Sitting of 25 March 1988

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

  Television Licence (Pensioners)
  9.35 am
  Mr. Graham Allen: I wish to present a petition on behalf of a pensioner from my constituency, Mrs. Hunt, and 400 other elderly residents of my constituency who wish to petition this House to the effect that they do not agree with the television licence fee being increased for pensioners, many of whom depend upon the television for comfort and company. The petition
  urges the Government to ensure that the television licence is held at its present level and, in the longer term, concessionary or free licences for pensioners are introduced.
  I ask the House to take note of the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Adjournment (Easter and Monday 2nd May)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 31st March, do adjourn until Tuesday 12th April and, at its rising on Friday 29th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd May; and the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 31st March until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
9.36 am
Sir Peter Emery: This is only the second time in 27 years when I have spoken on the motion for the Easter Adjournment. I assure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I do not intend to take the steps that I took exactly 20 years ago when Mr. Peter Mills, as he then was, and I divided the House against the Adjournment because adequate provision had not been made to debate the problems of the west country. Also, I do not intend to petition for a debate on the procedure reports, although my right hon. Friend might expect me to do so. In the past few months I have made my position absolutely clear about that matter. I reinforce the need, however, for those reports to be considered on the Floor of the House as soon as possible.
Specifically, I wish to discuss the aspects and amount of Government financial participation in space research and development. It is important to discuss this matter now because decisions will be taken during the Easter recess and if the subject is not considered fully by Ministers before the return of the House it will be too late for the House to influence the Government's decisions. Certain approaches have already been made whereby Great Britain will not participate in the European Space Agency optional programmes. I believe that that could be terribly damaging both industrially and with regard to the role that we can play in space research.
I believe that it is essential for Great Britain to make a worthwhile contribution in developing the application of space research. Indeed, we led in the past when we made it clear that no European nation could participate properly in such research entirely on its own and that there should be amalgamation and co-operation between European countries. For that reason, we led in the formation of the European Space Agency. Only three years ago, we were responsible for much of the reorganisation in the agency, which was carried out very much to our wishes.
Five optional programmes are now being put forward for British participation. I am not suggesting that we should participate in one of those options, Hermes. The broad capability which already exists in the United Kingdom in earth observation can be applied profitably to a development market which will reach maturity within the mid-term future and has significant export potential for this country. The United Kingdom has a competitive advantage in space-borne radar and it is through development of that all-weather technology that the United Kingdom has the best prospects of successful commercial and defence exploitation of earth observation.
The Government's decision to fund the Data Centre to process data from the ERS 1 satellite is welcomed. That facility will be a cornerstone in achieving the future commercial exploitation of earth observation data and will be the first to attract private investment. It must be developed with that commercial objective in mind.
It is, therefore, an essential ingredient of commercialisation that the United Kingdom has a significant say

633
in the shape and size of the space segment to meet its commercial requirements. Consequently, the United Kingdom must participate at a sufficient level to influence the spacecraft platform design to ensure that those designs are capable of carrying the relevant services, especially radar sensors, essential for commercial exploitation. If we do not participate in the ESA's optional programmes and leave it to our European competitors alone, we are sunk.
Ultimately, commercial viability depends on assured continuity of data from space. It also depends on continuing development of data quality to meet user needs. For the United Kingdom to have the right of access to relevant data at competitive prices, it must participate in the earth observation spacecraft and payload sensor programmes being put forward by the European Space Agency. Industry cannot do that on its own. It can be done only with Government participation. Without that participation, the United Kingdom will not be able to continue even as an intelligent user of earth observation data because it will be increasingly at the mercy of foreign operators of earth observation systems and suppliers of data, who will control the information and prices and inhibit the United Kingdom's access to data to exert commercial leverage, which would benefit their countries.
Mr. David Martin: There will always be a debate about whether we should manufacture our own facilities or use the facilities of others. My hon. Friend touches on a crucial point. If we do not keep up with the highly sophisticated technology, we shall quickly fall behind and be unable to re-enter those markets. If we do not have our own manufacturing capability, we shall have to queue up constantly behind others to use the facilities. In the following years, we shall find that increasingly disadvantageous. I very much support what my hon. Friend says on this matter.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I could not have done better. He has underlined a major aspect of the argument that I wish to make.
One could give a catalogue of events since The Hague conference last November. It is important that the European Space Agency and NASA have now agreed on arrangements for European participation in the international space station and the ESA is committed to providing a polar platform. There is no doubt, therefore, that the European Space Agency will develop a polar platform as part of the Columbus programme and that this platform will be used for all its subsequent polar earth observation missions.
The position taken by the United Kingdom at The Hague has encouraged the ESA to continue with the polar platform and to reduce its carrying capacity from 3·5 tonnes payload, serviced, to about 2 tonnes payload, non-serviced, thus approximately halving the cost and reducing the risk. The platform will be acceptable to the United States. It will be about two or three times more cost-effective to the users than existing spacecraft and, consequently, will be a good basis for commercial operation. Both the commercial and research aspects must have a considerable influence on the Government's decision.
I believe that the director general of the European Space Agency has persuaded other member countries to
634
keep open until early April the United Kingdom's option to join the Columbus project. Initially, the decision had to be made by mid-March, so we have been given a reprieve.
Alternative proposals from the French on the polar platform are already threatening Britain's ability to influence the ESA's earth observation activities. The United Kingdom's first priority should thus be to join the Columbus programme and to reassert our leadership on the polar platform.
In addition, in the light of uncertainty about the United Kingdom position on space, apparent since The Hague conference, the Canadians have taken steps on the Radarsat programme to establish a possible bilateral alternative with the United States to their present situation and intend to choose between that collaboration and collaboration with Great Britain in their final submission to the Canadian Government in April. Therefore, the decision point for the United Kingdom is immediate.
In principle, the United Kingdom's objectives could be met either by co-operating in Europe or by a national bilateral programme. The former is the less expensive and avoids leaving a vacuum for the French to fill. The latter could perhaps be considered simpler from a commercial point of view, but we would not have the European cooperation that I wish to see, and it must be more expensive.
However, taking note of the activities and decisions since the Ministers' meeting in The Hague, the common view of industry and of the less biased Government advisers is that participation in the European Space Agency polar platform related programmes is essential as a first priority.
Having sketched the background, I wish to make clear one or two points. We already participate in the European Space Agency and, at present, that costs £80 million. That is the basic price of our membership of the space agency. However, the optional programmes will dominate what happens in the space agency and in future space research and development. The Government have objected to making further funds available for those alternative programmes over and above our original £80 million membership on two counts. They considered, first, that it was too costly and without assured returns for the United Kingdom, and, secondly, that British industry was not willing to put its hand into its pocket to assist in obtaining those commercial advantages.
I am raising this matter today because, as of the latter part of the week, British industry is putting new proposals to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister responsible for these matters at the Department of Trade and Industry. I understand that those new proposals do two things. First, they make it clear that, for an additional expenditure of between £10 million and £15 million per annum, we would be able to participate in the schemes that I have outlined and others with which industry is so concerned. It would allow Britain to play a part in ESA and therefore make a contribution which industry is willing to put up money to meet. If the Government were willing to fix a contribution, industry could well be persuaded to contribute between £3 and £4 million towards the £10 or £15 million which it is suggested the Government should provide.
It is clear, therefore, that certain figures that have been bandied about, at levels even as high as the Prime Minister, suggesting that our participation would cost £400 million to £800 million are just not correct. Moreover, we can now

635
counter the argument that is being put to Ministers that industry is not willing to put up the money to participate. Those two shibboleths can now be put to rest.
Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give me an assurance that the responsible Minister, and, if necessary, the Prime Minister, will consider these proposals, as this is the very last moment when a decision can be made? If we contract out of these optional programmes, we shall hand over research and development of outer space to the French and Germans, who will dominate ESA. I say that not just as an hon. Member of this House, but as a representative of this House in the North Atlantic Assembly, of which I am the chairman of the Science and Technical Committee. That committee is concerned with some of these matters. We see the enthusiasm of the French and Germans. Some French parliamentarians want us to stay in ESA, but many would be delighted to see us out and cannot believe that we should inflict such an injury on ourselves. They know they could not have made the same decision.
This is our last opportunity for us to stay in the ESA new programmes for space research and development for the next 15 years. If we do not take the opportunity, the consequences will be disastrous for Britain and British industry. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that Ministers consider industry's new approach, as this matter is essential to our continued participation in space.
9.53 am
Mr. Bob Cryer: Before the House rises for the Easter recess, we should debate the Jarvis plc report on the Settle to Carlisle railway.
I hope that my short speech will not be taken for a substitute for a properly organised and full debate, which I hope the Leader of the House will substitute for the Scottish housing Bill or some other wretched piece of legislation that the Government are pushing through. There are several options, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will cast his eye over them.
The Jarvis report was commissioned by the Government and cost the taxpayer a minimum of £5,000. It concerns a line that has been the subject of unprecedented objections to closure, and therefore represents a watershed in the nation's view of our railway network. Many closures have been made, but they should go no further.
I also speak as the hon. Member who, in 1974, obtained consent from the Department of Transport for reuse of the smaller stations on the line for the Dales rail service which was initiated by the Yorkshire Dales national park. I am also the first chairman and founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society, a driver on that line for many years and one who is extremely familiar with the operation and maintenance of railways, locomotives and rolling stock. The relevance of that experience is important in view of the Secretary of State for the Environment's remark about finding "a private sector solution."
The report is thorough, imaginative and well written and researched. It suggests using Hellifield station as a gateway to the Settle-Carlisle railway corridor. Retention and development of the line would be of enormous benefit to the people of Bradford, including those in my constituency, because it would provide them with a gateway to the Yorkshire Dales using a method of
636
transport which would not destroy the grandeur of the Dales. We could avoid huge traffic jams on all the roads to the Dales and the resulting car parking problem. The report links road transport to use of the railway in several ways.
The report suggests Manpower Services Commission funding. It lists several projects that have been MSC funded and have been completed successfully. It also says that there is private sector support. The Government attach great importance to that. Included in the report are letters from several sources, including the Great Scottish and Western Railway Company Limited, which provides a private hotel train in Scotland. It says that, in spite of gloomy predictions, the service is doing very well.
The company also says that investing £1·5 million in a new train would be justified if the Settle-Carlisle line were retained and the 80 miles of this beautiful railway were available to the public in ordinary trains and the special, expensive train. The private sector feels that there is potential, but it all depends on the railway being retained.
On page 58, the Jarvis plc report says:
"However as stated at the outset of this study, the corridor is ineluctably linked to the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and closure of the line would in our view jeopardise large sections of the proposal and probably call the whole concept into question. The closure issue has generated tremendous energy in opposition to a proposal we would now like to see such energy and enthusiasm metamorphosed to emerge as a proactive commitment to support the corridor proposal. It is our belief that the opportunities presented by this study are unparalleled, and must not be missed."
The opportunities include retention of a beautiful railway and important parts of our industrial heritage, a means o f getting into some fine country, the creation of a large number of jobs and development of the tourist industry —exactly what the Government claim they support.
It is therefore with some dismay that we read in the Yorkshire Post on 23 March—the matter was reported more widely — that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a leaked letter which the Opposition spokesman on transport published, said:
"I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line. I do feel that we must continue to work for this—could we perhaps also give the Railway Heritage Trust the job of identifying, or if need be, assembling the private solution?"
The Secretary of State for the Environment is well known for nourishing a number of foolish illusions, and this is undoubtedly one of them. One of the McAlpine family — a firm not entirely unconnected with massive civil engineering works — has, over a period, been in negotiation with British Rail at Preston. Those negotiations have not reached a successful conclusion. A private-sector solution to take over an 80-mile railway with a huge viaduct at Ribblehead and several others at Arten Gill and Dent therefore does not seem particularly likely.
Five years ago or more, the then Secretary of State for Transport — the self same right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now Secretary of State for the Environment—called in a number of railway preservation societies, and discussed with them the possibility of taking over sections of BR-operated line. I was not present at the meeting, but I understand that the societies made it clear that they could not manage that. Operating a railway is a very difficult task. There are statutory obligations; the maintaining of the fencing at: each side of the track, and rnaintaining the platforms,

637
signalling and track, are very expensive. It cannot be done for 86 miles on the basis of a few of the lads going out with a few keying hammers and seeing whether anything is loose.
There is a strong argument for the Government to face up to their responsibilities and ensure that British Rail has sufficient funds to restore the Ribblehead viaduct. The viaduct has deteriorated purely because of lack of maintenance by British Rail, dating from the mid-1970s when it failed to renew the damp-proof coursing, allowing frost to penetrate and start the erosion that is now at the centre of the issue.
Most people who view the matter reasonably objectively want the Settle-Carlisle line to remain as part of the British Rail national network. The line operates an important diesel multiple-unit service which is financed by local authorities. That service is now covering its costs—despite, I might add, the gloomy predictions of many potential critics of its introduction. The loco-hauled service that operates from Leeds and Hull up to Carlisle should be extended back to Glasgow, where British Rail originally curtailed it. I think it extremely unfair of the Department of Transport to put such pressure on hard-pressed local authorities to provide finance for the reconstruction of Ribblehead viaduct and other major civil engineering works on the line. For that is what they are doing. In effect, they are saying to local authorities, "The decision is yours. If you back out of providing financial support, we are afraid that the closure decision is inevitable, and it will be your responsibility."
It is not the responsibility of local authorities. They desperately want the railway to remain open, but they want it to remain open in the context of a British Rail railway that is part of the inter-city network. While they are prepared to make a contribution, I feel that the entire burden should not be placed on their shoulders, and that British Rail, with Government assistance, should support the necessary expenditure.
The subject is important, because it is a magnificent railway. Some 30,000 objections were made to its closure. The transport users' consultative committees for both Yorkshire and the north-west concluded unanimously that it should be retained. The chairman of the Yorkshire committee, Mr. James Towler, was particularly eager and convinced that the line should remain open, and particularly erudite in his knowledge of the improvements that could be made to the deficiencies of British Rail's operation, because he travelled frequently on trains. Naturally, there was only one solution to that: the Government arranged his sacking, because he had been a bit too diligent on behalf of the passengers.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, on a number of occasions in the past year, owing to either accidents or major emergency work on the west coast line, major inter-city trains from Glasgow to the midlands and south of England have been forced to use the Settle-Carlisle railway. It is obvious that, if the railway were closed, it would not only mean a further curtailment of the main BR network, but, in the event of major engineering works or accidents on the west coast line, cause the service to stop altogether, because there would be no alternative route.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is quite right. I was coming to that. I do not wish to go into too much historical background, but hon. Members will no doubt be aware that the railway was built by the Midland railway because Midland railway trains were being slowed down by the London North Western railway — in that glorious competitive spirit that prevailed in Victorian values—and passengers were made to get out at Ingleton and walk across Greta viaduct to join a meandering LNWR train to the end of the line.
The route from Clapham junction has now been closed, so that is no diversion. Trains up the west coast route on the electrified section have no other reasonable diversion if that route is blocked—as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned—except the Settle-Carlisle line.
To increase the costs of maintaining the line and reduce the revenue, British Rail decided several months ago to remove all freight traffic from the Settle-Carlisle line. It then decided that it was no longer possible to use it as a diversionary route. Unfortunately, the realities of operating the railway having escaped the board, BR found that diversions are necessary on the line. Since the original decision, there have been hundreds of diversions, and on one glorious day — the day on which British Rail announced the closure proposal—there was a blockage on the west coast route causing all the trains to be diverted over the Settle-Carlisle line. I cannot name the precise day, because British Rail, in its administrative supremacy, had about half a dozen goes at producing a correct closure notice before it was able to do the thing properly and conform to the law. However, the line is certainly used for diversions, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the House's attention. It emphasises that the line is part of the national network, and that the notion of a preservation group or trust operating it as a separate entity simply is not on.
I hope that the Government will realise the importance of the issue and come forward. They will desperately and bitterly disappoint thousands, if not millions, of their supporters if they allow the line to wither away, or allow British Rail to close it on the instructions of the Secretary of State. My few remarks are no substitute for a detailed debate about the Jarvis plc report, but they are a guide to the Government and the Leader of the House to tell the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House that the railway is to be saved. Between central Government and the local authorities — which have demonstrated over several years by their commitment of cash that they want the railway to function and the passenger service to be retained—a solution can surely he found that does not squeeze local authorities, but puts some Government cash to excellent use. If the Jarvis plc report is brought into operation, jobs and enhancement will be provided on one of the finest and most beautiful railways in our country.
10 am
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I should also like to intercede with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to take up another point with his Department. I hope that not all hon. Members in this debate will raise questions with which the Department of Transport must deal.
Many hon. Members shared the Department of Transport's deep concern at the consequences of increased

639
congestion in the air space over the south-east of England and the implications for air safety and the environment. Those points caused enormous concern in the House at that time. The Minister therefore received wide support when he expressed the hope that future licence applications to serve Manchester and the regional airports would assist in relieving further pressure on the already over-congested south-east.
Those comments were seen by many hon. Members on both sides of the House as further emphasis on the need to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations that took place at the Department of Transport last week between the United Kingdom and the United States. The negotiations were conducted to review the specific applications for air traffic licences to serve Manchester by three United States airlines—American Airlines, North-West Airlines and Pan American— and to provide enhanced opportunities for British airlines to provide direct services to the United States from Manchester.
I do not have to remind transport Ministers that during 1986, the last year for which the Department of Employment statistics are available, 900,000 passengers to the United States from the catchment area of Manchester airport travelled via London or other European airports while only 80,000 were served by direct flights from Manchester. If my arithmetic is correct, that means that less than 10 per cent. of the people from the Greater Manchester area, the areas surrounding Manchester airport, who wanted to fly to the United States, could have flown direct.
The negotiations last week were seen by hon. Members to provide a great opportunity to assist the business and leisure demands of the north of Britain, and to provide considerable relief to the congestion in the south-east through the removal of the completely unnecessary diversion of traffic to the south-east airports. The dismay and disbelief which followed the announcement that the negotiations had failed to reach any conclusion are therefore entirely understandable.
There was a bitter reaction in the north which was not simply confined to the business community, to the environmental and safety lobby in the south, to the tourist industry outside London, to the weary jostled passenger at the London airports, to the unemployed seeking an opportunity in the north or those who suffer from over-full employment in the south-east. It was felt by everyone who recalls the Government's commitment to make better use of Manchester and the regional airports to provide a greatly enhanced service to the passengers and cargo industry and a major stimulus to the economy in the regions.
I pay tribute to what has been done for Manchester airport since the Conservative party was elected in 1979. Anyone who considers the number of flights into and out of Manchester since 1979 and the number of passengers through Manchester over the period will be amazed at the enormous advance that has been made. I pay tribute to what successive Secretaries of State for Transport have done for Manchester airport since 1979. However, I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear in mind the fact that the 1985 White Paper on airports policy acknowledged that more than 12 per cent. of the traffic through London airports would be better served by Manchester airport, yet when the opportunity is clearly available the negotiations fail— unbelievably— because of an attempt to trade a request for increased rights into
640
Manchester by United States airlines against further rights of British airlines out of London. I find that completely incomprehensible.
It is widely acknowledged that it is easier for a British airline to fill a plane from Heathrow than it is to fill a new service from Manchester. However, that attitude results in a major distortion in air traffic flows. The fact that 21 per cent. of the United Kingdom's international charter traffic flies from Manchester but only 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's international scheduled traffic flies from Manchester owes a great deal to a previous era of air travel.
At one time the volume of international air travel was so low that services from Manchester were not viable and it made good economic sense then to feed all United Kingdom passengers into one service from Heathrow. The situation is now different as there are much higher demand levels from all around the country. The fact that six major United States passenger airlines and the two largest United States cargo operators sought to play a role in the negotiation of rights to fly into Manchester is undeniable testimony to the general acknowledgement of frustrated demand.
Why, when more than 20 per cent. of all air passengers to the United States originate in Manchester's catchment area, are there only sufficient services for 2 per cent. to fly direct? I have done a little work on this and I find it quite astounding that there are 360 flights a week from London to the United States, but only 13 from Manchester. Why are so many visitors to the United Kingdom forced to use London as a point of entry when the Department of Employment statistics show that one in three of those visitors do not spend a night in the London area? More fundamentally, why do we forsake the opportunity of an immediate stimulus to the economy of the north of Britain in excess of £100 million a year from the new services requested by United States airlines?
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will ask his colleagues why we cannot do something positive to alleviate the north-south divide. Things are improving dramatically in the north and more inter-continental flights would give us a tremendous boost. I believe that the answer is that the negotiations focus exclusively on a balance of aviation rights between what United States airlines and British airlines choose to focus their attention on. Surely the overwhelming case for ancillary, economic, environmental and social benefits is such that the Government must act now to bring about an early resumption of the negotiations which will progress the Government's stated objectives to develop Manchester airport in accordance with their commitment outlined in the 1985 White Paper.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to recognise that the statistic of one in three visitors not spending a night in London is caused by the fact that those people often travel to other parts of Europe? Therefore, Manchester must be able to coordinate inward flights from the United States with onward flights linking with other European capitals. That would greatly assist my hon. Friend's constituency and those concerned with the problems of the north-west.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We both became hon. Members at the same time, perhaps more years ago than we care to

641
remember. I am grateful for his support for Manchester airport. Manchester airport is the largest single employer in my constituency, and I feel very strongly about this issue.
What must 20 million people in Manchester airport's catchment area do to enjoy the same travel rights as people living in the London area? All they seek, like Londoners, is the right to fly from their airport direct to their destination. Unless we redress the intolerable imbalance in air services between the south-east airports and Manchester, we can rightly be accused of discrimination and perpetuating the alleged two-nation concept. I understand that a meeting will take place in Washington on 25 April. I understand that the meeting will consist only of officials of the Transport department in the United States and the Department of Transport in this country. I understand that no Ministers will be present. I hope that the issues that were discussed during the negotiations last week will be opened up again and that the case for Manchester airport will be stressed as strongly as possible.
I received a letter this morning from a business man in my constituency which states:
"For many years I have had to visit North America at least once a year. British Airways and it's predecessors have provided from Manchester a stop/go/seasonal service to New York and also to Montreal and Toronto. I suspect that they really want businessmen to fly from London on their main services.
In the last year, American Airlines have run a daily flight throughout the year to Chicago which is ideal for any businessman wanting to visit that area and which provides convenient connections to all towns in central, south western and western U.S.A. A.A. and other U.S. airlines have recently applied for permission to fly similar flights to east coast destinations and these have been refused. B.A. has meanwhile kindly arranged for a flight from Gatwick to call at Manchester, and are alleged to have said that they would withdraw this if they were to have any competition on the run, see attached press cutting.
I suggest that Britain invites A.A. or some other U.S. airline to fly this route as our own national airline has shown so little interest over the last two decades.
Could you please show this letter to the Government Department concerned and let me have any comments, bearing in mind that customer should be king?"
A newspaper cutting from the Manchester Evening News of 19 March states:
"some of the US observers at the talks were dismayed by the evident reluctance of British airlines to actively seek more flying rights out of Manchester.
British Airways chief executive Sir Colin Marshall told Department of Transport negotiators that if American Airlines and Pan Am were allowed to start direct services from Ringway to New York, he would scrap his proposed daily service and the run to Orlando."
I have great respect for Lord King and Sir Colin Marshall. They have done an enormous amount for British Airways, but I remind them that, not so many years ago, the Civil Aviation Authority put forward proposals that would have pushed British Airways out of Manchester. At that time, British Airways was agitated and enlisted the support of Members of Parliament from the north. Northern Members rallied together and fought and won that battle, and British Airways expressed its gratitude to us. I can only hope now that in the north we shall get the support of British Airways in achieving more intercontinental flights in and out of Manchester airport.
Before we adjourn for the Easter recess, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give me an
642
assurance that officials from the Department of Transport who go to Washington in April will push as hard as they can the case for the north and for Manchester airport to ensure that Manchester airport continues to flourish.
10.21 am
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: The Government have made a highly irregular decision in announcing recently a further substantial cut of £5 million from the Northern Ireland housing budget for 1988–89. From time to time we come to the House to hear about the appropriation of moneys for various Departments of Government in relation to the needs of the community. Various amounts are read out for us and that information is given whether we like it or not. We must accept that information without proper debate or allowance for amendment.
The dictatorial decision to reduce further an already under-funded budget is to be deplored. It appears that the Housing Executive is considered to be a soft touch when money is needed. It is important that the House is acquainted with the hardship that the long-suffering people of the Province are forced to suffer because of this callous decision to deny the means whereby the deprivation caused by years of neglect in the provision of much-needed housing can be redressed.
At the end of November 1987 the Government announced the levels of public expenditure on housing over the next three years. In overall cash terms the shortfalls in gross expenditure levels proposed by the Housing Executive for each of the next three financial years are as follows: 1988–89, £24 million; 1988–90, £46 million; and 1990–91, £48 million. After allowance for a £7 million increase in rental income, this represents a £31 million, £53 million and £55 million loss in Government funding. Although the Housing Executive had decided on a rent increase of 4 per cent. in accordance with the Government's gross domestic product deflator in its bid for funds, the Government have proposed, and now assume, an increase of 9·2 per cent. in line with the increase being discussed with the local authority associations in England and Wales.
Normally, Northern Ireland has followed decisions taken on the mainland, if the Government have thought it appropriate, by the making of iniquitous Orders in Council. It seems strange and somewhat sinister that the Government are proposing this rent increase, which is more than double inflation, before it is decided over here. It appears that this is another convenient ploy to extract the maximum from the most deprived in an exercise in figure juggling. The severity of the reduction has meant that housing programmes planned for the next three years have had to be critically reassessed.
During the autumn of 1987 the Housing Executive published its Province-wide housing strategy for 1988–91. Under this strategy the executive had hoped to sustain a yearly new build programme of 1,650 dwellings. It proposed also a rolling improvement programme for Housing Executive-owned dwellings over a 12-year period and to maintain a renovation grants scheme for private home owners at a relatively high level. The executive's preferred strategy would have been a yearly new build programme of 1,750 dwellings, improvements for Housing Executive-owned dwellings over a 10-year period and grant-aid to the private sector comprising some 4,000 improvement grants and 6,000 repair grants per annum.

643
The housing Executive has now been forced radically to reassess its planned programmes. This will have the effect of limiting even further its ability to meet housing need and reduce housing unfitness. In general, the main effects will be a reduction in the planned new build programme from 1,650 to 1,500 dwellings annually, a slowing down of the modernisation programme, which will now be phased over 16 years instead of the planned 12, and substantially less funding for renovation grants to privately owned homes.
This will mean that, rather than starting improvement work on an average of 8,330 Housing Executive homes a year, the executive will be able to start only some 6,250. In addition, only 3,500 improvement grants and 3,000 repair grants will be available each year to home owners, rather than the 4,000 and 6,000 respectively which the Housing Executive had hoped to provide. It is inevitable that the effects will be felt not only by tenants but in employment terms in the construction industry and by those supplying the Housing Executive with goods and services.
This further substantial cut of £5 million has brought feelings of disgust and revulsion, especially when one considers the circumstances whereby the Government deliberately denude one of their Departments to support another. If financial planning is so poor as to involve this sort of last minute change, I can only assume that there is incompetence at a high level somewhere within the Government.
In terms of activity, £5 million represents about 200 new houses or, alternatively, major improvements to 500 houses, such as installation of central heating, with rewiring or other refurbishments. This means that tenants or new applicants will now be left on the waiting list for a much longer period. When the Housing Defects Act 1984 (Commencement) Order was considered by the House some years ago, it was decided that system-built houses using pre-stressed reinforced concrete would gradually be replaced because of structural defects. There are many such houses in Northern Ireland. A significant number of them are owned by the Housing Executive. I now understand that because of these iniquitous and swingeing cuts the Housing Executive has been forced to abandon its plan to replace considerable numbers of those unsound houses. Naturally, I am concerned at this turn of events, especially in view of the extreme level of unfitness of houses in the Province, which is almost double that on the mainland.
The board of the Housing Executive met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 16 March. During that meeting the chairman emphasised that a strategy had been agreed with the Government as long ago as 1983. That effectively translated the measured housing need into levels of activities and housing programmes. However, increasingly, the Government have failed to fund those levels of activity, and in the published figures for funding for the years 1988 to 1991 there appeared to be no change in the downward trend.
As a result, the Housing Executive was faced with a continuing decline in the rate of progress in meeting the jointly agreed housing needs for Northern Ireland. In fact, improvement work was having to be placed on such an extended time scale as to raise the question whether disrepair and need would begin to rise at a faster rate than the executive could carry out remedial work. That
644
suggested the completely unacceptable prospect for the executive of presiding over a gradually worsening situation.
It was pointed out that if the situation were not to deteriorate in that way, it was essential that the funding promised by the Government should be regarded as an irreducible core that should riot be raided repeatedly for other purposes. It was also stressed that the Government should act with consistency and continuity in the treatment of Housing Executive funding.
I understand that the Secretary of State listened sympathetically to the plea by the Housing Executive board. I hope and trust that he will now take such steps as are necessary to galvanise the Government into effective action to reduce the terrible housing deprivation in the Province.
10.31 am
Mr. David Porter: The prospect of the Easter Adjournment is very welcome to us all. It allows us to go back to our constituencies, in my case to remind my wife and children that they are not a single parent family, to recharge my batteries, to breathe some proper fresh air coming off the sea and to bring all the good news about the measures that we have been taking during the past two months.
Mr. Simon Hughes: That will not take long.
Mr. Porter: It will take some time. More immediate than that, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise some east coast problems. By east coast I mean part of East Anglia. To a true East Anglian that means only Suffolk and Norfolk. I am concerned about that part of Suffolk and Norfolk which is Waveney and Great Yarmouth. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) is not here to support me, but he is toiling on behalf of his constituents in Norfolk.
I was going to call my remarks "East of Norwich" to place it geographically, but that smacks of East of Suez, which implies pulling out or, "No one goes there." East of Eden might be more appropriate. I am talking about an area that includes the magnificent town of Great Yarmouth and the town of Lowestoft, the premier fishing port of England.
Mr. David Harris: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) could substantiate that bogus claim. He will know that in recent months the port of Newlyn in my constituency has topped the league in regard to the value of fishing landings.
Mr. Porter: That may be so. Obviously my figures are not up to date, so I shall reserve my judgment until I have checked those figures.
I wish to raise problems about East Anglia, which is the second fastest growing region in the United Kingdom—and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys estimates that births and people moving into East Anglia will make it the fastest growing region in the next 12 years. The average cost of housing is going up £30 per day and unemployment in Waveney is down from 17 per cent. 18 months ago to 11·5 per cent. today. So why are there problems?
The problems are, to some extent, those of East Anglia's success generally, moving across from the

645
midlands and up from London. Milton Keynes, Peterborough, the west of East Anglia and the FelixstoweIpswich-Cambridge corridor have excellent roads, but as yet Waveney and Great Yarmouth do not. A joint representation from the two local authorities will soon be treading a path to the door of the Minister for roads, my hon. Friend the member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). Notwithstanding his best efforts recently on the Halesworth relief road and the recent recognition by the county council of Waveney as the poor relation in Suffolk, it can still take more than three and a half hours to drive or to travel by train from my constituency to London—a mere 119 miles.
One of the best hopes for our economic well-being in Waveney and Great Yarmouth is welcoming more tourists. Every effort has been made to speed tourists into the west country to enjoy the quaintness of the country lanes for a fortnight or so. However, sometimes visitors to the eastern part of East Anglia feel that it takes them a fortnight to get there.
Not unnaturally, visitors to our area occasionally have to use the Health Service. There is a formula for taking account of that in the funding of family practitioner services and hospital services. The Government are undertaking a fundamental review of Health Service funding and organisation, and the East Anglian regional health authority has volunteered itself as a pilot area for an internal market experiment. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bear in mind that if health planning is to be effective it should move the resources with the people or allow the people to move them themselves, as well as taking account of resourcing in the sparser areas of population.
Equally, in regard to schools, a declining rural population and school roll decline nationally are partly offset by an increase in growth in parts of Waveney, and a decision on the closure of the Reydon high school and two primary schools is with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Minister with responsibility for schools. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has no say in that, but he should remember how important are our rural areas, how vital is space and how essential are parental and community choices.
A maternity unit in my constituency is threatened with closure, as is an old people's home 100 yards outside my constituency in the Suffolk, Coastal constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Of course, services must change, update, modernise and be cost-effective, but let us be sure that we carry the people with us. If a ward, a hospital, three schools, the fire engine cover, the police station cover, and local council depots are all modernised, changed and updated within a few months and within a few square miles, people feel under threat, and the best intentions of the Government are undermined.
Locals and tourists alike come to Great Yarmouth and Waveney and other places to enjoy the coastline. Cleaning up the beaches is under way, but is it urgent enough? Is our attitude to re-education as a nation urgent enough? I have discussed the protection of our coasts against the ravages of the sea with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have been extremely lucky this winter.
646
I have said that local authorities should not have to put up swimming pools or sea defences in a capital programme, because one can choose to have a swimming pool, but one cannot choose whether to protect the coast. That is a departmental matter, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if we do not regard coast protection as a national battle, we could have the seaside resort of Birmingham by the year 2050.
I shall not detain the House on the problems of freezing the allocation of non-precious stock fishing licences, or the problems of the pig farmers or those who are worried about VAT on books, newspapers and children's clothes, or anything else from my post bag. I shall say only that the House is ready for the Easter recess to prepare for the good news to come.
10.39 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) made a rather strange speech. He said that he was going home to tell his constituents the good news about what the Government have done, and he then spent the rest of his speech complaining about things that were going wrong for which he wanted help, to which many of the answers lie with the Government. I certainly agree with him that his constituency, as all others, needs things from the Government, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to deliver.
I also agree that not many hon. Members will vote against the motion. After a spell of Committees sitting late into the night, I could defend having a week off—five working days—to even the most determinedly aggressive constituents. It will do us and the country good to have a few days with our families or friends in the fresh air and to come back renewed in about 10 days.
The debate a year ago on the Easter Adjournment motion was started by the former right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, the late John Silkin. I believe that it was his last speech in the House before he died and that it is therefore appropriate now to pay tribute to him for all his services to the House. Until the very end in the equivalent debate a year ago he was arguing for constituency and wider matters of particular interest to him.
I support many of the arguments already made by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) who spoke in favour of the Settle to Carlisle railway, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) who spoke in support of Manchester airport and the diversion of air traffic to the north. As someone born in Cheshire and who lived for the first decade of my life next to a Cheshire airfield, although not Manchester Ringway — it was the AV Roe Woodford airfield — I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's decent and proper regional argument. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) rightly argued for more money for his constituents and for Northern Ireland housing in general. It is unfair that that has been cut.
I wish to speak about the crisis in the Health Service in inner London, a subject which formed part of my speech in the equivalent debate last year. I spoke then about the crisis in nursing. It is no better, but today I wish to go slightly wider and I hope that the Leader of the House will give us some fundamental assurances.

647
Since I spoke from these Benches on health matters last year, I have been dogging the Secretary of State for Social Services with questions about hospital and community services cuts in London. Eventually, after much obfuscation, I obtained the figures. In an oral answer on 12 January the Secretary of State confirmed that between 1981–82 and 1986–87 expenditure in the four Thames regions had dropped in real terms by 2·8 per cent. That was a bigger reduction than even I had expected. The Secretary of State justified those cuts by saying that they were
"more than offset by increased efficiency." —[Official Report, 12 January 1988, Vol. 125. c. 132.]
That gives rise to three questions which I hope the Leader of the House will take away with him. First, what is the basis for that efficiency claim? How do the Government measure increased efficiency for the purpose of that claim? Have they made specific calculations of increased efficiency, or is it a general statement? Are their claims of increased efficiency accepted as valid by anyone but themselves? When the Government's figures confirm real cuts, as they do in London, we need more than a general statement that they have been offset by efficiency.
Secondly, and confirming the worry, the Government say that taking into account efficiency savings, purchasing power in the Thames regions increased by 2 per cent. during those five years. That contrasts enormously with the 2 per cent. increase in services needed annually to keep pace with greater numbers' of elderly people, existing policy commitments such as community care, and medical advances. The Government have accepted that a 2 per cent. increase in services is needed annually. Even taking on board their claims about efficiency, if they acknowledge that there has been only a 2 per cent. increase over five years—not each year—in purchasing power, they must also acknowledge that services have not increased by anywhere near enough to meet the growing demands of people in inner London and the south-east.
By the Government's own admission that a 2 per cent. increase in services is needed annually, their admission in January that purchasing power has increased by only 2 per cent. in total over five years makes it clear that the NHS in London has not had enough money even to stand still. It has been slipping back and services have been declining. Will not the Government at last admit that, I hope as a preface to doing something about it? They will have another opportunity to do something in the next few weeks.
Thirdly, must not the Government acknowledge that because the resource allocation working party formula does not take sufficient account of indicators of social deprivation and therefore, tends particularly to shift resources away from urban areas in the south-east, the cut in London, as opposed to the four Thames regions, which go outside London, will be even bigger than the 2·8 per cent. cut that the Government have acknowledged in the Thames regions as a whole—and that in an area that desperately needs more health resources?
Mr. Michael Jack: How does that information stand up in the light of the announcement made on Wednesday of additional funding for the Thames area? As the RAWP formula still shows that the Thames region is overfunded, it is difficult for those of us in other areas that have not been so generously treated to accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Hughes: I understand that point, and I shall answer it specifically by taking an example of one health authority in London.
The principal health authority in my constituency is Lewisham and North Southwark. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ru.ddock), recently, with me, met our local health authority chairman and officers and were briefed on the exact position in our authority's area, which includes Guy's hospital. In 1988–89, the authority will hand back £2·4 million through the RAWP formula. That will go back from us into the kitty. In 1982–83, the authority's expenditure was 128 per cent. of its RAWP target of 100 per cent. The region set a target for the district of 105 per cent. by 1993–94. It is already down to 108 per cent., so it has managed to cut 20 per cent. off its theoretically excessive allocation and is giving money back. I do not detract from the needs of other regions, but the chairman and officers of the local health authority have reached the stage of saying, "We can take no more." I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that where there is no real increase in funds in parts of the country, at the same time as there is redistribution of resources our way, the result is substantial cuts.
Since 1983, 290 beds have been cut in Lewisham and North Southwark. It will be unable to keep paying back the RAWP money without further substantial cuts. The authority's pay bill is £100 million. If it is not fully funded, and there is even a 1 per cent. deficit, it will mean a £1 million shortfall. Contingency plans have been drawn up for further substantial cuts, should they prove necessary. The authority has already lost £3·3 million because of underfunding of pay awards over five years, and it has lost £12·4 million because of inflation and RAWP redistribution. The total reduction of resources is about £15 million. The House will accept that the officers and members of the health board are impartial in matters of party politics, but they are saying that without additional money our priority care programme will be murdered, our waiting lists will mount enormously and it will be impossible to reach the RAWP target. That is just one health authority in inner London trying to cope with Government policy.
Other health authorities have desperate problems. In relation to West Lambeth authority, which includes St. Thomas's hospital, our local South London Press newspaper said today:
"Hospital bosses claim NHS inflation is running at eight per cent. leaving hospitals short."
Since 1983, the number of beds has been cut from 927 to 632. The number of patients treated has decreased, the number of patients on the waiting list has increased from 5,100 to 8,100, and it is likely to have to cut by 60,000 the number of people who visit hospital clinics and slash staff by one in 10.
I could make a similar argument in respect of all the health authorities in inner London, including Riverside, which covers this area, the City and Hackney, which includes Bart's hospital, and many others. The Health Service in London is far from safe in anyone's hands.
There has been a 24 per cent. increase in people waiting for operations in inner London, and a 9·4 per cent. increase in greater London. In 1987, in the South-West Thames region, waiting lists increased by 1·8 per cent. to

649
36,391—a quarter of whom had waited for more than a year—and last year in South-East Thames region the waiting list increased by 4 per cent. It would have been greater but for a last-minute cash allowance. We are grateful for the additional allocations of cash, but they have not compensated for the substantial difficulties faced by the Health Service in London.
The result is that health authorities are turning to charity. Great Ormond street hospital has had to have its Wishing Well appeal. Bart's hospital is bringing in Saturday volunteers from the City to help on wards. Ear, nose and throat surgeons are working for nothing. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund has given £25,000 to Bart's to pay for paediatric nurses. At St. Thomas's, doctors are donating their profits from private practice.
All this is happening in some of the poorest areas of the country. In 1986, infant mortality increased from 9.2 per cent. to 9.7 per cent. For some diseases, for example, lung cancer and respiratory disease, the death rate is up to 50 per cent. higher than the national average. Living conditions contribute not only to physical but mental illness. For example, schoolchildren in the Camberwell health authority area, which is also partly in my constituency have three times the rate of behavioural disturbance as children in the Isle of Wight. In the four Thames regions we have 76 per cent. of all the AIDS patients in the United Kingdom. The result of the cutting of acute beds has the greatest effect in areas with a high number of ill elderly, many of whom should be in other than hospital accommodation but are not. In London some 1,400 beds have been cut—50 per cent. of them acute—and 46 per cent. of the people in acute beds are over 65. Spaces are just not available either in the proper places for the elderly or in hospitals for other patients.
I ask the Leader of the House to give assurances on the one thing that the Government can urgently do to come to the aid of the Health Service. Before we leave for this Easter recess, they should announce that they will fully fund the nurses' pay award that is to be recommended by the pay review body. Many in the nursing profession are in a desperate situation. Some 60 per cent. of nurses work overtime. Many work through their lunch breaks and most do another job to help out financially. They have desperate difficulties with accommodation and with travel costs, and they are now facing the threat of the poll tax. Nurses are opting out.
I have a letter from a BA honours student nurse, who says:
"Another disturbing aspect is being in close contact with students who leave in their 1st year … already 3 in my intake have gone away … or 2nd year, or as soon as they qualify because they are disillusioned and dissatisfied. It does not take the student nurse long to discover the reason why nurses are so disheartened and why morale is so low! … As a member of the Royal College of Nursing I would find it very difficult to contemplate striking, but I am filled with anxiety about how I will be able to survive physically, mentally and financially in the years ahead … I wish to remain … please make it possible for me to do so … by speaking on behalf of nurses in the house of commons."
I was intending to do so anyway, before the letter came, but it confirms the crisis and the need. The Lewisham and North Southwark area is between 250 and 400 nurses short of establishment. The Government must come to our rescue. They will have an opportunity to do so when the pay review body reports.
650
Easter should be a time for rejoicing. I hope that the situation in the Health Service will not be as bad as it was over Christmas at the end of last year. I have here a copy of a letter, sent to the Prime Minister since the new year, by a nurse working at Guy's hospital. It is about the situation at Christmas 1987 in London in the Health Service. It says:
"Understandably the operating theatres are always shut over Christmas and consequently some of the surgical wards, but this year to save money three medical wards were also closed. Unfortunately the local population did not cease to be ill. This meant that acutely ill patients were admitted onto already overstretched surgical wards. It became increasingly difficult to get doctors to see patients they had admitted, as instead of having all their patients on one or two wards, some had patients on eleven different wards. The geography of the hospital meant that it took some of them all day to complete their rounds.
On one ward an elderly lady died alone as the four nurses working on that ward were too busy looking after the twenty-six other patients, to sit with her. She then lay on the ward for four hours until a nurse had been around several other wards to be a sheet to wrap her in. To make matters even worse, the mortuary porters informed us she would have to be placed in cadaver bag, as the mortuary fridge was full!
Another demoralised colleague, along with a student nurse on her first ward placing, discovered a man vomiting copious quantities of blood. They had several other patients all calling for their attention, including an infectious patient lying on the floor of a side-room demanding to see a doctor and be discharged.
Surgical wards do not have the facilities to deal with the medical patients. For example, they do not have a large supply of incontinence aids or hoists to lift heavy immobile patients into the bath. These problems were compounded by the acute shortage of linen—presumably due to some other cost cutting exercise. By Sunday 27th December the wards were even running short of paper sheets and pillow cases. By the following day, nurses in charge of wards were refusing to admit patients until linen had been found to make up the beds for them. Excellence of care is stressed by the School of Nursing. I do not feel I am meeting this by nursing very sick people between two paper sheets on top of a plastic mattress.
How would you feel if a relative of yours was admitted to a top London hospital, only to find staff were too busy to meet all his needs and he was expected to sleep in a bed improvised from drawer sheets and pieces of paper!
Struggling to give the care we have been trained to give under the limitations imposed by financial constraint is only a further stress to an already demoralised profession."
That was the Health Service only a few short months ago. It is not acceptable to go on like that. The Government must say, through the Leader of the House, that they have a new commitment, which means more money and more support for people who are trying to keep our National Health Service up to the standards for which it was founded.
10.55 am
Mr. David Harris: I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely into the problems of the Health Service in inner London. However, I can assure him that dissatisfaction with the working of the RAWP formula is not confined to London. As far away from London as my constituency in Cornwall there is a feeling that the formula does not reflect needs accurately and nor is it a good measure for allocating resources. No doubt, as he said, inner London has particular problems, some of them stemming from deprivation and urban difficulties, but the other side of the coin is that areas such as mine suffer from difficulties such as that which has become known as the rural scatter—the long distances between hospitals and patients.

651
Another of the difficulties in Cornwall is the inherited situation of a large number of old hospitals. I am convinced that in order to rationalise them there will in some cases have to be increases in capital spending. Cornwall also suffers, which is fortunate in some ways, from a very high incidence of old people, which puts a big burden on the NHS, yet RAWP does not take account sufficiently of such a factor. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would side with him in his eagerness to have a thorough look at the working of RAWP, and the Government are doing just that.
As the hon. Gentleman has outlined the difficulties facing the NHS, he will welcome the fundamental and thorough review of it that is being carried out under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This is a sign of the seriousness with which the Government are taking the issue of the NHS. I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the Government will fund in full the nurses' pay award. However, he will accept that it would be irresponsible of any Government to give an assurance that they will do that. This award in particular looks like being extremely complex, and I have no doubt that the Government will have to look at it carefully. I hope that they will be in a position to fund in full, but it would be unwise for anybody to give that assurance in advance of receiving the report.
I wish to make two particular points, one about a national issue, and one of relevance to my constituency and the county of Cornwall. The national issue is one that has dominated this week's news—Northern Ireland. I say that it is a national issue because it affects everyone of us, wherever we live. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) here. Although it impacts enormously on Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, it affects us all, because at some time or other we have had service men from our constituencies serving in Northern Ireland, and what happens in Northern Ireland cannot be ignored by the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I was dismayed earlier this week, following the brutal murders of the soldiers, at the reluctance of the broadcasting authorities to hand over all the untransmitted film of part of that attack.
I speak as one who has journalistic experience of covering events in Northern Ireland. I spent a number of years visiting the country on behalf of The Daily Telegraph to cover politics there. That gave me many opportunities to see the situation on the streets and the difficulties faced by soldiers, the police and my fellow journalists, especially those who worked for television, and their camera crews. I accept that camera crews are often in the front line and in considerable danger, so I understand the stance adopted by the broadcasting authorities — the BBC and Independent Television — who are trying to do everything that they properly can to protect their crews when they cover events in Northern Ireland.
However, overriding all other considerations, it is of paramount importance that the broadcasting authorities make available the evidence that they have to the RUC and the prosecuting authorities, who are trying to bring to justice the people who committed the vile murder of those two soldiers. If the broadcasting authorities say that they are reluctant to hand over film because they want to protect their staff, that merely serves to reinforce the problem of television coverage by the BBC, ITN and RTE of IRA-inspired events in Northern Ireland. The review of such coverage should have taken place even if the tragic events of last Saturday had not occurred. The
652
broadcasting authorities need to consider how professionally and to what extent they cover IRA-inspired funerals, demonstrations and so on.
I have no doubt that there must have been an clement of collusion between the broadcasting authorities and the agents or representatives of the IRA for covering some of these events. I am thinking particularly of the pictures that we have all seen in newspapers and on television in recent weeks, of IRA firing parties letting off volleys of shots over a shrine around the corner from the funerals. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in the House the other day, that might be preferable to filming a firing party performing such a ceremony—if that is not too dignified a word—over a grave at a funeral, but when filming these episodes the broadcasting authorities, at least to a certain extent, play into the hands of the IRA. They should think long and hard about whether being sucked into a propaganda exercise by the IRA should constitute part of the news.
As a journalist, I know that this is a difficult area. It is always difficult to draw a line between naked propaganda for an organisation and genuine news. However, my plea to the broadcasting authorities is that they should give urgent and deep consideration to these difficult issues.
I turn now to a couple of issues that affect Cornwall in particular. I noticed this morning in The Daily Telegraph a report headed:
"British regions get no priority in rush for EEC millions".
That relates to an apparent decision by the EEC Commission to try to give priority through the structure funds to certain regions — Greece, Portugal, Ireland, southern Italy, parts of Spain, French overseas territories and Northern Ireland. In so doing, the Commission is trying to exclude all other parts of the United Kingdom: for example, Wales, parts of northern England and the assisted areas of Cornwall and. Devon. If the report is true, and I suspect that it is, that is a matter for concern. Of course, there will still be access to other European funds in other circumstances, but the first priority for the structure fund will be the areas I have listed—the others will come behind.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend to comment on this today, but I know that he will draw it to the attention of the Ministers concerned and ask them to renew the attempts that the Government have already made in Brussels to ensure that areas of the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland that have high levels of unemployment are given as much priority as other parts of the European Community. European funds play an important part in providing the infrastructure of parts of the United Kingdom that have high levels of unemployment. They are beginning to have an impact on Cornwall and I do not want such areas to be deprived of the funds. I hope and believe that that will not happen, but I want an assurance that Ministers will fight this issue strongly in Brussels.
Talking of infrastructure and development in development areas, I and most of my hon. Friends very much welcomed the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 9 March about local authorities' expenditure. The purpose of the statement was to clamp down on irresponsible local authorities that were going in for creative accountancy and other like devices, such as doing deals with Japanese banks—and others—to get around the Government's proper restrictions on capital expenditure. However, there

653
appears to be a possibility that some genuine attempts to carry out redevelopment by responsible local authorities might get caught.
I refer to a report that appeared in The Morning News a week ago today. It echoed the concern of a number of councils, including Penwith district council about the possible ramifications of my right hon. Friend's statement. The report points out that a £2 million scheme for Truro city hall—I can vouch for its being much needed— may be at risk; so may a £5 million leisure centre at Falmouth and a harbourside car park for Truro. A £5 million harbourside redevelopment at Penzance in my con-stituency is also under threat. Most of these redevelopment schemes involve some sort of deal with developers, under which land may be made available to them. They will carry out the work and the community will get the benefit.
That is the proper way to proceed. It is not in the same category as some of the antics carried out by councils such as Brent and others, which we all read about. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure the House without delay on this matter, and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey the anxieties of responsible local authorities to our right hon. Friend so that an early statement can be made to clarify the position.
I take considerable hope from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that he would
"consider issuing additional capital allocations where we arc satisfied that the agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure or borrowing controls." —[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 327]
The answer lies in that sentence, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will lose no opportunity to reply to the letters which I, and no doubt other hon. Members and councils, have sent to him. I hope that we can be reassured that sensible projects, such as the ones that I have mentioned, are not at risk and that they will go ahead.
11.12 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should like to take this opportunity to raise in the House and place on record so that, one hopes, the Government and others will carefully examine it, the importance of immediate action over the treatment of people, especially Kurdish people in Iraq, and the need to bring an end to the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war. This war has been going on for twice as long as the second world war and hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of this appalling conflict. The most unspeakable horrors have been perpetrated on people in villages in Iran and Iraq, and people who have differences of opinion with the respective regimes are suffering under the most appalling prison conditions.
The Governments of Western Europe and, indeed, of virtually every country are conniving at the continuation of this war. This is because they do not do enough in the United Nations to bring the war to an end, and almost every Government in every industrial country is guilty of directly providing arms to one side or the other. Many Governments provide arms to both sides. Governments who are not providing arms are certainly providing sufficient equipment for the manufacture of arms. Some provide chemicals and pesticides that can be used for the
654
manufacture of chemical weapons that are as awful and as crude as those that were banned by the Geneva convention after the first world war.
The House should not adjourn for Easter without at least protesting against the continuation of the war, and it should do everything that it can to bring some humanitarian assistance to the victims of the war. If we do not do that, we will allow hundreds of thousands of people to go needlessly to their deaths in this appalling conflict. I shall not speak at great length about the basis of the conflict, because that would take up a great deal of time. Instead, I wish to draw attention to specific aspects.
It is important to note that this is not just a conflict about the delineation of the frontier of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq, but that it is fuelled by outside forces who want to get their hands on the oil in both countries. The war also demonstrates the humanitarian and political bankruptcy of both regimes, because they seek to repress their own people by means of an attack on a neighbour. This tactic has been used by dictators for centuries who have tried to unite their people against an enemy in order to prevent the people from rising up and protesting about the appalling conditions in which many of them have to live.
I shall illustrate the dangers that are implicit in the continuation of this conflict by quoting from "International Relations" dated November 1986. It carried an article entitled "The Middle East and World Peace" written by Sir Anthony Parsons, who was at one time the British ambassador to Iran. The part that I shall quote comes after Sir Anthony has discussed the possibility of an Iranian invasion of Iraq and the likely reaction to that of other Arab states, and the implications of an invasion of Iran by Iraq and the reaction to that of nearby states, particularly the Soviet Union.
Sir Anthony said:
"The point is that the threat to world peace will persist for as long as the Iran/Iraq war continues and we should not be lulled into false security by the long-lasting military stalemate which could at any time be broken."
Those important words should be remembered.
I should like to draw attention to one aspect of the war and to the problems implicit in the middle East—the treatment of the Kurdish people there. It is important to remember that in Iran the regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini is as brutal and repressive against dissidents as any regime in the world, and the testament to that is the number of people who have fled from that country to seek political asylum. In Iraq there is almost a Fascist regime, which has instituted virtual genocide against the Kurdish people. The vast numbers of people in political prisons in Iraq testify to that. The long arm of Iraq's security services extends to Britain, where one finds Iraqi refugees, who have sought and obtained safety, afraid to march openly on the streets to protest against the Government of Iraq because of reprisals that might take place against their families. They have to march on the streets of Britain with their faces covered so that they cannot be photographed.
Turkey also contains many Kurds. In the Kurdish areas of eastern Turkey there is virtually a civil war and many Kurdish people are in prison in Diyarbekir in eastern Turkey. I understand that during the Easter recess, or shortly afterwards, the Prime Minister is to visit Turkey. I hope that if she goes ahead with that visit she will carry very strong messages. First, she should convey the message that Turkey is not a democracy, and cannot be, because

655
of the hundreds, if not thousands, of political prisoners in that country. People are on trial because of their political beliefs, and the general secretaries of the Communist party and the Workers' party, Mr. Kutlu and Mr. Sargin, are in prison. Secondly, she should tell the Government of Turkey that their country cannot be looked upon as a free democracy while military rule still applies in some of their provinces and while Kurds are being oppressed. The Kurdish language is banned in Turkey, and the word "Kurdistan" is also banned. The invitation to the Prime Minister to visit Turkey is part of the attempt by the Government of Turkey to cover up their crimes so that they can gain entry to the European Community.
I shall give another quotation to show how awful the positon is for the Kurds, particularly in Iraq. I shall quote from a letter delivered yesterday to the Prime Minister by the Committee for the Defence of Kurdish Nation and by Kurdish Organisations in the United Kingdom. The letter says:
"We, the people of Kurdistan in exile in Britain, appeal to you as a world leader to intervene and publicly condemn the wholesale slaughter of the innocent Kurdish people and the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi Government on the innocent Kurdish inhabitants of Halabja. This is not the first instance of the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Tonight we have received private telephone calls from reliable sources in Iraq revealing the full horror of what has happened this week: we are told that about 21,000 ordinary men, women and children from the Halabja population died immediately under the cyanide bombardment. Another 20,000 have been fatally affected and between 300 and 500 are now dying each day.
We believe that as a world leader—and in the pursuit of world peace and the right to self-determination of all peoples … you will share our despair and understand our desire for an immediate end to this appalling and barbaric genocide."
The letter continues by asking that the Prime Minister intervene immediately and personally and that the
"United Nations … send a … fact-finding mission to Kurdistan to establish the full facts and the extent of this tragedy which is without precedent since Hiroshima."
The letter concludes:
"we appeal to you … to use your prestige as a world leader to demand that the Government of Saddam Hussein immediately cease these atrocities against our defenceless people."
That letter emphasises the horrors that the Kurdish people are going through in Iraq at present.
It is also important that the House understands the background to the way in which the Kurdish people have been treated, and their fate. Kurdistan was first divided in 1514—this is not a new problem—between the warring Ottoman and Persian empires. It was not until 1920 and the treaty of Sevres that the Kurdish nation was recognised, but the treaty was never fully carried out or established because of the rise of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, who ensured that it was never brought to fruition. The treaty of Lausanne in 1923 superseded the earlier treaty and set the seal on Kurdish hopes for independence.
Today the Kurdish nation is divided between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. For all that time there has been oppression at one time or another, of differing severity, of the Kurdish people in all four of those countries. At the moment the most awful oppression is in Iraq and Turkey, but in the past it has been in Iran, and sometimes in Syria. The desire for a Kurdish nation and for recognition of Kurdish culture is at the heart of the present oppression against the Kurdish people in Iraq. In Iraq, Kurds constitute the largest group. Over 20 million people have
656
been victimised by the political and ideological turmoil of our time. They are the fourth largest ethnic group in the middle east and have suffered very badly.
I want to draw attention to the way in which the Kurdish people are being treated in Iraq. The Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has for some years sought to oppose Kurdish culture and the use of the Kurdish language, and to oppress Kurdish people in those areas. It has sought to do so by Arabising the areas and moving large numbers of people into those areas to minimise the strength of Kurdish feeling. Of course, the areas into which they have moved people are rich in oil and fertile. They have also deported and evicted large numbers of Kurdish people from their villages. Since 15 April 1987, 700 villages have been bulldozed, set alight and destroyed. A new eviction drive has affected over 140,000 Kurdish people.
That is not the first time that this has happened. Indeed. 2,000 villages were destroyed between 1975 and 1979 in an earlier attack against the Kurdish people. About 8,000 Kurdish people have disappeared since 1983, when the Iraqi secret police or the Iraqi army arrived and simply took people away. Large numbers of people have been killed during that period.
The most shocking and appalling thing has been the use of chemical weapons and chemical warfare against the Kurdish people. It is clear that the Iraqi Government are using poison gas against the Kurdish people in Iraq. Since mid-April 1987—just less than one year ago there has been continued shelling with mustard and diphosgene gases, which have been used to kill people. This week some disturbing news has arrived, which has been adequately reported in some newspapers. Anyone who doubts the existence and use of such chemical weapons—the Iraqi ambassador in this country denies the use of chemical weapons—is referred to a secret document that has been smuggled out of Iraq, from the general commander of the Erbil district, which clearly confirms the existence of those weapons. The document is headed:
"Subject: Control over distribution of biological and chemical (materials)".
It goes on to ask for a half-yearly stock-taking of those weapons and gives guidance on their use.
I refer the House to the news reports that have been received this week that emphasise the horror of the gas attacks that have taken place. I refer to the first part of the article by Nicholas Beeston, reporting from Halabja in occupied Iraq. He is writing about people who have died as a result of a cyanide attack:
"Like figures unearthed in Pompeii, the victims of Halabja were killed so quickly that their corpses remained in suspended animation.
There was the plump baby whose face, frozen in a scream, stuck out from under the protective arm of a man, away from the open door of a house that he never reached.
Near by, a family of five who had been sitting in their garden eating lunch were cut down—the killer gas not even sparing the family cat or the birds in the tree, which littered the well-kept lawn.
Their neighbours had had the foresight to hide in an underground shelter. It became their mass grave with 10 men, women and children huddled together in the darkness surrounded by their best carpets and the family's valuables."
The report then lists the horror of the cyanide gas attacks that had taken place in the past week in Halabja. It seems that 20,000 people had been killed as a result of those gas attacks, in the most appalling and unspeakable crime that can be imagined.

657
If anyone has any doubts about the methods that the Iraqi forces are using in Kurdistan, I refer him to orders that were sent out to the armed forces in June last year, concerning army activities in Kurdish areas. They state:

"1. All remaining villages declared out of bounds for security reasons will be considered as areas containing saboteurs, agents of Iran and traitors of Iraq.

2. No humans or animals are allowed in these areas. Shooting is unrestricted in these areas, unless on orders issued by us.

3. All travel to and from these areas, and all agricultural and industrial activity within them is forbidden. All concerned authorities and apparatus will monitor these issues rigorously.

4. Your command will carry out special strikes against the largest number of those present in the exclusion zones periodically, using artillery, helicopters and aeroplanes, and at any time day or night.

5. Anyone found in these villages will be detained and interrogated by the security apparatus. All those aged 15–70 inclusive to be executed after making use of any information obtained off them.

6. The relevant body will interrogate those who surrender to government of (Ba'th) Party apparatus for 2 days, or up to 10 days if necessary. If more interrogation is needed, permission must be obtained from us by telephone or telegramme."

One can only assume that those people who are not interrogated are shot immediately, or shot after interrogation.
Amnesty International has issued numerous reports on the situation in Iraq. It reported last February that hundreds of people, in some cases children as young as 14, had been executed in Iraq. It calls again for action on this matter.
I hope the House will understand that the full horrors of the Iran-Iraq war have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but within that conflict the most appalling savagery is being perpetrated against the Kurdish people. This week's cyanide attacks have at last hit the world's press headlines. It is time for the Government to act by doing what is requested by the Kurdish people, which is, first, requesting that the United Nations immediately sends observers to ascertain the full extent of the attacks that have taken place; secondly, demanding that the Iraqi Government allow the International Red Cross into the country to take medical and humanitarian aid to those people; thirdly, and above all, demanding a complete stop to all arms and chemical sales to either Iran or Iraq. They should also stop propping up the Iraqi Government by the use of trade, aid and credits, which I am afraid the British Government have been doing in the credits that they have passed on to Iraq. This House should make its views clearly known on this appalling matter.
11.29 am
Mr. Michael Jack: No one could fail to be moved by the humane way in which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) discussed the tragic circumstances arising from the awful conflict of the Iran-Iraq war. I congratulate him on drawing the attention of the House to some of the details which, sad to say, have been emerging in our press and other media.
I, too, wish to raise a moving matter concerning the elderly. In particular, it relates to the provision of their housing in private sheltered accommodation. A constituent, Mr. Lawrence Lewis, came to see me and drew
658
my attention to a matter which has now reached national proportions. For the benefit of the House I hold up a envelope containing letters from well over 100 people from all over the United Kingdom, telling me of their problems with sheltered accommodation for the elderly.
Accommodation of this type will fulfil a vital function as our population continues to age. It is already providing a much-needed dynamic to the housing market by allowing people to move from traditional forms of accommodation to accommodation more specifically provided for the needs of the elderly. The market is large. It is worth some £2 billion a year and there are about 7,000 units of this type of accommodation being built every 12 months. Clearly, problems are emerging in this area, which, at present, has no trade association and no form of regulation against possible abuse of the elderly.
My constituent purchased his sheltered accommodation as a result of some fairly persuasive advertising material. He was particularly attracted to the words used which related to service and maintenance charges. That is the provision of common services, such as gardening, window cleaning, cleaning of common parts and so on. Mr. Lewis felt from the advertising literature which showed that those charges would not rise sharply, so he would be in for no nasty shocks, that this was a good way to live economically. Sadly, that was not to be the case.
My constituent came to see me and showed me the literature for his accommodation and that from the developer of the same accommodation about five miles from my constituency in Blackpool for another development in which the developer's claim was even more specific about service and maintenance charges. It stated:
"We do not expect those to rise by any more than the rate of inflation."
My constituent could not square that claim with the large increases which he had experienced.
As a result I took up the issue with the developers. I choose not to name them deliberately, because my intent in taking up this matter has been one of good faith in the interests of the individuals, and not in any way to have a witch hunt against any one developer, builder or managing agent in this sector. I have been so careful that when I was approached by "That's Life" to open my files to reveal information from those who had written to me, I refused. I do not believe that it is right to break the confidence of those who approach me, including right hon. and hon. Members. With the exception of a factual press release about holding a meeting in the House to discuss the matter, my public comment has been in response to interest from the press.
My constituent drew the matter to my attention and I discussed it with Age Concern which told me that the problem was widespread. As a result of that, the subject got into the newspapers through completely independent means. The Daily Telegraph had an article covering the issue. The paper asked me what I would do about it and I said that I wanted to look carefully at the law, particularly as it affects the statements in the literature on service and maintenance charges because through the Housing Bill or the Consumer Protection Act 1987 or even through a review of the Trade Descriptions Act there might be methods to address the clarity with which information is put across in the sales literature.

659
As a result of that first article I received 40 letters and The Daily Telegraph received 30. I shall summarise the issues raised with some quotations. A lady in Wye in Kent wrote:
"We did all our 'sums' before we took over our properties and if"
the managing agents
"had kept their word about increasing charges none of us would find ourselves in the financial difficulties which we do at present, many of the residents are contemplating having to sell out and move, but even that would impose an impossible burden on many."
A gentleman from Solihull wrote:
"From conversations I have had with residents, many accepted these bottom line figures in good faith and budgeted accordingly. There is now alarm that they might prove grossly inaccurate within 12 months."
In a most moving passage he continues:
"It does seem there is a group of elderly people with genuine fears but who might feel themselves constrained from voicing their concerns too publicly because they do not want to come into conflict with the company that is managing the property where they had hoped to spend their retirement free of worry."
A letter from Cornwall tells me that a group of people found that their service and maintenance charges had risen by 70 per cent. in 18 months.
Finally, on an issue of a wider nature, a retired squadron leader in Seaford, Lincolnshire wrote:
"Can you imagine what might happen when the builder of sheltered housing goes into liquidation? Can you imagine the doubtful characters who might be attracted to these situations?
I would be the first to admit that while I have given albeit a selective flavour to some of those problems, there are also many customers satisfied with this type of accommodation. Clearly, the market is growing and we must face the fact that many elderly people see the excellence of the standards that this type of accommodation offers, are seduced by the sales literature and do not ask the pertinent financial question: Can I afford to meet those regular service and maintenance charges? Many of them are living on fixed incomes and they cannot easily adjust to sudden unthought of expenses.
Earlier I mentioned what service and maintenance charges covered. Many people have suddenly discovered that they are also liable for sinking fund payments to cover the depreciation on items such as lifts. Moreover, if the developer or managing agent got his sums wrong in estimating the cost of the charge in the run-up to the sale, the residents are visited with a bill. Such bills can go on, compounded by the natural increase in charges, and present them with financial difficulties.
My intent was to find some simple way, without creating a new quango or vast regulatory body, to help these people and any others who will enter this market. I contacted the National Consumer Council which drew my attention to section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. What I am about to say has the favour of the Office of Fair Trading, my Lancashire trading standards office and others in this area. The NCC legal officer, Mr. Guy Dehn, drew my attention to the fact that the Act deals with what is called "misleading price indicators". In other words, if one sets out to mislead or give inaccurate information on the price of a service, section 3 of that Act will help those who suffer.
The Act goes further. It provides for the creation of codes of practice which govern the whole operation, not only of sales literature, but of other statements about
660
services and obligations for residents in this type of accommodation. It is high time that the House had an opportunity — I urge my right hon. Friend to take up the matter with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry — to consider carefully the possibility of applying a code of practice dealing with these matters under the Consumer Protection Act. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends for such a code of practice.
The National Consumer Council in a letter to me said:
"Misleading or insufficient information about future levels of maintenance charges will disrupt budgetary planning and can clearly cause considerable distress."
With regard to the customers of such accommodation it says:
"It is unrealistic to expect them to forage about for further information or to challenge figures on the basis of a calculation."
I have studied the sales literature for such sheltered accommodation and many different words and phrases are used to try to say the same thing. There is no uniform description regarding what the service and maintenance charges mean. Some companies mean the narrow management charge — the administrative expense of providing communal services. Other descriptions go as wide as the water rates and all other expenses. It must be confusing for potential purchasers to be confronted by such a wide range of definitions, and that obviously gives rise to misunderstanding.
The National Consumer Council believes:
"A code of practice dealing with claims about maintenance charges would be in everyone's interest. A good code should help prevent the problem from recurring. The providers of sheltered housing would have guidance as to what information to provide and how to present it. The Government would be able to promote desirable practices in this area. Pensioners would not be misled. The application of the new law in this field would be clearer."
I can think of no finer recommendation than that the House gives some form of approval to that course of action. To that end I organised a working party, including representatives from the trade, and we had a meeting in the House. Leading developers and managing agents attended as well as an observer from the Department of the Environment, and representatives of the Office of Fair Trading, Age Concern and Help the Aged. As a result of its good will that working party will meet in the House on Monday to develop further its thoughts on the matter. I hope that not only will it recommend a code of practice, as I have outlined to the House, but that the group will form a trade association to deal with wider issues covering the quality of service, training of staff, facilities offered by wardens and so on.
If that group established a trade association it could also introduce a code of approval for each individual developer and stop maverick developers entering the market and misleading elderly people. I trust that the House will support the initiative, which I have taken in good faith, as I believe that it will do much to safeguard the future of accommodation for the elderly.
11.42 am
Mr. Graham Allen: The House of Commons is the most sophisticated political prison in the world. It makes strong men and determined women impotent with the minimum of brutality yet with the maximum of effectiveness. Such is the confidence of the

661
system that even the doors are not locked. Indeed, for most of the working day there is no obligation to attend—if the usual channels will permit me that indiscretion.
Parliamentary democracy and the holding to account of Government and the Executive is now little more than a sham as practised in this Chamber. The anarchic and archaic procedures that dominate our proceedings seem to give a few perks to buy off individual Members, but fail to direct the efforts of either Government or Opposition Members in the job that Parliament was set up to do.
One of the most obvious and striking examples of that failure relates to the hours of sitting of this place and it is that to which I wish refer to today. There are many other examples that could be drawn, notably the length of the parliamentary sessions. The House of Commons meets for more days than any other legislature in the civilised world. Our recesses—today we are debating the Easter recess—seem to bear no rhyme or reason to contemporary politics. Certainly the summer recess is far too long for the purpose for which it was originally intended. I believe that a system of proper holidays, which any self-respecting trade unionist would certainly support, could be arrived at by negotiations with the relevant parties, perhaps even through Mr. Speaker's Office. Such holidays could then become a normal part of our environment instead of the current practice.
My major argument relates to the length of the sitting that we have each day. On average we sit beyond 12 o'clock at night twice a week. It need not always be like that; indeed it was not always like that. The great reforming Government of 1945–50, as I understand it from the record books, had only three sittings after 12 o'clock. There has developed, however, for no reason — an organic growth—a series of sittings well into the night. Therefore, the House now has an average of two sittings per week that go beyond 12 o'clock.
The answer to the problem rests with Members of Parliament. The Economist stated:
"MPs, though individually they had succeeded in becoming more independent of party whips, have not yet learnt to act collectively in their own interest against the interests of the frontbenchers of both major parties. If ever a man has suffered through not belonging to a trade union it has been the modern British MP."
That comment, made over a decade ago, is just as true today. The power of the Government and in particular the Front Benches, as exemplified by the whipping system, has meant that we have been lumbered with a system without any forethought or planning. That system imposes upon hon. Members a great many burdens. Such burdens are self-inflicted because, until the Back Benchers of both parties realise their self-interest, the system will continue.
It would be idle to waste too much sympathy on Members of Parliament, but there are others who must be taken into account, notably the families—the husbands, wives, children, girl friends or whatever. They suffer because of the idiocy of the system under which we attempt to work. There is a great deal of statistical evidence about the divorce rate among hon. Members, and those statistics need not be repeated.
I hope that we would all wish to encourage more women to become Members of Parliament, but added to all the burdens that male Members of Parliament face are the burdens that families and society place upon women as mothers and, in a sense, home makers. Those burdens
662
are in excess of those that we should reasonably place on Members of Parliament. Such burdens could be removed if we had the will.
Other disadvantages in our present system include the effect on the decision-making process. How can Ministers effectively perform their duties the next day if they have been at the Dispatch Box or sitting on the Front Bench into the small hours? There is a great deal of anecdotal and written evidence from Members of all parties—whatever shade of Government have been in power—that has outlined how performance has been impaired because this place has taken its toll of Ministers.
Members of Parliament have a macho tendency to prove their toughness by sitting through the night, but that is also a costly exercise in terms of keeping staff on duty and awake when any self-respecting person would be at home with his or her family and relaxing for the day ahead.
I have tabled a motion referring to that problem in which I suggest that the House should rise automatically at 10 pm, thus returning to the system which existed just after the war when business appeared to be conducted as expeditiously and efficiently as it is today, perhaps even more so. If there were a national crisis, there would be a fallback provision under which a given number of Members of Parliament could request the sitting to continue, but that would occur only in extreme and emergency cases. To compensate for any loss of time, the House would meet at 1 pm every day, except Friday.
Given that the television age is about to come to this place—not before time—the Adjournment debate would not take place at the last knockings of the parliamentary day, but would begin the day. The superstars on the Front Bench, who will no doubt monopolise the television cameras, would experience competition from any hon. Members who are allocated an Adjournment debate and would therefore earn a place in the public eye. Between 1 pm and 1.30 pm, they could speak about an important issue during prime time television.
I do not anticipate instant acceptance of that proposal by the House, but, having looked through the press files, I am encouraged to see that many highly respected and distinguished parliamentarians from both sides of the House, including former Prime Ministers, but unfortunately not yet including the Leader of the House, have suggested that the way in which we work is unplanned and unco-ordinated and suits only the Government, not Parliament.
A major restructuring of our work needs to take place under the auspices of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that the Leader of the House will make the necessary arrangements so that the Procedure Committee can consider that matter again. It has discussed the matter in the recent past, but there are many new Members of Parliament who are keen and fired with antagonism towards the way this place works. I hope that that strengthens the feeling that we must put our own house in order by ensuring that we sit at proper times of day and that the business of Parliament, which is to hold the Executive to account, can take place on a far more sensible basis than at present.
11.52 am
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North

663
(Mr. Allen) suggested that Members of Parliament should be represented by a trade union. All I can say to that is, God forbid.
Today is a sad day in the history of the trade union movement in this country. We have had the humiliation of seeing trade union leaders returning from a visit to Ford in the United States with an empty bowl. It is a particularly sad day for Scotland, but also for industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government have endeavoured to make the economic climate of this country one of the best in the world in which people can come and set up a business. The Budget has gone a long way towards helping that recently with a nice taxation policy which should be a positive encouragement to people overseas to invest in the United Kingdom.
There is no doubt that Ford did a great deal of market research before selecting Dundee as the place to set up its new plant. It evaluated a labour force which I am sure is second to none. I am sure that the people of Dundee would give faithful service and do a good day's work for a good day's pay. There are many other elements, for example, communications, to encourage business.
Despite Ford's decision, the United Kingdom is perhaps the best country in the world in which to set up a business at present. I hope that Ford will reconsider its decision. As a former, fully paid-up member of what is now the Amalgamated Engineering Union, I am embarrassed to think that my former brothers and sisters have created such a climate and refused to accede to the company's request, albeit reluctantly and after a narrow vote.
Companies come here and set up business to make a profit. They are not Oxfam or some charitable institution. Ford has a tremendous commitment to the United Kingdom. It has been here for many years and the plant in Dundee would have reinforced that commitment and provided the company with a gateway into Europe. It must have been reflecting on the future of the Channel tunnel.
I find it humiliating that we shall lose this valuable plant because the trade unions cannot get a firm agreement among themselves. When a pit closes, we hear cries about the social consequences for surrounding villages. We hear of the spin-offs of the earning power of employees and the company. Ford employees would spend an enormous amount of money in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and the company would be a major purchaser. Others would supply components. It is sad to think that all that will be lost because trade unions cannot get their act together.
It has been said that that is not the true reason for the decision, but the exchange rate between the pound and the dollar is about the same now as it was in the autumn when the decision to open the plant in Dundee was made. The exchange rate is no more favourable compared with the other countries where Ford is considering establishing a plant.
I remember when I was a training manager responsible, among other things, for the training of about 100 school leavers each year throughout the country. The trade unions renegotiated their rate of pay and sent us a communication to the effect that we would have to put up our trainees' salaries. We felt that we could not possibly do that, so the regional trade union leader came to see the managing director. I have never forgotten the scene. At the end of a long meeting, the trade union man and his team
664
walked along the corridor rubbing their hands, and he said, "Well, brothers, we screwed them into the ground, didn't we?"
We were left with no alternative. We were told that we would be blacked and that nobody would use our services if we did not pay the demanded rate. The young people: who worked for us had motor cars or motor cycles, dressed well, seemed reasonably happy with the money that they earned and enjoyed their recreation at the weekend with their girl friends.
The result was that we had to sack or give redundancy notices to 100 school leavers within a fortnight and, for years afterwards, we took on only about 20 school leavers a year. That was the trade unions doing something for their members. I vowed that I would get here so that I could do something to restore the balance. Since 1979, I have played my part in trade union reform. We have to restore the balance between management and the rights and privileges of those who work for a company.
I believe that there is a role for trade unions, but there must be teamwork with management. Unions should fight for the good of their members and give value for the membership fee. That has not happened in Scotland. It has been a complete disgrace.
The big fear is that other companies that have been thinking of investing in the United Kingdom will see that Ford has pulled out, and will say to themselves, "Ford is not silly. That firm knows what it is up to, and if it is not good enough for Ford, perhaps we should not come to the United Kingdom as we are proposing to do." I hope, however, that those companies do not think like that, and that the trade unions will knock their heads together round the table and say, "We must sort this out". These jobs are vital, not only to Dundee or to Scotland, but to the United Kingdom in general.
When I woke up this morning, switched on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 and heard the news that the trade union leaders were coming back with an empty bowl, I was very sad indeed. I am not being vindictive, or trying to make too great a political point; I am merely saying that the United Kingdom depends on sensible trade union leadership. Union leaders are paid enormous sums. They are given expenses, large office accommodation and often a very nice executive car. In return, they ought to be responsible — responsible for the interests of their members. That is what the members want, and that is why the Government have been intent on giving rights to trade union members. We have recognised that bad union leadership, like bad management, can sometimes be very costly.
We have given power to the parents in the Education Reform Bill; power to the council tenants to buy their houses; power to the consumers, with the privatisation of electricity. Now we have given power to the trade union members. It is terribly important to get this right. I do not wish to elevate my importance, but I hope that my small contribution will put out a hand of friendship to Ford. Ford will be loyally served in Dundee; it could not have chosen a better place. As for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State far Scotland, he could not have done more. Only the Opposition's embarrassment leads them to suggest that he did not do enough. That is dishonest politics. If the Opposition examine the history, they will find that my right hon. and learned Friend has been in there right from the off, battling to get plant into the United Kingdom.

665
Ford could do without the aggravation. The firm wants stability and continuity; it does not want plant shutdowns. If it comes here, it will want to get on with the job, and I think that it is entitled to that. In return, the TUC must meet and sort out the differences, and deliver a unanimous vote—not the silly voting that we have seen recorded—to allow Ford to come here and get on with the job.
I believe that Ford will still come, but it will want a lot more from the TUC, and if it does not come it will not be the Government's fault. The Government have a tremendous record for job creation. This was an instance of that, and it is sad to see it slipping away. I very much hope that Ford will reconsider.
12.3 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: The main theme of today's short debate has been neglect. Every hon. Member who has spoken has drawn attention to the Government's neglect of one aspect or another of our national life.
First, we heard about their neglect to put enough money and effort into the space programme. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) told us about the neglect by British Rail, because of short-term financial considerations, of the Ribblehead viaduct, which consequently endangers the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) followed that with a reference to the Government's neglect of the needs of air safety by not putting enough money into providing air traffic controllers with the technical equipment that they need to keep up with the increase in air traffic. In other words, there is obviously an absence of intelligent anticipation of what everyone knew was likely to happen.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) drew attention to the Government's neglect of the housing needs of some people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drew attention to the neglect of the needs of people relying on the National Health Service in his constituency and in inner London in general. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) drew attention to the neglect of the employment needs of people in the south-west. In particular, he stressed that there were not enough regional funds entering the area. It is always worth remembering that the south-west peninsula is one of the poorest, lowest paid areas in the EEC. Women's pay in the area is absolutely appalling and 164,000 people are out of work there. The area deserves a great deal of attention and it needs much more money from the Government's and the EEC's regional policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) drew attention to the horrifying events in Iraq and the treatment of the Kurdish people. He drew attention to the Government's neglect to do anything, make representations to provide an element of protection, or persuade the Iraqi Government to behave more humanely towards people living within their boundaries.
The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) drew attention to private sheltered accommodation for the elderly, which the Government have promoted, and to the Government's failure to anticipate the need for measures to ensure that old people were not conned rotten by people establishing private sheltered housing. Perhaps the basic law in that
666
regard is satisfactory, but I rather doubt it. If it is, the necessary codes of practice have not been drawn up, yet the Government have been promoting private residential accommodation since 1979. They should have made some progress with the codes of practice. I suspect that it would be better if they had used a little of the enormously long Housing Bill which is presently before the House to provide an element of protection for people living in sheltered homes for the elderly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred to our activities. It must be a question of self-neglect to the extent that there is anything wrong. We all know that there is quite a lot wrong with the terms and conditions of work in this place and with the facility to scrutinise the Government's activities. However, that is self-neglect. It is entirely our own fault that we do not have a better system of running this place at more reasonable hours.
Mr. Roger Knapman: I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and particularly his suggestion that there should be a trade union for Opposition Members. If the proposals were introduced does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) expect that the leader of that union would be elected for life, or would he be subjected to occasional competition?
Mr. Dobson: Members of Parliament are not elected for life. Unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should all be elected for life—which at this time might be a good idea for me, but not for anyone else—his proposal is not on.
One of our problems in considering our activities as a legislative body is that the whole matter is dominated by theorising from a not particularly observant Frenchman in the 18th century. He concluded that Britain was ruled under a system involving the separation of powers of the Executive from the legislature and from the judiciary. He failed to observe that the person who chairs the meetings of another place takes part in the legislature and is also head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet. That suggests that some observers of our constitutional scene have not been too bright, although they have managed to dominate the intellectual approach to Government for nearly 200 years.
The other problem is the failure to recognise that, provided the Government party has a substantial majority, the theory that the House of Commons controls the Executive is not true. The Executive controls the House of Commons unless there are marginal majorities of parties in the Commons.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On the Executive's control, does my hon. Friend know that the important decision in Brussels on agriculture and stabilisers is to be agreed by Her Majesty's Government next Monday and Tuesday in Brussels, but they have not yet arranged a debate on it? They should have done so before the recess. The Government have neglected to observe the spirit of the resolution of the House of Commons on 30 October 1980. There would have been time before this week was out for such a debate. Its lack is a constitutional loss to the powers of the House over Ministers.
Mr. Dobson: I agree that the House is not strong enough in relation to Ministers. In terms of the strength

667
of the House in relation to Ministers participating in the EEC's activities, it is weaker still. I make an offer to the Leader of the House: if he wants to make room for the debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggests and which would meet the requirements of past undertakings, the Labour party will happily forgo the debates proposed on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. That measure could be postponed or totally abandoned and there would be time to discuss that EEC matter next week.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who seems to have disappeared, referred to the decision of the Ford Motor Company not to go ahead with its plant in Dundee. There has been neglect there by the Government.
Mr. Harris: Nonsense.
Mr. Dobson: Since the Ford Motor Company said that it would not build the plant there, the only action taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland has been to go round, in and out of the House, denouncing the trade unions. So far as I know, he has not said a single word to the Ford Motor Company to ask the company to reconsider its decision. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were serious about getting that plant in Dundee, he could have gone with the people from the TUC to the United States to discover whether an agreement could be reached.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way.
It is unlikely that what has happened with this plant will have any effect on inward investment by other companies. Not many other companies already have 20 plants in this country and a recognition agreement that applies to those and to any future plants, and then want to say, "We want to open one plant that is entirely outside those national arrangements." The Government should sort out whether they are in favour of single-union agreements. After all, this Government wished two unions on the Nottingham coalfields. They say that they want a no-union agreement at GCHQ. They have insisted that the negotiating bodies recognise organisations such as the Professional Association of Teachers in the existing negotiating machinery. There has been considerable Government neglect in all the spheres mentioned this morning, including neglect by the Secretary of State for Scotland in sticking up for the interests of Scottish people and the people of Dundee concerning the Ford plant.
I shall raise another point which relates to neglect. It was raised indirectly by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who mentioned the state of the Health Service in inner London. I have to declare an interest in that most of the area that I represent is covered by the Bloomsbury health authority, which has the longest hospital waiting list in the country. This year, its income falls short of its expenditure by no less than £4 million, and it is estimated that next year the shortfall will be £5 million.
As a result of that shortfall, the health authority is contemplating closing the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Harrow and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital for women, which was saved partly as a result of intervention by the Prime Minister. Last week, it
668
considered, as an alternative way to save those enormous sums of money, closing all its hospitals for all purposes save emergency admissions. At present, the Bloomsbury health authority is spending more than £1 million a month on hiring expensive agency staff because the pay, accommodation and living standards that it can offer its own staff mean that people will not work for it.
Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the major problems for Health Service staff throughout inner London is the extraordinarily high cost of purchasing property or acquiring private rented accommodation and the loss of nurses' accommodation because of the asset-stripping activities of a number of health authorities? Does he agree that the Government must address the urgent problem of accommodation for NHS staff as it is more important that they, rather than a bunch of yuppies, should be in inner London.
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency newly qualified nurses earn about £4,500 a year. A privately rented one-bedroom flat in my constituency costs about £100 a week, and that is for a very rundown one bedroom flat. In some parts of my constituency there are one-bedroom flats for sale for more than £95,000. Can the Leader of the House suggest how a newly qualified nurse from the Middlesex hospital or the University College hospital training schools can continue to stay in the area and try to provide a service for people who live in my area or who come from outside for treatment.
I have a copy of a letter from the professor of medicine at University College hospital medical school to one of his patients. In addition to being the professor of medicine, he is also an active clinician. He says:
"Present Government policy n this field is dominated by the determination to save money. It will either continue the serious underfunding which has led to a worsening series of crises in the hospital sector over the last two or three years, or will shift much of the cost for the Health Service away from direct taxation, which would mean that availability of health care would depend on each person's ability to pay. The option of increasing direct financial support of the NHS to the level that other European countries find necessary has been discounted by the Government, apparently as this would threaten its plan to reduce the top level of income tax."
The professor has to live with the daily consequences of turning patients away as he and his colleagues cannot deal with them because of the massive shortage of funds in that area. That epitomises the neglect and the lack of foresight, anticipation and investment that has characterised the comments expressed in all today's speeches.
We should remember that this is in a country where, for the past eight years, we have had the bonus of North sea oil. That oil has brought profits, bumped up Government revenue by more than £60,000 million and made it relatively unnecessary to buy oil from abroad. It has been like a continual pools win for the economy and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in any country with a sensible Government that one-off, golden windfall would have been invested in the future in plant and equipment, education and training and research and development.
But under this Government the money has been squandered. Far from increasing investment in manufacturing industry, investment is still down on 1979 levels. Since 1979, our share of the world market in manufactured goods has decreased by 20 per cent. Our manufacturers'

669
share of the home market is down by 30 per cent. compared with 1979. Our imports have increased by 50 per cent.
Mr. Harris: Dundee will not help.
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is so perturbed about 400 jobs in Dundee—
Mr. Harris: The figure is 1,000.
Mr. Dobson: No. If hon. Members check carefully, they will find that 400 jobs are at risk—[Interruption.] I will concede the figure of 1,000. How many Conservative Members have protested about the proposal of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to buy coal from abroad? That would put far more people out of work in the Scottish coalfield. If they are worried about jobs in Scotland, they should be worried about all jobs in Scotland.
Despite the benefits of North sea oil, we have the biggest trade deficit in our history. A country that was once the workshop of the world has become the warehouse of the world, importing for the first time ever more manufactured goods than we export. Our young people are the worst trained anywhere in the developed world. We are just about used to our young people not getting the sort of training that is available in Germany, France or Holland, but now they are not getting the training that is available to young people in Taiwan and Korea. Yet the Government believe that we can compete—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh at the idea that young people in Taiwan and Korea get better industrial training than our youngsters, but it is a fact and we shall suffer in the end.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) mentioned science. Our scientists have been starved of funds for research into space, information technology and agriculture. Even medical research has been cut. It used to be said that one of the great British embarrassments was that we invented all sorts of things but did not develop them ourselves and they were developed by industries abroad. The Government seem to have established a think tank and have come up with an idea to get rid of the embarrassment. Their answer is not to improve our development of inventions but to stop the inventors inventing them in the first place. That is an absurd way to get out of bother.
The Government have no long-term plans for anything other than filling the pockets and feathering the nests of their friends. The country is suffering now, and will suffer more in the future.
12.22 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): No one seems to be against our taking a few days' holiday, and the whole House will have shared in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to John Silkin, whose last speech in the House was in the equivalent debate a year ago. He was a wise man, a tough politician and a great exponent of what are known by some as the black arts of the usual channels, but I can say from my experience that when he did a deal he stuck to it, in the highest traditions of the House.
It seems a long time since Christmas. We have made good progress with our legislation—
Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has already taken up some of my time. If I am to reply to the debate, the hon. Gentleman should sit there quietly and let me get on with it.
Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In rightly paying tribute to John Silkin, the Leader of the House said that the former right hon. Member never went back on bargains into which he had entered. There seemed to be some suggestion that I might have done so, and I would like to make it clear that I have not.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman in any way, shape or form. He seems to be a little sensitive about this, but there is no such suggestion. I was just saying that John Silkin, the former right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, was a man of the highest integrity. He was Chief Whip of the former Labour Government through difficult times and had a high reputation for sticking to his word. I would have thought that that was acceptable to all hon. Members.
We have had some good speeches raising many national, international and constituency issues. The only time that the debate became heated was when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) got a bit excited about Dundee, but I can understand his embarrassment about that. I will do my best to reply to all the points that have been made. I do not have much time, so I will do so as quickly as I can. If I have not answered all the points, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made a strong case for the United Kingdom's participation in the optional programmes of the European Space Agency. Space plays a part in the development of Britain's science and technology base and can lead to profitable economic activity, but we have to balance the long term benefits of investment in space projects with investment in other industries and technologies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 10 February announced that we would not be joining the polar platform programme in its proposed form. However, since then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said, there have been discussions between the European Space Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration about modifications to the configuration of the polar platform. We are reconsidering our position and I shall see to it that my hon. Friend's views are passed to my right hon. and learned Friend so that they are properly taken into account before any final decision is made.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), not for the first time, and not even for the first time this week, raised the question of the Settle to Carlisle railway. Whatever the outcome, it could not have had a better and more persistent supporter than the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is actively considering British Rail's closure case. It is a complex case needing careful consideration and he hopes to make an announcement soon. The recent Jarvis plc report is a helpful contribution to the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take it fully into account.

671
Local authorities have said that they will be able to help with the cost of repairs to the Ribblehead viaduct, but they will be confirming the position after a meeting in Carlisle on 12 April. The Government cannot guarantee that any particular local authority contribution will be enough to save the line. There has been some private sector interest, but no one has offered to buy the line. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's points, and I will see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sees them before he makes his decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) raised what was both an important constituency interest and an important national interest—Manchester airport. This is a major airport and it continues to have what many people would consider to be a phenomenal growth— by about 15 per cent. in 1987 over 1986, with 8·5 million passengers a year. Since 1986, 30 new scheduled services have used the airport and now it is possible to travel to over 70 destinations from Manchester. The Government were disappointed that agreement was not reached at the talks with the United States delegation on 17 to 18 March to discuss increased access for United States airlines to Manchester. The contacts are being maintained and it is hoped that an agreement will eventually be achieved. My hon. Friend's strong words will encourage everybody to recognise that the travelling public, particularly those engaged in commerce and business, should be considered, and we should not take a narrow and restricted view of the matter.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) raised matters to do with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I listened carefully to him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches great importance to the maintenance of a housing programme in Northern Ireland, but it must compete with other priority programmes for resources within the overall Northern Ireland public expenditure programme. I noted his careful analysis of the problem in his constituency and I shall see to it that the Secretary of State understands and studies the points he made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) raised a series of questions about his part of the world, and I would not disagree with his view that they are important, although I might slightly disagree with the way in which he managed to exclude Essex from the east coast of Britain. Coastal protection there is an important issue to my constituents, and I have received a number of representations trying to improve it. I tread carefully here because my wife was born in Norfolk and many members of my family live in Suffolk.
The key to many of the transport problems that my hon. Friend raised about East Anglia is the M11-A11-A47 route to Great Yarmouth. Fifteen schemes from the M11 are currently planned or have been recently completed, to a value of £130 million. They will result in three-quarters of the route being dual carriageway by the early 1990s. At the London end, we have proposals for the Hackney—M11 link road, a £125 million scheme that will enable quicker access to the centre. I am sure that my hon. Friend will keep pressing us, but we are making good progress with some of the problems he raised.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised many questions about the Health Service, and in the few minutes that I have he would not expect a full answer to them all. However, I refer him to Wednesday's announcement by the Minister for Health,
672
which was another sign of the Government's concern to improve services in the inner cities. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on 24 February that, provided the various review bodies' reports were received during the first part of April, the Government would hope to announce the decision on nurses' pay by the end of that month. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot anticipate the Government's decision on the reports, but I repeat our pledge that we shall implement them unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised a number of important.issues. All journalists should read what he said about the difficult situation in Northern Ireland. Everyone, including the media, must do all that they can to assist the RUC to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes of last week.
I have taken on board my hon. Friend's points about the EEC's structure plan, which I shall refer to the Secretary of State. I shall also refer to him the point my hon. Friend made about local authorities such as his, which are behaving perfectly properly but getting caught up in the necessary restrictions that the Government have had to bring in on creative accounting. I am sure that the Government do not intend to stop activities of councils such as the one in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the other day about this matter.
I do not always agree with everything that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) says in the House, and I did not agree with everything he said today but I agreed with much of it. He rightly raised matters that are of concern to every decent person in the world and which relate to some of the terrible things happening in the middle east. I share his concern about the use of chemical weapons. Over a long period the British Government have sought to eliminate their use.
The Government remain deeply concerned about the continuation of the Iran-lraq conflict and the tense situation in the Gulf. We are particularly dismayed at the loss of life of so many innocent civilians as a result of the "war of the cities". We have played a leading role in the United Nations and are currently working closely with other Security Council permanent members on an arms embargo to enforce compliance, should this be necessary.
As I said to the hon. Gentleman yesterday, I have a deal of sympathy for the early-day motion that he drew to my attention about the plight of Kurdish people in Iraq. I deplore the denial of human rights wherever it occurs arid the difficulties faced by the International Red Cross in trying to get there to give humanitarian assistance to the people who are suffering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised a matter that started as a constituency problem, but he was right to bring it to the attention of the House. It is about the provision of sheltered housing for the elderly. The Government welcome the discussions that are taking place about establishing a trade association and a code of practice to help elderly people who are contemplating taking on properties in sheltered housing schemes. We support such moves and think that success will best be achieved by the self imposition of a code of practice by the industry and the dissemination of information rather than

673
by the use of legislation. By raising the matter my hon. Friend has done the House a service. The hon. Member for—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 31st March, do adjourn until Tuesday 12th April and, at its rising on Friday 29th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd May; and the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 31st March until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Court of First Instance
12.35 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8770/87 on the establishment of a Court of First Instance; endorses the view that the setting up of this Court is necessary to relieve the Court of Justice of some of its workload; and supports the Government's intention to work for the early adoption and implementation of the proposal.
The motion deals with the setting up of a new court for the European Communities. In order to set this proposal in its context, it is helpful to look at the work so far of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. I shall take a few moments for a historical look at that before turning to the details of the proposal. I shall refer generally to the court's work under the treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, not forgetting that the court has separate jurisdictions under the Coal and Steel treaty and under Euratom.
The European Communities are based on law, which is established by a treaty, which is not simply an agreement among sovereign states, but which has created for those who live and work in its 12 member nations a new legal framework. That is the Law of the Communities, and it is superimposed upon, overlaps, and to some extent remoulds, the law of the individual member states. The authors of the treaties rightly saw that one cannot create a new supra-national legal order without providing a means whereby those new laws are to be interpreted and enforced. It was to this end that a wholly new court was created, the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
That court has three principal areas of jurisdiction and they are very important. First, at the instance of the Commission, or of a member state, the court may declare that a member state has failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaty of Rome. Secondly, it may review the Acts of the Community institutions— the Council, the Commission and the Parliament—and it may declare them void. In other words, the court has power of what we would in Britain term judicial review over the actions not only of member states, but of the institutions of the Community itself.
The court has a third role, and this is the interpretation of Community law at the request of the national courts where a question of Community law arises in the course of domestic litigation. That, one might say, is the link between the private litigant and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
I should mention two other areas of jurisdiction that come into the discussion of the jurisdiction proposed for the new court. The Court of Justice has to deal—this has proved time-consuming — with disputes between officials of the Communities and their employers—the so-called staff cases. It also deals with cases where the Community itself is sued in damages for non-contractual liability. A good example is the case of Mr. Stanley Adams, which is a well-known illustration of that type of case.
In fulfilling its obligations under the treaties the Court of Justice has been at the centre of the development of Community law. It might be said that it has acted as the flywheel in the Community engine, maintaining the

675
development of the Communities, despite an occasional misfiring in the political mechanism. It has developed a number of fundamental principles, not expressly found in the treaties, providing for or safeguarding the rights of individuals and corporations. Among these principles, and perhaps the most important, is the concept of direct effect—that is the idea or concept that certain provisions of Community law create rights on which individuals can reply and which they can enforce in their national courts, even in the absence of implementing measures apparently required to be taken by member states.
Also well known are the principle of proportionality — that is, the means to achieve a particular objective should be proportional, they should be no more than is necessary to obtain that end — and the principle of legitimate expectation—a concept that now finds a place in our own domestic law of judicial review.
The court's work has been fundamental to the functioning of the Community. It may be asked, "Why is it necessary now to transfer part of the court's own jurisdiction to another court?" The answer lies partly in the increasing role played by Community law in the affairs of everybody in the Communities, and partly in the fact that the Community itself has been enlarged to double the size of its original membership. The result has, of course, been increasing difficulty for the court, as presently constituted, to cope with its enlarged work load. In 1970, for example, the number of cases of all kinds that were brought to the court was only 79. In 1985 that had risen to an absolute peak of 433, although the rise may more representatively be seen by the figures for 1986 and 1987, which were 329 and 395 repectively.
The court has done its best by adapting its procedures to deal with that increasing work load. In 1970, 64 judgments were delivered. Fifteen years later that number had increased to no fewer than 211 judgments. However, it is clear that the court has been falling behind and that has shown up in delays between the commencement of a case and the time of judgment.
In article 177 cases, those where questions are referred by national courts, that delay is now averaging 15 months, while in other kinds of cases the average is 21 months. In this, as in so many other legal areas, it can properly be said, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for volunteering those periods. Is he saying that when a case is thus referred under article 177 the British domestic court—whatever level is may be—adjourns the case for a period either side of the average that he mentioned—some, of course, will be longer than that—and reconvenes the case to give judgment only after the receipt of the opinion, which may be well over 24 months later?
The Solicitor-General: Yes, indeed. That highlights the problem and the danger of justice delayed being justice denied for those in our domestic courts, whose issues raise questions upon which the treaty and the law of the Community bear. This increasingly difficult position has been evident for several years and everyone agrees, as the hon. Gentleman's intervention makes clear, that it is unacceptable. A number of ideas have been floated to resolve the problem, but none came to fruition until, during the negotiations leading to the Single European Act, the Court of Justice proposed the creation of a court
676
to be attached to it and to act as a Court of First Instance. This was agreed and the provisions were incorporated into the Community treaties by the Single European Act.
The relevant provision from the EEC treaty is in article 168A, and reads:
"At the request of the Court of Justice and after consulting the Commission and the European Parliament, the Council may, acting unanimously, attach to the Court of Justice a Court with jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance, subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only and in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Statute, certain classes of action or proceeding brought by natural or legal persons. That Court shall not be competent to hear and determine actions brought by Member States or by Community Institutions or questions referred for preliminary ruling under Article 177."
The remaining paragraphs provide for amendment of the statute of the Court of Justice, the appointment of members of the new court, and establishment of rules of procedure for the new court.
Thus, the Single European Act does not itself set up a Court of First Instance, but confers power on the Council to do so. Furthermore, it confines the potential jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to proceedings brought by natural or legal persons, thus excluding from it actions brought by member states or Community institutions and references from national courts under article 177. Subject to these limitations, however, it is left to the Council to determine the precise scope of the Court of First Instance's jurisdiction
To complete the history, hon. Members may recall that the ratification of the Single European Act was delayed by court proceedings in the Republic of Ireland. Nevertheless, pending ratification, the court presented an informal draft proposal for consideration by the Council. It was this informal proposal that was considered by the European. Communities Committee in another place, but the Committee was also able to take account of the formal proposal presented to the Council in October.
May I remind the House briefly of the conclusions reached by that Committee:
"The establishment of a Court of First Instance broadly on the lines proposed by the Court of Justice could provide a major step to solving the endemic problems experienced by that Court: inadequate time and judge power for fact finding processes and an excessive workload. Given a judiciary of high calibre and flexible procedures, the new Court should improve the administration of justice and take a considerable load off the Court of Justice."
So we now have a formal proposal for the establishment of the Court of First Instance. Subject to some relatively minor points both of substance and of drafting, the Government welcome the proposal.
In considering the proposal it is important to appreciate that no new jurisdiction is being proposed. The treaties do not permit this. What article 168A does enable is the transfer of a part of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to the new court, but with the provision for appeals to the Court of Justice on points of law. Secondly, there is no creation of a new institution. There will be a new court, but, as article 168A makes clear, that new court is attached to the existing Court of Justice. Essentially the proposal is to provide a redistribution of the existing jurisdiction and work load of the Court of Justice with a view to speeding up justice.
The proposal itself is in the form of a draft Council decision including amendments to the statute of the Court of Justice, and additional rules of procedure for the hearing of appeals from the Court of First Instance.

677
Article 2 of the draft decision deals with the composition of the new court and provides for seven judges. While this has its attractions from the point of view of economy, it is not likely to be acceptable. The Government recognise the importance of there being represented in the court the juridicial traditions of all the member states and have therefore suggested — in line with the report made in another place — that the court should consist of 12 members.
There is no provision in the draft for advocates general. The Government believe that the provision of advocates general would generally be unnecessary and would also increase the time for the court to deal with cases. However, it is possible that there might be some cases where the services of an advocate general would be desirable: for instance, in a long and difficult competition case an advocate general could assist the court considerably in teasing out the strands for the benefit of the court. So it may be appropriate for advocates general to be appointed from among the judges of the Court of First Instance on an ad hoc basis.
The Court of Justice has proposed that the new court should always sit in chambers and that each chamber should be composed of three judges. The Government agree that there seems no real purpose in providing for the court to sit in plenary session, but there is a case for allowing flexibility in composition so that, when appropriate, the court could decide to select a chamber larger than three. In particular we consider that competition cases should normally be heard by chambers of five judges.
The jurisdiction of the new court is set out in article 3 of the draft decision. It is to deal with competition, antidumping and steel matters and also with certain non-contractual liability claims and with staff cases. It is clearly right to remove from the Court of Justice the burden of staff cases. The other categories are suitable for transfer, in particular, because they often call for detailed and time-consuming investigation of questions of fact which, because of the pressures of other business, the Court of Justice has not always been able to handle satisfactorily. On points of law there will be a right to go the Court of Justice on appeal. As I have mentioned, cases brought by member states or the Community institutions — as opposed to private individuals or corporations — and cases in which questions are referred by national courts will continue to be dealt with by the Court of Justice alone.
The jurisdiction proposed could be wider than that now proposed, with the aim of relieving the European Court of Justice of part of its case load to the maximum extent possible in one step, though it must be borne in mind that the extent of the jurisdiction cannot exceed the limits set down in article 168A of the treaty. But what is proposed is, in the Government's view, about right as a first, and substantial, step. We would expect the Court of Justice to keep this matter under review and, if experience shows that other classes of case could with advantage be heard at first instance, to bring forward a further proposal to amend the scope of the new court's jurisdiction.
If the objective of relieving the work load of the Court of Justice is to be achieved, the judgments of the Court of First Instance need to be of a high quality and so command respect. This will help to minimise the number of appeals on points of law from that court to the Court
678
of Justice and will also facilitate the handling of the appeals that are made. It is therefore essential that the members of the new court should be of the highest calibre. The Government consider that it may be appropriate to provide for a Council minutes statement pointing out that all member states have agreed on the importance of this point. We have made a proposal to this effect in the Council working group, which is it.
The remainder of the proposal consists of additions to the statute of the Court of Justice and its rules of procedure providing for the circumstances in which an appeal lies and how it is to be made. The Government are pleased to note that article 48(3) of the statute provides for a right of appeal for member states and the Community institutions whether or not they took part in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. This is important, as it represents a change from the court's informal draft proposal. The Government consider this matter to be important, since there could be a decision of the Court of First Instance with which the parties to the case itself were content but which raised a point of Community law of wider application which a member state would see the need to contest.
The proposal does not deal with the rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance. Under article 168A of the treaty, these rules will be established by the new court when it comes into existence. However, the rules require the agreement of the Court of Justice and also the unanimous approval of the Council. The House will therefore have a full opportunity to scrutinise the proposals for those rules.
I shall not detain the House on drafting points, except to mention two matters where the present draft in English hides a possible point of substance and which, in any event, only serves to confuse. The first point relates to article 113 of the additions to the rules of procedure, which concerns the order that a party may seek on appeal to the Court of Justice. This speaks of "conclusions" and "grounds" which a party must "maintain" in his appeal. What is apparently intended to be achieved by these provisions is that the appeal should involve the same subject matter and cause of action as did the hearing before the Court of First Instance. In other words, an appellant should not seek to mount an entirely different case on appeal. That must be right and the Government are seeking to refine the English draft more accurately to reflect that idea.
The second point arises out of article 120 of the additions to the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice and relates to oral hearings. The opportunity for the parties to urge and reinforce their case by oral argument is of great importance in the United Kingdom's systems of law. The court modified its informal proposal to the extent that the court now proposes that an oral procedure will be dispensed with only where the parties have, had a full opportunity to state their points of view in the written procedure. This must be right.
We have, I am glad to say, persuaded the court to accept a further amendment to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to make representations as to whether they would like an oral hearing before the court decides whether to hold one. The parties should by the close of pleadings at the appeal stage have had ample opportunity to set out their submissions and meet the submissions of the other parties, but they should nevertheless be able to

679
seek a hearing when appropriate. We believe that the Court of Justice now accepts this and that an appropriate provision will be added to the proposal.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. and learned Friend regard that as something new? He said that the individuals concerned may apply for the right to an oral hearing. Does he regard that as entirely satisfactory?
The Solicitor-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point. We regard it as the best compromise that we could achieve. I have already emphasised the importance of the oral tradition in English proceedings. Initially, the proposals to allow an oral hearing were more restrictive. We have made some progress and it will be possible for the parties to urge forcefully on the court the desirability of an oral hearing before the court decides to dispense with one. Although that does not provide an absolute right to an oral hearing, it is a significant improvement.
There are many other rather more technical points, and if any hon. Member wishes to raise any particular concern on the technical aspects, I would be very grateful if he or she would write to me, but I hope that I have made clear the general thrust of the proposal.
Mr. David Martin: I have not yet heard a definition of who is a natural and legal person. I am sure that anyone who appeared before the court would have a great shock if he was told that he was unnatural and illegal. Will my hon. and learned Friend tell us to whom that definition applies?
The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will he comforted to know that he is a natural and legal person and so, as it happens, is a corporation. I hope that that will assist him for the time being.
To sum up, the Government welcome this proposal. We believe that it will improve the speed and quality of the administration of justice in the Community. We are participating actively in the Council working group with a view to resolving the remaining drafting difficulties, and we are doing all that we can to ensure that the Court of First Instance is established at the earliest opportunity. I commend the motion to the House.
12.58 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I had expected to hear a contribution from this side of the House, but 1 am pleased to follow the Solicitor-General, who introduced the motion. Although it is concerned with the extension of the European Court of Justice to a Court of First Instance, it gives us an opportunity to review the work of the court from which it springs and the need for it.
Those matters have been outlined by the Solicitor-General. In his initial remarks, he emphasised the superimposition on the institutions and courts of this country of the decisions of the European Court of Justice. We have had a relatively dramatic example of that recently in respect of spectacles, and we expect a fairly controversial judgment in the next few months.
The Select Committee on European Legislation summarised the proposals for an extension to a Court of First Instance in its report, HC43-VIII. As the Solicitor-General said, the other place did a more extensive investigation. Its report — House of Lords 20, in the Session 1987–88—goes into even greater detail, including witnesses' comments and more history of the court. There
680
is the Government's explanatory memorandum signed on 23 November 1988 by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. EEC document 8770/87 is in the form of a draft decision, and I take it that it is that base document in respect of which the working party to which the Solicitor-General referred is dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
This development springs from the Single European Act, which will become better known than when it was debated two years ago under one of the most stringent guillotines ever seen in the House — and that on a constitutional matter. The contents page of the Single European Act, as published in Cmnd. 9758, are scrutinised in vain for any reference to the establishment of the Court of First Instance. The provisions are interlarded into Single European Act articles 4, 11 and 26, which write subsidiary articles into the main treaty of Rome arid expand on the three communities to which the Solicitor-General referred, inserting the relevant paragraphs relating to the powers of the Court of First Instance.
The treaty of Rome, as originally adhered to by Britain, is printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but it has not yet managed to print the treaty as amended by the Single European Act. A few weeks ago, I had a letter from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office telling me that that is indeed so. I regard the delay as unfortunate, unnecessary and semi-constitutional. The Single European Act came into effect last summer after a delay, and I should not have thought that it was beyond the wit of man for the presses to have been set up some time ago and for the consolidated law, which applies as a written constitution to the United Kingdom, to have been printed.
A volume has been produced in Europe, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House would not regard that as a satisfactory solution to an increasingly important matter.
What I have said so far is fully compatible with my being Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but anything that I say henceforth will not be in that capacity but by way of personal comment. The establishment of the Court of First Instance, though it is only an extension of the existing court, marks an extension of the constitutional role of the EEC in the life of our country and the degree to which its findings and recourse to it will be important for corporations and other courts. It will not perhaps be so important for individuals.
In response to an intervention of mine a few moments ago, the Solicitor-General confirmed the degree of delay. In an answer given to me yesterday, which can be found in column 181 of the Official Report for 24 March, the Foreign Office listed no fewer than 23 occasions on which the Commission has taken the United Kingdom Government to court. In column 177, the Attorney-General said that since accession to the treaty of Rome the House of Lords has had to seek an opinion from the European Court of Justice on six occasions, the Court of Appeal on six and other courts of the land on no fewer than 64.
Although the Court of First Instance may not be fully involved—as we have heard from the Solicitor-General, it is not involved in article 177 consultation—that at least shows the importance of the institution. The court does not only give verdicts when we have been party, or there has been an appeal or at least a reference from our own courts. There is, I understand, a growing body of case

681
law in which different firms or organisations — or, indeed, different states—are involved in the European Court of Justice, and the findings of that court are applicable to us through case law, just as case law in our own courts has been applicable to jurisdiction subsequently. The European Court of Justice is important for that reason alone.
I do not know whether any organisation other than the commercial publishers—I shall not name them; they are very well known—is producing volumes of case law from the European Court of Justice. No doubt the Court of First Instance will be producing some of its own, and the House should pay some attention to the increasing documentation that will result.
Another consequence of the European Court's jurisdiction is the importance of determining cases on article base. We are becoming used to operating within a written constitution—or perhaps we are not becoming used to it, as the case may be. If we are not becoming used to it, we must do so pretty quickly, because it runs counter to most of our instincts and assumptions in Parliament, and those of Ministers in Whitehall.
A current instance of great importance relating to the Court of Justice lies in the interpretation of the treaties, and the question of which articles should be taken into account as the basis of law. That is particularly important in regard to articles 100 and 100A, which are important for the harmonisation to which we move as we approach 1992. Article 100, as it stands and as it was, requires unanimity for matters of harmonisation; article 100A, as introduced by the Single European Act, requires only majority voting. It may be asked why, as virtually everyone agreed with that, it cannot be speeded up. The point at issue is whether a particular matter should be regarded as a matter of harmonisation according to the aims of 1992—in which case jurisdiction should be based on article 100A—or whether it is a matter outside harmonisation for the purposes of achieving a common market, and should be based on some other article of the treaty, perhaps agricultural or industrial, or indeed, on article 100.
There is, of course, a big difference. If the court determines that the article used should be 100A, then the House, the nation and indeed the courts will be subject to a majority vote; whereas if it is subject to article 100 or article 99 — which, as the Prime Minister has often reminded us, deals with matters of taxation — it is a matter of unanimity. Perhaps those matters will not arise in the Court of First Instance. I think that they probably will not. However, it is important when considering the powers and responsibilities of the European Court of Justice that those matters are made clear.
There may be problems over a topical subject such as summer time and its dates and hours. Some people might argue that jurisdiction on that matter should be based on article 100A. In that case, a majority view must prevail in the Council of Ministers to which this nation, House and people will be subject. On the other hand, it might be contended, no doubt by the Government, that other articles are more appropriate because the case involves matters of social and economic affairs as well as harmonisation. In that case, the determination would be consequential upon unanimity and the agreement of the Government, possibly with debates and decisions in this House. If in due course the European Court of Justice has
682
to make an adjudication not on the merits of the matter, but on the basis of the article on which a decision is made, the powers of the House and the Government may or may not be circumscribed.
Another matter in relation to the European Court of Justice about which the House should be aware is the appropriate juncture at which to bring it to the attention of the House. I want to consider the responsibility of the court to make judgments in accordance with the treaties. That is a sine qua non of the situation. People may not be aware of the fact that, unlike our statutes, where a court must take account only of the sections of the relevant Act, the European Court of Justice takes into account the context in which treaties have been made. It therefore takes into account when interpreting argument the preamble of the treaties concerned.
We are aware that the European Communities are essentially a centralist organisation. I want to put on record some of the criteria that the European Court of Justice would need to take into account when reaching a decision. There are a number of preambles to the treaties, not least that to the Treaty of Rome. The most recent preamble, the preamble to the Single European Act, contains two paragraphs which should be placed in the Official Report. First:
"Convinced that the European idea, the results achieved in the fields of economic integration and political cooperation, and the need for new developments correspond to the wishes of the democratic peoples of Europe, for whom the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage. is an indispensable means of expression."
In other words, the expression of view by the European Parliament should be taken into account in the interpretation of treaties.
I should explain that I am not quoting from the whole of the preamble, but simply from the final two paragraphs. The second paragraph states:
"Determined to improve the economic and social situation by extending common policies and pursuing new objectives, and to ensure a smoother functioning of the Communities by enabling the Institutions to exercise their powers under conditions most in keeping with the Community interests. Whereas at their Conference in Paris from 19 to 21 October 1972 the Heads of State or of Government approved the objective of the progressive realisation of Economic and Monitary Union."
That is a second area in which the criteria of judgment of the European Court of Justice at any level will have to refer and on which it will ultimately have to depend.
I should also emphasise a point which I believe was mentioned by the Solicitor-General with regard to the nature of the European Court of Justice. The court is not adversarial. It is not in general a place where cross-questioning takes place or where witnesses appear. As I have understood and observed it, it is a court in which argument is made on points of law by depositions of papers, usually preliminary to any oral hearing, and that is normal in continental practice. I make no complaint about it in terms of the task that the European Court of Justice has to fulfil in respect of its constitutional interpretation of treaties.
Whereas dealing with technical opinion and the witnessing of experts is common in our courts, I surmise that that will not apply to the Court of First Instance. It will mirror decisions, with simplifications and without the opinion of, for example, the Advocate-General. It will, I hope, speed up the process. If the range of cases with which the new court deals involve great technical detail and

683
witnesses, I am not convinced that the paper method, used by the existing European Court of Justice, will necessarily be adequate to do what the Solicitor-General said was its aim—to see that justice is done, swiftly and adequately.
The Lords report touches on this matter to some extent, but I am not convinced that the new court will do its task to the extent that we would wish. The rules will be drawn up by the European Court of Justice. The treaties give the European Court of Justice the power to originate proposals for its extension. That was agreed—wisely or unwisely—some time ago by the House. I should have no objection to those who run the existing court saying to the Council or the Commission, "We suggest that we expand our activities in this, that or the other way." That is consultation and would be acceptable. To require the existing Court of Justice to provide the draft of the decision—in other words, to write the Bill for its own future expansion — and to give the framework for its activity, is outwith, to use an old-fashioned but well-known phrase, the experience, tradition and expectations of our constitutional development.
This is instanced by the fact that consultative document 8770/87 is
"from: Mr. A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities."
It is almost like a new legal Bill coming before the House, having been drafted and presented by the Lord Chief Justice. We must be aware of that aspect and of the general manner in which the Court of Justice operates. There must be observation of how the court works.
I have referred to the probable increase in the scope of the court's work load. I concede that the articles relating to the Court of First Instance do not expand the court's jurisdiction, but the Single European Act certainly increases the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, because it significantly extends the European Community's scope and powers into matters concerning the environment, economic and social cohesion and defence procurement, which involves Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-operation, although I think that that is less likely to feature in a legal case.
Therefore, by automatic escalation, the scope of the European Court of Justice, not just the Court of First Instance, must also expand. That is where matters of detail, witnessing and argument may cause some difficulties. In future people may look back with some astonishment to the fact that the matter was taken on a quiet Friday, and that the original intention of the Government was that it should be discussed in Committee.
The amount of legislation which is creeping up the creeks and estuaries of Britain from across the water is growing daily. The areas of our social, domestic and economic life into which that legislation is penetrating are increasing. It is clear that not only will the scope and activity of the European Court of Justice increase and loom larger in our national life, but by definition so will the activities of the court that we are discussing today.
1.21 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The only obvious thing about these proceedings is that very few hon. Members wish to talk about this issue. I have only a few brief questions for the Minister after his courteous and helpful speech.
Perhaps the Table will give some consideration to the formula of the papers which are presented for debate and
684
perhaps at some later stage will decide whether any rules have been breached. I draw attention to the explanatory note to article 120 which has been referred to by the Minister. It includes some very long foreign words which do not mean a great deal to me. I have never experienced this before in the House, and I wonder whether it is strictly in order or whether it is a precedent for long foreign words which have no meaning to the great majority of people who do not have a widespread knowledge of foreign words to appear in official papers presented to the House for discussion and which will affect almost all our constituents. I do not expect more than general guidance, but I hope that the Table will consider whether is in order that long foreign words which the majority of people simply do not understand should be inserted in papers which are directly relevant to our discussions.
The Minister is always extremely courteous and he is an extremely good Solicitor-General. I should like him to comment briefly on a number of questions. He has expressed hope, expectation and optimism about the operation of the new court. He has explained that the European Court of Justice it getting busier. I am well aware from my research that, for example, the number of cases brought before the European Court of Justice has risen from 79 in 1970 to 329 in 1986. The number of cases brought each year has more than doubled from 200 in 1979 to more than 400 in 1985. We are also aware of the increase in expenditure. About £3 million has been added to the annual budget of the court by the creation of this new mini-court.
First, is the Minister aware, is he worried and is he concerned about the fact that Ministers, including himself, regularly come before the House to give optimistic and hopeful indications about future policy in relation to the Common Market, and in almost every case those expectations and hopes sadly are not accurate. For example, we were told by the Government and by the Civil Service that Fontainebleau would reduce the United Kingdom's net contribution. So far we have had three revisions of that figure, yet this year, despite all the hopeful conclusions, our net contribution is the highest ever and is still rising.
In previous debates, hopeful statements were made about Britain's trade with the EEC, and documents were presented for consideration by the House which we were told would improve the position. But our trade with the EEC in manufactures is the worst in history, with a net deficit of more than £11,000 million — something that could have an effect on the Government's economic policies.
Recently the Prime Minister came before the House with the results of a European Community discussion which she said would have a marked effect on agricultural spending, yet in the past few weeks agricultural spending has rocketed, exports from the EEC are cheaper than ever and we are flooding the Soviet Union with butter at 6p a pound and beef at 11p a pound. I am not being critical, especially of this most courteous and helpful Solicitor-General, who has an extremely good reputation in Government, but I suggest that in presenting this document Ministers should be suspicious about the optimistic noises that are made about the limited effects of the measure.
The Solicitor-General said, and gave me a kindly look in so doing, that the court will not create a new jurisdiction. On reflection, does he not consider that by

685
offering new facilities for making decisions on complex matters he is extending the operation and jurisdiction of the institution of the EEC? He will be aware that, apart from the many cases that are presented to the court, even during the past few days many problems affecting the details of Government policy have been caused because of possible applications to the court. I mention only a few.
The other day, the unfortunate Secretary of State for Enterprise, as I think he is now called, was summoned by the Commission and told that his exciting new deal to merge the Rover company with British Aerospace was causing a problem. We were told that it had to be sorted out by next month, but he was hastily summoned over by the Commission and told that, sadly, this could not happen because the European Community wanted to examine it first to see whether the figures added up and were acceptable, and that it would take six months to do so. I understand that the Government took legal advice on what would happen if they went to the court, and were told that they did not have a hope. So that vital and urgent decision will have to be delayed because of a possible application to the European Court.
Some of my hon. Friends are careful with their purchasing and wish to ensure that they buy goods from particular countries. They are worried about origin marking, which the Government said was vital to protect the consumer. But recently we had to pass a law to ensure that origin marking, as we know it, will disappear—not because the Government want it, but because the Government's solicitors were told that if they resisted that proposal from the Common Market we could be taken to court and would lose the action. There has been a flood of transfer of sovereignty, not because of decisions of the European Court but because of potential decisions on applications that are undermining the freedom previously enjoyed by the House.
My third question to the Minister is this: will the new court deal with the policies of Governments as opposed to individuals or organisations? Many of us are becoming worried by the extent to which new powers are emerging that will affect Government policy. The other day the court told us that we shall have to charge VAT on spectacles and hearing aids whether we want to or not. We cannot discuss that in this debate. Very soon the European Court will tell the Government whether they will be obliged to levy VAT on electricity and gas for industry and on new commercial and industrial building. That could involve and extra £350 million in building costs.
My fourth question is about costs. I am well aware that industry and commerce, particularly small firms, are often worried about going to court because of the costs involved. We have a fair idea of what is involved with British courts. Several people, particularly in Southend, have expressed to me a concern about costs in the event of an application to the Court of Justice or to the new court. We have just been told that we must charge VAT on spectacles. Our application against that was turned down, and we have to pay costs. Could my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General give us some idea of the costs in European Community courts, perhaps by telling us what the costs in that case were?
Finally, in drafting this new court extension, did the Government give any thought to implementation? Quite a few of us are worried that, while the United Kingdom
686
consistently agrees to decisions of courts and obeys them because of our traditional respect for the courts, in other countries decisions are not being applied because the domestic Governments concerned have to apply the law. Are the Government satisfied that other member states are applying the decisions of the Court of Justice as fairly and equitably as we are? Will the creation of this new sub-court include an additional clause which could have the effect of ensuring that these clauses are applied honestly and fairly in every respect?
Quite a few of us are beginning to get worried that in these various measures we are seeing part of a pattern of agreements which are basically taking away powers which have been traditionally enjoyed by this country. We know, for example, that my right hon. Friend the excellent Home Secretary has just brought in proposals to reinforce the gun laws and we now find that under article 100A the EEC is giving careful consideration to a proposal that would ensure that any person from a European country could walk up and down Oxford street with a Kalashnikov rifle as long as he had a certificate from his own country—in other words, a mutual recognition of firearms licences.
We also know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is concerned about the independent television companies. Our traditional patterns could be overturned or undermined by a majority decision in the EEC. Summer time will no longer be our decision but that of others. Even this morning, there was an alarming report in The Daily Telegraph that these wonderful new structural funds of over £10,000 million will benefit only one part of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland. That decision in not taken by the people or by democratic Governments—it is purely a decision by the EEC Commission.
I suggest that this court is not such a positive move and might not be as easy for Britain as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has suggested. I hope that he will at least give us the clear assurance that in this matter, as in all others, he will approach European documents, whether written in English or any other strange language, with caution and reserve and read them carefully.
1.33 pm
Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked the Solicitor-General a question, which the hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt answer, about whether individual Governments are likely to have actions brought against them in the Court of First Instance. My understanding is that only natural and legal persons—that is to say human individuals and corporations—will be subject to proceedings before the court, although, once the Court of First Instance has come to a decision, it would be open to the Government or the Commission to intervene by way of appeal to the European Court of Justice.
I do not entirely share the hon. Member's emphasis on Community matters. His views are well known. However, I agree with him that there seems to be a contradiction in that the instrument before the House has as one of its objectives the escalation of hearing cases relating to competition matters. Once the competition directorate comes to a decision it will be possible to appeal in the Court of First Instance against its findings of fact. We are lending our hand to speeding up the operation of competition policy on one area, but there is no similar degree of urgency for dealing with the most anticompetitive part of the European Community—article

687
86 calls it an abuse of dominant market power—the common agricultural policy. So we are accelerating competition in industrial and commercial matters, but doing little to accelerate a balance of the market in agriculture. As we know, surpluses often damage not only our pockets but the operation of agricultural systems in other parts of the world—particularly South America and west Africa.
As a solicitor who specialised in competition matters, I should declare an interest when a new court that might deal with such matters is established. I endorse and underline what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He asked whether we could have annotated and updated copies of the treaty of Rome, which it is not possible to obtain in the Vote Office. Indeed, I am told it is out of print. An essential part of the British constitution is not available to hon. Members, and the book in the Library on the treaty has not been annotated or updated with the amendments that resulted from the Single European Act. When we debate these matters in the House, we labour under the difficulty of not having the relevant statutes before us. I hope that the Solicitor-General and other authorities will ensure that the articles of the treaty that we are discussing today — 100A and 168A — are available to Members of Parliament. It is unfair to ask us to debate European legislation without having it before us.
The treaty of Rome is part of British law and is directly applicable in some cases, as it is in other member states. It is no longer imposed by European courts or institutions. It has been adopted by the British Parliament and some of the amended articles of the treaty are directly applicable to the United Kingdom. It is important that the Court of Justice should be able to deal quickly with matters of law that are referred to it by national courts. The Solicitor-General said that jutice delayed is justice denied. Admittedly, there are occasions when it is to the advantage of one of the parties to proceedings to have a long delay. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East might say that VAT was a case in point. However, it is wrong that proceedings in domestic courts can be delayed for some years as a result of being referred to the European Court of Justice, which finds itself with so much work that it cannot give a quick decision, and then having to return to a domestic court for a final decision in this country.
Speed and consistency of approach in different countries and in their domestic courts are important. I shall give a couple of examples of what I mean. Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which deals with equal pay, is directly applicable in member states. That was established by the Sabena case, in which an employee of that airline took proceedings in the Belgian courts to show the direct applicability of article 119. The employee won the case for equal pay, and that led to a directive by the Council of Ministers to member states so that they could legislate on the matter and create some certainty. I know it very well because I negotiated it.
Having negotiated the directive on equal pay, which we thought was already implemented by the Equal Pay Act 1970, we then had a challenge which established that our legislation was insufficient because it provided for equal pay for the same work, whereas the treaty provides for equal pay for equal work. That was interpreted as being work of equal value. I think that I am right in saying that the issue eventually came before the European Court of Justice which established that throughout the Community
688
there should be equal pay for work of equal value. As a result, further amending legislation had to be passed by this Parliament.
An issue that began as a domestic one where somebody pleaded article 119 of the treaty of Rome led to the conclusion that it would be wrong if workers in one Community country had rights different from workers in another. Not only would that distort the terms of trade between Community members, but it would be a denial of basic rights granted to workers by the Treaty of Rome. It would be wrong for the Court of Justice to delay for some years adjudicating on that kind of dispute.
I shall give a second example of the direct applicability of the Treaty of Rome. Article 86 deals with the dominant power of a commercial institution, a power that affects trade between member states. That may be of considerable interest to the small business man or the small manufacturer—people who are very much bounden to those who have great commercial power inside the Community. In British law there is no absolute bar to a refusal to supply goods and services or on compulsion to take.
Article 86 of the treaty of Rome may make refusal to supply or compulsion to take illegal if an abuse of dominant power is involved and if it distorts trade between member states. There was an example of this when brewers in the north-east of England tried to compel their publicans in tied houses to take one kind of amusement machine, much to the chagrin of the suppliers of other machines — if I may use the word chagrin in the presence of the hon. Member for Southend, East. A supplier sought an injunction in the British courts to restrain brewers in the north-east of England from compelling their publicans in tied houses to obey their orders. The injunction proceedings were successful, because it was held as a result of the direct applicability of article 86 that a brewer was engaging in conduct that was an abuse of a dominant position. Thus the supplier of the amusement machines had his remedy.
It would be wrong if overseas suppliers of equipment — amusement machines, cars or anything else — were able, because of the United Kingdom interpretation of article 86, to operate with a greater facility in the United Kingdom than United Kingdom suppliers could operate in countries such as France or Italy. That is where the importance of the Court of Justice comes in, because in accordance with the British tradition of developing precedents, it can apply consistency as well as these directly applicable articles. A distinguished Scottish judge presides over the Court of Justice, although that in itself does not commend the proposals to the hon. Member for Southend, East.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that it is not unusual for the courts themselves to take the initiative on procedural matters—for instance, rules of conduct—but I agree that when it comes to substantive matters, the initiative might better come from another source.
As the Solicitor-General said, the problem is that the Court of Justice is cluttered with staff cases and to a lesser degree with competition cases that involve much complex elucidation and foundation of facts. I understand that not half the time, but half the cases that come before the Court of Justice involve staff. That makes the European Court of Justice the most expensive, prestigious, multinational

689
and multilingual employment tribunal in the world. It is ludicrous that staff cases should come before a court which is so expensive to operate and has such a big bench.
It seems sensible to establish a Court of First Instance to deal with matters of fact and where, for the time being, those matters will be related to staff, competition, dumping and certain matters involving the coal and steel communities.
I have one reservation about staff cases, which for two reasons, has been intensified by what the Solicitor-General said. I should have thought that the most appropriate way of dealing with staff cases would be to have some kind of staff employment tribunal, rather like our employment tribunals in this country.
First, from my experience of dealing with staff cases, such as unfair dismissal cases, it is often the cross-examination and oral evidence of the parties that is important. We are told by the Solicitor-General that in the proposed court the proceedings may be entirely written. There is a right to apply for an oral hearing, but not a right to have one. In staff and employment cases, the essence of the matter is often to cross-examine and to convince the court or the tribunal of the good faith, or otherwise, of the parties involved. It is extremely difficult to do that when somebody is not under cross-examination or giving viva voce evidence. That seems a good reason—made even greater by what the Solicitor-General said—for having a staff tribunal. However, I do not urge that as a reason for holding up the establishment of a Court of First Instance.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, now that it is proposed that a Court of First Instance will sit in chambers of five judges, rather than three, we are getting back to almost exactly the same problem as we have with the Court of Justice at the moment—
The Solicitor-General: Only for competition cases.
Mr. Fraser: I am corrected, it is only for competition cases, so I withdraw that objection.
It seems sensible to enable the speed of proceedings of the Court of Justice to be made greater by establishing a Court of First Instance to deal with matters that are largely of fact.
I suppose that this is a fairly unremarkable debate on what is, at least on the face of it, an uncontested matter, dealt with in a House that is largely unattended. However, in a way that makes this proposal more remarkable because we have a Community of 12 which, if one talks linguistically, joins Celtic and Greek, Germanic and Romance, Hispanic and Nordic, and people of different nationalities, races and religions in an atmosphere of tolerance and harmony. It is a Community of rivals, and in some cases of former enemies, which in an uncontentious way, is taking a further stride towards the establishment of an international judicial system.
Can anyone imagine that 50 years ago in March 1938, on a deserted Friday afternoon we would simply be taking note of a proposal that applied a judicial process to the behaviour of the Governments of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Metaxas, who, I remind the House, was also a dictator, alongside the democracies of Western Europe? Five decades ago, or even less, the proposition would have been impossible, but it now fails to ignite even much concern. It is a remarkable achievement that a fairly uncontentious, relatively minor change in the procedures
690
of the Community will be endorsed. It is as well to reflect that it is a sign that, in part, Europe is now a safer, more democratic and law-abiding place.
1.49 pm
The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I shall answer this short but interesting debate. If I may say with some humility, the contributions, albeit limited in number, came from hon. Members — I absolve myself from this—who clearly have a deep knowledge of the European Community and its workings outside what might be provided for the purposes of this debate.
First, I shall respond to the anxieties expressed by all three hon. Members about the availability or non-availability of the treaty of Rome and the relevant treaties in the Vote Office. I have received information that the treaties, as amended, are available from the Office of Official Publications of the European Community and that the volume may be obtained through the Stationery Office. An application through the Vote Office to the Stationery Office for the updated volume can be made. I appreciate that there may not be copies in the Vote Office now, but I hope that that information will offer some comfort to hon. Members who take a great interest in the matter.
I shall take the several points in order. The House will welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It is well known that he is the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and that is no easy task. We have learnt to respect his knowledge of this detailed area in several debates. He rightly emphasised the consitutional role of the European Court of Justice and drew attention, as he has done in recent days, to the delays that have arisen, as highlighted by the answers to his parliamentary questions.
It is important in this debate and in the context of the hon. Gentleman's point that articles 100 and 100A on the effect of harmonisation and the important questions of whether or not a particular change requires unanimity, or is available for the majority voting system, to emphasis that the Court of First Instance is not directly affected. But it is right to say that the establishement of a Court of First Instance will make available more time and judge power within the European Court of Justice to concentrate on the extremely important issues that come before it.
All contributors to the debate have emphasised what certainly is not as widely understood as perhaps it should be, and that is the seminal importance of the European court as the supreme court of Europe and its ability to rule on these supra-national matters which affect every country in the Community.
The hon. Gentleman went on to draw attention to the fact that the Single European Act has a premable and to draw upon his knowledge of the development of European law as developed by the Court of Justice. He pointed out that the principles applied will mean that it will study the preamble carefully in deciding questions in future. I am sure that he is right to make that point.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the work of the court will loom larger over the years, so he is right to welcome the Court of First Instance as making available to the appellate court—the European court—more time and opportunity to devote its attention to these matters.
Mr. Spearing: I am not sure that "welcome" is the right word. I omitted by error to include in my speech an

691
important point. If individuals are involved in the Court of First Instance, what will be the effect on the legal aid system of taking cases to or being a respondent in, the Court of First Instance? It may be that this has not yet been worked out, and although it is not part of the document that we are considering, I think that it should be given quick and close attention if it has not been considered.
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter to which I freely admit, at this moment I have not given my mind. It may be that I can give him some guidance before the termination of the debate, but if I cannot I shall write to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has a knowledge of these matters that is unsurpassed by anyone on the Conservative Benches. I thank him for his kind remarks, but whether my ability to answer his questions will justify those remarks remains to be seen. I well understand his chagrin—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My what?
The Solicitor-General: I knew that I would raise a smile from my hon. Friend by using that word. It has already been used in the debate, although with a better pronounciation—I believe that it is an English word—and it describes how my hon. Friend felt about finding the word "Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde" — I cannot do it justice — in the explanatory note to article 120. I am happy to say that the explanatory note precedes that word with its meaning—it is German for "leave to appeal". I hope that that will mollify my hon. Friend in his proper desire that we use language that is at least intelligible to a British audience when we speak in this House.
I have been rapidly assisted on the subject of legal aid, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South. It has been brought to my notice that legal aid before the Court of First Instance will become a matter for the rules of procedure of that court — it is master of its own procedure. It is expected that legal aid will become available in the same way as it is already available for those who have to go before the European Court of Justice. I hope that that will be a comfort to us all. If there is any modification in that position I shall inform the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for raising that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East took the opportunity to mention matters of grave concern to himself and to other hon. Members the trade deficits; the effect of Fontainebleau; agricultural spending; and the effect of the Community on mergers policy. Although those matters do not arise directly in this debate, and while I hesitate to apply the word "welcome", I believe that my hon. Friend will recognise the advantages that obtain as a result of the European Court of Justice, which has such a powerful, overall constitutional position in such matters, having its time more freely available for careful consideration of them. Its time will not be taken up with matters that can properly be directed to the Court of First Instance.
One may or may not like European developments, but, whatever one's approach, they are of huge importance to everyone in this country and to all member nations of the European Community. Therefore, it must be a matter of welcome that the court that has played such a
692
developmental role in the concept of the Community should have adequate time and judge power to give fundamental matters the most careful attention.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East I should emphasise that matters of Government policy, as opposed to matters for individuals and corporations, are not for the Court of First Instance. Should a case raised by an individual come before the court and give rise to a judgment that affects the Government, the Government have the right to take the matter on appeal to the European Court of Justice.
The precise figure of VAT on spectacles is not immediately available to my officials, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and let him know what it is.
My hon. Friend concluded by referring to the implementation by other countries of their obligations under the Treaty of Rome and the other two treaties. Although I do not wish to go overboard on optimism, on a number of occasions this country has exercised its right as a member state to bring matters before the Court of Justice and, therefore, cause our fellow members to implement their obligations under the treaty. The fact that the court is freed of more minor cases will make it easier to consider those matters quickly. In some of the cases that my hon. Friend has in mind, speed will be of considerable help to people and businesses in this country.
I wish to turn now to the contribution of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). As I said, copies of the updated treaty are available, albeit from the Stationery Office. The hon. Gentleman again emphasised his deep personal knowledge of a number of matters that have come before the European Court of Justice, particularly in cases in which the treaty has a direct effect upon the rights of individuals. He emphasised the importance of justice not being unduly delayed, particularly in those matters concerning individuals. I agree with him about that. I should like to join him in paying tribute to Lord Mackenzie Stuart, the president of the European Court, in whose name these proposals stand.
The issue of staff cases has been of real concern over the years because of the amount of time that they have taken up with the Court of Justice. The number of staff cases in 1984 was 43, out of a total of 312. In 1985 the figure was 65 out of 433, and in 1986 it was 57 out of 329. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's point is well made, as those cases represent a significant proportion of the work of the European Court and it is right that they should be dealt with elsewhere.
The question of a special tribunal has been discussed, but it has not been possible to reach agreement on setting up a separate and special tribunal. The beneficial effect of sending cases to the Court of First Instance is enhanced by the fact that this court can sit in chambers of three for such cases. A tribunal of three should provide a very much more satisfactory method of dealing with those cases than has applied hitherto.
The hon. Gentleman concluded by emphasising the importance of this international legal tribunal. He drew to our attention the fact that within Europe matters of supranational importance can now be decided carefully by a European court in a way that would have been unthinkable 50 or 60 years ago. That is a major change. Of course, it has its controversial aspects, but we can join in commending this motion in the thought that adding a

693
Court of First Instance to the European Court of Justice will enable that very important court to do its work better in the future. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8770/87 on the establishment of a Court of First Instance; endorses the view that the setting up of this Court is necessary to relieve the Court of Justice of some of its workload; and supports the Government's intention to work for the early adoption and implementation of the proposal.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Resolved,
That this House do meet on Thursday 31st March at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question. —[Mr. David Hunt.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 28th March, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Community Charges (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 29th March, the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to Televising of Proceedings of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon; and, if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, any Amendments which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Main Question or the Main Question as amended, and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
2.5 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: My understanding is that the motion permits one and a half hours' debate on Tuesday on the important issue of televising proceedings of the House of Commons. I and many other hon. Members of all parties fully support the principle of televising the House and, since the decision in principle was made, many who opposed the idea have begun to see some of the advantages and many who were in favour are perhaps more aware of the disadvantages. One and a half hours is insufficient time to consider such issues.
I have in mind two points. The first concerns Select Committees. Perhaps the majority of hon. Members feel that the hard work of Parliament goes on there as opposed to the glamorous air of the Chamber. Some of us may feel that a built-in percentage of television time should be allocated to coverage of Select Committees. The Public Accounts Committee is dear to my heart, but no doubt other hon. Members feel that other Committees merit coverage.
Secondly, control has been mentioned. One proposal was for the equivalent of a Hansard office to control the pictures that are given to the various channels, at least until hon. Members are reassured about the future.
One and a half hours is one and a half hours more than nothing, but is it within the remit of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) to extend the time available so that more Back Benchers can be called to speak?
The House may remember that, during the debate on the principle, one hon. Member took about 40 minutes, others took a long time, and some, such as me, were involved in important Committees and were unable to participate. I fear that if only one and a half hours is granted, we may find that only five or, at best, six or seven hon. Members are called to speak on an issue about which genuine differences of opinion must be aired. For once, moreover, many hon. Members would be listening to the arguments.
2.7 pm
Mr. David Hunt (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household): I understand that the motion has been agreed through the usual channels. If the motion is not passed, it will not be possible for any debate to take place on this business unless it is reached before 10 pm — it is not exempt business.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has raised two matters which I shall ensure are passed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I remind him that the debate will take place on a motion on the setting up of the Select Committee and on its composition. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that the Committee be set up as quickly as possible.
2.8 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I had not intended to involve myself in this debate, but there are two aspects of the reply of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) which require some comment.
When, no doubt, the history of the televising of Parliament is written, those involved will examine what was said in our previous debate and that which is to take place next week. Conceivably, they will consider this brief procedural exchange. It is on matters of procedure that greater matters grow.
The hon. Gentleman says that informal agreement has been reached on the motion. I have no objection to such agreements being reached for the convenience of the House, but it is questionable whether such an agreement should be prayed in aid. I may be wrong—if I am, no doubt I shall be corrected— but my understanding is that the motion is about the membership of the Committee, about which there has been some controversy, and the Committee's terms of reference. That is open to amendment. I suspect that those are separate but important issues. There has been some discussion about membership, but I think that terms of reference relating to how the Committee goes about its work—apart from the principle—are also important.
Mr. David Hunt: It may assist the House if, while recognising the hon. Gentleman's concern, I direct his attention to motion 23 in the Remaining Orders of the Day. He will then realise, if he has not already done so, that the terms of reference for the Committee are not contained in the motion, but were contained in the resolution on 9 February.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should have been a little more circumspect. The formal terms of reference are, of course, there, but—I shall modify what I said—expressions of view on how the Committee goes about its business, and some of the ideas and suggestions that it might bear in mind, need some formal expression. The debate would enable that to take place.
I entirely understand that if this motion does not go through the matter cannot be debated at all, as it is not
696
exempt business. I have no doubt that, if it had been tabled for debate late at night, an amendment might have been put down to increase the one and a half hours to two or two and a half, but that did not happen. We have what is before us now, and it may in effect have already been arranged. Probably, when we reach the end of the debate on Tuesday, some hon. Members will be creating that there was not sufficient time for what will be quite a significant and important debate in an important series of debates leading to important innovations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 29th March, the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to Televising of Proceedings of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon; and, if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, any Amendments which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Main Question or the Main Question as amended, and that, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Allan Rogers be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Henry McLeish be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  LOCAL LOANS
  That the draft Local Loans (increase of Limit) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.

  FEES AND CHARGES
  That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Question agreed to.

Elderly Persons (Nottingham)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Dorrell.]
2.11 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a great stroke of fortune for any Back Bench Member to succeed in the ballot for Adjournment debates. I aim to add to that fortune the great privilege of speaking up on behalf of pensioners, and not only those in Nottingham, for much of what I say will, I hope, be relevant to pensioners throughout the country.
A civilised society should ensure that its elderly live an independent and secure life, enjoy the love of the community and receive whatever care they require, as a right rather than a privilege. By that standard, Britain is no longer a civilised society. Under the present Conservative Government, the elderly in Nottingham and throughout the country are not so much a respected and valued part of our community as a persecuted minority.
In a society that exalts greed and admires ruthlessness, the elderly are at best cast aside, and at worst treated as a captive market to be exploited by the new generation of Arthur Daleys created in the competitive climate of Thatcherite Britain. The treatment of our pensioners is a savage indictment of this Government. Let us examine their record on various issues in turn.
In 1980, the Government broke the link between pensions and earnings. If that link were restored today, the pension of a married couple would rise by £14·65 a week, and the single pension by £9·20 a week. Week in, week out, married pensioners are robbed of £14·65 through the callous, repetitive, inescapable mugging of the elderly by a Government who, in last week's Budget, gave their richest friends over £2 billion in tax handouts. In Nottingham, it has been received less as a Budget from Robin Hood than as one typical of King John at his worst.
Whatever else we do by way of concessions and additions whenever there is a change of Government, a decent pension will remain the cornerstone for older people, enabling them to choose for themselves how they wish to meet their needs. It is important to stress that fact, because this year is the 80th anniversary of the old-age pension — not the Lloyd George pension, but the pension created as a result of great pressure from charities, the trade union movement and the Labour movement. That mantle is being carried now by bodies such as Age Concern. I pay tribute to the work of Jack Jones in fighting for pensioners' rights. I hope that we will all be able to contribute to that work.
In my constituency, one third of pensioners live below the official poverty line. People who gave their lives to local pits, local textile, chemical, tobacco and cycle industries in Nottingham have been thrown on a scrap heap and draw a pension equal to only 17 per cent. of gross average earnings. That pension is one of the lowest in Europe. We frequently receive some of the garbage from Europe. It would be fitting if we now adopted a similar pension level to that in France where the level is set at half the average wage.
I also want to consider what the Government intend to do to pensioners on 1 April 1988 when the great counterrevolution of the welfare state takes place. Ten days ago the Government presented the Budget for the rich. On 1 April we will see the budget for the poor. Next week's
698
budget for those on pensions and benefits will hit the elderly in particular. In common with many other hon. Members, I have already had a procession of desperate, anxious pensioners at my surgery, worried sick about their income after 1 April. I want to use two examples from my postbag and my surgery this week.
Mr. T of Strelley in Nottingham has discovered that his industrial disablement pension will henceforth be taken into account when his housing benefit is calculated. Previously it was disregarded. Mr. T worked for most of his life down the pit and he was injured in an accident in a pit in Nottingham. He receives industrial disablement pension which is currently discounted in calculating his £54·14 housing benefit. After I April without any change in Mr. T's means or circumstances he will discover that his housing benefit is reduced to £15·95 a fortnight. In other words, he will lose £38·19 a fortnight or £19 a week without receiving any additional income. He has committed no offence. He has not carried out a robbery or any outrage in society. On the contrary, he has contributed sweat and blood to this country for many years. On 1 April he will be fined £19 every single week that he remains alive.
My other example concerns a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. P who live in Cinderhill in my constituency. Mr. P suffered an industrial accident and completely lost his hearing. As a result, he was awarded the maximum industrial disablement pension of £67·70. Hitherto that was disregarded when calculating housing benefit. After 1 April it will be roped in with any other income that that pensioner couple has. They will totally lose their housing benefit. Every fortnight £32·59 —£16 a week—will be taken from that couple, despite no apparent change in their way of life. They will suffer a week-in, week-out fine of £16 a week for the rest of their lives. Just a few days before this decision, billions upon billions of pounds were given away in tax handouts to those who could well afford to do without that additional income. In addition, those people whom I have mentioned will have to pay, perhaps for the first time, at least 20 per cent. of their rates. They are just two examples of how the changes on 1 April will affect many of my constituents.
Those on housing benefit will have benefit reduced by £1 for every £250 over £3,000 that they have in the bank and no housing benefit will be payable if they have more than £6,000 put aside. We exhort people to make proper provision for their old age, yet those who can afford to put a little money aside will find that they have done so just to save the Government money. The Government through the local authorities, which they are subtly using as agents, will recoup a large amount of that money. One Conservative Member has proposed, as perhaps some sort of tax dodge, that these people should pay in advance for their funerals as a way of getting some of that money out of the bank. That sort of callous, hard-hearted attitude typifies the way in which the elderly are viewed.
Overall, the changes on 1 April will leave the average pensioners, aged 60 to 79, £1 a week worse off. In my constituency, notably in Bilborough, many pensioners are the unsung, unheard of victims of the right-to-buy policy introduced by the Conservative Government. They live in British Iron and Steel Federation houses which were owned by the city council and they are now stuck with those properties, unable to sell them because building societies will not lend money to prospective buyers, but the Government will not declare those properties defective.

699
Some people cannot get a mortgage to buy these properties and there are no grants available to bring them up to mortgageable standard.
The city council— a Conservative council—will not buy back the properties. On the contrary, it is continuing to sell properties that it well knows people will not be able to sell on. It may sound strange to some hon. Members, but many of these people are first-time buyers at the age of 60, 65 or older. They do not know the way in which the system works. Many are buying a pig in a poke which they are not able to sell. They could be the very people hit by the changes in the social fund on 1 April.
Social fund help for large one-off expenses such as roof repair — some roofs in Bilborough are thought to contain asbestos—will be given in the form of a loan or grant, and pensioners in particular will be worried about their ability to repay the loans. Equally, for people in that position, as a result of the Budget no tax relief will be available for home improvement grants. To add insult to injury, at the end of the equation, the Tory poll tax will mean that even pensioners on the lowest incomes will have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the full poll tax charges instead of getting the current rate rebates.
One of the most obvious, and most easily avoidable tragedies that could beset the elderly is death or discomfort through lack of proper heating. More pensioners die of cold in Britain than in Canada or the Nordic countries where winters are far more severe, yet the insulation programme, which could play such a vital part in easing that problem and saving old people's fuel bills as well as saving their lives, has been cut to one seventh of what it was in 1979, during its first full year after implementation by the Labour Government in 1978.
Standing charges for gas and electricity still bite a disproportionately large chunk out of the fuel bills of the elderly. The most contentious part of the old and the cold story is the confusing severe weather payments which miss many of the most vulnerable people. Last year, only one in 10 pensioners received any payment at all, and I understand that the average payment was just £10. That must be wrong. It must be replaced by a flat-rate winter heating allowance which is paid automatically when it is needed and not long afterwards when old people have decided not to switch on the heating because there are too many forms to fill and too much bureaucracy and they take the risk of dying of hypothermia, or at best suffering terrible unnecessary discomfort in the cold.
Another issue that has been raised with me on a local basis concerns television licences. This morning 1 had the privilege of presenting a petition to the House from Mrs. Hunt and 400 local pensioners who ask that the House consider bringing in concessionary television licences. The Labour party's position is clear and simple. We consider that all pensioners should be given free TV licences. We fought the last general election on that promise and I hope that we shall do so again until we can deliver.
The television is a friend and a comfort and a source of pleasure and entertainment to many elderly people, yet at £62·50 for a colour licence the price is prohibitive to most pensioners. However, when I raised this matter with the Minister of State, Home Office, he said that any scheme of concessionary licences would be expensive in terms of lost revenue. Indeed, it may, but when the Government hand out billions of pounds to their friends and to people who are not in need, surely some concession can be made to help the elderly when they get so much
700
pleasure from such a small amount as would be provided to them through such concessionary licences. However, the Minister of State ruled out any changes.
I ask the Minister to consider the matter again and make representations to his colleagues at least to extend the system of 5p licences which currently applies to sheltered housing for all other pensioners in Britain.
In addition to the difficulties that pensioners experience because of Government policies, the elderly in Nottingham suffer the burden of an extremely dogmatic Tory council which tries to mimic, outdo, and impress its national mistress as if it were some sort of brainless lap dog. The clearest evidence of that ruthless approach has been the selling of the council's purpose-built houses for the elderly and disabled. As more homes are flogged off, there are fewer to go round because the council has stopped building such homes. A lengthening queue of people in pain and need—people who have the medical criteria necessary to be selected automatically for a purpose-built bungalow — cannot obtain such accommodation because the homes have been sold. That Tory local authority should be held in contempt by all right-minded Members on both sides of the House.
In the past week, Nottingham has been selected for the experimental selling-off—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
Mr. Allen: Nottingham has been selected for the first trials of a new scheme that will result in the sale of council estates. The research programme being undertaken by a market research company on behalf of the Department of the Environment involves interviewing groups of eight to 10 people on estates in Nottingham—in Bestwood Park, Top Valley Bestwood and Broxtowe in my constituency—for one and a half hours trying to find the best gloss to put on the sale of council estates to private landlords.
Needless to say, the elderly in Nottingham remember well the era of the private landlord. My family came from an area that was dominated by private landlords. It was an area of high rents, lack of repairs, no modernisation programme and, above all, fear because of no security of tenure. Elderly people who have been council tenants for 30 or 40 years fear for their future, because a small minority of tenants could, with the inducements offered and the attractive way in which a scheme may be promoted, sell their birthright in council estates. There will be no going back. Once those estates are sold, the asset-strippers will ensure that they never return to public ownership.
All that is taking place despite the fact that the Housing Bill has not yet completed all its stages through Parliament. Groups of people are scouring the country conducting interviews so that they can sell estates when the legislation is passed. Not only is that unconstitutional, but I fear the drastic consequences if people are lured into accepting apparent bargains and are then trapped by private landlords—perhaps even slum landlords—who may not take their responsibilities seriously.
Nor can a shortfall in assistance for the elderly be made good by the county council. It has to make resources for social services stretch further than ever before. The county council has one of the best records in the country for

701
inspection of residential homes. It is rightly proud of that record, but is is now restricted from carrying out that important function.
For those who depend on residential care, and for those who may do so in the future, the picture becomes bleaker. Private homes for the elderly have expanded massively as support from the Government — subsidy by the Government—has increased from £10 million in 1979 to £485 million last year. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has considered the matter and will report on it soon. The Thatcherite entrepreneurs have seen a killing to be made from the slogan "care in the community". In many cases, the elderly have become like livestock, pulling in up to £220 a head each week from DHSS payments to private nursing homes. At the same time, local authority provision is static or running down and our long-stay hospitals are asset-stripped by hard-faced private sector managers and the cosseted consultants who now direct the NHS.
The Griffiths committee was set up to look at the issue and it suggested that one of the answers was to give more control and direction to local authorities. That in itself was enough to condemn it, within days, to the Government's shredder. I ask the Minister to make clear when the Griffiths report will go out to the widest possible consultation, and when the Firth and Wagner reports will also go out for consultation. Is there any time scale for action on those three reports? Many of us fear that all three reports will be consigned to the back shelf to gather dust, because they are unpopular with certain sections of the Government.
The elderly, more than most, depend on the Health Service, and yet the Government have stopped the supply of NHS spectacles and soon will impose charges for eye tests, deterring early detection of glaucoma, diabetes and cataracts which are common among the elderly. Pensioners were particularly hard-hit when the Government's limited list stopped doctors prescribing free many of the drugs that pensioners were used to.
Now, the junior health Minister talks of giving low priority to the elderly who need treatment. So often, the elderly are at the end of the queue. It is not glamorous to be involved in his replacement and it is far easier to spend money on services other than those that are vital for elderly people, such as chiropody. In Nottingham, to balance the books, the geriatric ward at the City hospital has been closed over the past three months, with the prospect of at least a further six months' closure.
Today's old people are no ordinary generation. They survived the war and defeated Hitler's Nazi tyranny. They went on to found the welfare state and the National Health Service. They deserve to be treated better. "Honour thy father and thy mother" is a reasonable command when they have done so much for us.
The recent Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph showed that the Labour party had a 30-point lead over the Government on pensioners' issues. Some 52 per cent. of those polled said that Labour would be the most likely party to look after Britain's pensioners, compared with 22 per cent. opting for the Conservatives and 12 per cent. for what was then the alliance. That trust is hard-won and richly deserved. It will be reinforced when this
702
disrespectful, hard-hearted, mean-spiritied, cheeseparing Government have been thrown out. For many pensioners, that day cannot come too soon.
2.37 pm
The Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I happened last night to be in a Birmingham television studio, at Central TV, where a little feature on the hon. Gentleman was put together. I am not sure whether he is aware of it. A computer print-out of all the occasions when he has spoken in the House was produced, and it was a long document. I think I am right in saying that this is the first occasion on which he has had an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Allen: No, the second.
Mr. Portillo: The second occasion. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on it and on his many other interventions.
In, the previous debate, the hon. Gentleman referred to the glamour of debates in the Chamber. I am not sure whether he and I together constitute a glamorous debate, but we shall do our best.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on a number of points. I begin by addressing myself to one that was foremost in what he said — the living standard of pensioners. He will recall that in our last manifesto we pledged ourselves to continue to maintain the value of the retirement pension. We also said:
"retired people value their independence. They do not want to rely on the state alone for their income. nor, increasingly, are they doing so. We share Beveridge's original goal of a good basic pension from the state, together with a second income from occupational and personal pensions and savings."
Over the past nine years we have worked steadily along the lines of that pledge. We have protected the value of the basic state pension, and it will rise again in a few days' time by £2·65 for a couple and £1·65 for a single person.
More important, through our economic policies we have provided a climate of growth for the non-state portion of pensioner's incomes. Unlike the Opposition, we have always sought to recognise that only half of pensioners' incomes comes from state provision. The pensioners can be done no good by increasing the state pension and ignoring savings and occupational pensions that are now such an important part of their income. That was tried by the Labour Administration, and I remind the House of its results.
Between 1974 and 1979 pensioners' total incomes rose by a miserable 3 per cent. in real terms. In this Government's first six years pensioners' total incomes rose by 18 per cent.—almost as much every year as during the entire period of the Labour Government. Pensioners have improved their position relative to the working population as well, whereas under the Labour Government their relative incomes fell. Those contrasting figures help to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks into context.
The growth that we have prompted in pensioners' incomes applies fairly evenly to all groups of pensioners, younger, older, less well off and better off. We have every expectation that the trend will continue as more and more pensioners retire with second pensions. Seven out of 10 newly retired married couples have occupational pensions now, as do half of all pensioners. The steps that we have

703
taken to stimulate the development of occupational pension schemes will, we hope, further increase the proportion with this form of additional income. Already more than 85 per cent. of pensioners have pensions from work, or savings income, or both. We look forward to a society in which every elderly person has income in retirement over and above the state pension.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's European comparisons were misplaced. Spending on the elderly in the United Kingdom is now the third highest in the European Community as a proportion of gross domestic product, at 9·6 per cent. that is based on 1983 figures, which are the latest definitive ones that we have. However, the partial figures for 1984 show that spending in the United Kingdom was rising as a proportion and falling in other countries. The comparisons on that basis of GDP are the only measure of pensioner support that the European Statistical Bureau can confirm as accurate.
It is in the light of some of those figures, and the reduction in inflation that has enabled pensioners to benefit so much from their savings, that we must view the reforms in social security to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. He called them a counter-revolution. In the coming year we shall be spending almost £1 billion a week on social security, which is not a counter-revolution in the sense that he meant. It may go further than Beveridge had in mind, but it is not a counter-revolution.
We shall be spending rather more, in effect, on income support—the benefit that replaces supplementary benefit — than on supplementary benefit, which is a complicated benefit with more than 20 extra weekly additions that depend on detailed questions about individual personal circumstances. It is a confusing, outmoded benefit and it does not have many friends left among the public or staff who try to administer it. Income support is a simpler system that gives better service to the public. It directs resources more effectively to the groups of claimants who face the greatest pressure—the people whom we have identified as being families with children, and the sick and disabled.
We have put another £220 million into income support to help us achieve some of our objectives. We put a similar extra sum into the new benefit of family credit to help working families with children. However, that is by the way, because this debate is about the elderly.
Between 1979 and 1985 pensioners' total net incomes increased, and it is only by remembering that that we can begin to address the question of the reforms. We must recognise that the base line is very much higher than it used to be and that it is fully protected in our reforms. The rate for a single pensioner between the ages of 60 and 79 is £10·65 more than the support for an unemployed man of 55. That is within the new income support system and reflects the priority that we give to the elderly in that system. That new premium covers the old standard heating addition in supplementary benefit, the long-term rate under supplementary benefit, average water charges and 20 per cent. of average rates.
Mr. Allen: Will the Minister tell the House why the Government broke the link between pensions and the rise in earnings?
Mr. Portillo: I think that I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman, because I said that what matters is what the pensioner ends up with. Under this Government the
704
pensioner has ended up with a 3 per cent. increase over the years. The Government formed by the hon, Gentleman's party tried to sustain the link between the pension and earnings but could not quite do it because one year they had to change the method of calculation and some money got lost on the way through. Under that Government the income of pensioners improved hardly at all, despite valiant efforts to keep it up. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that what matters is the outcome. There is no point in enormous pension rises if there are also enormous rises in inflation. One may be able to keep pensions in line with inflation, but nothing can be done about savings that are losing their value behind the scenes. That is the point that we have addressed.
We have doubled the maximum amount of savings that a claimant may have while still qualifying for some benefit under income support as compared to supplementary benefit. We estimate that this change alone will mean that a further 10,000 pensioners will be able to qualify for income support. We are also told sometimes that although we have established this pensioner premium, it does not cover people who receive payments for a large number of additional requirements. That might be so in particular cases, but the effect should not be exaggerated. The receipt of these additional requirements under supplementary benefit is frequently overstated.
Three quarters of those eligible for pensioner premium under the new system received no more than one additional requirement under the old system, and only 5 per cent. received three or more. The majority of these additional requirements are more than covered by the pensioner premium. The reform will result in 61 per cent. of pensioners getting more or being unaffected by the changes. The remaining 39 per cent., who would otherwise have received less, will under the new system, receive transitional protection and about £200 million will be spent on maintaining that benefit income. That means that no one transferring from supplementary benefit to income support will lose as a result of the introduction of the new income support scheme.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about housing benefit. That is also being restructured in the same way to give the greatest help to people who are in the greatest need. About 620,000 pensioners on housing benefit will gain, and most pensioners remaining on the benefit will see a cash increase in April. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the capital rule and I know that he is interested in equity. It is difficult to justify to taxpayers on the 25 per cent. rate who are perhaps paying 9 per cent. in national insurance, and who may have no savings whatever in the bank, why they should pay taxes in order to provide benefit to people who have more than £6,000 in the bank. The hon. Gentleman needs to address that problem.
I recognise that there has been some uncertainty among claimants about the effects of the April changes. The campaign mounted by some people in the hon. Gentleman's party has not always been very accurate and must have added to the anxiety and the difficulties that people have in understanding the system. When all the reforms are taken together, nearly nine out of 10 people will be no worse off the day after the reforms than they were on the day before them, and many will be better off.
Mr. Allen: I should like to make just two brief points. The first relates to the £6,000 rule. I made the point that

705
the Government are now discouraging people from saving and putting money aside because they will be penalised. Surely that goes against any sensible economic policy.
Secondly, I must pick the Minister up for implying that the anger in the community especially among the elderly, has been generated by a campaign either by Opposition Members or by people outside. People come to surgeries in droves. They do not need to be inspired or incited to do so, because they are people who will suffer. I gave the Minister two examples. The first was of a couple who will lose £16 per week, and another was of a gentleman who will lose £18. Those people do not come to surgeries because of a great campaign; they come because the Government's policies are hitting and hurting them.
Mr. Portillo: I do not dispute that a small minority will lose, but I advise the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority will either remain the same or gain. Many of those people have been stirred up to anxiety or worry, and even though those anxieties will prove groundless, I am concerned that they are being put through such distress at the moment.
As for capital, apart from housing benefit, there has always been a capital rule for other income-related benefits. What discourages thrift in the first place is having a benefit system. One must recognise that as soon as there is a benefit system there is less reason to provide for one's future than there was before. That is a problem in itself. If one is to direct benefits to the people who need them most, there must be some sort of rule about the level of income at which they cease to qualify and at what amount of capital they cease to qualify. We think that we have got that about right with the important advantage that now, in all three income-related benefits, the same rule on capital will apply. That will be less confusing and lead to fewer perverse results than we have sometimes had in the past.
Mr. Allen: I am anxious not to intervene too often, because I am sure that the Minister will say "no" on one occasion. If, on average, half an elderly person's income conies from sources other than the state pension, there are clearly a large number of people, the majority of whose income does not come from the state pension, but, equally, there must be a large number of people who are almost entirely dependent on the state pension. I urge the Minister to address his remarks to those people and not to a mythical average. I urge him to address the people who are at the sharp end of the cuts, the counter-revolution, or the reforms—whatever one wishes to call the changes of 1 April—because, by and large, those people are working-class pensioners who are dependent on the state pension, and it is they who will suffer the most, especially in relation to housing.
Mr. Portillo: I am content to address myself to that, because the pensioners who are most in need are those who currently receive supplementary pension on top of the state pension. There are about 1·8 million such pensioners. They will receive full housing benefit, which is 100 per cent. of rent and 80 per cent. of rates because they receive supplementary benefit at the moment, which means that they have capital of less than £3,000. More pensioners will qualify for income support because the capital rule for income support is more generous than that for
706
supplementary benefit. That is why I said earlier that about 10,000 more pensioners will qualify for income support. This means that 10,000 more people coming on to income support will qualify for full housing benefit, whether or not they qualify at the moment for partial housing benefit.
The hon. Gentleman made some remarks about residential care. I shall not spend long replying to that. I have watched with interest the line of questioning that he has been pursuing in the Public Accounts Committee. He was extremely unfair in his remarks about the private sector. I ask him to recognise that there are many excellent private homes, doing a very good job, although there are some homes in which the standards are poor, and which have caused a great deal of concern, but those homes are in both the private and local authority sectors. We have had some bad instances in the local authority sector.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Griffiths report, which is now out for consultation. The Wagner report is also out for consultation, and the Firth report has been out for quite some time. We look forward to comments on those. Obviously I cannot in any way prejudge what the Government will say about that. We will bring forward our proposals in the light of the Griffiths, Wagner and Firth reports, and the reactions that we receive to them, in due course. I am afraid that I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman any sort of timescale on that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to health care in Nottingham. I shall not pursue him far down that road, not least because it is not my area. Nottingham has the City hospital, which is all new except for one ward, the University hospital, which is new and the General and Highbury hospitals, both of which have recently been refurbished. Only the Basford is an old hospital, and I understand that it is satisfactory.
Mr. Allen: May I briefly correct the Minister? It is proposed that the General hospital should be closed, so the picture may not be as rosy as he paints it.
Mr. Portillo: I give the hon. Gentleman the last word on that.
If the television licence fee is reduced for some, it suggests that it should increase for others. That would mean that other people, many of whom may be poor, would pay a much higher fee. The elderly as a group are not all poor, which is why it would be ill-directed to give people a concessionary television licence simply because they are elderly. The hon. Gentleman understands the Government's position on that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to winter warmth. He will know that under the supplementary benefits scheme about £400 million was spent on heating additions. That was intended to provide people with money all the year round, not just in winter, to help them with their heating needs. In the income support system we are directing the premiums towards groups, such as the disabled and the pensioners, and those premiums more than cover the heating additions and some other aspects of the supplementary benefit system. So there continues to be that particular help all year round.
I could not establish the accuracy of what the hon. Gentleman was saying about the draught-proofing programme. Although the supplementary benefit arrangements cease in April, the Government have kept their pledge to continue to give help with draught-proofing

707
From April this will be channelled through the Department of Energy's grants towards community insulation projects by Neighbourhood Energy Action. Government support for community insulation projects is £45 million this year and will rise to between £55 million and £60 million in 1988–89.
The hon. Gentleman will know of our efforts last winter to set up a "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, which has been a considerable success, although this has not been a cold winter. Nevertheless, the campaign has involved the co-operation of Age Concern, Help the Aged and several other organisations. The freeline phone service has received 4,000 calls. The Government have produced publicity material for television and radio broadcasts and have extended the programme of press advertising.
Mr. Allen: Will the Minister explain why proportionately more people die of hypothermia in Britain than in Canada and the Nordic countries where winters are so much more severe?
Mr. Portillo: The pattern of hypothermia from year to year is confusing. It is not clear why the figures vary. Speaking from memory, it has been decided that the chief
708
medical officer should prepare a report so that we can consider it. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the excess winter mortality figures, which are another measurement, are falling steadily from decade to decade. The latest figures for 1987 are encouraging. Although one should not place too much emphasis on any single year, the trend is downwards.
Finally, we must get away from the notion that elderly people are simply the passive recipients of services. Many have a good deal to offer society and there is a challenge for all of us to help and encourage them to do so. Britain has a proud and long-standing tradition of charitable voluntary action. For many old people voluntary action provides an opportunity to give and to be involved, arid for many others help comes from those activities.
Voluntary organisations also have a vital role to play in helping the elderly, but to play that part to the full, they need the co-operation of the statutory services and to share their ideas and plans. That is the real challenge for all of us, because that is the way to keep the elderly involved in society. That, as well as their financial well-being, is important to the elderly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to 3 o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Arts Expenditure
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much money per capita is expended on the arts in (i) London and (ii) the northern region.

  Mr. Luce
  The per capita figures in 1987–88 were as follows:

  Per capita

  Greater London £

  Northern region £

  (a) Grants to Regional Arts Associations

  1·25

  1·17

  (b) Grants to RAAs, direct Arts Council clients, and South Bank (BFI excluded)

  7·95

  1·70

  Excluding Greater London, the northern region receives the second highest per capita grant of the English regions, and its figure of £1·70 is £0·45 above the average figure.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT (Anthelmentics)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of value added tax applicable in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Republic of Ireland for anthelmentics for worming cattle in (i) dosing form and (ii) injection form.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the United Kingdom, anthelmentics for worming cattle are chargeable with value added tax at the standard rate. Animal feeding stuffs are, however, liable at the zero rate and if anthelmentics are incorporated, provided they do not change the nature of the product, the entitlement to zero rating is unaffected. I understand that, in the Republic of Ireland, anthelmentics in oral form, or added to animal feeding stuffs, are zero rated. If injected into the animal they are chargeable at the rate of 25 per cent.

  Gross Domestic Product (Taxation)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the percentage of gross domestic product accounted for by taxation(a) in the financial year 1987–88, (b) in the financial year 1988–89 and (c) in May 1979

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]: Taxes and national insurance contributions are estimated to have accounted for 37·9 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1987–88. The same percentage is forecast for 1988–89, after taking account of the Budget changes. No figures are
  228
  available for individual months; for the financial year 1979–80, taxes and national insurance contributions accounted for 35·1 per cent of GDP.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of total central Government revenue is currently attributable to income tax paid at each rate currently in force.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: The available information is given in the table. The estimates are based on liability to income tax and not on income tax receipts which cannot be broken down into the different rates of tax.

  Income tax liability in 1987–88

  Rate per cent.

  £ million

  27

  36,200

  40

  1,010

  45

  1,390

  50

  1,370

  55

  860

  60

  3,080

  Total

  43,900

  VAT
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he is able to make, at constant prices, of the revenue from each region of value added tax in 1978–79 and in each subsequent year.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]: I regret that the information is not available.

  Inland Revenue (Savings)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings in manpower and money he hopes to make in the Inland Revenue as a result of the changes to the taxation system which he announced in his Budget.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: Apart from the proposal for the independent taxation of husbands and wives, my Budget proposals (taken as a whole) would lead to significant reductions in Inland Revenue staff numbers. However, these are more than offset by the effects of independent taxation, which increases the number of taxpayers. The net result will be broadly neutral in 1988–89; an increase of around 100 staff in 1989–90; and larger increases in subsequent years.

WALES

  Sheep
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sheep have been monitored for radioactivity in each month since October 1987 in each county of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is set out in the table:
  229

  Numbers of sheep monitored for radioactivity from November 1987 to March 1988 in the counties of Wales

  November 1987

  December 1987

  January 1988

  February 1988

  March 19881

  Clywd

  254

  217

  101

  19

  1

  Dyfed

  106

  0

  16

  0

  0

  Gwent

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  10,932

  2,843

  2,282

  788

  185

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Powys

  753

  520

  40

  37

  30

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1 Up to 22 March 1988.

  Children (Homelessness)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the annual figures for the number of children received into care by reason of homelessness; if he will give this information for Wales as a whole and for each local authority area; what are the latest figures for the number of children in local authority care where the reason for their admission into care was homelessness; if he will give

  Local authority

  Number of children admitted into care on grounds of homelessness1 in year to March

  Number of children in care on grounds of homelessness at 31 March

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Clwyd

  1

  —

  —

  3

  2

  2

  Dyfed

  2

  —

  1

  3

  3

  2

  Gwent

  2

  3

  3

  13

  14

  15

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  15

  —

  14

  8

  4

  Powys

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  5

  3

  2

  12

  13

  12

  West Glamorgan

  1

  —

  1

  11

  6

  5

  WALES

  15

  25

  10

  59

  48

  42

  1 The above figures relate to the admissions principally on grounds of homelessness. Other grounds for admission may include homelessness as a contributory factor.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Senior Fire Officers
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations concerning instances where senior fire officers have been appointed on the basis of factors other than their professional competence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Some concern about this is expressed from time to time. My right hon. Friend does prescribe by regulation basic requirements for promotions and appointments in the fire service, but it is fire authorities themselves who have the responsibility for making appointments. In discharging this function, it is clearly most important that authorities appoint those who are professionally best qualified for the posts.

  Fines (Non-payment)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide the numbers of cases of people who have received custodial sentences for nonpayment of fines in the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and 230
  this information for Wales as a whole for each local authority area for the years ended 31 March 1985, 1986 and 1987 or the three most recent years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  The latest available information is given in the table which shows the number of admissions and children in care where the reason recorded for admission into care was homelessness:

  Wales" (Table 7.3 of the latest issue, Cm. 210 for 1986) a copy of which is in the Library. Information for 1987 will be published later in the year.

  Heysel Stadium Riot (Extradition)
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who paid the total cost of the extradition proceedings concerning the defendants in the Heysel stadium case to be held in Belgium; what was the total cost; and what the costs of the Merseyside police were.

  Mr. John Patten
  My reply to the hon. Member on 14 March gave the amounts so far identified as expenditure to be met by central Government. The £30,000 of police costs mentioned in that answer will be reimbursed by the Crown Prosecution Service. In addition, the Merseyside police have incurred expenditure of £182,000 which falls to be paid by the police authority, and is part of the expenditure in respect of which the authority receives grant under the Police Act 1964. The full cost of the case will be known only when legal aid costs borne by the Lord Chancellor's Department are settled.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of arrests made
  231
  of offenders under the age of 17 years for each of the last five years; and if he will list the figures as a percentage of the total number of arrests;

  (2) how many prosecutions were brought against persons under the age of 17 years for each of the last five years; and how many in each year resulted in convictions;

  (3) if he will list the number of offenders under the age of 17 years who were (a) arrested, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted by category of offence for each of the last five years;

  (4) if he will list the number of offenders (a) arrested, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted for each of the last five years who were under the age of 17 years by area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", tables 6.1 and 7.7 and in more detail in supplementary tables S1.1(B) and S1.1(C) for proceedings at magistrates courts; and in tables S2.1(B) and S2.1(C) for proceedings at the Crown court; and in tables S3.3(B), S3.3(C), S3.5(B) and S3.5(C) for proceedings by police force area. Data on the age of persons arrested is not collected centrally. Copies of both these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of persons(a) prosecuted, (b) convicted, and (c) imprisoned while under the age of 17 years who were subsequently (i) prosecuted, (ii) convicted and (MI imprisoned when older than 17 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to a sample of offenders born in 1953 and followed up to the end of 1981. A total of 53 per cent. of males and 19 per cent. of females convicted before age 17 were subsequently convicted between ages 17 and 27. Further information on criminal careers is published in Home Office statistical bulletins: issue 7/85 "Criminal Careers Of Those Born in 1953, 1958 and 1963": and issue 35/87 "Criminal Careers Of Those Born in 1953: persistent offenders and desistance": copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the level of Sunday trading in Scotland and in other countries where trading restrictions have been liberalised.

  Mr. Renton
  A survey by MORI in 1985 found that in Scotland 16 per cent. of the shops in the sample opened on a Sunday. So far as other countries are concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 243–248 of the report of the committee of inquiry into the Shops Act, (Cmnd. 9376), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Passports
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for a new passport, or to amend an existing passport, are currently waiting to be processed.

  Mr. Renton
  Applications for new or amended passports are being received at a rate of around 90,000 a week. It is estimated that some 365,000 such applications are at the various stages of processing within the six United Kingdom passport offices.

  Ashwell Prison (Escape)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the escape of three men from Her Majesty's prison, Ashwell; whether they have yet been recaptured; and what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of this incident.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the early hours of 12 March, 3 prisoners escaped from Ashwell by climbing over the perimeter fence. I understand that none of them has yet been recaptured. Inquiries into the incident are continuing and the need for further steps to be taken will be considered in the light of the outcome.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement concerning media ownership.

  Mr. Hurd
  The legislative proposals which we shall bring before Parliament will include limitations on the participation of stations licensed by the radio authority in the publication of newspapers parallel to those regulating press investment in radio broadcasting.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the statistics of crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1987 will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  The statistics of notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1987 are published today in Home Office statistical bulletin 6/88. I have placed copies in the Library. The total number of crimes recorded in 1987 was 3·9 million, a rise of 1 per cent. over 1986. This compares with an average rise of about 6 per cent. per year since the mid-1950s.

  A total of 3·7 million of these crimes were against property. There was a welcome fall in the number of burglaries in dwellings (down 5 per cent. to 483,000), especially in some of the large cities; and in thefts of motor vehicles (down by 5 per cent. to 390,000). These falls show that rising crime is not inevitable and should spur us on to a greater effort in preventing crime.

  The Government view with concern the continuing rise in violent crime, which, by its nature, is less easily prevented. The more successful we are in preventing crimes against property, the more time is available for the police to devote to dealing with the most serious crimes. In 1987, the police clear-up rate for crimes of violence against the person rose from 71 per cent. to 75 per cent., and for more serious offences of violence against the person from 73 per cent. to 78 per cent. Overall, the clear-up rate rose from 32 to 33 per cent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Merksworth High. School, Paisley
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will accept the invitation of the Merksworth high school, Paisley, parents association to visit the school on Saturday 26 March, to view the school's educational facilities; and if she will make a statement.
  233
  The Prime Minister
  A reply has been sent to the invitation from the Merksworth parents' action group explaining that I would not be able to accept their invitation to the open day.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Single European Market
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what proposals he has to promote awareness in Northern Ireland of the proposed single European market in 1992;

  (2) whether he has included Northern Ireland in his proposed programmes of breakfast meetings in major cities of the United Kingdom to promote awareness of the single European market in 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Our campaign aims to ensure that business in every part of the country understands the importance of completing the single market by 1992. Our initial booklet has been sent to more than 2,000 firms in Northern Ireland. The programme of regional conferences includes one in Belfast this autumn. Further local initiatives are planned.

  Public Companies (Accounting)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any proposals to reduce the burdens on public companies imposed under the accounting provisions of the Companies Act.

  Mr. Maude
  I have decided that the next Companies Bill should allow all listed public companies to supply shareholders with an abbreviated version of their annual report and accounts. The Bill will contain an enabling provision for regulations to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure, prescribing the minimum contents of these accounts and dealing with how they would be made available. Copies of the companies' full accounts would still have to be filed at the appropriate Companies Registration Office and be made available, as at present, free of charge to all shareholders who wanted to receive them. My Department will in due course issue a consultative document on the details of the regulations.

  Insurance
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the 1975 European 2nd directive on freedom of service in insurance to be implemented.

  Mr. Maude
  The second directive on freedom of services in non-life insurance must be fully implemented within 24 months of its adoption being notified to member states. We hope that adoption of the directive will take place by the end of the German presidency in June, in which event the directive will come into force in mid-1990.

  Insurance (Harmonisation)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to make an announcement on European Community harmonisation of life assurance and compulsory motor vehicle insurance.

  Mr. Maude
  I expect that in the latter half of this year the Commission will submit to the Council of Ministers 234
  proposals for directives to facilitate the freedom to provide services in the fields of life assurance and motor liability insurance. Also later this year I expect that the Commission will submit a proposal for a further Council directive harmonising the laws of member states relating to motor liability insurance.

  Company Location (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on attempts by the Government of the Irish Republic to induce British-based companies to locate their activities in Southern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I understand that the Government of the Irish Republic, in common with others, offer a range of incentives to inward investment by foreign companies including United Kingdom-based companies. This covers both the industrial and internationally traded services sectors and is administered by a number of state-sponsored organisations including the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), the Shannon Free Airport Development Company (SHADCO) and the Udaras na Gaeltachta. The IDA operate in the United Kingdom through its office in London.

  The Government in the United Kingdom are fully committed to open markets in trade and investment and the Department of Trade and Industry is itself actively engaged in attracting investment into Britain through its Invest in Britain bureau.

  Supermarket Price-fixing
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will refer the matter of supermarket price-fixing agreements to the Director General of Fair Trading;

  (2) what evidence he has of the operation of price-fixing agreements by supermarket stores; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Office of Fair Trading is aware of allegations of possible collusion in the level and timing of price increases for goods sold in supermarket stores. The office is currently investigating these allegations to ascertain whether action may be justified under the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.

  Debts and Loans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will introduce legislation to require voluntary organisations which give advice to individuals concerning personal debts and loans to be licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to require commercial organisations which give advice to individuals concerning personal debts and loans to be licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will introduce legislation to require any organisation which gives advice to individuals concerning personal loans from the social fund to be licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and if he will make a statement.
  235
  Mr. Maude
  Under sections 21 and 147 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, any voluntary or commercial organisations which carry on a business of debt counselling must be licensed by the Director General of Fair Trading.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management in Schools Initiative
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for assisting the local management in schools initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I fully support this important and constructive initiative. My Department will provide £135,000 of assistance towards its costs for the production of a manual and training materials. These will provide a valuable source of practical advice for local authorities and schools in preparing schemes of financial delegation within the framework of the Education Reform Bill. The initiative deserves the attention and support of all those with an interest in this field.

  ILEA (Reviews)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the dates and details of all reviews of the Inner London education authority carried out since 1964 (a) by Government and (b) by other bodies and individuals; and if he will place copies of reports of such reviews in the Library.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 21 March 1988]: The report on this subject by the Royal Commission on Local Government in England was published in 1968. My Department published a review by Her Majesty's inspectorate of educational provision in inner London in 1980. This was followed by an internal review, the conclusions of which were reported to the House by the then Secretary of State on 4 February 1981 at column 296. My predecessor made a further announcement on the subject on 5 April 1984 at column 1124, in the context of the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities". I am arranging that copies of the two centrally published reports are available in the Library of the House.

  There have been many surveys carried out by outside bodies and individuals. Amongst the major ones are:
  "No choice but to go: the case for the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority", Bow Publications, 1973;
  The Marshall inquiry on Greater London, GLC, 1978;
  "Arrangements for the provision, administration and financing of education in inner London", ILEA, 1980;
  Report of the Committee on Education in Inner London, Conservative Party, 1980;
  "The Inner London Education Authority after the abolition of the Greater London Council". Centre for Policy Studies, 1983.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the answer of 9 March,Official Report,
  236
  columns 213–4, he will list by Civil Service grade the number of officials employed by his Department located outside London.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence employs officials in more than 430 different non-industrial grades and 530 different industrial grades. The requested information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many domestic properties owned by his Department in the parishes of Ambrosden, Arncott and Blackthorn in Oxfordshire have been empty for(a) up to six months, (b) up to one year and (c) over one year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence does not own any domestic properties in either Arncott or Blackthorn parishes. However, of the 533 properties in Ambrosden, details of the 39 vacant at 20 March 1988 are as follows:

  Number

  (a) Vacant for up to six months

  23

  (b) Vacant for up to one year

  8

  (c) Vacant for over one year

  8

  39

  The 39 vacancies can be further categorised as follows:

  Number

  (a) Allotted to incoming families

  2

  (b) Undergoing modernisation due to be completed in May

  11

  (c) Undergoing repair or maintenance

  10

  (d) Undergoing refurnishing

  6

  (e) Vacant and available for immediate allotment

  10

  39

  Rechem International, Pontypool
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department uses the services of Rechem International, Pontypool.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes. We have contracts with Rechem International for the disposal of toxic wastes at both the Pontypool and Southampton sites.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands Development Corporation (Leasing)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect his statement of 9 March last, concerning leasing by councils, will have on any arrangements made by councils with the London Docklands development corporation for the provision of rented accommodation within the statutory area of that corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for individual local authorities to determine whether they will incur prescribed expenditure in any arrangements into which they enter with the London Docklands development corporation.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific legislative powers currently exist for the provision of grant-aid to voluntary organisations providing emergency accommodation for the single homeless; and if he will make a statement indicating Government intentions regarding these powers.

  Mrs. Roe
  Section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and local housing authorities to give grants to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness. My right hon. Friend has no plans to amend it.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has powers under schedule 5 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 to give grants to voluntary organisations for providing temporary temporary board and lodging to people without a settled way of life. The provision of emergency accommodation by voluntary organisations may also be assisted, directly or indirectly, under more general powers such as the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969, the Housing Associations Act 1985, and the Local Government Act 1988.

  Crown Premises, Richmond Yard
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask for an estimate of the cost of the Property Services Agency providing a valuation of the Crown premises at Richmond yard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No. It would serve no useful purpose.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he has any proposals to provide relief from the payment of non-domestic rates to parish halls or similar public buildings;

  (2) whether parish halls will be liable for the uniform business rate as proposed in the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  Parish or village halls are presently liable to be rated and will continue to be liable after 1990. Registered charities presently receive 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief, which may be increased to up to 100 per cent. at the local authority's discretion. Local authorities may also give up to 100 per cent. rate relief to other non-profit-making social and recreational clubs and organisations. Some parish halls are run by charitable organisations, but others fall to be dealt with as non-profit

  October 1987

  November 1987

  December 1987

  January 1988

  February 1988

  March 19881

  Antrim

  1,180

  299

  25

  154

  130

  Nil

  Armagh

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Down

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fermanagh

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Londonderry

  3,234

  863

  336

  48

  117

  36

  Tyrone

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1 To 20 March.

  238
  making organisations. We intend to retain the same mandatory and discretionary reliefs under our proposals for rate reform.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any sites of special scientific interest that have been ploughed up for cereal growing in the last 12 months showing their habitat type; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Nature Conservancy Council is compiling the information requested in respect of cereal growing. I shall write to the hon. Member with the details shortly.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made on the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  I have decided to appoint Samuel Montagu and Co., merchant bankers, to advise the Government on the best method of effecting the sale of the Crown Suppliers.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits.

  Mr. Trippier
  The non-voted cash limit for urban aid expenditure (DOE/UA1) for 1987–88 has been increased by £0·75 million from £437·483 million to £438·233 million in respect of capital spending by local authorities on the inner cities initiative. This increase reflects a switch of provision within the inner cities initiative which was presented to Parliament in the Winter Supplementary Estimate for Class V, Vote 2 relating to expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sheep
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sheep have been monitored for radioactivity in each month since October 1987 in each county of Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:
  239
  In addition during this period, 575 sheep have been monitored at slaughterhouses.

  Training Opportunities
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what opportunities for training and retraining for employment are now offered in west Belfast and other areas of high unemployment in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  The following is a list of opportunities for training and retraining for employment currently offered in West Belfast:

  (1) The Youth Training Programme
  A two year Programme of training, further education, work experience, and job opportunities offered to 16 and 17 year olds.

  (2) Boucher Road Training Centre
  A modern industrial training centre which serves the West Belfast area and provides off-the-job industrial skills training for young persons and adults.

  (3) The Attachment Training Scheme
  Provides other full time training opportunities to unemployed adults, mainly with employers.

  (4) The Job Training Programme
  A recently piloted programme of directed training and practical experience for the longer term unemployed adult.

  (5) The Entry into Management Programme
  Provides opportunities for young persons wishing to enter management, redundant managers seeking reemployment and people wishing to develop new business ideas.

  Similar opportunities are provided in other areas of high unemployment in the Province.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what appropriate emergency accommodation for the single homeless is currently available to accept references from each of the health and social service boards in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]: The information requested is:

  Number of places

  Board run

  Voluntary

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  74

  20

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  —

  —

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  —

  16

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  —

  66

  TOTAL

  74

  102

  Notes:
  These figures exclude places in common lodging houses and in voluntary hostels whose main functions is to provide long-stay accommodation, but where accommodation may be available in an emergency.
  Single homeless persons may also be placed in:
  accommodation provided by Boards for other purposes, eg homes for the elderly;
  temporary accommodation normally reserved for families; private boarding houses;
  other non-commercial accommodation (eg church premises) which may be used to respond to disasters which cause homelessness on a large scale.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement detailing the grants made in 1986–87 by Government Departments and the area boards to voluntary organisations providing 240
  accommodation for (a) the single homeless, (b) battered women and their families, (c) homeless families, and (d) ex-offenders.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]: In 1986–87 the Department of Health and Social Services and the four health and social services boards paid grants as follows to voluntary organisations providing accommodation for homeless people:

  Mainly single persons

  Mainly battered women and their families

  £

  £

  DHSS

  Simon Community Northern Ireland

  17,463

  —

  Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation

  —

  33,350

  Open Door Resettlement Project

  21,510

  —

  Northern board

  Coleraine Women's Aid

  —

  14,169

  Southern board

  Craigavon Women's Refuge

  —

  4,000

  Edward Street Hostel

  6,000

  —

  Eastern board

  Belfast Women's Aid

  —

  59,777

  Extern

  24,000

  —

  Simon Community Northern Ireland

  37,250

  —

  Sydenham House Committee

  —

  7,000

  Western board

  Clarendon Night Shelter

  —

  33,284

  Derry Women's Aid

  —

  27,905

  Omagh Women's Aid

  —

  2,860

  The House, St. Columb's Well

  8,500

  —

  It is normal practice for homeless families to be accommodated temporarily in facilities managed by health and social services boards, where accommodation is available, or in boarding houses, with whom standing arrangements have been made in advance.

  In addition, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland paid the following grants in 1986–87 to voluntary organisations providing accommodation for ex-offenders:

  £

  Extern:

  "109" Hostel

  57,000

  Settle Scheme

  18,000

  Ormeau Centre

  8,000

  Castlereagh St. Hostel

  3,000

  Thompson House

  56,000

  Dismas House

  22,000

  Water Quality
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment is made, when planning permission is sought for any dump in Northern Ireland, of the possibility of leakage, leaching or run off from such a dump to any lake, river, stream or reservoir; by whom and under what legislative authority such assessments are made; whether the maintenance of water quality is taken into account in deciding whether planning permission is granted; and whether the term discharge is treated as encompassing any such leakage, leaching or run off.
  241
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 March 1988]: Where planning permission is sought for any waste disposal site, the environmental protection division of the Department of the Environment (NI) is consulted. That division is concerned with the maintenance of water quality and the need for a consent under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and its views are taken into account by the planning service before any such planning application is determined.

  In considering the possible effect of such sites on water quality, the environmental protection division considers a number of factors to determine whether the proposed site is suitable or can be made suitable for the disposal of refuse. A hydrogeological report is now required by the Department of the Environment (NI) as empowered by section 9(1) of the Water Act to accompany any application for consent. Planning permission for a waste disposal site would not issue unless a consent under the Water Act had issued or was likely to issue. The term discharge is regarded as encompassing any leachate or surface run off water.

  Hayshed Bugging
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on whose authority a bug was placed in the hayshed at Ballymeeny Road North in November 1982, prior to the death of Michael Tighe.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 17 March 1988]: It is not the practice to comment on such matters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East (Nuclear-free Zone)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any representations from any middle east states seeking United Kingdom assistance in forming a nuclear weapon free zone in the middle east.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. However, we regularly join consensus at the first committee of the United Nations on a resolution sponsored by Egypt proposing such a zone.

  Israel (Nuclear Weapons)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Israeli Government to encourage them to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

  Average number of recipients of rate rebate2 in the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 Thousands

  Year

  Elderly

  Sick and disabled

  Unemployed

  People in work

  Others

  Total

  1985–86

  4,120

  550

  1,340

  340

  670

  7,020

  1986–87

  4,030

  670

  1,350

  260

  740

  7,050

  1987–88

  4,040

  670

  1,260

  260

  800

  7,030

  1 Separate figures were not collected for lone parents.

  2 The figures given are based on recipients of rent rebate, as all types of tenure—local authority and private tenancies, and owner occupation-are included. Most tenants receiving rent rebates or rent allowances also receive rate rebates.

  242
  Mr. Mellor
  We take every opportunity to urge the Israeli Government to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he possesses on Israeli nuclear weapons capability.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no evidence either to confirm or deny that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Although she has refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty she has consistently declared that she will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region.

  Mordecai Vanunu
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom ambassador to Israel has made any representations to the Israeli Government over the trial of Mordecai Vanunu.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Arms Control
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to invite a representative from(a) the verification technology information centre (VERTIC) and (b) the European proliferation information centre (EPIC) to participate in the next meeting of his ad hoc advisory panel on arms control and disarmament.

  Mr. Mellor
  Non-governmental organisations, including VERTIC and EPIC, have been periodically invited to discussions on arms control issues with Ministers and senior officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This dialogue with NGOs will continue. I cannot at this stage anticipate whether these two bodies will be invited to participate in the next meeting of the ad hoc advisory panel.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing how many of the people in receipt of housing benefit in each year since 1979–80 were currently in employment, including self-employment; and how many were sick, unemployed, lone parents or retirement pensioners.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that we do not have full data in the form requested. The information available is set out in the table.
  243
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to afford to married woman independent entitlement to housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. Housing benefit is calculated on the basis of the eligible housing costs of the household and in the case of a married couple the needs and resources of both spouses are taken into account. Housing benefit may be claimed by whichever spouse is liable to pay for the housing costs of the household.

  Adult Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to amend the housing benefit regulations to allow those who participate in the adult training scheme to continue to receive housing benefit at the same level as they received before entering the scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes. In accordance with the assurance in paragraph 5.30 of the White Paper "Training for Employment" (Cm 316), we propose to take the necessary steps to ensure that all trainees' entitlement to housing benefit is unaffected by joining the new adult training programme. We arc consulting the local authority associations at the moment over a suitable amendment to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations.

  Aspartame
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any evidence that the low-calorie sweetener aspartame is the cause of blindness, dizziness, severe headaches or confusion.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am aware of recent claims that aspartame can cause these effects. I have therefore requested the scientific evidence on which these claims are based. Any such evidence will be considered and the advice of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) which advises the Government on the safety of food additives, will be obtained as necessary.

  We keep under review the safety in use of food additives. The COT has reviewed the scientific data on

  Combined marginal income tax and benefit withdrawal rates 1988–89

  Working heads of tax units (000s) Great Britain

  Numbers facing combined rates of over 50 per cent—in bands

  Per cent.

  Families with children

  Pre-Budget Couples and single people

  Total

  Families with children

  Post-Budget Couples and single people

  Total

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  90 to 99

  55

  5

  60

  45

  0

  45

  80 to 89

  370

  10

  380

  285

  15

  300

  70 to 79

  85

  20

  100

  150

  20

  170

  60 to 69

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  50 to 59

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  (i) Pre-budget figures are based on a 27 per cent. basic rate of tax and allowances up-rated by the retail prices index only.

  (ii) Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000 except 1 which are fewer than 2,500. Rows may not add clue to rounding, and, in particular, the numbers floated off income-related benefits by the Budget total 30,000 not 25,000 as the table suggests.

  (iii) Unlike answers to previous questions, the figures above fully reflect lower rate national insurance contributions. In addition, the figures are based on slightly revised estimates of earnings growth to 1988–89.

  (iv) The total number of working heads of tax-units with more than 24 weekly remunerative hours is approximately 17 million. Those shown
  244
  aspartame several times since it was first approved for use, but it has not altered its advice that aspartame is safe in use.

  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many awards have been granted as a result of the whooping cough vaccine either alone or incorporated with other vaccines, in each year from 1979 to 1987; and in each case in which year the child was immunised originally and whether brain damage was part of the award.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the requested information is not available. The information which is available is set out in the table.

  Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme

  Number of awards made in the United Kingdom 1979–87 where pertussis vaccine containing a pertussis element was the claimed cause of severe physical or mental disablement

  Year

  Number of awards

  11979–80

  460

  1981

  62

  1982

  30

  1983

  31

  1984

  24

  1985

  25

  1986

  14

  1987

  8

  1 This figure cannot be apportioned between 1979 and 1980 calendar years.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the numbers of working single people and of earners with dependent families who will have marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal in excess of 70 per cent. in 1988–89; and what will he the combined total number of people in that situation, including earners and their dependants.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest readily available estimates, both including and excluding the Budget changes announced on 15 March, are shown in the tables:
  245
  in the table therefore represent only 3 per cent. of the total.

  Combined estimates of total numbers including heads of tax units, their partners and other dependants will be made available as soon as possible.

  Skoal Bandits
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why his Department is engaging in discussions regarding health warnings on Skoal Bandits in the light of his proposal to ban the product.

  Mrs. Currie
  In accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 my right hon. Friend is consulting interested parties about the Government's proposal. Some months will elapse before representations have been received and considered. Should we decide to proceed, we propose that a further period will elapse before the safety regulations become effective. While these procedures are being carried out, we think it right for the public to be warned of the health risks they run if they purchase Skoal Bandits.

  Primary Health Care (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the effect of clause 13 of the Health and Medicines Bill on the implementation of the recommendations of paragraph 13.7 of the Acheson report on primary health care in London, relating to improvement of practice premises and employment of ancillary staff.

  Mr. Newton
  Since the publication of the Acheson report in 1981, progress has been made towards the implementation of the recommendations of paragraph 13.7. The effect of clause 13 when enacted will be to reinforce the important role of family practitioner committees (FPCs) in securing continuing substantial improvements in family doctors' premises and in developing practice teams. In particular clause 13 will enable FPCs to target resources at areas of greatest need.

  Maternal Deaths
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon, 18 March,Official Report, column 711, how many (a) direct and (b) indirect maternal deaths in England and Wales in 1982, 1983 and 1984 occurred in National Health Service hospitals without consultant obstetric units; and how many were associated with anasthaesia.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested will be available on the publication of the report on confidential inquiries into maternal deaths in England and Wales towards the end of the year.

  Illegal Abortions
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking upon receipt of a letter from Mrs. Scarisbrick about the activities of Mr. Arnold Finks in relation to illegal abortions.

  Mr. Newton
  A thorough investigation into this case is being carried out by the Department and is almost complete. A reply will be sent to Mrs. Scarisbrick when it is completed.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish the fourth report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on 23 March at columns 158–59.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to take any action with regard to the failure of Manhattan 100s cigarettes to carry information on their tar band.

  Mrs. Currie
  I believe the right hon. Member is referring to a brand called United. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed him in his letter of 10 March, the matter is currently being investigated by the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship and the chairman, Sir Peter Lazarus, will write to him as soon as investigations are completed. Manhattan 100s do carry tar band information.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of National Health Service hospital beds closed during the past 12 months in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands area; and how many have been closed where the reason given by the hospital was financial difficulties.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information on hospitals approved for closure in 1987 is not yet available.

  Consultants (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average amount of time a person in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands will now have to wait before being able to see a consultant in the National Health Service regarding ears and eyes difficulties.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about out-patient waiting times in not available centrally.

  Operations (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average amount of time a person in:(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands will now have to wait for a National Health Service operation for eyes or ears.

  Mr. Newton
  The information for England for the latest available year is given in the table. Information for the rest of the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  247

  Estimated median interval (in weeks) between the time a patient is placed on the waiting list and admission to a NHS non-psychiatric hospital for operations in 1985.

  Condensed1list operation list

  West Midlands

  England

  All Eye Operations

  010

  Operations on muscles of eyeball

  26

  13

  011

  Operations on eyelids

  4

  7

  012

  Operations on iris and ciliary body

  3

  4

  013

  Operations on sclera, choroid, retina and vitreous

  u/r

  3

  014

  Operations on lens

  27

  16

  015

  Other operations on eye

  18

  8

  All Ear Operations

  016

  Incision of ear drum

  9

  10

  017

  Operations on middle ear and ossicles

  16

  14

  018

  Operations on mastoid

  8

  9

  019

  Other operations on ear

  4

  8

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  u/r—sample number too small—unreliable estimate.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are currently estimated to be addicted to the benzodiazepine group of drugs; and what estimate of the incidence of dependence was made by the Committee on the Review of Medicines in its 1980 review of the benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no precise figures to show the level or trend in benzodiazepine dependence but it was estimated in a report published in the Adverse Reaction Bulletin of June 1986 that perhaps half a million people in the United Kingdom were dependent on benzodiazepines. I have placed a copy in the Library. A report "Systematic Review of Benzodiazepines" by the Committee on Review of Medicines published in the British Medical Journal on the 29 March 1980, stated:
  "the number dependent on benzodiazepines in the United Kingdom from 1960 to 1977 has been estimated to be 28 persons. This is equivalent to a dependence rate of 5–10 cases per million patient months".

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the perinatal rates for(a) the Airedale health district, (b) the Bradford health district, (c) the Yorkshire health region and (d) England, for (i) 1979 and (ii) 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.

  Total Applicant Households

  District

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  11984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  SCOTLAND

  16,037

  15,466

  14,868

  15,955

  16,539

  15,516

  20,359

  23,465

  24,196

  BORDERS

  105

  93

  64

  80

  58

  37

  46

  33

  49

  Berwickshire

  20

  12

  8

  11

  10

  8

  8

  5

  8

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  30

  26

  15

  23

  23

  16

  11

  11

  7

  Roxburgh

  25

  25

  12

  15

  25

  13

  27

  17

  34

  Tweeddale

  30

  30

  29

  31

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  248

  Perinatal mortality rate (stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life per 1,000 total live and still births) for selected areas.

  Area of usual residence

  1979

  1986

  Airedale HD/DHA

  14·4

  10·4

  Bradford HD/DHA

  18·3

  15·4

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  16·6

  10·3

  England

  14·6

  9·5

  Notes:

  HD = Health District 1979.

  DHA = District Health Authority 1986.

  Cleveland Child Abuse Inquiry
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will provide financial assistance to Cleveland county council and to the health authorities concerned in respect of their costs arising from the Cleveland child abuse inquiry.

  Mr. Newton
  Yes. In view of the exceptional nature and length of this inquiry I have decided to make available sums of £300,000 both to the county council and to the Northern regional health authority as a contribution towards the costs of the authorities.

  Negligence
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of negligence or breach of statutory duty have been brought against(a) his Department and (b) health authorities in the last three years; whether such claims were covered by insurance; how much money was paid on settlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 1 February 1988. c. 483]: I regret that the table setting out the total compensation payments by health authorities for the last three years was incorrect. The following table gives the correct figures:

  £

  Cases

  1984–85

  5,058,590

  3,393

  1985–86

  7,434,817

  3,697

  1986–87

  9,231,044

  4,234

SCOTLAND

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of households which applied to be classed as homeless, by local authority, in each year from 1978–79.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  249

  District

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  11984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  CENTRAL

  760

  522

  461

  541

  798

  880

  2,175

  2,090

  2,063

  Clackmannan

  202

  270

  235

  278

  294

  247

  262

  490

  652

  Falkirk

  207

  117

  94

  133

  152

  176

  1,553

  1,600

  1,401

  Stirling1

  351

  135

  132

  130

  352

  457

  360

  —

  10

  DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY

  415

  369

  331

  378

  313

  337

  355

  348

  369

  Annandale and Eskdale

  41

  79

  56

  93

  58

  77

  58

  55

  38

  Nithsdale

  267

  172

  158

  187

  167

  166

  174

  171

  185

  Stewartry

  38

  51

  54

  54

  68

  64

  95

  73

  76

  Wigtown

  69

  67

  63

  36

  20

  30

  28

  49

  70

  FIFE

  958

  768

  652

  710

  718

  774

  865

  1,455

  1,431

  Dunfermline

  435

  258

  268

  290

  301

  261

  321

  551

  461

  Kirkcaldy

  340

  320

  180

  237

  220

  255

  265

  505

  546

  North East Fife

  183

  190

  204

  183

  197

  258

  259

  399

  424

  GRAMPIAN

  944

  1,057

  1,095

  957

  945

  855

  983

  1,599

  2,311

  Aberdeen

  730

  844

  874

  746

  715

  657

  708

  1,236

  1,853

  Banff and Buchan

  60

  25

  19

  27

  13

  7

  23

  46

  69

  Gordon

  56

  28

  30

  22

  21

  24

  57

  57

  55

  Kincardine and Deeside

  20

  20

  13

  16

  18

  21

  22

  18

  37

  Moray

  78

  140

  159

  146

  178

  146

  173

  242

  297

  HIGHLAND

  334

  428

  409

  439

  434

  465

  439

  394

  476

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  19

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Caithness

  28

  8

  8

  13

  8

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Inverness

  158

  288

  265

  274

  275

  346

  305

  273

  297

  Lochaber

  38

  33

  35

  91

  79

  50

  58

  42

  93

  Nairn

  36

  35

  31

  21

  44

  45

  18

  24

  27

  Ross and Cromarty

  29

  23

  34

  12

  0

  0

  21

  14

  19

  Skye and Lochalsh

  23

  39

  32

  28

  28

  22

  36

  39

  40

  Sutherland

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  LOTHIAN

  1,506

  1,402

  1,402

  1,842

  1,650

  1,467

  1,928

  2,765

  3,226

  East Lothian

  222

  221

  169

  263

  272

  257

  338

  566

  586

  Edinburgh

  685

  771

  880

  945

  996

  896

  1,151

  1,609

  2,127

  Midlothian

  204

  172

  146

  332

  218

  211

  223

  342

  270

  West Lothian

  395

  238

  207

  302

  172

  103

  216

  248

  243

  STRATHCLYDE

  10,020

  9,964

  9,761

  10,243

  10,780

  9,832

  12,324

  13,306

  12,678

  Argyll and Bute

  327

  242

  141

  142

  148

  180

  246

  386

  294

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  10

  7

  0

  0

  0

  23

  60

  65

  59

  Clydebank1

  188

  127

  105

  180

  124

  170

  365

  281

  109

  Clydesdale

  115

  78

  32

  29

  23

  20

  26

  46

  95

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth1

  231

  114

  170

  195

  312

  37

  392

  375

  318

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  55

  39

  29

  26

  33

  35

  59

  46

  47

  Cunninghame

  347

  296

  242

  276

  291

  275

  327

  320

  314

  Dumbarton

  303

  289

  273

  312

  348

  362

  486

  839

  906

  East Kilbride

  312

  211

  304

  236

  257

  255

  306

  431

  440

  Eastwood

  5

  8

  5

  9

  8

  9

  12

  7

  7

  Glasgow1

  4,391

  4,926

  5,171

  5,049

  5,686

  5,082

  5,806

  6,834

  5,630

  Hamilton

  399

  417

  350

  500

  362

  481

  538

  425

  359

  Inverclyde

  307

  300

  360

  370

  329

  329

  334

  358

  415

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun1

  70

  72

  113

  162

  83

  71

  296

  278

  151

  Kyle and Carrick

  256

  184

  130

  265

  260

  260

  713

  518

  591

  Monklands

  491

  430

  424

  500

  471

  267

  305

  403

  521

  Motherwell

  882

  1,127

  990

  962

  994

  1,007

  1,082

  1,105

  992

  Renfrew1

  1,135

  805

  703

  736

  826

  695

  699

  1,245

  1,129

  Strathkelvin

  196

  292

  219

  294

  225

  268

  272

  224

  301

  TAYSIDE

  828

  705

  587

  652

  728

  735

  1,120

  1,337

  1,463

  Angus

  205

  167

  100

  120

  189

  153

  212

  224

  309

  Dundee

  322

  275

  195

  188

  189

  210

  432

  662

  682

  Perth and Kinross

  301

  263

  292

  344

  358

  372

  476

  451

  472

  ORKNEY ISLANDS

  8

  12

  4

  11

  6

  11

  12

  11

  6

  SHETLAND ISLANDS

  79

  62

  53

  68

  69

  85

  80

  98

  77

  WESTERN ISLES

  80

  84

  49

  42

  40

  38

  32

  29

  47

  1 Based on incomplete returns.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available to indicate the levels of public expenditure in Scotland in meeting responsibilities to the homeless.
  250
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to separate out in the way requested public expenditure incurred in meeting the needs of the homeless.
  251
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available to indicate the number of homeless households in Scotland in a given week.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information held centrally does not identify the number of homeless households in a given week.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the proceeds of sales of mental hospitals in Scotland in each of the next seven years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One former mental hospital is currently surplus to Health Service requirements and is expected to be sold during the next financial year. It will be sold on the open market and the proceeds cannot therefore be estimated in advance. I am not in a position to forecast disposals and their proceeds in future years. It is a matter for health boards in the first place to consider closure and, after consultation with local interests, to seek the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homeless persons in Scotland have previously been admitted to hospitals with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many residential places have been provided in the community for patients discharged from mental hospitals in Scotland with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many residential places have been provided in the community for patients discharged from mental hospitals in Scotland in each of the last 10 years.

  Number of sheep monitored between 1 November 1987 and 18 March 1988

  1987

  1988

  Region

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Scotland Total

  SA

  LM

  SM

  LM

  SM

  LM

  SM

  LM

  SM

  LM

  SM

  LM

  Borders

  1

  1162

  2

  118

  —

  1120

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  300

  Central

  —

  1564

  —

  1776

  —

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  22,406

  2

  21,361

  2

  2685

  4

  21,366

  —

  2341

  14

  7,502

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  1779

  —

  1788

  —

  1223

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2513

  2

  2625

  —

  1185

  4

  2369

  —

  292

  8

  3,574

  Fife

  6

  180

  4

  1197

  2

  1306

  3

  —

  —

  —

  15

  583

  Grampian

  2

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Highland

  2

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  9

  —

  Lothian

  —

  166

  —

  144

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110

  Orkney

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  11,125

  —

  1467

  —

  110

  —

  147

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  21,190

  2

  1937

  1

  184

  3

  2165

  1

  241

  9

  4,066

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  1147

  —

  1439

  3

  —

  —

  132

  3

  618

  Western Isles

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Scotland monthly total

  26

  6,885

  19

  5,360

  8

  2,055

  26

  1,947

  2

  506

  81

  16,753

  Notes:

  SM—Slaughterhouse monitoring.

  LM—Live monitoring.

  1 Marked sheep.

  2 Sheep monitored on restricted farms in conjunction with the mark and release scheme.

  252
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Statistics of the type requested are not held centrally. Such figures as are available for residential accommodation in the community reflect the total provision made by local authorities and voluntary bodies for mentally handicapped and mentally ill people already in the community as well as for ex-patients of mental hospitals. Provision of places for people with specific mental illnesses is not identified separately. The numbers of residential places made available in each of the last 10 years by local authorities and voluntary bodies was as follows:

  31 March

  Mental handicap

  Mental illness

  1978

  11,063

  1979

  1,087

  168

  1980

  1,093

  209

  1981

  1,155

  218

  1982

  1,242

  283

  21983

  1,491

  485

  1984

  1,665

  559

  1985

  1,773

  608

  1986

  1,951

  644

  31987

  2,129

  674

  1 1978 statistics covered the mentally handicapped and mentally ill together.

  2 From 1983 onwards, statistics included details of provision in other establishments, such as group homes, of which local authorities were aware.

  3 1987 figures are provisional.

  Sheep
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheep have been monitored for radioactivity in each month since October 1987 in each region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the distribution of housing association grant by settlement size for the period from 1979 to 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Housing association grant is a payment made in consequence of the approval of a project, under the approved development programme of the Housing Corporation in Scotland. The Secretary of State exercises control over the amount of public funding available to the housing association movement and the general categorisation of types of project through his approval of this annual programme.

  No information is held by settlement size on the distribution of housing association grant or capital allocations to associations.

  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific legislative powers currently exist for the provision of grant aid to voluntary organisations providing emergency accommodation for the single homeless in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 39 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 makes provision for the Secretary of State and for local authorities to give assistance to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness. Assistance is also available under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969.

  Region

  Admissions into local authority care in year ending 31 March by reason of family homelessness

  Children in local authority care at 31 March by reason of family homelessness

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Borders

  1

  8

  1

  7

  6

  3

  Central

  1

  0

  1

  4

  5

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  2

  3

  3

  5

  Fife

  1

  0

  0

  9

  8

  8

  Grampian

  6

  11

  1

  18

  15

  11

  Highland

  0

  5

  2

  6

  1

  1

  Lothian

  2

  1

  0

  9

  4

  4

  Tayside

  2

  1

  0

  15

  14

  10

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland (excluding Strathclyde)

  13

  26

  7

  71

  56

  46

  Information provided by Strathclyde regional council on admissions to care by reason of homelessness relates only to 1984–85 and 1985–86 when the numbers of children concerned were respectively 15 and 19. No information is available from Strathclyde on children currently in care for this reason.

  The very difficult problems which can arise when dealing with homeless people call for the exercise of good housing management and close co-operation between all the agencies involved. The Government are committed to maintaining an effective legislative framework to help the homeless.
  254
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants were made in 1986–87 by Government Departments and local authorities in Scotland to voluntary organisations providing accommodation for(a) the single homeless, (b) battered women and their families, (c) homeless families and (d) ex-offenders.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Some £400,000 in grant aid was provided by Scottish Office in 1986–87 via local authorities for the provision of hostel accommodation for ex-offenders, and a further £100,000 was given to voluntary organisations involved with the homeless, although not necessarily themselves providing accommodation. I do not have details of grants made by local authorities.

  Children (Homelessness)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the annual figures for the number of children received into care by reason of homelessness; if he will give this information for Scotland as a whole and for each local authority area; what are the latest figures for the number of children in local authority care where the reason for their admission into care was homelessness; if he will give this information for Scotland as a whole for each local authority area for the years ended 31 March 1985, 1986, 1987, or the three most recent years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for Scotland, excluding Strathclyde, in the last three years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were registered as unemployed in Scotland on 1 October 1981; and what was the total on 1 October 1986.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. In October 1981 the number of unemployed claimants in Scotland was 302,362. The corresponding figure for October 1986 was 359,236. Due to changes which have taken place in the compilation of the statistics during the period these figures are not directly comparable.

  Merksworth High School, Paisley
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will accept the invitation of the Merksworth high school, Paisley, parents' association to visit the school on Saturday 26 March to view the school's educational facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I has any plans to visit Merksworth high school at present.

  YTS
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the occupancy rates on the YTS in Dundee are at the latest date and for equivalent dates for each month since the scheme started.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]: Information in the form requested cannot be given except at disproportionate cost.

  In Dundee local authority district at 26 February 1988 (the latest available date) there were 1,857 contracted places on YTS, 1,430 of which were filled (a 77 per cent. occupancy rate). For the same date in 1987, there were 1,409 contracted places of which 1,139 were filled (an 81 per cent. occupancy rate). These figures do not include occupancy rates on YTS schemes administered by the large companies unit, which does not break down figures to local level.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unified Training Programme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the proposed unified training programme; what problems with regard to its implementation have been drawn to his attention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about a range of matters concerning the new employment training programme, on which the recent White Paper "Training for Employment" announced that the Government had accepted in full the recommendations made by the Manpower Services Commission. The new programme will commence on 5 September this year, and the MSC is now making detailed arrangements for its implementation.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the English tourist board to discuss the encouragement of tourism in the north-west of England.

  Mr. Lee
  I have regular meetings with the chairman of the English tourist board to discuss the development and promotion of tourism throughout England, including the north-west.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the development of tourism in the inner cities.

  Mr. Lee
  As part of the Government's "Action for Cities" programme, the Engish tourist board is to run a256
  campaign to help identify and develop the tourism potential of inner city areas. Inner city tourism will continue to benefit from the English tourist board's marketing initiatives as well as the section 4 scheme of financial assistance.

  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the numbers of disablement resettlement officers.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no plans at present to increase the numbers of disablement resettlement officers. The matter will continue to be kept under review.

  Special Aids
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training is given to those responsible for issuing aids under the special aids to employment scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  Technical officers who are responsible for the provision of advice on aids issued under the special aids to employment scheme, attend training courses designed to keep them abreast of technical developments. Courses are arranged in conjunction with manufacturers, suppliers and those major voluntary organisations for people with disabilities. They are also encouraged to attend exhibitions, read publications and liaise on a day-to-clay basis with manufacturers, suppliers, local colleges, the medical profession and other health care professionals.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Manpower Services Commission offices holds stocks of items commonly requested under the special aids to employment scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Stocks of items commonly requested under the special aids to employment scheme are held centrally by the employment service.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average length of time between receipt of an application under the Manpower Services Commission special aids to employment scheme, and the date the equipment was delivered.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures available on the average length of time between receipt of the application for equipment under the special aids to employment scheme and the date the equipment was delivered. Typically, the period can vary from a few days to several weeks depending on the complexity of the case and the availability of the equipment.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each region the numbers arid types of equipment issued under the Manpower Services Commission special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  There is no information readily available on the types of equipment issued under the special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years. Information on numbers is readily available only for the past four years, and is as follows:
  257

  Region

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Midlands

  193

  235

  342

  386

  Wales

  74

  85

  144

  175

  London

  257

  280

  573

  630

  South East

  264

  297

  415

  605

  Scotland

  179

  169

  176

  325

  Northern

  44

  58

  76

  77

  Yorkshire-Humberside

  102

  118

  282

  298

  North West

  121

  211

  354

  468

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  192

  South West

  222

  187

  378

  384

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the occupations of those receiving equipment under the Manpower Services Commission special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  A list of occupations of those receiving equipment under the special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years is not available. The following information shows some of the typical occupations of people who have benefited by the issue of equipment.

  General Clerk

  Cost Clerk

  Bonus Clerk

  Articled Clerk

  Accounts Clerk

  Clerical Assistant

  Social Worker

  Computer Programmer

  Computer Operator

  Printers Assistant

  Technical Officer

  Trainee Manager

  Training Officer

  Receptionist

  Telephonist

  Disability Services Co-ordinator

  Word Processor

  Typist (Audio)

  Typist (Copy)

  Secretary

  Physiotherapist

  Equal Opportunities Officer

  Photographer

  Porter

  Medical Secretary

  Production Worker

  Solicitor

  Circuit Board Assembler

  Sales Director

  Journalist

  Machine Tool Operator

  Scientific Officer

  Appeals Organiser

  Teacher

  Nurse

  Doctor

  Accountant

  Careers Officer

  Engineer

  Driver

  Civil Servant

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average retail price of an aid issued under the Manpower Services Commission special aids to employment scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  The average retail price of aids issued under the scheme during the financial year 1986–87 was £473. However, discounts on retail prices are sought for bulk purchases of aids which are frequently issued.
  258
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost to the Manpower Services Commission of the special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The cost to the Manpower Services Commission of the special aids to employment scheme for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  1982–83

  529,379

  1983–84

  792,168

  1984–85

  927,279

  1985–86

  1,094,000

  1986–87

  1,674,000

  Premises and Equipment (Adaptation Scheme)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many adaptations carried out under the adaptation to premises and equipment scheme were to meet the needs of people categorised as(a) deaf without speech, (b) deaf with speech and (c) hard of hearing.

  Mr. Lee
  During the first six months of the current financial year, the number of adaptations carried out under the adaptations to premises and equipment scheme to meet the needs of people categorised as(a) deaf without speech, (b) deaf with speech, (c) hard of hearing were (a) 4, (b) 4, and (c)

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time between the date of application for the adaptation to premises and equipment scheme and the date the application is completed.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures available on the average length of time between the date of application for the adaptation to premises and equipment scheme and the date the application is completed. Typically, the period can vary from a few days to several months depending on the complexity of the case.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average amount of grant awarded under the adaptation of premises and equipment scheme for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  Total expenditure, numbers of people helped and the average amount of grant awarded under the adaptation to premises and equipment scheme for each of the last five years were:

  Year

  Annual expenditure

  Number of people helped

  Average cost

  £

  £

  1982–83

  107,334

  117

  917

  1983–84

  134,412

  170

  790

  1984–85

  243,649

  145

  1,680

  1985–86

  295,000

  165

  1,788

  1986–87

  257,000

  253

  1,016

  Aural Handicap
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies of the Manpower Services Commission leaflet EPL 38 "Employing someone who is deaf or hard of hearing", were issued in the last five years.
  259
  Mr. Lee
  Approximately 10,000 copies of the leaflet EPL 38 have been issued in the last five years.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will provide details for each region of the average time between a new claimant's availability for work being queried and a decision being made by an adjudication officer.

  Mr. Lee
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the speed with which adjudication officers make decisions (that is, the time between their receiving a referral and reaching a decision) is monitored in a 5 per cent. sample of cases. The sample shows that, for the three-month period ending 31 December 1987, the percentage of all availability questions (on both new and existing claims and including decisions on availability during holidays) decided within four weeks of referral to an adjudication officer, for each employment service region, was as follows:—

  Availability

  Restricted Availability

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  London and South East

  81·8

  81·8

  Northern

  98·5

  98·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  95·5

  96·3

  South West

  89·6

  85·1

  Wales

  82·9

  97·2

  East Midlands

  85·3

  91·1

  West Midlands

  76·2

  78·3

  North West

  92·0

  98·0

  Scotland

  74·9

  93·3

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of unemployment in rural areas and the measures which his Department is taking to reduce them.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on unemployment in rural areas is not readily available. However, an independent unemployment analysis carried out for the Development Commission for Rural England suggests that rural areas are sharing in the general drop in unemployment. The analysis estimated that the average unemployment rate in the Development Commission's rural development areas as a whole fell from 10·4 per cent. to 9·7 per cent. in the year to April 1987. During the same period, the unemployment rate nationally fell from 11·5 per cent. to 10·9 per cent. National unemployment has continued to fall since last April, and is now 9·1 per cent. These further falls can only have further benefited rural areas.

  My Department is playing its part with other interested Departments to foster these improvements, by providing active encouragement and support to enterprise. We are providing support for local enterprise agencies, tourism, and small businesses through our small firms service and a range of marketing improvement services. In addition, the full range of our employment, enterprise and training measures are available to help unemployed people in rural areas.

  Education and Training (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, pursuant to the answer of 18 260
  December 1987, Official Report, column 829, he will place a copy of the joint Manpower Services Commission, Department of Education and Science and Inland Revenue guide to tax relief for employers' expenditure on education and training in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The guide to tax relief for employers' expenditure on education and training was published on 15 February 1988. Copies of "Tax, Training and Education — a Guide for Employers, Education and Training Providers" are being placed in the Library.

  Hotel Grading
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation is taking place on a scheme for hotel grading as a separate qualitative assessment from classification.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]: Following extensive consultations with the serviced accommodation sector, the English tourist board has announced its intention of introducing a system of assessing quality standards as an addition to the existing crown classification system. The English tourist board is involved in detailed discussions with the industry and its trade associations on the best way to introduce the new scheme.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beekeeping
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to meet representatives of beekeeping organisations.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no such plans at present. My officials have regular meetings with representatives of the national beekeeping organisations and keep me in touch with their views.

  European Community Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his counterparts from the other European Community states; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on 10 March at columns 323–24.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the next devaluation of the green pound.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Green pound devaluations are best considered at the time of the annual prices fixing when all relevant factors can be taken into account.

  Cereals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what base year he intends to operate for the area of cereals set-aside scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  261
  Mr. MacGregor
  This and other conditions applying to farmers entering the set-aside scheme will need to be decided in the light of the detailed Community rules yet to be established.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the current studies into the proposed Severn barrage to be completed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Severn tidal power group's work programme is due to conclude at the end of this year.

  UKAEA (SP-100 Project)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has had any commercial involvement in terms of advice consultancy or hardware and software development for the SP-100 nuclear powered space project;

  (2) if there have been any commercial links between UKAEA's Culham laboratories and the SP-100 US space-based nuclear propulsion programme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that the UKAEA has had no commercial involvement in, or links with, this project.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 18 March, column 685, he will specify the exact nature of safeguards arrangements applied to South African origin uranium, giving details of date of entry into force and expiration of all such safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Specific safeguards arrangements are confidential to the parties involved.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he possesses on the practice of flag swapping on uranium consignments under Euratom safeguards control in European Economic Community countries, including flag swapping on uranium of United States, Canadian, Australian and South African origin.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 March 1988, at columns 200–1.

  Sellafield
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 18 March Official Report column 685, why it is expected to take until the end of 1988 to bring the first four Sellafield particular safeguards provisions into force.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The particular safeguards provisions require detailed preparation and consultation.

TRANSPORT

  A2 (Accidents)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on fatal and non-fatal 262
  accidents on the A2 between Lydden and Whitfield (A256) and Whitfield and Deal (A258) for each year since 1970; and what comparable figures are available for other similar roads in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information available is as follows:

  Number of accidents

  Accident 1rates

  Year

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  Fatal

  All-injury

  Lydden-Whitfield (A256)

  1981

  1

  9

  0·04

  0·39

  1982

  1

  6

  0·04

  0·27

  1983

  2

  5

  0·08

  0·27

  1984

  2

  9

  0·08

  0·43

  1985

  1

  8

  0·03

  0·29

  1986

  2

  10

  0·06

  0·39

  Whitfield-Deal (A258)

  1981

  1

  13

  0·07

  0·92

  1982

  —

  11

  —

  0·72

  1983

  1

  8

  0·07

  0·59

  1984

  —

  8

  —

  0·53

  1985

  —

  2

  —

  0·12

  1986

  1

  7

  0·06

  0·49

  National average rates2

  1984

  0·01

  0·27

  1985

  0·01

  0·24

  1986

  0·01

  0·24

  1 Accidents per million vehicle kilometers.

  2 These rates are for all purpose single and dual carriageway trunk roads in non-built up areas in Great Britain.

  Random Breath Testing
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the effectiveness of random breath testing in other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We keep in close touch with international experience. Although some countries that have introduced random breath testing seem to have achieved dramatic reductions in their levels of drinking and driving, they are no more successful overall than we are in containing the problem. In Australia, for example, the introduction of random breath testing in some states has reduced the level of drinking and driving to around the current level in this country. It is not always straightforward to compare one country with another and to assume that changes in one social environment would work in another. In this country the police have wide discretion to enforce the law on drinking and driving. This led to more than 300,000 breath tests last year resulting in over 100,000 convictions.

  London Docklands (Roads)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the docklands northern relief road was taken over by his Department as a road scheme when the Greater London council was abolished; (2) what is the current official status of the docklands northern relief road; (3) what is the status of the London Docklands development corporation's proposals for the south Poplar link road and the East India dock link road; (4) what assumptions have been made about completion dates for London Docklands development corporation schemes known jointly as the docklands highway.
  263
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On abolition of the GLC, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State became responsible for safeguarding the protected corridor of the proposed dock lands northern relief road. The LDDC has developed proposals for docklands highways to provide access to developments within its area. These proposals, which include the south Poplar link road and the East India dock link road, follow the protected corridor. It is expected that they will have been completed by the early 1990s.

  Dockland Link Roads
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what will be the status of the A13 between West India Dock road and the Leamouth road when the south Poplar and the East India Dock road are completed and linked to the A13 East India Dock road;

  (2) what traffic management measures are proposed for the A13 between West India Dock road and Leamouth road once the south Poplar link road and the East India Dock link road are completed;

  (3) whether heavy vehicles will be allowed along the south Poplar link road and the East India Dock link road, as well as along the A13 between West India Dock road and Leamouth road;

  (4) what is the relationship, from the point of view of through traffic and local traffic, between the A13 junction improvement schemes and the docklands highway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The docklands highway and the A13, to be improved by the six schemes whose inclusion in the Department's road programme was announced on 7 March, will together provide for traffic moving to and from the docklands area, and through it. The Department has set up a working group with the London Docklands development corporation, local authorities, police and other interested parties to discuss traffic management, including heavy vehicles in the area. There are no proposals to change the status of the A13.

  Trunk Roads
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether all trunk road schemes are subject to public inquiries including an examination of the purpose, function and design of schemes;

  (2) if there will be public inquiries to examine the purpose, function and design of the six A13 junction schemes which he recently announced;

  (3) what are the expected completion dates of the A13 junction improvements;

  (4) what public consultation is to take place about the A13 schemes he announced on 7 March.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Public inquiries are normally required to be held into unresolved objections to orders authorising trunk road schemes. The scope of the inquiry depends on the nature of the objections.

  It is too early to say what public consultation and inquiries may be necessary for the recently announced A13 schemes. We hope they will he completed by the mid-1990s.

  Tiger Super Puma Helicopter
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the French DGAC to complete 264
  its air worthiness review of the AS332L Tiger Super Puma helicopter; and if he will make it his policy to publish the findings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority is participating in the French DGAC airworthiness review of the AS 332L helicopter, which is expected to be completed shortly. It will be for the authority, which is wholly responsible for civil aviation safety regulation, to take any action on the outcome of the review.

  Rail Network (London)
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to deal with congestion on the London rail network.

  Mr. Channon
  I have for some time been considering, with British Rail and London Regional Transport, the scope for improving and developing the railway network in London. A number of major improvements are already in hand at central London termini and I have authorised the purchase of additional rolling stock and expenditure to relieve congestion at a number of stations on the Underground. But the chairmen of BR and LRT both agree that more must be done. In particular, an urgent review is needed of capacity in the central area. We have therefore jointly established a central London rail study, to focus on these concerns in the light of present and future demand. The aim will be to develop a strategy for improving services, bearing in mind the need to maximise the use of existing assets. But I do not rule out the possible need for major extensions of London's rail infrastructure. I hope to have initial results in July. I am placing a copy of the terms of reference for the study in the Library.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Directorate
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information has been given to the staff of the driver and vehicle licensing directorate about the consequences of the proposed change to executive agency status.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are anxious that the staff in DVLD are given full information on the proposal so that they are not unnecessarily concerned about its implications. In common with the rest of the Department on 18 February, the day of the Prime Minister's announcement, DVLD staff received a message on the changes from the permanent secretary. They also received a personal message from the director and subsequently more detailed information in the form of a question and answer brief in the DVLD house journal. Staff will also be kept informed of any further development in this way. The content of the question and answer briefing is as follows.

  Q1. What changes will be made at DVLD?
  A1. The main changes at DVLD will be in the way the Directorate is financed, in its accounting systems, and in increased responsibility for personnel management The changes will all be aimed at giving the Directorate greater freedom to manage its own operations and to achieve results. Ways of enabling staff to share in the benefits of improved performance resulting from the new agency status may also be possible. It is too early to be more specific.
  Q2. Why has DVLD been identified as a candidate for possible Executive Agency status?
  A2. DVLD is already a relatively autonomous unit within DTp. It is a large scale unit with unique executive functions. It already has many of the features of an

  265
  executive agency. It has approved annual plans and administers the bulk of its expenditure and staffing under extensive delegated powers from the Department. It agrees with and reports to the Department on its performance targets. It has a very good record on improving customer service and of reducing its operating costs. The adoption of executive agency status should help consolidate these achievements and provide more freedom for DVLD to deliver the results required of it.
  Q3. Will the staff of the new agencies remain subject to civil service pay and conditions? Will there be any redundancies as a result of further improvement in efficiency?
  A3. Staff in the proposed DTp agencies would remain civil servants with appropriate nationally agreed pay scales. No changes are intended at present in basic conditions of service. The Trade Unions would be fully consulted should any changes in terms and conditions of service be contemplated in the future. DVLD's workload is currently increasing at 4 per cent. per year and it is anticipated that this will absorb any staff released through efficiency improvements.
  Q4. If it goes ahead will any work move from Swansea?
  A4. There may be some changes at the margins as much to do with work moving to DVLD as work moving away.
  Q5. What will happen to the VROs?
  A5. The VROs will be included in the proposed agency along with DVLC and DVOIT.
  Q6. Will agency staff have the freedom to move back to the Department?
  A6. Transfer arrangements for staff between agencies and their parent and other Departments will be retained. There would be some change in personnel management responsibilities exercised by DVLD but overall the present degree of freedom should remain the same.
  Q7. Will the DVLD workload change as a result of these proposals?
  A7. DVLDs workload is forecast to increase at 4 per cent. per annum and no changes are foreseen as a direct result of the proposed change in status.
  Q8. Will DVOIT be included in the new agency?
  A8. The current intention is that it should but its future status will be subject to review in the light of the operational framework agreed upon for the proposed DVLC agency.
  Q9. Does the proposal imply criticism of DVLD?
  A9. Rather the reverse. The proposals build on the considerable achievements of the Directorate by giving it more freedom to run it own affairs.
  Q10. What about personnel management of VRO staff?
  A10. This will be reviewed to see what the most sensible arrangement would be. There will be no significant changes in the level of service provided.
  Q11. Have staff been informed of this development?
  A11. All DVLD staff have received messages from the Permanent Secretary and the Director. The Departmental and local TUS have been informed.
  Q12. When will DVLD become an executive agency?
  A12. Decisions have still to he taken on whether or not DVLD should become an executive agency. If a decision is taken in favour a great deal will have to be done and this will inevitably take some time.
  Q13. How will the new DVLD agency affect the local Trade Unions?
  A13. It is not expected that there will be any immediate changes to the local TUS structure if the DVLD agency is set up but the position will need to be kept under review by both sides in the light of experience with the new organisation.
  Q14. What will determine whether DVLD becomes an executive agency?
  A14. If Ministers consider that changes in the form of Departmental and Treasury control, together with a reduction in Ministerial involvement in day to day operations, would give agency management the opportunity to improve the efficiency of their operations.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the 1987–88 cash limits on his Department's Votes.

  Mr. Channon
  Running costs expenditure on Class VIII Vote 4 is expected to be £300,000 higher than was provided for in the spring Supplementary Estimates (HC284). There will be a corresponding reduction to non-running costs subheads on that vote. Running costs expenditure on Class VIII Vote 2, which is in the same running costs limit as Class VIII Vote 4, has been reduced by £300,000 and the cash limit on Class VIII Vote 2 has been reduced from £187,594,000 to £187,294,000.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations to end industrial action on the Woolwich ferry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The London borough of Greenwich is still trying to negotiate a settlement with the work force. I am meeting the leader of Greenwich borough council on 28 March to discuss the position.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crossings have been lost as a result of industrial action on the Woolwich ferry between 1 April 1987 and the most recent convenient date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Too many. Up to 24 March about 33,000 crossings have been lost.

  London Transport
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the public subsidy to(a) London Underground and (b) London Transport in each year since 1979 at (i) outturn and (ii) constant 1988 prices.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is not possible to attribute these grants as between the Underground and other LRT activities, as grants were not so assigned when they were made. The figures for grants to London Regional Transport were as follows:

  Outturn Prices

  January 1988 Prices

  1979

  148

  269

  1980

  196

  301

  1981

  216

  299

  1982

  313

  397

  1983

  339

  412

  1984–85

  317

  365

  1985–86

  323

  349

  1986–87

  295

  308

  1987–88

  239

  239

  1988–89

  190

  182

  Victoria Place Road, Stoke
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the Victoria place road scheme in Stoke-on-Trent was not included in the 1988–89 transport supplementary grant settlement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Victoria place link, Stoke-on-Trent, was included in Staffordshire's transport policies and programme submission for 1988–89. It was not
  267
  selected for transport supplementary grant support since the main works were not programmed to start until 1989–90. TSG funds are limited and grant is usually restricted to schemes already under construction or whose main works are due to start in that financial year.

  Victoria place link was Staffordshire's third priority for TSG; its first two have been given grant aid. If put forward again next year with sufficient priority, the scheme will he considered on its merits in competition with schemes from other authorities for the funds available.

  A50 Stoke
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the traffic flow was last measured on the A50 in Stoke-on-Trent, South; what was the number of vehicles counted on a 12-hour weekday; what was the corresponding heavy commercial vehicle count; and which major roads passing through urban areas in the west midlands have a higher traffic count.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest count was taken on the A50/A520 (Meir) junction in October 1987. The average weekday 12-hour flow was 23,900 vehicles of which some 19 per cent. were heavy vehicles.

  Many roads through urban areas in the west midlands have a higher traffic count. In addition to the motorways, lengths of A34, A38(M), A41, A45, A435, A449, A456 and A457 within the west midlands conurbation all carry higher volumes.

  M6 Stoke
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average vehicle count for a 12-hour weekday on the M6 adjacent to Stoke-on-Trent; and what is the corresponding number of heavy lorries.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest 12-hour weekday average count on M6 is 61,300 vehicles (36·5 per cent. heavy vehicles) between junctions 15 and 16 and 66,700 vehicles (21·5 per cent. heavy vehicles) between junctions 14 and 15. Counts were taken in September 1987.

  Traffic Counts
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the highest traffic count of(a) all vehicles and (b) heavy commercial vehicles on urban roads that has been reported to his Department in the last two years; what was the date of the count; and where was the road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A classified traffic count of 12 hours duration (7 am to 7 pm) for one day is taken as part of the Department's rotating traffic census. Counts are taken on one sixth of major road links each year so that all links are covered in six years. The classification "urban" is no longer used, being replaced by "built-up" where a section of road has a speed limit of 40 mph or less.

  The highest traffic counts on built-up roads recorded in 1986 and 1987 are:

  Date of count

  12-hour count

  Road

  Location

  Grid reference

  All vehicles

  15 October 1986

  89,663(90,089)

  A4202

  Park Lane, London

  52801806

  268

  Date of count

  12-hour count

  Road

  Location

  Grid reference

  14 October 1987

  73,380 (73,692)

  A104

  Woodford New Road, North East London

  53991917

  Heavy goods vehicles

  22 April 1986

  8,678

  A405

  North Watford between A41 and M1 junction 6

  51102004

  14 April 1987

  14,228

  A282

  South of Dartford Tunnel

  55581750

  Figures in brackets include pedal cycles.

  Traffic Congestion (Stoke)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the proposals supported by his Department designed to reduce peak hour traffic congestion in Stoke-on-Trent, South; what will be the expected benefit of each; and by what date completion of each proposal is expected.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Construction of a grade-separated junction at Hanford (A34/A500) is well advanced and should be completed by early summer. We also have in preparation a scheme to upgrade the A50 route between Blythe bridge and Queensway (A500). Subject to the completion of statutory processes work should start on this in 1992 and be completed in about two years.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to the answer of 8 March,Official Report, columns 153–4, he will list by Civil Service grade the number of officials in his Department located outside London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The number of staff in the Department by grade, both permanent and casual, located outside London on 18 March 1988 was:

  Grade title

  Total

  Administrative Assistant

  3,030

  Administrative Officer

  2,248

  Assistant Chief Driving Examiner

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  17

  Assistant Storekeeper

  8

  Assistant Chief Reprographics Officer

  3

  Cartographic Assistant (Misc.)

  1

  Cartographic Draughtsman (Misc.)

  3

  Casual Administrative Assistant

  243

  Casual Administrative Officer

  8

  Casual Cleaner

  6

  Casual Clerical Assistant

  2

  Casual Government Telephonist

  1

  Casual Messenger

  9

  Casual Paperkeeper

  2

  Casual Personal Secretary

  1

  Casual Reprographics Operators II

  2

  Casual Technical Grade 1

  1

  Casual Technical Grade 2

  1

  Casual Typist

  10

  Chairman of Traffic Commissioners

  8

  Chief Photographer

  1

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  Cleaner (full time)

  1

  Cleaner (less that 10 hours a week)

  167

  269

  Grade title

  Total

  Cleaner (part time)

  12

  Clerical Assistant

  1

  Coastguard Officer

  210

  Data Processor

  1

  District Officer (Coastguard)

  27

  Driving Examiner

  1,007

  Engineer and Ship Surveyor Grade 1

  20

  Engineer and Ship Surveyor Grade 2

  11

  Executive Officer

  924

  Government Telephonists

  8

  Grade 3 (Under Secretary)

  2

  Grade 4 (Chief Inspector of Accidents C/Av)

  1

  Grade 4 (Chief Scientific Officer L/S)

  1

  Grade 4 (Director A—Civil Engineer)

  5

  Grade 4 (Director A—M & E Engineer)

  1

  Grade 4 (Director Middle Band)

  1

  Grade 5 (Assistant Secretary)

  5

  Grade 5 (Assistant Chief Engineer—CE)

  1

  Grade 5 (Director 3—Civil Engineer)

  7

  Grade 5 (Director 3—Electrical Engineer)

  1

  Grade 5 (Director 5—M & E Engineer)

  2

  Grade 5 (Deputy Chief Inspector of Accidents)

  1

  Grade 5 (Deputy Chief Scientific Officer)

  7

  Grade 6 (Chief Surveyor)

  5

  Grade 6 (Senior Principal Scientific Officer)

  14

  Grade 6 (Senior Principal)

  13

  Grade 6 (Superintending Civil Engineer)

  23

  Grade 6 (Superintending Electrical Engineer)

  2

  Grade 6 (Superintending M & E Engineer)

  2

  Grade 6 (Superintending Mechanical Engineer)

  7

  Grade 7 (Casual PP & TO Civil Engineer)

  1

  Grade 7 (PP & TO Civil Engineer)

  81

  Grade 7 (PP & TO Electrical Engineer)

  12

  Grade 7 (PP & TO Landscape Architect)

  2

  Grade 7 (PP & TO M & E Engineer)

  2

  Grade 7 (PP & TO Mechanical Engineer)

  16

  Grade 7 (PP & TO Quantity Surveyor)

  2

  Grade 7 (PP & TO Railway EMP Inspector)

  2

  Grade 7 (Principal Engineer & Ship Surveyor)

  13

  Grade 7 (Principal Information Officer)

  1

  Grade 7 (Principal Inspector of Coastguard)

  7

  Grade 7 (Principal Scientific Officer)

  82

  Grade 7 (Principal Nautical Surveyor)

  9

  Grade 7 (Principal Ship Surveyor)

  15

  Grade 7 (Principal)

  59

  Grade 7 (Principal Civil Engineer (Highways))

  1

  Graphics Officer

  2

  Graphics Officer Grade IV

  1

  Higher Cartographer Draughtsman (Miscellaneous)

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  400

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  Higher Scientific Officer

  90

  HPTO (Civil Engineer Highways)

  1

  HPTO (Civil Engineer)

  44

  HPTO (Electrical Engineer)

  33

  HPTO (Fire)

  1

  HPTO (Horticultural)

  5

  HPTO (Landscape Architect)

  1

  HPTO (M & E DO)

  1

  HPTO (M & E Engineer)

  3

  HPTO (Mechanical Engineer)

  108

  Industrial grade

  515

  Inspector of Accidents (Engineering)

  3

  Inspector of Accidents (Operations)

  2

  Inspector of Coastguard

  7

  Librarian

  2

  Medical Officer

  7

  Messenger

  152

  Nautical Surveyor 1

  13

  Nautical Surveyor 2

  9

  Office Keeper II

  3

  Office Keeper III

  5

  270

  Grade title

  Total

  Packer

  16

  Paperkeeper

  32

  Personal Secretary

  77

  Porter/Messenger

  40

  Principal Inspector of Accidents (Engineering)

  2

  Principal Inspector of Accidents (Operations)

  2

  Principal Photographer

  4

  Process & General Supervisory D

  1

  PTO (B & CE)

  1

  PTO (Civil Engineer (Casual))

  1

  PTO (Civil Engineer Highways)

  1

  PTO (Civil Engineer)

  24

  PTO (Electrical Engineer)

  13

  PTO (Landscape Architect Technician)

  2

  PTO (Landscape Architect (Casual))

  1

  PTO (M & E DO)

  4

  PTO (M & E Engineer)

  9

  PTO (M & E Engineering)

  1

  PTO (Mechanical Engineer)

  446

  Reprographics Manager

  1

  Reprographics Operator I

  12

  Reprographics Operator II

  18

  Sandwich Course Student (Comp SC) CB

  11

  Sandwich Course Student (Work Experience)

  2

  Scientific Officer

  53

  Security Officer Grade II (Non Uniformed)

  1

  Security Officer Grade II (Uniformed)

  1

  Security Office Grade III (Uniformed)

  1

  Security Officer Grade IV (Uniformed)

  10

  Security Officer Grade V (Uniformed)

  39

  Senior Inspector of Accidents (Engineering)

  12

  Senior Inspector of Accidents (Operations)

  6

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  Senior Carto Draughtsman (Misc.)

  1

  Senior Coastguard Officer

  199

  Senior Coastguard Officer (ex Station Officer)

  54

  Senior Driving Examiner

  328

  Senior Executive Officer

  120

  Senior Inspector of Ships Provisions

  1

  Senior Librarian

  1

  Senior Medical Officer

  1

  Senior Messenger

  19

  Senior Paperkeeper

  2

  Senior Personal Secretary

  3

  Senior Photographer

  10

  Senior Scientific Officer

  73

  Senior Traffic Examiner

  34

  Ship Surveyor Grade 1

  16

  Ship Surveyor Grade 2

  5

  SPTO (Casual Civil Engineer)

  2

  SPTO (Civil Engineer)

  172

  SPTO (Electrical Engineer)

  33

  SPTO (Electrical Marine Engineer)

  1

  SPTO (Landscape Architect)

  5

  SPTO (M & E Engineer)

  5

  SPTO (Mechanical Engineer)

  50

  SPTO (Quantity Surveyor)

  4

  SPTO (Railway Employment Inspector)

  5

  Storekeeper

  5

  Stores Officer Grade B

  1

  Stores Officer Grade C

  1

  Stores Officer Grade D

  3

  Supervising Driving Examiner

  85

  Supervising Traffic Examiner

  5

  Technical Grade B (Mechnical Engineer)

  1

  Technical Grade 1

  6

  Technical Grade 2

  1

  Teleprinter Operator

  1

  Traffic Examiner

  140

  Trainee Typist

  3

  Typing Manager

  21

  Typist

  271

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

North Sea: Pollution Study
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they propose to give to the study of pollution of the North Sea sponsored by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that the Natural Environment Research Council plans to spend £7 million over five years from 1988–89 on a study of water quality in the North Sea. In addition, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is contributing £1·3 million to the study. I also expect my own department to be able to contribute to some parts of the programme of most relevance to its own responsibilities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I welcome the attention now being given by governments to the state of the North Sea. I understand that this study is based upon a computer system. As rivers and other outlets are increasingly causing some of the worst of the pollution, will the study include sources on land on both sides of the North Sea?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware that at the recent conference on the North Sea, one of the main aims that were discussed and agreed was to reduce the input of dangerous substances into rivers by 50 per cent. by 1995. It was also proposed that there should be no increase in the 1987 level of input of contaminants and sewage sludge.

Easter Eggs: VAT Rating
11.7 a.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Easter eggs will be subject to VAT.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if Easter eggs are of the chocolate variety they are subject to value added tax at the standard rate of 15 per cent.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that downright and direct Answer. Has he any information as to whether the public have been discouraged from buying Easter eggs as a result of this tax? Can he suggest to the producers of foodstuffs any way in which they might continue to produce Easter fare without incurring VAT?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the demand for Easter eggs and confectionery generally was unaffected by the imposition of value added tax in 1974. As regards what manufacturers can do in order to produce a VAT-free Easter egg I suppose that if they were to produce a cake in the shape of an Easter egg that would count as essential foodstuffs and therefore would not be subject to value added tax.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that as the Easter egg is a symbol of new life it is entirely appropriate that VAT should be charged as a sign of the importance of taxation in the life of our country?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should not wish to quibble with the right reverend Prelate on such issues. I am not sure that it was ever envisaged in the Bible that Easter eggs would be of the chocolate variety. Indeed, I am not sure that Easter eggs were ever envisaged in the Bible at all.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that Easter eggs are a pagan survival and have nothing to do with the Church.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is quite correct.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, did I understand the Minister correctly? Did he say that it was the chocolate that attracted the value added tax? If that is so, perhaps I may point out that the bulk of the stuff that goes into Easter eggs is synthetic chocolate. That information can be obtained from the food people who are looking into the matter. If that is the case, then it is a false VAT.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there is a very complex formula for what constitutes confectionery and what constitutes food. As a result of difficulties in defining what is subject to VAT and is therefore confectionery, and what is not and is therefore food, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget laid an order before the House of Commons on 15th March amending the present taxing provisions in order to remove uncertainties in the law which have arisen as a result of the development of new types of confectionery products.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will painted Easter eggs be subjected to VAT due to pressure from those ingenious minds in Brussels?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I understand that if the Easter egg that the noble and learned Lord has in mind has been produced by a chicken, and if it is edible, having been painted, it would not be subject to VAT.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I imagine that the answer to the question addressed to me is that of course it is produced by a chicken. What other source does the noble Lord suggest?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have already mentioned chocolate eggs. Perhaps one of Carl Fabergé's earlier works might also qualify.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, is not an Easter egg produced by a golden goose?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not wish to stray into the broader aspects of the economy in relation to this Question.

Books and Newspapers: VAT Rating
11.11 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now give an undertaking to resist EC pressure to abolish the VAT zero-rating on books and newspapers.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government have made it clear on numerous occasions that the United Kingdom cannot accept proposals which would restrict their ability to apply VAT zero rates.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in another place, which consists of Members of all parties (with the government party in the majority) specifically recommended that the Government should send a reply to the Commission in response to its representations and that this reply should be sent without delay,
"making plain that abolition of the zero-rating principle is not something on which there can be unanimity and that the Government is not prepared to consider any draft which includes it"?
Does the noble Lord agree that if such a taxation were levied on hooks, periodicals and newspapers, it would cost the public anything between an extra £140 million and £280 million per annum at the lower bracket rate and that there would be an additional cost to education authorities throughout the United Kingdom?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Lord's last question first. The cost to the public of a 4 per cent. VAT rate on books, periodicals and newspapers would be approximately £150 million. I agree with him in that respect. He also asked whether the Government should respond to the Commission's proposals. No member state appears to have regarded it as necessary to respond by writing to the Commission. It would be the normal route for proposals to be considered by the Committee of Economic and Finance Ministers. The Government will respond in that committee—ECOFIN—at the appropriate time.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the somewhat ambiguous first reply he gave to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington? He did not ask whether the Government wanted to restrict themselves in removing zero-rating but whether the Government would be willing to compromise in any way on this subject in order to achieve the internal market by 1992.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord will no doubt be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom could not accept proposals which restricted our right to apply VAT zero rates. The noble Lord asked about the completion of the internal market. We are not convinced that tax harmonisation on the lines proposed by the Commission is necessary to achieve the internal market.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in respect of zero-rating of books and newspapers specifically, is my noble friend aware that, quite apart from the cost, many people would find it repulsive to impose taxation on knowledge and the dissemination of knowledge?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his view on that point. It is a well known convention that statements on tax matters are made at Budget time. I cannot go further than to say that that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in regard to that last point, is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister herself has been extremely emphatic on the whole question of zero-rating for food and children's clothing and has given specific assurances that she will resist it? The purpose of this Question is to elicit an equally frank statement of view in regard to books, periodicals and newspapers. Cannot the Government give the same unequivocal declaration as the Prime Minister herself gave in regard to food and children's clothing?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, an undertaking on food and children's clothing was indeed given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister but no further commitment on books has been given for future years. The noble Lord would not expect me to go further at this stage.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I—
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his characteristic courtesy. Will my noble friend confirm that any such proposal would require unanimity and that, therefore, if, as is much to be hoped, the Government stand firm in their opposition to this proposal, it would be a case of cadit quaestio?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, zero-rating in the United Kingdom cannot be abolished by the European Commission in the face of United Kingdom opposition.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if the issue is one of knowledge and of dissemination of knowledge, would it be possible to levy VAT at a maximum rate on some alleged newspapers while not levying it on serious newspapers?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord may remember that about a year ago I said in your

383
Lordships' House that it was becoming increasingly difficult to tell what is a newspaper and what is some other form of daily publication.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington made his point transparently clear to all of us in the Chamber except the Minister? Inasmuch as the Prime Minister herself was opposed to VAT on children's clothing, will he ask her whether she takes the same attitude on books and newspapers, as set out in the Question on the Order Paper? Will he ask the Prime Minister that question?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course I am prepared to bring the comments of the noble Lord, and those of all noble Lords, to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Unleaded Petrol
11.19 a.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures have been taken to promote the use of unleaded petrol in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have introduced a substantial duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol and will be requiring all new cars to be capable of using the new fuel by October 1990. We have taken a number of initiatives to promulgate information on unleaded petrol, where it can be obtained, and which cars can use it.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. It is gratifying to note that unleaded petrol will now be easier and less expensive to obtain. However, can he say whether Her Majesty's Government will consider offering any form of financial encouragement to car owners to have their vehicles modified so that they will be able to accept unleaded petrol? I understand that in some cases such modification is quite an expensive operation. If the Government really want this improvement to take effect in the short term, I think that such an incentive would be most necessary.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, beyond the Government offering the advantage of the reduced rate of duty on such petrol, there are no plans to offer further financial inducements. However, I should point out to your Lordships' House that most motor cars can be adjusted at very little cost to take unleaded fuel and thus should be able to take immediate advantage of the cheaper prices at the pump.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept that the discrimination in favour of unleaded petrol in the Budget is one of the few parts of that document with which we on these Benches wholeheartedly agree. However, can he be a little more precise about what the Government can do to assist in the development of catalytic converters which are, after all, the means by which much of the
384
environmental benefit of unleaded petrol can be brought to fruition?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would like to put down a Question on catalytic converters I shall be more than happy to answer it.

Business
11.21 a.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about today's debate in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Although no time limit has been officially applied to the debate, Members of this House usually hope to rise on Friday no later than 4.30 p.m. for the sake of the staff. Therefore, assuming that the noble and learned Lord were to speak in opening for approximately 20 minutes and my noble friend in winding up at no greater length, if noble Lords in the body of the House were to submit themselves to a purely voluntary limit of 14 minutes, that desirable object would be achieved.

Infant Life Preservation
11.22 a.m.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.] (HL Paper 50).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill.
I approach this debate with trepidation, because I fear that the conclusions of the Committee will offend the consciences of some people; and with hope because I believe that our conclusions are a basis for settling a controversy, which is deeply divisive, for some years to come.
The first part of the Committee's report explains why the Bill which the Committee were called upon to examine could not possibly proceed, however worthy its purpose. I shall deal with that part as briefly as I can. The remainder of the report is directed to the question whether an alteration should be made to the maximum gestational age at which abortions may lawfully be carried out. No doubt that is the part of the report upon which noble Lords will wish to concentrate.
I shall address myself to the first part of the report: why Bishop Montefiore's Bill, introduced in the last Session and revived in this one, should not proceed. The Bill sought to substitute a gestational age of 24 weeks for the gestational age of 28 weeks in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The Act was not an abortion Act; it was a criminal statute designed to fill a gap in the law of England and Wales which did not exist in Scotland. Whereas it was murder to take the life of a child when fully born and a crime to procure

385
a miscarriage—except to save the life of the pregnant woman—it was apparently not a crime to take the life of a child as it emerged from the womb and before it became an independent being.
The 1929 Act created the crime of child destruction to fill that gap. It was defined as destroying:
"the life of a child capable of being born alive",
unless the act was done to save the pregnant woman's life. To meet the problem of proving that the child was capable of being born alive there is a presumption in the Act to that effect, if the woman has been pregnant for 28 weeks or more. At that gestational age the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defence.
I leave the 1929 Act and now turn to the Abortion Act 1967. That Act authorises an abortion in four cases. They are usually described as grounds one, two, three and four. Each ground defines a risk and if that risk exists the pregnant woman is entitled to an abortion if she so wishes. The first ground is the risk to the life of the woman if the pregnancy continues. That ground is a reformulation of the exception contained in the 1929 Act. About a quarter of 1 per cent. of abortions are carried out on that ground. There were about 480 in 1986, which I am told is the last year for which figures are available.
The second ground is the risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman should the pregnancy continue. Almost 90 per cent. of abortions are carried out on that latter ground; there were about 153,000 in 1986. However, not many such abortions take place in or after week 25 of the pregnancy. In 1986 there were only 29 in England and Wales and none at all in Scotland.
The third ground is the risk of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of the mother should the pregnancy continue. Less than 10 per cent. of abortions are carried out on that ground, either alone or coupled with the second ground. Ground three is seldom the reason for an abortion in very late pregnancy; in 1986, in or after week 25, there were none.
The fourth ground relates to substantial risk, not mere risk: that the child if born would be so abnormal as to be seriously handicapped. Abortions on that ground account for little over 1 per cent. of the total; namely, about 2,000 in England and Wales and about 100 in Scotland.
The legalisation of abortion on those four grounds is subject to four safeguards. Two safeguards are imposed by statute. First, two doctors must certify that one or more of the permitted grounds exist. Secondly, the abortion cannot be carried out in a nursing home, as distinct from a National Health Service hospital, unless the nursing home has been approved by the DHSS or the Scottish equivalent. Two further safeguards have been imposed by administrative direction. First, no nursing home can carry out an abortion after 20 weeks unless the home has been specially approved by the appropriate health department. Only seven nursing homes are at present so approved. Secondly, no nursing home at all can carry out an abortion after week 24. That can only take place in a National Health Service hospital.
I have not mentioned the section of the Act which in terms imposes a maximum gestational age at which an abortion can lawfully be carried out. The reason is that no such section exists; nor so far as I have been able to trace was a maximum period for abortions discussed in either House when the Abortion Bill was debated. The only reason that we have in England and Wales a prima facie 28-week limit is that there is a cryptic provision stuck at the end of the Abortion Act which says that nothing shall affect the provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. What the Bill's draftsman thought that he was doing completely baffles me. For one thing, the 1929 Act did not apply to Scotland. Parliament cannot have intended that a doctor carrying out an abortion in week 28 south of the Border should be imprisoned for life while the same doctor carrying out the identical abortion on the identical woman north of the Border should be acting lawfully.
Secondly, it is astonishing that if Parliament really intended to impose a statutory 28-week limit on abortions, instead of leaving the matter to the good sense and ethical integrity of the medical profession, it did not say so in terms. If the maximum gestational age at which abortions should be done ought to be changed, it must be by amending the terms of the Abortion Act and not by tinkering with the 1929 Act. The committee accordingly recommended that the Bishop's Bill should not proceed.
I turn now to the question of whether there should be a reduction in the maximum gestational age for abortions via the 1967 Act and not via the 1929 Act. The committee's approach is summarised in paragraph 53 of its report, which I ask your Lordships' permission to read. It is in a way the most important paragraph in the whole report because it epitomises the question with which the committee was confronted and the path that it followed in its search for an answer:
"This subject is one which deeply divides the medical and nursing professions, religious bodies, social workers and indeed society at large. They however are not personally affected, except doctors and nurses to the extent that they carry out the treatment in a particular case. Above all it is the woman who has to undergo the physical trauma of childbirth. It is she who is primarily responsible for the child in its early days and usually for much longer. In many cases she may not even have the support of the child's father. It is the mother's health and her needs which must heat the forefront of any discussion of abortion. They have to be placed on one side of the scales. On the other side of the scales is the duty of society to protect the unborn child. But neither the natural desire of the mother to protect her own health and to decide her own needs, nor the duty of society to protect the unborn child, is in the Committee's opinion unqualified. The task of the Committee is to reach a conclusion as to where the balance rightly lies between mother and unborn child if a statutory ground for terminating the pregnancy exists".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not think it impertinent if I ask him how it was that the committee felt that it was confronted with this question. It was presumably confronted with the duty of considering the Bishop's Bill, which it then decided to rule out of order. Why did the committee undertake this further inquiry?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would allow me to defer answering that question because I see that the time is passing and I have a little more which I feel bound to say.

387
The committee could not hope to produce an answer to the problem which would be satisfactory to the consciences of all. The most that it could hope to achieve was a reasonable basis on which this deeply divisive issue might properly be laid to rest for the time being.
The committee of nine members was as independent a committee as could be expected. Six members of the committee had taken no part in the Second Reading debate of Bishop Montefiore's Bill. All the members of the committee were told, and accepted, that whatever their preconceptions it was their duty to maintain an open mind until the evidence was completed. I can vouch for the fact that the chairman approached his job totally ignorant of the law on abortion and without ever having directed his mind previously to the social and moral issues involved.
The committee received representations from over 60 persons and organisations. It considered over 300 pages of oral and written evidence. It reached a unanimous conclusion as to what the law should be. That conclusion in summary form is that the maximum gestational age for abortion should be reduced to 24 weeks with three exceptions. The exceptions are: if the life of the pregnant woman is at risk; if the abortion is essential to preserve the health of the pregnant woman; and if there is a substantial risk of serious fetal abnormality. In the exceptional case, the committee recommends that there should be no maximum gestational age for an abortion, which is in fact the present law of Scotland and of some European countries. The first exception is one which I suppose would occasion little controversy.
The second exception requires a short explanation. Under the existing law, a pregnant woman may have an abortion if two doctors diagnose a risk of injury to her physical or mental health if the pregnancy continues. The committee considered that that was not a stringent enough test if the abortion were delayed beyond 24 weeks. The committee considered that the abortion must then be essential to preserve the health of the pregnant woman. In other words, there must not be merely a risk of injury to her health but a certainty of injury in the estimation of the two doctors who certify.
The third exception calls for little comment. If, for example, a pregnant woman is diagnosed as carrying an anencephalic fetus in the 28th week of her pregnancy, it would be inhuman to compel her to carry the fetus to full term just because the diagnosis had not been made two weeks earlier.
In making these recommendations, as I have already explained, the Committee endeavoured to find a just balance between the pregnant woman's needs on the one hand and the duty of society to protect the unborn child on the other hand. Perhaps the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would allow me to borrow and adapt her wise words spoken in another debate. The only thing I feel depressingly sure of is that whatever the Committee recommended, it was going to be wrong from someone's point of view. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life
388
(Preservation) Bill [H.L.] (HL Paper 50).—(Lord Brightman.)
11.42 a.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, the whole House will be deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the clarity and sincerity with which he has put before the House the report of the committee of which he was the distinguished chairman. He said that he approached the matter with hope, the hope that this controversy would somehow be settled by the deliberations of a small committee of this House. That really was an exercise in hope, if that is what the noble and learned Lord thought would happen.
It was with profound disquiet that I studied and read this report. Not only do I have profound disquiet about the conclusions on the basic issues which concern the morality and the whole ethical nature of the controversy, but I have profound disquiet about the unnecessary nature of this report and its untimeliness. It is and should be politically unfortunate, indeed it is politically inept, for a committee of this House to have gone beyond what was necessary and to delve into these matters at a time when Parliament is engaged elsewhere in the gravest controversy over the basic issue. I do not wish to be churlish to the committee, which I know must have given a great deal of time and attention to a matter of great controversy.
However, in my submission, it is extraordinary that in November last year, when the House ordered this committee to consider the Bishop's Bill, it did not appreciate that a new situation has arisen and that it should therefore have made a much more judicious report.
In November, as the House directed that its committee should do, it had a task to do. That was in respect of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which was wholly a matter for this House.
However, by 22nd October a new factor had arisen. This House does not live in isolation in Parliament, it does not live entirely in itself. It is a part—and a very important part—of Parliament. There was this new factor—the publication in another place of a Bill. It became clear that during this Session, as opposed to the last Parliament, the whole issue of the termination of pregnancy would be a subject of intense debate in the elected Chamber in another place. As every noble Lord appreciates, that is where the issue will ultimately be decided. If they did not know then, they certainly knew by 22nd January when there was a Second Reading of that Bill in another place.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that this small committee of your Lordships' House decided to discuss and report on the basic issues, as it called them. It had the power to do so and, in criticising the use of that power, I hope that I shall not be accused of denigrating in any way the position or work of this House. None is as certain as I am of the importance of a bicameral constitution in the United Kingdom or of the importance of this House in imposing a check on what would otherwise be the unlimited powers of another place.

389
However, all of us in this House, because of its composition, will understand the restraint in the use of our powers which there must be. We willingly accept the conventions that on Second Reading we do not reverse Bills coming to us from another place, and that above all we avoid constitutional confrontation.
This House and its committees operate within and not in isolation from Parliament as a whole. The House of Lords' committees in my view constitute an immensely valuable aid in the working of Parliament as a whole. Its greatest virtue is in assembling and analysing facts, elucidating complex issues and at times expressing robust opinions and recommendations—but surely not in the middle of debate on a social issue of acute controversy when the elected Chamber will eventually have to make a decision. That issue will undoubtedly come to this House as a House, and that will be the time when this House will have to make a judgment. Is the House to accept from a small committee a value judgment on a grave matter of political, ethical and social importance which is under debate elsewhere?
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the timetable. There was the new Parliament in the summer of 1987. There had been work by this committee in the old Parliament. On 22nd October a Bill was presented in another place; on 9th November this House gave orders to the committee to consider the Bishop's Bill. In November and December that committee heard evidence. On 22nd January there was a decision in principle on the Second Reading where a substantial majority of 500 elected representatives in another place fixed a time limit of 18 weeks for late abortions. That is a political fact. On 15th February, three weeks later, this committee printed conclusions that there should be no time limit fixed for late abortions. In other words, may it not appear that the committee is saying, "You elsewhere are wrong. We now inform you."
In paragraph 5 of its report the committee discharged its duty to the House with respect to the Bishop's Bill, which it said was inept for prescribing the maximum gestational age for abortions. In paragraphs 6 to 19 they give their reasons and the noble and learned Lord has given them today with great clarity. If I may say so, they are clear, sensible and incontrovertible, and they certainly satisfied me as a lawyer. I should have thought therefore that the matter had been disposed of sensibly, clearly and practically by the committee to which the task was given. They also assembled data, some of which had been collected in the last Parliament. They say that they hoped that the data would prove of assistance to another place and it certainly will. It is a very important task and they have done it.
However, they then went on to do that which they called addressing the basic issue before them. Was it the basic issue before them? Even if it was, in the political circumstances of the time, having discharged their real prime task, why not halt there? I would suggest to the House that it is not the time for a committee to be giving such views. Those views give the impression, although they were not meant to, that we sitting here are the clever ones who have all the
390
qualifications and that we are instructing the ignorant—the elected in another place. The noble and learned Lord and the members of his committee may accept that that impression can be gained from reading that report. That is unfortunate and unnecessary and never need have been.
There are 59 paragraphs of the report plus an appendix and the evidence. I read with some unease some of the oral evidence given to this committee. One witness led into irrelevant controversy until the chairman of the committee managed to bring him to a halt. One rebuked—I hope jocularly—about whether a college had sufficient members of either sex. Dr. Wendy Savage, speaking of a class of abortion patients, used the expression that Mr. Alton was "going on about" this and other such expressions. The flavour of that committee is not, I would suggest, helpful to this House.
Other noble Lords will address and analyse the merits of the conclusions of the report. For myself, I make it perfectly clear that I am looking at 3,700 of some 4,000 late abortions over 20 weeks which were affected not because of the handicap of the child but for social reasons. I look at the effect of the conclusions which would enable a child fully viable and able to suffer pain to be killed for social reasons. I look at 11 gynaecologists who effect 60 per cent. of the late terminations for cash.
Above all, what disturbs me is the insensitiveness of this report. I have been a Member of this House for only 10 years. I am very proud to be a Member and of the position of the House and the part that it plays in the constitution of this country. But I think that this report was politically unfortunate. It looks as though it was preempting and trying to influence judgments elsewhere. It is as though it was challenging a decision which has been made by a majority of the elected representatives. I think that this committee has acted injudiciously and by doing so it has, I believe, injured the interests of this House which surely it is in the interests of all noble Lords to sustain.
11.52 a.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I personally have found this report fascinating reading. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and his committee on producing such a valuable document. I have to say that I shall unfortunately have to leave the House before the Minister replies because I have a full surgery of 18 patients booked to see me, and it starts at 2.30 this afternoon.
I think this is a very valuable document because it contains such measured and thoughtful conclusions. Also, it is based on very wide-ranging and detailed evidence with clear and full statistics. The witnesses included representatives of all organisations which hold a position on the subject, but particularly those who in their professional work have to deal with women who are in this very sad predicament.
In opposition to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, I feel that the fact that legislation is being discussed in another place at the moment, far from making this report unwise, makes it more

391
relevant. It is an extremely useful compendium of facts about the whole topic.
It is very difficult to have a rational discussion on the topic of abortion— already we have seen evidence of this although the debate this afternoon has hardly begun—because of the deeply held views of the protagonists. So it is most refreshing to read clear, cool and informative words about such an emotive topic. The report's conclusions ring true from the point of view of at least this practising doctor who is faced from time to time with women who, in the middle of their pregnancy, feel that they cannot continue with it. I know that most of my colleagues share my views.
I do not think that anyone, unless she is very sick, actually takes pleasure in abortion at any stage, whether as a patient or as an operator. The nearer to term the more objectionable it becomes, so that any move to lower the legal limit is bound to have emotional appeal. The Bill of the right reverend Dr. Hugh Montefiore was especially attractive, as a 24 to 28-week fetus can sometimes survive now with the help of modern intensive care. But I think that the majority of women in recent polls who favoured a change in the law had no experience of the reality of the problem as it appears to the woman concerned and to those whose help she is often desperately seeking.
The recommendations seem to me to achieve the right balance in a difficult area, combining both a tightening up of existing abortion law where it is appropriate—not to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has explained—and a loosening of it a little in some other circumstances.
The numbers involved are extremely small. As the noble and learned Lord said, in 1986 only 29 pregnancies of 25 to 28 weeks were terminated, of which 21 were on grounds of serious handicap. Because the total number of abortions over 24 weeks has come down drastically—without any change, I may say, in the law—clue to regulations and changing practices, the proportion of late abortions for fetal abnormality has gone up greatly. If we take abortions of 25 to 28 weeks the total numbers went down from 142 to 29 from 1981 to 1986. But those for handicap fell only from 28 to 22. So the proportion of late abortions for handicap increased from 20 per cent. to 76 per cent. of the total.
The reason that the committee has recommended that there be no upper limit where serious handicap has been detected is to allow for the circumstance described in paragraph 57. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has already said this in words, but it would be useful to quote from that paragraph which states:
"the Committee see no purpose in retaining the 28-week restriction at all."
That concerns serious handicap. The paragraph continues:
"If, for example, an unborn child were diagnosed as grossly abnormal and unable to lead any meaningful life, there is in the opinion of the Committee no logic in requiring the mother to carry her unborn child to full term merely because the diagnosis was made too late to enable an operation for abortion to be carried out before the 28th completed week."
392
The present situation is an anomaly. A doctor potentially risks prosecution if he or she induces labour in such a case after 28 weeks to rid the mother of what used to be called a "monster" which has been diagnosed very late. I am afraid that this may well occur for a variety of unfortunate reasons which I cannot go into now.
With regard to congenital handicap it is held by some that it is wrong to deny life to such a child. Examples of many handicapped people who have succeeded against great odds are known to many of us. Some of those people have great charm and high talent. But there is another side to the coin. The majority of handicapped people, if not all, would much prefer to have been able-bodied. If they could imagine it, even more mentally handicapped people would feel that way. Their lives are very hard. Their mothers may be dedicated and do a wonderful job, but so great is the demand that they may have little time for anything else.
Sometimes the effect on the rest of the family is catastrophic. I have known a number of marriages break under the strain. If the pregnancy of a potentially handicapped child were to be terminated the mother usually quickly gets pregnant again. If she is preoccupied with a severely handicapped child, that is less likely to happen. That has certainly been my impression from my experience. To terminate a pregnancy which involves a handicapped child makes way for the potential birth of an able-bodied child which has a greater potential for happiness and will more easily be able to take its place as a full contributor to the community.
That does not mean to say that all possible help should not be given to existing and future disabled people. Of course it must be. Only a proportion of handicaps can be detected before birth. However, I believe that most handicapped people, were they given the chance, would rather be that hypothetical able-bodied sibling who might have replaced them if their own lives had been cut off before they reached consciousness.
It is right to tighten the requirements for termination over 24 weeks on the second ground, the health of the mother. However, there are still a few desperate cases every year where a termination at such a late stage is justified. I am thinking in particular of very young girls, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. They do not have the support systems or coping ability to raise a child. In such cases, an adoption might not be possible for various reasons. I do not believe in any case that a mother should be required to carry a child to term in order to provide a baby for some other family to adopt unless she herself wishes to do so.
The children of women who ask for a late termination would often be thrown on the resources of the social services. There is no need to perpetuate such misery. The social service departments will have enough children to care for for other reasons for at least the next half century and probably more. Everyone hates doing abortions of this type. However, the future unhappiness of the mother and the child and the potential burden on society have to be weighed in the balance.

393
To conclude, perhaps I may add two points. We must continue to work towards the diminishing need for late abortions or any abortions. That must include better health education of our children in schools and better use of contraception. There must also be better access to early abortion if contraception fails. The National Health Service, as the evidence shows, is failing in many instances in that area, especially in certain parts of the country.
We must not forget that abortion must always be a last resort and that the mother herself must make the decision and must be sure of what she is doing, so far as she is able. She should be offered counselling, both before and especially after an abortion. It is a traumatic experience which she should not enter into lightly. The right reverend Dr. Hugh Montefiore was involved deeply in the inquiry. In his article in the Observer last month he wrote that he had become more certain that a woman's choice must be respected. I believe that the report will help a very vulnerable group of women to make that choice wisely. I hope that the Government will give it a fair wind.
12.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I intend to confine my contribution to the debate to one point of principle which I believe is the basis of the report of the Select Committee. I am well aware that the whole topic is full of complexities. As the first member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to speak in the debate, as well as one of the last to join, perhaps I should begin by paying a tribute to the chairman of the committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He conducted our proceedings with skill, fairness, courteousness and clarity.
If, as we hope, our report is of some use to Parliament and the nation in their consideration of abortion, I should like to stress that it was never in my mind that we were doing more than providing a tool to assist in wider debate. I believe that we should also pay a passing tribute to the right reverend Dr. Hugh Montefiore, through whose initiative the Bill was first brought before the House. I am only sorry that he is not here to argue the case.
The Bill is based on the principle, clearly enunciated by the right reverend Dr. Montefiore in his evidence to the committee, that as soon as any fetus is capable of being born alive, it should not be killed in the womb. I believe that that principle decisively informs the thinking and conclusions of the Select Committee, despite its recommendation that the Bill itself should not proceed and despite the qualifications which it recommends to the straightforward idea that no abortion should be permitted after 24 weeks of pregnancy.
I believe that the qualification of an agreed basic principle has been characteristic of Christian thinking for a very long time in the whole area. The Patristic writers from Tertullian and Origen from the 3rd century onwards, have consistently condemned abortion as a form of homicide. However, in mediaeval times and even in comparatively modern times no precise agreement about the stage of
394
pregnancy at which the principle became effective has operated. In scholastic theology, it was the point at which the embryo was informed by a rational soul. However, that was some time between the 30th and the 80th day of pregnancy, and no universal agreement existed about precisely when it happened. In practice, it was, until recently, when the mother experienced the quickening of the child.
It seems that there has never been any precision in the application of the principle in cases where not to perform an abortion threatened the life of the mother. That has always been reckoned by many as a permitted exception. Nor has it been the principle in the cases most relevant to the work of the Select Committee where there is the likelihood of a seriously handicapped child being born. Those are exceptions, and have been regarded as such by many people for a long time.
Nevertheless, the principle still holds, and surely most people who adhere to a view of life deriving from the Christian tradition will accept it. In modern dress, it appears, for example, in the statement issued by the Board for Social Responsibility as recently as 1980. The statement reads:
"In the light of our conviction that the fetus has a right to live and develop as a member of the human family, we see abortion, the termination of that life by the act of man, as a great moral evil. We do not believe that the right to life, as a right pertaining to persons, admits of no exceptions whatever; but the right of the innocent to life admits surely of few exceptions indeed".
The theory that a woman carrying a child should have total freedom from any moral constraint in deciding whether or not to have an abortion simply will not match up to that long-standing Christian tradition. I for one could never accept that abortion is a matter morally indifferent or that it would ever be, in any circumstances, other than a moral evil. The question is, is it sometimes the lesser of two moral evils and therefore the right choice?
To describe our recommendations as abortion on demand is surely very far from the truth. I believe the tenor of our argument moves in almost the opposite direction. The arguments justifying exceptions to the principle are set out in paragraphs 47 and 48 of our report. I hope and believe that it is true that we examined both our witnesses and our own minds with rigour to ascertain whether those exceptions stood up to scrutiny, and that the result of that examination is fairly expressed in our recommendations.
I hope that our modest piece of work will not be seen in any way as an attempt to pre-empt the wider discussion or to provide a final or complete answer to the question of possible reform of the 1967 Abortion Act. I for one believe firmly and devoutly that the Act needs amendment. I claim that, for many people, in dealing with the restricted area of the debate—pregnancies of between 24 and 28 weeks—we have managed to outline a workable principle on which the debate can be conducted and one which can attract the respect and attention of those who want to strike the right balance between the conflicting claims in this whole matter of abortion, namely, those of the mother, the community, and of the unborn child when those three appear to conflict.
I believe that progress is most likely to be made not by the assertion of one principle over all the others as

395
a kind of blockbuster, whether that be the claim to life of the unborn or the claim to freedom of action by the mother. Rather, I believe that we shall make progress by a sensitive balancing of one over against the others recognising that that balance may change with circumstance. For example, it is my belief that with the advance of the pregnancy the claim of the child to life increases and may well become stronger. But that claim is always there and is never to be disregarded.
I hope very much that the Government and others will find it possible to produce a positive response to this report in order to help that wider debate and to settle, at least for some time to come, what is one of the most agonising, sensitive and painful moral problems which our society has to face.
12.13 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, although your Lordships' Select Committee was in no way concerned with the rightness of abortion as such but only with its propriety at a gestational age of more than 24 weeks, the subject matter of its report is still very difficult to handle calmly. The committee's chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has expounded lucidly and succinctly the conclusions of the committee which he guided and led superbly. I do not intend to traverse the general ground or to examine more than one of the reasons for its conclusions.
As a result of sitting as a member of the committee I read, occasionally rereading, a good deal of the literature on the subject. I therefore feel entitled to say that the committee's report is the best source available for the study of this intractable problem. I do not accept the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, that the preparation and publication of this document was politically unwise and constitutionally improper.
When the task began I thought that nothing fresh or useful could be written. I was mistaken. The report assembles and analyses statistical data and examines an extensive body of evidence. It sorts out the tangled and intriguing history of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 which led to the 28-week ban on abortions by the law of England and Wales. As the Act did not apply to Scotland the committee had to study Scottish experience and consider whether or how a different legal history had affected medical practice there.
The report also assesses the nature and efficacy of the strict administrative controls exercised over abortion generally, and in particular over late abortions, by the Department of Health and Social Security. It observes that the evidence received from all sides:
"indicates that both the Health Departments and the medical profession have acted most responsibly … to limit the number of late abortions".
Thus one document now draws together a range of considerations which have usually been discussed separately.
However, there is one consideration which is not discussed in the report but which is of great importance for any discussion of the report. Few
396
subjects arouse so much heat and anger and few produce so many assertions that go far beyond the evidence. The results of carelessness in handling evidence then come to masquerade as truth with all the assurance of established generalisations. A controversialist from another place even went so far recently as to assert publicly, and wrongly, that a recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee could produce the result that:
"Perfectly healthy babies whose lives are at present protected by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 could in future be killed".
Another present example of carelessness is in the misuse of surveys. One completed a couple of months ago presents generalised findings concerned with the attitude of British Gynaecologists and obstetricians to abortion. The findings are derived from a statistically unacceptable response rate of only 40 per cent. to a questionnaire sent to all of them. The report on the findings confuses the proportion of gynaecologists who responded and the proportion of gynaecologists in the whole country. It contains sentences like:
"The vast majority of gynaecologists (73%)".
The relevant figure is in fact 73 per cent. of the 40 per cent. who responded to the questionnaire. In my view it is discreditable that the Gallup poll should lend its reputation to such practices.
That is not the spirit in which serious issues should be debated. At a deeper level it is plain that passion helps to debase the intellectual currency. Abortion touches deep social, moral and religious feelings. Christian opinion is very divided. It ranges from prohibition by the Church of Rome to the view of the Church of Scotland, which is shared by other Churches, that it should be recognised that freedom should be given to all to act according to their conscience.
There is no escape from the conclusion that people who are equally learned, equally wise, equally devoted to Christianity or to other faiths and equally concerned to promote the public good reached directly contrary conclusions from the same evidence. Much blood had to be shed before it was recognised that diversity need be no threat to political cohesion provided that an atmosphere of tolerance were maintained. Toleration is a hard virtue to practise when people have to cope with opinions that they may find repugnant or even revolting. Nevertheless, intolerance is destructive of democratic habits and procedures, particularly when there is no possibility of reconciling a conflict of opinion.
It is often difficult to measure majorities and minorities or to reduce public opinion on such an issue to quantitative terms. However, from the experience of the past 20 years I think it is reasonable to believe that a substantial majority of people are in favour of abortion even though some may be uncertain about the precise terms and conditions on which it should be available.
The Select Committee balanced the natural desire of the mother to protect her own health and decide her own needs against the duty of society to protect the unborn child, neither of which they regarded as unqualified. Your Lordships will recall that that passage was quoted by the noble and learned Lord,

397
Lord Brightman. However, I wish to draw attention to one tiny group of women of whom I have had direct experience in my capacity as president of the National Council of One Parent Families. It is a group which would suffer hideously if late abortions were eliminated. It consists of the very young who are often experiencing multiple social deprivations.
In extreme cases the national council has had to deal with pregnant girls aged between 12 and 14—on one occasion, I believe, with an 11 year-old. Dreadful though it may be, at that age pregnancy usually results from incest. Inevitably the victims suffer dreadfully. Their tragedy and the appalling damage that they suffer when they bear a child—to say nothing of the prospects for the baby—cannot be averted if late abortions are eliminated. These girls invariably present themselves late, usually from ignorance but sometimes from terror.
In a democracy majorities must not impose a tyranny upon minorities. Equally, a minority must not coerce a majority. We are dealing with a painful subject which can cause misery to all the people concerned: mothers and fathers not be be; nurses and doctors who may have been involved. We need a settlement at least to reduce the suffering which results from anxiety which can be avoided.
It may be thought that those whose beliefs commit them to outright rejection of abortion are not the best guides to the circumstances in which it should be available for women of different but no less conscientiously held opinions. Why can we not leave the majority alone, with safeguards for the public interest through the legal, administrative and medical controls which the report describes? After all, those people whose beliefs do not permit abortion are in no danger of being coerced to follow the majority. They are free to accept their own discipline or that of their Churches. For those reasons I echo the hope of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that the report will contribute to a settlement for some years to come of what is a deeply divisive controversy.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, does it not seem strange that on this of all days, Lady Day, so many of your Lordships should attend on a Friday in a Chamber which is always dominated by the male to consider whether the legal rights to abortion so recently granted to women should be curtailed? I submit that the Select Committee of which I was a member has rendered a particular service in that it has brought together for the first time since the 1967 Act evidence on abortion. At this moment that evidence may prove to be of particular usefulness.
Once your Lordships' Select Committee had concluded that amendment to the law, if it were to be amended, should be of the 1967 Act and not the 1929 Act, it was inevitable that the basic issues that had been raised for us by the right reverend Dr. Hugh Montefiore should be considered. It would not have been proper to cease to consider them merely because he happened to choose the wrong legal vehicle.
The basic issue before the committee could have been encapsulated in a single question: if a woman
398
satisfies the statutory conditions for an abortion, other than an abortion undertaken to save her life, should the time within which she is entitled to that abortion be shortened? The time-limits within which an abortion may be performed depend not only upon the law but upon the practice of the DHSS, the Home and Health Department in Scotland and indeed the whole medical profession. I should like to give the House one example of that. As has already been explained, the 1929 Act introduced the presumption that a child is capable of being born alive if the pregnancy has continued for 28 weeks or more. However, there is no way of calculating accurately the length of a pregnancy. It is usually calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period. Even with the benefit of ultrasound scanning, such calculations are subject to a margin of error of two weeks either way.
We were told that mistakes of up to four weeks can easily be made. Doctors not unnaturally are unwilling to risk committing a criminal offence and will therefore not undertake abortion after the 26th week. Fear of prosecution has therefore reduced the maximum gestational period from 28 to 26 weeks and the control system—of which we have already heard something—under the 1967 Act imposes further important limitations. As we have heard, the Secretary of State, who is required to approve private nursing homes in which abortion takes place, has approved nursing homes generally only up to the 20th week of pregnancy and has given permission for seven private nursing homes to terminate pregnancies up to the 24th week. Nursing homes are inspected and those conditions are rigorously enforced. After 24 weeks abortions can be performed only in an NHS hospital.
In 1986, of the 172,000 abortions only 29 were undertaken after the 24th week. Of those no fewer than 22 were on ground 4: substantial risk that if the child were born the child would be severely handicapped. Although few in number, those abortions are important because a severely handicapped child can cause immense personal and domestic problems.
I am afraid that I must go into the technicalities for a moment at this point. Serious abnormalities are detected by three methods: aminocentesis, ultrasound scanning, and chorion villus sampling. Amniocentesis is the most widely used method for detecting fetal abnormalities. Amniotic fluid is abstracted, and this should not be done until the 16th week, because earlier extraction may be harmful to the unborn child. A culture must then be developed, which takes up to four weeks. Sometimes the culture does not take and a second one is needed, although if it fails that can generally become evident in 10 to 14 days. But I ask your Lordships to notice this. If there is a second culture the results will not be known until the 22nd or 23rd week, and after that some time must be given to the pregnant woman to reflect upon her problem and, with her family, to take a responsible decision.
It is true that chorion villus sampling is a quicker method of detection, but it is at present undergoing evaluation and is therefore not generally available in the country, althought it may become so within about

399
five years. It can be used up to the 12th to 14th week and gives an answer in a few days on certain defects—for example, Downs' syndrome—but it is much more limited than amniocentesis. It cannot detect structural abnormalities or certain abnormalities of the central nervous system. Therefore amniocentesis remains the main method and one has to have regard to the fact that if a second culture is needed the results will not be known before the 22nd or 23rd week. Ultrasound scanning is used to detect heart defects and these cannot be confirmed until the 24th week of pregnancy.
In general dramatic improvements in medical science have enabled more serious abnormalities to be detected. But they tend to come to light at a relatively late stage of the pregnancy. Clearly if all abortions were prohibited by law after 18 weeks many women who at present have a right to an abortion because of a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be severely handicapped would be denied the right. If a legal maximum of 24 weeks were to be imposed, many distressful cases which today would fall within the conditions would be denied an abortion. Moreover, the problem cases are not confined to serious abnormality.
Many of those who present themselves late are in need of especial consideration. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has already referred to the very young. They are also the socially deprived, women of low intelligence and those who are mentally handicapped. Rather than imposing an inflexible legal limitation upon abortion, these problems make it preferable to operate a system of professional practice which reflects the view of the great majority of citizens in this country. The present system which may be amended, as your Lordships' Select Committee has suggested, requires most abortions to be undertaken by the 24th week but leaves just that flexibility to enable responsible doctors to deal sympathetically with certain exceptional cases. The advantage of the present system is that, as medical science improves further, the practice can easily be changed and time limits varied without needing to change the law.
I should like to draw particular attention to one of our recommendations. It seems to me that since 1967 the medical profession has behaved so responsibly in this matter that it is our view that doctors who act in good faith, in accordance with the provisions of the Abortion Act, should be freed from the threat of criminal prosecution.
Finally, everyone is agreed that late abortions cause distress and should be avoided wherever possible. A proposal was made to us which, while it was judged not to fall strictly within our terms of reference, I would urge merits serious consideration. If abortions were to be made easier (for example, up to the 12th week) earlier abortions naturally would be encouraged and the number needing to be undertaken at a later stage would be correspondingly reduced.
12.39 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the committee of which the noble Lord who spoke last is a most
400
distinguished member would no doubt wish to discover the opinion of the House about its proposals. The noble Lord said that it rendered a valuable service. If I may use the old phrase, "He would, wouldn't he?". Four out of the six previous speakers were members of that committee and we have three more to follow. I do not think therefore that we can view them as dispassionate judges of its value. I should be surprised if most of the rest of the Members of the House who propose to speak thought well of this report. However, that is as may be.
The document before us is surely most remarkable. There lies behind it a series of manoeuvres which I suppose are without precedent in this House. Before now I have said on behalf of the junior octogenarians that we regard the noble Lord Lord Houghton as our senior prefect. We set no limit to his ever-increasing ingenuity and versatility. When he attains his 90th year—and I believe that will come about very soon—he will assume total command of all of us.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. I have been young in the past and I held the same views then as I hold now.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as a matter of fact I was coming to that. Let us look at the extraordinary history of this matter. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was brought up as a good methodist. I do not know whether he would call himself a methodist in his latter days, possibly not, but he will be familiar with the parable of the unjust steward. The Lord, in the translation best known, said:
"The children of this world are wiser in their generation then the children of light".
But in the translation which may be familiar to the right reverend Prelate I found this wording:
"The children of this world are more astute in dealing with their own kind than the children of light".
That is how it can be translated. Whichever translation is preferred, both seem to be perfectly applicable.
We who have resisted the pressure of the noble Lord for more and more abortions have on this occasion certainly been outsmarted. Good luck to anybody of whatever age who can perform such an operation.
I shall briefly recapitulate the story. On 28th January last year the Bishop of Birmingham introduced a Bill called the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill. He said:
"My Bill has one moral presupposition. It is this. It is immoral and wrong to kill a child that is capable of being born alive".—[Official Report, 28/1/88; col. 1406.]
I believe that the right reverend Prelate would agree with that formulation too. In practice, whatever the legalities, it was understood that it would have reduced the period of permissible abortions from 28 to 24 weeks. The Bishop of Birmingham on that occasion informed the House that he had taken professional advice and that informed opinion appeared to be on his side. My noble friend Lord Houghton, who I suppose over the years has done more than any man to make abortion freely available

401
in this country—I hope he accepts that as a compliment—moved the rejection of that Bill. No doubt he was, as always, acting from the highest motives.
On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, expressed the hope that the Minister would come out clearly and boldly and tell the House the Government's position. After a number of speakers—including incidentally myself—had spoken on both sides of the argument the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook speaking for the Government, came out boldly and clearly to tell us the Government's position. This was just over one year ago. The noble Lord said that the Government supported the Bill—the Bill as it then was—that the Bishop had so ably introduced, though he agreed that some amendments might be necessary in Committee. But the idea of it being destroyed and something totally different being substituted never crossed the mind of anyone in the House on that occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was horrified. He said in his final speech:
"I am so shocked at the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, made that I cease to be interested in anything that the right reverend Prelate now has to say."—[Official Report, 28/1/87; col. 1450.]
That was his attitude and he was indomitable. Though he appeared to have lost that battle, he certainly did not agree that he had lost the war. We all know what happened after that. The Bishop unfortunately retired. He is very much missed in this House. A general election intervened.
When the dust had settled we found the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the declared enemy of the Bill, coming out with a suggestion on 22nd July that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and that it should move forward to a Select Committee.
I am sure that in the whole 750-year history of this House—perhaps I should not mention that I have written a history of this House which is just completed—there has been no such turnabout as was brought about on that occasion. Some may think that it is a healthy development and some may not. But it is quite surprising. So the committee was duly set up. The noble and learned Lord who chaired the committee spoke, if I may say so respectfully, with a certain naivety that I do not associate with judicial rulers. He said that of the nine members, six were apparently not connected with the subject, three were connected but they had agreed to set aside all preconceptions. These three all belonged to what I venture to call Lord Houghton's minority group. There was none from the majority but three from the minority who had seen that this House had a majority when it came to the vote. Does anyone seriously believe—the noble and learned Lord who chaired the committee is a very intellectual man—that my noble friend Lord Houghton would have been able to put aside his preconceptions? Just think of it, my Lords. It becomes a total absurdity. That is what the Select Committee members were asked to do. They agreed to put aside their preconceptions and enter this as though they had never had any connections with abortions before, but they were to approach it as fairminded and dispassionate people. I am afraid that
402
I regard that as a sick joke, although it was not meant as such by the noble Lord; the whole episode was a sick joke.
From there we proceeded and the committee reached its conclusions. Surprise, surprise; it reached conclusions which no doubt were entirely acceptable to the three very strong-minded, very experienced people who had put aside their preconceptions but who had somehow managed to recover them very fast and made sure that they prevailed. They decided that the Bill, to which the House had given a Second Reading, was quite inappropriate. They implied that there was something almost ludicrous about it and they reached that conclusion after what appears to have been very superficial discussions. One might have thought that would be all—they had done their work to kill the Bill and so on—but not a bit of it. They took new heart and decided to have a good go at the whole subject of abortion. I was impertinent enough to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, to ask him why the Select Committee considered that to be its task. He felt, with a glance at the clock, that the moment was not appropriate (which was one of the Committee's expressions) to answer that question, so it remains unanswered. I shall not attempt to add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, said with wonderful eloquence about the whole subject, but I feel sure that anyone who looks carefully at the report will be left asking how a committee came to conceive that as its duty. But it did. It decided not just to say that the Bill was inappropriate, but to remove such safeguards as existed under the Bill. It went to the opposite extreme to the view held by the Bishop of Birmingham. Over the past 24 hours I have tried to talk to the bishop on the telephone but his telephone has been engaged—I do not know why. I have not been able to speak to him so I do not know what he thinks about the matter. However, he tried to reduce the period for abortion from 28 to 24 weeks and his efforts received a tragic outcome.
I shall not offer anything but brief general thoughts about abortion. I hope and believe that before long this House will receive a Bill in respect of which matters can be appropriately discussed. I have often been asked whether I am against abortion in all circumstances. When the 1967 Bill came to this House I was Leader of the House. I left my place and sat on a Back Bench from where I spoke and voted against the Bill. I said then, as a I say now, that I can imagine circumstances in which abortion would be justified. I have said that for at least 20 years and many of the people I respect most will say the same. I do not believe that any moral principle applied to human beings is totally infallible and no exceptions can be found.
I regard the 1967 Act as having produced great evils and having made abortion on demand available to all those who know where to look for it. Soon after the Act was passed I was running a small youth centre. A young woman came in. She wanted an abortion and was under the impression that it was available on demand. I asked why she wanted it and she said that she wanted to go to Austria for winter sports and that she was in a hurry. I said, "I am afraid that you will have to talk to your doctor". I have no

403
doubt that the Bill has produced great evils along with some good. The bishop said that the Board of Social Responsibility has described the Bill as a moral evil and I perceive it as being so. I hope that David Alton's Bill will come to this House and will do something to limit the evil.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—he spent most of his speech shooting the messenger of this report—can he say whether he is in favour of the Montefiore Bill proceeding in this House, because that was the impression he gave? The report of the Brightman Committee gives closely reasoned arguments in respect of the defects of the Montefiore Bill. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and his supporters were right to refer the Bill to a Select Committee and, in their wisdom, the House and the Government have come to the right conclusions through the committee.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have understood the noble Lord's question. He may be aware that I voted for the Montefiore Bill, and I should still be in favour of it if it were before the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord expects me to be convinced by the very superficial reasoning—if I may say so with respect—that leads the committee, whose composition was distinctly unbalanced, to decide that the Bill was totally inappropriate after this House had decided that it should go forward.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—
Noble Lords: No, no!
12.53 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his gifts as a historian. I have recently read his book about Abraham Lincoln which I enjoyed enormously, and I took the trouble to say so. I do not know whether I should congratulate him, but he has given me the impression that he has taken rather lightly a great many of the serious, well thought out recommendations contained in the report because he has made no reference to them. It should be a technicality because I know nothing about the relationship between Second Reading in another place and what has happened in this House.
I joined the Select Committee rather late, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, from whom I have learnt a great deal. However this debate gives me the opportunity to comment on the committee's earlier activities during which the main bulk of the evidence was taken. I came to the view, as did the right reverend Prelate, that there had been a careful assembly of the evidence. Its approach has been impartial and objective, producing a report of a quality which has not been seen for many years in this much discussed and controversial field. The combination of firmly held views within the committee, some of which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, made reference to, tempered by the views of others, tempered by the evidence which it studied,
404
has produced the report now before the House. I believe it to be worthy of serious study.
As is totally appropriate to a newcomer to the deliberations but with a modicum of medical knowledge—I am not an obstetrician—I should like to make a few remarks about medical matters. I believe that the attitude of the medical profession has been highly responsible. The bulk of the evidence has shown what has been possible, what is possible and what might become possible. Some things change; modern technology changes and reasons change. I should like to give the House one example of change over the past 20 years. The time that respiration is established in the newborn baby occurs at a specific time during development. The occurrence of movement or heart beat before that time—sometimes weeks before—has produced so much heart rending and confusion. One has seen many video films. Before it breathes sufficiently to maintain an independent existence, the child may move but it is not capable of being born to an independent existence. Modern technology has made it possible to save many children when breathing has barely started. However, the limit may well have been reached somewhere between 23 and 24 weeks. Unless the lungs begin to respond the child is incapable of living.
In two important medical research areas progress is occurring with benefit. Animal experiments are totally inappropriate in this field. The first area is in pre-embryo research. The second area, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has referred, is between 15 and 20 weeks of pregnancy when it is possible to carry out an increasing range of investigations initially concerned with the question of a healthy normal child. I believe that the medical profession feels strongly that this must continue and that the public wish it to do so.
If at this stage there are adverse findings it must be possible for the mother to decide about the future, having received advice. Some aspects of that are far from easy. A good illustration which has already been given is the difficulty concerning spina bifida. The child may be deformed but perfectly normal mentally. The health of the mother and the normality of the child must be considered during this critical stage of development.
As the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has said, the case must be carefully analysed and documented. For reasons which have been given it is sometimes not possible to obtain the results before 20 or 22 weeks. Any idea of arbitrarily moving back that date to 18 weeks seems to me to be without any scientific support. After that period—22 to 24 weeks—it is right that the Abortion Act provision ground 3, the health of other children, should no longer be an indication for abortion. I think, as has already been our experience, that this particular indication will be debated widely in your Lordships' House—when should the consideration of other family be an indication; not after 18 weeks.
There are always difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has referred to some of them. There is the case of the menopausal woman who does not realise she is pregnant and is already a grandmother; it does happen. The committee considered this most

405
carefully. It did not think that further restrictions should be indicated but feels that a change of this kind could be well managed by the profession and the Department of Health with its regulations and not by legislation.
The last point I mention is the availability of abortion services within the National Health Service. This is patchy. The evidence clearly shows that there are large area differences, and these are due to a number of reasons. One reason is the view of the doctor and the distress of nurses. Patients have to go elsewhere. Some staff are totally opposed to performing abortions. Sometimes there is a shortage of resources. This has resulted in these delays which create the late abortions which everyone agrees should be minimised. This is an area where the Government, through the National Health Service, have undertaken to provide a satisfactory service within the law. It might be possible to contract out to the private sector with procedures which continue to be controlled by the DHSS.
We must find additional resources in nursing staff and others for the development of intensive care units for children and the training of nurses. I believe that the same arrangement could be made to have sterilisations carried out in private hospitals where medically desirable. I ask the Minister a question about this but I do not expect an answer today. I only ask that this possibility be examined. It could be an important area of collaboration between the NHS and the private sector.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I want to ask him and the House as a whole whether it is appropriate to discuss such matters as 18 weeks or 24 weeks when we have knowledge that very shortly a totally different Bill is coming to this House. I fully understand part of what is going on, but I wonder whether it is appropriate today to debate such an issue?
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, in reply to that, I am guided by the opinion of the Leader of the House.
1.2 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I was one of your Lordships who voted for the Second Reading of the Montefiore Bill. I understand that for various procedural reasons such as the fact that an election intervened and so forth that Bill is now finished and is a dead letter.
However, let me look at the present situation in this country. There were 172,000 abortions in 1986, which is the last year for which there are figures. In some EC countries abortions are not allowed beyond 10 or 12 weeks after conception, so no fewer than 24,509 overseas women came to this Kingdom to seek abortion. Almost 90 per cent. of abortions are carried out, as your Lordships have already heard, under statutory ground 2 of the Abortion Act 1967; that is, that the continuation of pregnancy would involve physical or mental injury to the mother. That is virtually abortion on demand. I deplore that, many
406
of your Lordships deplore it and a great many people in our country deplore it.
I understand that the David Alton Bill, which limits abortion to up to 18 weeks, is unlikely to pass in another place. I was told that only the other day. In spite of what I read in the Daily Mail today, I understand that a Private Member's Bill in the other place does not have any chance of succeeding. Therefore, I remind your Lordships that the Government, when the Montefiore Bill was being debated, said that they would give it a fair wind at the conclusion of Second Reading. I urge the Government, and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to do this when he sums up at the end of the debate, to tell me some method whereby a Bill could be introduced that will succeed here and in the other place—I understand that it must be a government Bill to succeed in the other place—to limit abortion to something like 24 weeks. That would fit in with the speech of the right reverend Prelate, who also deplores the general custom of abortion in our country. Everything he said, if I may have the honour to say so, fitted in exactly with my feelings. Therefore, I urge the Government to do something constructive and to introduce a Bill which will get through both Houses of Parliament.
1.8 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise to address your Lordships on this difficult, delicate and perhaps I might even say dangerous subject. However, I do so because, like the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I am basically opposed to abortion because I equate it with killing. There must be many people in this country, quite apart from Catholics, who hold this view. I am prepared in certain circumstances to accept that abortion may be justifiable, particularly to save the life of the mother, but I do not feel that it is a universal panacea for coping with handicapped fetuses—and I shall deal with that later.
If one accepts that there is a divine purpose in life, it is surely arguable that abortion runs counter to this purpose. I know that Moslems—and I have studied Moslem theology in some detail—and Hindus also believe that. Several of your Lordships may have seen two very moving films about abortion: one is called "The Silent Scream" and the other "The Eclipse of Reason". These two films show abortion in all its gruesome and gory detail. Unfortunately, I was only able to see the first film. However, the climax of that film shows the forceps being inserted into the womb, gripping the head of the fetus and on its face you can see the silent scream. It is perhaps particularly significant that the doctor who made this film decided, after doing so, that he could never perform any further abortions. According to a very recent and revealing survey by an American, Dr. Willkie, the fetus can feel pain at 45 days. As it grows so the pain becomes more intense and lasts longer.
The second experience I had was in many ways more moving. Indeed, never in all my experience have I seen anything which moved me more. This was at the presentation of David Alton's Bill at the Royal Albert Hall about three months ago. The climax of

407
this presentation was the release from the roof of 2,500,000 tiny paper darts. Each paper dart represented an infant life which had been killed by abortion during the period since the passage of the Abortion Act 1957. I believe one must consider for a moment what would have become of these tiny lives had they been allowed to survive. This is a most important point. It must be emphasised that of this colossal total of 2·5 million, at least three-quarters and probably more could have survived. The remainder were aborted by reason of deformity.
Let us for one moment consider what all these little lives might have become. How many statesmen might there have been; how many doctors or lawyers? On the other hand, there might well have been criminals and beggars. One cannot go into that question. I believe everyone would agree that in this way a very large number of potentially useful lives were terminated prematurely.
There is one aspect of abortion which I do not think has been touched upon so far by any noble Lord, that is the trauma which is caused to the mother. I have tried to find statistics in Britain. Perhaps they exist and it may be that some noble Lords know of some. Some very interesting statistics have been produced by Dr. Willkie whom I quoted a little earlier. He has written to the effect that in one period of 35 months in the Cincinatti area of Ohio 5,620 persons were treated for deep depression, anxiety and stress. No fewer than 1,800 of those persons had had abortions. That is just about one-third. The point here—and I am sure there must be examples of this also in this country—is that the pain remains with the woman as a counterpoint for the rest of her life, even though it becomes blunted to some extent by the passage of time.
Reference has been made, and doubtless it will be made again by subsequent speakers, to the need for abortion to stop the birth of deformed or diseased fetuses. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Hunter will confirm that I am right in saying that abortions are generally performed in the case of suspected Down's Syndrome or spina bifida. I should like to put to your Lordships that these handicaps, however terrible and however distressing they may be can be overcome. I believe that all of us can think of people who have had children with these handicaps and who have overcome them in the most marvellous way. They have looked after their children in the most wonderful and maternalistic manner. It has been a glorious triumph.
My own view is that these handicaps are sent to us as a challenge which can be overcome. May I express the hope that when your Lordships are examining this most interesting report, which is the result of such careful thought and study, the considerations I have just put forward are borne in mind.
1.15. p.m.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, I shall bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and speak as briefly as I possibly can. When we first started work in the Select Committee it seemed a formidable task to be concerned for a long time with so tragic a subject, one which was
408
complicated in so many different ways with legal, medical, personal and intensely emotional questions and surrounded by an atmosphere of passionately held beliefs that were diametrically opposed to each other. I knew quite well that many organisations considered people who supported abortion, even under the terms of the 1967 Act, to be unethical, uncaring of human life and almost to have immoral views. It seemed a difficult and an unpleasant job, but it forced one to think searchingly about the issues and one's own particular reactions to them.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is not here to hear me say this. I was astonished to hear him describe the report as superficial. I hope he will forgive me for saying so, but it was owing to the brilliance of our chairman in unravelling the morass of statistics, legal and medical problems and three complicated Acts of Parliament, that we were able to deal with the mass of evidence and whatever the noble Earl, Lord Longford, may think, eventually we were able to agree a unanimous report.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, is also not in his place. I hope he will forgive me, but I thought his the most astonishing speech I have heard during 20 years in your Lordships' House. I believe he entirely misrepresents the role of your Lordships' House in Parliament as a whole. If later on your Lordships have to consider a Bill from another place, I hope that the facts presented in the report, researched as they are by the Home Office, the Ministry of Health and many expert witnesses of different views, will be most useful to this House. I hope they will be useful particularly in clearing up some very incorrect impressions which have been bandied about in the media. For instance, there is the suggestion that Britain is the abortion centre of Europe. I believe that is what the noble Duke may think. In fact his quoted figure of 24,000 abortions on foreign residents accounts for only 14 per cent. of the total abortions. That is one of the misconceptions that go around.
The Bill deals principally with late abortions. Among all the evidence we received about them I believe the committee was very much impressed by the clear and professional evidence from the Royal College of Midwives. We all know that when infants are being considered midwives are perhaps the most caring of all the nursing professions. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester observed that where others speak about "the fetus" the midwives spoke consistently about babies. The witnesses were asked whether the college thought that it would be against the interests of women, and of society, to have an absolute ban on abortions at, say, 24 weeks. Their answer was that they were against such a ban. Women should have their case looked at individually. In their own words, they thought that it would be "a terrible shame" to introduce such inflexibility into the system. They said:
"If we look at what is happening, doctors are now making very responsible decisions in terms of late abortions. … It is a far more sensible situation to allow for clinical judgments to be made in individual cases … rather than for reasons that are to do with some law or statute".
There are different reasons why women have to face the problems of a late abortion. Perhaps the most

409
tragic is when they arc found to be carrying a severely abnormal child. On page 82 of the report there is a letter from one of these mothers which I think your Lordships would like to hear, though in a shortened version. She wrote that, after being infertile for years,
"to our absolute joy, I became pregnant again at last. Disaster struck … when I was 27 weeks pregnant. … My blood pressure has gone up and I had a scan. … The doctors took a lot of still scan pictures for the paediatricians … and they had to tell me that there was no hope for my daughter. I was offered a termination. If Mr. Alton gets his way I would have had to continue with my pregnancy for another 13 weeks, all the time knowing that my baby was not viable … I was induced to labour … but, of course, my much wanted, much loved baby daughter was born dead and hideously deformed. I don't believe doctors abort needlessly".
Fortunately, few women experience late abortions, but that letter shows how traumatic it must be.
Bishop Montefiore who first introduced this Bill wrote an article in the Observer, as my noble friend Lord Rea observed. He wrote as follows:
"Since England will continue to have an abortion law, it would be logical to permit women to decide for themselves about an abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy".
That was not in our terms of reference. He continued:
"Even if this logic is impeccable, would not the result of legalising the right of a women to make her own decision be perceived as an encouragement to terminate her pregnancy? I doubt it. Most women want babies".
I believe that to be profoundly true. No woman can easily contemplate abortion at any stage, but I believe passionately that women have a right to a legal termination under the terms of the 1967 Act. After absorbing all the evidence and the official and medical facts given to the Select Committee, I believe that the conclusions reached by that committee, and our recommendations, to be right, just and humane.
1.23 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Government Chief Whip will be delighted to know that I intend to comply with his request and make my speech reasonably short. This is an emotive issue. No matter what somebody says, somebody else will object to and oppose it. I hope I shall be forgiven for starting off by saying that one cannot apply logic in this case. One cannot say, "This is a certain fact and this is how it shall be". Eminent lawyers and doctors are divided on the issue. I admit that I speak with some prejudice in this matter. I am attached to a Church which throughout its existence has believed in family life. I have been brought up to believe that this is perhaps the most important aspect of living. I have also been brought up to believe that once a child is conceived that is a life, and that to take it away is a very serious matter indeed. There have to be grave restrictions.
My noble friend Lord Longford had some fun with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I happen to know the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, very much better than the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I must put it on record that I find him a little illogical. I know that throughout his life he has been opposed to any restrictions on abortion; but throughout his life too he has been opposed to capital punishment and to society taking action of itself which causes death. He has been a great humanitarian. However, on abortion he does not mind or give a tinker's cuss whether a child is aborted
410
within a matter of days of conception or right on the last day before birth. I find that illogical.
I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who put the case for the Select Committee, did so brilliantly. I have no complaint against him at all. I do not share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, who objected to the report being discussed. I do not see why matters such as this should not be debated all the time. One can go through the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman's report and pick out many examples of there being another view. I must say that the noble and learned Lord put the case very well indeed.
I should like to refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The noble Lord spoke from his great experience about how family life can be destroyed, and referred to the impact of a deformed or mentally-handicapped child on the life of that family. That was his point of view. I want to put to him another point of view. I was a fairly active Member of Parliament in the other place for 37 years. It became part of my world to take an interest in life around me and in the activities of various organisations, most of which I found to be superb. This had nothing to do with religion at all.
One of the societies with which I linked up worked with the mentally handicapped. I used to attend its meetings regularly. I met the parents, in particular the mothers, who brought their children to the functions. I do not deny that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, I started off on the basis of feeling almost ashamed that there were children there who were so mentally defective and appeared to me to be so useless that they should not have been allowed to be born. I learnt the hard way. I went to those meetings again and again. I discovered there the love and affection felt by the parents of those children. Who are we to say that it is medically not right to have such children? I spoke to the parent of one particularly handicapped child. I said to her, "If you had had the chance of an abortion, would you have had it? Would you have taken the life of this child?" She said, "Mr. Mellish, I want you to know that this child has brought me and my family happiness and joy the like of which I never realised existed". She had three other children who also adored the child. But here we are coldly and calculatingly deciding whether that child's life should be taken away.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mellish: But we are.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord said that we are saying to women, "Thou shalt have that child taken away". That is not the case at all. It is entirely up to the woman concerned whether or not she wishes to continue with her diagnosed handicapped fetus.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I must say that the noble Lord made the point—a very strong point, I thought, about how a child that is born deformed, either mentally or physically can bring so much unhappiness upon the family. If he cares to read through his own speech he will see that

411
that is what he said. In fact, he made it a major point as to why there should be abortion and why the argument about 24 weeks or 28 weeks was irrelevant. I am merely putting the opposite argument: that children, even though they may be deformed, have brought great joy and happiness to many families. It is but a simple point, although I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to agree with me. That is my point of view based on the experience that I have had.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, mentioned unmarried young girls and said what a tragedy their situation was. There they were not knowing, until a later time, that they were in fact pregnant and that this was indeed a tragedy. I do not quarrel with his understanding or the way he put the case, but I must, however, put this to him. I have never said—like those who think as I do—that abortion is wrong or that there should be some types of abortion. That is why I have always supported—I did in the other place—the previous Bill which I think, allowed, 26 weeks. I supported it at that time, and I support it today. Furthermore, should the David Alton Bill come to this place, I shall also support that because I believe, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that those people to whom he referred should by 18 weeks know whether they are pregnant. I think that appropriate advice should be given to them, and if abortion is thought necessary then they should have it.
I conclude on this note. The Motion before us today, as I understand it, is that we take note of the Select Committee's report. Of course "take note" is a lovely term; you do nothing about it, you just listen. However, I must tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that had the Motion been that we should approve the report, I should have voted against it. I believe that the report, irrespective of what he may have intended, says that there shall be abortion on demand. Therefore, on that principle, I object to it.
1.35 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, has returned to his place. I wonder whether I may read to your Lordships—I hope I shall be forgiven for so doing—page 3 of the report:
"The Committee was appointed on 9 November 1987 to consider the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill".
It goes on to say that the committee were in effect successors to a committee appointed on 5th March 1987 to consider the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill introduced by the then Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
The work of the earlier committee was cut short by the dissolution of Parliament in May after they had received written evidence from 51 persons and bodies and oral evidence from seven such contributors. The Alton Bill was introduced into the other place on 28th October last year and the committee in this House was, so to speak, reconvened and appointed on 9th November 1987.
I should like to make two points to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. First, it is true that the committee was appointed after the Alton Bill was
412
introduced into the other place, by only eight days. When one considers the number of people who gave evidence at an earlier stage at the previous committee, I submit that this House was right to continue with the Bill. Surely it would have been a grave discourtesy to all those who had given evidence at the earlier stage to have disregarded all that they had said.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I thought that I had made it perfectly clear to the House that, while I thought it essential and good that the data should be provided, what I objected to was—in the knowledge that a Bill was going through another place— the idea that we should come to specific conclusions about such a matter; namely, the date of termination. The point I was making was that I thought it was politically injudicious to do so.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should say to my noble and learned friend that although it may be politically injudicious, it is not procedurally incorrect.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I never said that it was.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I must say that if I had thought that it was injudicious I should have asked myself what I should do. Should I have gone to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and said, "I cannot now sit on your committee"? Or, should I have gone to the Chief Whip and said, "I wish to withdraw"? I took neither course of action, nor did any other member of the committee. I submit that we were right to continue with it in the interests of all those who went to such great trouble to give their evidence.
Many noble Lords have already spoken on the subject that I should like to speak on, so I shall try to be brief. However, I speak perhaps from a slightly different point of view, that of a social worker. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, when introducing the debate, made it quite clear that the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill stated that there should be no abortions after 24 weeks, except in three cases. First, if the life of the mother is at risk; secondly, if abortion is essential to preserve the health of the pregnant woman and, thirdly, if there is a substantial risk of serious fetal abnormality. He said that in those cases there should be no maximum gestational period of abortion.
I shall speak on two issues: the substantial risk of fetal abnormality and, aligned to that, the position of vulnerable girls and women who after 24 weeks are found to be carrying an abnormal fetus—that matter has been mentioned by nearly every Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken. It was said by at least one organisation, and I point to page 179 of the evidence:
"We are absolutely opposed to abortions and this applies to children who are thought or discerned to be handicapped. We feel and we think very strongly that handicapped people have as much a right to live as the rest of us".
That is a point of view which one can respect. I personally abhor abortions but, in those cases, is it wise, humane or right that such an issue should be determined by statute? I must say that to that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish.

413
I also agree with the right reverend Prelate who said that none of us like abortions, much less the doctors, nurses especially and certainly those of us who are social workers. However, in the case of a woman who after 24 weeks finds herself carrying a baby which is likely to be born abnormal, I believe that the final decision should be hers. As the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has said, this is Lady Day. I suggest that we should not take away from the mothers the responsibility of what they should do in those circumstances.
I have known some mothers, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who, after knowing all the facts as explained to them by the doctor, have chosen to bear the child however serious the abnormality. Some such mothers are mature and willing to carry the responsibility in the knowledge that the choice was theirs, and theirs alone.
There are also mothers whose religious beliefs do not permit of an abortion, and this principle also should be respected. However, there are other mothers, feckless and unimaginative, who will refuse abortion. On the other hand, there are women who have insight into their own capacities—both physical and emotional—and into their family circumstances, who know that they will not be able to give the quality of life to a handicapped child which such a handicapped child has the right to expect. In such cases, is a mother to be deprived by law of choice? In all those instances surely the decision must lie with the mother who is to bear the handicapped child, whether it is before or after the 24 weeks.
The second issue relates to vulnerable girls and women. Where there is evidence of serious fetal abnormality some pregnant women do not seek medical advice until after 24 weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, pointed out that some older women think that they are experiencing the menopause when in fact they are pregnant. Schoolgirls are vulnerable. They are very young girls. I am reminded that in the 1930s I was one of the social workers who dealt with the Alec Bourne case when a girl was sexually assaulted by soldiers and he carried out an abortion. I have had experience of and have had to deal with many 12, 13 and 14 year-olds. They did not have an abortion forced upon them. They were given the option and I think that that was right.
The committee agreed that in those instances where there is a substantial risk of fetal abnormality there should be no maximum gestional period for an abortion. I hope that the House will realise what deep thought the committee gave to this matter. We pay tribute to the chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who took us through the complicated legal issues as well as the human ones. We were grateful to all those who gave evidence to the committee, thoughtfully and with deep concern. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakbridge: My Lords, with great respect to the deep thought that went into the report, the clarity with which it was presented, and the speeches of the many noble Lords who spoke before me, I believe that we are in danger of
414
overlooking the fundamental nature of the change that is proposed in the report. Whatever the merits or demerits of our existing abortion laws, a cardinal principle is that abortion should not be allowed where the child is capable of being born alive. The Select Committee report is wrong to depart from that principle.
The 19767 Act, taken with the 1929 Act, recognised the principle by effectively setting a limit of 28 weeks. It should be emphasised that 28 weeks is the upper limit. The point at issue is that the child is capable of being born alive. That may he before 28 weeks. Because of the advances in medical techniques, some babies born earlier than 20 weeks survive.
The Bill sponsored by Bishop Montefiore attempted to maintain the principle that, when a baby could be born alive, no abortion should take place by reducing the limit to 24 weeks. The Select Committee's report would sweep away that principle and would open the door to abortion on demand up to birth. In doing so, it would take us one step further on the pathway to death which, if we are not careful, will lead to the killing of defective newly born babies, to voluntary euthansia, then to the compulsory euthanasia of the senile or those with incurable diseases, or anyone whose continued existence was no longer convenient.
There is a fundamental difference between inducing a premature birth to save the life of the mother and a late abortion. In the former case, the aim is the child's survival. In the latter, it is its destruction. That raises the important point that with a very late abortion someone has deliberately to kill the child by poisoning it in the womb or denying it the means of life after it has been born.
It is no wonder that the vast majority of gynaecologists who replied to the Gallup survey supported their college's call for an upper limit of 24 weeks. No one should be put in the position of having to kill a child that is capable of being born alive, let alone one that has been born alive. That is what would happen if the Select Committee had its way. I therefore utterly reject its report.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, although it is inappropriate in this debate for an intervention to take place, I think that I must say to him that what he says to be the law of England is not the law of England and never has been.
1.45 p.m
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I had hoped that by this stage in the debate some signs of a consensus on the Select Committee's report would have begun to show through. Noble Lords who have spoken warmly in support of the recommendations contained in the Select Committee's report have, in the main, been members of the Select Committee. That shows that those who were members of the Select Committee came to the conclusions of the Select Committee. We found a new unanimity there which before we began we thought would be difficult to find.

415
The most remarkable thing about the Select Committee was that it represented different points of view in your Lordships' House. Some views were preconceived, others were unknown. We all admired the application of the chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, to his task, because when he began we knew that he knew very little about the subject and that he had a lot to learn. Those of us who to some extent had some preconceived views on the subject discovered from the evidence to which we listened that we had a lot to learn. Never before in the history of the abortion law has such a volume and wealth of evidence been given on the 20 years' working of the Act in the respects in which we were interested. That is the value of the report.
If a Bill comes from another place, it would be much better that the revising Chamber should be qualified to revise than to be in the same position as Standing Committees of the other place which have no time to consider what they are doing because they are fully occupied with the politics of the situation. In a sense, we have taken time by the forelock. When we were reappointed, I do not believe that the Private Members' Bill ballot of the other place for this Session had revealed that a Bill would be coming. It had not been introduced into the other place when we resumed our second period of service. The Alton Bill was published a few days before the Christmas Recess. We were working on our second instalment of this matter. That is my first point.
It would take too long to examine the constitutional issues put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. A good deal of what he said was dealt with by the Chief Whip's intervention a few moments ago. The action was not procedurally incorrect; whether it was judicious depends upon the circumstances. One could defend finishing a job which was begun long before any question arose of a further Bill from the House of Commons. It was this House that reappointed the Select Committee. It was the then Leader of the House, Viscount Whitelaw, who fully acquiesced in the resumption of the work of the Select Committee which was cut short by the general election. So we have done a job that had to be done sometime by somebody if this matter were to receive serious consideration at this stage in the lifetime of the Abortion Act. I do not think that we need reproach ourselves for that.
Also, if I may say so with great respect, probably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, has not appreciated the new sense of identity which is being spread abroad in the House. We are not so timid as we used to be. We claim a life of our own in certain matters. We reserve the right to tell the House of Commons to think again. Only the other day we reserved the right at least to debate a Motion to tell the House of Commons that we insist on what we were doing. This House has not lost its self-respect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, is rather suggesting that the moment the House of Commons sets about a task we should immediately bow to its superiority in the bicameral Parliament. We cannot have that.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has his own line in mischievous humour. We are used to it, we enjoy a
416
good deal of it, but sometimes when it becomes a little personal we cannot enjoy the fun. However, when he is not up to mischief in your Lordships' House he is writing it down in his book. We enjoy reading that too, but we have to pay for it!
The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, made the substantial point of this debate, that it is a question whether, and if so by how much, the limits of gestation for lawful abortion should be lowered. That is the issue before the House as a result of the Select Committee's report. I think we realise that, in considering shortening the period of gestation for lawful abortions, we must have regard to two important matters. One is that the longer the pregnancy goes on, the greater the trauma for the mother. The more serious the operation, probably the more grave are the consequences mentally and physically which the operation may produce. That is one side.
The other side is that the longer the pregnancy, the nearer to full term the child in the womb is becoming. I think it is only natural that we should consider the child reaching an advanced stage of pregnancy rather more deeply than the fetus in the early stages of its development. In shortening the period, we have to accept one firm principle, which is that when it is a case of saving the life of the mother, the mother's life has priority. I do not know of any abortion law anywhere in the world where the mother can be killed in order to save the baby. Where there is any destruction to be done—and it is lamentable when it is needed and dreadful to have to do it—it is the child that has to be destroyed to save the life of the mother.
Then there is the lesser degree of harm and danger to the mother which falls into our second category. Here one has to consider a few qualifications, judge the degree of likely injury to the mental or physical health of the mother, and have stronger regard to the interests of the unborn child. In our proposals we have not relaxed that condition; if anything we have strengthened it. We have said that where an abortion is undertaken because of the risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, but not to the extent that her life is in danger, we require doctors to certify that the abortion is essential.
If one asks for the meaning of the word "essential", I think the answer is that we have to leave it to the medical advisers and those who will be studying the particular case. They know what the word "essential" means and they will have to apply it to the particular case which they are asked to consider. Any attempt to go further than that will lead to a great deal of trouble. Bear in mind that the Abortion Act is the only Act of Parliament, so far as I am aware, which governs the clinical judgment of doctors in surgical operations. In guiding the hand of the surgeon or the medical man, the law will find great difficulty in defining its own purpose in intelligible form. There are some things which one has to leave to accepted standards of professional skill and integrity; it is for professionals to judge the issues before them in the light of the statute law which guides them in principle, and sometimes to some extent in degree. We have to accept their judgment which has been arrived at in good faith.

417
This brings me to the point made not only by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, but by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, a moment ago. It is that, by dismissing the Infant Life (Preservation) Act from the scene of abortion, we have removed a safeguard in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. That safeguard was that the Act comes into operation if there is the destruction of a fetus capable of being born alive.
However, I ask both the noble Earl and the noble Lord to study the full report of the Director of Public Prosecutions, published on page 168 of our Special Report (the first volume), which shows the futility of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in this connection. Not a single conviction has been gained under that Act against any medical practitioner for the termination of a pregnancy. The only conviction which is recorded in the report in recent times relates to a dreadful case of a man who assaulted a woman by kicking her in the stomach, thus destroying the life of the child in the womb. But that was a criminal assault and it was not a lawful abortion. It was not even an unlawful abortion.
So I strip the sham away from the Infant Life (Preservation) Act as a safeguard in this context. The safeguard has to be in the abortion law. I think that it comes by the combination of two elements: first, strengthening the direction to the doctors, saying that the word "essential" means essential. That is the judgment they must exercise in the case of the classification of the physical and mental health of the woman. The second is that they have to use their best judgment in this matter and to make sure that they have the best judgment available in order to decide this delicate and difficult issue. It will be confined to consultants in the National Health Service. We are not putting this out to any commercial undertaking. I think that that is a safeguard. We have to go somewhere for the finality of judgment and authority, even in matters of this kind. I suggest that that can only come about by the method that I believe the Select Committee has arrived at with great wisdom. I sincerely hope that if the time comes when we have to consider legislation these points will be borne in mind.
I conclude with an appeal. I hope that the time will soon come when we shall see an end to this sessional lottery of Bills on abortion. Every Session we wait to see whether there will be another Bill on abortion coming out of the legislative lottery of Parliament. So far we have had 10 attempts and another one is afoot.
I urge the Government to use their influence to bring this to an end in the interests of Parliament, in the interests of the humanity involved in this problem and in the public interest. Look at what the nation has had to put up with in recent weeks on the subject of abortion! Look at the daily newspapers. There is more to come. Shall we get the product of another quarter of a million thrown into the pool of the antiabortion lobby by some property developer? Are we going to be dependent upon the profits of such an undertaking to settle our moral issues? I urge the Government to take a hand and influence the course of events.
418
I hope too that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has to give an answer on the Government's present view on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, will assure the House that they are not continuing to be wedded to the Montefiore Bill as they were when it received its Second Reading in the early part of last year. I hope that they will have regard to the criticism of the Select Committee and leave the issue open now in order to deal with the whole problem as it may arise in the coming months of this Parliament.
2.22 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, with my maiden speech happily behind me I am no longer under the constraints which prevented me previously from speaking on controversial matters. I need no longer resist the temptation to do so.
I am glad that my inception as a full participant in what to me has been a most fascinating and revealing debate is on the subject of the inception of life itself, its sanctity and dignity, presumably the starting point for all other legislation concerned with transcendent values.
Specialising as I do in medical ethics, I read the report and have listened to the debate so far with particular interest. The debate is wide-ranging and apparently from what I can make out to some extent the House is divided in opinion on denominational lines within Christianity. Therefore perhaps it is just as well that I should add some thoughts from another perspective. I do so by trying to avoid reference to any of the specific issues already raised and instead focusing attention on what I believe are much wider moral issues facing society as a whole.
The tradition that I represent is fairly liberal on the subject of abortion. Judaism regards neither full human status as commencing from conception, nor the destruction of a human fruit before birth as murder. Nevertheless, we deem pre-natal human life as very sacred indeed, and would sanction its deliberate termination only in very exceptional cases of grave medical urgency, including some serious psychological threat, provided these indications are absolutely genuine and independently ascertained.
We are less concerned with the stage of gestation than with the motives; if the indications especially for the safety of the mother are urgent enough we may contemplate a termination even after 28 weeks, and if they are not compelling or purely social we would object even under 18 weeks. Obviously the objections increase with the development from conception to birth.
The report we are debating, in the context of existing and proposed legislation, raises several wider issues. We have heard a number of specific instances mentioned. Every one of them was exceptional. There was the case of an 11 year-old girl. There was the case of a menopausal grandmother. There was the case of an assault on a young girl by a soldier. Clearly these are highly exceptional cases.
Let me turn attention to the norm—the great majority of cases where abortions are carried out quite legally in this country. I believe that even worse than the law plainly permitting abortion on demand on social grounds is the law pretending to prohibit this but in practice using mental health as a legal

419
subterfuge to camouflage what the Prime Minister very recently in a different context so strikingly called "sociological alibis".
The official government statistics for 1986 tell us that out of nearly 135,000 legal abortions in England and Wales "with mention of a medical condition" almost 132,000 were registered as due to "mental disorders" ranging from "neurotic" to "personality disorders". Our population surely cannot be all that mentally sick or at risk!
Clearly in the vast majority of cases doctors resort to this euphemism simply because they would not otherwise remain within the bounds of legality. Some of the evidence in the report submitted to the Select Committee frankly admits this. For instance, the memorandum by the Royal College of Psychiatrists explicitly mentions "termination on medical and social grounds", while the memorandum by Dr. Barbara Jacobs likewise refers to abortions performed for "social reasons" or in "social circumstances".
Such a semantic abuse of "mental health" as a cloak for personal convenience or social preference perverts the intent of the law and imposes unacceptable forms of misrepresentation on doctors. It makes a mockery of the law itself and brings it into disrepute. The law should not encourage such terminological inexactitudes, to use another Prime Minister's celebrated phrase.
Wherever the limit is set, whether at 28, 24, 20 or 18 weeks, the opposition will always use the well-worn argument that a woman should have a right over her own body. That argument is reflected in some of the evidence given to the Select Committee. There is a double fallacy in this. First, the germinating life inside her is not exclusively part of her body; it is equally the flesh and blood of the father who sired it. Moreover, even her own body is not her property that she can dispose of at will. We are not the owners but only the custodians of our bodies, charged to protect and preserve them. The argument against arbitrary abortions has nothing to do with feminism or male chauvinism, and the public should be disabused of any such fallacious notion.
Above all, there is an overriding moral principle at stake here which is all too often overlooked. The common reasoning is that the alternative to legal abortions is to encourage back-street abortionists. It never seems to occur to our vociferous advocates of easy abortions that there is a third option to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that is to train people to act responsibly, to exercise some self-discipline and to cultivate a moral conscience. Instead we are encouraging what I can only call a credit-card morality—enjoy yourself now and pay later.
It is an insult to the moral fibre of countless young people, and to the moral potential of all of them, to suggest they are bound to surrender to temptation and cannot resist it. I have the same complaint about the AIDS publicity campaign. Surely the only answer to the threat of infection is not the condom, as if self-control were no longer even an option which ought to be tried or propagated.
Finally, I miss two other basic considerations in the report. There may be numerous unwanted
420
pregnancies. However, there are fewer unwanted children. Once they are born, they often turn out to be the sunshine of their mother's lives or else of those desperately seeking children for adoption.
Again, particularly in this age of widespread violence, terrorism and war we should remember that any attack on innocent human life, whether on potential life before birth by abortion or on ebbing life before natural death by euthanasia, cheapens all life, erodes the reverence for it and diminishes the worth of all of us. The respect for all life must start with the beginning of every life.
2.12 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, that was a refreshing speech from the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi and it makes me sorry that I was not in my place on the occasion of his maiden speech. My original idea in speaking today was to simplify matters a bit. I believe that what the right reverend Dr. Hugh Montefiore had in mind was that if those who drafted the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 had been working in 1987–88 instead of in 1928–29 they would not have put a time limit of 28 weeks in the Bill. Probably they would have put a time limit of 24 weeks. However, much water has flowed under the bridge since then. The Bill is dead and all we can do today is to bury it.
In view of other matters which have been referred to this afternoon, that may not be such a pity. I say that although I would have not thought so previously, and at the time that the Bill first came before the House I was a keen supporter of it.
We fall into three groups as regards our attitudes to unborn children. There are those for whom apparently the fact that a child cannot be seen means that it can be written off; it is disposable. There are those at the other end of the spectrum of opinion—among whom I count myself—who say that the life of a child begins at conception and from conception it is surrounded by the aura which we term the sanctity of life.
The majority of people seem to hold views between the one and the other. Yes, the child is certainly something; it is living. Although they would not say that the child should never be killed, there is the view among such people that the older it grows in the womb the more repellent it is to kill it. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that that was the feeling of the mother and that the nearer to term, the more repellent was the idea of abortion. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, also reminded us—and I think it was a necessary reminder—that that is also the feeling of doctors.
In the late abortions which are the subject of our debate we are dealing not with the very early fetus—which is referred to as that utterly mythical, non-existent substance, fetal jelly, beloved of some people who argue this matter. It is not just a fetus in the course of developing. In this matter of late abortions we are dealing with babies waiting to be born—some of whom, and at the later stage many of whom, could live given half a chance.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one point in the report; namely, the difficulty faced by doctors who find themselves with the option that if pregnancy is terminated the child could live, or it

421
could be killed. I do not suppose that that happens very often but it is a point which is made in paragraph 33, subparagraph (3) of the report which draws attention to the evidence of Dr. Savage in response to question 715. Although the report refers only to that one question, the whole of Dr. Savage's evidence is well worth reading. It is quite clear that some doctors make a choice: knowing that a baby could live they opt to kill it. Is that what the Abortion Act was passed to enable? I suspect it is not.
The matter is put most brutally not in the oral evidence but on page 46 in a statistical chart of late abortions under Statutory Ground No. 2, included in Dr. Norris's written submission. In a note at the top of the chart he writes:
"In any case my observations on Category No. 1 apply equally well here, namely, the pregnancy could be effectively ended with hope for the survival of the baby. Or is the essential requirement the termination of the baby and not the termination of the pregnancy?".
That highlights an appalling dilemma which confronts doctors, although I hope and I think only in comparatively few cases.
Therefore, it seems to me that whatever the outcome of the debate now going on in both Houses of Parliament we must have some clear way of saying "No". If the termination is to be carried out after a certain period, that termination must be carried out with a view to preserving the life of the child. Of course, that puts the mother in a very strange position. If her child will live and she is considering the termination of her pregnancy she may think, "Well, if the child is going to live I shall give it a better chance of living if I carry it to term". That puts a whole new aspect of the matter before her.
That is the only point that I have to make, but I shall just add a few words on another matter. Two speakers have already referred to the fact that this is Lady Day. The reason why it is a day of rejoicing among Christians is that Mary said "Yes"—to life.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to start by referring to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, who spoke immediately after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and to the remarks that he made about the procedure of Parliament and the conventions of this House.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, would accept—I shall not use the words "be happy about"—the descriptions of himself and his committee as politically unfortunate or politically inept, because I do not think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, would claim to have political skills at all. However, I think that the noble Lord was perhaps a little hard and even perhaps somewhat offensive when he claimed that the noble and learned Lord and his committee had acted injudiciously.
If one reflects for a moment on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, they imply that if a Bill on any subject is published in the House of Commons, then immediately any proceedings in this House must be brought to an end. That has never
422
been parliamentary doctrine and never been a convention. It is neither accepted nor acceptable.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Hear, hear!
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Having said that, my Lords, I hope that the Leader of the House or the Minister when he comes to reply will confirm my understanding of the parliamentary convention. I should like to instance just one of several occasions in which Bills on the same subject have proceeded simultaneously in both Houses. In particular I recollect the Bill on the protection of birds. The Bill was rather quaintly and happily introduced in the House of Commons by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, who was then a Member of another place, and simultaneously introduced in the House of Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. That did not trouble either House of Parliament then and it should not trouble either of them now.
As regards the conventions of this House in relation to those of another place, I must say to the noble Lord that he is simply mistaken. The convention by which this House does not divide on Second Reading of Bills from another place is confined solely to Government Bills and does not at all relate to Private Members' Bills. That is a very important distinction to make.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, the noble Lord has completely distorted what I said. When I spoke about the use of the conventions of this House I said that the committee had the power but I thought that it was unwise to exercise that power to go beyond a certain stage. I fully accepted the rights of this House. I went out of my way to say how enthusiastic I was for the rights of this House. I said that this House had conventions which it applied and I simply gave an illustration of one. That was the whole purpose of my remarks, which I tried to make as clear as I possibly could, and it is unfortunate that it should be distorted. I said that in this instance the committee went beyond dealing with the Bishop's Bill; it was quite right to assemble the data but wrong to go on to draw conclusions at this particular time, and I meant that it was wrong politically.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, my purpose is not to misrepresent the noble and learned Lord, but what he said is within the recollection of the House. Not only I but other Members of the House were fully under the impression that the noble and learned Lord was saying that it was beyond the competence of the House—
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Never, my Lords, never.
Lord Henderson of Brompton:—and against the convention of the House that it should continue to discuss a Bill on the same subject as a Bill that had been introduced into another place and that the House should observe the convention that on Second Reading noble Lords do not oppose Bills coming from another place.
I make the distinction that we may do that on Bills which are Private Members' Bills but we do not do it on Government Bills. Some hard-liners may say that even on government Bills we should be allowed to

423
dissent from a proposition if the Bill has not been in the manifesto. What I have said about the distinction between a government Bill and a Private Members' Bill to a certain extent answers the question of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he made his intervention after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. Therefore I do not think that I need say anything further on that point.
As to the impressive and masterful speech of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi who speaks with such authority on medical ethics, I should like him to reflect that perhaps some of the remarks he made either traduced the judgment of the medical profession or questioned its good faith. I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the text of the Abortion Act 1967. Section 1 specifically refers to registered medical practitioners being able to perform their duty in good faith. I have sufficient faith in the medical profession to believe that when they are performing this function they do it in good faith.
Secondly, the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi referred to social reasons or social grounds, in connection with the termination of a pregnancy, if it were for the benefit of the mother's life or her mental health. The social grounds have been in this Bill from the start. The Silkin Bill preceded the Steel Bill and the provisions were introduced quite specifically as social grounds. The "social" section, Section 1(2), of the Abortion Act 1967, states:
"In determining whether the continuance of the pregnancy would involve such risk of injury"—
to the mother—
"account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment".
That is the authority for social reasons that is in the Bill right from the start.
Perhaps I may turn to another matter which is of some importance because it has been central to the report. It is the difficult matter of the 1929 Act. It is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, called the cryptic provision. He tells us in the evidence that he has delved deeply into the passage of the Steel Bill and has found no explanation for such a limit. I have also looked in the Steel Bill and neither Mr. David Steel in the House of Commons nor Lord Silkin in this House referred to it. We can therefore gain no guidance from the Steel Bill. However, I delved a little more deeply into the Silkin Bill, which preceded the Steel Bill, and I found that in 1966 Lord Silkin, in a new clause, Clause 4, introduced a provision to the contrary effect to that which appeared in the Steel Bill. I refer to the new Clause 4 that Lord Silkin introduced in 1966. He stated that:
"The Infant Life (Preservation) Act should be read as subject to the provisions of this Bill".—[Official Report, 7/2/66; col. 629.]
That is precisely the opposite of the Steel provisions. Lord Silkin said:
"In other words, where there is a conflict between the two, this Bill, when it is an Act, shall prevail".
For what reason I do not quite know, Lord Silkin was prevailed upon to withdraw that clause at the Report stage. His reason for so doing was that his Bill could not affect the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 unless that Act was specifically repealed or amended.
424
He went on to say that therefore it was an unnecessary clause. What happened between that extraordinary episode and the insertion of a contrary provision into the Steel Bill is buried in the archives of the Home Office and parliamentary counsel and it would be quite interesting to delve into those archives.
I most wholeheartedly welcome the report and wish to congratulate the Select Committee on its recommendations and, like others, to emphasise the unanimity of its conclusions. The committee had the splendid advantage of having the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as its chairman, which I believe accounted for the acuteness of the questioning of witnesses and the clear path which he and his colleagues beat through the jungle of evidence to reach firm but few conclusions.
The entire committee has performed a great service for this House, for Parliament, for the Government and for the nation. In particular I profoundly hope that the conclusions of the committee will influence those who are considering Mr. Alton's Bill in another place and also (if that Bill comes to this House) that they will have a most profound effect on the considerations in this House. I believe that the committee's findings show up conclusively that simple, if well-meaning Bills, such as that of the Bishop of Birmingham and Mr. Alton, are not likely to take us any further forward. I wish that approach were possible, but it is not. Unfortunately what matters is that this Bill should be considered in a sophisticated manner, deeply considering the opposing views of the extremists—those who want abortion on demand and those who consider that any form of abortion is murder—paying due respect to those views but finding a middle path. That is what the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has found.
I was very impressed by the words of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, when he said that the minority must not coerce the majority. These are profoundly wise words in a democracy, and I think we must listen with great respect to those on both sides, who hold their views with the utmost sincerity, but come down with a solution which will satisfy the majority of informed opinion. That includes the doctors of the nation and the nation at large. That enormously valuable function was performed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I strongly endorse his committee's conclusions.
2.34 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the explanation that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, gave about conventions in this House. One point he made was important. There are perhaps many others, but he said that there is a distinction between government Bills and private Bills. All the same I want to put before your Lordships what seems to me to be an issue of grave import from a constitutional angle.
When I asked a question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, I touched on this point. He had been arguing why 18 weeks was insufficient as a period for an abortion to be stopped. I felt at that time and I still feel that for us, even if it is a Private Member's Bill,

425
within 24 hours to be expressing our views may be unwise. I recognise that there was an accident in the sense of an accident of timetable. No one could foresee that the two debates would occur within this short period. I should like to know whether, in a future case, it would be possible to be a little more circumspect. If such a conjunction arose, would it not be possible for the Leader of the House to say to noble Lords who are to speak, "Be careful and do not develop arguments which are concerned with what is happening in another place"? It is impossible to bind your Lordships; noble Lords can say whatever they want. However, I believe that it could be a valuable way of avoiding the awkward situation which has arisen in this case.
As regards the report, I had not intended to take any part in this debate and I suspect that there are many noble Lords who are of the same opinion. It may be for the good reason that they did not think that the debate would take the form it has, and that the arguments on abortion would be so greatly developed by those who hold views against any form or only small forms of control.
I should like to make three short points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, said that it was inevitable that the committee should go on to consider the question raised by Bishop Montefiore's original Motion. I do not follow the logic of that statement. I follow totally the committee's reason for giving the first part of its opinion. As other noble Lords have said, the facts it presented are valuable but I do not understand the word "inevitable".
Secondly, it will not surprise noble Lords to know that as a Catholic I am against abortion. I shall not now go into the reasons; others can do so far more ably and all noble Lords know them. Thirdly, I should like to express my fullest admiration for the noteworthy speech of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi. I express the hope that it will be given full publicity and studied by one and all.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, by way of explanation I should like to point out that I said that a substantative issue was raised in this House by the former Bishop of Birmingham. We subsequently found that he chose the wrong legal vehicle to bring it into effect. However, his intention was to bring before this House a particular issue which the Select Committee was charged to investigate.
2.38 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, although I speak from the Front Bench, I assure the House that I speak in my personal capacity and not on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches. This subject must be left to the individual beliefs of noble Lords. It was a great pleasure to hear the speech of the distinguished noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. With masterly skill he sketched in the background, explained the committee's recommendations and the reasoning on which they are grounded.
It has been mentioned repeatedly during the course of the debate that the committee came to address itself to the issue of whether abortion after week 24 of the pregnancy should be undertaken unless it is carried out to save the life of the mother. It seems to
426
me that it thereby recognised the deep anxiety of many people who feel that too many abortions are taking place at a very late stage in the pregnancy; indeed, at a stage when the fetus, if born, would have a good chance of survival and is therefore a very real person. Therefore, the committee was right and was driven to consider whether the abortion criteria should be narrowed or tightened up.
In committing the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill last July from the Floor of the House to a Select Committee, it was intended that the committee should discover the facts, and, having discovered the facts, it should give the subject the detailed examination and scrutiny which it required. It seems to me that that is precisely what has happened.
When I finished reading and, indeed, re-reading the report, I felt that my understanding of the subject had been immensely enlarged. Of course one must bear the facts in mind and they are summarised in paragraph 30 of the report and were summarised for the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It seems to me that that summary in paragraph 30 will be of great assistance to all those who are seriously interested in the subject and seeking a way forward.
One of the most important factors to emerge from the evidence is that in the present state of medical science, and notwithstanding the major developments which have taken place, the tests for fetal abnormality cannot take place and the abnormality be discovered until the pregnancy is well advanced. The committee concluded that this factor, which was explained at length to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, must be taken fully into consideration in working towards a settlement.
I happen to think that the committee has found its way around the problems. It had among its members the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, a distinguished member of the medical profession. The committee has spoken with one voice. I believe that it has offered a sound lead to your Lordships' House. The balance—and that is the critical word—which it has achieved in both tightening up and relaxing provisions in the Act, and based on the principles which are spelt out in the key paragraph, paragraph 53, offers a sound lead not only to the House but to the country. It seems to me that unless the principles spelt out in paragraph 53 can be demolished, the settlement should be along the lines of that particular report.
Perhaps I may mention that I was impressed with and heartened by the evidence of some of the doctors who appeared before the committee and who acknowledged that in their approach to abortion the focus was on the mother and not on the fetus, but they also acknowledged that nothing relieved them personally of the responsibility of using their judgment—where to draw that difficult dividing line spelt out in paragraph 53. They cannot delegate that responsibility to any other officer.
There is one plea that I should like to make before I sit down and it is in support of the plea of the noble Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Butterworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. If the tightening up which is recommended by the

427
Select Committee is eventually found to be acceptable to Parliament, I too should like to urge the DHSS and family practitioner committees to take whatever steps are available to ensure that mothers who are entitled in law to have their pregnancy terminated are given the earliest possible medical advice and the earliest possible access to gynaecologists.
The committee heard evidence which came from a reliable source; namely, from a reader in obstetrics at St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington. He said that a woman who requests abortion at 18 weeks or more tends to be young and unmarried, coming from a home where there has been only one parent and who is not quite coping. In his reply to Question 534 Mr. Paintin outlined a situation here in the City of London when a young, unmarried girl thinks she is pregnant. Mr. Paintin told the committee that she,
"goes to see her doctor. He tends to be an inner-city GP and is often an older man and not seen as being very sympathetic, or easy to approach. She may not get very prompt or efficient help".
Those are the words of Mr. Paintin. It appears to me that Mr. Paintin is pointing to a problem which should not be ignored.
In conclusion I thank the chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and his committee for its balanced report. It will be of immense help to very many people who have been anxious about the position. By any standard this report is a contribution.
2.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the first thing that strikes me about today's debate is that it is perhaps just as well that a take-note Motion is not amendable and is indivisible. That said, I should like to begin, like many other speakers today, by congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and other members of the Select Committee on the valuable work that they have done in producing the report before us today. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in thanking (I am sure on behalf of the whole House) those who gave evidence to the committee. Between them all they have performed an invaluable service not just for the House and Parliament, but for the nation as a whole.
This Bill has an interesting history, and I shall not elaborate on that. Many speakers today have done so. The clarity of their thinking and the analysis that they have made of this complicated matter are an object lesson to us all. I fully understand that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, introduced the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill in this Parliament. As other noble Lords have pointed out, it was in the normal way referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House and it is its report we are debating today.
I believe it is most unfortunate that our debate today has been overlaid by what I can only describe as a procedural wrangle. My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson suggested—I hope I of all people will be quoting him correctly—that the committee had exceeded its orders of reference in considering the wider implications of abortion on the Infant Life
428
(Preservation) Bill; that the report was untimely and that it was inappropriate for your Lordships' House to comment upon an issue like abortion while the Abortion (Amendment) Bill was before another place.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, I believe also suggested that some aspects of the debate should perhaps be left until such time as the Abortion (Amendment) Bill might come before your Lordships' House. I believe most noble Lords have appreciated the robust response to this point of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. As I understand it, the order of reference of the committee was the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill itself. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, pointed out, as it stands at present, this Bill is central to abortion law. I think that the Select Committee might be expected therefore to consider these wider issues.
Perhaps it would be unwise for me to tangle with the noble Earl, Long Longford, on the matter of Standing Orders. Nonetheless, I support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and remind him that it is a long-standing practice of this House, backed up by Standing Orders, that once a Bill is committed to a Select Committee, it can do anything it likes with it. It can confirm it, amend it or produce a totally different Bill so long as it is within the scope of the Bill that was presented to it in the first place. It can also produce a report.
The short answer to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk is that this Bill is killed for a practical reason. Subparagraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 13 of the Standing Orders of another place explain that no Lords' Private Member's Bill can be considered in the Commons, except on the nod, in the second half of the Standing Orders of another place explain that no Lords' Private Member's Bill can be considered in introduced by the right reverend Prelate the then Bishop of Birmingham, and this Bill were the first Bills on abortion in its wider sense to be introduced in either House of Parliament since 1983.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will go on to remind us that the Ministers who were present, including the new Leader of the House, voted for the Bill introduced by Bishop Montefiore in the then form—in other words, in a form totally opposed to the present one.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Earl will have to contain his soul in patience.
In regard to our relations with another place, we have to remember that the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill had been debated in your Lordships' House and remitted to a Select Committee long before the Abortion (Amendment) Bill had been introduced. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that it is surely inappropriate to suggest that the debate on abortion in the elected House precludes your Lordships' House for some kind of constitutional reason from engaging in the same debate. On matters of conscience like this it is surely open to each House to debate the issue in its own time. Indeed it is my belief that many Members of both Houses will consider this report helpful and timely, whether or not they agree with its conclusions.

429
After today's debate the House will need no reminder from me that abortion is a subject on which individual feelings run deep and views are passionately held, not only in this House but in another place and in the big wide world outside; in the community, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester described it. That is why discussion of abortion is always promoted by individual Members of Parliament and not by governments, of whatever political persuasion. It follows therefore that whenever this subject is debated in either House of Parliament there is when occasion demands a free vote.
Within these constraints, however, it is only right that the Government should give a view today. In the past there have been numerous attempts to change abortion law since the Abortion Act was enacted in 1967, but no committee of either House has considered the subject in depth since the mid-1970s. Abortion practice now is very different from what it was then. In the early 1970s there were frequent abuses of the Act. Considerable numbers of women came to this country from overseas and some were undoubtedly exploited. It was by no means uncommon for the operation to have fatal consequences. In the period 1970 to 1972, 28 women died following legal abortion. Going back a few years, at the time of the introduction of the 1967 Act the incidence of deaths and morbidity from illegal abortions was high.
Following the report of the Lane Committee and detailed consideration of the operation of the Abortion Act in the mid-1970s by the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, the department's controls over the private sector have been strengthened, abuses of the system have been eradicated and the interests of patients have been safeguarded. One welcome indication of the effect of these changes can be seen from the fact that deaths from illegal abortion have fallen. In the latest period for which figures are available, 1982 to 1984, there were no deaths. Deaths from legal abortions have dropped steadily since the early 1970s and I am pleased to say that in 1986 there were no deaths. The number of women coming from overseas has fallen by more than half and is continuing to fall, and there is no evidence that any exploitation is now taking place. I am most grateful for the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, in respect of the health department's actions in that regard.
I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said that this is an area that the National Health Service has taken principally upon itself. I understand his point of view but I feel it would not be appropriate for me to comment in advance of the review that is expected regarding the future position of the National Health Service. I should however say that the present position is that health authorities are free to provide abortion services within the constraints of the other claims on their resources.
In some cases authorities find it appropriate to arrange for their patients to be treated on an agency basis in private sector facilities; I am advised that that occurs in about 4 per cent. of all cases. I shall however look into the noble Lord's suggestion that there is
430
scope for more co-operation between the National Health Service and the private sector on those matters. My present feeling is that this should be a matter for local decision.
Two other points have been raised by noble Lords to which I should like to respond. As regards contraceptive and related services, it is again for individual health authorities to decide upon the provisions of such services in the light of their first-hand knowledge of local needs, priorities and competing claims on resources. I accept that it is right to try to reduce the number of late abortions, the reasons for which are complex.
The Government are currently providing the funding for three family and pregnancy counselling projects for young people in different health districts. It is hoped that that funding will lead to the identification of better administrative methods which can be commended to the health service as a whole. However, I could not agree more with those noble Lords who pointed forcefully to the fact that we should all be concerned to remove the need for abortion. I believe that proficient sex education in schools is much more important than the role of the health authority in carrying out abortions.
My noble friend Lord Butterworth suggested that it would be possible to make abortion easier up to the 12th week and that this would be a way to reduce the number of late abortions. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, supported that view. As I understand it, many European countries have such legislation. However, as we all know, that is not how the present law on abortion is framed in this country; it does not permit abortion on demand at any stage. It would be for Parliament to change that framework. Clearly everyone would welcome a reduction in the number of late abortions. That could be achieved without the need to change that law; for example, by encouraging women to seek advice and counselling at an early stage, by improving administrative arrangements to reduce the delay in obtaining an abortion and by encouraging more awareness of information about contraception especially for young people.
I now return to the report. The committee takes the view that the 1929 Act is not the right vehicle to control late abortions. The report does, however, suggest that in the committee's view there will never be a case for presumptive age below 24 weeks and, to the extent that their proposals would introduce a time limit, the limit chosen is 24 weeks. I confirm that this is also in fact the Government's line. Therefore there is a sense in which the Select Committee's work strengthens the case for amending the presumptive age in the 1929 Act, and thus for the present Bill, even if the committee itself drew a different conclusion.
The issue to which the Select Committee specially addressed itself was whether there should be an amendment to the existing law regulating the gestational age at which an abortion can lawfully be performed. As Table 3 of the report shows, the number of terminations carried out after 24 weeks is small and is falling. In 1981, 142 terminations in this age range were carried out in England and Wales; by 1986 that figure had fallen to 29. As the report points out, following the report of the Royal College of

431
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Fetal Viability and Clinical Practice, published in 1985, the Department of Health and Social Security has imposed administratively an upper limit of 24 weeks on abortions carried out in the private sector, so that the few abortions that are carried out after 24 weeks are performed in National Health Service hospitals. As the House will know, that report was reviewed last year and the conclusion that a fetus should be regarded as viable at 24 weeks rather than 28 was reaffirmed. That means that the 1929 Act provides a de facto limit below which a doctor performing an abortion has the benefit of an automatic defence in cases of alleged child destruction. Conversely, if the abortion were after 28 weeks gestation, the onus would be on the doctor to prove that the fetus was not capable of being born alive.
I have described how the interaction of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the Abortion Act 1967 makes it an offence to perform an abortion if the fetus is capable of being born alive. The Select Committee has recommended that the law on these matters should be changed in a number of ways. Its principal recommendation is that a doctor who carried out an abortion in good faith in accordance with the statutory provisions, should not be liable to prosecution for the crime of child destruction, and they have therefore recommended that Section 5(1) of the Abortion Act should be repealed to disengage that Act from the 1929 Act. The Government accept that there is merit in that proposal.
In this report the Select Committee has, however, gone further than this. It has also made recommendations about the criteria under which it should be lawful for a doctor to perform an abortion in the later stages of a woman's pregnancy. Its view is that the Abortion Act should be amended so that abortion on grounds of risk to the physical or mental health of the woman is permissible at 24 weeks or over only if two doctors are of the opinion that the termination is essential to the woman's physical or mental health. It has also recommended that the Act should be amended so that abortion on grounds of the risk to the health of existing children is never permissible at 24 weeks or over. In considering the likely impact of these suggested amendments, it might be helpful to the House to know that in 1986, the latest complete year for which data are available, a total of 214 abortions were performed at 24 weeks or over. Of those, 165 were performed on grounds of the risk to the physical or mental health of the woman and a further three because of the risk to the health of existing children.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, in a remarkable speech, if I may be permitted to say so, I thought implied—if I have him wrong, I hope that he will correct me instantly—that the provision permitting abortion on grounds of mental health is abused by doctors. The Abortion Act does not permit abortion on social grounds alone. For an abortion to be performed, two doctors are required to certify that in their judgment, made in good faith, the medical grounds required by the Act exist, either singly or in concert, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, told us.
432
The Government have no evidence that the Act is being abused. We stand ready to investigate thoroughly any such evidence that is put before us.
In these recommendations the committee has posed the underlying question: under what criteria should it be lawful for a doctor to perform an abortion on a woman in the later stage of her pregnancy? Only Parliament as a whole can decide, and, as I have said, even the House cannot make that decision today.
The best medical advice available remains the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' report which suggested that the right presumption is now that the child is viable at 24 weeks, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. That advice originally published in 1985 has been confirmed again in a report issued last year. The DHSS will continue to apply a 24-week limit in the private sector by administrative means.
The 1929 Act should reflect modern medical knowledge and practice. The Select Committee has confirmed that 28 weeks is now out of date as a presumption of the capacity to be born alive. The Government agree. In the longer term, and leaving to one side the question whether there will be more fundamental changes to the law on abortion, it would seem right for Parliament to look again at the case for reducing the presumptive age to 24 weeks.
This has been an interesting, nay, fascinating debate. I am sure that the Official Report for today, Friday 25th March, 1988, will be read far and wide across the country. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I apologise if I misled the House on the position in law. But in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 the offence is to destroy the life of a child being capable of being born alive. The 28 weeks come into it in that there is a supposition built into that Act that if the pregnancy has gone 28 weeks, then there is prima facie proof that the child is capable of being born alive. That is certainly what I intended to convey.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that it would be wise to continue this discussion. The contra point that I was making is that because of the interaction between the 1967 Act and the 1929 Act there is a de facto limit below which a doctor performing an abortion has the benefit of an automatic defence in cases of alleged child destruction.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may begin a very short reply by thanking noble Lords who have spoken so generously of the work of the special committee. I am sure that all members of the committee will be very appreciative of the remarks which your Lordships have made. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have found time to attend this debate and for the invaluable contributions which speakers have made to the solution of this painful subject. The committee welcome criticism of the report. We do not suggest for one moment that our

433
solution is a perfect one, nor that it could not be bettered.
Perhaps I may say a few words about our reaction to events when the Alton Bill was introduced and additionally when we came to the conclusion that the Bishop's Bill, for technical reasons, could not properly proceed. When the Alton Bill was introduced, we did not hesitate to continue our work because we took the view—and I hope that it was the right view—that our report and the evidence which we collected, would be of great assistance to those who had to debate the subject matter elsewhere. We were not at all anxious to bring our work to an end, as it were, in a "half-baked" condition.
The point was also raised that we should have stopped our work when we had answered the technical question before us as to whether the Bishop's Bill should not proceed. In paragraph 20 of our report we decided that the Bishop's Bill could not go further. At that stage we considered whether or not we ought to continue with our work. In fact I took advice from a senior officer of the House as to whether we ought simply to say that the Bishop's Bill ought not to proceed further and lay down our pens. I was advised, and I passed this advice on to the remainder of the committee, that it would be "futile" for us to stop at that stage. We therefore went on.
This debate is not about abortion but about late abortions. Perhaps I may just say a concluding word on that subject. The Bishop proposed a limit of 24 weeks; others proposed an earlier gestational age. What are the facts? First, to be certain of keeping within the law, as has already been pointed out, even now doctors tend not to carry out abortions after 26 weeks.
Secondly, the number of late abortions is extremely small, and are usually on the ground of serious fetal abnormalities. In 1986 there were only 29 carried out at and after 25 weeks in England and Wales and only two in Scotland. Of those 31 abortions, 23 were on the grounds of serious fetal abnormality.
Thirdly, it is just not possible at present to detect many serious abnormalities in early pregnancy. Down's Syndrome and severe brain abnormalities can be detected at about the 20th week of pregnancy. Spina bifida, anencephaly and other defects of the central nervous system can be detected in the 16th to the 20th week. Serious heart defects can be detected about the 24th week. Then of course one has to allow time for the mother to decide what course she wants to adopt and to receive medical advice. Is it humane
434
to forbid termination in those cases and to demand that the woman against her will shall bear a deformed fetus to full term? Is it humane to demand that the parents either care for a seriously deformed child during the rest of their lives or institutionalise the child?
The committee was well aware and had evidence to bear out the fact that there are, happily, cases where the parents look after and love a deformed child which suffers from abnormalities. We were well aware of that and we referred to it in a paragraph of our report. But it is really a matter for the mother or for the parents what they want to do in those circumstances.
Finally, consultants giving evidence to the committee repeatedly said that patients seeking abortions when they are 20 weeks pregnant or more are the most distressed that they see. I shall give a couple of references from the evidence. In volume 1 page 98 it states:
"There is also the certainty that fear, ignorance and administrative delays will continue to be a major reason for late attendance for termination of pregnancy. These late attenders are usually women in greatest need of help: the very young and the socially deprived."
The evidence further states that late presentation is usually associated with youth, low intelligence and severe mental illness, usually in a context of social deprivation.
A question which I put—No. 698—to a witness was as follows:
"The Bill which this Committee is considering would have the practical effect of reducing the maximum gestational age at which abortions can lawfully be carried out from under 28 weeeks to under 24 weeks…what sort of women would be disadvantaged if that were the law?"
The answer was:
"Primarily, it would be very young women, or girls of 12, 13 or 14, who deny their pregnancy because they cannot face the awfulness of it."
In 1986 over 1,000 abortions were carried out on girls under 15 years of age. Well over 3,000 were carried out on girls of 15 years of age and nearly 38,000 on girls aged 16 to 19.
Time does not enable me to deal with all the points which have been raised during the debate. Perhaps it is better that I should not seek to answer them off the cuff as there may well be an opportunity later in this Session to give considered answers. As I have said, I am most grateful to all who have contributed so much time and effort to this debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past three o'clock.

  LAMBETH ENGLISH LANGUAGE CENTRE: FUTURE
  LAMBETH ENGLISH LANGUAGE CENTRE: FUTURE
  PRIVATE NURSING AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES: DHSS ASSISTANCE
  PRIVATE NURSING AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES: DHSS ASSISTANCE
  MEDICAL OPINION: ADJUDICATION OFFICERS' GUIDANCE
  MEDICAL OPINION: ADJUDICATION OFFICERS' GUIDANCE