years at their parents' choice, should be given extra rights of admission over others who are also subject to immigration laws. One either has the right of abode or one is subject to the immigration laws.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would create a new category—a category without the right of abode but whose members were able to enjoy many benefits associated with the right of abode. I do not believe that that would be right.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord stands at the Dispatch Box producing new difficulties out of his
40
sleeve, or from behind his hat, rather like a conjuror. I feel that the Committee would have very much more sympathy with him if he were to say that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a reasonable and proper one and that he would get together with the noble Lord to fine tune the wording if it is not 100 per cent. right at the moment. Can the noble Lord, put himself in that position?
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, consider the final point that I made? This amendment would allow children of parents living in the Commonwealth—the parents having the right of abode—to come here even though the parents did not want them to do so, and would perhaps be alarmed at their leaving home.
Lord Hylton: It is not for me to speak for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I thought that he made it transparently clear that he took on that point in the first place and that he was referring to the children of parents who are already legally settled in Britain.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wanted me to say something more. I rather fancy he did. He invited me to say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was an excellent amendment which we would be happy to accept, subject to a little redrafting. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I could not do that for the very reason that I gave him: it creates a new category of people. It alters the effect of right of abode. The repealing of Section 1(5) has nothing to do with the right of abode. The immigration rules contain very generous provision for the admission of children in a whole range of circumstances, subject primarily to the requirement that the child's parent should be able to show that there is adequate support and accommodation for the child. This is not an unduly onerous requirement. It is one which is as much in the interest of the child as in that of immigration control. It can hardly be in the child's interest that he or she should be brought to the country, if when he or she arrives here there is nowhere for the family to live and no means of support available. It would not be easy to incorporate this amendment because, as I have told the Committee, it creates a new category.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am finding a little difficulty in following the Minister because I do not see from where this new category comes. The wording of the amendment states that,
"children of parents … shall be no less free to enter and remain … than if section 1(5) … had not been repealed".
In other words, the situation for them remains as it has always been. I cannot see from where this new category is springing. Therefore, I think that we return to our original arguments. This is about the bringing together of families, in particular those who are affected by the situation where housing is not available. There are a good many families where, since not all the children are present, the house available for the family is not sufficient for the larger number, but it is for the smaller number. There is no

41
way in which more children can come into the country because they are not eligible for larger housing until they are present in this country. That is the Catch-22 situation to which Members referred in the debate at Second Reading. The intention of this amendment is to overcome that situation. I am confused by the argument put forward by the Minister.
Lord Mishcon: With all due respect, I do not think that the noble Earl would wish to leave this amendment in a purely negative way. As the right reverend Prelate has said, we are dealing with those people who were previously covered by Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. In spite of assurances and undertakings, and their decision to put this issue in statutory form, the Government decided that that provision should be repealed. The repeal means that those who were settled as defined in theAct will no longer have the benefit of that subsection. I am trying to save the children from being subject to that repeal and that is all that the amendment asks.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said—as he is entitled to say—that in strict accordance with the wording of the amendment, one could have children under the age of 18 applying to come to this country but who do not wish to be with their parents and whose parents do not wish to have them. From any part of the Commonwealth they could argue that they have proof of the fact that their parents comply with the provisions of the 1971 Act and are deemed to be settled here, and that they are subject to Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. I admit that that extraordinary situation had not occurred to me. It is possibly an academic point but it has been made quite validly.
In answer to the noble Lord, I said freely and frankly that I did not intend the amendment to cover the children of parents who do not want them. This is the Committee stage of the Bill and I am fighting for the principle of admitting those children whose parents want them here to unite the family and who would previously have been protected under Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. If at the Report stage an amendment is required to cover that contingency which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, properly brought to the attention of the Committee, I shall be more than willing to alter the wording so that that principle is complied with.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made a remark which I hoped would meet an answering chord in the noble Earl's mind. It was that this is obviously a worthy principle; worthy of any humane government and of any government that wish to produce the kind of social conditions which we all want in this country. The noble Lord also said that, while conceding that principle, although the Minister may consider that there is something wrong with the wording—and there is no question of admitting a new group of people and circumstances; I am trying to save something from the total repeal in order to help the children—perhaps he can say that he sees that a case has been made out for trying to save the children from exemption from the privileges of Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. In that case, I would respond
42
immediately by saying that if something can be done between now and the Report stage to help the children, I shall not now press the matter to a Division. I invite the noble Earl to agree to that appeal from the Cross Benches out of sheer humanity.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am in some difficulty. I should love to respond to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, he knows that Section 1(5) creates a dividing line between what happens to children born before that date and those born afterwards. The right of abode which a parent correctly has is conferred on those children born to that parent after he has accepted the right of abode. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to be saying that that right of abode should also apply to those born before the date but who have not been to this country. One could find oneself in the position of having people coming to this country from the East for the first time and saying "We can come here. Although we have never been here before, our parents had the right of abode. We think that we should have that too".
I do not believe that that is right or reasonable; I believe that it creates a completely new category. I tried to explain that belief but the noble Lord slightly brushed it away saying that that was not intended. In fact, that would be the effect. I shall look carefully at what has been said by Members of the Committee; but it would be wrong for me to give the impression that I have misinterpreted the amendment because I do not believe that I have done so. The noble Lord appears to wish to preserve the right of all children who at present benefit from Section 1(5). That would not be acceptable because such children would be placed or retained in a privileged position in comparison with the children of Commonwealth citizens. We are entering difficult waters, but I shall look at what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Mishcon: I believe that Members of the Commitee will not think me unreasonable in trying to clarify the situation. One is perfectly prepared to try to rescue even a part of the amendment to ensure that positive action is taken. The amendment seeks to provide that those who were permitted entry under Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act shall still be permitted entry if their parents apply for that and if they are entitled, but for this repeal, to have the children here. I am prepared to limit the children to those who are under the age of 18 when the application is made. I am trying to be as reasonable as possible in order to save something from the repeal of this section which I do not believe is to the Government's credit. It does not aid immigration policy which I believe all Members should support on a bipartisan basis. It is, if possible, to turn into good citizens those who are here but who, deprived of family relationships, may turn into citizens who are not good, either because of a sense of grievance or because of the social disability that they have.
Having regard to the limitations which I have put on the amendment, I ask the noble Earl to be good enough to say that he has some sympathy with it and

43
that he will look into the matter to discover whether action can be taken. I shall then withdraw the amendment and not divide the Committee because I believe that to be the wish of the Members.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Earl replies, will he note that the children about whom we are speaking will already be aged approximately 15. I believe that they had to be born before a certain date in 1973. Therefore we are talking about a very small, limited category of children.
Earl Ferrers: That may well be so but Section 1(5), as we saw earlier, in fact creates divisions within a family. The noble Lord shakes his head but it is true.
Lord Hylton: I do not deny that.
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord would wag his head up and down rather than from side to side it would be more obvious what he was indicating. Section 1(5) creates divisions. Where a person comes in who was born before 1973, he is subject to certain requirements and where he is born after 1973 different factors apply. We are only repealing Section 1(5) because of the European Court of Human Rights and a number of other conditions.
This amendment seeks to preserve a distinction and it is not a question of splitting up families. All that is required is that those who are born before 1973 and who have not now taken advantage of the facilities that were open to them should be in the same position as their brothers or sisters who were born after 1973. I do not believe it is a question of splitting up families. I shall consider very seriously what has been said. However, I repeat that I do not think it would be reasonable to say that there is a clear reason here for continuing a distinction.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: There is a real issue here because again we must go back in time. Many of the children about whom we are talking are the children I mentioned earlier who are on the Indian subcontinent and who are trying to come here, but the officers have been denying that they were the children of the people of whom they claim to be the children. We now have an advance in that. Because of the DNA test it can be proved conclusively that they are those children. We want to preserve the measure so that those children can now come here.
What is more, it is necessary to carry that out in this way because otherwise we are failing the parents who were living here when the 1971 Act was passed and who were promised that they would be allowed to bring in those children. There are many such people. It is not that they were not trying to do that. They were living here and were trying to bring their children here. All sorts of arguments have been put forward that the children were not really their children, but there is now a possibility of proving beyond any doubt that they are those children, and we want them to be able to bring their children here.
The reason why Section 1(5) matters is that, if those children are brought here under any other
44
condition and if it so happens—and it can happen—that the father has been down on his luck, has worked in low-paid jobs (which happens quite frequently) for 15 years, has now lost his job, is unemployed, is receiving unemployment benefit, housing benefit and supplementary benefit, and if in fact the house in which he is living is not large enough for the children, then he will have difficulties. However, if we safeguard the rights by saying that it should not be any more difficult than it was before 1973, he is safeguarded. Even though we may repeal Section 1(5), we have made it possible for those children to join their parents.
I wish the Government would give some thought to those matters. It is all very well to say that there is a discrimination here; of course there is. Any time a line is drawn, those who are above the line have the rights and those below do not. The Government are saying that to equalise the matter the rights should be taken away. However, taking away the rights has certain consequences which could be unpleasant. Therefore we say—and for the moment I am assuming that Section 1(5) is repealed—all right; let us see how we can safeguard those children. In effect the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, could have been met by a clause stating:
"so framed that the children of parents with the right of abode in the United Kingdom whose parents have applied to have them join them in the UK".
That provision could have been included in the clause and that would have restricted the matter. There are ways and means of meeting this point. Therefore I wish the Government would look at the matter in that way and not keep deliberately putting obstacles in the way of uniting those families.
Lord Bonham-Carter: There are two points which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made which will arise again and again unless we deal with the matter at this moment. He speaks as though the worst thing in a Bill of this kind is an anomaly and that an anomaly is something which must be abolished at the first opportunity.
I tried to argue earlier that nationality Bills and immigration Bills inevitably create anomalies between different types of person. The Nationality Bill 1981 creates a distinction between those born before 1983 and those born after 1983. That is done consciously and deliberately. The Immigration Bill 1971 creates an anomaly between those born before 1971 and those born after 1971. That is also done absolutely deliberately and consciously. Therefore, it is not very convincing to say that something must be stopped because it is an anomaly, as if that were a sufficient reason in itself. A better reason than that is needed to justify depriving people of rights which they had hitherto.
The noble Earl then goes on to say that it is not a question of splitting up families. I agree that it is not a question of splitting families but the point about the immigration rules which applied to those born after 1971 but not to those before 1971 is that they were designed to make it more difficult for those people to come here and have made it more difficult for families to unite. Therefore let us not become involved in a

45
terminological dispute about splitting or not splitting.
As I understand it, this amendment seeks to try to reinstate rights which the repealing of Section 1(5) have taken away. It tries to mitigate the consequences of that and, in particular, tries to mitigate those consequences by removing obstacles which have since been imposed on the unification of families. Those are the issues which this amendment tries to rectify.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that we should not use the expression "splitting or not splitting". I do not want to be like the proverbial schoolboy, but I did not start that. We were told that the Government were splitting families. The noble Lord says that we are depriving people of rights. The position is that if you have a right of abode, you have a right to come and go. If you are a British citizen, that right goes to the child of that marriage automatically. The problem here is what happens before 1973.
It is not a question of whether children should be able to come and go, but Section 1(5) enables the children of boys who could have been aged one in 1973 to come here but those children might not even be born now. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, cannot say that that was what was intended in 1971. Everyone knows that that proviso was included in the 1971 Act in order to allay the concern of those people who were quite rightly concerned and were then resident in the United Kingdom.
It is wrong to say that we are, to use the words again, splitting families, because we do not accept that the children born here of boys (not of girls!) who were aged one in 1973 can come here—and those children are not yet born! Are we to be accused of acting unreasonably when we say that in our view that is extending the rights of entry into this country too far?
Lord Mishcon: It is with deep regret that I listen to the noble Earl. Our approach was to ask him to do something to save circumstances from arising after the repeal of Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act and to do it for the sake of the children and, I repeat, uniting members of the family.
I invited the noble Earl—and I hope I did so in respectful language—at least to say that the Government have some sympathy in this and will consider whether there could be a meeting of the ways. He used certain words from which I hoped to extract a promise to do that very thing. I am afraid that I did not get the response from the words he used that I was seeking to evoke.
Earl Ferrers: May I get one point absolutely clear? Is the noble Lord saying that I should go back and consider whether it is correct to give rights to children who are not yet born but who may be born to children who might have been aged one in 1973? Is that what he wants me to consider? If it is, I am bound to say that, in fairness, I cannot. However, I shall consider all that has been said in case I am wrong.
Lord Mishcon: What I am asking the noble Earl to do—and I should like to be precise in my language—is this. I am saying that children who had certain rights, together with their parents, of being united are being robbed of those rights by a total repeal of subsection (5). I am asking the noble Earl whether he is prepared sympathetically to consider some limitation of that repeal so that some rights remain for children who otherwise would have been protected by subsection (5). I do not ask it under this amendment for spouses or for any other relations or dependants but purely for the children.
I ask the noble Earl, in all solemnity and still with some amount of optimism, to at least be prepared to consider whether the Government can meet that requirement, not necessarily in totality but to come some way down the road with some sort of offer to save for some of those children the benefit they had under the old subsection. If the noble Earl merely says that, I will withdraw the amendment. If he cannot say that, he gives me no alternative but to take a certain course.
Earl Ferrers: I feel as though I am about to go to the execution block when the noble Lord says that. I can only say to him that I shall consider what has been said. However, the noble Lord asks me to consider giving certain rights to people who have had certain rights removed from them. We are repealing a certain section of the 1971 Act and it is repeal of some importance. Therefore, I could not say to the noble Lord—no, I could not—that I agree there is something we will do. What I am prepared to do, if the noble Lord finds it of satisfaction, is to say that I shall consider what has been said but without any undertaking to agree with it.
Lord Mishcon: I take it for granted that the noble Earl and the Government will always consider what has been said in this Committee. I am afraid that gets me nowhere and with great reluctance I ask that the opinion of the Committee be taken.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89, Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Barnett, L.

Donoughue, L.

Basnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Birk, B.

Ennals, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bottomley, L.

Falkender, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hampton, L.

47

Hanworth, V.

Mulley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Nathan, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Nicol, B.

Heycock, L.

Northfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Peston, L.

Hughes, L.

Phillips, B.

Hylton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jacques, L.

Rea, L.

Jay, L.

Ripon, Bp. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Serota. B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, E

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Underhill, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McNair, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Whaddon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Willis, L.

Molloy, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Havers, L.

Auckland, L.

Hertford, M.

Bauer, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Holderness, L.

Beloff, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bessborough, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blake, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Layton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lurgan, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caccia, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marley, L.

Carnock, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Clinton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monson, L,

Cottesloe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cowley, E.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Moyne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Munster, E.

Croft, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cross, V.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

De Freyne, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Digby, L.

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Donegall, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dundee, E.

Polwarth, L.

Eccles, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodney, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Romney, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

St. Davids, V.

Greenway, L.

Salisbury, M.

48

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Teynham, L.

Sandford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Shannon, E.

Thurlow, L.

Sharpies, B.

Torrington, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trafford, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Tranmire, L.

Stockton, E.

Trumpington, B.

Strange, B.

Tryon, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Strathspey, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sudeley, L.

Weir, V.

Suffield, L.

Wise, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wolfson, L.

Terrington, L.

Young, B.

Teviot, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("but the immigration rules shall be so framed that men shall be no less free to enter and remain in the United Kingdom than women seeking to enter or remain in accordance with the immigration rules in force at the passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to move this amendment since it seems to deal with exactly the same principle dealt with under Amendment No. 1, upon which the Committee has already registered its vote.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("but the immigration rules shall be so framed that British citizens and other persons settled in the United Kingdom shall be able to exercise in the United Kingdom the right to marry and to found a family guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms").
Page 1, line 6, at end insert (" but the immigration rules shall be so framed that members of the family of persons settled in the United Kingdom, subject to subsection (2) below, are no less free to enter and stay in the United Kingdom than the members of the family of European Community nationals entitled to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of an enforceable Community right or of any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not prohibit the immigration rules from requiring the family members to obtain entry clearance and leave to enter the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: I propose to take a certain course as regards the next two amendments, and with the leave of the Committee I should like to explain. I believe that it may be useful between now and Report stage to have some conversations—however difficult they may be—between myself the Minister and others on our Benches who are concerned with this Bill and people elsewhere. I feel that no useful purpose would be served at Committee stage in moving the rest of the amendments under this clause. In those circumstances, I propose not to move them.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: Here again, I believe that if a debate took place I should be saying exactly the same things all over again. That does not seem to me to be a useful

49
way of spending the time of the Committee on an important Bill of this kind. I do not propose to oppose this Question.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restriction on exercise of right of abode in cases of polygamy]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: I propose to make a short comment as I believe was made in the course of Second Reading debate. This is a provision where we presumably express our horror at polygamous marriages wherever they may take place and even if they are perfectly proper, legal and respectable in the countries in which they occur. I hope that in dealing with a situation which involves a maximum of 25 cases each year, the Committee, in passing this clause, will have in mind an improvement in our own moral standards in this country relating to marriage and divorce and many such similar issues. If we can, with sanctity, pass this clause I hope at least it will have that effect.
Lord Hylton: At Second Reading I suggested to the Government a basis on which they could discriminate fairly against polygamous wives if that is what they want to do. I suggested that they should make it impossible for new wives to enter this country—that is, wives who have not been married previously to the person in question. However, the second or third existing marriages of people already here could be admitted (as they might well be entitled to) under Koranic Law.
Lord Renton: I hope that none of the Members of the Committee has any doubts about this clause despite the fact that not very many people are affected by it. If people want to have the advantage of coming to live in our civilised society, I believe they should accept our standards. They are the standards of those who practise the Christian and Jewish religions. As regards the Moslem religion, only today I was told by a High Court judge from Pakistan that bigamy and polygamy are now unlawful in Pakistan unless the first wife gives her consent to the marriage to one other woman. It is fact that among Hindus and Moslems it has become gradually the custom that there should be monogamy among all the better Hindus and Moslems. That is a good thing that we can record.
Difficulties have been caused with the occasional polygamous marriage in this country. There was a case reported in the press over the weekend of a man from Bangladesh. He had two wives one of whom was aged 43 and the other 26. Between them they have 11 children and their ages range from just a few weeks to 19 years of age. They had to be accommodated by the local council. The man was out of work. The local council had to spend, it was said, £40,000 to enable them to have a house which was large enough. If we did not pass this clause then we would have that kind of problem magnified fairly often, I believe, despite the fact that polygamy is on the way out.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I wonder whether the Committee can allow that serious speech by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to pass without comment. There is a high-and-mighty attitude that polygamy is awful and that we in this country have made it unlawful. On the other hand, multiple marriages are common and increasing; cohabitation between unmarrieds is increasing and common; one-parent families are increasing in number and are common. If we are to pretend that we are so superior to the 25 people a year who may come here—the noble Lord admits they are a diminishing number for economic as well as religious reasons—I believe we are carrying the popular idea of English hypocrisy rather too far.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a brief intervention covering polygamy and the moral standards of this country. I do not want to add a great deal to what has been said other than to say that if we are to have immigration—and we all agree that we are—we must have certain rules. The fact is that polygamy runs counter to a monogamous society such as ours. In other countries polygamy is acceptable but in this country it has not been. When certain people come to this country it is reasonable to say to them in relation to ordinary domestic relationships that they can come in but may bring only one wife.
My noble friend Lord Renton was given a certain amount of stick by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for referring to a certain incident about which there was a report in the newspapers at the weekend. I saw the article too. As my noble friend quite rightly said, the gentleman concerned had two wives and 11 children. In order to accommodate his second wife the council had to spend £40,000 on increasing his accommodation. The article asked what would happen if he had a third wife. There is a limit to what one can expect local authorities and government to do and society to accept. In a monogamous society one wife is sufficient.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Proof of right of abode:]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("A person refused entry as a result of not being able to produce such a document shall have a right of appeal at the hearing of which he shall be entitled to be present.").
The noble Lord said: I hope to be brief in regard to this amendment. The Committee will appreciate that Clause 3 deals with the right of an immigration officer to see that somebody whose papers are not in order can be immediately required to leave these shores without a right of appeal. This amendment asks that he shall have a right of appeal at the hearing of which he shall be entitled to be present. It is one of those amendments which speaks for itself.
In our judicial system we always value the right of somebody upon good grounds to be able to appeal against a decision so that he has a right to be heard. The Committee will appreciate that it is an immigration officer who has the right to order the person to leave immediately; and that there can be many cases in which either somebody has lost a

51
document or has had it stolen from him. There may be circumstances in which for good reasons the papers are not available. The Committee would not want to have such a decision made against a person endeavouring to enter this country, especially with all the liabilities on carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act which we recently passed.
Immigration officers carry out a difficult task, mostly to the best of their ability and mostly with mercy. I do not think that the Committee would want to enact a provision whereby somebody had no right to make representations thereafter if the papers were not in order where there appeared to him to be a right to argue that he had the nationality, that his papers did exist or whatever it might be. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I appreciate the noble Lord's point but I wonder whether it has occurred to him that we have an elaborate and for the most part very efficiently run administration for enabling would-be immigrants to prove their right of abode before leaving the countries in which they were living. The arrangements are expensive. We bear most of the expense but would-be immigrants make a contribution. Generally the arrangements work well.
The noble Lord is saying that, in spite of having had the opportunity to establish their right in their own country, whether or not they have used it, and whether or not they have failed, they should nevertheless come here even though the unfortunate immigration officer has crowds of people to see off an aeroplane. If the officer says, "No, you don't seem to have the documentation", the noble Lord suggests that people should then have the right of appeal in this country. I make the simple point that if they did not have the documents in their own country, are they any more likely to have them when they arrive here? Should not people be encouraged to take the fullest advantage of the good arrangements that we make for them to prove their right before they leave their own country?
Lord Bonham-Carter: This is an important amendment. To remove a right of appeal is a serious step. The situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not quite as idyllic as he would have us believe. The people to whom the delays mainly occur are in Bangladesh. A few years ago the delay before getting a first interview was 18 months. The delay is now about eight months, although DNA may change that. After the first interview there are further delays. During the Second Reading debate I asked the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whether it was the case that 100,000 letters were unopened at Lunar House. I have since discovered that there are 150,000 letters. When I last inquired, no letter that arrived in December had been opened. The beauty of our administration therefore is something which is difficult for others to comprehend. People have come here after a decision taken earlier because that is the best way in which they can overcome the delays.
The second factor is that our system of sifting in Bangladesh is not always very accurate. In 1985, 50 per cent. of all Bangladesh is applicants were refused
52
permission to enter. Of those who appealed—those who used the procedure which is being abolished—one-third were found to have been refused entry wrongly. In the face of those facts the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is self-evidently necessary.
Earl Ferrers: I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton when he says that it is reasonable for people who come to this country first to find out whether they can come here and to clear their documents. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that we were removing the right of appeal. That is not so. The right of appeal is there, but the appellant should not necessarily be in this country for that appeal.
The proposed amendments do not seek to remove the requirement contained in Clause 3(1), which sets out perfectly clearly the documents required of anyone who seeks admission on the basis of their right of abode. If a passenger turns up without those documents it is perfectly proper to expect that person to pursue any appeal from abroad. What does he do? He seeks to come into the country. The immigration officer asks where his documents are, and he says, "I do not have any". It is perfectly reasonable for the immigration officer then to say. "You can't come into this country without any documents. You may say that you are somebody's wife or child but you do not have those documents".
Unless we have a completely open door it is reasonable to say to that person that he ought to return to his country and ensure that be obtains the relevant documents before coming here. Having said that, it will always be open to the immigration officer to exercise his discretion; for example, in the case of a passenger whose documents have been lost or stolen. That is the present position and it will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, complained about delays and implied that they were intolerable. I am sure that he realises that there is an enormous number of applications for immigration purposes. Between November 1985 and October 1986 when the requirement for Bangladesh was introduced, some 1,500 mothers and children had arrived in this country seeking admission on the basis of unsubstantiated claims to citizenship. It is that very loophole that we seek to close by the provisions contained in Clause 2.
When the noble Lord says that there is too much of a delay, I wonder whether he realises that in the immigration department of the Home Office there are in fact 3,200 people who are dealing with such applications. Furthermore, it costs about £60 million per year, of which nearly £1 million goes to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service in order to help it to assist people in their appeals against refusal decisions. The appellate authorities alone cost £2·5 million. Therefore I do not think it is fair for the noble Lord to complain about a provision which says that people cannot come into this country before they have cleared the wires and at the same time to say that we have not enough people dealing with immigration.

53
Immigration will always be a difficult issue. There will always be many people involved in seeing what is right and what is not; who should come into this country and who should not. To suggest that people arriving in this country from another without any documents should be allowed to stay until their appeal is heard is pushing the boat a little bit too far.
6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: With great deference I do not think the Minister really knows what happens in the Home Office. I am talking about the immigration department. There are other departments in the Home Office for which the noble Earl is responsible and I am sure that he knows everything that ought to be known in their regard, but he is not responsible for immigration.
I was not going to give this personal example when we are dealing with documents which may be requested from outside, but he may wish to know the following. In regard to an immigration matter which was rather urgent I wrote to the Home Office in July of 1987 sending original documents. I received no acknowledgment to my letter. Since that time I have written on no fewer than five occasions between July 1987 and March of this year and have still not received any acknowledgment, although I have sent copies of my previous letters to the immigration department because I am rather worried about the original documents, apart from anything else.
In all sincerity I have to say to the Committee that an impossible situation has been created. If that be true—obviously I would not stand at this Dispatch Box and give those facts unless I had every reason to bring them to the Minister's and the Committee's attention—how can we possibly say that an immigration officer can send people back to their homelands, which may be thousands of miles away without any right of appeal and then say with sincerity, "Well, they can appeal from there"? What about the hardship involved? In regard to this clause no one is saying that there should not be the right to debar people whose papers are not in order from staying in this country for any good reason; we are not saying that. In those circumstances we are merely giving the right of appeal. Therefore I ask the Committee to support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I heard the noble Lord correctly. He said that I did not know what was going on in the Home Office. I am bound to say to him that I do not know about every letter that is written. When he says that he has written a number of letters that have not been answered I must say that I am surprised, but I shall look into the matter.
However, he then went on to use the aforementioned example as an argument for what trouble and chaos there is within the immigration department of the Home Office. As I have already said, recently 1,500 additional people sought to come into this country without any papers at all. In this part of the Bill we seek to say, "You ought to ensure before you come here that you have the right of entry". I do not think that that requirement is unreasonable. One cannot say that the Home Office
54
is swamped with work and therefore cannot anwer letters and then at the same time say that it is perfectly all right for another 1,500 people to enter the country.
The noble Lord, then went on to say that we are taking away the right of appeal. I must stress that we are not taking away the right of appeal. The appellant still has the right of appeal, but what we say is that it is unreasonable to allow all those people to come to this country without the necessary documents and then to sit here and wait for their appeal to be heard, because inevitably that process will take a long time.
Lord Mishcon: I am afraid the noble Earl may have misunderstood me and if it is a want of clarification on my part then I apologise to him. I made the point that in some instances people writing from abroad to the Home Office immigration department for documentation to enable them to enter the country perfectly properly are having difficulties in receiving replies—I imagine in the same way that I have. I did not of course address those letters to Ministers; they were addressed to the immigration department of the Home Office. Indeed, the last letter I wrote—still unanswered and unacknowledged—I specially headed "For the personal attention of the Senior Officer in charge of immigration", or words to that effect. However, I have still not received an answer. The Committee will appreciate that this may well be the lot of people writing from abroad to try to obtain confirmation of matters which would satisfy an immigration officer. That was the point I was trying to make; not the chaos at the Home Office.
Regarding the right of appeal, in what I said I acknowledged that of course there is a right of appeal if you are sent away from these shores. However, my point was in connection with those people who have already been mentioned—the ones we all know about. If we say to them, "You go back thousands of miles from whence you came and then write a polite letter saying that you wish to appeal", we are placing them in an impossible situation. One would imagine by that time that every penny that the person had would already have gone down the drain and then of course he would have to satisfy the Home Office that he had sufficient means left to return to this country. That is a completely unjust situation. We are asking for the right of appeal but obviously if the appeal is turned down that person must leave forthwith. We also ask that that right of appeal should be accompanied by a right to conduct such an appeal on these shores; if it fails I accept the fact that that person has to leave immediately.
Lord Renton: Let us suppose that the person concerned has done his or her best in the country of origin and has hopefully produced all the documents that he or she could lay their hands on. Is the noble Lord suggesting that, after the case has been carefully considered by our representatives, such a person should still be allowed to enter this country with no better documents than he had before and then to have a right of appeal?
Lord Mishcon: I cannot deal with every case, and then say that a person should or should not have a right of appeal. There will be deserving cases, and I

55
have tried to give instances of them. There will be undeserving cases. I hope that the deserving cases will win their appeals. The undeserving cases will lose their appeals. People will know in advance that if they do not satisfy the immigration officer and the appellate tribunal they will have to leave immediately. Where is the hardship from the Government's point of view, as against the hardship of the person whom I am trying to put before the Committee as a deserving case?
Lord Renton: The hardship may not be that of the Government. The hardship may be that of the British people, because as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, in Bangladesh there are 100,000 people waiting to have their cases heard. I wonder whether he would explain what he said.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I made no estimate of the number of people who were in Bangladesh waiting to come in. I think I am right in saying—it has been said by some people—that the figure is 9,000. I do not know where that figure came from. I did not mention 100,000. I do not know where the noble Lord found that figure.
Lord Renton: I apologise to the noble Lord. I obviously misheard him. One does not always get things absolutely right across the Chamber.
Earl Ferrers: If I may interrupt, my noble friend did not mishear. He heard the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, perfectly. He said that there were 100,000 letters, but his criticism was that the letters were in the Home Office.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I was informed that there were 100,000 letters in the Home Office. Subsequently I was informed that the figure was 150,000. They are not all applicants. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, they may have had to write five, 10 or 15 times and have never received an answer.
Lord Renton: If there are 100,000 or 150,000 letters in the Home Office, they are presumably a reflection of the desire of 100,000 or 150,000 people, or a portion of them, to come here. That is mass migration.
Earl Ferrers: Whether it is 100,000, as it was last week, or 150,000, as it is this week—it may be 200,000 next week if the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, makes a speech—I am not prepared to comment on the accuracy of the figures. He is right. There is enormous pressure on the Home Office immigration department. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he had not received an answer to his letters. I regret that fact. I know that this was not the purpose of his raising the point, but if he would be kind enough to send me a copy of the last letter that he sent, I shall see that it is followed through, and I shall find out what has happened. However, I accept that that is, as the lawyers would say, de minimis to the noble Lord's argument.
56
The noble Lord was concerned with seeing that people who come from abroad should not be sent back. Those abroad who wish to come here do not write to the Home Office. They should first approach the entry clearance officer at the High Commission of the country in which they are living. That is where the application should be made. That is where the confirmation of their right to enter should come from.
If people come here, and are discovered not to have the appropriate documentation, the appeal is held in this country. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was under a misapprehension. The appeal is not held in another country.
Lord Mishcon: No.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that the noble Lord said that it was right that there should be an appeal in this country. I seem totally to have horrified him. I thought he said that it is right that an appeal should be held in this country. An appeal is held and will be held in this country. There is an enormous amount of paperwork within the Home Office, a great deal of which refers to appeals, and one should say to people: "Get your documentation in order before you come here".
Lord Mishcon: I shall make two rapid points. I shall then have exhausted the Committee's patience, and I shall make no further points. The noble Earl has not covered the case—I know him well enough to know that it would grieve him if he came across it—of a man who had genuinely had his papers stolen from him in the course of a voyage—not an unlikely event, as other people would want papers and would want to use them for a nefarious end—and who heard that an immigration officer did not believe him and sent him all the way back without a right of appeal. I wonder what guilt the noble Earl would feel over the fact that the appeal provisions were not contained in the Bill.
Secondly, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but I said that of course I realised that there was a right of appeal. I said that unless the appellant was given the right to conduct it in this country, he would have to go all the way back and make his appeal from abroad. Of course it will be dealt with in the United Kingdom. He would then presumably be so impoverished that he would not be able to satisfy the proper requirement of having sufficient means to maintain himself or his family in this country.
It is purely the right of appeal for which we are asking in the amendment. I hope that the Committee will agree to it even if the noble Earl does not.
Earl Ferrers: At the risk of boring the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he did not wish to make another intervention. Of course I understand the difficulty of the case which the noble Lord has mentioned. He said that a person coming to this country who lost his passport or papers on the way would be turned around. I shall make just two points. First, immigration officers have the right to use reasonable discretion. Of course it may well be, as the noble Lord pointed out in that case, that the

57
discretion is not used; but that is the point of having discretion. Sometimes it goes one way and sometimes another.
One has a great deal of sympathy with such cases, but the noble Lord, as an experienced lawyer, knows that hard cases make bad law.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79, Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Botlomley, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Briginshaw, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I

Mulley. L.

Carter. L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

David. B.

Parry, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Foot, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Clinton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beloff, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cowley, E.

Blake, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blatch, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Croft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cross, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

De Freyne, L.

Butterworth. L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Caccia, L.

Derwent, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Donegall, M.

58

Dundee, E.

Newall, L.

Eccles, V.

Norrie, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Polwarth, L.

Greenway, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hanson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Renwick, L.

Havers, L.

Rodney, L.

Hertford, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Hesketh, L.

Sandford, L.

Hives, L.

Shannon, E.

Holderness, L.

Sharples, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Slim, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Stockton, E.

Killearn, L.

Strange, B.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sudeley, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Suffield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Layton, L.

Terrington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teynham, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lurgan, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Margadale, L.

Tranmire, L.

Marley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mersey, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Molson, L,

Weir, V.

Mottistone, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mountevans, L.

Wise, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Moyne, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Nelson, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Restricted right of appeal against deportation in cases of breach of limited leave]:
6.25 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("or on the ground that he has a spouse, parent or child settled in the United Kingdom and that deportation is not therefore appropriate").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 4 has been fiercely condemned by lawyers, by those concerned with civil rights and by those faced with the problems of advising on immigration questions. It involves considerable interference with the right of appeal against deportation. Deportation is an extremely serious matter which can involve the infringement of human and civil rights—for example, the right to family life, the loss of a job and of course the loss of a home. We are dealing with a provision in Clause 4 which gives unprecedented powers to the Home Secretary. Contrary to all the trends in public law, certainly since the 1950s, it gives him pretty well absolute powers. The trend has been to provide checks on the administrative powers of the executive,

59
for instance, in social security and mental health tribunals and in other domains.
I shall also speak to Amendment No. 10. These two amendments seek to mitigate at any rate some of the damage that Clause 4 would create if it became law. After the initial paragraph restricting the right of appeal against deportation in cases of breach of limited leave, the clause provides that a person to whom the subsection applies shall not be entitled to appeal under Section 15 of the principal Act:
"except on the ground that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make the deportation order".
The amendment which I am moving proposes to add:
"or on the ground that he has a spouse, parent or child settled in the United Kingdom and that deportation is not therefore appropriate".
One would have thought that that was a simple, humane and humanitarian consideration, and I shall be greatly disappointed if the Government do not accept it.
It is proposed that where a person threatened with deportation can show, as the amendment says, that he has a spouse, parent or child settled here and deportation is not therefore appropriate, adjudicators hearing a deportation appeal would be enabled to take into account that fact—namely, the presence in the United Kingdom of close relatives of the person who is threatened with deportation. One can think of many examples of persons who might benefit from that: for instance, a child who has not been allowed to stay here permanently with his mother because she has not been able to prove that she had sole responsibility for his upbringing; or elderly parents not allowed to stay with their children in Britain because they are alleged to have other relatives to turn to in their own country; or spouses refused permission to stay because the breadwinner in the family has become unemployed and the couple are therefore reliant on public funds. In such cases as that it would seem at the very least humane to provide that those concerned can call in aid the availability of the family and the disaster that would flow from a forced division of the family.
I hope therefore that, looking at the matter from the point of view of simple, ordinary, straightforward humanity the Government will feel disposed to accept this amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Will the noble and learned Lord be so good as to say whether in the context of this amendment the word "child" means somebody under the age of 18 or not?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I have not given thought to the matter directly but I am content that that should be the case.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. On the face of it, when one saw this amendment one naturally had some sympathy with it on humanitarian grounds as the noble and learned Lord has said. But, alas, not all families are well united, even those who come here and settle. Without much exercise of the imagination, one can, for
60
example, imagine a spouse who has behaved badly towards his own family or who has failed to maintain them. He may then go on to commit other crimes. He may not have been in this country for very long. Yet, although that may be a clear case for deportation under the terms of this amendment, as I understand it deportation could not take place.
I remember a case of a married man who was living in this country—one might assume that he was settled here—who took unto himself a mistress and proceeded to murder her. This is a reported case that occurred some years ago. The court sentenced the man to imprisonment for life in this country and at the same time felt obliged to issue a deportation order that would have enabled the Secretary of State instead of holding the man indefinitely in prison in this country to make, after a number of years or perhaps fairly soon, a deportation order and send the man back to his own country.
That to my mind would be a case in which deportation would be fully justified. One could multiply the examples. This amendment would cover even those cases which are entirely without merit. One does not know whether that is the intention of the amendment but it would do so. Therefore I would have very grave doubt as to whether my noble friend could accept it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I wish to support the amendment which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I have listened as usual with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. He is in a particularly fanciful and imaginative mood tonight. I listened to one speech after another in which he produced successive rabbits out of a hat. Of course one can produce cases in which deportation is justified. As I understand the amendment—I shall be corrected if I have misunderstood it—it does not state that there are no circumstances under which someone should be deported. It states that people should be allowed to appeal against deportation.
We regard deportation as a very serious step to take against an individual. We regard it as even more serious if that person has a spouse or children and is established and has roots here. But there may be cases in which it is shown that this has to happen.
What we object to is the discretion for deportation being placed in the hands of the Home Secretary alone. That is an absolutely unwarrantable concentration of power, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, runs contrary to all the trends of administrative law this century—something with which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be much more familiar than I—which indicate that the appeal system produces better decisions and a better level of justice than systems without such a mechanism. Hence we have industrial tribunals, health tribunals and other tribunals, all of which are there to assist and improve the decision-making process and to allow appeal from the adjudicator.
The general reservation about Clause 4 is that it removes the right to appeal on compassionate grounds. It can only be done on the facts of the case.

61
It is sometimes argued that the adjudicator can take compassionate grounds into account. I must here say that the occasions on which adjudicators do take compassionate grounds into account are extremely rare. The chief adjudication officer, Mr. Patey, has stated pretty clearly that he does not regard that as their function.
It therefore remains that compassionate grounds are largely removed by this clause as a source of appeal. As has, I think, been indicated already, there are many cases in which those grounds should be taken into account. I do not think that there is much that can be added to the self-evident strength of the case which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has produced, but I wish to remind the Minister that the whole basis of our immigration control system was founded on a report written by the late Sir Roy Wilson, who was an extremely distinguished lawyer and a man with an unmatched sense of justice. He wrote in Cmnd. 3387:
"Given our recommendation in favour of an appeal against exclusion, the case for an appeal against deportation, which involves a much greater interference with a person's liberty, is correspondingly stronger. Most systems of immigration control about which we have information seem to provide a person at risk of deportation with some form of appeal".
I think that if this clause were passed without amendment it would be an extremely retrograde action.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My understanding of this amendment is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—that it concerns the right of appeal. I understood from the speech of the Minister on Second Reading that there was a possibility that certain groups of people could be excepted from the effects of the Immigration Bill as it stands and of the removal of the power to appeal. But I also understood that it was likely that such groups would be those who were asylum seekers or refugees.
This particular amendment seeks not only to establish another group but also to make sure that the category is established in statute and is not reliant simply upon an order of the Home Secretary. I would wish to argue on similar grounds to other Members of the Committee that there is at stake here a question of humanity and the treatment of families.
I shall give what may be regarded as yet another rabbit out of the hat—another illustrative example. This is intended not to be a hard case but to illustrate the kind of case that one might expect to arise in this country—a case which will not merit any consideration if this Bill is passed.
Let us suppose a male student has been here for a year and he meets a woman on his course whom he marries. She is a British citizen, having been born here, and they have two children, both of whom become British citizens. The man has left his passport with the college. The college has failed to make an application to the Home Office for a student extension to extend the student's first degree course to a postgraduate course. The student is therefore an overstayer. The Home Office treats him as such and decides to deport him. He has no appeal on the grounds of the case that he is married with two children. He can appeal only on the facts of the case,
62
which seem to be fairly clear; he is an overstayer and is therefore liable to be deported.
The amendment seeks to put into statute the possibility that such a person may appeal on compassionate grounds as well as on the grounds of the facts of the case. That requirement for a possible hearing of compassionate grounds is important. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has made the point that adjudicators are not normally expected and I believe are excluded by law from taking compassionate grounds into account. Although it has been said by the Home Office that adjudicators occasionally take such grounds into account, it is surely an odd situation which allows the hearing of compassionate grounds to depend upon the particular adjudicator taking the case. Some adjudicators will hear compassionate grounds; the majority will not. The amendment seeks to put into statute form the right of appeal on compassionate grounds and particularly those relating to families.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I may add a word or two. When I heard the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the amendment, I was reminded of Professor Cornford's academica cosmographia —there is always logically an infinite number of reasons for saying no to any new and sensible suggestion. The argument put forward by the noble Lord is, when generalised, that a new discretion should never be conferred because it is possible that is could be exercised wrongly.
I should have thought that it is inconceivable that an adjudication officer would exercise the discretion which is intended to be conferred on him by the amendment in any case where there was not either a settled family relationship between the would-be deportee and the spouse, parent or child settled in the United Kingdom, or where there was no current relationship of real ties and affection between the would-be deportee and any of those persons. Surely it is a wise discretion with which to clothe the adjudication officer.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that an appeal against deportation should be allowed. Let us be clear on that matter. There is an appeal against deportation. Before such a thing happens, there will have been previous appeals, possibly for the right of extension. Let us also be clear that we are discussing people who have broken the law, for whatever reason. Clause 4 restricts the right of a person to pray in aid at appeal the compassionate circumstances of his case where he has been in the United Kingdom for fewer than seven years. We do not believe that those who have been here for such a relatively short time will have developed sufficiently strong ties with this country as to outweigh the public interest of seeking the deportation of those who, let us face it, have committed a serious offence. They have broken the law and they have stayed in this country against the law.
In the view of the Government, it is perfectly appropriate that the appeals of those with only short

63
residence should be limited to the facts of the case. Family ties, together with any other compassionate circumstances which may be present, will continue to be taken into account before a decision to deport is taken. Clearly there will be some deserving cases in which we should not seek to pursue deportation. Deportation is the very last step. What we are saying now is that those compassionate circumstances cannot be used as an argument in an appeal. The appeal is the matter which we are considering.
The right reverend Prelate gave an example of a person who had overstayed. Perhaps I may follow that with a similar analogy. I referred at Second Reading to the fact that where a person has had his application for an extension of residence refused for whatever reason that person has a right of appeal. The matter will go to an adjudicator. The adjudicator may determine it formally on the basis of the rules and the appeal may be dismissed. The appellant can then appeal again to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. It may be that the application will again be dismissed because the case does not raise a point of law and the facts are not in dispute. The passenger may be informed that he has no basis for being allowed to stay in the United Kingdom and be advised to leave.
If the passenger continues to refuse to leave, a decision is then taken to deport him and a notice of intention to deport is served on him. That passenger or student has a right to appeal against the deportation order. When the matter gets to that stage, all the compassionate circumstances in the case will be known and the points on which the adjudicator or the appeals tribunal is bound to make its decision are the facts of the case. The question will be whether or not he has broken the law.
We believe that it would be wrong for appellate authorities to be asked to let compassionate matters outweigh the fact of whether the law has been broken. The facts of the case will be known and there will always be the possibility of recommendations being made. When the final order is signed by my right honourable friend, he will of course take into account any compassionate circumstances.
We are saying that there is a right of appeal; but that appeal against deportation, when all the other processes have been gone through, should be on the facts of the case because the compassionate circumstances will be well known.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the noble Earl can assist the Committee in this way. One of the difficulties that we face is that on investigation one finds that some adjudicators go into compassionate grounds and make recommendations while others do not. That leads to some confusion as to the rights of adjudicators. Perhaps a solution would be for us not to press the amendment at this stage and for the noble Earl to give consideration to some consistency of ruling as regards adjudicators, as to whether or not one encourages them to make recommendations. If they are permitted to make recommendations, perhaps that could be made universal. If the noble Earl will say that he will look into the position, I do
64
not think that we shall press the amendment. I ask for consideration to be given to such a course between now and Report stage
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is deceptively modest in his requirements. Of course I shall consider the matter. There is no inhibition on adjudicators to make recommendations; they are entitled to make recommendations. There is no inhibition on people putting whatever they like in front of an adjudicator. However, when it comes to the final question of whether or not a person is to be deported, it must be the facts which will be the basis on which the adjudicator or tribunal takes a position. I shall look at the points which the noble Lord has made.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. It is not a question of whether or not adjudicators should be inhibited. There should be a clarification of general practice. However, the noble Earl has said that he will look into the matter. In those circumstances, I believe I am right in saying that my noble and learned friend is prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("or on the ground that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country to which he is to be deported on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Without blowing personal trumpets, this is also a very important amendment because it introduces into consideration of deportation the potential consequences. As an addition to subsection (1), after the words "notice of the decision", it provides for an appeal on the ground that the person concerned:
"has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country to which he is to be deported on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion".
The amendment would ensure that adjudicators were able to receive evidence that an appellant was a refugee who should be granted asylum in the United Kingdom. This is an amendment of enormous importance to refugees and I know that there is a very great public concern and interest in the matter. The wording of the amendment reflects the wording of no less than the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and the protocol to that convention. This country is a signatory to the convention, which prohibits removal of any person to a country or territory where he has a well-founded fear of persecution. That is a well-known term and condition.
Although in some cases an appellant may already have claimed asylum in the course of an earlier appeal against a refusal to vary leave to remain, it is often the case that by the time a decision to deport is made new evidence has come to light or circumstances in the person's own country have changed. In those circumstances an appeal against deportation is the only way in which such matters can be subject to independent scrutiny. There may well be some indication of the Minister's willingness to make an order pursuant to subsection (3) of the Bill exempting

65
refugees from the effect of Clause 4. Of course we do not know what the terms of such an exemption would be. It is our view that Parliament could not be satisfied that those in fear of persecution would be entitled to rely upon the opportunity to appeal on the ground of a possible use by the Minister of his power under subsection (3).
For example, the exempting order may refer only to persons already recognised as refugees or only to those claiming refugee status within a certain time. I venture to think that the amendment is one of the most important in this very important Bill affecting the liberty of the subject and the sense of security of thousands of people in different parts of the world. Very often the degree of civilisation of a country may be judged on the way it treats refugees and its approach to them. The amendment I move would ensure that the refugee's right to appeal is protected by statute and not dependent on an executive order that can be changed or removed by the Secretary of State on the grounds of administrative or possibly mere political convenience. The view that Parliament takes in regard to this important matter will determine how the attitudes of Parliament and this country towards refugees are judged. It would be a grave backward step in our standing in the world if we were to say no to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: It gives me pleasure to be in agreement with the noble and learned Lord for once, and I think for the first time on this Bill. He has made a very important point. It is something that should be dealt with in substance and I lean towards the view that it may be better written into statute than left to be dealt with in any other way. I say that subject to whatever may be said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who may have better ideas on this than any of us.
Lord Hylton: I rise to support the amendment. As I said at Second Reading, the passing of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act last year, followed rather swiftly by this Bill, has given rise to suspicions that the Government are not adhering to their traditional policy with regard to asylum seekers. Therefore I was extremely glad that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in winding up at Second Reading that:
"We remain committed to fulfilling our obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention and preserving our tradition of offering hospitality to the genuine refugee".—[Official Report, 4/3/88; col. 401.]
Those were reassuring words but I am sorry to say that the actions of the Government last year were not at all encouraging. First, the Home Secretary said that asylum applicants could not in future expect that they would necessarily be referred to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Secondly, he went on to say that nor would their removal necessarily be deferred while a Member of Parliament made representations on their behalf, nor, if they challenged court decisions to refuse asylum, would they automatically be allowed to stay in the UK until proceedings were completed. That is what makes many of us think that the safety net which until last year underpinned asylum seekers was being snipped away.
66
Perhaps I should remind the Committee that since 1980 asylum applications have averaged about 3,800 per year. On the other hand grants of refugee status and therefore permanent permission to stay have been falling steadily since 1982, while the number of cases where exceptional leave to remain was given have been rising. It is those people who are touched by this amendment.
I very much hope that the Government will study very carefully, take on board and if possible put into practice what has been suggested by the British Council for Aid to Refugees in a document which it issued in January of this year concerning a code of practice for asylum seekers and in particular for an asylum review board. I support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I was delighted to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the amendment. I should like to expand on one point which was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in commending the amendment. It relates to the circumstances pertaining to the country from which a refugee may have come. Those circumstances may change very quickly and it may sometimes be rather difficult to know exactly what they are.
My experience relates to the country of Sri Lanka, in which I have lived and which I feel I know very well. Yet I have very great difficulty in discerning precisely the danger to particular members of that community while they are in this country considering possible return. Bearing in mind that circumstances can change very quickly and what may be fairly obvious at one moment may change very rapidly at a later moment, it seems to me that the safety net of an appeal is essential if some grave mistakes are not to be made.
Lord McNair: The amendment has been movingly and lucidly moved by the noble and learned Lord and supported by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and, I was delighted to hear, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There is not very much more to say, but, when matters of such profound importance are under discussion involving the most fundamental human rights and quite possibly human lives, I hope that I may be allowed a minute or two of the Committee's time. As the noble and learned Lord said, the amendment was carefully worded in such a way as to remind us of our obligations under the 1951 international convention. Those are obligations that we voluntarily, willingly and, I hope, enthusiastically undertook.
We are constantly being reassured by Ministers in a non-legislative way—as we were at Second Reading by the noble Earl—that we still feel bound in honour by those obligations, so one wonders why the Government are so reluctant ever to reaffirm in legislation our adherence to the convention. I hope that perhaps this evening may prove to be an exception.
If a person who has thrown himself on our mercy is threatened with deportation to a named country in which he has a well-founded fear that he may be persecuted on grounds of race, religion, nationality,

67
membership of a social group or political opinion, can any noble Lord decently maintain that he should not be given a chance to argue that case before the appropriate authority and to argue it before being sent to the country that he is frightened to enter? I very much hope that this is one amendment to which the noble Earl will respond sympathetically. In so doing he can only enhance the high regard in which he is held.
7 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Perhaps I may add a few very brief words to the powerful plea of my noble friend Lord McNair on this extremely important issue. I think that the Committee should be reminded of how long the tradition of asylum has existed in this country and how fiercely it has been maintained. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his colleagues on the opposite Benches therefore have a duty to uphold that tradition as one which is of very long standing. I should like to remind the Committee that in 1858 a bomb which had written on it "Made in Birmingham" was thrown at Napoleon III. That attack was believed to have been part of a conspiracy by a follower of Mazzini called Orsini, who was resident in this country. There were demands that he should be extradited and the Foreign Office was genuinely alarmed that there might be conflict between this country and France if something was not done. Lord Palmerston was then in office and he tried to do something about it, but his government were defeated, and Lord Derby succeeded him. That gives some indication of how attached people were to the tradition of asylum and their behaviour shows how the Conservative Party actually benefited from a breach of it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that this was a very important amendment and I agree. As has been said from all sides of the Committee, it refers to the very basic position of people who are seeking asylum. It is right to remember that we are discussing Clause 4, which refers to the restricted right of appeal against deportation. Clause 4(2) states that this:
"applies to any person who was last given leave to enter the United Kingdom less than seven years before the date of the decision in question but the Secretary of State may by order exempt any such persons from that subsection".
We believe that it is quite right to take account of those who are concerned about asylum. We recognise that asylum applications give rise to very special considerations and in this Bill we have made provision to ensure that in certain circumstances those who have been in this country for fewer than seven years are not denied a right of appeal—because it is that with which we are concerned—which is able to take account of asylum questions.
I do not believe that there is anything between us on this issue because it is the Government's intention to make that point clear by means of an order. In our view it is better to do it in that way than by legislation, because it enables us to consider the addition of other categories if that is warranted at some future date. As
68
it is, my right honourable friend has indicated in another place that the order will also safeguard, for instance, the rights of appeal of those who, during the currency of their existing leave, go for a short trip abroad. For that reason it is our view that this matter is best dealt with by order. An order enables us to add other people whom it may be desirable to include, and is preferable to putting a provision in the Bill.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Can the noble Earl give an assurance that we shall see the form and content of the order before the Bill leaves this Chamber? I may say that in this matter this Chamber has a very special place and responsibility. If the noble Earl is able to give that undertaking, I shall certainly be prepared to wait until such time as we see the order and not put the matter to the Committee at this stage. Can the noble Earl give that assurance? I detect that other Members of the Committee are of the same inclination.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think a very important point has been raised; namely, it is clearly necessary for us to see the terms of the order before this Bill leaves this Chamber if we are being invited by the noble Earl (as we are) to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the Government.
I note that this order will in fact not be in the affirmative form but be subject to the negative resolution procedure and that, if anything, intensifies one's anxieties. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to deal with this point now.
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly find out whether it is possible to give noble Lords the terms of the order before the Bill leaves this House. Should that not be so for some reason, I shall certainly consider the points that have been made this evening to see whether there are ways in which this amendment could be incorporated. As I said, I do not think that there is anything between us on this point.
The noble and learned Lord was quite right to ask to see the order or to suggest coming back on Report with a similar idea. I shall ensure that he has one of those two options; alternatively I may be able to take the view of the Committee this evening and see whether we can do anything at the Report stage. I should prefer to leave the matter there and I shall contact the noble and learned Lord. I shall make sure that the point that he has put forward is taken with great sincerity.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Does that mean that we shall have that intimation before the Report stage of the Bill, because that will be a critical point so far as this Chamber is concerned?
Earl Ferrers: I shall undertake to consider the implications of what the noble and learned Lord has said this evening. I shall consider whether it is possible to obtain that information before the Report stage. If it is not possible I shall let the noble and learned Lord know and he will be able to make up his own mind whether to return to the matter at the Report stage.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("seven") and insert ("three")
Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("to") to ("House") in line 25 and insert ("approval by a resolution of each").
The noble and learned Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour and the inconvenience of the alternative, Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am not sure that I should say "Content" but my Motion expressing the intention to oppose the Question is not moved. I do not know whether it makes a great deal of difference.
Clause 4 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
7.10 p.m.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will be pleased to note the brevity and simplicity of this Bill, the purpose of which is encapsulated in Clause 5:
"if a person travelling on a train service fails to produce a deferred fare authority, fare ticket or general travel authority on being required to do so by an authorised person, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare".
Before turning to the detailed contents of the Bill I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to indicate why these powers are sought by British Rail, how the system will work in practice, and to describe briefly the safeguards that have been incorporated to protect the passenger.
Your Lordships may not be aware that the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic are the last countries in Europe to retain the ticket barrier. Other national railway systems have dispensed with it and British Rail have done so too on many Intercity routes and in rural areas. When ticket barrier controls are swept away, passengers are no longer forced to queue to show their tickets. They are not delayed in leaving the station, trying to find their ticket while carrying their luggage and possibly trying to look after children as well. It will also help the disabled. Thereby, access to stations is improved and it is possible to open up secondary station entrances which can benefit many passengers by reducing the distance that they have to walk. The stations can be
70
opened up for trading with perhaps cafés and small shops, such as flower shops, making better use of the large areas of space bequeathed to us by the early railway engineers and architects.
The business of ticket checking can then be transferred from the station to the train. Those of your Lordships who travel at quiet times of day will be reassured to see the reappearance of ticket staff. I am sure that this will be particularly welcomed by the elderly and by women who travel during the evening time. Apart from this, ticket checks can be carried out more effectively on the train than is possible with the somewhat perfunctory checks that can be undertaken at ticket barriers, particularly at busy main line termini.
However, the checks can only be effective if the passenger has first had the opportunity to buy a ticket. British Rail are currently taking delivery of 400 passenger-operated ticket-issuing machines of the very latest type. These machines will not only issue the ticket but also accept bank notes and coins and give change. The requirement for further machines will be re-examined in the light of experience. The number of staff working in booking offices is being reviewed to ensure that as far as possible enough booking clerks are available to deal efficiently and economically with the number of passengers seeking to purchase tickets. The objective is that no passenger should have to queue for more than three minutes to purchase a ticket at normal times.
In case these improvements should not prove to be entirely effective, British Rail will be introducing deferred fare authority machines at many stations. This is an entirely new concept. They will accept any coin between 5p and £1 and will issue a ticket to the value of the coin inserted, showing also the date and time of purchase and the station name. If a ticket machine has failed or the ticket office queue is too long, or it is closed for any reason, purchase of a deferred fare authority will avoid incurring a penalty fare on the train. The ticket examiner, either on the train or at the destination station, will then charge the appropriate fare for the journey that the passenger is making, but give credit for the value of the deferred fare ticket already paid.
Why then is there a need for a penalty fare? The penalty fare is not intended to be punitive but is designed to encourage the pre-purchase of tickets, something which is commonplace throughout the rest of Europe. The new system which I have just outlined makes life considerably easier for passengers by giving more freedom than is possible with the ticket barrier system and a much better standard of personal service on the trains. In return, British Rail needs to be sure that passengers will book their tickets before they board the train and will not swamp the travelling ticket collector on the train with requests for tickets, leaving him to carry large sums of money, which would be an obvious security risk.
The penalty fare will also be a deterrent to dishonest travel. Sadly, some £34 million a year is lost to British Rail through ticketless travel. A high proportion of this is dishonest. The penalty fare will discourage casual dishonest travel and will improve

71
the receipts and the overall financial position of British Rail. If it does not do this, the alternatives are perhaps less palatable. They may involve a greater increase in fares than would otherwise be necessary, or a saving of costs by reducing services or facilities which passengers would prefer to remain. It cannot be right that the honest passenger should pay for the iniquities of the dishonest or undisciplined traveller in this way. The penalty fare is an important step in remedying this abuse. There have been arguments that the penalty fare will make criminals of honest passengers. This is just not so.
The proposed improvements in ticket availability will make the life of the honest passenger—and I am pleased to say that the great majority of railway passengers are indeed honest—a great deal easier, by enabling him to purchase a ticket in advance. If, however, a passenger on a train is not in possession of a ticket, he is not to be treated as a criminal under this Bill. He is simply asked to pay a penalty fare, which is a civil penalty and not a criminal one. If there are good reasons why he has not been able to obtain a ticket before travelling, not even this civil penalty will be due. Only if there is evidence of an intent to avoid payment may the passenger be liable to prosecution. Then it would be under the existing provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and not under the provisions of this Bill.
One of the social benefits of this Bill is that it will take most ticketless travel outside the scope of the criminal law and will free the hard-pressed magistrates' courts to deal with other serious business.
With your Lordships' permission I shall now shortly examine some of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill seeks only enabling powers. Your Lordships have a natural and understandable aversion to enabling powers, a concern which I also share. In this case however the powers which Clause 3 of the Bill would grant to the Secretary of State form an important safeguard for the passenger. It would clearly be wrong to penalise the passenger who had not had a reasonable opportunity to purchase a ticket before travelling, and British Rail has no intention of doing that. No doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm to your Lordships that it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State will make an activating order to apply the Act to a line or group of lines until he is satisfied that the stations concerned are adequately staffed, are equipped, where required, with ticket and deferred fare authority machines, and that the scheme is adequately publicised by the display of notices at stations. So it is a question whether the Secretary of State will not move to activate an order until he is satisfied with the matters to which I have referred.
Clause 6 provides that the penalty fare on British Rail will be £10 for shorter journeys, which is the same penalty fare as is proposed for all journeys on the London Underground. Where the ordinary single fare exceeds £10 the standard single fare for the journey that the person is making will be payable and he will not be entitled to any concessionary fare, for example, if he were to be the holder of one or other of the railcards.
72
Clause 5 provides that the penalty fare would not be payable, first, where a valid ticket or pass for the journey being made is produced; secondly where a deferred fare authority is produced; thirdly, where the station at which the passenger joined the train has no ticket office or the ticket office was closed for any reason and no deferred fare authority machine was available; and, fourthly, where the passenger is told by a uniformed railway official or by means of a notice that he may join the train without a ticket.
Clause 7 of the Bill strengthens the authority of ticket examining staff to secure the name and address of passengers on a train who are unable or unwilling to pay any penalty fare due. Clearly the effectiveness of the Bill would be greatly weakened without that provision.
Clause 8 ensures that nobody can be prosecuted for a travel irregularity in respect of which a penalty fare has already been paid or where civil proceedings have been commenced in the county court to recover an unpaid penalty fare.
Turning now to the practical application of the proposals, your Lordships could best consider this in terms of a suburban railway journey in, say, London, Manchester or Glasgow. In other words, the provisions are designed for short journeys on very busy trains rather than for longer and more leisurely intercity journeys. In the vast majority of cases passengers will hold either season tickets or capital cards or will have bought their tickets in advance from an agent, from a booking clerk or from a ticket issuing machine.
Where there are inordinate delays a deferred fare authority can be purchased to avoid the penalty fare, and from unstaffed stations no penalty fare will be payable provided the passenger proffers his fare to the ticket examiner or guard as soon as possible after joining the train. For example, let us suppose that there was an unusually long queue at a ticket office at a small station where no deferred fare authority machine was provided. In this case a passenger could certainly challenge any request for a penalty fare. If it were not possible to resolve the issue on the train the passenger would be issued with a penalty fare notice requiring payment within 21 days. He would have ample time to set out his case to the designated railway manager who, if he agreed, after checking with the station concerned, would thereupon withdraw the penalty fare notice.
To summarise the safeguards for passengers, first, we have the activating orders which would be made by the Secretary of State only when he was satisfied that the system was adequate to deal with the likely demands to be made upon it. Secondly, we have the investment in new ticket issuing machines backed up by more effective staffing arrangements in ticket offices and more ticket examiners employed on trains. Thirdly, we have the deferred fare authority machines combined with good signing and publicity to ensure that passengers know what is happening. Finally, we have the penalty fares notice for any disputed cases.
Two Petitions have been deposited against this Bill in your Lordships' House. British Rail will be meeting both petitioners to discuss their concerns,

73
but whatever the outcome of those meetings there will be opportunity in Committee for the detailed provisions of the Bill to be closely examined.
This Bill has been carefully thought out and is based on many years' experience by British Rail both of the traditional method of ticket control and of the newer open station system. It follows very closely the provisions of the similar London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill which has been substantially improved in Committee and is to be recommitted so as to effect some further adjustments which it has been agreed should be made.
I can tell your Lordships that some managers within British Rail sought to bring a similar Bill before your Lordships' House in the 1970s, but the board had properly judged at that time that this should not be done until the right ticket issuing systems were available to ensure that the arrangements could be operated successfully. These systems are now being introduced, and the board feels that the time is right to apply for the powers which are sought in this Bill. Meanwhile, the need has not diminished with ticketless travel, much of it dishonest. Unhappily, that continues at a very high level.
The powers sought by the Bill are the key to reducing dishonest travel, opening up access to stations but eliminating many of the irksome restrictions on our present system of enclosed stations. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Marshall of Leeds.)
7.26 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, noble Lords on all sides of the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, for his detailed exposition of this Bill, which is both simple and complicated.
I begin from these Benches by saying that we firmly believe that those people who are failing to pay their fares on British Rail are cheating not only British Rail but their fellow passengers and the taxpayer. Therefore, we have no objection, and indeed my colleagues and I would wish to give every encouragement, to schemes which will ensure a better level of payment of fares on British Rail.
However, it is right that on a subject like this your Lordships' House at Second Reading should spend a little more time than it normally does on a private Bill of this sort because there are important principles lying behind it. Before it passes to a Select Committee it is right that we should give it proper scrutiny and that Parliament should debate the matter before it passes into law.
It may appear that we are being asked to allow rights to employees of British Rail which we do not allow to our police force; in other words, the right to impose what might be regarded as on-the-spot fines—because whatever you call them, penalty fares may well be seen by people as being on-the-spot fines. Let me deal with that point immediately and take your Lordships back to the London Regional Transport Bill. I am delighted to see the noble Lord,
74
Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in his place because he dealt with this matter when it came up under that Bill. I hope that noble Lords taking part in this debate have re-read his speeches from the Government Front Bench, particularly at col. 1007 of 12th June 1984 at the Committee stage.
It seems to me that the precedent has already been set for this measure. Assurances were given by the noble Lord on that occasion that we were not creating a new criminal offence—the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, has referred to this—but merely giving British Rail the right to invoke a new civil liability. I should like the Minister formally to confirm that position and that that is the Government's understanding of what the position is. If that is so, having re-read the debate which we had in this House on the London Regional Transport Bill I must say that I am satisfied on that principle.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on us to make sure that in handing over this power to the servants of the railways board the innocent are protected, that they are not going to be unnecessarily harassed, that they are not going to be subjected to unfair treatment and that an adequate and simple appeals procedure exists.
I am slightly put on my guard by the wording of Clause 8(2)(b) of the Bill, which seems to open up the possibility of bylaws being made under Section 67 of the 1962 Transport Act which might make the failure to obtain or produce a deferred fare authority an offence, presumably a criminal offence. I should like to ask the Minister whether he believes that that is the case and, if so, how that can be regarded only as a civil liability.
There was one point which emerged in the debate in 1984 which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to which there may have been an explanation at a later stage of the Bill, but I have so far been unable to find it. I believe that it is relevant to this Bill also. He was worried that someone who failed to satisfy a constable that the name and address that he or she gave was accurate might, under the provisions of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, be arrested without a warrant and under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Justice Bill find themselves detained for up to 24 hours, perhaps even without the benefit of a lawyer.
Does the fact that there is no reference in this Bill to Section 25(2) of the 1981 Act mean that a person cannot be so arrested, or does the absence of the reference to that Act in Clause 8(2) of this Bill mean that they can be arrested under the 1981 Act even though, while liable under Clauses 4 and 5, they are exempt from certain provisions of the 1889 and 1962 Acts under Clause 8(1) of this Bill? I am sorry if that sounds rather complicated, but it seems to me that there is no reference to the 1981 Act in this Bill and there may be a loophole here. I shall be most grateful if someone can clear that up for me.
If it is the former position, I am quite satisfied. However, if it is the latter, perhaps an amendment to include the provisions of the 1981 Act ought to be included as a new Clause 8(2)(c). I leave that to the Select Committee and to others who are more expert at these matters than I am. Without such

75
amendment, it might be possible for a civil liability to be converted into a criminal charge rather too easily. In other words, someone who had the unlikely name of John Smith—and I make no reference to Members of another party in another place—might find himself in the cells overnight because he had the misfortune to sleep beyond his stop and subsequently had difficulty in proving to a constable that his name was John Smith.
However, without such power it seems to me that British Rail will find it difficult to ensure that the provisions of Section 7(1) are workable. In answer to the direct question, in correspondence that we have had British Rail says that it is a problem it has had to face since the 1889 Act came into effect. The position is therefore no worse than it has been for the past 100 years. If we cannot do better than that without hurting innocent people, so be it perhaps, but does it mean that this Bill is not as watertight as it might be?
Let me deal with one or two general points that arise out of the Bill. We recognise that a number of benefits will arise (and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, has referred to many of these) in addition to the more effective combating of fraud and the consequent help for the paying passenger.
He has mentioned the ability to create more open stations with easier access to passengers, and a larger number of access points. That may be very important for people with disabilities or for those who do not wish to walk a large distance with baggage. There is the not inconsiderable benefit for passengers who, while holding on to baggage, children, pushchairs, umbrellas, newspapers, and so forth, do not have to fumble in their pockets to produce a ticket at the barrier. That may sound a slightly frivolous comment, but it is important for the travelling public.
Perhaps the most important aspect is the ability of British Rail to deploy ticket collecting staff to areas where they may be of much more use to the travelling public. I would prefer to have more staff on trains, again as the noble Lord has said, at times when there are perhaps not too many people on the trains, when I believe that those measures could well improve the level of security and the level of passenger safety. Therefore, I am hoping that British Rail do not see this as an excuse for further de-manning, but as a way of better deploying its current staff and of improving the skills of its existing staff. I also hope that this will not lead to an increase in totally unstaffed stations. That might well reduce passengers' feelings of security and undermine the benefits of the scheme.
Correspondence that we have had with British Rail on the subject has produced the reply that the proposals will not themselves lead to an increase in unstaffed stations. That is not quite the same as saying that the introduction of the scheme will not be a factor in the increase in unstaffed stations. That is what I would greatly prefer it to say; and I hope that British Rail will take this out of its calculation in trying to determine whether or not a station should be unstaffed.
Perhaps I may now turn to one or two minor points in the Bill that I think should be raised at this point. The most minor of these is a spelling mistake. On
76
page 4, line 44, the fourth word should be "in" rather than "is". It is always a delight to find a mistake in a Bill at this stage. I make no great virtue of that.
The next point is the definition of "authorised person" as defined on page 2 in line 2. Noble Lords will no doubt remember vividly that at cols. 1028–29 of the Official Report of 12th June—again in reference to the London Regional Transport Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said:
"An authorised person is not going to be an ordinary inspector or ticket collector. This will be a particular person. It could be a man or it could be a woman who would be specifically trained and will be authorised to undertake this kind of work".
It goes on:
"The authorised person … would have signed authorisations indicating the scope of his responsibility. He would have an identity card to be shown to any passenger who so demands".
Can we have a similar assurance on this Bill? I believe that that is important again from the point of view of giving a sense of well-being to travelling passengers that they will not be conned by people who are pretending to be authorised when they are not.
Perhaps I may next refer to Section 5(2)(a), where we see that a person shall not be liable, if, at the time when and the station where he started his journey or that part of his journey subject to the provisions of the Bill,
"there were no facilities available for obtaining a deferred fare authority or for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for the journey".
Again the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has explained the view of British Rail on this. However, there are two issues that arise. Suppose that the deferred fare authority machine available is out of action. Is it then incumbent on the passenger to get a ticket even if there is a queue which would involve missing the train? I take it that that is not the case. If that were the case, the scheme would depend very much on the confidence of the travelling public in the reliability of those machines issuing deferred fare authorities. Without that confidence the system would be brought into total disrepute. If the meaning is that, if the machine is out of action and one is unable to obtain a ticket, one is then entitled to board the train without incurring a liability, on whom does the burden of proof rest to show that the machine was not in operation? That is the important point. It is my belief that the prime responsibility must be on British Rail to show that the machine was working at the specific time and place before that liability can be incurred. It should not be left to the passenger to prove the negative, which could be an almost impossible task in most circumstances.
That brings me to the final question, which relates to Section 6(1). This deals with the level of penalty fares. I have had some lead on this from what the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said as to this being designed on the whole for short journeys. But presumably it is not intended to be entirely for short journeys. My reading is that the defaulter has to pay either the penalty of £10 or the full single fare, whichever is the greater, but not both.
This is different from the London scheme, partly because the amounts involved are different. Anybody travelling a distance costing more than £10 pays no

77
penalty. I realise that it is more expensive to pay the full single fare than to take advantage of the many extremely complicated and not always understandable saver schemes that British Rail applies to its return tickets. However, there exists the curious situation in which anyone wishing to make a single journey could take the risk of boarding a train without holding a valid ticket. If the cost of that ticket is likely to be over £10, he will incur no extra cost if he is caught. Surely there should be an additional penalty; perhaps £10 in addition to the full single fare or even a sliding scale proportionate to the cost. For example, it could be £10, plus the single fare, plus 10 per cent. of that fare. I do not see why people seeking to defraud the railways, the shareholders and the taxpayers should get away without cost simply because they are beyond the £10 limit.
I believe that without that deterrent effect the scheme is unsufficient. If there is no deterrent effect we may just as well say that British Rail can forget the Bill and increase its surveillance on trains to ensure that fare dodgers are caught. However, that implies that other fare-paying passengers must pay the cost and that the manning levels must be increased. That is a situation which we wish to avoid.
I believe that the Bill deserves the support of your Lordships' House. I am sure that the Select Committee will have a great deal of work to carry out and I commend the Bill to your Lordships, as did the noble Lord, Lord Marshall.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I apologise for not having added my name to the list of speakers and I shall be brief. For 34 years I have commuted from my home in Surrey to one of three of London's stations on the Southern Region. Therefore I have encountered some of the problems envisaged in this admirable Bill, which I believe will have general support throughout the country. However, I am concerned about several aspects, most of which have been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The first concerns the rush hour. There are a number of small suburban stations in Surrey, Hampshire and Sussex where the population has expanded but where the area around the ticket office is still small. In the area machines would be far from easy to install and there always exists the problem of a machine breaking down. Those noble Lords who use the London Underground know that the ticket machines break down and that during the rush hour it is often difficult to summon the man in the ticket office to regain the coin. Even in this age of high technology there always exists the danger of the machines breaking down, and that is a real problem during the rush hour. I believe that the Select Committee must look into that matter most carefully before the Bill becomes law.
My second point relates to Clause 7. I believe that the National Union of Railwaymen is worried about the possibility of a hooligan gang travelling without tickets and assaulting a ticket collector. Are the penalties at present enforceable in law sufficient? That is another matter which the Select Committee must consider carefully.
78
Apart from those aspects, I believe that the Bill is admirable and, hopefully, its clauses and purpose will decrease the enormous losses sustained by British Rail as a result of deliberate fare bilking. Those who do so deliberately—particularly those who become aggressive when confronted—should literally have the book thrown at them.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to the extensive coverage of this matter by my noble friend. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, was about to give the House his experience of what happens in Russia. However, I misheard him because he was talking about the rush hour. I am slightly concerned by Clause 4, which is not mandatory upon the ticket collector. His duty is not cut and dried; it is discretionary. I say that because of the words:
"if required to do so".
That provision means that the ticket collector will be performing a quasi-judicial function. He will be asking himself whether he believes the passenger's story about the train standing on the platform and there being not a moment to buy a ticket. Is it right that a ticket collector should be saddled with a quasi-judical function and not have a compeltely cut-and-dried duty to perform? A good deal of aggravation would be removed if the ticket collector could say to the passenger, "I have no option in the matter. This is the regulation under which I must operate and I must demand this penalty from you. If I do not collect this penalty I shall be in danger of losing my job." That would remove a good deal of the aggravation. The passenger would be less likely to protest and ask, "Do you mean to say that you don't believe what I've just told you about how I couldn't possibly buy a ticket before I boarded the train?". Therefore, I should like to know whether the discretionary element in Clause 4 can be reconsidered and whether the duties of the ticket inspector can be made cut and dried in order to remove some of the aggravation from the confrontation with the passenger.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I apologise for not having added my name to the list of speakers, but I raise only a small point. I should like to know whether the machines will take account of the concessionary cards carried by senior citizens. I believe that passengers paying their fares on the train are not entitled to concessions but will that situation alter in the future?
7.47 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, for explaining the Bill and taking the House through its various provisions. This is a Private Bill and I therefore speak in a personal capacity but I say unhesitatingly that we on these Benches support its general aims and desires. We recognise the serious problem of fare dodging, which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, described as "defrauding". I understand that in the Network South-East area alone, approximately £20 million was lost as a result of fare dodging.

79
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the London Regional Transport Bill, which was before your Lordships' House in June 1984. It introduced five new clauses to deal with the serious matter of defrauding as it would affect London Regional Transport. The Bill received support throughout your Lordships' House. On that occasion I intimated that the Greater London Council was in full agreement with the five new clauses. Nothing that I say today in respect of this Bill will be in contradiction of anything I said in 1984. I am always careful to avoid being quoted on anything I said four years ago. I have read and re-read what I said on that occasion and I have noted that I put forward several cautionary points of which I believed LRT should take heed when the Bill became law.
Today I want to stress again some cautionary points which I trust your Lordships' Select Committee, to which this Bill will be referred, will give consideration. I do not want to go over all the ground covered by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in his excellent exposition of some of the problems that may arise unless certain assurances are given by British Rail; and we are told by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, that there are two Petitions before the Select Committee.
There must be recognition of the acts of violence towards personnel involved in public transport. We discussed this recently with regard to buses and London Underground in a Question. The report of the chief constable of the British Transport Police, which was made to the British Railways Joint Safety Committee as recently as July 1987, shows that in 1985 and 1986 there were 537 offences of actual bodily harm to railway personnel and a further 250 cases of common assault. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, also referred to violence towards railway personnel.
The present procedure in the event of fare defaulting is to charge the passenger travelling without a ticket the full single fare to the destination. As the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, explained, no discounts are allowed and the passenger is not allowed to buy a return ticket—a saver return or otherwise. It is recognised that there is some sense of inequality about the system, because a person can be charged a full single fare for a long journey or a short journey. Therefore, there is some inequality.
As we have been told quite clearly, what is proposed in the Bill is this flat penalty of 10. I trust that heed will be taken of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that that itself can be the cause of considerable ill-will. One person can be charged a 10 penalty fare which may be only a few pence above his ordinary fare, whereas another person may find he is paying more substantially. Therefore there are grounds for certain sections of the public to feel ill-will towards the person who has to collect the penalty fare. That must be recognised.
The Bill also clearly recognises that the provision will be activated only if British Rail requests the Secretary of State so to do and if the Secretary of State is satisfied with the arrangements made on either a single line or group of lines. He has to be
80
satisfied about various safeguards which are not in the Bill. They are points to which the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, referred. I am glad that he did; but I think that the Select Committee—whatever British Rail may say, and it has written to both myself and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—must clearly ask whether these safeguards will definitely be provided by British Rail before the Secretary of State is asked to activate an order on a particular line or group of lines.
Looking very carefully at material which I have received from British Rail and from the National Union of Railwaymen, I see that there is not a great deal of difference between the two. They both want something done and in various ways raise questions of safeguards. Without going through all the points which have been mentioned already, the Select Committee must be satisfied that before the Secretary of State activates an order there will be improved ticket issuing facilities; there will be a proper provision of ticket machines; there will be deferred ticket authority machines to enable passengers to purchase a full range of discounted tickets on the train; and, particularly important, there must be adequate publicity of the scheme and its provisions.
Furthermore, no penalty fare will be raised where the ticket office was temporarily closed. The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, referred to this. It may well be that the railway staff who have the responsibility of dealing with this matter on the train will in all probability not be aware that a particular ticket office was closed temporarily, as so often happens on London Underground. I often find a station where I cannot even pay my fare when I get off if I do not have a ticket because there are no staff, never mind the fact that there are often no staff in the booking office on some of the Underground stations. Therefore, it could well be that the staff who are the authorised persons to deal with the question of penalty fares may not be aware that a ticket office in a particular station is temporarily closed or that there is a shortage of staff. Naturally that will be a ground for argument and that is where the union is concerned that this could exacerbate some of the problems it has had with violence towards railway staff.
Reference has been made to the increase in open stations. I completely agree with the desirability of that, but it means that the onus is placed more heavily on the person checking tickets on the train, who is usually referred to as the guard or conductor. This is where a possibility of violence also occurs, particularly late at night. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the possibility of football gangs, but there are others who have had a little too much to drink and who will immediately start arguing with the staff who carry out this duty.
We also know that there is a problem of queueing at ticket offices, particularly at mainline stations. There must be a clear assurance given by British Rail to the Select Committee that there will be a reduction in the amount of time that one has to spend queueing for tickets, particularly at mainline stations. If it is a problem of staff, that is something that BR must face; if it is a question of money, BR must raise that with the Government. However, we cannot have this sort of system without adequate staff, particularly at

81
mainline stations. I do not know what the position of the noble Lord is, but I find, particularly when I am on the London Underground, as I was this morning, that the number of people waiting at half-past nine so that they can buy a senior citizen's ticket is nobody's business. There are huge queues at Underground stations out in the sticks waiting for half-past nine so that the senior citizen's ticket can be bought. We know the problem that arises at many of the mainline stations with the queues that form. Those are the sort of issues to which the Select Committee must pay attention.
We cannot refuse to recognise that the penalty fare system is in effect an on-the-spot penalty fine. I do not say that that is wrong, but it could put the staff at risk. Therefore we must have certain assurances. As in the LRT Bill, persons will have 21 days to pay in disputed cases. I believe that the Select Committee must satisfy itself thoroughly about this. A question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about the possibility of court action. I have similarly looked at Clause 8 of the Bill and the reference to proceedings: "If proceedings are brought". What proceedings? Proceedings can only be court proceedings. Therefore, we need to have some assurances on that point for somebody who has not satisfied the authorities whether this reference to proceedings means court proceedings or something else.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the question I put to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I am pleased to see he is sitting in his place because I was going to quote the exact reply he gave, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred. Exactly who will be the authorised persons? The Bill states in the interpretation clause:
"'authorised person' means, in relation to any purpose, a person authorised for that purpose by the Board or by the person providing the service".
That does not give the assurance the noble Lord requested. It does not say exactly who will be the authorised persons. It does not say what sort of training will be given. I believe that this is an important question, because unless there are properly authorised persons of the right type, who have been selected for the purpose, who have a sense of good public relations and who are properly trained there could be a great increase in the offences against railway staff, to which I referred earlier.
With those few words I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the Select Committee, provided the Select Committee seeks definite assurances from British Rail on a number of those points because the Secretary of State will have to satisfy himself that these safeguards will be carried out before he activates an order. That means that British Rail must give some definite assurances to the Select Committee rather than in correspondence to certain noble Lords.
8.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should just like to intervene briefly to give the view of the Government on this Bill. We have considered the content of the Bill and have no
82
objection to the powers sought by the British Railways Board; indeed, we strongly support the aims of the Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Marshall of Leeds so clearly outlined, the Bill will benefit both the British Railways Board and its passengers. First and foremost, it will help to reduce the large amounts of revenue lost each year through fraudulent travel. Recouping this lost revenue should contribute significantly to the achievement of the objective we have set the board of reducing its call on the taxpayer, without any reduction in the general level and quality of the service provided to passengers. In fact the more efficient fare collection and ticket inspection systems the board intends to introduce should improve the quality of service to passengers. I am sure that most passengers will welcome the extra freedom of access that will result from the removal of barriers and introduction of on-train ticket inspection.
I do not intend to go over the ground covered so ably by my noble friend Lord Marshall of Leeds, but I should take up his invitation to say a little more about how my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will go about making the activating orders needed before the Bill's powers can be used. The Secretary of State's priorities will be to ensure that any scheme put forward by British Rail is accompanied by adequate operational arrangements and adequate safeguards for honest passengers. He will, for example, wish to be satisfied that ticket offices will be properly staffed; that the necessary ticket and deferred fare authority machines are in place; that publicity arrangements are satisfactory; that ticket inspectors are trained to operate the system; and that the procedures for disputes and appeals are adequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, drew attention to a number of specific concerns about the possible legal ramifications of this Bill. Some of those concerns are for the board but some, indeed, are for Ministers, notably the question of possible criminal rather than civil proceedings as a consequence of the application of by-laws made under the Transport Act 1962, and a number of issues relating to the identification of authorised persons for the purposes of this Bill. There is also the question of the burden of proof should a ticket issuing machine malfunction. Those are matters of particular concern to the Government, not least because we shall wish to satisfy ourselves that the board's arrangements under this Bill properly protect the innocent passenger. In view of their complexity, however, I should like to write to the noble Lord with a full answer shortly.
I can assure all noble Lords that my right honourable friend will take his responsibilities seriously so that the Bill achieves its purpose of deterring fraudulent travel while protecting the honest passenger.
I know that the Select Committee will wish to examine the Bill and the Petitions against it in detail, but I trust that what I have been able to say on behalf of the Government has helped noble Lords to agree that the Bill should proceed in the usual manner.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have displayed such a helpful approach to this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, expressed concern about the right to impose on-the-spot fines. I think that that is a little strong because they are not fines, they are penalty fares. Great Britain and Ireland are the only countries in both east and west Europe which do not have a penalty fare system. The safeguards which concerned the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, are those that I detailed in my opening speech. The innocent are protected by the Bill, but it is only fair that the dishonest traveller should be caught.
However, even when he is caught he is not a criminal because the Bill will take most ticketless travel outside the scope of the criminal law. There might be some suggestion of criminality if a person failed to give his name and address because he then becomes liable to a fine by the courts. Of course, as we all know, the only criminal aspect of travelling without a ticket is that, for it to be criminal, a passenger must have the intent of avoiding payment; that is to be found under Clause 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889—travelling with intent to avoid payment.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked what would happen if the deferred fare machine was out of action. He asked: upon whom is the burden of proof? I refer noble Lords to Clause 5(2)(a)(i) and (ii) and to Clause 5(2)(b)(i) and (ii). I shall not read them out but those are the paragraphs which answer the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but with respect I do not think that they do. The paragraphs refer to where no facilities are available, but who is to say that no facilities were available? Is it the passenger who says, "but no facilities were available" and that is accepted by the British Railways Board? What happens if the British Railways Board says that facilities were available? On whom rests the onus of proof? That is my question. Does it rest on the passenger or on British Rail to prove that the facility was or was not available?
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, if it comes to an argument on a busy train, as I think I pointed out in my opening speech, the question will have to be resolved in a different way. If it cannot be resolved because of pressure of time, the ticket examiner will issue a penalty fare notice which will then require payment within 21 days or will allow investigation within 21 days. It is then that the powers that be within British Rail will investigate to see where the passenger boarded, what were the conditions obtaining at the station he joined, whether any deferred ticket machines were in operation, or whether the booking clerks were in attendance. In my submission, the matter will be dealt with fairly at the end of the day; but it will take 21 days.
84
There is some discontent that where the fare is more than £10 there is not sufficient penalty. That is not a matter for me and I hope that it will be explored by the Select Committee. However, if the fare is more than £10 then, of course, the passenger must pay the full fare. He cannot call into account any discount card, capital card or pensioner's card that he may have. That is an additional penalty. I said in opening that this penalty fare system is not designed for the long, leisurely journeys but primarily for short journeys.
My noble friend Lord Auckland was concerned about the penalty fare. I shall remind him that I dealt with the point he raised when I said that where the station at which the passenger joined the train has no ticket office or the ticket office was closed for any reason (that was the noble Lord's concern) and no deferred fare authority machine was available, no penalty fare will be payable.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was concerned with the issue of the penalty fare. I made the point that there are 21 days for investigation. I made that point clear in opening. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about the ill-will of having a differing penalty. It is a differing penalty; but I say again that this proposed legislation is designed for short journey travel and not for long, intercity journeys. To answer Lord Underhill's other point, the Secretary of State will not issue an activating order until he is satisfied that stations are equipped with ticket and deferred fare authority machines, and also that they are adequately publicised. I have no doubt that if there is queueing, British Rail will provide the necessary additional staff.
No doubt the Select Committee will give careful attention to all the matters that have been raised. The word "proceedings" has been questioned. In my view, they are civil and not criminal proceedings. It is not advised on the answer to that point. The selection and training of authorised persons will obviously be a most important matter.
Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I refer particularly to my noble friend the Minister for his assistance and his most helpful comments especially as regards the question of the activating orders that the Secretary of State will be making from time to time in respect of individual lines or networks. I believe that between us we have dealt with most of the important points raised by this Bill. I again thank most sincerely all noble Lords who have participated. I commend this Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight-o'clock.

  ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS: VERIFICATION BY NATO
  ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS: VERIFICATION BY NATO
  LONDON TRANSPORT: BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  LONDON TRANSPORT: BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
  REPRESSION AND TORTURE: CONTROL OF EQUIPMENT EXPORTS
  REPRESSION AND TORTURE: CONTROL OF EQUIPMENT EXPORTS